Politicians and Big Pharma too close for comfort?

by Jim O'Reilly and Anna Branthwaite

Last November, Health Secretary Andy Burnham and Health Minister Mike O’Brien had six meetings with pharmaceutical companies and industry representatives. These included companies such as Sigma and Roche pharmaceuticals, as well as industry-lobbying organisation the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI).

Despite a damning parliamentary report on the relationship between the government and pharmaceutical companies, it appears that the two are as close as they have ever been.

In the spring of 2005, a House of Commons select committee reported that “there is  a fundamental weakness in the government’s dealings with the pharmaceutical industry”.

The Department of Health, the report said, was compromised in its ability to protect public health by having such close links with pharmaceutical companies.

Ministers had also “done little to curb the increasing ‘medicalisation’ of society”, and the government had not given enough priority to public health in maintaining a profitable pharmaceutical industry, the report continued.

Five years on, there is little evidence that the committee’s concerns have been taken on board. Soon after the committee report in October 2006, meeting minutes between then Health Minister Jane Kennedy and pharmaceutical companies showed that one of the largest companies, Pfizer, put pressure on the government to back the pharmaceutical industry.

Pfizer “noted that there is complacency in some quarters of Whitehall regarding their continued investment in the UK”. The company also asked for “more public support from the Government for a robust pharmaceutical industry in the UK and more consultation/dialogue with the government”.

The UK pharmaceutical industry has also begun gearing up for a change in government, as drug companies have been reshuffling their public affairs teams and courting the Conservative party. The American Pharmaceutical Group handed public affairs briefs to Hanover Communications, who also represents National Health Service (NHS) cancer screening departments, and in December 2009 hosted a meeting on the Conservatives’ approach to regulating business.

A recent article and investigation by The News of the World revealed: “Shadow Health Secretary Andrew Lansley accepted a £21,000 donation for his private office from John Nash, chairman of Care UK ­– who stands to gain hugely from Tory plans to increase private sector involvement”.

As the election campaign starts to intensify, so has the scrutiny of the relationship between political parties and their donors – particularly in light of the scandal over the tax status of major contributor Lord Ashcroft.  The Labour party hasn’t avoided controversy either.

A recent sting operation by Channel 4 for Dispatches used a fake lobbying firm to offer MPs including former health secretary Patricia Hewitt cash in order for political influence. The party has since suspended former cabinet ministers Stephen Byers, Geoff Hoon and Hewitt herself.

The News of the World reported in January that Shadow Health Minister Mark Simmonds accepted a trip to Boston worth £4,512 from private health company BUPA. And Lord McColl of Dulwich, Tory health spokesman in the Lords, is a consultant of Endeavour Healthcare.

Prospective MP Mark Lloyd Davies would also make a valuable addition to the Conservatives’ pharma-friendly team if he wins a seat at the general election. According to the Conservative website: “Mark is the UK head of the pharmaceutical government affairs and communications team in the world's largest healthcare company [Sanofi-Aventis], so he’s already familiar with the workings of Westminster.”

The Conservatives responded to the reports by saying: “We have been open and transparent in all our dealings with those involved in independent healthcare provision, and any donations have had absolutely no influence on policy.”