Petition Forces Answer From Government on Prejudicial Vote Flaw

A current petition on the No10 website has highlighted a flaw in the rules that allows MPs and Lords to vote and debate on legislation that may gain revenue for a company that either they own, which employs them or donates to their office.

If you are a local councillor such interests would debar you from a vote and debate at the discretion of the chamber. Now that the petition has reached over 10,000, the government has been forced to respond, so how do they justify such a difference?

The petition made several demands.

i. No member of Parliament may speak or vote in a debate on legislation which could financially benefit any commercial operation in which they have a financial interest;

and

ii. No member of Parliament may speak or vote in a debate on legislation which could financially benefit any commercial operation which has made - or currently makes - donations to themselves personally or their political party.

In response the government stated that it would “not be practical” to prevent Members speaking or voting on legislation which could “financially benefit any commercial operation in which they have a financial interest” or which has made “donations to themselves of (or) their party”. The reason? Because a “significant number of legislative provisions in any year may have beneficial financial implications for all or most commercial operations.”

In terms of donations to the party, as a whole, then this is probably correct. For example, if a person connected to a private health company gave money to a political party, it may make a member of the public mistrust the party, especially if they then go on to win contracts but it is unreasonable to think that this would be enough to debar the entire party from voting on any legislation on legislation that may have an affect on private health and would bring Parliament to a halt.

However, the government claims that it would “not be practical” to prevent a MP from voting with a financial interest is absurd and arrogant. The government says there are many “questions” as to how such a “complex requirement” could be “policed effectively”?

Well, they need look no further than the rules that apply to councillors at a local level. Any prejudicial interest held by a councillor would debar them from a vote and indeed a debate depending on the acceptance of the Chamber.

This current situation suggests that MPs and Lords are somehow more able to separate their public duty from their outside interest, which is patently absurd. Given the level of commercial interests that exist in parliament, the need to change the rules to match those at local level is obvious.

Take Baroness Cumberlege, the Conservative Peer and former Health Secretary. She owns a company that she moved into a position to gain revenue from the new Commissioning Groups, a key component of the Health bill on which she voted. The legislation goes through thanks in part to her vote and she ends up winning small contracts for providing courses to some of the new Commissioning Groups. It’s okay though, because she put her business interest in the Register.

Over 200 parliamentarians had recent or present financial interests to companies or individuals involved in healthcare at the time of the Health and Social Care bill. They were all able to vote, despite these interests. Further research has confirmed that some of these companies attached to Lords either by employment or donations, have gone on to gain contracts in the new NHS.

The fact of the matter is that in their current form, the rules allow any MP or Lord to vote on legislation that may open revenue opportunities for the companies that employ them or donate to them. The rules are different for local councillors who manage to police such matters adequately.

Until MPs and Lords are debarred from a vote when they have a prejudicial interest, then every time they place their vote it will be difficult to know whether their action was in the interest of the public or the corporation that employs them.

The government will always resist further scrutiny, just as they did when a proposal was made for a Register of Interests back in 1974. I leave you with this:

“Should the public know of our outside interests? My answer strictly speaking, is ‘No’. Why should they? There is no opportunity for corruption and precious little opportunity for influence…We are not crooks and we want it to be seen that we are not crooks. We are in the public eye and we hold jobs, which in the eyes of the public are very important. Conservative MP for Lowestoft, James Prior 22nd May, 1974 http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1974/may/22/members-interests



The full petition can be seen here where you can also sign.

ACEVO: Not Neutral Over Health Bill Outcome

EMAIL FROM ACEVO TO MONITOR

A new set of communications has brought into question the neutrality of the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations (ACEVO), on the outcome of the Health and Social Care bill.

When the Health and Social Care bill came to a shuddering halt following widespread rejection across the medical profession, the government paused the process to set up a Forum in what turnedout to be a faux ‘listening exercise.’

The head of the ‘Choice and Competition’ element to the Forum was Sir Stephen Bubb, the Chief Executive of ACEVO. Sir Bubb’s preference for competition in the NHS was no secret; he openly calledfor the “health and social care market to be opened up” and consistently voiced his support for more competition.

However, throughout the period of the farcical‘listening exercise’, ACEVO said they did not take a position on the Health and Social Care bill, and were neither for it or against it. This view was repeated in March 2012 when they said "ACEVO has not taken a position on the controversial health bill as a whole."

The email
However, a Freedom of Information request has unearthed an email written on the 17^th August 2011, just after the ‘listening’ period that brings this statement into serious doubt. The author of the email is unknown because the name was redacted. The person thanked David Bennett, the head of the NHS regulator Monitor, for a ‘roundtable summary.’ It stated how it was good to see…that so many participants…place ‘choice’ at the top of priorities for Monitor.’ If ACEVO were not taking a position on the Health bill, then why are ACEVO in an email to Monitor saying it is 'good' people at the meeting were placing 'choice' as a priority for Monitor. Surely, if they do not take a position such a priority would be neither good nor bad as far as ACEVO are concerned.

Furthermore, the author of the email also suggested Monitor hold a 'desecrate' (discreet) meeting with ACEVO members to 'bounce ideas off and sound them out on reform and competition'. Why was it suggested to make this meeting discreet?  What did they have to hide?

ACEVO did indeed attend a roundtable meeting with Monitor hosted at the offices of the Royal National Institute for the Blind, with representatives from voluntary organisations that included CEOs from Asthma UK, Action on Hearing loss and Diabetes UK. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the new regulators' new role and purpose'.

Lobbying letter

This email follows on from the recent revelation uncoveredby Social Investigations that Sir Stephen Bubb had teamed up alongside private healthcare trade and lobby group, the NHS Partners Network to urge Jeremy Hunt not to water down the secondary legislation, S.75 privatisation regulations. The letter carried the ACEVO logo, which strongly suggests this lobbying letter was in agreement with ACEVO and not Sir Stephen Bubb acting alone. Acevo are not ambivalent to the outcome of the the Health and Social Care bill, but have actively lobbied to ensure competition remains a key component of the new NHS.

ACEVO have twice been contacted to answer questions on their neutrality and have so far refused to answer.


Questions
The questions are below and we welcome a response at any time.

1) If ACEVO were not taking a position on the Health bill, then why are ACEVO in an email to Monitor saying it is 'good' people at the meeting were placing 'choice' as a priority for Monitor. Surely, if they do not take a position such a priority would be neither good nor bad as far as ACEVO are concerned?

2) Also, the names are redacted - who wrote the email?

3) The author of the email also suggested Monitor hold a 'desecrate' (discreet) meeting with ACEVO members to 'bounce ideas off and sound them out on reform and competition'. Why was it suggested to make this meeting discreet? 

4) The letter is sent with the ACEVO logo on it. It is therefore logical to assume, this position is that of ACEVO and not Sir Stephen Bubb. Is this the case?

5) Was this letter written by both Sir Stephen and David Worskett?

6) By sending this letter out on behalf of ACEVO, is it right to assume members of ACEVO were contacted about this before the letter went out? If not, then is it normal practice to send out lobbying letters on behalf of the membership without consent?

7) Finally, I have looked for your membership list but it appears to be hidden. Why is this, given the moves towards transparency? In http://www.acevo.org.uk/Page.aspx?pid=2150

Charity Sector lobbied Hunt not to Water Down Controversial NHS privatisation Regulations

Sir Stephen Bubb

Charity boss Sir Stephen Bubb lobbied alongside the head of a private healthcare trade group to persuade Jeremy Hunt to not water down highly controversial “Section 75” privatisation regulations, according to new documents revealed today.

The regulations - made under the Health & Social Care Act just as the bill was coming into force in April this year - were seen by many as confirming the determination of the government to hand over large swathes of the NHS to private companies. The regulations effectively force local health bosses to put all services out to tender unless they can prove there is just one capable provider.

As the debate raged over the implications of the regulations - with the RCGP, the RCN, and the BMA all coming out strongly against them - the Chairman of the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations (ACEVO), Sir Stephen Bubb, teamed up with private healthcare advocates the NHS Partners Network to lobby the health secretary, Jeremy Hunt into not ‘watering down’ the regulations. 

The letter co-signed by Sir Stephen Bubb and Partners Network director David Worskett raised ‘deep concern’ at reports in the Guardian that the government was ‘contemplating substantive concessions over these important regulations.’ 

Bubb and Worskett urged the NHS to ‘embrace a new culture’ to include ‘opening the way’ for the potential contribution of ‘new providers…We strongly urge the government to stand firm.’

Earlier this year Social Investigations exposed how Bubb was at the heart of a network of lobbying around the Health and Social Care Act itself, along with Nick Seddon (now Cameron’s health policy advisor). The NHS Partners Network’s members include private healthcare companies with multiple financial links to MPs and Lords. These groups were instrumental in lobbying during the supposed ‘pause’ in the passage of the Health & Social Care Act last year, following near total discontent across the medical profession with the Bill’s proposals.

Sir Stephen Bubb was invited by then Health minister Simon Burns to head the Choice and Competition panel of the NHS Future Forum. The appointment made sense to the Conservatives as Sir Stephen Bubb had already been campaigning for a bigger role for the voluntary sector in the public services, a key part of the Conservative party’s ‘Big Society’ mantra.

David Worskett

Partners Network leader David Worskett praised Bubb for his determined approach to opening up the NHS to competition, informing his members of his ‘lengthy’ discussion with Sir Stephen Bubb where they had ‘agreed on the approach he would take, what the key issues are, and how to handle the politics.’ Bubb had ‘not deviated from this for a moment throughout the period.’

Stephen Bubb's ability to get the 'agreed' message across was appreciated by Worskett and was seen to be so supportive that he ‘often carried the day and won more support than we might have expected.”

The charity and voluntary sector make up over a third of the UK private healthcare sector, and according to Sir Stephen Bubb represent a ‘bigger player’ than people think. Bubb told a 2010 voluntary sector conference ‘The third sector could grow by £2bn a year by 2015, just through increased involvement in offender rehabilitation and public health.’

Shortly after coming into power the government met with the CBI to discuss privatisation strategy. Leaked minutes revealed that Francis Maude told the group that transferring services at least initially to “charities, social enterprises and mutuals” would be more “palatable” and carry less “political risk” than “wholesale outsourcing to the private sector”. However in reality charities cannot compete against the financial muscle of the private sector. Research conducted by campaign organisation the NHS Support Foundation shows that since April 1^st this year 100 clinical services worth £1.5 billion have largely gone to commercial companies. Last month the Bain Consultancy revealed how private sector companies are now engaged in an ‘arms race’ to win £5bn of National Health Service contracts. Third sector advocates should learn from the experienceof Surrey Central Health, where a much lauded transfer of NHS services to a “social enterprise” led within a couple of years to a takeover by Virgin, who were better able to raise bond finance.

Recent failings from private companies such as Serco fiddling data for their out of hours service, or G4S overcharging on their contracts, has down nothing to diminish the speed with which outsourcing is taking place. However, as the list of private outsourcing failures grows, the government will increasingly appreciate being able to emphasise the 3^rd sector as a more palatable alternative, even if their involvement is not sustainable. In fact, David Cameron has already turned towards the voluntary sector in his hour of need. When asked by Ed Miliband who supported the government’s legislation he cited Bubb’s ACEVO.

Does Bubb’s vociferous support for privatisation benefit the 1,500 ACEVO membership of charity leaders (the members of whom are currently hidden from public view). Or does it ultimately benefit the members of the NHS Partners Network, whose membership includes Virgin Care, United Health UK or Care UK?

A recent article in the Guardian written by Pam Lewis of CancerCare suggests some charities at least are willing to take part in the dismantling of the NHS. Ms Lewis stated how the changes to the NHS will benefit CancerCare and at the same time take the strain off of ‘traditional NHS care providers.’ In words that echo that of Sir Stephen Bubb, she said that ‘while maintaining their charity status, they can become a ‘serious and competitive player’ in the NHS, which would be a ‘huge step for their charity.’

Despite the grand ambitions of CancerCare, the evidence so far suggests charities are but a figleaf for the private equity backed corporations who can outbid them or offer them dubious partnerships. The carrot is dangled in front of the charities noses, which has led them to walk hand-in-hand with private healthcare giants.

If you can - please donate or from the front page to Social Investigations any amount welcome - all money will go into research.

This article was co-published with ourNHS on openDemocracy

Monitor Spend Close to Half Million on 23 New Recruits Using Two Companies Financially Linked to Lords

Monitor the new NHS regulator has spent close to half a million pounds on recruitment fees to two head hunter firms both financially connected to Members of the House of Lords.

The Health and Social Care Act massively increased the significance of Monitor’s role in the new NHS. The previous responsibility was just the regulator to the foundation trusts. The Health and Social Care Act changed all that and greatly expanded their significance to become the sector regulator for the sector. Within that, their current roles include being responsible for handing out licences to any provider wanting to offer services into the NHS and acts an enforcer to commissioners should they participate in anti-competitive behaviour when commissioning services.

These new roles have required new staff and Monitor have chosen two firms with financial links to Members of the Lords to fill the key roles in their organisation. Following a Freedom of Information request, it was discovered that one of the companies, Odgers Berndtson, filled 12 senior personnel at a cost of close to £200,000 in agency fees.

Odgers employ Baroness Bottomley as Chair of the Board and CEO practice and she also holds shares in their holding company Broomco Ltd.  The former health secretary was able to vote on the Health bill despite her financial interests, which has opened up revenue channels for her employer. The Chairman, Richard Boggis-Rolfe, has given £207,500 in donations to the Conservative party between 2006 up until the General election.

A further request has also revealed that the other company used was Saxton Bampfylde, who has gained revenue over £230,000 in fees since 2010. Labour Peer Lord Stevenson, the former Chairman of HBOS plc, which almost collapsed under his guidance has shares in the company. The Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards recommended his being banned from the industry stating “Lord Stevenson has shown himself incapable of facing the realities of what placed the bank in jeopardy from that time until now".

Saxton Bampfylde according to the release, were involved in the appointment of Monitor’s CEO, a position currently held by David Bennett, a former partner of global management firm Mckinsey, who were instrumental in the content of the Health and Social care Act. In fact individuals from the private sector are dominated in the key positions at Monitor from companies like KPMG, PricewaterhouseCoopers and McKinsey. Saxton Bampfylde recruited the executive director for cooperation and competition at Monitor, the director of organisation transformation and their chief economist as they consolidate their new position as Health and Social Care Act enforcer. Included in the costs according to Monitor were psychometric tests, which can include things like the measurement of knowledge, abilities, attitudes, personality traits, and educational measurement.

Monitor was recently exposed as having spent 40% of their overall budget on private consultants, which included £1.9million to David Bennett’s former firm Mckinsey. The NHS is under severe financial restraint across the service, but not Monitor it would seem, who have spent close to half a million pounds on recruitment for 23 positions at a cost of over £18,000 each individual appointment.

Board

David Bennett: CEO – formerly McKinsey - senior partner

Keith Palmer:  Non-Executive director – currently Senior Associate of the Nuffield Trust, formerly Treasurer and Trustee of Cancer Research UK and Vice-Chairman of NM Rothschild merchant bank.

Stephen Thornton: Non-Executive Director – formerly - Chief Executive of The Health Foundation and Department of Health’s National Quality Board.

Sigurd Reinton:  Non-Executive Director – formerly NATs and Chairman of the London Ambulance Service NHS Trust for ten years

Heather Lawrence: Non-Executive Director – formerly CEO of Chelsea and Westminster hospital and co-designed the North West London Local Education Training Board. Heather is also a non-executive director of NMC Healthcare, a FTSE 250 company

Executive team

Stephen Hay: Also on the board - Managing Director of Provider Regulation – formerly KPMG - He has advised the boards of corporate and private equity houses and his portfolio of financial experience is wide-ranging and includes mergers and acquisitions, due diligence, IPOs, and risk assessment.

Adrian Masters: Also on the board - Managing Director of Sector Development – formerly McKinsey, IBM and PricewaterhouseCoopers

Miranda Carter: Executive director of Assessment  - formerly Deloitte, then PricewaterhouseCoopers - She has advised the boards of corporate and private equity houses and her portfolio of financial experience is wide-ranging and includes mergers and acquisitions, due diligence and initial public offerings (IPOs).

Catherine Davies: Executive director of cooperation and competition – formerly Linklaters global law firm – Catherine has worked across a wide range of sectors, including consumer goods, energy, media and healthcare. Linklaters clients include pharmaceuticals and biotechnology companies, service providers.

Kate Moore: Executive Director of Legal Services – formerly KPMG

Sue Meeson: Executive director of Strategic communications – formerly Unilever and Legal Services Commission.

Fiona Knight: Executive Director of Organisation Transformation – formerly KPMG

  

The Doctor Will See You Now: So Too Will the Advertisers

Patients are about to be targeted like never before by advertising companies as face recognition software merges with information screens to profile your interests as you wait for your doctor.

 

Lord Sugar is on the verge of selecting one more hard-nosed apprentice to his entrepreneurial stable as his Apprentice programme reaches its latest conclusion this Wednesday. Quite what work the eventual winner will undertake is unclear but a previous winner was selectedto run the sales of a project that profiles patients in the NHS as they sit and wait for their GP.

Amscreen Plc is part of Lord Sugar’s Amshold Group of companies, which is basedin the tax haven of Jersey and is overseen by his son Simon Sugar, who is the CEO. The company, which launched in 2008 when Lord Sugar bought Comtech M2M, provides T.V screens into places where there is a captive audience and places targeted marketing alongside the other content the organisation may use. These screens are placedin GP surgeries, hospitals and dentists throughout the UK and in Europe and also in petrol stations, convenience stores.

The way it works is like this. Amscreen will place a screen for free in say a GP surgery, which allows the surgery to inform patients on matters such as surgery opening hours or flu jab reminders. The money they get is by selling the other space on the screen to advertisers which will be part of a pre-packaged programme that will reach the captive audience waiting to be seen by their doctor.

Amscreen distributes its screens in two main ways:  by either funding the screen and installation at a client's premises, allocating some airtime to that client alongside the preloaded advertising, or by selling screens to a client and enabling  them to control their own media network (in return for a small monthly fee) where they have 100% control of the ad content.

Amscreen health has expanded their operation so that around 850 screens now exist in 695 GP surgeries, Pharmacies, Hospitals, and Dentists. Amscreen offer various packages depending on their target audiences, which are tailored towards over 55s, health charities, mother & baby, pharmaceuticals and private health. Amscreen is mainly in the UK, but is expanding into Europe and around the world.

In partnership

Three years ago, Amscreen and private hospital group, BMI Healthcare agreed a two-year partnership, which involved BMI Healthcare providing live weatherfeeds to advise patients on their ‘healthcare choice’. Quite how many meteorologists exist within the hospital network is unclear, but what is known is that this platform also allowed for the company to reach out to millions of patients advertising their services.

Nigel Moon, the Head of Marketing at BMI Healthcare said at the time “This advertising and sponsorship package provides us with a great opportunity to feature BMI Healthcare, our local hospitals and services to a highly targeted audience at a key time in the patient journey.” BMI Healthcare are just one of many other private health companies listed as ‘established relationships’, which include Baxter, GSK and Pfizer and Bayer healthcare, who are able to reach captive audiences in GP surgeries across the healthcare network. Apart from the healthcare corporates regularly cited on Amscreen's website, Care UK and Bupa have also been clients.

However, take up of the Amscreen product has not been as successful as he would like. In an interview with marketing company 'Campaign Live', Lord Sugar said ‘I don’t get them…I don’t understand why these people don’t say: ‘Bloody hell, I’ve got a captive audience of hypos [hypochondriacs] sitting there and I’ll bang my Anadin vs Panadol  [messaging] on the screens non-stop’. The Labour Peer, according to the marketing website believes ‘all over-the-counter drugs should use Amscreen’s screens in health environments.’ This method according to their own material, will drive an 'uplift in prescriptions.'

Face recognition

In order to improve the sales of Amscreen, the company has now teamed up with a face recognition company called Quividi. This technologywill be able to ‘determine the gender, age, date, time and volume of the viewers’ that look at the adverts and give real-time feedback to the advertisers. Lord Sugar’s son Simon reckons “brands deserve to know not just an estimation of how many eyeballs are viewing their adverts, but who they are, too.”

Alan Sugar, who was given his peerage in 2009, is a Lord largely in name only. In the last year he has taken part in 3 debates and has voted in 3.74% of votes, which given his outside interests is unsurprising. In addition when Lord Rea put forward a motion to shelve the Health and Social Care bill, Mr Sugar didn’t bother to turn up. However, he is of use to the Labour party who have gladly received £333,650.84 in donations from the ‘noble’ peer since 2001.

Privacy

Patients are surely entitled to be able to enter a GP surgery without being targeted by advertisers. Patients largely trust their GP and if drugs appear on the screen in front of them, then they may think that the GPs had control over the content.  This is certainly recognised by Amscreen who explicitly say the positioning of advertising in a GP surgery is a ‘perceived endorsement’ of a product by the GP.

The idea that you will be having your face analysed by advertisers as you sit waiting for your Doctor is surely an invasion of your privacy, despite assurances that faces are detected rather than captured. Many people going into the GP will presumably be concerned over their health, which is a matter not overlooked by Amscreen. In their promotion materialit points out ‘Our high impact screens will provide advertisers with an opportunity to communicate with a broad audience in a receptive mind-set when mental and physical wellbeing for themselves, their families and the community is top of mind.’

Breach of Trust

This all means that a patient without their knowledge or permission is providing information for free to advertisers in the perceived trusted environment of their surgery. Although other important information is imparted on the screens, the local surgery is acting in partnership with whoever the advertisers happen to be over the contractual period. All this amounts to a situation in which patients are being taken advantage of in a vulnerable moment, which is a clear breach of trust by the GP surgery, hospital or dentist, whether privately run or NHS. Such a practice should stop and if you see a screen when you're waiting for your appointment next, then you may need to assume you're being watched.

Social Investigations News Roundup

1. Change the NHS from within: New research conducted by Social Investigations has revealed a Head Hunter firm with financial links to a Conservative Baroness has been able to gain revenue directly from changes that took place because of the Health and Social Care Act on which the Baroness voted. Furthermore, the Chairman of the company has funded the Conservative party in a process that changes the NHS from within. Full story...

2. “Nothing Short of Corruption”: 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. Full story...

3. 2020health Think Tank: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”. Full story...

4. Earl Howe: 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. Full story...

5. Lobbying Moves In-House - Nick Seddon: Number 10 welcomes Nick Seddon, former lobbyist and private healthcare advocate, into Downing Street to lead on health policy formation. What does this say about Cameron’s real attitude to the lobbying game he has publicly decried? And what kind of policies will Seddon be pushing now? There are good reasons to be concerned. Full story...

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

7. Healthcare Coup: The Lords didn’t save us the first time: In early 2012 the Lords voted in favour of the Health and Social Care bill, the final step in turning it into an Act. As the Lords sat in the house to debate and vote on the bill, research conducted by Social Investigations revealedthe Lords were riddled with private healthcare interests across all parties. Despite these recent or present financial links to private companies involved in healthcare, they were allowed to debate and vote. Full story...

8. Unhealthy Influence: The Rise of  then NHS Partners Network: The transformation of a small private healthcare trade association into a powerful and influential lobby group provides a clear indication of the direction the NHS has taken.  Today the NHS Partners Network has some of the most powerful private healthcare companies as members and is a trustee on the NHS Confederation board. Social Investigations journalist Andrew Robertson examines the development of one of the best-connected and most persuasive privatisation cheerleaders. Full story...

9. Tax Haven? No Contract: The message proffered by David Cameron when he spoke at the World Economic Forum in Davos was tax avoidance would become a priority of the UK’s presidency for this year. In reality, the government acts in the opposite manner, rewards those companies who channel money to tax havens with further contracts paid for by the taxpayer. Full story...

10. Rights for Shares: No Mandate, Unwanted Rejected: George Osborne has maintained his stance to weaken worker protections in exchange for shares. In doing so he exposes himself as utterly undemocratic, and highlights the need for the unions to regain some strength. Full story...

11. Healthcare Contracts Connecting Lords and MPs and Their Companies: This list represents private healthcare companies that are financially linked to Lords and MPs from all parties that have won contracts since the government announced the white paper Equity and Excellence: Liberating the NHS, which in turn led to the Health and Social Care Act. Full story...

12. Lord Help Us – Tory Donor Made Peer Reveals A Broken System: When it was announced that John Nash would become a life peer of the House of Lords, I added his name to the listof over 200 parliamentarians who have recent past or present financial links to companies involved in healthcare. Full story...

13. Labour Used Virgin ‘Restricted’ Report to Open NHS to Healthcare Companies: A hitherto restricted report commissioned by Labour back in 2000 has revealed how Virgin overstepped their remit – advice on improving customer service in the NHS - by promoting an increase in the use of private companies. Further inclusions written into the report by mystery authors also reveal a fledgling policy idea that would later become part of Virgin’s expansion into the healthcare market. The document also sheds light on New Labour’s wider programme of marketising the NHS – the job the Coalition has now seen to conclusion. Full story...

14. Half Billion Tax Haven Transfer: A private outsourcing company who are in receipt of one of the highest government spends have channeled over half a billion pounds into an offshore tax haven. One of the group of company directors, part-funded David Cameron’s leadership campaign in 2005 with two £10,000 payments. Full story...

Baroness Headhunter Company Making Money from Her Vote

New research conducted by Social Investigations has revealed a Head Hunter firm with financial links to a Conservative Baroness has been able to gain revenue directly from changes that took place because of the Health and Social Care Act on which the Baroness voted. Furthermore, the Chairman of the company has funded the Conservative party in a process that changes the NHS from within.

Baroness Bottomley is the Chair of the Board and CEO practice of Odgers Berndtson and also holds shares in their holding company Broomco Ltd.

The head hunter company works in thirteen industry areas including Healthcare, and been heavily involved in vetting key personnel into the new NHS

Their website boasts of their ‘unparalleled reach across the NHS, (and) private sector healthcare...(which) enables us to attract inspirational candidates others might never find.’

A key part of the Health and Social Care Act was to move commissioning responsibility for NHS services from Primary Care Trusts to the newly formed Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs).

In early 2012, Odgers produced a report titled ‘Leadership and management Challenges in Clinical Commissioning Groups’, which stated how ‘Making intelligent appointments to (CCG)…Boards, and, subsequently to management teams, through open and rigorous processes, will be the major determinant of success in the effort to develop leadership cultures in CCGs.’

The new ‘intelligent appointments’ vetted by Odgers & Berndtson and accepted by the relevant departments will act as the new drivers in the CCGs and change the NHS from within. ‘Through thought-leadership seminars and networking’ they claim to ‘bring the rising stars of the NHS together to inspire best practice and help shape a vision for the future.’ 

CCGs

Despite having only been in existence since April, several CCGs have already spent over £350,000 on recruitment services provided by Odgers & Berndtson. These revenues, which were made possible due to the changes imposed by the Health and Social Care Act, occurred in part thanks to the vote of Baroness Bottomley.

The tentacles of Odger’s influence stretch across the NHS spectrum and they will be finding the replacement ofr current NHS Chief, David Nicholson. Odgers is part of the government’s recruitment framework and have been involved in four appointments in the Department of Health. A further freedom of information request revealed they were also involved in the recruitement of David Cameron’s former special policy adviser on health, and ex-McKinsey consultant Paul Bate to the beleaguered Care Quality Commission. Furthermore, Odgers have been used to fill seven appointments in the North-West London Commissioning Support Unit at a cost of £66,000.

Monitor

In addition to the CCGs, a freedom of Information request has discovered that many of the key positions in the new NHS regulator Monitor, have been filled using Odgers Berntdson. In total 12 senior personnel have been sourced and vetted by Odgers at a cost of nearly £200,000 of taxpayers money.

Positions filled by Monitor through Odgers Berndtson
1	Compliance Manager
2	Director of Public Affairs and Communications
3	Policy Director
4	Head of External Affairs
5	Policy Adviser
6	Policy Adviser
7	Policy Adviser
8	Non Executive Director
9	Non Executive Director
10	Non Executive Director
11	Costing Specialist
12	Medical Adviser
Total cost of services provided (excluding advertising)	£195,018.15

Since becoming a life peer in June 2005, Mrs Bottomley’s attendance rate has been just 20%, yet somehow she managed to turn up for every day of the Health and Social care bill and voted to help turn the legislation into an Act.

Richard Boggis-Rolfe

Furthermore, the Chairman of Odgers & Berndtson, Richard Boggis-Rolfe has given £207,500 in donations to the Conservative party between 2006 up until the General election. In an interview with City newspaper CityAM, he revealed the benefit of having the baroness and ex-health secretary on her books when he said ‘Everyone takes her call.’ When Baroness Bottomley rose to speak in the Health and Social Care bill second reading, the former Conservative health secretary said to her fellow peers “The role of Monitor has been excellently refined. It has allowed the transitional phases to develop, but the health service needs a bit of muscular intervention...I give this Bill an unequivocal and extraordinarily warm welcome.”  No doubt a thought shared by her chairman.

Further healthcare interests

In April 1993 Virginia Bottomley as Secretary of State for Health in the Conservative party under John Major, announced her intention to increase private company involvement in the NHS. In a speech reported by the Independent to the Confederation of British Industry, Mrs Bottomley informed us that although NHS patients will still be treated free, ‘the service should 'buy' more care from private hospitals and health care companies such as Bupa.’  

Forward wind 14 years and on the 17^th of May 2007, Bupa announced the appointment of three new Non-executive Directors, one of which is Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone.

Although having just left her Bupa post in May this year, Mrs Bottomley’s healthcare interests don’t end there. The Baroness is also a non-executive director of medical technology multi-national Smith and Nephew, a member of the International Advisory Board for Tokyo-based Chugai Pharmaceutical Company Ltd a board member of Akzo Nobel, which is listed in the NHS purchasing directory as decoration suppliers.

Is it enough that Virginia Bottomley simply registered her interests but was still allowed to vote on the Health bill? In doing so she has played a part in opening up increased revenue opportunities for her employer whose chairman also part-funded Conservative central party. Her sheer delight at the bill’s existence and her connections to companies that are already benefitting from the NHS, surely makes for an urgent need to change the rules and end the vote when there is a conflict of interest.

Councillors at local level are unable to vote with a ‘prejudicial’ interest and can debate at the discretion of their fellow councillors but no such restrictions exist MPs or Lords. The time has surely come to make them abide by the same restrictions.

There are several companies who have connections to Lords and MPs who have directlygained revenue or changed company position due to the Health and Social care Act. In totalover 200 parliamentarians have recent or present financial links to companies or individuals involved in healthcare, all able to vote on the Health and Social Care Act. This situation was recentlydescribed by the Labour MP for Easington, Grahame Morris as ‘nothing short of corruption.’