Watching the All Party Parliamentary Groups (APPGs)

Some APPGs are open to the criticism that they have effectively been captured by interest groups that do not necessarily reflect wider public opinion or public good.

APPGs are informal, cross-party groups of MPs and peers who share an interest in a particular issue, whether it be health conditions, countries, industries or policy areas. They are not official parliamentary committees, but they often act as influential forums for policy discussion, reports and events.

They are relatively lightly regulated. They must register, publish some information about their officers, and disclose external support, but there is no formal scrutiny of their activities or the accuracy of their outputs. This makes them vulnerable to outside influence, especially from well-organized lobbyists or industry-funded bodies.

Many APPGs rely on external organizations to provide secretariat services such as organizing meetings and writing reports. Sometimes these organizations represent specific industries or interest groups. Critics argue that this can lead to regulatory capture, where the APPG ends up promoting the priorities of its funders rather than balanced or evidence-based perspectives reflecting the public interest.

Although APPGs have no formal policy-making power, they can influence debate, shape media narratives, and feed into government consultations. This influence, combined with low transparency, raises concerns about outsized policy impact without democratic accountability.

The Committee on Standards and several transparency campaigners, such as Transparency International UK, have raised this issue explicitly. They have called for tighter rules to ensure that APPGs are more transparent about who funds or runs them, have stricter limits on outside influence, and are less open to being used as lobbying vehicles.

On the Parliamentary register of APPGs, the benefits in kind for the APPG on Smoking and Health list ASH, the strident anti-smoking lobbyists, as the source of secretariat services and support. Critics have suggested the APPG is just a mouthpiece for ASH.

It is a legitimate criticism, not of all APPGs, but certainly of some, that they have been effectively captured by vested interests, particularly where those interests provide funding or secretariat support. This can distort parliamentary discussion and weaken the connection between APPG activity and the wider public interest.

There are several well-documented cases in which critics argue that APPGs in the UK have come under undue influence from interest-groups, commercial actors or foreign governments. There are concerns about APPGs being used by foreign governments for influence. For example, the NGO Transparency International UK reported that some country-specific APPGs have provided overseas visits, secretariats or benefits in kind from foreign states with questionable human-rights records.

In one case, the APPG for Azerbaijan (via the European Azerbaijan Society) was cited as giving legitimacy to the regime by arranging trips and promotional material involving UK parliamentarians.

In 2023, Sky News flagged that APPGs had taken over £20m of external support since 2019, and that ‘10 of the top 20 funding sources’ for APPGs were registered consultant lobbyists. Such cases reinforce the criticism that some APPGs may serve as vehicles for foreign state influence rather than purely public-interest Parliamentary discussion. In each case, the groups involve external funding or secretariat support from actors with a clear agenda, including industry, lobbyists or foreign governments.

The informal nature of APPGs, with no formal legislative power but agenda-setting and convening power, means that there is reduced scrutiny and regulation compared to formal committees. For instance, APPGs may host events, produce reports, and take trips abroad, but regulation of their secretariat and funding is weaker.

Because lobbyists stand to gain from favourable policy, access to MPs and peers via an APPG can be an attractive channel for them, raising the prospect that the APPG might reflect the interests of the funder more than those of the public.

Madsen Pirie