Ministers 'tearing guts out of drugs Bill'
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.The Government was yesterday accused of attempting to 'tear the guts' out of a private member's Bill that would provide more information about drug safety - just a month after allowing it a Second Reading, writes Nicholas Timmins.
James Couchman, the Conservative MP for Gillingham, has tabled amendments deleting all the key clauses of the Medicines Information Bill, creating instead only an index of product licences.
Giles Radice, Labour MP for Durham North, the Bill's sponsor, said he believed the Government lay behind 'this squalid manoeuvre to stifle the Bill' whose committee stage starts today.
That came ill, he said, when William Waldegrave, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the minister responsible for open government, had indicated that Mark Fisher's Right to Know Bill, which provides for a Freedom of Information Act, would be allowed to proceed to committee stage at its second reading this Friday. Mr Couchman, a declared adviser to the pharmaceutical giant Pfizer, made clear his opposition at the Bill's second reading, and said yesterday: 'If it looks like a destruction job, so be it. It is.'
He believed the Bill - backed by the British Medical Association, the Consumers' Association and the Campaign for the Freedom of Information - would do 'great damage' to the industry through its requirements to make public licensing information. Commercial information would be made available to unlicensed copyists, he said. He maintained that his amendments owed 'more to the interests of the industry than the Government'.
Mr Radice said the amendments 'tear the guts out of the Bill. A government which was serious about freedom of information would not be resorting to this kind of tactic'.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments