| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Filkin: Well, my Lords, what an ingenious argument. One should look at the comparative influence of—how shall I put it?—the third party in a tri-party or quadrilateral balance of power and the strength of the Liberal Democrats, in terms of many of their amendments. One could make an argument, quite richly, that on that basis the Liberal Democrats are over-represented in this House.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords—
Lord Carter: My Lords, in the most recent Parliament, there were 1,650 Divisions in the House of Commons and the Government did not lose one.
There were 650 Divisions in this House, and the Government lost 25 per cent. I take no pride in that statistic but, if it is a question of which House is holding the executive to account, I think that this House is doing a good job.Will my noble friend agree that in this House, in which the government party is the third-largest party and has less than 28 per cent of the vote, there is a heavy responsibility on it to remember two fundamental conventions; namely, that the elected government are entitled to secure their programme of legislation and that, after suitable negotiation, the elected Chamber should finally have its way? The negotiations on the then Criminal Justice Bill could never be described as suitable.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I could not agree more with my noble friend, a former Chief Whip. That is very much our perspective on the issues. He reminds us that the Government have 28 per cent of the vote in this House. He could also remind us that, in the proposals that we have set out to remove the remaining hereditary Peers, our vote will increase to 31 per cent. Therefore we are enshrining in those proposals that this party in government will never have an overall majority, and nor will any party in government in future. I hope that the House will commend that.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord and congratulate him on having asserted the constitutional position of this House with total objectivity and on having concentrated on the essence of the problem, which is how, when and how often we exercise our power.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I am always grateful to receive compliments from the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, but I wish he would make them to me in private to protect my reputation.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, I ask my noble friend to follow the injunction of the noble Lord from the Liberal Democrat Benches and encourage the powers that be to change the balance rapidly so that it reflects the results at general elections more fairly? When can we expect that augmentation of forces and when can we expect the Light Brigade to come to the assistance of the Government?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, the noble Lord reads the newspapers, as I do. Over the turn of the year they were quite rich in rumours in that respect. However, that is only one part of the issue. The more fundamental part is how we intend to move forward to the second stage of reform of this House and to the subsequent stages of reform that will also be required. Before long we shall look forward to sharing those views with the House, as we are still absolutely committed to our 2001 manifesto. I shall repeat that if there is any doubt about it.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there are perfectly respectable bases for supporting the
decision to continue jury trials in long fraud cases? The first is the very high percentage—80 per cent—of success achieved at present, which I believe is higher than for any other category of case; and the second is that the Law Commission was specifically asked by the Home Secretary to report on whether there are any means of improving the understanding of the law by members of the jury. The Law Commission reported and produced certain recommendations, none of which the Government have ever put forward as being satisfactory.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I am unsure whether I detected a question, but I note the comment with the appropriate interest.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, given that the Minister reads the newspapers, as do most noble Lords, can I tempt him to comment on the views expressed in an interview with Mr Peter Hain in the Times last Friday?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, if I recollect, my right honourable friend was signalling the importance of making further progress on House of Lords reform, not merely on the very substantial package of proposals that we have already set out, but he was clearly looking at how to go further than that, as that will not be the end of the process or the story.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, does the Minister recognise that the largest single group of electors is those who cannot bring themselves to support any single political party? On that basis, does he also accept that the largest group in this House should be the independent Peers?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, if one were wearing a hat one would shake it at such creativity. I am not sure that the largest proportion of electors support no party. I believe that in general elections a majority of the electorate vote for one of the main political parties. I refute his assertion.
Medicines Regulatory System
2.54 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones asked Her Majesty's Government:
- When they intend to conduct a full, independent and open review of the medicines regulatory system.
Lord Warner: My Lords, in the United Kingdom human medicines are regulated by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, in accordance with national and EU laws. The EU legislation has recently been changed to ensure that the system continues to protect public health in an enlarged Community and the Government are working on implementation. A value-for-money audit of the MHRA was conducted recently by the National
Audit Office and a Public Accounts Committee report on the agency was published in 2003. There are no plans for further wide-ranging reviews.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that very disappointing reply. Only yesterday it was discovered that the MHRA had not had full information about Seroxat from the drug company involved. There are great concerns about past delays preventing SSRIs being available for the treatment of children. There are also grave doubts about the yellow card scheme and about many other aspects concerned with the regulation of claims made about drugs, particularly in relation to Yasmin, the birth control pill, which the Minister may remember. That gives considerable grounds for an independent review. Will the Minister reconsider that?
Lord Warner: No, my Lords. An expert working group of the Committee on Safety of Medicines has undertaken a comprehensive independent scientific assessment of the available data on the safety of selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors, which includes Seroxat. The full conclusions of that risk analysis, coming from the clinical trials in December, were published in public. The MHRA, in dealing with particular issues, has taken an open and above-board approach. The yellow card scheme, also mentioned by the noble Lord, is recognised as one of the best in the world, although to improve it I have asked for a review to be carried out to see whether there can be improved involvement of patients directly with the agency.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the MHRA has an unrivalled reputation in the world as a robust regulator? Should we not be very cautious before starting to review legislation that might undermine that reputation which has brought so much credit to this country?
Lord Warner: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his remarks. From his own experience he knows how effective the MHRA is and what its standard is in Europe and across the world. The National Audit Office review recognised the international standing of the MHRA in a number of areas, particularly in the way in which it leads the field on the science of medicine safety.
Earl Howe: My Lords, what assessment have the Government made of the regulatory cost implications of the EU Clinical Trials Directive on publicly funded clinical trials? Have the Government estimated the impact of the directive on the development of medicines in the future?
Lord Warner: My Lords, we have estimated some of those impacts. We have communicated with the research community about them and we are in discussion, as I believe the noble Earl knows, with the research community on the implications of the Clinical Trials Directive for this country. That directive will
come into operation from 1 May 2004. When the Government bring forward regulations for that, they will also publish a regulatory impact assessment.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, the Minister lauds the National Audit Office report, but does he recall that that the National Audit Office also drew attention to the conflict of interest between the MHRA's role in promoting the interests of the pharmaceutical industry and in protecting the health of the public?
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page