§ The Countess of Marasked Her Majesty's Government:
How they reconcile the Written Answer by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 7 March (WA 37–38) with the letter of 4 October 2000 sent by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health to Paul Tyler MP in which she stated "the Medical Toxicology Unit provides post marketing surveillance for one company and advice on safety information for one company—a total of two companies with an annual average income of £3,000". [HL4403]
§ Lord Hunt of Kings HeathThe income received from agrochemical companies in payment for specific services amounts to, as stated in the letter from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health to Mr Paul Tyler MP, an average over several years of £3,000 per annum. The average of £3,000 p.a. was for specific work on surveillance and advice on safety. The £15,000 was money that the trust asked for to help support registrar posts at the Medical Toxicology Unit. Zeneca Agrochemicals part funded a registrar 57WA training post for one year. This funding was added to existing funding that enabled the trust to employ registrars who undertook many general National Health Service medical roles. This included taking part in medical and toxicology clinics.
No specific post was established in this period (1999–2000) and no specific research was started in this trial period.
§ The Countess of Marasked Her Majesty's Government:
Further to the Written Answer by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 7 March (WA 37–38), whether the possible conflicts of interest between a therapeutic role and the interests of a commercial agrochemical company were addressed by the Local Research and Ethics Committee of the Guy's and St Thomas' Hospital Trust at the time of the appointment of a specialist registrar, part-funded by Syngenta (then Zeneca); and, if so, how. [HL4404]
§ Lord Hunt of Kings HeathLocal research ethics committees have no formal remit or accountability for ethical standards outside the research framework.
The arrangement at Guy's and St Thomas' Hospital NHS Trust is analogous to pharmaceutical industry schemes. The intention of the arrangement is to encourage research into poorly understood and poorly funded areas of the toxicology chemicals used in agriculture and horticulture. In the year of the scheme 1999–2000 no research was undertaken.
§ The Countess of Marasked Her Majesty's Government:
Further to the Written Answer by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 7 March (WA 37–38), how many patients who had been exposed to agrochemicals were seen and treated by the specialist registrar at the Medical Toxicology Unit; whether they were informed of the source of funding for the specialist registrar's post; and whether they gave written consent to be clinically examined and treated by the registrar. [HL4405]
§ Lord Hunt of Kings HeathThe Medical Toxicology Outpatient Clinic does not maintain a separate database which would allow easy identification of specific sub-groups of patients and their diagnosis. This would be done through research projects which require approval according to trust procedures, including ethical approval. Appropriate funding would be required for such research projects.
Since the clinic is not undertaking any research on agricultural chemicals, the Medical Toxicology Unit registrars would have seen patients on the basis of their clinical need; therefore no such consent is required.
§ The Countess of Marasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the agrochemical company Syngenta (then Zeneca) was given access to the medical records of patients who had attended the outpatients' clinic of the Medical Toxicology Unit 58WA for illnesses related to exposure to pesticides and to National Poisons Information Service inquiry data on pesticide exposure incidents through the specialist registrar whose post was part-funded by the company; and, if so, whether the explicit consent of the patients involved was obtained. [HL4406]
§ Lord Hunt of Kings HeathZeneca was not given access to patient information of any sort as a consequence of this scheme.
Previous toxicovigilance schemes funded in part by Zeneca collected patient data for the purpose of monitoring paraquat toxicity. Zeneca medical staff were involved in the analysis of this follow-up data. However no identifiable patient specific data has been given to Zeneca personnel by the Medical Toxicology Unit.
§ The Countess of Marasked Her Majesty's Government:
Further to the Written Answer by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 7 March (WA 37–38), how many whole-time equivalents of the specialist registrar's post part-funded by Syngenta (then Zeneca) were spent dealing with agrochemical toxicology issues. [HL4407]
§ Lord Hunt of Kings HeathIn the year of the scheme 1999–2000 no research was undertaken.
During this trial period no specific time was allocated for continuing medical education or research and development related to agrochemicals. It would therefore be difficult retrospectively to estimate the time spent on any work that might be regarded as funded by this scheme.