Breaking the Code and the Healthcare Chain

'In the conduct of their parliamentary duties, Members of the House shall base their actions on consideration of the public interest, and shall resolve any conflict between their personal interest and the public interest at once, and in favour of the public interest.' - the Lord's Code of Conduct

The Lords have spoken. The coalition with a little help from Labour Peer, Lord Warner chose to vote in favour of the government to keep section 75 regulations of the Health and Social Care Act in place. In doing so, they imposed increased legal pressures on the new commissioners to put out services to tender, which will fragment the NHS into the hands of private companies.

The Members’ financial interestsrepresent every stage of the healthcare value chain: from private equity firms that fund private healthcare companies, to holding shares in those same companies. They are Chairmen of companies who run NHS estates, are involved in PFI deals, are partners in legal firms that seal those deals, advisers to private hospitals, they also represent companies in pharmaceutical media, medical equipment, care homes, lobbying, and health insurance.

You name it, the corporations have it covered; and the list of vested interests in both the House of Commons and the Lords is so great, it is effectively a healthcare coup d’état against our parliamentary institutions (see partial list below). Yet all of the peers with such vested interests were able to vote on the Health and Social Care bill and the section75 Regulations, that now threatens to hand over large chunks of the NHS into private company hands.

The public, once again were placed in a situation whereby the future direction of the NHS was in the hands of unelected individuals who have vested interests in the outcome of their vote. One in four ConservativeLords have these interests, as well as one in six LabourLords, one in six CrossbenchLords and one in tenLiberal Democrats. This is democracy today in Britain.

The position they hold blurs the line between public and private duty. Some of the companies who employ Lords have already won contracts in the new NHS since the health bill became an Act; in some casesat the very samemoment the bill was being debated. The outcome of the vote has been made, but the institutional corruption remains.

Below, I have a list of unelected Peers from the upper chamber who represent the corporations that cover every part of the healthcare chain – they have it all wrapped up.

A selection of interests

Frontline services: Lord Nash

When Chairman of Care UK, John Nash – a Conservative Donor – made a donation of £21,000 to then-shadow health secretary, Andrew Lansley, co-author of the Health and Social Care bill. Nash now sits on the free market board of the Centre for Policy Studies, which has produced several papers on dismantling the NHS. Voted to reject the removal of the Section 75 regulations.

PFI: Lord Blackwell

Chairman of Interserve, consultancy to NHS and private healthcare firms. Involved in PFI hospitals. Company has enterednew avenues within the care industry made possible by the Health and Social Care bill and by his vote on the bill. Voted to reject the removal of Section 75 regulations.

Private Equity: Lord Patten of Barnes and BBC Chief - Adviser to private

equity firm Bridgepoint, who purchased Care UK – Have been involved in 17 healthcare deals over recent years – did not vote. See his article here.

Management consultancy: Lord Hamilton of Epsom - Has a directorship with MSB Ltd (managing consultancy), who have NHS, Bupa, Nuffield Health and CareUK listed as their clients. Quotes: 'My Lords, surely one of the problems of the National Health Service is the wall of money that was thrown at a totally unreformed NHS by the last Government? Do we not need management consultants now to show us the way forward.’ See article on him here. Voted to reject the removal of the Section 75 regulations.

Legal: Lord Clement-Jones

Managing partner with global law firm DLA Piper who provide lobbying services to clients in the health and social care sectors. Lord Clement-Jones nominated Lord Hameed for his peerage. Lord Hameed sits on the board of Alpha hospitals, part of the Alpha Healthcare (C&C Alpha/C&C business solutions) group. The Alpha group has made significant donations to the Liberal Democrat party. Voted to reject the removal of Section 75 regulations.

Shares: Baron Higgins

Holds in excess of £50,000 of shares in Lansdowne UK Equity Fund, backers of private hospital group Circle Holdings. Circle won the first contract to run a NHS hospital – they are advised by Conservative MP Mark Simmonds. Voted to reject the removal of Section 75 regulations.

Litigation: Lord Lang of Monkton

Conservative – Director of Marsh & McLennan Companies that “help hospitals, insurers, pharmaceutical companies and industry associations understand the implications of changing policy environments”. Head of ACOBA – a so-called independent body that advises on business appointments. See article on him and them here. Voted to reject the removal of Section 75 regulations.

Care Homes: Lord Popat

Founder of TLC group Ltd, who run private care homes. Lord Popat gave David Cameron a donation, as a gift, of £25,000 a week after the Conservatives’ unveiled their health ‘reforms’. David Cameron made the businessman a peer shortly after getting into 10 Downing street. Voted to reject the removal of Section 75 regulations.



Pharmaceutical Communications – Lord Chadlington Chief Executive of Huntsworth Communications group – have major pharmaceutical companies as clients. Company gave £15,000 to Conservatives in August 2011, has given money every year since 2008. Labour’s Lord Puttnam is a director. Liberal Democrat’s Lord Alliance has shares. Neither member voted. For more on Lord Chadlington and Lord Alliance – see hereand here.

Pathology:Lord Warner

An adviser to Pathology company, Synlab Ltd. He is a former adviser to Apax Partners, one of the leading global investors in the healthcare sector. Chose to vote against his party and with the coaltion (Labour).

Insurance: Lord Sharman

Chairman of Aviva, has directorship and Shareholdings in Aviva plc. Baroness McDonagh: Non Executive Director of Standard Life plc, which offers private health insurance. Did not vote.

Recruitment: Baroness Bottomley

Chair of Odgers Berndtson – recruitment company providing people for NHS Management positions. Shares in Broomco Ltd, a holding company of International Resources Group Ltd, which owns Odgers Berndston. Richard Boggis-Rolfe, the chairman of Odgers Berndtson, has given £207,500 in donations to the Conservative party between 28/09/2006 to 03/03/2010. Voted to reject the removal of Section 75 regulations.

Out of Hours: Lord Filkin (Labour)

Adviser to outsourcing giant Serco. Serco run out of hours services and were caught fiddling their data. Continue to be given contracts despite this. Did not vote.

Healthcare Coup: The Lords Didn't Save us the First Time

Lord Tim Clement-Jones

In early 2012 the Lords voted in favour of the Health and Social Care bill, the final step in turning it into an Act. As the Lords sat in the house to debate and vote on the bill, research conducted by Social Investigations revealed the Lords were riddled with private healthcare interests across all parties. Despite these recent or present financial links to private companies involved in healthcare, they were allowed to debate and vote. 

Now, for the second time of asking the Lords are about to pass or reject a key piece of legislation that will affect the NHS to such an extent its very existence is in the balance. Will they or will they not choose to vote for or against section 75 Regulations of the Health and Social Care Act. If it is the former, then if passed will sound the death knell to the NHS.

Section 75 or the NHS (Procurement, Patient Choice and Competition) (No. 2) Regulations 2013 to give it it’s full title, will potentially force the new Clinical Commissioning Groups to tender out all hospital and community carework for GP patients through competitive markets run according to EU competition law. It would open up all areas of NHS provision that interest the private sector to competition. The NHS as we know it will end, providers will be pitted against one another, with traditional local hospitals against multinational corporations. The legal teams of both sides will be among the winners and deciders of what happens to our services. But it is for global services firms such as DLA Piper, where Nick Clegg’s wife was formerly a partner in charge of competition law work, that the prizes are in store.

One global legal partnership heavily involved in European competition law is DLA Piper, who provide lobbying, public affairs and trade policy services as well as advice on how to get access to public service delivery contracts. One partner of the firm who is part of the Liberal Democrat party preparing to make their choice on the vote on the regulation is Lord Tim Clement-Jones.

The Liberal Democratic Health team is led by Baroness Judith Jolly and the third member is Baroness Shirley Williams, neither possesses the legal expertise needed to understand the implications of the regulations by reading them themselves. However, lawyer Lord Clement-Jones who makes up the other member, will be an influential figure in the decision the Liberal Democrats make on the regulations.

This is of deep concern if you are keen to maintain a cohesive and comprehensive NHS. The Liberal Democratic Peer is a patron of the health think tank 2020Health, who have four peers as patrons, all with financial interests in private healthcare. 2020health Chief Executive Julia Manning has openly called for an increase in private healthcare, and when challenged by Social Investigations on whether their membership contains health insurance companies, they refused to answer. However, former 2020Health Chairman, Tom Sackville – a former Conservative minister – is the current CEO of the International Federation of Health Plans, which represents one hundred private health insurance companies in 31 countries.

Lord Clement-Jones involvement, is the tip of a parliamentary private healthcare iceberg. The Members financial interests represent every stage of the healthcare value chain from private equity firms that fund private healthcare companies, to holding shares in those same companies. They are Chairman of companies who run NHS estate, who are involved in PFI deals, partners in legal firms that seal those deals, advisors to private hospitals, they represent companies in pharmaceutical media, medical equipment, care homes, lobbying, and health insurance. You name it, the corporations have it covered and the list of vested interests in both the House of Commons and the Lords is so great, is effectively a healthcare coup d’état of our parliamentary institutions.

We are in the hands of a group of 145 Lords and Baronesses who have recent or present financial interests private healthcare. Are there enough Peers with a conscience to prevent this regulation being passed? In an ideal world they wouldn’t have the vote at all, for their vote is akin to handing a key to a burglar who knows what lies within. In the meantime Baroness Jolly and Shirley Williams may well ask if Lord Clement-Jones is truly on the side of the NHS or whether he is part of the gang who will all be taking their slice from the NHS pie.

This article was cross-posted on OpenDemocracy

Tax Haven? No Contract

The message proffered by David Cameron when he spoke at the World Economic Forum in Davos was tax avoidance would become a priority of the UK’s presidency for this year. In reality, the government acts in the opposite manner, rewards those companies who channel money to tax havens with further contracts paid for by the taxpayer.

The calls for the government to bring about an end to tax havens has continued to grow ever louder as the general public observe the stripping of the welfare state, whilst billions of pounds exits the county into offshore accounts. Many of these companies are in receipt of taxpayer’s money, which are handed contracts by cash-strapped councils who continue to work with the organisations despite their dubious tax practices.



Take Telereal Trillium, responsible for a £3.2bn 20-year deal to manage and provide property services for the DWP offices. Through a complex network of accounts, the group of companies have channeled over half a billion pound through a complex series of accounts via a company based in the British Virgin Islands. Now aside from the fact that one of the directors linked to the Bermuda trust part-funded David Cameron’s leadership campaign in 2005 with two £10,000 payments, they are an approved bidder for MOD contracts worth up to £4.35 Billion.

Care UK, which operates across large areas of the NHS is accordingto non-profit research project Corporate Watch, reducing its tax liability by routing £8m a year in interest payments on loan notes issued in the Channel Islands. Care UK, who through their former chairman John (now Lord) Nash funded Andrew Lansley’s office when he was shadow health secretary to the tune of £21,000. Care UK, who through Harmoni are the largest provider of Out of Hours service have come in for consistent criticism, yet none of this halts their expansion fueled by the general public.

Circle Health who have Conservative MP Mark Simmonds as an adviser, is owned by companies and investment funds registered in the British Virgin Islands, Jersey and the Cayman Islands. The reward for this was for them to become the first company to run a NHS hospital.

Ramsay Health Care, Australia's biggest private hospital chain, bought Capio UK in 2007, acquiring hospitals and nine Independent Sector Treatment Centres for NHS patients. Ramsay according to Corporate Watch now has ‘22 hospitals across the UK and almost 60% of its work is from the NHS.’ Ramsay has the largest amount of healthcare provision contracts in the NHS, and used a subsidiary in the Cayman Islands to finance the purchase of a French health company for its Australian parent company. This is important for they ‘borrowed £57m from RHC Finance Ltd, a subsidiary of its Australian parent registered in the Caymans, to finance the acquisition of a 57% share of the Proclif Group, re-branded as Ramsay Sante, a leading French private healthcare company. This led to £1m leaving the UK for the Cayman Islands in interest payments.’ According to a Guardianreport Ramsay Health Care is the third biggest supplier to the NHS receiving £30 million in revenue in 2010/2011.

In written evidencegiven to the treasury in 2011 on Private Finance Initiative, Dexter Whitfield, the Director of European Services Strategy Unit revealed an increasing number of PFI projects registered in tax havens. Equity in 91 PFI projects is owned by secondary market infrastructure funds located in tax havens. These include HSBC Infrastructure in Guernsey, John Laing also in Guernsey and Venture Capital company 3i, who are in Jersey.

Research conductedfor Tax Justice Network by James Henry, a former chief economist at the consultancy McKinsey, estimated that at least £13 trillion is hidden in offshore accounts by the year 2010.  The government is of course aware of the behaviour of these companies; after all they created the system that allows it to take place. As the Tax Justice Network put it: ‘Tax havens and offshore financial centres have created an interface between the illicit and licit economies, corrupting national tax regimes and onshore regulation.’

The government’s response to tax havens has been pathetic and as far as the HMRC goes, they have weakened the organisation in terms of staffing. In addition, the Conservative special adviser and former corporate tax lawyer Edward Troup has been placed in charge of tax at HMRC. He is supported by Ian Barlow who was the former senior partner at KPMG who were fined$455 million a few years back for tax abuses. Furthermore the HMRC ethics committee is chaired by Phil Hodkinson, who is a director of the Resolution insurance company based in a tax haven.

The ultimate aim ought to be the end of tax havens, a unified tax that prevents competition and halts the harmful race to the bottom. In the meantime while this battle continues, there is one action the government can take to force companies to change their tax habits and perhaps for a campaign to be started?

Any company who has a tax haven in any part of their organisation will not be allowed to participate in any bid for a contract funded by the taxpayer. The government themselves won’t do this without pressure because they are funded by the City, who are the worst offenders of them all. However, now that they have decided to make this the main topic of the G8 presidency, then now is an ideal time to get them to justify why they pay taxpayers money in their droves to companies who avoid tax, whilst the welfare state burns.

Rights for Shares: No Mandate, Unwanted, Rejected

Michael Fallon

George Osborne has maintained his stance to weaken worker protections in exchange for shares. In doing so he exposes himself as utterly undemocratic, and highlights the need for the unions to regain some strength. 

The latest chapter of the undemocratic tale that threatens to shred hard-earned worker protections is about to reach a conclusion. The Lords have just voted for a second time to reject plans to swap protections for shares, a policy rejected by business as unworkable and unwanted.

The process began when David Cameron asked Adrian Beecroft, a venture capitalist; a funder to the Tory party and investor in pay-day lender Wonga, to write a report on ways to grow the economy. The report focused largely on how difficult it is to dismiss someone, and that the process 'makes it too easy for employees to claim they have been unfairly treated'.


This point is a nonsense as in comparison with many other European states, the UK has a low rate of employment litigation as stated in a reportcalled 'A review of employment dispute resolution in Great Britain'. Tribunal claims increased largely once the recession kicked in and this was not the fault of those left in poverty through losing their jobs.

Consultation
The idea to remove rights for shares appears to have spun off from the Beecroft report, which in turn led to a consultation – a now useful tool abused by politicians to pretend they are listening when in reality they have already made up their mind.

In this case, the consultation which included individuals from small and large companies rejected the policy almost wholesale. Accountants Grant Thornton who is heavily involved in public sector work respondedto the consultation with this:

‘Our view is the people most likely to benefit from these arrangements are very senior employees who do not rely on their statutory rights for their job security/protection.’

On the question of whether their organisation ‘would take up new status?’ the response was even more damning.

‘Our organisation has a commitment to social justice and gender equality…we would not use Employee Owner contracts of the kind described in the consultation as they involve a loss of fundamental employment rights…’

East Leeds Citizen’s Advice Bureau also made it clear that large swathes of the employment sector would not participate:

‘It seems highly unlikely that ethical employers will use a scheme which undermines fundamental employment rights.’

We would hope and expect ethical employers to not participate but so flawed and nasty is this policy, big business is also rejecting it. Justin King the boss of Sainsbury’s tolda grocery industry conference "The population at large don't trust business. What do you think the population at large will think of businesses that want to trade employment rights for money?...This is not something for our business."

Rejection…so what!
The changes were not mentioned in either coalition party manifesto, they have no democratic mandate and in addition the consultation results have been utterly ignored.  So what!

The official response to the consultation said "A very small number of responses welcomed the scheme and suggested they would be interested in taking it up," Michael Fallon the Conservative MP for Sevenoaks who led the explanationand amendments on the Growth and Infrastructure bill in the Commons said "This government consult and listen to the consultation…There will be guidance on the operation of the scheme. It is a new one and that is why, perhaps, it has not yet been universally acknowledged or as widely supported as it might have been. ".

The arrogance of a government that chooses to ignore everyone and then suggest they listen is unfortunately par for the course. They are deeply undemocratic and through their behaviour weaken democracy.

Lords kick it out
The government has now seen the Lords kick out the policy for the second time with the Liberal Democrat peers unified with Labour in rejectionof the bill unlike their Commons counterparts. The fact that it has got to this stage is of deep concern and it must be asked at what point will it take for the unions to come out on strike in protection of these fundamental protections? This attempt to remove rights in a dramatic fashion and yet protests have been limited to 15-minute protests.

The next stage will see further concessions put to the Lords, but the bill should not have arrived at this point in the first place. Our democracy is under attack, our rights threatened and unless the workers reclaim the power required to stand up against these most arrogant of people, then we can wave goodbye to the protections fought for with blood and tears.

Tax Havens: Outsource Company's Half Billion Transfer

A private outsourcing company who are in receipt of one of the highest government spends have channeled over half a billion pounds into an offshore tax haven.

The Pears family’s property empire began back in 1950 when the grandfather ran the humble business of three greengrocer stores in North London. Today however, they control Trillium Holdings which owns about a third of the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) estate, including job centres, the pension service and child maintenance offices.

Trillium and its subsidiary companies - are responsible for a £3.2bn 20-year deal to manage and provide property services for the DWP offices.

This is where it gets complicated. The parent company of Trillium Holdings is owned by London Wall Outsourcing, which in turn is owned by London Wall Outsourcing Holdings Limited. This company is incorporated in the British Virgin Islands. The ultimate controlling entity is the B Pears family trust in Bermuda.

Since 2008, London Wall Outsourcing accounts reveal that the vast sum of £666.7m  has been sent in dividends to its Virgin Island based parent.

The British Virgin Islands appeared in the news recently in dramatic fashion, after a massive leak of over 2 million emails and documents revealed a host of political leaders and wealthy individuals whose fortunes are stored in the tax haven.

The Pears family control a property empire valued at £6bn through a labyrinth of companies. Until her death in 1999, the matriarch Clarice Pears was one of the country’s richest women, with a fortune that surpassed that of the Queen. The Pears brother, Mark, Trevor and David, have an estimated wealth of £1.7bn, which ranks them at 38 on the Sunday Times Rich List.

One of the Pears brothers, Trevor, part-funded David Cameron’s leadership campaign in 2005 with two £10,000 payments. The Prime Minister has said tax havens and avoidance will be key part of the G8 summit in June this year, yet here we have his leadership being part-funded by a director of a company who are involved in tax havens.

In a rare interview given to the Telegraph, director Mark Pears said“We have got nothing to hide, but we are a private company”.

The business empire is run by the William Pears Group, which has been built over the last sixty years and encompasses residential property, offices and fund management. The latest accountsreveal the family company quadrupled their profit over the last year. One of the family’s property coups has been the purchase of a vast chunk of the DWP estate.

In 1998 under Blair, the then Department of Social Security transferred the management and ownership of its estate to Trillium, which had been set up by two entrepreneurs and was later bought by the property company Land Securities. The government obtained £250m for its estate and agreed a £2bn contract for serviced accommodation until 2018.

In December 2003, the Land Securities contract - known as the PRIME agreement extended to cover the Employment Service estate. The company bought the offices for £140m and agreed a £1.2bn deal to provide serviced offices. A NAO inquiryconcluded that the deal was good value for the taxpayer and justified.

Six years later, Land Securities sold Trillium to the William Pears Group for £750m, which includedthe DWP estate and the government contracts. The changeover of more than 300 government offices to a company who’s ultimate ownership lies in an offshore company was not undertaken.

The DWP is paying about £464m a year for services to Trillium, but the company has also seen a steep increase in the value of the offices it now owns. Trillium, who are advised by Conservative Peer Lord Griffths of Fforestfach, values its DWP estate at more than £1bn.

The group’s use of tax havens will be even more frustrating for the taxpayer given the fact that the company’s revenue is hugely bolstered by British public spending; a situation that looks set to significantly increase. In 2012, the government made an announcement that a new organisation to manage Defence property was to be formed, called the Defence Infrastructure Organisation. The new programme will see contracts of MOD facilities across England and Wales drawn up, worth up to £4.35bn and Telereal Trillium, who are a member of free market think tank Reform, have been short-listed as part of one of three consortia approved for making bids for the MOD estate contracts.



See Telereal Trillium Holdings Accounts (scroll to bottom to see link to London Wall)
See London Wall Outsourcing Accounts (scroll to bottom to see link to BVI and Bermuda)

Abolish ACOBA

The Chair of the committee that advises on business appointments to departing senior civil servants is a director of a company that has won a contract related to the Health and Social Care Act in which he voted in favour.

Lord Lang of Monkton is the chair of the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (ACOBA). Set up in 1975, the remit of the committee is given by the Chairman Lord Lang on the website

‘It is long-standing government policy that it is in the public interest that those with experience in government should be able to move into business or other areas of public life and it is equally important that in the taking up of an appointment, there is no cause for suspicion of impropriety.’

Lord Lang of Monkton is also the director of Marsh & McLennan, a risk and strategy management company that amongst other services helps ‘hospitals, insurers, pharmaceutical companies and industry associations understand the implications of changing policy environments". 

Despite this interest, Lord Lang along with 142 other peers with recent or present financial links to companies involved in private healthcare, was able to vote on the Health and Social Care bill helping it become an Act. The Conservative peer did indeed vote in all key divisions loyal to his party.

In February 2011 Marsh was appointed by the Department of Health to conduct an ‘industry review’ of the NHS Litigation Authority. The objective of the review was to ‘identify opportunities to introduce greater commercial management and practice to services.

Early days

ACOBA was initially created to provide advice on applications from the most senior Crown servants who wish to take up outside appointments after they leave Crown service. The work of the committee then expanded from 1995 to provide advice to Ministers on their employment for two years after leaving office.

The organisation’s inability to prevent the conflicts of interests that riddle both parliamentary houses led the transparency campaigners Spinwatch to call for ACOBA’s abolition.

McKinsey

In written evidence submitted to the Public Administration Committee on a report on business appointment rules, they pointed out the danger private interests being in a position to gain ‘a competitive advantage by virtue of the inside knowledge, contacts and networks developed while in (temporary) public service.’

Further evidence focused on McKinsey, the management consultancy company that encouraged the £20 billion cuts the NHS is now forced to apply and who made several suggestions to end the free at the point of need in Northern Ireland.

Spinwatch pointed out how Tom Kibasi who ‘started at McKinsey in 2004, left two years later to become Senior Policy Advisor to chief executive of the NHS David Nicholson, and moved back to McKinsey in 2008, where he’s been busy helping the DH reform the system.’ Further revolving door behaviour came in the form of David Cox, who ‘worked in the NHS, jumped ship to McKinsey, then moved to the Conservative Party’s “Implementation team” for nine months, before settling at NHS London as “Strategy Manager” responsible for “cutting-edge system-wide design and planning of London’s healthcare system strategy.”’

Ex-NHS hospital head Mark Goldman is now an adviser for the ‘McKinsey Hospital Institute, (which contracts its services to NHS hospitals); ex-McKinsey consultant Nick Moberly who is now CEO of Royal Surrey County Hospital; Dr Doug Russell, ex-medical director of Tower Hamlets and now senior advisor to McKinsey.’

Such links are but the tip of the iceberg, which Spinwatch rightfully concluded continue despite the existence of ACOBA, which led them to conclude ‘We believe that ACOBA is an ineffective body that should be abolished and replaced with a statutory regulator.’

All civil servants who go through the site are told either it is okay to take up this job without conditions or if conditions apply then a standard reply is given such as - so long as it is on the understanding that the person ‘would not draw on any privileged information from his time in Government.’

When Jim Easton left his position as ‘Director of Improvement and Efficiency’, at the Department of Health to become Managing director of Care UK, ACOBA stated that there must be ‘a waiting period of three months from his last day of service; that for 12 months, he should not become involved in advising on bids or contracts for Department of Health business; and that, for two years from the same date, he should not become personally involved in lobbying UK Government on behalf of his new employer.‘

Do you trust that this won’t happen in some form? Do we honestly believe that when a person moves to a corporation they do not pass on information to their corporate employer on government thinking!

The line between public servants and corporate employees is practically non-existent which Spinwatch suggests would be much better served with a statutory regulator because ACOBA lacks ‘teeth’. ACOBA has no enforcement powers, so even if a person was to step out of line, nothing would be done, which is why Paul Flynn, Labour’s tireless campaigner on lobbying described it as a ‘Committee of Futility.’

In the meantime, they can start improving things by removing a chairman who voted on a health bill despite a financial link to a company who earned a contract from the NHS on the changes before it became an Act. A Lord who offeredhis services to a fake lobbying company in a 2010 Channel 4 sting. 

The committee is utterly flawed, the work they do has made no difference to combat the problems of the revolving door of civil servants working in the private sector only to return on the corporations behalf.
I add my voice to those of Spinwatch and Paul Flynn calling for its abolition. Also the resignation of Lord Lang from both ACOBA and the Lords.