Department of Health
MEDICINES CONTROL AGENCY
Market Towers 1 Nine Elms Lane London SW8 5NQ
Telephone 0171-273 0600
Facsimile 0171- 273 0737 .
9 December 1998

Dear Mr Medawar,

I am writing further to my letter of 11 November to advise the outcome of the review which the MCA conducted of all relevant requests you made for information about the work of the Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM).

You will recall that, in relation to your complaint (ref OG 98/59), Dr Munro concluded that the Agency should release either edited versions of the documents or a suitable summary, without harming the frankness and candour of its consultations with the CSM or the efficient conduct of the Agency's operations. In addition, I advised that we would review those previous requests where I refused you information about the CSM.

The result of our review is at Annex A. Against each request there is a note as to the MCA's original action and our finding and recommendation as to what action the Agency should now take. In some cases, our review recommends no further action. In other cases, provided disclosure is limited to factual and non-confidential information, our review concludes that the MCA should disclose the information.

I have asked staff at the MCA to complete the preparation of the outstanding documentation, suitably edited to remove all personal, commercial or otherwise confidential material. I have just received a fax of your letter of 8 December: our aim is to send the material to you this week.

I am sending a copy of this letter to the Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration.

Yours sincerely
Roy Alder
Head of Executive Support

CLICK HERE TO READ ON               

                                                                                                                 ANNEX A

COMMITTEE ON SAFETY OF MEDICINES

Criteria - for decision: "maintain confidentiality, except where information is clearly available (e.g. in annual reports) and disclosure would not be prejudicial to past understandings."

A: LETTER OF 12 MARCH TO PROFESSOR, RAWLINS

A.1 Formal votes in CSM meetings in 1991 and 1997 connected with the licensing of any particular drug

Is the information clearly available? No
Would release prejudice past understandings? Not if anonymised
Original decision Release anonymised data (there were no such votes)

Refuse more specific information

Finding and Recommendation The information has been disclosed

No further action

 A.2 Instances of members absenting themselves from meetings in 1991 and 1997 to avoid possible conflicts of interest

Is the information clearly available? No
Would release prejudice past understandings? Not if anonymised
Original decision Release anonymised data

Refuse more specific information

Finding and Recommendation The information has been disclosed

No further action

 

A.3 Personal specific interests declared in relation to

(a) SSRI jproducts discussed since 1987; and

(b) to any "relevant product" at the last 5 CSM meetings

Is the information clearly available? No (but interests are declared in the annual report)
Would release prejudice past understandings? Not if anonymised and aggregated
Original decision Release anonymised data

Refuse more specific information

Finding and Recommendation The information has been disclosed

Correct errors in previous letter, otherwise no further action

 

B LETTER OF 7 MARCH TO MR ALDER

B.1 Copies of any discussions relating to commercial confidentiality recorded in (extracts of) CSM minutes over the last 5 years

Is the information clearly available? No
Would release prejudice past understandings? Yes, if confidential material is disclosed
Original decision Refuse
Finding and Recommendation Provided information is limited to factual and non-confidential information, the information can be disclosed

Edit minutes to remove any confidential material

 

C: LETTER OF 20 MARCH TO MR WHITBREAD

C.1 Copies of all 1998 CSM and sub-committee minutes edited to remove confidential information

Is the information clearly available? No
Would release prejudice past understandings? Yes, if confidential material is disclosed
Original decision Refuse
Finding and Recommendation Provided disclosure is limited to factual and confidential information, the information can be disclosed.

Edit minutes to remover confidential material

 

C.2 Details of forthcoming CSM and sub-committee meetings.

Is the information clearly available? Yes
Would release prejudice past understandings? No
Original decision Release (sent 23 July)
Finding and Recommendation The information has been disclosed

No further action

 

D: LETTER OF 14 MAY TO PROFESSOR RAWLINS 

 D.1 CSM's mandate in relation to Code requests

Is the information clearly available? Yes
Would release prejudice past understandings? No
Original decision Release (sent 8 September)
Finding and Recommendation The information has been disclosed (and has been subject to further correspondence) No further action

 

D.2 Extract of relevant minute of CSM's meeting which discussed the request of 12 March;

Is the information clearly available? No
Would release prejudice past understandings? Yes if confidential material disclosed
Original decision Refuse
Finding and Recommendation Provided disclosure is limited to factual and non-confidential information, the information can be disclosed.

Edit minutes to remove any confidential material.

 

D.3 Any CSM/MCA consideration within the last 6 months (taken to mean since December 1997) of revisions to data sheet warnings about withdrawal reactions with SSRIs;

Is the information clearly available? No
Would release prejudice past understandings? Yes if confidential material disclosed
Original decision Refuse
Finding and Recommendation Provided disclosure is limited to factual and non-confidential information, the information can be disclosed. Edit minutes to remove any confidential material.

 

 D.4 If so, whether or not CSM is satisfied with them as they stand

Is the information clearly available? No
Would release prejudice past understandings? Yes if confidential material disclosed
Original decision Refuse
Finding and Recommendation Provided disclosure is limited to factual and non-confidential information, the information can be disclosed. Edit minutes to remove any confidential material.

 

D.5 If not, whether CSM has some substantial revision in mind

Is the information clearly available? No
Would release prejudice past understandings? Yes if confidential material disclosed
Original decision Refuse
Finding and Recommendation Provided disclosure is limited to factual and non-confidential information, the information can be disclosed. Edit minutes to remove any confidential material.

 

E LETTER OF 21 AUGUST TO MR ALDER

E.1 The fullest possible information (if necessary deleting from the verbatim record information covered by S. 118 of the Medicines Act) about the MCA consultation with the CSM on the 26th of March 1998

Is the information clearly available? No
Would release prejudice past understandings? Yes if confidential material disclosed
Original decision Refuse
Finding and Recommendation Provided disclosure is limited to factual and non-confidential information, the information can be disclosed.

Edit paper and minutes to remove any confidential material.

MCA Executive Support
23 November 1998

CLICK HERE TO READ ON

Contents page
List of MCA/CSM Correspondence