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

  

Revealed: Head of Monitor Has Ties with Private Healthcare Lobby Group Who See Tax, Pensions and NHS Brand as Barrier in 'Fair Playing Field' Review.

The latest unholy mess taking place due to the undemocratic, unnecessary and complicated Health and Social Care Act, is the ‘Fair Playing Field’, review being undertaken by the new NHS regulator, Monitor.

A nine-month process has now seen all the submissions handed in and each organisation is wondering what is going to be the result of the review, come the end of March, this year.

April the 1^st is the time when the Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) are due to takeover, from the Primary Care Trusts, abolished thanks to the new legislation. The ‘Fair Playing Field’ findings, which will conclude in time for this date, will mark the end of the NHS as we know it and increase the fragmentation of services across the country.

Social Investigations can now reveal a private healthcare group’s submission, which brings to the attention of Monitor the barriers the private sector perceive to achieve a Fair Playing Field, which include corporation tax, VAT, pensions and the NHS brand. The only problem is, this same lobby group were heavily influential in maintaining competition in the Health bill during the sham of a 'so-called 'listening exercise'. Furthermore, this same lobby group had previously met with the head of Monitor in a 'like-minded' meeting, bringing the impartiality of the review into question.

The NHS Partner's Network (NHSPN) is made up of private providers who provide NHS services and whose membership includes companies that include Care UK and Virgin Care. The submissionmade by the NHSPN was handed to Monitor in the early stages of the Fair Playing Field review last year, titled: 'NHS Partners Network response to Monitor's Call for initial submissions.'

On the subject of 'economic components', it states: '...to achieve any given post-tax rate of return, on an investment a corporation tax paying entity would have to charge higher prices than an NHS body or charity...the estimated average magnitude of this is that it now adds between 2% and 3% to independent providers.'

Monitor list 'tax asymmetries' as number four under 'Key Issues' to be looked at during the 'Fair Playing Field' review.  As well as corporate tax breaks, the NHSPN have also suggested the review look at the impact of VAT, stating, 'while NHS providers can claim back VAT on certain contracted-out services, independent providers cannot do so.' In addition, public sector providers are at an advantage because of the 'attractiveness' of the pension scheme ', which according to the submission, creates a barrier to workforce flexibility.'

Part 'C' of the submission, asks 'What do we already know about the elements of a fair playing field?' The response from the NHSPN points toward an 'illuminating piece of independent work' done in 2009 by the Office of Health Economics, partly paid for by the NHSPN.' The study builds on a previous work conducted by the University of York, but as the NHSPN funded study 'summarises the York study', they chose only to attach the study they helped fund. The NHSPN is however adamant that the study remains unbiased, stating: 'The report was co-funded by the NHS Confederation and the report itself makes completely clear that it was wholly independent. It went through OHE's normal peer review processes.’

In addition to providing this study, the NHSPN submission tries to weaken the element of public sector training and medical education, which is provided by the NHS. 'Most NHS education and training is 'funded centrally and separately from the main provision of care budgets and this does not therefore directly impact on the fairness of the playing field in the market'. However, as Mr Worskett admitted in a reponse to Social Investigations, when asked why this should be left out he said, 

'We do in fact recognise there is a legitimate discussion about medical education and training but there is a need for a much fuller and longer analysis of the issues before any conclusions can be reached.'

This is followed by a bullet point that states: 'A significant (but not yet quantified) proportion of independent providers do now participate in NHS education and training, in some cases at no cost to the NHS, and while this is doubtless only a small proportion of the whole, it must not be overlooked.'

A further disadvantage the lobby group highlights, is in the 'NHS' itself. Under a heading 'The impact of the NHS "brand"', they state, 'studies of the deregulated utilities markets have suggested that one problem, in developing a fairer playing field, was customer familiarity with and loyalty to the ex-public sector incumbent brands. There is a possibility that similar responses might work unfairly to the disadvantage of independent providers in the NHS market...'

Monitor are meant to be impartial, but the discovery of an internal memo written by NHSPN director, David Worskett reveals both he and Monitor chief, David Bennett met during the Health bill 'pause' under the auspices of free market think tank, Reform.

The document, which was discovered by research blog, Social investigations, was an update informing the groups members on the lobbying that had taken place during the so-called 'listening exercise'. Mr Worksett informs his members how: 'I had a second lengthy meeting...under the auspices of "Reform", with only a handful of other (all like-minded) people present, including David Bennett, the chair of Monitor. He has also consistently taken the same line as us throughout.'

Furthermore, the same memo informs us how David Worksett 'coordinated' the position of the NHSPN during the pause, 'carefully with Monitor...' When asked what this position was, the NHSPN claimed it was 'to establish that Monitor, like us, had not seen the introduction of competition as an objective in its own right but, instead, as a means of improving quality of care for patients.'

David Bennett distanced himself from the comments saying: ‘The comments made are the opinion and conjecture of Mr Worskett and Monitor cannot be held responsible for these. Mr Bennett did attend the same meetings as Mr Worskett during the NHS listening exercise but at no time has he referred to himself as a ‘like minded’ person to Mr Worskett. Similarly there was no coordination of position between Monitor and the NHS Partners Network. ‘ 

David Bennett's bias was brought into question previously when a FOI revealed an email from an unnamed McKinsey executive from May 2010, suggesting it was exploiting its privileged access. It stated: “We have been gathering our thinking on the implications of the new Government programme for the NHS (and) have started to share this with clients. Would you like to meet to discuss it?” The recipient of the email was David Bennett.

None of this would have been necessary if it hadn’t been for the Health and Social Care Act. The manner in which the services are being sold off, serves only to fragment services and pit providers against each other. David Bennett was a former senior partner at McKinsey & Co, the architects of the £20bn savings that are being justified to sell off large chunks of the NHS. The ‘Fair Playing Field is about to launch the NHS into a brave new world, and what’s the betting the outcome will favour the private sector?

Further reading

1. NHS Partners Network - Who are they? here

2. Unedited document of lobbying by NHS Partners Network here 

3. Statement from NHS  Partners Network on Telegraph article - here 

4. The Telegraph, the Think Tank and a Very Dodgy Business - here

5. Unedited response to questions related to above article from NHS Partners Network here 

Key Member of NHS Future Forum Colluded with Lobby Group over Competition

Sir Stephen bubb

The Head of a voluntary association who was a key member of the Future NHS 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, a newly discovered document has revealed.

When the government decided to take a ‘pause’ in response to the increasing resistance to the Health and Social Care bill being rushed through parliament, the Department of Health set up the NHS Future Forum to front the so-called ‘listening’ exercise. The participants in the forum, were made up of individuals from across the NHS spectrum, without private sector inclusion, however, a certain Sir Stephen Bubb, was appointed by David Cameron as chair of the group on choice and competition.

Sir Stephen Bubb is head of the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations (ACEVO), which had been campaigning for a bigger role for the voluntary sector in the public services, a key part of Conservative party’s ‘Big Society’, mantra. Mr Bubb, had according to the newly released book by Nicholas Timmins ‘Never Again?’ - been in touch with Andrew Lansley before the ‘pause’, to see what could be done to promote the idea of ‘voluntary sector providers in the reforms’

His appointment according to the Timmins book, was requested by Health minister Simon Burns, who asked him to ‘chair the competition work group.’ The eventual clearance for his position came from No10, which was presumed to be David Cameron. His appointment was canny, because the private sector were unable to get into the forum as members and Mr Bubb’s role for increasing the voluntary sector’s involvement in the ‘choice’ process, crossed over with the same desire’s of the private sector. His involvement as pro-competition spokesman did indeed go far beyond the voluntary sector he represented. The newly discovered document handed to Social investigations, reveals his collusion with the director of the trade and lobby group, the NHS Partners Network, which took the form of an agreed set of tactics.

The document titled: NHS Partners' Network: Director's update on the NHS Reforms was produced on the 20^th May 2011, just as the ‘listening exercise’ was coming to a close. The document was written to bring together the various lobbying processes that had taken place throughout the period and was meant for members eyes only. Under the title ‘in terms of direct discussion’, David Worskett the director of the network informs us of how, early on in the pause, he had one ‘lengthy’ discussion with Sir Stephen Bubb at which ‘we agreed on the approach he would take, what the key issues are, and how to handle the politics.’ He has, he concluded, ‘not deviated from this for a moment throughout the period.’ The listening exercise it seems was fully underway.  

This damning statement, confirms what Mr Worskett said, as revealed in Mr Timmins book that ‘throughout the forums deliberations, Bubb was “our only real route in”. He “fought valiantly to ensure that an element of competition remained in the system”, resulting in what David Worskett saw as a “pretty pro competition…and that was mostly, though not entirely down to Steve Bubb.”  

Indeed, not only did Mr Worskett get through to Mr Bubb, but so too did other members of the network. According to the second bullet point of direct discussions, ‘a number of members secured individual meetings with him, thus reinforcing and validating the messages.’ Not content with this, a second ‘lengthy meeting took place in May 2011, a week before the network document was written, which took place under the ‘auspices of "Reform"’, the right-wing think tank, according to the update. The discussion involved other ‘all like-minded’ people and included ‘David Bennett’, the chair of Monitor, the industry regulator, who he claimed had also ‘consistently taken ‘the same line throughout.’ 

The connection to Reform is important. The deputy director of the right wing think tank, Nick Seddon is connected to an orchestration of the Telegraph's editorial by Mr Worksett, according to the document, promoting the benefits of competition. The story of the Telegraph's involvement is explored here...

Mr Bubb and Mr Seddon are both on very good terms, as revealed in a post written by Sir Stephen Bubb on his blog a week before the official launch of the NHS Future Forum on the 31^stof 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.’ It wasn't always like this. Back in 2008, Mr Bubb was talking a very different tune about Mr Seddon writing: 'I see that Nick Seddon , the journalist who I chastised recently has been at it again...He apparently thinks that all the bosses of the top charities form a champagne quaffing elite whose views are only of "incidental interest " or even " objects of scorn"...I'm having lunch with Mr Seddon soon . But he gets no champagne...'

Stephen Bubb's ability to get the 'agreed' message across was appreciated by Mr Worskett who concluded: ‘…the arguments in favour of choice, competition, plurality and economic regulation put forward by the small handful of like-minded members ably led by Sir Stephen Bubb have often carried the day and won more support than we might have expected.’ By all accounts the lobby group have achieved what they said they had in their 2010/11 Annual Summary, which stated: 'Following the UK general election 2010, our main areas of activity have included: influencing the development of the NHS reforms.'

The NHS Partners Network have not finished there, having recently submitted their paper in a review set up by Andrew Lansley to look into whether healthcare providers are able to fully participate in providing NHS services. 

In their submission, the partner network complained that local NHS organisations are using ‘local or known organisations, rather than considering the opportunity to develop new relationships’, and that the’ structure and decision making systems are not inclusive of all providers on an equal basis.’

Heading the review is David Bennett, who attended the ‘lengthy’ meeting of 'like-minded' people, with Sir Stephen Bubb. Mr Bennett has previously and predominantly worked for global consultancy company Mckinsey & Co as a director, and without any previous experience in government, became the Chief policy Officer to Tony Blair. McKinsey & Co, were responsible for many proposals drawn up in the health and Social Care bill and despite leaving the company 8 years ago, his communication with the company hasn’t stopped.

Researcher of Green Benches blog Dr Éoin Clarke, obtained letters between Mr Bennett and Nicholaus Henke of McKinsey & Co, using the Freedom of Information Act. The correspondence revealed a cosy discussion between McKinsey & Co and the Department of Health (DoH) suggesting an informal meeting to discuss the passage and implementation of the NHS bill. In addition, Mr Bennett felt it perfectly acceptable to receive hospitality from McKinsey & Co in June 2011, just after the listening exercise had finished, where he flew business class to New York, stayed at a five-star hotel and attended a lavish banquet. Not very becoming of the head of a regulatory body of our NHS.

Naturally, the government and their apparatchiks will dismiss any consideration of bias under the marketingspeak of ‘promoting the ‘interests of patients’, and ‘choice.’ However, one quote made by David Bennett in an interview with the Times and highlighted in Nicholas Timmins book reveals just how bias the head of the ‘independent’ review will be. “We did it in gas, we did it in power, we did it in telecoms. We’ve done it in rails; we’ve done it in water. So there is actually 20 years experience of taking monopolistic markets and providers and exposing them to economic regulation.”

Of course this could read, there has been 20 years of handing over public resources into private hands raising the cost of living for the consumer and increasing subsidisation for the taxpayer, it just depends if you see the world through ideologue or economic fact. Indeed Mr Bennett was involved in the process that led to the decision process to set 49% of hospital income from private sources. How can a man with such clear bias be the head of Monitor, and a review process which will be making changes that will place private companies on an ‘equal’ footing with other NHS providers. The answer is it won’t, and his position as head of Monitor is just another piece in the jigsaw of handing the NHS over to private companies, one which Stephen Bubb has played a key role. 

At least we can be rest assured no decisions were agreed upon until the Forum's report was signed off. Ah wait a minute!

On the the 7^thof June, Bubb wrote once more on his blog. This time revealing this extraordinary revelation: ‘just as I was signing off our Panel's report on " Delivering real choice" I get sent a copy of the PM speech announcing he is accepting many of our key recommendations  although we haven't actually given him the report yet!)’ He continued: ‘I am unclear why he thought it was a good idea to pre announce acceptance of much of our Report, but it is welcome.’

Do you think Stephen Bubb and David Bennett resign?

Note to editors: The NHS Partners Network membership largely consists of private healthcare companies, who are well connected to our parliamentarians. Six of their members have direct financial links to MPs, former MPs, and Lords providing a well-connected source to parliament. These include Circle who have Conservative MP Mark Simmonds on their team as a strategic advisor, who also acts as Vice Chair on the Associate Health Group. Care UK, whose Chairman John Nash donated £21,000 to run Andrew Lansley’s office when he was shadow health secretary, and Barchester Health, who have Baroness Ford as their chairman and Mike Parsons as their Chief Executive, who was voted the 2^nd most influential person in healthcare by the influential healthcare magazine ‘HealthInvestor’ members in their top 'Power Fifty' awards.

For a full list of our parliamentarians connections to private healthcare: http://socialinvestigations.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/nhs-privatisation-compilation-of.html

To see the original document please email: andrewfiskar(at)gmail.com

Incidentally - Bubb wrote in Febraury 2012: 'Tesco have their premier cru on offer for half price. It's a great dry champagne and at a very reasonable price , such that even a third sector CEO could get one!' It seems Seddon was right first time around. No wonder they are are now friends.