David Cameron vows to tackle 'secret corporate lobbying'

David Cameron today claimed that "secret corporate lobbying" was undermining public confidence in the political system.


In a speech at the University of East London, which he also used to attack Gordon Brown personally over his handling of the MPs' expenses controversy, the Conservative leader said he would force ex-ministers to wait two years before they are allowed to take a job lobbying government.


Cameron said lobbying was an issue that "has tainted our politics for too long".


He went on: "We all know how it works. The lunches, the hospitality, the quiet word in your ear, the ex-ministers and ex-advisers for hire, helping big business find the right way to get its way. In this party, we believe in competition, not cronyism.


"So we must be the party that sorts all this out. Today it is a £2bn industry that has a huge presence in parliament. The Hansard Society has estimated that some MPs are approached over 100 times a week by lobbyists.


"I believe that secret corporate lobbying, like the expenses scandal, goes to the heart of why people are so fed up with politics. It arouses people's worst fears and suspicions about how our political system works."


Under the current rules ex-ministers have to wait a year after they leave office before they can take a job lobbying government. Cameron said he would double this quarantine period and force ex-ministers to wait two years.


Ex-ministers also have to seek the advice of the advisory committee on business appointments if they want to take a private sector job in the first two years after they leave office.


Cameron said he would make rulings from the committee binding, not advisory, as they are now. He also said that ex-ministers who defied the committee would lose part of their ministerial pension.

Source:guardian.co.uk/

Vietnam has asked the WHO for a response to allegations it had exaggerated the swine flu pandemic under pressure from pharmaceutical lobbies.

Pharmaceutical companies have made huge profits from vaccine contracts in the wake of the crisis that critics say was overblown for that purpose.




“At the moment the Vietnam Ministry of Health is consulting various sources and waiting for official opinions from the WHO,” deputy minister Trinh Quan Huan said in an interview with local online newspaper VietNamNet.



In a letter sent to the United Nations agency on Tuesday, the ministry suggested the WHO make recommendations for flu prevention measures in Vietnam and other countries.



The 1.2 million doses of influenza A (H1N1) vaccines committed by the WHO should also be sent to Vietnam soon so the country can conduct trials for safety and efficiency before putting them into use, the ministry said.



Vietnam would continue its immunization plan with WHO-sponsored vaccines, the ministry’s Department of Preventive Health and Environment head Nguyen Huy Nga told the paper.



“Although spread of the flu in Vietnam is slowing down, cold weather could strengthen it again,” Nga warned, adding that even if H1N1 flu didn’t develop into a greater outbreak, the vaccines could be used for common kinds of flu as well.



The number of H1N1 infections in Vietnam had decreased sharply over the past 3-5 weeks with several observation stations reporting no new cases, Huan told Thanh Nien.



The epidemic was weaker than expected with a death rate equal to or lower than that of the common flu – 0.45 percent, he said. Fifty people who tested positive for the H1N1 virus have died in Vietnam since it was first detected here last May.



Vietnam had to reconsider its plan to buy another 500,000 doses this first quarter, drawing on the experiences of some countries which had to transfer the vaccines when local supply outweighed demand, according to Huan.



Vietnam spent nearly VND1 trillion (US$54.1 million) on H1N1 flu control last year.



Confusion



Early this week Wolfgang Wodarg, head of health at the Council of Europe, claimed that pharmaceutical companies had placed their people in the WHO, influencing its decision to declare the disease a global pandemic last June, the UK-owned Daily Mail reported.



Their influence could have led the WHO to soften its definition of a pandemic, which pushed huge profits to drug and vaccines makers, Dr. Wodarg told the newspaper.



“We have had a mild flu - and a false pandemic,” he said, branding the H1N1 outbreak as “one of the greatest medical scandals of the century.”



However, in a press release issued last Friday, the WHO said it had not changed the definition of pandemic in the course of H1N1 outbreak and that it had not exaggerated the pandemic.



“WHO has consistently assessed the impact of the current influenza pandemic as moderate,” the agency said in the statement.



Dr. Jean-Marc Olive, chief representative of the WHO in Vietnam, told a press briefing on Wednesday that a document on the WHO’s website several months ago said a pandemic would include “enormous amounts of cases and deaths,” which may be the root of the confusion.



Yet, the information which “was never part of the formal definition of a pandemic,” was removed later, Olive said.



He said they had to take action and make recommendations at the beginning of the pandemic, whether it was severe or mild.



When asked about the WHO’s investigation into claims that some members of its Strategic Advisory Group of Experts enjoyed financial support or were given a salary from pharmaceutical companies, Olive refused to comment, saying that he was supposed to answer questions related to Vietnam only.



In the meantime, the WHO affirmed in its latest press release that it had systems in place to prevent potential conflicts of interest by experts in its advisory groups in response to Dr. Wodarg’s accusations, which prompted the Council of Europe to launch an investigation.



Any allegations of conflict of interests by WHO experts would be investigated immediately, the agency stressed.



It would review the way the WHO dealt with the outbreak of the H1N1 flu once the pandemic had subsided as well, Reuters quoted WHO spokeswoman Fadela Chaib as saying on Tuesday.

Source:thanhniennews.com/

Drug lobbying group threatens to pull support from health care bill

The lead lobbying arm of the drug industry is threatening to pull its support for health care legislation if Democrats reduce protections for brand-name biologic drugs.

In an e-mail obtained by CNN, Billy Tauzin, the top executive of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), told board members that "we could not support the bill" if Democrats reduce the number of years that brand name biologic drugs can keep their patents. Tauzin's e-mail was also a call to action, saying, "please activate immediately all of your contacts."

PhRMA fought hard for language that passed both the House and Senate health care bills, stating that patents for brand name biologic drugs are protected for 12 years before generic companies would be permitted to make less-expensive versions. Biologics are drugs made from living organisms to prevent and treat diseases like arthritis and diabetes.

At issue now: some Democrats who support the generics industry are trying to use negotiations over a final health care bill to shave off a few years from the 12-year brand exclusivity. The leading Democrat pushing for the change is House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman, D-California, a defender of generic drugs who lost a battle early on in his own committee to reduce brand-name protection to seven years.

President Obama signaled in a private meeting with House Democrats Thursday that he could support reducing 12-year protection for brand-name biologics.

According to several Democratic sources, Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-California, a lawmaker with biotech companies in her Silicon Valley district, challenged the president in Thursday's meeting and asked him not to change the 12-year biologics protection.

The sources said Obama responded by making clear he disagreed with her, saying, "My job is to do what I think is good policy."

That sounded alarm bells at PhRMA, which represents drug companies in Washington, and at the Biotechnology Industry Organization -- the lobbying arm of biologic brand drugs.

"Fair data protection of at least 12 years for new, innovative biologic medicines is critically important to the future of medical progress in America. Fair data protection allows our companies to make the extensive investment necessary to develop cutting-edge medicines that allow American patients to live longer, healthier and more productive lives," said PhRMA in a statement.

Supporters of so-called biogeneric drugs argue 12 years of exclusivity is excessive and will undermine innovation, and deny consumer access to more affordable drugs.

The Obama administration and Democratic leaders struck a deal early on to get the powerful lobby on their side during this debate. PhRMA spent millions in advertising in support of Democrats efforts and agreed that drug companies would contribute $80 billion to help defray the cost to the government of reforming health care.

Democratic sources said they were considering asking drug companies for $10 billion more as they negotiate a final health care bill.

Source:cnn.com/