K
KulrMeStoopid
Guest
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article3645567.ece
This is not about e-cigs, but I found the information to be quite informative....
Dozens of all-party parliamentary groups have received funding and other benefits from outside organisations during the past 12 months, reaching a total of more than £1 million a year. Many of the groups have produced reports that echo the views of their industry funders and petitioned ministers on policy, raising questions about the relationship with their backers.
In return for contributing large sums, companies are granted access to events at Westminster, often attended by ministers and other policymakers. Some are even responsible for drafting policy reports on behalf of the groups.
Despite repeated calls for transparency on funding, The Times has found that at least two groups may be in breach of parliamentary rules for failing to declare properly the source of their secretarial and financial support.
Several other groups gave only the name of the lobbyist that provides assistance, leaving the public in the dark about which clients may be funding their activities or what vested interests they might have.
Other findings include:
• The Parliamentary Internet Communications and Technology Forum received more than £130,000 in 2012 from BT, Google, Microsoft and others. Most recently, the group lobbied Ed Vaizey, the Culture and Communications Minister, to oppose additional obligations on internet operators, a stance that the group’s chairman said was also backed by the public.
• The Associate Parliamentary Health Group received more than £190,000 from pharmaceutical companies, including GSK, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca. In return for paying £8,400 a year, the companies are allowed to send up to two representatives to all group meetings, where recent speakers have included Sir Bruce Keogh, the head of the NHS, and a series of ministers from the Department of Health. Its associate status gives voting rights to outside organisations, granting them a say in the group’s activities.
• The All-Party Parliamentary Beer Group received £60,000 last year from brewers and other industry interests. The money was used to fund a 44-page report into beer tax fraud, which costs the Exchequer, and the alcohol industry, millions of pounds a year in lost revenue. Tory MP Andrew Griffiths, the group’s chairman, said that the source of its funding was made clear in an introduction to the report. He added that there was little danger that MPs, who are “notoriously independent”, would be swayed by industry backers.
• The administration of at least seven country-specific groups, including those on the Cayman Islands and the United Arab Emirates, is paid for and run by the governments of the nations in question, raising questions about their
independence. MPs and peers from four further groups accepted foreign visits that were paid for by host governments.
• The group on media reform, whose stated purpose is to “discuss advantages and disadvantages of different media regulation”, is given secretarial services by Hacked Off, the campaign group calling for statutory regulation of the press.
Six years ago, The Times revealed the pervasive influence of lobbyists among all-party groups, triggering an investigation by the parliamentary sleaze watchdog.
Despite a tightening of the rules, the relationship between corporate interests and Westminster continues to trouble those responsible for safeguarding the reputation of Parliament. In November 2011, Jack Straw, the former Labour Home Secretary, was asked by the Speakers of the Commons and the Lords to review all-party groups.
A survey of MPs and peers conducted as part of the review found that 48 per cent agreed that the groups were “prone to be manipulated by public affairs and lobby groups for their own purposes”.
The review called for a lower threshold for the registration of benefits received, the preparation of an annual income and expenditure statement to show how money was being spent, and tighter rules about the allocation of parliamentary passes by the groups.
Last night, Baroness Shepherd of Northwold, a former Tory Cabinet minister who advised Mr Straw, said that it was alarming how much corporate money was spent on all-party groups.
“I think that there were groups that perhaps traded on their ability to use a parliamentary logo and thereby getting themselves confused – usefully to them – with the very legitimate and statutory select committees. This we felt very serious about.”
This is not about e-cigs, but I found the information to be quite informative....
Dozens of all-party parliamentary groups have received funding and other benefits from outside organisations during the past 12 months, reaching a total of more than £1 million a year. Many of the groups have produced reports that echo the views of their industry funders and petitioned ministers on policy, raising questions about the relationship with their backers.
In return for contributing large sums, companies are granted access to events at Westminster, often attended by ministers and other policymakers. Some are even responsible for drafting policy reports on behalf of the groups.
Despite repeated calls for transparency on funding, The Times has found that at least two groups may be in breach of parliamentary rules for failing to declare properly the source of their secretarial and financial support.
Several other groups gave only the name of the lobbyist that provides assistance, leaving the public in the dark about which clients may be funding their activities or what vested interests they might have.
Other findings include:
• The Parliamentary Internet Communications and Technology Forum received more than £130,000 in 2012 from BT, Google, Microsoft and others. Most recently, the group lobbied Ed Vaizey, the Culture and Communications Minister, to oppose additional obligations on internet operators, a stance that the group’s chairman said was also backed by the public.
• The Associate Parliamentary Health Group received more than £190,000 from pharmaceutical companies, including GSK, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca. In return for paying £8,400 a year, the companies are allowed to send up to two representatives to all group meetings, where recent speakers have included Sir Bruce Keogh, the head of the NHS, and a series of ministers from the Department of Health. Its associate status gives voting rights to outside organisations, granting them a say in the group’s activities.
• The All-Party Parliamentary Beer Group received £60,000 last year from brewers and other industry interests. The money was used to fund a 44-page report into beer tax fraud, which costs the Exchequer, and the alcohol industry, millions of pounds a year in lost revenue. Tory MP Andrew Griffiths, the group’s chairman, said that the source of its funding was made clear in an introduction to the report. He added that there was little danger that MPs, who are “notoriously independent”, would be swayed by industry backers.
• The administration of at least seven country-specific groups, including those on the Cayman Islands and the United Arab Emirates, is paid for and run by the governments of the nations in question, raising questions about their
independence. MPs and peers from four further groups accepted foreign visits that were paid for by host governments.
• The group on media reform, whose stated purpose is to “discuss advantages and disadvantages of different media regulation”, is given secretarial services by Hacked Off, the campaign group calling for statutory regulation of the press.
Six years ago, The Times revealed the pervasive influence of lobbyists among all-party groups, triggering an investigation by the parliamentary sleaze watchdog.
Despite a tightening of the rules, the relationship between corporate interests and Westminster continues to trouble those responsible for safeguarding the reputation of Parliament. In November 2011, Jack Straw, the former Labour Home Secretary, was asked by the Speakers of the Commons and the Lords to review all-party groups.
A survey of MPs and peers conducted as part of the review found that 48 per cent agreed that the groups were “prone to be manipulated by public affairs and lobby groups for their own purposes”.
The review called for a lower threshold for the registration of benefits received, the preparation of an annual income and expenditure statement to show how money was being spent, and tighter rules about the allocation of parliamentary passes by the groups.
Last night, Baroness Shepherd of Northwold, a former Tory Cabinet minister who advised Mr Straw, said that it was alarming how much corporate money was spent on all-party groups.
“I think that there were groups that perhaps traded on their ability to use a parliamentary logo and thereby getting themselves confused – usefully to them – with the very legitimate and statutory select committees. This we felt very serious about.”
