Five questions answered on GSK market abuse allegations

Company said it acted within the law.

Pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline has been accused of abusing the market by the Office of Fair Trading (OFT). We answer five questions on the allegations.

Why have the OFT alleged this about GSK?

The OFT alleges that GSK paid off rivals in order to stop generic – and cheaper – versions of its Seroxat drug coming into the market, therefore ruining competition.

What do GSK say to these allegations?

In a statement the company said it acted ‘within the law’ and that the company supports fair trading.

A statement published on the BBC said: "In fact, these arrangements actually resulted in generic versions of paroxetine entering the market before GSK's patents had expired.”
It added that the matters referred to by the OFT had already been investigated by the European Commission in 2005 – 2006.

"The issues were also reviewed in the European Commission's 2008-2009 Sector Inquiry. Neither investigation resulted in any sanctions against the company,” the statement read.

 Who are the rival drug companies that were involved?

Alpharma, Generics UK and Norton Healthcare all received money in order to hold off releasing their generic versions of anti-depression drug Seroxat. GSK accused them of infringing its patent on the drug.
What else has the OFT said?

"The introduction of generic medicines can lead to strong competition on price, which can drive savings for the NHS, to the benefit of patients and, ultimately, taxpayers," said Ann Pope, senior director of services, infrastructure and public markets at the OFT to the BBC.

"It is therefore particularly important that the OFT fully investigates concerns that independent generic entry may have been delayed in this case."

What will happen next?

The firms will be asked to respond to the allegations presented by the OFT. The OFT will then decide whether competition law has been infringed.

If the allegations are proven, all companies will be deemed as infringing the competition law. GSK will also be responsible for taking advantage of a dominant position in the market.

GSK. Photograph: Getty Images

Heidi Vella is a features writer for Nridigital.com

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Can Philip Hammond save the Conservatives from public anger at their DUP deal?

The Chancellor has the wriggle room to get close to the DUP's spending increase – but emotion matters more than facts in politics.

The magic money tree exists, and it is growing in Northern Ireland. That’s the attack line that Labour will throw at Theresa May in the wake of her £1bn deal with the DUP to keep her party in office.

It’s worth noting that while £1bn is a big deal in terms of Northern Ireland’s budget – just a touch under £10bn in 2016/17 – as far as the total expenditure of the British government goes, it’s peanuts.

The British government spent £778bn last year – we’re talking about spending an amount of money in Northern Ireland over the course of two years that the NHS loses in pen theft over the course of one in England. To match the increase in relative terms, you’d be looking at a £35bn increase in spending.

But, of course, political arguments are about gut instinct rather than actual numbers. The perception that the streets of Antrim are being paved by gold while the public realm in England, Scotland and Wales falls into disrepair is a real danger to the Conservatives.

But the good news for them is that last year Philip Hammond tweaked his targets to give himself greater headroom in case of a Brexit shock. Now the Tories have experienced a shock of a different kind – a Corbyn shock. That shock was partly due to the Labour leader’s good campaign and May’s bad campaign, but it was also powered by anger at cuts to schools and anger among NHS workers at Jeremy Hunt’s stewardship of the NHS. Conservative MPs have already made it clear to May that the party must not go to the country again while defending cuts to school spending.

Hammond can get to slightly under that £35bn and still stick to his targets. That will mean that the DUP still get to rave about their higher-than-average increase, while avoiding another election in which cuts to schools are front-and-centre. But whether that deprives Labour of their “cuts for you, but not for them” attack line is another question entirely. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to domestic and global politics.

0800 7318496