HL Deb 15 January 1997 vol 577 cc181-3

The Countess of Mar asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether the change in Declaration of Interests: A Code of Conduct for Members of the Veterinary Products Committee and any subsequent Sub-Committee of 8th December 1995, which requires participation in court proceedings to be declared by members of the Scientific and Medical Panel of the Veterinary Products Committee, applies to the parent committee and to any other sub-committee.

Lord Lucas

My Lords, there have been no changes in the code of practice governing the declaration of interests by the Veterinary Products Committee or its sub-committees. Some members of the Scientific and Medical Panel have asked for a separate code of practice applying specifically to that panel, setting out members' responsibilities if they become involved in court proceedings, including declaration of involvement where relevant to the business of the panel. This separate code will shortly be considered by the Veterinary Products Committee.

The Countess of Mar

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that reply. Is he aware that there have been several drafts of the code, starting in February 1996, and that the initial codes were extremely heavy handed, in that they precluded members of the panel from attending meetings if they were to represent patients in court? Does he accept that when an expert witness is asked to attend court he is not there to help the patient but to help the court—in particular, the judge—to make its decision? Does there not appear to be a conflict between Section 118 of the Medicines Act and the code of practice that pertains to these committees?

Lord Lucas

My Lords, the noble Countess is quite right. There is potentially a difficulty, in that Section 118 of the Medicines Act is a wide-ranging provision and that those involved in court proceedings may feel that they are debarred by having signed up to that provision from being as helpful to the court as they might be. It is obviously very important that the Government have the best information that can be obtained on this subject. It is obviously equally important that the courts do too. As we understand it, the purpose of the separate code that is proposed is to help those members of the committee who find themselves with such a possible conflict of interest to resolve that, to enable them to act as witnesses in court and not be held back by the fact that they are members of the committee.

Lord Carter

My Lords, can the Minister confirm that this problem led to the resignation from the relevant committee of Dr. Goran Jamal? Can he further confirm that most of the data used by the Veterinary Products Committee to test products are understandably provided by the manufacturers of that data? In the background, there is the concern expressed by Dr. Jamal that there is no system of completely independent verification of the products to evaluate their toxicity. That led to the problem when he was asked to appear as an expert witness in court.

Lord Lucas

My Lords, the noble Lord is right, in that Dr. Jamal found difficulty with the proposed new code, or perhaps one of the earlier drafts of it, and felt that it would restrict him in acting for the plaintiff. We find that unsatisfactory. We do not see any reason why any member of the committee should be debarred from acting, particularly for the plaintiff, though there may be occasions when a member of the committee is so involved with an industry or a company that he could not do that and appear as a witness in court. In such circumstances, we would probably expect him to resign from the committee, but we do not find it satisfactory that there should be an extension to the code that would prevent people acting for the plaintiff. It is important that the court and the plaintiff should have that advice.

Lord Bruce of Donington

My Lords, is it the contention of Her Majesty's Government that distinguished individuals who are experts in their fields and are acknowledged as such should be placed under any disability because they are likely to become expert witnesses in a trial or court proceedings in which Her Majesty's Government might be interested?

Lord Lucas

No, my Lords, I do not find it a comfortable or sensible position but it is a necessary corollary of the Medicines Act, which was passed in 1968 when the party opposite was in power and is a severe Act regarding confidentiality of information, that Ministers and members of committees who are subject to that Act are limited in the information they can disclose without an order of the court.

Lord Bruce of Donington

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the integrity of the British legal system and of our constitutional system as such is not protected by reference to any political party, whether in government or in opposition? This is a question of principle.

Lord Lucas

Yes, indeed, my Lords, it is a question of principle. The code is aimed at trying to help members of the committee resolve a difficulty that they find themselves in as a result of the 1968 Act.

Lord Monkswell

My Lords, the Minister suggested that there might be a conflict of interest between being a member of a government advisory committee and appearing as an expert witness in court. Surely the criteria would be exactly the same, in that the Government would want totally impartial advice, just as the court would. In that sense, how could there be a conflict of interest?

Lord Lucas

My Lords, the conflict arises purely from the wording of the 1968 Act, which provides that any information gained as a result of being a member of the committee should not be disclosed to any other person. It cannot be volunteered in court. It can be produced only at the request of the court. Under many circumstances, people would find that restrictive. We are aiming to find a way in which that restriction can be lifted in as far as we have it in our power so to do.

The Countess of Mar

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that Dr. Goran Jamal gave an undertaking to the chairman of the panel that he would not divulge in court any information which had come to him solely through the deliberations of the panel? Does the Minister agree that there is really no need for this change in the code of conduct? Does he further agree that the most important ingredient in this whole debacle is trust, in that the members of the panel should trust one another and that members of the public should be able to trust the verdicts of the panel as being totally independent? From what has been going on it would appear that this independence may be in question.

Lord Lucas

My Lords, I hope very much that that is not so. I understand how the noble Countess arrives at the concerns which she has expressed. But the Veterinary Products Committee is independent of government and its sub-committee perhaps even more so. Therefore, I cannot enlarge on what has been taking place in that particular committee. But we are particularly concerned that when it comes to the public presentation of advice to Ministers and others that things should be seen to be done fairly and should not be hobbled in any unacceptable way. We understand that Dr. Jamal fully accepts his obligations under the Medicines Act. We are not aware of any reason why the additional code, which is intended, as we understand it, merely to be helpful, should have caused his resignation. As I say, perhaps we are unsighted on that.

Back to