§ Lord Ashley of Stoke asked Her Majesty's Government:
§ Whether they intend to take any steps to reduce the secrecy around the trials, licensing and marketing of medical drugs.
§ The Minister of State, Department of Health (Baroness Jay of Paddington)My Lords, the Government's White Paper Your Right to Know was published last December. That sets our proposals to allow closer public scrutiny and to remove unnecessary secrecy. We hope to publish a draft Bill later this year. The Bill will cover information about medicines. In addition, the Medicines Control Agency is examining its current policies in advance of legislation. Its review is taking into account the White Paper on the NHS. The Government will consider, in the light of that review, and our other proposals on assessing medicines, what further action we can take to make more information available.
§ Lord Ashley of StokeMy Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that promising and comprehensive reply. Is she aware that the time is now right to abolish the secrecy surrounding the trials and licensing of drugs? That can be done, as in the US, without jeopardising commercial viability, by changing the existing regulations. The Medicines Act 1968 gives the Secretary of State powers to change the regulations and to end the secrecy without waiting for a special Bill. Will my noble friend bear that in mind and consider making those representations to the Secretary of State?
§ Baroness Jay of PaddingtonMy Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that suggestion. As I understand the White Paper on freedom of information, it says that the Government intend, where appropriate and consistent with EU law, to repeal or amend the statutory bars that exist in British law to freedom of information and bring them into line with the harm-and-public-interest tests which are already outlined in the White Paper. The section of the Medicines Act to which my noble friend referred is specifically identified as one of those provisions in the freedom of information White Paper.
Earl HoweMy Lords, I welcome the principle of greater transparency in relation to medicines and greater access by patients to relevant information. Under the freedom of information Bill, how will the 464 Government ensure that information which is genuinely commercial-in-confidence is protected from compulsory disclosure?
§ Baroness Jay of PaddingtonMy Lords, the noble Earl rightly raises the question of commercial-in-confidence information. He will be aware that there are specific recommendations within the White Paper which may cover that, although we have to wait until the details of the legislation are produced to see exactly how that will be addressed. Interestingly, given the atmosphere, which has changed since the publication of the White Paper, some of the international pharmaceutical companies have now agreed to ensure that their clinical trials are in the public domain in association with the Cochrane Collaboration based at Oxford which is interested in spreading the details of the meta-analysis of those trials.
§ The Countess of MarMy Lords, will any of those reviews cover veterinary medicines? I am thinking particularly of sheep dips.
§ Baroness Jay of PaddingtonMy Lords, as I said in reply to the original Question, as I understand it, the freedom of information White Paper allows for disclosure of information about medicines in general, and that would presumably include veterinary medicines.