RESTRICTIONS ON THE PROVISION OF INFORMATION (Hansard, 30 April 1993)

§ Mr. Nigel Waterson (Eastbourne)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

§ Mr. James Couchman (Gillingham)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Before my hon. Friend begins his remarks, I want to declare my interest to the House as an adviser to a pharmaceutical company. Insinuating sedentary remarks have been made about that today. I make it clear to the House, particularly in respect of press reports that have appeared in recent days, that I advise Pfizer in Kent, which is a major pharmaceutical company. That is in the Register of Members' Interests. It has also been drawn to the attention of the House—and this, too, has appeared in the press—that I advise the Gin and Vodka Association of Great Britain, although that is not germane to this debate. I should like that declaration on record, so that no further sedentary insinuations will be made by members of the Labour Front Bench.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.

§ Mr. Ian McCartney (Makerfield)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The matter to which the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) referred was not only the subject of sedentary interventions but was raised officially during all stages of the Bill. I refer to the hon. Gentleman's involvement with a company that has objected to the Bill and lobbied against it, and his meetings with that company in respect of the Bill. We have raised serious objections about the hon. Gentleman's connections with the company, and his ability—as a paid adviser —to filibuster and try to destroy the Bill. It is not a question of impugning the hon. Gentleman's character —it is a fact that is the case.

§ Mr. Couchman
rose—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) declared his interest and used the appropriate method dictated by the House. The hon. Gentleman's declaration is now firmly on the record.

§ Mr. Waterson
New clause 3 and others, and amendments in my name, make a genuine attempt to 1301 improve the Bill. I have no formal interest to declare in these proceedings, but, in view of the ill-tempered and ill-advised interventions, sedentary and otherwise, made by Opposition Members, I will make two points clear. I am fortunate enough to have in my constituency the northern European headquarters of Rhone-Poulenc Rorer, which is one of the most successful and innovative of the pharmaceutical giants in this country. Also, as a lawyer myself, I have an interest in good law and good legislation.I do not want this or any other Bill to leave the House with loose ends or with provisions that would be difficult if not impossible to interpret or enforce.

§ Mr. Giles Radice (Durham, North)
Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House who drafted his new clause?

§ Mr. Waterson
Although I received a little research assistance, the authorship of the new clause is mine and I am delighted to commend it to the House. If the hon. Gentleman believes that it does not have the intended effect, I shall be delighted to hear from him, but I will take any credit and any blame for the wording of new clasue 3 and of my other new clauses and amendments.
I hope that new clause 3 will command the agreement of right hon. and hon. Member in all parts of the House.I believe that it is accepted, including by the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice), that, somewhere along the line, some restriction must be placed on the information to be supplied and the circumstances in which it is to be supplied. Any legitimate debate that there may be will be about where one is to draw the line—a point which I will develop at greater length later.
The new clause would make it an offence for people who had successfully applied for information under the Act to make copies of the information without the permission of the licensing authority. It also draws in the provisions of section 124 of the Medicines Act 1968, which takes account of offences involving corporate entities. The clause makes it possible for the licensing authority to charge for copies of infonnation, whether the authority supplies that information directly or it is supplied by a third party.
Without such a clause, the licensing authority would find it harder to offset the cost of preparing the information. If the licensing authority receives less money than it should from applicants for information, that cost will ultimately fall on the pharmaceutical industry through licence fees. It wil be part of the leitmotiv of my comments on other amendments and new clauses that that is something which I wish to try to avoid, wherever possible.
I consider the new clause to be essential if we are to ensure that applicants for information can be charged a reasonable amount for copies from any source. It is a perfectly reasonable provision. It is not out of line with the usual approach in such a situation to books and magazines, for example, where copyright applies. Therefore, I have no hesitation in commending what I hope is an uncontroversial new clause to the House.