‘Nothing short of corruption’: Lobbying Debate Highlights Healthcare Links in Parliament for First Time

The House of Commons have just hosted a second debate on lobbying, following the recent scandal to envelop parliament and once more soil the already tarnished reputation of UK politics.

In the debate, which was on the introduction of a statutory register of lobbyists, the Labour MP for Easington, Grahame Morris, chose to highlight the breadth of healthcare interests held by MPs and Lords; the first time this research has entered into parliamentary discussion.

In the debate, he asked the leader of the House of Commons, Andrew Lansley how he thought the public would react ‘when they find out that, one in fourConservative peers…have recent or current financial linkswith private health care? Will the Bill address that?’

Andrew Lansley, whose office was part-funded by an individual investor in healthcare when he was shadow health secretary replied with this: ‘I have no idea of the specifics of what the hon. Gentleman talks about or of what precisely he means by what he said, but what I would say is that transparency is important. If Members of this House have financial interests in companies, they should be very clear about them in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and they should be very clear that they do not act in Parliament in a way from which they could personally benefit through their relationship.’

Andrew Lansley like so many of his fellow MPs fail to recognise that to simply register your interests is not enough, it is the interests themselves that is the problem. What does Andrew Lansley think Mr Morris meant by informing him of these vested interests?

The specifics are easy to understand, parliament is riddled with corporate interest. The implications are that our so-called ‘public servants’ represent corporations, who help write policy and then lobby to ensure MPs and Lords vote on legislation that will open up revenue opportunities for them. This happened in the Health and Social care bill, and companies connected to MPs and Lords have since made moneythanks to their vote.

Reform

In addition to the extraordinary amount of vested healthcare links, Mr Morris brought to the House's attention, the influence that think tanks have on policy and their lobbying. Mr Morris chose to focus on Reform, a free market think tank seen by the Conservative Home blogas being a part of the Conservative movement.

He rightly pointed out Reform’s links to big corporations and that so many of these businesses also employ MPs and Lords. His reasonable assessment of Reform caused the Conservative MP for Folkestone and Hythe, Damian Collins, to offer a word of caution. Mr Collins who has worked in both marketing (M&C Saatchi) and political communications (Lexington) before becoming a MP said the House needs to ‘take care, in defining who lobbyists are’, he suggested and that ‘Reform’ are ‘an independent think-tank with a cross-party board‘. This according to Mr Collins is ‘very different’ from someone who is a paid-for corporate lobbyist working for a professional lobbying company or an individual company.’

The warning was enough to make a slightly uncertain Mr Morris retract slightly ‘Perhaps I could have selected a better example. If I was wrong, I acknowledge that.’

In fact Mr Morris had chosen the perfect example.

Corporate policy writing

Damian Collins assertion that Reform’s setup is somehow different to a ‘paid-for corporate lobbyist working for a professional lobbying company or an individual company’ is wrong. Until recently, Nick Seddon was the deputy director of Reform, having moved from his previous position as Head of Communications at private health company Circle Health.

When at Reform, he lobbiedSir Stephen Bubb, who was the head of the Choice and Competition part of the NHS Future Forum, set up during the health bill pause. His role was clearly to push for competition to remain in the bill but that was not all he did.

Seddon wrote articles regularly including in the Telegraph. As a former head of communication you might expect this, but his articles were part of a network, which included Reform, the Telegraph and a healthcare lobby group who joinedforces to ensure the Telegraph’s editorial hosted pro-market opinion pieces direct from the lobbyists, which included Seddon.

Presumably Nick Seddon’s work for Reform was remunerated, which firmly places him in the ‘paid-for corporate lobbyist’ camp.

Now Reform to the discredit of the Charity Commission are a charity, so Damian Collins is right on a technicality that they are not a company, but they are certainly professional and they certainly lobby.

Over half of their corporate sponsors are private healthcare companies, they write reports that are used as vehicles to lobby assisted by their corporate partners. These reports that are often big on recommendations and small on research promote one thing consistently. Privatise. The government often base policies on Reform and proudly launchthe policy at Reform events.

The answer to all this was for Cameron to hire Seddon into the health policy unit up until the next election. This move is evidence enough that Cameron has little intention to draw in lobbying.

Collins claim that Reform are independent is also false. The use of the word ‘independent’ is frequently used by think tanks in order to appear politically balanced in order to gain charity status. But research into the power base of Reform, shows they are entirely linkedto the right and almost entirely to the Conservative party.

The think tank writes policy with the input of the corporations under the tagline that ‘their expertise is often left out of the Whitehall policy discussion.’ This clear falsity has been discreditedseveral times through research into a few of the individual companies that make up Reform’s corporate partners. These companies in fact represent some of the biggest businesses in the U.K. and are not left out of Whitehall discussion; in fact many of them also employ Lords and MPs.

Rules

One of the problems not discussed in the debate was the fact that Members of both the Commons and the Lords can vote regardless of whether their financial interest conflicts with the legislation they are about to vote. They can also amend legislation despite these interests and they can become patronsof organisations, without having to register their interests. These loopholes do not exist at local level whereby councillors with such interests are banned from voting and debating at the discretion of the chamber.

So praise indeed to Grahame Morris who has raised the issue of healthcare vested interests into parliament for the first time. As Grahame Morris rightly pointed out, “The links with private health care companies are wide and extensive in this House“ and not justwith the Conservatives. So extensive are the interests they amount to over 200 parliamentarians with these links, which represents every part of the healthcare chain.

This is ‘democracy’ in Britain today, and a situation that according to Grahame Morris is ‘nothing short of corruption.’

Petition

There is a petition to highlight this point and to stop MPs from voting when they have a financial interest that conflict with the legislation. I urge you to sign it.

Communications reveal 2020 Health working with Lord Howe to make the NHS a"UK Plc Asset"

Documents released by the Department of Health under the Freedom of Information Act reveal a healthcare think tank with multiple links to coalition peers wants to turn the NHS into an “asset” of “UK Plc” - and which suggests the government needs to “charm” private healthcare “international corporations”

2020health calls itself an ”independent, grass roots think tank” whose purpose is to “create the conditions for a healthy society through research, evaluation, campaigning and relationships.”

Correspondence between the health minister Earl Howe, former patron of 2020 Health, and the think tank’s founder Julia Manning reveals some of the nature of these ‘relationships’.

At Julia Manning’s invitation, Earl Howe was a guest speaker at a ‘high-level discussion breakfast roundtable’ with key clinical and industry leaders back in February 2011, during the ‘listening pause’ in the passage of the Health & Social Care Act through parliament. After the meeting, Ms Manning wrote to thank Earl Howe. In the letter, which has been obtained by Social Investigations, she noted that Earl Howe had told the meeting that the message of the UK health being open for business was “not getting through.”

Manning had asked what should be done to attract “global companies to the UK.” She pushed for a “radical message” to make the NHS part of the “UK PLC”, an “asset” and “driver of economic growth.”


Manning warned that historically, the NHS had been good at “repelling business” and that investment in healthcare was “much easier in the USA.”

She laid the blame for the lack of movement at the door of the last Labour government, who she said had gained a reputation for “bureaucratic obstructions to market access.”

Such correspondence adds to the concern that the Health and Social Care Act was less about improving services and more about opening up the public-funded health service to big business. In other words, the ‘UK PLC’ Ms Manning envisages and has so earnestly promoted to Earl Howe. Throughout the progress of the Health and Social Care bill, Manning acted as a champion for private healthcare involvement in the NHS and wrote several articles that promoted the ‘benefits’ they bring into the NHS

In order to open up the NHS to a market, Julia Manning also advised Lord Howe that ”international corporations” should be met with a “charm and diplomatic offensive by high level officials.”

Many may baulk at the idea that our elected government should beg for corporate attention within the NHS. But prior to the Health bill being passed into law, Earl Howe told a forumhosted by healthcare market researchers Laing and Busisson that ‘‘The opening up of the NHS creates genuine opportunities for those of you who can offer high quality, convenient services that compete favourably with current NHS care… There will be big opportunities for the private sector”.

In later correspondence, Julia Manning went on a charm offensive of her own. In March this year she asked Earl Howe to become a member of 2020health and to ‘join us and share in this adventure’. Whether Earl Howe accepted her offer is currently unknown. (Update, 2020health have recently released their supporters and funders). Click here.

2020 Health already has strong links to both the Conservative Party and the health insurance industry. Ms Manning herself was a formerConservative parliamentary candidate and has a background in health insurance. 2020health’s former chairman was Tom Sackville; a former Conservative minister under the Thatcher government is the Chief Executive of the International Federation of Health Plans, which represents one hundred private health insurance companies in 31 countries.

Aside from Earl Howe’s former patronage, four other peers are listedas current patrons - Lord Clement-Jones, Baroness Cumberlege, Lord McColl and Lord Rennard have connectionsto companies or organisations involved in private healthcare. The popularity in patronage might be because the House of Lords rules allow for patronage to take place without this having to be registered in their personal interests. But this patronage is used by 2020health to attract corporate members, who can become ‘Silver’ or ‘Gold Partners’ and receivean “opportunity to network with 2020health staff, patrons and associates”.

The identity of companies that have taken up this offer is as yet unknown, but what is known is that - despite their claims of independence - many of their reports are funded by big business. The policies these reports promote to “create a healthy society” may raise a few eyebrows.

In January 2010 - when Earl Howe was still both a patron of 2020 Health and opposition health spokesperson - 2020 produced a report sponsored by Bayer healthcare entitled‘Responsibility in healthcare: changing the culture’. The report advocated the end of free treatment for minor or for ‘repeat offenders’ under a section on ‘lifestyle’ illnesses. It suggested that electronic records could facilitate a penalty system for those who repeatedly turn up to A&E drunk or ‘high’. In addition, the report bemoaned that “the culture of people being deterred from seeking help because they are worried about ‘being a burden’ is fast fading”.

2020 Health is also a leading advocatefor ‘telehealth’ - the replacement of face to face contact with telephone and electronic monitoring devices. Its report, Healthcare without Walls was published just after the government had published its White Paper “Liberating the NHS” states that ‘the White Paper creates the environment in which the demand for telehealth-enabled services can be fostered”. The report was sponsored by private healthcare corporations including Tunstall (a leading provider in telehealth), Accenture, Vodafone, Pfizer and others. Despite 2020 Health’s stated emphasis on “research” and “evaluation” there have been a number of reports highlighting safety and cost problems with the telehealth model. The same report also pushes the use of personal health budgets…’ a move seen by manyas a step towards privatisation and an insurance model.

Manning’s letter to Howe reveals how she and her “consultative authors” lobbied Oliver Letwin hard on the point that David Cameron should be known as the “Technology PM”. This attempt to label Cameron “didn’t succeed” but Ms Manning is unperturbed. She ended her letter to the Earl by stating “we have to start firing up radical flares to attract investment and ensure resistance to change in the NHS is not tolerated.”

Such support for both big business, which funds their reports and Manning’s suggestions for David Cameron’s image suggests 2020health are anything but independent. Furthermore, the message turning the NHS into an economic arm of ”UK PLC” brings an end to the illusion that the Health and Social Care Act is about improving patient care.

This was co-published on Our NHS here.  

The 2020health membership just published and highlighted to me on 25th September 2013

Earl Howe - A Former Patron of Pro-Market Health Think Tank

The Parliamentary Under secretary for Health Earl Howe, who led the Health and Social Care bill proceedings in the House of Lords, was listed as a patron for pro-market think tank 2020health, just before the elections.

Knowledge of the Earl’s patronage has only just appeared after the discovery of a policy paperwritten by 2020health for the Spanish right-wing publication ‘Sanifax.’ The ‘Dosier Especial’ titled ‘a healthier nation’, was a Green policy paper produced in January 2010 and introduced in Spanish as having been created with the ‘support of David Cameron’ on the ‘necessary reforms.’

At the time of the report, the Chairman of the think tank was Tom Sackville, a former Conservative minister and Parliamentary Under –Secretary for Health who is the Chief Executive of the International Federation of Health Plans, which represents one hundred private health insurance companies in 31 countries.

2020health is now led by founder Julia Manning a former director of the UK Institute of Optometry and Conservative candidatein the 2005 election, has been vociferous in her supportof an increase in private health into the NHS.

2020health reports

The self-called ‘independent’ think tank has produced multiple reports funded by health corporations, which includeone titled ‘Responsibility in healthcare: changing the culture’. The report sponsored by Bayer healthcare was produced in January 2010, when Earl Howe was still a patron and advocated the end of free treatment for minor or for ‘repeat offenders’ under a small section on ‘lifestyle’ illnesses. Electronic records, the report suggested can facilitate a penalty system for those who repeatedly turn up to A&E drunk or ‘high’. In addition, the report recommendations bemoaned ‘the culture of people being deterred from seeking help because they are worried about ‘being a burden’ is fast fading’.  At the time, Earl Howe was the opposition spokesperson for Health and Social Services and still a patron.

Promoting Telehealth

A further reportwritten in the same period was published just after the government had produced its White paper Equity and Excellence: Liberating the NHS. The focus of this report was on the area of telehealth and was titled ‘Healthcare Without Walls’. This report was also sponsored by private healthcare which included Tunstall, a leading provider in telehealth, Accenture, Vodafone, Pfizer and others. The opening summary states how ‘the White Paper creates the environment in which the demand for telehealth-enabled services can be fostered…through personal health budgets…’

2020health is a leading advocate of telehealth technology, and have claimedthe technology can make huge savings. However, all is not clear about the benefits of ‘telehealth’. A trial in the UK run by the British Medical Journal revealed costs of running telehealth were higher than without and the technology failed to improve ‘quality of life’. Furthermore an analysisin the US suggested the telemedicine, which is part of a telehealth programme, ‘tripled’ the death rate in elderly patients.

2020health’s support for private healthcare involvement and sponsorship from big business for their reports may well indicate who makes up their membership. However, despite several requests by Social Investigations, 2020health have so far refused to publish their membership list and denied it contains health insurance companies.

Lords interests
The dedicated promotion of telehealth by 2020health no doubt pleases Conservative peer Lord Patten, who is a senior advisor for Charterhouse Development Capital Ltd - who purchased leading telehealth provider and sponsor of the 2020health report, Tunstall. Further parliamentary interest in the new technology comes in the form of Conservative peer Lord Flight, who is the Chairman of Arden Partners plc, an investorin Deltex Medical Group who produce a telehealth productadopted by the NHS.

Other patronage

Patronage of 2020health is popular amongst peers. Liberal Democrat Peer, Lord Clement-Jones is a 2020health patron and a partner for 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. Another Peer and patron is Baroness Cumberlege, who runs her own training and consultancy company called Cumberlege Connection. The Conservative Peer moved herself into an alliance led by PwC, developing the new Clinical Commissioning Groups, prior to the Health and Social care bill becoming an Act. When a complaint was placed with the Commissioner for Standards she responded by saying 'Disappointingly since joining the alliance Cumberlege Connections has not earned any income through the alliance.'

Pushing the market

Earl Howe, a former banker has recently been threatened with expulsionfrom his advisory position at the Royal College of Physicians for having ‘mis-sold’ the health reforms. Earl Howe’s support for more private healthcare involvement is clear. When speaking at a forumhosted by healthcare market researchers Laing and Busisson prior to the Health bill being passed into Act, he told the audience ‘‘The opening up of the NHS creates genuine opportunities for those of you who can offer high quality, convenient services that compete favourably with current NHS care… There will be big opportunities for the private sector’.

His recent connection to 2020health is not severed and he remains a frequent guest speaker at events hosted by the think tank such as this one on further cuts to the NHS, an invitationonly event.

In his opening speech on the opening day of the Health bill in the Lords, Earl Howe said “We will support an active role for the independent sector working alongside the NHS in the provision of care” This ‘active role’ included his attendance at a top-level meetingwith a healthcare lobby group one year before his opening speech in the House of Lords.

In October 2010, Earl Howe, alongside Simon Burns (the then Minister for Health), and Andrew Lansley’s Special Advisor, Bill Morgan, attended two meetings with a private healthcare lobby group, the NHS Partners Network (NHSPN). These meetings one of which included a Care UK representative came to light following the discovery of a documentwritten by the NHSPN, which revealed the discussions took place three months before the Health and Social Care bill was introduced to parliament.

The purpose of the discussion, according to the document, was to give members an opportunity to ‘express their support for the policy of ‘Any Willing Provider’, which became ‘Any Qualified Provider’, and to give those present a chance to express any ‘concerns about whether a level playing field would truly be created’. Furthermore, the lobby group was informed that the government felt as if opposition to the ‘independent’ sector from GP commissioners would likely be ‘short-term’ and ‘dissipate’ in the future.

What was said is unclear, although meeting notes were taken and although visible from the NHS Partners Network’s website they were security protected for their corporate health membersonly. This restriction meant the members had privy to a key meeting in which information was discussed before both parliament and the general public.

Rules – not fit for purpose

The rules that the Lords have to abide by are plentiful, but under their Code of Conduct, it states that patrons ‘should not be registered’. Although it continues ‘There may however be occasions on which such interests should be declared.’ The Code of Conduct also states that Members must “declare when speaking in the House, or communicating with ministers or public servants, any interest which is a relevant interest in the context of the debate or the matter under discussion.”

However, if his patronage was not a conflict of interest worth mentioning, then why give it up upon the general election? The rules may be lax on this matter but surely his patronage of an organisation headed at the time by an individual in charge of a private health insurance body, which openly supports increased private healthcare involvement in the NHS warrants registration in his interests. Earl Howe was instrumental in aiding the pro-market Health and Social Care bill into Act. Lord Warner, the Labour former health minister, said“his silky skills got the bill through”.

What difference would it have made if his fellow peers had known about his patronage is unclear but they deserved to know; as too did the public. Thanks to flaws in the rules, his omission it would seem was one of choice, as was his decision to go to a meeting with private healthcare to reassure them before parliament saw the bill. All this raises further questions about what Earl Howe’s true intentions were behind his support for the Health and Social Care bill and may well bring his expulsion from the Royal College of Physicians back for discussion.  

Lobbygate: Milking the system

In 2009, the Rt Reverend and Crossbench Peer Lord Eames, was appointed as the head of a cross party review group to draw up new rules that would ban Lords from taking money from lobby firms to ask questions in parliament.

The rule change took place following allegations that four Labour Lords had offered to try and amend laws for up to £120,000. At the time, not only were there no rules to prevent such behaviour, but there was also no Commissioner for Standards to investigate wrongdoing.

Lord Eames concluded in a report that the rules needed to change, a commissioner for standards needed to be instated because “We need to restore public confidence in the House of Lords, and in the conduct of its members…There is no place in the House of Lords for 'peers for hire'." At least these two proposals were implemented, but the House of Lords has remained an open house to lobbyists.

Part of the problem for this stems from a lack of punishment for those who abuse their position. When a ‘noble’ peer is caught red-handed breaking the rules, they are left to remain in the corridors of power able to vote and debate on legislation as they were able to before. One of those accused in the 2009 sting by the Sunday Times was Lord Snape.

The paper stated that the Labour peer had agreed to obtain an exemption in a Business Rates Supplement Bill in exchange for £24,000. The subsequent investigation found he had "expressed a clear willingness to breach the Code of Conduct". No action was taken.

Lord Taylor of Blackburn was recorded saying "Some companies that I work with would pay me £100,000 a year." His punishment was to be suspended for six months but he too remains in his position as a Lord.

When Cameron was vying for votes prior to the election, he gave a speech, in which he highlighted the issues of lobbying, stating it would be the next big scandal. “We can’t go on like this”, he informed us, “I believe it’s time we shone the light of transparency on lobbying in our country and forced our politics to come clean about who is buying power and influence.”

Access to Cameron

But what has he done. Well the answer to that is nothing of substance. When Peter Cruddas the former Tory party co-treasurer was caught on camera announcing access to the Prime Minister for a donation of a quarter of a million, David Cameron said "It's quite right that Peter Cruddas has resigned. I will make sure there is a proper party inquiry to make sure this can't happen again." What can’t happen again? If Peter Cruddas was to be believed, and he probably shouldn’t, then he was lying about access to the Prime Minister. If this was the case, then all that needed to happen was to get rid of him. He was of course allowed to resign rather than be sacked, which is another matter that angers people. The Conservative party will miss his money, as he has given over a million pounds to the party since 2009 and £200,000 of that just a week before his resignation.

So what else has Cameron done to defeat the sleaze that oozes through the walls of Westminster?

ACOBA toothless

In 2011, the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (ACOBA) became responsible for providing restrictions to ministers or senior civil servants who wish to work in the privatesector. This Conservative promise means that 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.’

ACOBA, which is overseen by Lords, has been accused of having no teeth. Paul Flynn, the Labour MP who has worked tirelessly on the issue of lobbying, has described the body as being run by people who “think it's normal for an MP being paid £65,000 for a full-time job to take on five other jobs."

And the rest?
However, aside from minor restrictions imposed by an otherwise compliant ACOBA, we are still waiting for real measures to come in. The register of lobbyists is on its way as part of a lobbying bill to be brought in by the end of July, a register once opposed by Labour back in 2006. On the face of it, Clegg, who was leading the charge chose to stand away from the process because his wife is a lobbyist, which was slowed the process. Now, as the scandal breaks on corruption in parliament, a bill has miraculously appeared. However, rather than bring into line corporations, this government appear to have focused on unions who will be required to produce an annual audit of their membership, which can then evaluate accuracy for strike action ballots. Quite what state the bill will be in once it reaches its conclusions, is unclear, and no doubt we will see the irony of lobbying taking place to weaken the lobbying bill's content.

Parliament is full of lobbyists. Research conducted by transparency campaigners Spin Watch, revealed 15% of Tory MPs electedduring the last election were from a lobbying background. Not only that, but Cameron has chosen to hire a lobbyist directly into the heart of his health policy unit up until the election. Nick Seddon was the former deputy director of the free market think tank, Reform. He worked tirelessly to help ensure competition remained in the Health and Social Care Act on behalf of Reform’s corporate supporters of which over half are companies involved in healthcare.

These processes are all part of the revolving door that see people come and go through parliament and leave into big business, offering the company an insight into government thinking.  In the other direction, they are lobbyists and having  lobbied government, they are then invited in to produce policy for corporations they used to represent and then off they go again.

Healthcare coup
Social Investigations discovered over200 parliamentarians with recent past or present links to companies or individuals involved in healthcare. All of them able to vote, make amendments and in one case move their company into a position to make money from the legislation on which they voted. The same companies that employ Lords and MPs, are the same ones who sit as corporate partners in think tanks who are invited to help them produce reports, which end up as policy which often opens up opportunities for increased revenues.

Take Conservative Peer Lord Blackwell, he voted on the Health and Social Care Bill, then the company of which he is a chairman, enteredinto a new area for them, with an increased market made possible by his vote. No wonder these people are a target for lobbyists and highly employable.

Sting operation

Many Lords may not be trustworthy, but they are certainly trusting and have once more fallen for a sting operation. Cabinet Minister, Francis Maude has stated he would be ‘astonished’ if the lobby register didn’t make an appearance, but why are the media looking for his word on any matter? In 2009, he was found to have claimed£35,000 in two-years for mortgage interest payments on a London flat, when he owned a house just down the road.

Power corrupts, it is not easy to be in power and behave properly, so the rules need to be a lot tighter than they are and the punishment a genuine deterrent. To be in a position whereby you can change law to better the public good, is a position of privilege, one that is abused with regularity which is a disgrace that must be met head on.

People will have their own views on what that should happen. We could make it so that Lords get elected, which was something so vociferously opposed by the Lords and then crushed by the Conservatives or we could abolish them all together as considered hereby Tony Benn?

If Cameron truly wanted to do something to prevent the benefits of lobbying, then he could make it against the rules for MPs and Lords to be able to vote, ask a question or make an amendment if they have a non-financial or financial link to any organisation. This would take the sting out of the reason why so many parliamentarians are offered employment in key positions in so many companies. Any Lord or MP caught breaking the more serious of rules ought to be sacked, not allowed to resign or simply suspended only to return and if they break the law well that’s clearly a matter for the police.

For the moment we are in a situation whereby those who have been a part of the various scandals that have taken place over the last 4 years, remain in charge of introducing new rules to prevent future scandals. This is intolerable. It is important to note that local councillors have many more restrictions on their ability to vote and debate when they have a prejudicial interest. It would be good if they were to denounce the flaws in the system.

Could it be that the MPs and Lords have allowed themselves more freedom so that lobbying can carry on as normal? The lobbying bill will be of interest, though I am quite sure key measures will be omitted. They have been forced to announce it but they are also very clever at taking the sting out of rising anger. This bill, will likely do nothing to prevent the institutional corruption that exists, the revolving door, the directorships and appointments that provide a seat in power for the corporations writing policy for themselves. This battle for democracy continues.