Newly Appointed Labour Donor Opens Hospital Group Company

Former gambling Lobbyist and Labour party donor Lord Mendelsohn incorporated new Hospital Group on the same day he joined the Lords.

When it comes to conflicts of interest, the Labour party is in no position to throw stones at anyone. One in six Labour Lords have recent or present financial links to companies or individuals involved in private healthcare.

In the next election, the NHS will undoubtedly be one of the key battlegrounds in the fight for people’s votes. Labour has promised to repeal the external market elements of the Health and Social Care Act if they get into power. Presumably then, they will be less than happy about the newly made life Peer, Baron Medelsohn’s latest venture into hospitals.

Jonathan Mendelsohn is firmly in the New Labour camp, being a director of their think tank Progress. Mendelsohn was at the centre of a controversy back in 1998, when he helped set up a lobbying firm called LLM Communications (now dissolved). The manifesto of their successful operation read according to journalist Greg Palast as “leaders who lead” are antique creatures of The Passing World. Today, markets lead. Industry CEOs lead. In the Emerging World, prime ministers and presidents merely “listen.”

Greg Palast wrote that as part of an article following his undercover work that caught both Mendelsohn and his fellow lobbyist Derek Draper on tape. The sting had them boasting about how they could get access to government ministers, create tax breaks, you know the usual stuff.

So why on Earth did Labour think it would be a good idea to make Mendelsohn a Life peer in September?  Was it because he was a good fund-raiser? Not without controversy. A big donor? He has given money to Labour before, but not a lot in donor world, just two £5,000 payments to Peter Hain and Gordon Brown in their respective leadership campaigns. Electoral Commission

Now he has just incorporated a new company of which he is the sole owner and which coincidentally was incorporated ‘received for filing’ at Companies House on the same day he became a life peer. The new business is called ‘Europa Hospitals Group’, which has one office in Madrid and one in London and a website that says ‘coming soon’. In what form this business will materialise is currently unclear as the accounts say nothing about the business, and as yet neither does the website. It could be an investment vehicle for hospitals or private hospitals themselves. An email to his new company has been sent asking for more details.

Aside from this interest, Baron Mendelsohn is also an adviser to law firm Berwin Leighton Paisner that have a specialist healthcaredivision working with the NHS in PFI projects, and NHS Trusts. The law firm also works with private healthcare clients that include companies, BUPA, Barchester Health, UK Specialist Hospitals, as well as some NHS Trusts.

As Labour moves away from New Labour in the Commons, they have promoted New Labour in the Lords, a House where rampant vested interests reign. Mendelsohn was an embarrassment to Labour back in 1998, and by placing him into the Lords, are they opening themselves up to more unnecessary pain?

The question many potential voters may well ask is will the real Labour please stand up!

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

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.’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reform

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

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

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

In fact Mr Morris had chosen the perfect example.

Corporate policy writing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rules

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

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

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

Petition

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

Unhealthy influence: The rise of the 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.

The early days

The NHS Partners Network (NHSPN) came into existence in 2005 to provide a voice for private health companies involved in Labour’s Independent Sector Treatment programme (ISTC) which opened up non-emergency treatments to the private sector.

This programme provided a foothold for private companies in the NHS and the NHSPN quickly started playing a protective role for its membership. Its 2007 annual report boasted of using its influence to downplay the significance of a leaked document from the Health Care Commission that raised questions over quality standards within the ISTCs.

’Blending’ with the NHS

In the same year it was voted on to the NHS Confederation, the main representative for organisations offering NHS services, a move that gave it increased legitimacy. Now, as part of the agreement for all networks in the confederation, the NHSPN is represented at trustee level, currently through the Chief Executive of Care UK, Mike Parish.  In addition to this, David Worskett the director of the NHSPN, is also a director within the Confederation. 
The influence of the network has now increased well beyond its original remit.. As part of its membership package, the NHSPN promises ”regular dialogue with ministers and senior level decision makers within the main political parties”, and ”good contacts with the media to promote the role of the independent sector within the NHS”.

You can judge a club by its members…
In 2008, the network’s membership stood at just ten companies, which included Care UK, Circle and Ramsay Healthcare UK. Yet, it now held considerable influence. The 2007/8 annual report informed members how in October 2007, the network had held a meeting with Andrew Lansley “on the Conservative Party’s draft bill”.  This ”bill” went on to become the infamous ‘Equity and excellence: Liberating the NHS’ white paper and in turn the even more infamous Health and Social Care Act of 2012. The report also described “briefings aimed at furthering the interests of members with shadow health secretary Andy Burnham, Conservative MP and advisor to Circle Health Mark Simmonds, and multiple other key personnel and advisors at the Department of Health.

To become a member of the NHSPN, an annual payment of £35,000 is required, which includes a membership fee to the NHS Confederation, which is a registered charity. The sum of money is clearly seen as money well spent and by 2009 the network’s membership had grown substantially to 17 companies, which led to a total income of £347,500 from subscriptions for the year. Two new entrants to the NHSPN stable for this period were UnitedHealth UK and the new GP out of hour’s services provider Harmoni, since bought by Care UK.

The latest annual report lists 26 members, with additions including Bupa and General Healthcare Group. Membership income now stands at £434,000. 

Oliver Letwin led negotiations

Dates for the diary

By 2009, NHSPN staff were moving among the highest political circles.  In the 2009 annual report shows how they had held a NHS board meeting with Andrew Lansley, hosted breakfast meetings at all the party conferences, had a meeting with new industry regulator, Monitor and met with the free market think tank Reform. In control of the network’s marketing and promotional activities at this time was David Worskett, who would soon go on to take over the reigns as director.

The NHS Partners Network was indeed going places, made possible by the Labour party and encouraged still further by a Conservative party intent on shaking the very foundations of the NHS. In May 2010, it was back in power, albeit in coalition with Liberal Democrats. Less than two months after the coalition had formed, Andrew Lansley, now new health secretary, introduced the ‘Liberating the NHS’ white paper.

The remarkable speed with which this hitherto unknown policy appeared was of course no coincidence. The plan had been hatched many years before. However, having failed to win by a clear majority, the Conservatives had to negotiate more than they would have liked. ‘Never Again?’, a book  by Nicholas Timmins from the Institute for Government, describes the deal made behind closed doors by Oliver Letwin and Danny Alexander, who had agreed to support the government’s changes to NHS in exchange for Lords reform. This reckless and deeply undemocratic move allowed the wheels of Conservative policy to begin rolling.

Behind closed doors
Three months after the white paper had come out - and before parliament had even seen the bill - David Worskett, now director of NHSPN, met with the then minister for health, Simon Burns and Earl Howe, who was responsible for commissioning and primary care. A document written by Mr Worskett following the meeting, explained how they would make it clear to (the new) healthcare commissioners what the Any Willing Provider (AWP) policy meant for them, and reassured Mr Worskett that opposition to the GP commissioning plans was likely to be “short-term” and “dissipate” in the future.

The remarkable courtesy shown to Mr Worksett confirmed the Network’s rising status  and this was the time to truly make its presence felt.  Its 2010 annual report described discussions with David Bennett, chairman of the new industry regulator Monitor, and Steven Dorrell, the chair of the health select committee. The self-titled ‘partners’ of the NHS now had the law on their side and were acting less in partnership and more in direct confrontation. Under the title of ‘Main activities’, the Network stated how it had  “defended members threatened by anti-competitive behaviour” and, more intriguingly, influenced “the development of the NHS reforms”.

The Future Forum
This latter statement was not a boast from a lobbying group trying to impress its members but a true reflection on the way the Network was able to maintain competition in the bill despite a near total rejection from both the medical profession and the public. The rising resistance forced the government to set up the NHS Future Forum in order to ”pause, listen and reflect”.

Much to its dismay, the NHSPN found itself locked out of the forum. To allow a private healthcare representative in would have been too politically sensitive at the time. This didn’t mean the network wasn’t involved. The person that would open the door for them turned out to be Sir Stephen Bubb, the Chief Executive of the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations, who Cameron had accepted as head of the ”Choice and Competition” part of the Forum.

A memorandum written by David Worskett to his Network members, unearthed by Social Investigations in July last year, revealed how Mr Worskett had held one lengthy, very early 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 not deviated from this for a moment throughout the period.” The memorandum also revealed how “several members have used their own ’routes’ to gain access to key players within No.10 and have been able to report back that the stance there is supportive.

The competition part of the Forum turned out to be such a sham that Bubb announced on his website: "Just as I was signing off our panel's report on 'Delivering real choice' I get sent a copy of the PM's speech announcing he was accepting many of our key recommendations (although we haven't actually given him the report yet!)”.

Financial links to MPs and Lords
The ability of NHSPN members to access the highest levels of government was surely not hindered by the fact that many of the Network’s members employ MPs and Lords. Baroness Bottomley is a director of Bupa for example, while John Nash, now a Lord, was the Chairman of Care UK when Lansley received a donation to run his office when he was shadow health minister. Circle, the first company to win a contract to run a NHS hospital, have Conservative MP Mark Simmonds as an advisor and Baroness Ford is the Chairman of Grove Ltd, a holding company for care home company Barchester Health.

Still so much to do…
The Health and Social Care Act is now passed but the NHSPN’s efforts on behalf of its members is far from finished. Monitor recently opened up a consultation on creating what they call a ‘Fair Playing Field review’, to make sure that when service providers fight it out against each other for contracts the ‘field’ is as even as possible. The NHSPN made a submission highlighting tax, pensions and the NHS Brand as a barrier to equal competition. The irony that the Network itself is allowed to use the NHS as a prefix to its name is apparently lost on its members.

A recent report by healthcare market analysts Laing & Buisson, revealed how services obtained from private providers has increased by 10% in the last year. In less than two weeks the NHS budget will be placed into the hands of the Clinical Commissioning Groups, which will accelerate the outsourcing of services still further. The private healthcare industry is on the rise and so too the NHS Partners Network. 

This article appeared in Corporate Watch