The Times leads with an interesting report about parliamentary special interest groups.
Such groups, notes the paper, are not official parliamentary bodies. Despite this "they are allowed to hold meetings in the Palace of Westminster and use the portcullis logo" and the "house style" of Parliament.
Groups mentioned include the All-Party Parliamentary Beer Group, the Parliamentary Internet Communications and Technology Forum and the Associate Parliamentary Health Group.
The latter, says the paper, 'received more than £190,000 from pharmaceutical companies, including GSK, Pfizer, and AstraZeneca.'
Driving to the Forest office in Cambridge this morning I listened to a discussion on the subject with Labour MP Kevin Barron. According to Barron's website:
Kevin has always had a strong interest in public health and in 1993 was the originator of a Private Members Bill to ban the advertising and promotion of tobacco products. In July 1996 he was duly appointed to the newly created position of Shadow Minister for Public Health.
Kevin ... chaired the Parliamentary Labour Party Health Committee from 1997 to 2002. [He] has also chaired several All-Party Parliamentary Groups including those related to the Pharmaceutical Industry and Smoking and Health. He is currently Chair of the All-Party Groups relating to Bulgaria, Pharmacy, the Film Industry and is Co-chair of the Associate Parliamentary Health Group.
Without being prompted by presenter Victoria Derbyshire Barron mentioned the All Parliamentary Group on Smoking and Health which he said was run by Action on Smoking and Health, a group he described as a "charity".
The implication was that the APPG on Smoking and Health is a worthy special interest group. Indeed, Barron praised both ASH and the APPG (which are effectively one and the same) and said that without them recent legislation on tobacco control may not have happened.
The Times didn't mention the APPG on Smoking and Health because the focus of its report was on corporate funding of all-party groups.
I don't know about you, however, but I see very little difference in groups that are funded by companies and groups that are funded by charities. In fact, where they are fake charities like ASH it's worse, in my opinion, because there is less transparency.
For example, The Times reports that, 'Because of their unofficial status, the [all-party] groups receive no public money, leading some to seek finance from other sources.'
Hang on a minute. The secretariat for the APPG on Smoking and Health is run by a group that has received hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money.
ASH will no doubt argue that it has not spent public money on running the APPG on Smoking and Health. Nevertheless, it cannot be argued that the APPG is run by a group that has not received money from the public purse and the idea that ASH's charitable status raises it to a different and more saintly level is laughable.
In addition, ASH is one of a number of "charities" that have morphed into political pressure groups. (See Christine Odone writing about the RSPCA in the Telegraph before Christmas, Charities must stick to good causes and not play at politics.)
Anyway, I'm a bit tight for time today but I thought I'd draw the subject to your attention. See also two previous posts about the APPG on Smoking and Health:
I think I'm going to be sick (June 2011)
Revealed through Freedom of Information: the hypocrisy of ASH (November 2012)
Draw your own conclusions.