One of Paul Flynn’s Early Day Motions laid down yesterday has made me stop and think, it was EDM 767 – CONDUCT OF GLAXOSMITHKLINE 30.01.2007. It reads:
“That this House questions the propriety and courtesy of the action of GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) in writing to hon. Members with constituency interests in GSK urging them to oppose Motions for Early Day (EDMs) critical of their conduct, then denying originators of the EDMs details of the content of their messages when requested.”
Now if I understand this correctly, what has happened is that Glaxo has, at some point in the recent past, has written blanket letters to MPs with constituency interests in GSK urging them to oppose any EDMs that might be critical of Glaxo. Read that again – that’s any EDMs critical of them.
On what grounds exactly? Where’s the logical argument? Where are the facts for and against? The details of the individual case don’t seem to matter – the message is simple – Glaxo does not expect to be criticised…
As Glaxo has not shown Paul Flynn details of the content of these messages, it is up to us to guess at what they might have said to the MPs they wrote to. How do you imagine a large employer like Glaxo might ‘lean on’ an MP to get him or her to do what is expected of them – Bribes? Bullying? Threats? Promises?
Remember that there can be no logical argument or statement of fact, because these letters were written BEFORE Glaxo had read the detail of any EDMs that might be critical.
Until we get to see the content of one of these messages all we can do is keep on guessing about what was said…
GlaxoSmithKline – nice people to do business with?