| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Dr. Brand: The hon. Gentleman is looking very fit on it.
Mr. Tredinnick: I thank the hon. Gentleman;perhaps it is because I take a few supplements. Many complementary and alternative practitioners in this country are scared out of their wits by the proposal. An experienced traditional Chinese medical practitioner--a qualified UK physiotherapist and acupuncturist--said to me, emotionally, last week that the proposal, if it goes through, will make her a criminal. The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) may look askance, but the facts do bear that out.
The document would give the MCA new legal powers to allow it to decide, unilaterally and virtually without reference to anyone other than its own officials, whether a so-called borderline substance--one of the vitamins or supplements--was a medicine or not. The decision would be binding in any criminal or civil proceedings, unless shown to have been made unreasonably. Do the Government really believe that that is fair?
On 19 January, the parliamentary group of which I am treasurer met John Kneale, the manager of the policy and borderline unit at the MCA. I pay tribute to him for coming along--he did not have to. We were grateful to him for speaking to representatives from the industry and colleagues. He said:
The current UK legal system operates to protect the innocent as well as to convict the guilty, placing the burden of proof on the state. That one simple aspect of British justice helps to prevent a large number of miscarriages of justice. If the proposal goes through, there will be widespread injustice, because arbitrary decisions will be taken, they will be disputed by those affected and there will be little recourse.
How does that sit with new Labour's so-called philosophy of open and accountable government? I suspect that the Government were hoping to slip the proposals through. They certainly were not checked by their spin doctors. Someone slipped up, however. If the proposals go through, it will be highly damaging for the Government's image and credibility in both the short and the long run. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) may castigate me for trying to tip off the Government about these problems and may say that we should let them ride it out.
Why is all this happening? The whole exercise is being carried out not to protect or benefit consumers, health manufacturers and practitioners, but to make life easier for officials in the UK and to appease the bureaucrats in Brussels. At the meeting of the all-party group on alternative and complementary medicine, the borderline unit manager said:
There is every indication that there will soon be new legislation on herbal products from the European Commission, as it tries to homogenise the law in Europe. The great concern is that the UK Government will try to pre-empt what is happening in Europe and introduce a draconian measure at a time when the whole process is being thought through at a more leisurely pace on the continent.
Herbal remedies are traditional medicines whose therapeutic use has been tried and tested over hundreds, or even thousands, of years. Such plant medicines invariably comprise many chemical components whose overall effect cannot simply be assumed by reference to perceived active constituents. Apparently unimportant fractions of a plant may act in vivo to buffer or amplify its principal pharmaceutical characteristics.
The essential features of herbal medicine have important implications for their assessment and licensing, but current European Union medicines licensing procedures are generally designed to evaluate and validate single chemical entities--not several chemical entities--as medicinal products.
Dr. Howard Stoate (Dartford):
I am rather concerned by the assertion that a medicine must be safe simply
Mr. Tredinnick:
The hon. Gentleman may have the opportunity to make his own speech later on. Most medicines used by traditional Chinese medical practitioners have been used for a very long time.
Plant medicines cannot be patented, so the enormous sums required to bring a new product to the market cannot be recouped. The cost of licensing compound herbal medicines would be so high as to be unrealistic for all but the largest companies. The smaller companies referred to by the hon. Member for South Derbyshire and others would be put out of business.
It seems entirely wrong--this is borne out by all the letters that we have received--to classify pharmaceutical drugs in the same category as herbal medicines derived from natural sources, including many foods, such as cardamom, cinnamon, garlic, ginger, chinese dates, peach kernels, orange skins, borage, celery, parsley, rhubarb and all spices.
At a presentation to the all-party group by the Association of European Self-Medication Industry, known as AESGP, we were told that the European Commission was considering issues concerning the internal market and herbal medicine. The association stressed that there is a wide divergence of opinion in the European Union but that strenuous efforts are being made to develop a sensible pan-European policy.
The Minister would be well advised to wait and see. Products not classified as medicinal products belong in most cases to the food and cosmetics category, even though they sometimes contain plants with pharmacological properties. In Ireland, Spain and the UK there exist preparations defined as medicinal products that are exempt, under specific conditions, from licensing requirements. We have to protect that position in the short term.
It will be the role of the European Commission to evaluate and assess the consequences of possible divergence in the legal position and/or the assessment of herbal medicinal products, and to agree a plan on how best to safeguard public health while allowing the free movement of herbal medicinal products throughout the European Union.
At a time when every country in the European Union has its own specific problems, it is not appropriate for the Government to take the arbitrary action that they propose. The issue is under debate and we do not need these draconian measures.
I offer the Minister the hand of friendship in finding a way out of this maze. There are three possible solutions. She could back off and leave everything as it is, which would satisfy most people, because nobody really wants the change. The second honourable way out would be to wait and see what happens in Europe; so much is going on that it seems foolish to pre-empt it. What is the third option? Several hon. Members have mentioned the third way. Having been a great fan of Mrs. Thatcher, I have not always been keen on the third way, but in this instance it is probably the right way forward.
The all-party group has consulted widely among our large membership to ascertain whether that idea should be pursued. In the United States, the Dietary Supplement
Health and Education Act 1994 defines dietary supplements as a special category between foods and medicines. They are defined as products that are
The way forward is not to allow the proposals through at this time. The Minister must back off or, perhaps better still, wait for Europe or consider the third way.
Mr. David Amess (Southend, West):
I congratulate the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) on the way in which he introduced the debate. He has certainly given the House an opportunity to explore all the various issues. He was right to represent the producers of the products in question in his constituency. If I had such producers in my constituency, I would have done the same. Sadly, I do not, but I have many constituents who use the products and a number of health food shops that supply them.
I pay tribute to Consumers for Health Choice, which has done a splendid job in educating Members of Parliament such as me on the various issues. Until the row about vitamin B6 last year, I knew precious little about the issues. I may regret what I am about to say, but I am not a natural pill taker. I would try anything to cure hay fever and have done so over the years. I was told that I would grow out of it, but I am taking a long time to do so.
I have been overwhelmed with letters and petitions on the matter from my constituents. Given that, in terms of the number of senior citizens who live there, Southend, West is 33rd out of the 659 constituencies, I can only conclude that those people are doing extremely well on those products so far.
Before the Minister responds, I simply want to draw attention to three pieces of information that I have received from constituents. One lady wrote that she used these products
"I do not believe that the MCA would be able to review products that have been on the market for a long time."
He tried to reassure us that the MCA was not taking powers that it did not already have, but he went on to say:
"The manufacturer would have to seek to show through the court that the MCA's decision was unreasonable. It improves the MCA's possibility of success in court."
10 Mar 1999 : Column 293
The burden of proof is transferred from the accuser to the accused, which gives the MCA too much power and will result in the criminalisation of a practitioner through an MCA decision made without the necessary element of natural justice required to safeguard basic constitutional rights. Power is transferred to a prosecuting authority to adjudicate without accountability. Such a power exists nowhere in any other democratic society and if granted will unquestionably be open to abuse.
"We are bound by European legislation."
However, we have exemptions, as in many other matters. We are fighting to maintain those exemptions, while the European Community as a whole is revising its position.
"safe within a broad range of intake",
and for which
"safety problems within the supplements are relatively rare."
Such supplements include all the medicines that we have been discussing.
"daily to try and stay healthy so as not to burden the state . . . I understand the Government is now trying to sweep vitamin products off health food shop shelves, by trying to licence them as medicines."
That lady wants the Government to tell her
"why these proposals are being rushed through with such urgency (1st April 1999)".
She points out:
"The only people that would benefit at the end of the day would be the pharmaceutical companies",
10 Mar 1999 : Column 296
who, according to her, apparently already make"vast profits."
Another lady mentions the fact that 1 April is April fool's day and says:
"it is no joke for the many independently minded people who wish to take responsibility for their own health and avoid as long as possible being without any free choice of health therapy."
She asks me to
"protest against this underhand plan to tack on the power to restrict . . . liberty by avoiding free debate on this vital issue."
She continues:
"We want nutrition to be our first line of health defence and we want freedom of choice in medicine."
Finally, one supplier of such products in my constituency believes that the Medicines Control Agency wants
"to include far more than is necessary under their control umbrella and once they have gained the changes in the law will become judge, jury and executioner in the removal of anything they see fit from our shelves without consultation."
The letter continues that, as regards health food shops,
"there is in place effective control on products under the Medicines Act that has worked well for years. Freedom of choice is again in jeopardy".
I entirely agree with my hon. Friends the Members for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) and for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes). I do not want to cause trouble between the Department of Health and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. However, it was unfortunate that the Minister responsible for food suggested, when he gave evidence, that these products were somehow masquerading as food or were foods masquerading as drugs.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |