Attacks on the NHS article roundup

This is the second time I have compiled a list of some of the articles I have put on here. The last time was June so I thought it was time for the next one.

For the June list please see here.

These last two months have seen a slight change in direction from specific MPs to the process of manipulation during the Health bill ‘pause’. In addition the research into the parliamentarian links was wrapped up revealing 60 MPs with financial links to companies involved in private healthcare, bringing the total of all parliamentarians with these links to 200.

I hope you find the list interesting and useful.

1. Unedited document from NHS private healthcare lobby Group Reveals Actions Taken to Ensure Competition Remained in Health bill - This important document, which was handed to Social Investigations, reveals the lobbying process that took place by the private healthcare lobby group, NHS Partner Network in its attempts to ensure competition remained a big part of the Health and Social Bill during the listening exercise. Newspapers, think tanks and secret meetings are all revealed here.

2. Key Member of NHS Future Forum Colluded with Lobby Group over Competition - The Head of a voluntary association who was a key member of the NHS Future Forum during the government’s ‘pause’, colluded with a private healthcare lobby group to agree a message, promoting the benefits of competition in the Health and Social Care bill. Here.

3. Health Minister and Lansley’s Special Advisor held Secret Meetings with Private Health Care Lobby Group to ‘reassure’ Before Parliament Aware of Bill - A separate document has revealed a top-level political trio, held a secret meeting with a private healthcare lobby group to reassure them about the likely calming of opposition to the healthcare reform, two months before the bill was even introduced to parliament. Here.

4. The Telegraph, the Think Tank and a Very Dodgy Business  - The document from the NHS Partners Network, revealed an extraordinary revelation that the Telegraph allowed its editorial to be ‘orchestrated’ by a healthcare lobby group, according to the words of the its director in a document meant for its members eyes only. Here.

 

5. Over 60 MPs Connected to Companies Involved in Private Healthcare - In total 65 MPs have financial links to companies involved in private healthcare. Of them, 52 are Conservative MPs, 9 are Labour MPs, and 3 are Liberal Democrats, leaving 1 other from another party. This means, 79% of MPs with these links are Conservative. Here.

 

6. NHS Partners Network – who are they? – This private healthcare lobby group have been playing a key role in the Health and Social Care bill, having met with Lansley in 2007 to ‘discuss’ the draft health bill. Find out who they are and their members links to our Lords and MPs. Here.

 

7. The Telegraph: Pushing Circle’s Agenda - If we are to believe the content of the Daily Telegraph’s recent editorial, titled ‘Hope for the NHS’*, then we can all breathe a sigh of relief, pack up your placards, the NHS it would appear, is saved. At least that’s the message being propagated in an extraordinary campaign being run by a so-called ‘quality paper’ on behalf of Circle Health. Here.

 

8. Reform - Setting the Agenda with Unknown Others – Reform is a right-wing think tank that claims to be ‘independent’. Like many think tanks they have charity status, although when you look at their work, it is hard to see where the charitable part exists. They are setting the agenda for our public services in meetings that only they know who was in attendance. They do this by holding them under the Chatham House Rules. See who their corporate partners, the beneficiaries of the changes to the NHS they help promote. Here.

 

9. Corporate Britain: Parliamentary Rules Not Fit For Purpose - The rules that MPs and Lords are legally obliged to abide by, have failed to prevent the corporate takeover of our politics, leaving our democracy in a parlous state. Here.

 

10. A dereliction of duty: The BBC's failure to challenge Lansley's healthcare connections - The BBC admit to not challenging Andrew Lansley on his links to companies involved in private healthcare throughout the process of the Health and Social Care bill. Here.

Reform - Setting the Agenda with Unknown Others

-->

Reform is a right-wing think tank that claims to be ‘independent’. Like many think tanks they have charity status, although when you look at their work, it is hard to see where the charitable part exists. They are setting the agenda for our public services in meetings that only they know who was in attendance.

Reform has and continues to be influential in the attacks on the NHS. A document written by the health lobby group the NHS Partners Network revealed Reform’s involvement in setting up meetings with key players of the NHS Future Forum and Monitor during the ‘health bill ‘pause’.

Reform were part of an ‘orchestrating of the Telegraph’s editorial during the Health bill ‘pause’, working together with the director of the NHS Partners Network, David Worskett.

Collaboration between the two makes sense when you look at their ties to the private healthcare industry. The NHS Partners Network has several members who have MPS and Lords on their payroll. These include Circle, who pay Mark Simmonds £50,000 a year for 10 hours a month as a strategic advisor. Another company are Care UK, whose owner, John Nash, donated money to run Lansley’s office when he was shadow health secretary.  Furthermore Care UK were purchased by Bridgepoint who have BBC Chief, Lord Patten of Barnes as an advisor.

Corporate partners

Reform, who remember are a ‘charity’, have multiple healthcare companies as their corporate partners. Current members are:  ABI, Aviva, Balfour Beatty, Benenden Healthcare Society, Bevan Brittan, BG Group, BVCA, Cable & Wireless, Capita, CH2M Hill, Clifford Chance, Citigroup, The City of London, Ernst & Young, GlaxoSmithKline, G4S, GE, General Healthcare Group, HP, ICAEW, KPMG, Maximus, McKesson, MSD, Optical Confederation, PA Consulting Group, Serco, Sodexo and Telereal Trillium.

General Healthcare Group own BMI Healthcare who are the UK’s largest hospital group. When Circle produced a press release showing how they have managed to ‘turnaround’ Hitchingbrooke hospital, Reform were very quicklyonto the case promoting the need for more hospital outsourcing. This is also because their Head of Communications, Nick Seddon used to do PR for Circle. He has since been replaced by Andrew Lansely’s former aide Christina Lineen.

One can’t help wonder what is charitable about this.

Further connections are available to Reform through Lord Carter who acts as Chair for McKesson Information Solutions Ltd, which delivers IT to “virtually every NHS organisation”. Lord Carter is The head of the increasingly influential Competition and Cooperation Panel. McKesson released a statement on this potential conflict of interest to the Guardian, stating: "Lord Carter steps down from any investigation where there is potential conflict of interest.”

Reform are also invited to meetings where minutes are not taken with Parliamentarians present. In April this year, as the government were in their so-called ‘listening period’, Reform hosted an event with Lord Warner as chair.

Lord Warner is a former adviser to Apax Partners, one of the leading global investors in the healthcare sector. Current director of Sage Advice Ltd. He works as an adviser to Xansa, a technology firm, and Byotrol, an antimicrobial company, which both sell services or products to the NHS” and was “paid by DLA Piper, which advised ministers on the £12 billion IT project for the NHS” projects that he was responsible for when he was a government minister.

The meeting was held under Chatham House Rules, which are a near century old rule that are used to supposedly allow participants to speak freely with fear of their words being highlighted in the media. What it means is that the public have no idea what was said as no minutes are taken and none of the participants can announce to the public who was there. Therefore information that comes out from these meetings is controlled.

Even so, despite this, thanks to a post-meeting feedback by Comunications head Nick Seddon, we know that competition was on the agenda, and that there will be a need for ‘constant political pressure if either competition or integration is to be achieved.’ Not only that, but true to their partners needs, hospitals were discussed and it was considered that: ‘Dealing with failing hospitals will either be through outsourcing, radical reconfiguration, or closure.’

Reform like using Chatham House Rules, which says much about their attitude towards transparency. In February 2012, they held another meetingwithout minutes, which spoke of the need to reform ‘fast and at scale.’ Thanks to the introduction, we know that Julian Le Grand was in attendance. In the same month, In a letter to the Guardian, in February this year, Mr Le Grand, stated: ‘With respect to the NHS bill, it is important that even those who generally prefer to rely upon their instuitions should avoid muddying the waters by accusing the bill of doing things that it does not, like privatising the NHS.’

Thanks to their feedback, we know that they spoke about whether there ‘should any areas of public service delivery be off-limits?’ The answer to this being, ‘in principle…“no”’. A further idea was the need to ‘go back to the idea behind Compulsory Competitive Tendering’. This former Conservative policy was introduced in the UK throughout the 1980s, but was dropped following resistance from local authorities and health trusts. The policy focused on price at the expense of quality and employment conditions, leading to a demoralised staff, that this should be being discussed a possibility is very worrying indeed.

So we know that Reform were holding meetings without minutes with key figures, though who many of them were remains unknown. They were part of the ‘orchestration’ of the Telegraph’s editorial, and were heavily promoting the benefits of outsourcing hospitals of which one of the corporate partners would be a beneficiary. They continue to push for the further role of private companies in the NHS many of whom are the partners and are linked to our so-called public servants. They call themselves a charity, which is patently absurd, and if we are to call ourselves a democracy, the use of organisations like this must not use the Chatham House Rules, which are used widely across political organisations.

Keep an eye out they are influencing the future of our public services.

The Telegraph: Pushing Circle’s Agenda

Hitchingbrooke Hospital

If we are to believe the content of the Daily Telegraph’s recent editorial, titled ‘Hope for the NHS’*, then we can all breathe a sigh of relief, pack up your placards, the NHS it would appear, is saved. At least that’s the message being propagated in an extraordinary campaign being run by a so-called ‘quality paper’ on behalf of Circle Health.


In February this year, Circle became the first company to start running a NHS hospital, after it was given a 10-year contract to run Hitchingbrooke hospital in Cambridge.

Six months into its tenure, Circle produced a press release telling us how they have cut waiting times, improved care and delivered savings.

This announcement was enough for the media and the Telegraph in particular, to move into action, to hail the hospital a success despite only 5% of the tenure being complete.

Thanks to a documentwritten by David Worskett, the director of health lobby group, NHS Partners Network, we now know about a network of individuals attached to think tanks, lobby groups, newspapers and parliament who worked together to ensure ‘competition’ remained in the Health bill. 

This same network is now pushing the agenda to hand over NHS hospitals into the pockets of private companies like Circle.

Telegraph
The Telegraph acting as publicist for Circle is unsurprising, given that according to David Worskett, he, alongside right-wing think thank Reform, were able to orchestrate the paper’s editorialduring the Health bill ‘pause’.

"And the whole sequence of Telegraph articles and editorials on the importance of the Government not going soft on public service reform, including some strong pieces on health, is something I have been orchestrating and working with Reform to bring about.’ David Worskett – Director of NHS Partners Network – Communicationdocument written on 20^th May 2011

Getting to work – The network’s early push for private hospitals
In that same period, on May 16^th 2011, David Cameron gave a speech, which brought to an end the so-called ‘listening exercise’.

In amongst the audience was David Worskett, who had ‘received an invitation to the PM's big speech’. Mr Worskett, who had worked tirelessly throughout the Health bill ‘pause’ on behalf of the NHS Partners Network, was delighted to hear that Mr Cameron had ‘specifically added a sentence about the importance of patients being able to attend private hospitals if they wanted to…’

Circle would also have been pleased, especially as they are members of the NHS Partners Network.

On the same day as Cameron’s speech, Reform produced a report, titled: ‘It can be done’. The short report contained a series of six case studies on the involvement of private companies running public services, one of which, focused on Germany and how they are increasing the amount of hospitals run by for-profit companies.

The case study was put together by the co-founder of Reform, Andrew Haldenby, who stated: ‘The shift to private hospitals is one of the key ways in which German healthcare has controlled its costs over recent years.’ He informs us how ‘health care expenditure in Germany as a percentage of GDP has only increased moderately, from 10.3 per cent in 1999 to 10.5 per cent in 2008. In comparison, in the UK, starting from a lower level, health care expenditures have risen significantly from 6.9 per cent of GDP in 1999 to 8.7 per cent in 2008.’ Not mentioned, was the fact that this period was making up for a severe underfunding by the pervious Conservative rule.

Even so, these stats failed to include data from 2009, which would have been available to them at that time, and showed Germany’s expenditure leaping a whole 1% increase in expenditure that year. This all means the UK (9.6%) spends 2% less on Health out of a total of our GDP than Germany (11.6%).

Reform, like many think tanks call themselves ‘independent’, yet such a claim is clearly false, when we see that their corporate partners include multiple healthcare companies including BMI Healthcare, who have a nationwide group of hospitals. BMI Healthcare is part of General Healthcare group, who along with Circle are members of the NHS Partners Network. Such clear interests are ignored by the Telegraph.

The report written by My Haldenby was highlighted in an articleappearing in the Telegraph during the ‘pause’, written by the deputy director of Reform, Nick Seddon, titled: ‘David Cameron is getting it wrong on NHS reform’.

Mr Seddon who was formally the head of communications for private hospital company Circle, complained about the rejection by Dr Steve Field, the Chair of the NHS Future Forum of ‘Andrew Lansley’s plan to compel hospitals to compete for patients and income’. A decision, which Mr Seddon saw as undermining the ‘conclusions’ made by Sir Stephen Bubb, who was in charge of the competition review.

Here we go again - The Telegraph continue their corporate role

Although private hospital’s did get a mention in Cameron’s speech. The job was far from complete.

When Hitchingbrooke was outsourced to Circle, the Telegraph continued with their promotion. Public Policy journalist, Andrew Porter, wrote a comment piecetitled: ‘private takeover of Hinchingbrooke Hospital is the shape of things to come’, a claim repeated 8 months later by MP Mark Simmonds in his speechto the Hitchingbrooke Trust. Mr Porter puts words into the mouth of Tory MPs, perhaps correctly that: ‘Many Tory MPs will welcome today’s move and…install private firms which, while maintaining high standards of patient care, can get to grips with a public sector culture that has failed.’

The Telegraph then offered their health section to Reform’s Andrew Haldenby, who tells us‘NHS patients would profit from a dose of enterprise.’

More was to come in an unrelenting barrage of articles reinforcing the message that private hospitals are good for us…

The editorial‘Hope for the NHS’, allowed Ali Parsa Circle’s Chief Executive to say his belief that ‘Hinchingbrooke could act as a template for the rest of the NHS, pointing out that in Germany private companies manage far more hospitals than the state’. We all know where that research came from.

Medical Correspondent Stephen Adams playedhis part, repeating the corporate line that we need more hospitals run privately. At least he had the decency to admit that the information he was repeating was the claim of the company and not fact.

In other words none of these journalists actually double-checked the facts to see if they were true and as of yet these still haven’t been confirmed. Either way, to claim success to a hospital turnaround 5% of the way through a 10-year tenure is truly worrying.

This hasn’t stopped Andrew Cave writing an article following an interviewwith Ali Parsa, who is now asking for more contracts. It’s almost as if it was all planned. “I hope the success of Hinchingbrooke allows the Government to be bolder and to go further than it has gone so far. I think it is time to do something.”

Chris Skidmore the MP for Kingswood jumpedon the bandwagon, informing us that: ‘It is, in particular, a victory for those who have backed reform’. Mr Skidmore, who sits on the health committee, also sat on a panel in June, where the discussionwas: ‘Should we abolish the NHS?’

What is remarkable about all these articles, aside form the blatant attempt by the paper to promote private healthcare interests, is the failure to recognise anything negative about Circle.

What’s the problem?
Circle could do with all the help they can get. A reportby the Bureau of Investigative journalism, highlighted how Circle had a net debt of 42.4m, an operating loss of £17m with a fall of total revenue of 2.4% from 2010. Not mentioned in any of the articles.

Nor did any highlight the fact that Circle are owned by companies and investment funds registered in the British Virgin Islands, Jersey and the Cayman Islands. Corporate Watch, a research group monitoring large corporations, produced a report, titled ‘An unhealthy business’ revealed how companies registered in the British Virgin Islands ‘do not have to make their accounts public.’ Indeed when Corporate Watch asked to see their accounts, they were met with silence.

As Corporate Watch so clearly reveals, ‘Circle Health Ltd’, who are the company that actually provides healthcare, is ‘50.1% owned by a company called Circle Holdings, with the other 49.9% owned by Circle Partnership. Circle Partnership is part-owned by Circle employees and is the social enterprise part. But while this may mean some of its staff benefit when the company starts making a profit, as it is registered in the British Virgin Islands, these benefits will not be shared. Companies registered in the Caribbean island do not have to pay tax on dividends from investment in a UK company.’

If Circle became the way hospitals were run, as Mr Parsi would like, then what we would see is money leaving the company through the ownership of its hospitals. Corporate Watch highlighted Circle's Bath hospital, which is ‘owned by Health Properties Bath, another Jersey-registered company, which Circle pays £3.2m a year in rent.’ Health Properties is ‘owned by Circle Holdings (39%) and Health Estates Fund Ltd (58%), a “related party property fund advised by the [Circle] Group”, which is also registered in Jersey.’ And, to top it all off, the remaining 3% is owned by Lehman Brothers, which originally loaned money to build the hospital.

Circle are well-connected
So Circle have a former employee as a deputy director of Reform, they are a member of the NHS Partners Network, and they are able to have influence into the very heart of our parliament via MP for Boston and Skegness, Mark Simmonds.

Mr Simmonds is an employee of Circle, and is paid £50,000 per year as a ‘strategic advisor’ for 10hrs work per month.

Mark Simmonds, who is meant to be a public servant lest we forget, was forced to apologise in February for failing to mention his interest in Circle when speaking in favour of the Health and Social Care bill content.

Incidentally, Mr Simmonds is the Vice chair of the Associate Parliamentary Health Group, who according to their website, is ‘recognised as one of the preferred sources of information on health policy in Parliament…’ You can see more on them here.

Another connection to Circle comes in the form of Baron Higgins of Worthing, who holds in excess of £50,000 worth of shares in Lansdowne UK Equity Fund, who are financial backers of Circle Health. Financial interests that didn’t prevent either parliamentarian from voting on the bill as it passed through both Houses into becoming an Act.

As if these connections weren’t enough, Circle recruited a former aide to health secretary Andrew Lansley as head of communications. Christina Lineen, replaced Nick Seddon, having spent two years working for Lansley when he was shadow health secretary. Clearly moving from Lansley’s office into a private healthcare company is a natural career progression.

No doubt therefore of Ms Lineen’s involvement in the latest PR pitch for the Hitchingbrooke hospital 6-month update, so loyally regurgitated by the Telegraph and unthinkingly by the BBCin yet another shamefulepisode of their coverage of the NHS attacks.

It is early days, and it will be a few years before we can see if this company is truly making a good job of running the hospital. By then, cuts may have come to the fore, Circle’s debt may be rising.

The corporate press however doesn’t care for such concerns; they are a shame to the profession of journalism. They will claim editorial independence, and yet a document has appeared, which suggests just the opposite. Just as Reform, NHS Partners Network and the Telegraph promoted the interests of the private healthcare during the Health and Social Care bill. One press release from Circle, and they are at it again, coming together in editorial synchronicity.

A reader of a paper wants to know that what they are reading is covering a topic fairly in all areas of the subject matter and for the Telegraph to omit such important information such as a company’s financial situation, connections to think tanks and parliament, is cheating their readers.

The Telegraph’s Pro-private hospital articles

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/8516818/David-Cameron-is-getting-it-wrong-on-NHS-reform.html- Nick Seddon 16th May 2011 – on the Prime Ministers speech made on May 16^th– this speech is what Worskett was talking about in the document –

http://www.reform.co.uk/attachments/files/50_It_Can_Be_Done_FINAL.pdf- Produced by Reform on 16^th May 2011. Contains section about German hospitals by Andrew Haldenby.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8880683/Comment-private-takeover-of-Hinchingbrooke-Hospital-is-the-shape-of-things-to-come.html- Nov 10th 2011 - Andrew Porter - Comment: private takeover of Hinchingbrooke Hospital is the shape of things to come

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9243220/First-private-company-to-run-NHS-hospital-could-bring-in-eye-watering-cuts.html- Written by Stephen Adams - 3^rd May 2012 – First private company to run NHS hospital could bring in ‘eye-watering cuts’

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/9378599/NHS-patients-would-profit-from-a-dose-of-private-enterprise.html- Andrew Haldenby Co-founder of Reform – July 5^th – NHS patients would profit from a dose of private enterprise

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/9444479/Hope-for-the-NHS.html- Editorial Hope for the NHS 1^st of August – no question mark – By Telegraph view

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/9444397/Hinchingbrooke-shows-what-private-companies-can-do-for-the-NHS.html- Written by Chris Skidmore MP – 1^st of August - Hitchingbrooke shows what private companies can do for the NHS

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9443682/Hinchingbrooke-hospital-turned-around-by-Circle-in-six-months.html- written by Stephen Adams – medical correspondent – August 1^st 2012 – Hitchingbrooke hospital turned around by Circle in six months

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/9444500/A-revolution-on-the-wards-that-could-heal-our-public-services.html- Written by Sean Worth a former special to the Prime Minister and currently runs the Better Public Services Project at Policy Exchange – August 2^nd – A revolution in the wards that could heal public services.

http://www.circlepartnership.co.uk/about-circle/media/circle%27s-6-months-at-hinchingbrooke- August 3^rd - from Circle website

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/pharmaceuticalsandchemicals/9450088/Ali-Parsa-Government-should-not-be-running-hospitals.html- written by Andrew Cave 4^th August - Ali Parsa: Government should not be running hospitals

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/pharmaceuticalsandchemicals/9452591/Circle-demands-more-NHS-contracts.html  - Andrew Cave – August 4^thCircle demands more NHS contracts

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/financialservices/insurance/aviva-medical-insurance/9299860/Private-medical-insurance-FAQs.html- private medical with Aviva

* Note how the title ‘Hope for the NHS’ has no question mark.

NHS Partners Network response to Telegraph article

 

The NHS Partners Network have responded to the article linking them to Reform, and the Daily Telegraph. The statement is written in full below along with the quote, which I used from the document written by the director of the NHS Partners Network. I will be contacting them back in due course in which I will be expecting honest answers.

To view the article see here.
To view the unedited document see here.

The quote used:

"And the whole sequence of Telegraph articles and editorials on the importance of the Government not going soft on public service reform, including some strong pieces on health, is something I have been orchestrating and working with Reform to bring about.’ - David Worskett – Director of NHS Partners Network – Communication document written on 20^th May 2011

-->

The statement

-->

3 August 2012

Statement for Social Investigations from the NHS Partners Network

Your most recent blog suggests, completely wrongly, the existence of an orchestrated plan involving the NHS Partners Network, Reform, and the Daily Telegraph, to promote a particular and entirely legitimate viewpoint about the best way to deliver the future security of the NHS at the time of the debate about the Government's health reforms.

Of course there was discussion and coordination between a variety of representative organisations who held similar views of the reforms. This is an acceptable, and expected, approach and one which was also taken by many others including those with very different views to our own.

But the quote you take from the internal NHS Partners Network document which was "handed" to you does not say there was, and should not be taken in any way to imply, "orchestration" with the Daily Telegraph or indeed any other media. Like everyone else advancing legitimate points of view in the debate, there was a desire to persuade the media of the validity of particular arguments, but totally to respect editorial independence which, in the case of the Daily Telegraph, we always assumed to be absolute, as indeed it was.

We know that you do not support independent sector involvement in healthcare. You are entitled to express your view just as we are entitled to express ours. We welcome open debate of these matters. But, in the interests of accuracy and fairness, we would urge you to amend your blog so that it properly represents the words that were actually written and does not misrepresent the position of others.

The Telegraph, the Think Tank and a Very Dodgy Business

"And the whole sequence of Telegraph articles and editorials on the importance of the Government not going soft on public service reform, including some strong pieces on health, is something I have been orchestrating and working with Reform to bring about.’ - David Worskett – Director of NHS Partners Network – Communication document written on 20^th May 2011

This extraordinary sentence is written by the director of private health lobby group David Worskett, as part of an overall feedback for the NHS Partners Network’s members towards the end of so-called ‘listening period’ in the Health bills passage.

The document, which landed into the hands of Social Investigations, has not only revealed the true nature of the lobbying that took place, during the ‘pause’, but also according to the document, revealed a coordinated response between a national newspaper, a healthcare lobby group, and a right-wing think tank to make sure the government didn’t go ‘soft’ on reforms to the public sector, including the NHS.

In the memorandum under the title: ‘the Media’, Mr Worskett stated how the lobby group had agreed to ‘up’ the profile on ‘key issues’ without ‘inflaming the debate.’ A fine line to tread at a time when the opposition to the bill was near total across the medical profession, and especially so, given the absence of any private health company representatives in the NHS Future Forum, the group set up to in order to ‘pause, listen and reflect’ on the content of the existing Health and Social Care Bill.

So who are the connections at Reform?

One key member of Reform is the Deputy Director, Nick Seddon, who was formally the head of communications for private hospital company Circle. Mr Seddon was very active promoting the benefits of competition in the Telegraph during the so-called ‘listening period.’

Circle is a member of the NHS Partners Network, who employ Mark Simmonds the MP for Boston and Skegness, for £50,000 per year as a strategic advisor. Not only this, research conducted by Social Investigations found all the founders are linked to the Conservative party, and three of the five trustees have given money to the Conservative party. The research resulted in a complaint being sent to the charity commission, in which a decision awaits. 

David Worskett

The Telegraph connection – the ‘listening period’
On 18^th May 2011, just two days before Mr Worskett wrote his feedback to the lobby group members, Mr Seddon appearedin the Telegraph under the title: ‘Why the NHS needs a regulator.’ Aghast at the way Monitor’s role was changing from promoting competition to promoting patient’s interests, Mr Seddon wrote in the paper to express his frustration. ‘As Mr Clegg goes around saying that "instead of having a duty to promote competition, Monitor's main duty should be explicitly to protect and promote the interests of patients", he fails to notice that the two are not in conflict and competition is actually in the best interests of patients.’

This article followed another piece, written two days previously, where Mr Seddon announcedhow Reform had published six case studies on the benefits of open competition in public services. Only one example was to do with healthcare. These were just two examples of many articles in which the Telegraph provided a platform for the NHS Partners Network to promote the interests of its members, and the MPs and Lords working for those companies.

Nick Seddon

If Nick Seddon wasn’t writing an article in favour of competition, then co-founder of Reform, Andrew Haldenby was appearing in the paper promoting the benefits of the cuts to the NHS such as his April 2011, piecetitled: ‘These ‘cuts’ might do the NHS some good’. Other Telegraph journalists willfully joined in. Health correspondent Martin Beckford, and Health editor Rebecca Smith both loyally carried messages from the lobby group director David Worskett in several articles. All of them published during the ‘pause’ period.

At this point it is worth noting that Reform a self-proclaimed ‘independent’ charity has many corporate partners involvedin health: Aviva, BMI healthcare, Capita, GE Healthcare, McKesson to name but a few. Are these a genuine independent charity or more a vehicle to lobby for the handing over of public services into the hands of corporations they appear to represent?

Telegraph editor Tony Gallagher

So David Worskett the lobby group’s director wasn’t exaggerating when he said he was ‘orchestrating’ the material that the Telegraph editorial allowed to go in unchallenged. David Worskett said to Social Investigations that the quote "does not say there was, and should not be taken in any way to imply, "orchestration" with the Daily Telegraph or indeed any other media." 

As head of the ‘Choice and Competition’ within the NHS Future Forum, Mr Bubb was a key person to target for lobbying. It is important to remind you at this point how David Worskett and Stephen Bubb had met early on into the ‘listening period’, where they had one ‘lengthy’ discussion which they had agreed ‘on the approach he would take’, what the ‘key issues’ are, and how to ‘handle the politics’. He hadn’t the document revealed, ‘deviated from this for a moment throughout the period.’

Mr Bubb and Mr Seddon are both on very good terms, as revealed in a postwritten by Sir Stephen Bubb on his blog a week before the official launch of the NHS Future Forum on the 31^st of March 2011.

He gushes: ‘So a somewhat bleary eyed early morning start to get to Canary Wharf for a big Reform conference on the Big Society. I was on the opening panel, chaired by my favourite think tank leader, Nick Seddon.’

The articleBubb ‘wrote’ for the Telegraph tells us with no hint of irony that: ‘There are vested interests’. He wasn’t however talking about his fellow collaborators with whom he made agreements, but meant, ‘principally the health service unions’.  He puts words in their mouth by stating: ‘They (the unions) say the reforms are ideologically driven, essentially privatisation by another name.’ Competition according to the unions he argues ‘will benefit the shareholders of multinational private companies’.

Yes Mr Bubb, that is exactly what will happen, and with your help.

The role of a journalist ought to be to research thoroughly the facts of any subject matter and report the findings based on what is found. A newspaper has a responsibility to provide this information fairly and honestly. What does this say about the current editor of the Telegraph Tony Gallagher?  The very idea that a member of a lobby group orchestrated the Telegraph’s editorial ought to bring shame on the paper, and embarrassment to those associated with it.

The Telegraph are not alone, all papers and media allow differing voices to appear in the media but the opposing voices are not necessarily challenged. Rather they are allowed to sit side by side to leave people to decide what is right and wrong. 

The corporate owned media cannot be trusted, ‘journalists’, who willingly promote the wishes of a private healthcare lobby group with challenge, are nothing more than spokesperson’s for that organisation and their motives. Possibly the Telegraph owners, the twins Sir David and Sir Frederick Barclay, who are worth £1.8 billion and live as tax exiles, will say a job well done.