The Mucky Business of Wonga

It takes a certain kind of person to run a company that takes advantage of people in desperate times, to squeeze money out of them when they have nowhere else to go. The kind of person who would do such a thing should be admonished by society for preying on the needy. However, this government sees him as a person to go to for advice and to send senior advisers to lobby on the company's behalf.

Adrian Beecroft invests in Wonga, a loan shark company that charges 4214% Annual Percentage Rate on loans. A loan of £100 over 40 days will cost you £47.12 extra to pay back. Wonga recognises itself as expensive and says so on its website: ‘It's a bit like using a taxi to get around - it's not economical if you use one too frequently, but paying a premium for speed, convenience and flexibility in the short term makes perfect sense from time to time.’

Neither Labour nor the Conservatives have been willing to bring an end to loan shark lending over the years, and so companies like Wonga are allowed to flourish, trebling their profits from £12.m in 2010, to $45.8m in 2011, with an increased revenue of £185m. Governments of course are reluctant to stop loan sharks because if companies like Wonga weren’t allowed to make the 6 million loans they have made since 2007, then there would likely be an increase in social unrest.

However, rather than tackle inequality with progressive measures that redistribute wealth or lower outgoings, such as a cap on rent, both parties have allowed rampant capitalism to spread inequality and leave loan sharks to take further bites off the misery of others and add to their financial burden.

So how are major investors in Wonga treated?

Well Adrian Beecroft was asked by David Cameron to produce a report, which promoted the ease with which employers could sack their staff. The report came about following its leak by the Telegraph, and could not have been more hateful if it tried. His main argument focused 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'.

However, 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.

As always in this deeply corrupt system, the reason why this government like Beecroft so much is because he gives them money, and lots of it. Since 2006, according to the electoral commission, Mr Beecroft and his wife has given the Conservative party £693,076, a handy sum, which included £50,000 to maintain the first past the post system. No wonder then Vince Cable should say he was opposed to the "ideological zealots who want to encourage British firms to fire at will". He was of course right, the attacks on workers conditions had no research to back up his argument that such measures would improve the economy.

Mr Beecroft admitted in his report that 'the downside of the proposal is that some people would be dismissed simply because their employer did not like them.' His lack of empathy for employees is clear and becomes more apparent when in his next line he wrote: 'While this is sad I believe it is a price worth paying...'

If anything making people more fragile in their employment will make people spend less, hold on to what they have in case their employer decided to get rid of them. This all fits in with the mentality of the neo-con's frequenting parliament and pushing for policy change dreamed up by their neo con counterparts in think tanks like the Adam Smith Institute. The book 'Unchained Britannia' which came out recently and was written by 5 neo con MPs, called British workers 'among the worst idlers in the world', adding incorrectly that 'we work among the lowest hours, we retire early and our productivity is poor.' Ideally they would like to see all our rights removed so we can become slaves to the financial elite that these people aspire to be. 

Morality is not something this government cares about, they are in power to simply snatch and grab the public services they can get their hands on, and hand them over to the corporations they are employed by or they own. No wonder then that Jonathan Luff, a senior adviser to No10 should join Wonga’s government affairs team and lobby on behalf of their dubious business.

The appointment will mean there will be no restrictions on loan shark companies in this government’s time, and given the amount of money Beecroft has given to the deeply corrupt Tories, it was hardly likely to happen anyway.

The question is will Labour do anything about it themselves when and if they get into government, and if not, why not?

Complaint Over Think Tank 'Charity' Sent to Charity Commission

Over the last month Social Investigations has researched the free market think tank, Reform, which to the discredit of the Charity Commission rules, is also a charity. The findings led to the conclusion that a complaint to the Charity Commission was justified under both misleading the public and questioning their political independence.

-->

Reform are important because they dream up policy for selling off our public assets like the NHS and the police and the Conservative party make policy based on their research. Their corporate partners are major global and UK corporations and scooping the financial rewards from the privatisation dreamed up by Reform.

Reform is seen by many organisations on both sides of the political spectrum as being an arm of the Conservative party, everyone recognises this except it would seem, the Charity Commission.

The Research revealed:

·      All the founders are linked to the Conservative party

·      Three out of the five trustees have direct links to the Conservative party

·      There are multiple companies who are Reform’s corporate partners who are linked to Lords and MPs

·      They were involved in lobbying to maintain ‘competition’ in the health and Social Care bill

·      They promote privatisation in all public sector areas

·      They make a claim on their website that is misleading

·      They hold meetings with ministers and corporations where no minutes are held using Chatham House Rules

·      The Conservatives have launched two policies at Reform

The Complaint sent to Charity Commission

Reform Research Trust – Charity Number: 1103739

The complaint against Reform centre on two areas:

·      Misleading the public

·      Political independence

1. Misleading the public

Misleading statement

Reform state on their website: 'We are keen to involve corporate organisations in our research because their expertise is often left out of the Whitehall policy discussion.'

I am providing a selection of files on three companies that are corporate partners to Reform in order to provide evidence that Reform’s statement on their site regarding the above statement is at best misleading and at worst deception.

In addition to the same point above, I am providing a list of the corporate partners with their links to MPs and Lords and a list of what area each company influences government policy.

The companies I have selected are:

·      Aviva

·      BMI Healthcare

·      G4S

I chose three simply because I didn’t want to inundate your organisation with files on all the companies that make up their corporate partners to make the point. The files represent those companies only, although the same would apply to all the other corporate partners and I would be happy to supply more if required.

Reform currently has 31 corporate partners; many of them represent some of the most powerful companies in the UK.

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.

These companies are not left our of Whitehall policy. As the files will show, they are often involved at various levels helping to develop policy.

Many of these companies are financially linked to Lords and MPs from all parties, although largely the Conservatives and in many cases they are in leading positions: Please see File titled Reform MP company links.

In one particular case, the director Andrew Haldenby specifically speaks up for and on behalf of G4S as it mentions in the G4S file.

Reform receives money from donations and sponsorship. Companies often sponsor an event so that they can lobby. The policy that these companies influence ends up creating more wealth for the companies and is not for the charitable aims of delivering economic prosperity to the people it claims to do. Not once in their summary return do they mention promoting privatisation, and yet through their corporate sponsorship, and work, this is exactly what they are doing.

2. Political independence.

The next complaint looks at their political independence.- See links to Conservative party here.

‘The guiding principal of charity law is that charities should be, and be seen to be, independent from party politics.’

Based on the statement above, Reform is not within charity law as their powerbase is almost totally towards the Conservative party.

I have produced a separate file for this titled: ‘Reform links to the right’.

Reform think tank and their links to the Conservative Party

Reform calls itself independent. However the research below brings this claim into question in what appears to be the breaking of the Charity Commission rules for all charities to remain politically independent. Download as PDF

The 'charity’s' claim to independence is based on having one Liberal Democrat (Jeremy Browne) and two Labour members (Lord Warner and MP Frank Field) and a Conservative MP, (Julian Smith) on their advisory team. These however do not represent the overall dominance of the organisation towards the Conservative party, which can be seen by the powerbase, of the founders and trustees. The bullet points below represent a list of these connections.

• All of the co-founders have links to the Conservative party.
• Reform is recognised as part of the Conservative party movement by multiple medium including the Conservativehome. 
• Two MPs to emerge from Reform both belong to the Conservative party
• Two of the trustees have provided money to individuals in the Conservative party
• Two of the trustees and a director have advised two Conservative MPs

Founders:

Three people set up Reform Research Trust in 2002: All have links to the Conservative party.

Andrew Haldenby, Nick Herbert and Patrick Barbour.

Andrew Haldenby: Director was formerly head of the Conservative Research Department (1995-1997), finishing up as Head of the Political Section with responsibility for briefing the Shadow Cabinet and Leader for key media interviews and appearances. Mr Haldenby is considered by the Telegraph to be the 59^th most influential person on the right.[1]

Nick Herbert: MP is founder of Reform and a member of the Conservative party. Mr Herbert is considered by the Telegraph to be the 86^thmost influential person on the right. [2]

Patrick Barbour: (No longer part of Reform) but politically active on the Eurosceptic right of the Conservative Party since at least the early nineties when he helped to fund the Bruges Group.  Patrick Robertson, The patriotic 'pipsqueak' of Bruges, The Sunday Times, 16-June-1991 – Gave the Conservative Central party £7,000 in 2005 and has since gone on to become a donor of UKIP. 

Trustees:

The Trustees of Reform according to their website are:

Stephen Hargrave, James Palmer and Jeremy Sillem. In the 2011 Full accounts, additional trustees were Rupert Darwell and Oliver Pawle.[3]

Rupert Darwall: Noted as a trustee in the 2011 full annual accounts is a Consultant Director of Reform, a freelance strategy consultant. He was previously Special Adviser to the Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer Norman Lamont. [4]

Oliver Pawle: Currently the Honorary Treasurer. In the 2011 Full accounts it says: One of ‘The trustees who held office during the year’ was ‘Oliver Pawle’. Mr Pawle gave money to Dr Liam Fox for £5,000 on 2^nd November 2009 to help run his office.[5]Mr Pawle is down as a trustee during this period. In 2009, he attended a Conservative premier dinner at the Dorchester.[6]In addition Mr Pawle advised Francis Maude on the possible structures and duties of the non-executive directors in a new structure to governance structures. [7]

Stephen Hargrave: Trustee and director, who according to the Electoral Commission gave £5,000 to Conservative MP David Davis in 2001 for a leadership candidate, this was prior to Reform becoming a charity.

MPs who worked for Reform before becoming MPs

Nick Herbert founded Reform and is now the Conservative MP for Arundel and South Downs.

Elizabeth Truss was a deputy director of Reform in 2008 and is now the Conservative MP for South West Norfolk

Other

Nick Boys Smith, consultant director - adviser on welfare policy to Conservative MP Peter Lilley when he was Secretary of state for Social Security before working at McKinsey & Co. [8]

Media stating Reform as part of Conservative movement

In July 2009, Cameron gave a speech to Reform think tank launching the Conservative policy on culling quangos.[9]

In July 2011 - David Cameron launched his plans for public service privatisation programme at the Think Tank Reform.[10]No other party launches policy from Reform

In January 2008 the Telegraph listed the top twelve think tanks in its opinion. It said of Reform: 'Political links. Good relations with Tories. Nick Herbert, Shadow Justice Secretary helped set it up.'[11]

In 2009, ConservativeHome.Com who are supporters of the Conservative party produced an article that talked about the ‘growth of Britain’s conservative movement’.  Reform is included in list of list of organisations they see as Conservative.[12]

In their 2011 report, Reform have a quote from journalist George Monbiot which says on their transparency: ‘The only right-wing think tank that did well was Reform.’[13]

In February 2012 - Will Heaven as Acting Deputy Comment Editor of The Daily Telegraph wrote: 'Today the think tank Reform, one that informs Conservative policy, pleads with the Government to "renew the commitment to NHS reform".'[14]

Reform had meetings "meetings of “leaders of the conservative movement … sharing ideas to try to pave the way to a new Tory government."

The Times claimed Reform had meetings of “leaders of the conservative movement … sharing ideas to try to pave the way to a new Tory government." [15]

---

[1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/9589957/Iain-Dales-Top-100-most-influential-figures-from-the-Right-2012.html

http://reformscotland.com/index.php/about/advisory-board/andrew-haldenby

[2] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/9589957/Iain-Dales-Top-100-most-influential-figures-from-the-Right-2012.html http://www.redpepper.org.uk/tory-think-tanks-tangled-web/

[3] http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/Accounts/Ends39%5C0001103739_ac_20111231_e_c.pdf

[4]http://www.reform.co.uk/content/6675/reform/our_people/executive_team/rupert_darwall

[5]http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmregmem/100927/fox_dr-liam.htm

[6] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/dinner-at-the-carlton-the-new-tory-power-brokers-1793736.html

[7] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election-2010/7683214/General-Election-2010-City-bosses-on-standby-to-join-Tory-departments.html

[8]http://www.reform.co.uk/content/6674/reform/our_people/executive_team/nick_boys_smith

[9] http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jul/07/michael-white-david-cameron-quangos

[10] http://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2011/07/cameron-to-launch-public-service-reform-plans/

[11] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/1576447/The-top-twelve-think-tanks-in-Britain.html

[12] http://conservativehome.blogs.com/centreright/2009/03/the-growth-of-b.html

[13]http://www.reform.co.uk/content/13777/reform/annual_review/annual_review

[14] http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/willheaven/100136500/of-all-people-why-are-tory-right-wingers-setting-themselves-against-nhs-reform/

[15] http://www.johnmannmp.com/complaints_to_charity_commission 

Privatising Probation: What Reform says – Government does

If you want to know what future government policy is going to be, don’t bother asking your government because they won’t tell you until it’s too late. Instead, turn your eyes to a right-wing think tank masquerading as a charity.

In February 2011, Reform, a free market think tank, produced a brochurebased on a meeting held at global law firm, Clifford Chance, titled: ‘21^stcentury justice’. The meeting in large part discussed the probation and prison service and the need for change. 

However, whenever Reform says change, what they actually mean is privatisation, and that is exactly what is going to happen with the probation service. Chris Grayling has said the government will push ahead with a pay by results system, rather disturbingly, before any assessment of the pilot schemes has taken place. outsourcing the process to private companies. This policy David Cameron will be announcing today - the outsourcing of large parts of our prison service.

The meeting last year was attended amongst others, by Blair Gibbs, Head of Crime and Justice at the right-wing think tank Policy Exchange and former Advisor to Nick Herbert MP. Mr Herbert was a co-founder of Reform before becoming an MP. Another attendee was David Banks, Managing Director, Care and Justice Services, G4S.

G4S are one of the likely beneficiaries of any probation privatisation. G4S are a global security company who currently have operations in 125 countries; and are the biggest security company in the world. G4S also pay Reform to be a corporatepartner and are not short of a voice or two in power. G4S has access to the very top, paying the former Labour Secretary of State for Defence, Lord Reid as a director and Lord Condon who is a Non-executive Deputy Chairman & Senior Independent Director. It would be reasonable to ask where the Liberal Democrats are in all this, but it turns out, the crime prevention minister Jeremy Browne, who is the Lib Dem MP for Taunton, sits on the Reform advisoryboard.

The probation service is however just the tip of the iceberg with the advent of Police and Crime Commissioner elections taking place on the 15^th of November this year, who Reform believe should be in control of prisons, probation, courts, fire and ambulance services as well as policing.

The Daily Telegraph recently exposedMervyn Barrett, a candidate for the Lincolnshire Police and Crime Commission position as being supported by American neo-con lobbyists, the Fund for the New American Century. Following the G4S fiasco during the Olympics, Mr Barrett verbally came out in support of the company saying they are working well in Lincolnshire, where they have come out in support of G4S, where it provides police support services.

He is not G4S’s only supporter, Andrew Haldenby, the director and co-founder of Reform, wrote and article in the Timesfollowing the G4S failings, stating: ‘the coalition’ is not proposing to ask G4S to bid to supply bobbies in competition with the local authorities. It might be worth a look, though — if only to wipe a little of the smugness off the faces of spokesmen from the trade union known as the Association of Chief Police Officers, who have spent the past week wallowing in G4S’s embarrassment.’

Such fervent support for their corporate partner is expected from these enemies of the state. Reform claim they involve corporations in their ‘charity’ work because they are ‘often left out of the Whitehall policy discussion.’ However, since 2010, G4S have had at least 17 government meetings and given 7 oral presentations to government.

In addition they regularly provide written evidence, which they did in January this year, providing a submission to the Justice Committee on the subject of Care and Justice Services. Number 32 of their submission recommended in addition to existing areas, that the government should ‘consider other areas to increase competition such as: Probation services’.

Today’s politics mean that a corporation’s wish is a government command. If the public don’t like something they are forced to protest, which is largely ignored or aggressively attacked if it takes the form of direct action. For organisations like G4S, they pay Reform, and in return, get promoted by the think tank to the politicians who attend the same meetings. G4S are then invited to say to government what they want in a written submission, the passage of policy bypassing the public with undemocratic stealth. The government then produces another policy that neither coalition party had in their manifesto. Democracy is broken and very soon if we do not resist, we are going to have G4S running our police and I don’t want that in my society.

Further reading:

1. MPs and Lords Financial links to Reform http://socialinvestigations.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/the-lords-and-mps-employed-by.html
2. Reform – a charity of a conduit to privatisation? - http://socialinvestigations.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/reform-charity-or-conduit-for.html
3. Reform – a voice for corporations - http://socialinvestigations.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/reform-voice-for-corporations-g4s.html 

 

Response from NHS Commissioning Board on NHS Brand Vacancy

I sent an FOI request to the NHS Commissioning Board in relation to the vacancy they announced for a NHS Brand manager as part of a team. The vacancy was originally highlighted by Roy Lilley. I almost feel like apologising for asking you to read it, but please do. The response below is utterly bewildering and my comments are at the bottom.

Thank you for your email of 27 September 2012. In this you requested under the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act the following: – ‘Under the Freedom of Information Act, I would like to know the decision on why this vacancy is necessary? http://www.jobs.nhs.uk/cgi-bin/vacdetails.cgi?selection=912953602. Who decided a NHS brand team was necessary?’.

 

In response to your questions regarding the NHS Commissioning Board’s position of Head of Branding please can I assure you that the Head of Brand position is part of a distinct team responsible for both ensuring the NHS Commissioning Board never loses sight of its focus on patients and for supporting and enabling patients to get the very best from a transformed and open NHS. (Waffle)

A key part of the new NHS system is being able to articulate the narrative of patient purpose and focus and helping NHS staff to directly translate this in to behaviours and services designed around and for patients.  The singular focus of the NHS Commissioning Board on quality outcomes and patients, rather than on organisations or processes, is unique, so it is important that we can set this out clearly from the outset. (Help me I'm drowning)

In addition, please can provide you with comments from Tim Kelsey, National Director for Patients and Information at the NHS Commissioning Board:

“The Head of Brand, as a key member of our Customer Relations and Patients and Information leadership team, will be critical to ensuring the NHS Commissioning Board never loses sight of its responsibility to patients. Their job will be to make sure patients and the public fully understand what the NHS can offer to them, by making sure the NHS communicates with them in ways which make sense to them and which they can access easily. The word ‘brand’ in the sense of this role means the NHS’s identity and its commitment to patients.

“Patients will only be able to take a full role in making decisions about their care if they are clear on what the NHS can do for them and can access all the information they need: that’s why we have made a commitment right the way through the NHS Commissioning Board to an open, honest and transparent culture, and why we are developing a strong and vibrant customer relations team.”

I trust this provides you with further information and reasoning for the NHS Commissioning Board’s position on this role.

Kind regards

Helen Douglas

Briefing Manager

NHS Commissioning Board

I only hope the head of brand has a clearer sense of the English language than Ms Douglas and Mr Kelsey for I am none the wiser; and I am quite certain the general public don't use 'patient purpose' in their everyday vocabulary. 'Hello I am here for my patient purpose appointment with Dr blah blah...and the leadership team.' 

These people live in a bubble where they begin to believe their own insane language taught to them by corporate apparatchiks brought in to teach them leadership thought or such like. The problem is the general public don't attend these courses, and why would you because it just sounds weird and makes no sense.

The use of 'customer relations' bothers me, as does 'information leadership team', and equally 'customer relations team'. We are patients, not customers and only the corporately brainwashed will have a clue what they mean. 

The Health and Social Care bill is a legalised mechanism to leverage public resources into the private companies that employ our so-called public servants. 

If you want to complain about being called a customer then you can email - Helen on commissioningboard@nhs.net and perhaps the leadership will listen.

Reform - a voice for corporations – G4S

G4S are the most powerful security company in the world, so why do a 'charity' need to offer them further support?

Bringing the activities of the think tank Reform to the public eye, Social Investigations is producing a series of articles which looks at the corporations they partner, and their claim that they are excluded from Whitehall policy. So far, the corporations covered have been Aviva and BMI Healthcare.

Reform's claim is this:'We are keen to involve corporate organisations in our research because their expertise is often left out of the Whitehall policy discussion.’ – Reform website – corporate partners page


Dictionary definition of a charity:‘An organisation set up to provide help and raise money for those in need’.

Giving a voice to G4S
Corporate Watch the excellent non-profit research project, has revealed how ‘G4S has grown to be the largest employer on the London Stock Exchange (657,000 staff members and counting) and has expanded its operations to 125 countries; the biggest security company in the world’.

G4S has access to the very top, paying the former Labour Secretary of State for Defence, Lord Reid, as a director and Lord Condon who is a Non-executive Deputy Chairman & Senior Independent Director.

G4S are asked often to give evidence on issues relating to their work and contracts as you might expect, they are invited and sometimes compelled to do so. Since 2010, G4S have had at least 17 government meetings and given 7 oral presentations to government. However, their discussions with government also include giving evidence that can help define policy. In November 2010, G4S gave written evidence to the Work and Pension Committee on the ‘Work programme’.

In March 2011, G4S gave written evidence to the Home affairs Committee on the ‘future landscape of policing’. In amongst the evidence they inform the committee of how their ‘plans to design and build purpose-built custody suites for forces, with embedded medical services and technical infrastructure would slash running costs for a police force by up to 40%’.

Corporate Watch state how: ‘G4S’ policing portfolio already includes 30 'custody suites', with over 500 cells, which it rents to small- to mid-sized police forces around the country.’ Indeed, nine months after giving their written evidence, G4S won a contract to takeover core policing functions from Lincolnshire police force.

According to the Guardian, G4S is also bidding for contracts worth £1.5 billion for providing services to Surrey and the West Midlands Police, which include:  investigating crimes, patrolling neighbourhoods and detaining suspects.’

Therefore the assertion by Reform that a company like G4S is ‘left out of the Whitehall policy discussion’, is ridiculous and the time to end Reform’s charity status is overdue.

Just in case they need any help, Reform has been consistently promoting a change to policing, promoting the outsourcing of the force. In February 2009, Reform produced a report called ‘A New Force.’

The author’s of the report called for its total restructuring, accusing the 43 forces as being ‘run as fiefdoms by their Chief Constables’. High praise, however when we look at the author’s background, it becomes clear none of the report’s authors have any experience in the police whatsoever. Andrew Haldenby studied history at Cambridge, before spending more time in education before joining Reform. Elizabeth Truss who was educated at Oxford worked in sales and as an economist. As a backbencher her policy areas were childcare and maths education. Dale Bassett used to work as a City headhunter before joining Reform, and Laurie Thraves is the Education researcher at Reform.

In May 2011, Reform produced another report titled: ‘It can be done.’ In it they highlight the outsourcing of ‘police custody suites’ being run by G4S as a case study for why this should be expanded. When G4S messed up the security arrangements for the Olympics, the BBC reported the body representing South Wales Police officers as saying ‘G4S should not be given any more government contracts until the Olympic security "debacle" is sorted out’. 

Horrified at the implications of G4S’s failure, the director of Reform, Andrew Haldenby, appeared in the Telegraph in July to say ‘G4S’s troubles over its Olympic contract is a headache for the Games, but for others it is manna from heaven...But these people should look at the evidence of how outsourcing has worked in practice.’

A further article written by Haldenby, which appeared in the Times in the same month was even more stout in the defence of G4S: ‘the coalition’ he stated, ‘is not proposing to ask G4S to bid to supply bobbies in competition with the local authorities. It might be worth a look, though — if only to wipe a little of the smugness off the faces of spokesmen from the trade union known as the Association of Chief Police Officers, who have spent the past week wallowing in G4S’s embarrassment.’

These articles represent just a few examples of Reform’s support for G4S and general police privatisation; there is many more. The Telegraph continually providesa platform for Reform in all areas of privatisation, allowing their words to be splayed across their paper without challenge. G4S have billions of pounds worth of contracts, provide evidence regularly and are at the forefront of police outsourcing, and despite the Olympic failings, the government have no intention of halting their programme of privatising our police.

Reform, paid by G4S and with two Lords on their payroll are not left out of ‘Whitehall discussion.’ Reform is a conduit to privatisation and has no right to be called a charity, the Charity Commission must strip them of their status.

Download the G4S PDF here.

MPs and Lord's Financial Links to Free Market Think Tank

As part of a series of investigations looking into the free market think tank Reform, the financial links between our so-called public servants, corporations and Reform has brought into question whether Reform should be stripped of their ‘charity’ status.

Now Social Investigations has revealed the list of companies that give money to Reform in either donations or sponsorship who also are employing or have financial connections to our so-called public servants in key sectors of our society.

So far we have found out:

• Reform’s involvement in promoting‘competition’ in the Health and Social Care bill during the ‘listening exercise’

• Promoting the outsourcing of NHS hospitals

• The use of Chatham House Rules to hold high-level meetings on matters of promoting public service reform without minutes or knowing who was in attendance

• Providing a voice for Aviva and BMIHealthcare and their other corporate partners

Now below we can see the list of companies and their connections to MPs and Lords who also pay money to Reform and the amounts they paid in 2011. The amounts, though small for a corporation their size, allows them additional access to MPs and Lords at events, seminars, policy lunches, fringe conference events and promotion of policies in articles often via the Daily Telegraph and other media outlets.

The time has surely come to end their charity status.

Corporations; Links to MPs/Lords and amounts paid to Reform in 2011.

Lloyds – Lord Blackwell (Con): Non Executive director of Lloyds Banking Group plc Henry Bellingham (Con) – MP for North West Norfolk, Jonathan Djanogly MP (Con) for Huntingdon, Dominic Grieve, MP for Beaconsfield (Con) – all former members of Lloyds. Lord Leitch (Lab): Deputy Chairman, Lloyds TSB bank plc; advisor of Lloyds Banking Group plc; Trustee, Lloyds TSB Foundation for England and Wales. Baroness Scott of Needham Market (Lib Dem) Member, Lloyds Register Advisory Committee (unremunerated)	£50,000.00
McKesson - Lord Carter: (Lab) The head of the increasingly influential Competition and Cooperation Panel, is also the Chair of McKesson Information Solutions Ltd, which delivers I.T to “virtually every NHS organisation”	£42,500.00
Sky – Lord Wilson of Dinton (Crossbench; Con) – Non-Executive director of BSkyB) Mary MacLeod MP for Brentford and Isleworth (Con) received £7,000 sponsorship for Hounslow Volunteering Awards organized by the MP. Lord Howard of Rising (Con), Baroness Noakes Shares in BSkyB. Conservative party as a whole tried to get BSkyB bid passed.	£42,000.00
DANONE – Lord Lucas (Con) - Member, Pre and Probiotics Information Panel, Danone UK	£30,000.00
Aviva – Lord Sharman (Con) Is the chairman of Aviva, has directorship and Shareholdings in Aviva plc	£24,500.00
General Health Group: (GHG) were purchased by Apax Partners  in 2006. Labour Peer, Lord Warner (Lab), was a former advisor to Apax Partners in 2007 when Apax had taken over GHG. Lord Warner is also a member of the Advisory Council for think tank Reform. The think tank received money from GHG for sponsorship and whose health policy for 2011 was stated as looking at: ‘The implications of greater efficiency for healthcare infrastructure, in particular hospitals.’	£24,500.00
Microsoft – Baroness Kingsmill (Lab) Member, Microsoft European Policy Council. Lord Watson of Richmond (Lib Dem) Non-executive Chairman, ICOMP and consultant to Microsoft.	£24,000.00
Serco – Lord Filkin (Labour) Public Affairs Advisor	£21,500.00
Prudential Lord Turnbull (Crossbench) Non-Executive director and shares	£20,000.00
KPMG - Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab) is a Senior Adviser and Lord Hastings (Crossbench) is the Global Head of Citizenship and Diversity for Global Tax.	£17,500.00
PA Consulting – George Freeman MP for Mid Norfolk (Con) Between November 2010 and November 2011 he provided strategic support to their Technological practice.	£15,000.00
PWC – Lord Ribeiro (Con) Adviser on hospital reorganization to PwC	£15,000.00
Telereal Trillium – Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach (Con) Category 2: Remunerated employment	£15,000.00
Airwave – Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab) Chair of Toby Harris Associates, whose clients include: Airwave Solutions	£12,500.00
G4S – Lord Condon (Crossbench) - Non-executive Deputy Chairman & Senior Independent Director. Lord Reid of Cardowan (Labour) Director Regional management.	£12,500.00
BG Group – Baroness Hogg (Con) - Senior Independent Director and holds shares.	£7,500.00
Cable & Wireless – Lord Robertson of Port Ellen (Lab) is a Senior International Adviser and has shares in the company	£7,500.00
GlaxoSmithKline 19 Lords and MPs have shares in GlaxoSmithKline.	£7,500.00
McKinsey – David Milliband MP for South Shields (Lab) received £10,000 from McKinsey and Co for a speech at a Global Business Leaders Summit in February last year. Also received a sum of £10,044 from the same company for travel expenses and accommodation in Singapore in March 2011. McKinsey & Co drew up loads of proposals that were accepted into the Health and Social Care bill. The consultancy giant also proposed the £20 billion cuts to the NHS accepted by the Coalition government. David Bennett the head of Monitor the new NHS regulator is a former employer.	£7,500.00
BP – Lord Jones of Birmingham (Crossbench) – Advisor. Lord Patten of Barnes - Member, International Advisory Board. Lord Robertson of Port Ellen - Deputy Chairman of Board & Chairman of Audit Committee, TNK-BP (Moscow-based joint venture in oil/gas) and an Adviser, BP plc. The Member receives a limited amount of secretarial assistance from BP plc. Lord Watson of Richmond is a consultant for BP plc.	£5,000.00
Circle – Mark Simmonds MP (Con) Special advisor. Baron Higgins of Worthing, a Conservative, holds in excess of £50,000 of shares in Lansdowne UK Equity Fund, backers of private hospital group Circle Holdings. Lord Watson is the Chairman of Havas Media UK, an integrated agency, 100% owned by Havas Media. In April 2011 - MPG Media Contacts won the integrated media planning and buying account for Circle Health. The account is worth just under £1m, according to MPG Media Contacts. Circle recruited Christina Lineen as head of communications following a two-year period as an advisor to Andrew Lansley. It is possible she is returning to government as an advisor to the new Secretary of State for Health Jeremy Hunt. Christina Lineen replaced Nick Seddon who is now a deputy director of Reform who has been heavily promoting the outsourcing of hospitals largely through the Telegraph. As well as being a member of NHS Partners Network, Circle has given money to Reform via sponsorship.	£5,000.00

Download the PDF here.