The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 276 No 7403 p645
3 June 2006

This article
Reprint   Photocopy

  Acrobat Reader

News summary

APPG complaint upheld by standards committee

Complaints against three all-party groups, including the All-Party Pharmacy Group, have been upheld by the House of Commons Committee on Standards and Privileges. The committee has suggested several changes to tighten the regulation of relations between outside groups and all-party groups.

Following an investigation by The Times (PJ, 21 January, p64), editor Robert Thomson wrote to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards to complain that six all-party groups had breached rules requiring public relations companies providing secretarial support to name the ultimate client paying for this assistance. The committee upheld the complaint in relation to three groups — those on pharmacy, patient safety and intellectual property, all of which are supported by the public relations firm Luther Pendragon.

“In each case the group failed to meet its obligation under the 1985 rules to register the name of the ultimate client or clients at whose request and with whose financial support the group was receiving assistance,” Sir Philip Mawer, Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, concludes in his report. Although he also notes that “the omissions were remedied by the public relations company concerned as soon as The Times had drawn attention to them”.

Howard Stoate, chairman of the All-Party Pharmacy Group and the All-Party Patient Safety Group, said: “I am, and have always been, committed to ensuring that the all-party groups I chair are transparent about their work and the support they receive, and that they take an independent view on the issues they examine. I have also supported proposals submitted to the commissioner for changing the parliamentary rules under which all-party groups operate to achieve as much openness as possible.”

Sir Philip suggests that where consultants assist an all-party group, any of their clients with a direct interest in the work of the group should be listed in the register of all-party groups. Also, he argues that where a charity provides assistance, any commercial company that contributes to the costs of the charity and has a direct interest in the work of the all-party group should be listed.

Sir Philip also recommends that the register of all-party groups on the internet should contain links to each group’s own website and to the websites of companies or charities that support the group. “These recommendations represent a proportionate approach, which will improve transparency and accountability without imposing undue fresh burdens on all-party groups,” he says.

The report and details of how to comment on the recommendations are available (see ninth report, 25 May 2006)