FOI release

Freedom of Information request (FOI 22/1086)

Published 17 January 2024

FOI 22/1086

6th December 2022

Dear

Thank you for your email.

Please find below answers to the questions you have raised below in blue text below.

1.      Bearing in mind that on the 10th December 2020 (Attachment 1) your “Unit Manager, Advertising standards and outreach” told AZ that “we have decided that we do not wish to vet this item.  It is AstraZeneca’s responsibility to ensure the information in the press release is factual, accurate, balanced, and non-promotional in nature” please can you tell me why, according to your “ Deputy Director - News, Digital and Content”, in his/her email dated 23/12/20 (Attachment 2), the MHRA staff were nevertheless provided with, reviewed and commented upon a draft of that press release.  In your response please could you specifically address the following :

a.      Did the review by the MHRA discussed in the emails dated 22/12/20 and 23/12/20 constitute part of the formal pre-vetting of the press release by the MHRA ?

i.      If the answer is Yes, please tell me when and why the decision not to pre-vet this material was changed between 10/12/22 and 23/12/22.  Also please tell me the level/status of the MHRA officer(s) making this decision and also the level/status of the MHRA officer(s) conducting the actual pre-vetting.

ii.      If the answer is No, then please tell me in what formal capacity a member of your Communications Division was corresponding with the external communications manager of AZ and commenting on the wording of what was ostensibly an AZ press release.

ANSWER: The review by the MHRA discussed in the emails dated 22/12/20 and 23/12/20 did not constitute part of the formal pre-vetting of the press release by the MHRA. The formal capacity in which a member of the Communications Division was corresponding with the external communications manager of AZ and commenting on the wording of the AZ press release was to ensure correct wording relating to the MHRA’s regulatory role and process.

b.      In the copy of the draft press release provided by AZ (Attachment 3)  there are comments appended within the document by an MHRA reviewer.  On clicking on these comments they are all flagged as “MHRA Reviewer 14/3/2022” and all apparently added within 40 seconds of each other.  I have inserted below  two screenshots to illustrate this.  Please can you explain why these comments appear to have been added in 2022 to a draft of a 2020 press release.  It may be potentially be explained as editing carried out by the PMCPA or AZ in order to protect the identity of the MHRA reviewer – if so please can you tell me the actual date that the comments were made by your reviewer and confirm that the comments have all been replicated accurately and that none have been omitted or amended in any way during the editing.

ANSWER: We do not recognise the dates of 14/03/2022. I can confirm that the MHRA reviewer’s comments were made on 23/12/2020.The comments have all been replicated accurately and none have been omitted or amended in any way.

If you have a query about the information provided, please reply to this email.

If you disagree with how we have interpreted the Freedom of Information Act 2000 in answering your request, you can ask for an internal review. Please reply to this email, within two months of this reply, specifying that you would like an Internal Review to be carried out.

Please remember to quote the reference number above in any future communications.

If you were to remain dissatisfied with the outcome of the internal review, you would have the right to apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a decision. Please bear in mind that the Information Commissioner will not normally review our handling of your request unless you have first contacted us to conduct an internal review. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at:

Information Commissioner’s Office

Wycliffe House

Water Lane

Wilmslow

Cheshire

SK9 5AF

Yours sincerely

MHRA Customer Experience Centre