Research conducted by Social
Investigations has revealed a million pound recruitment bonanza for just three companies attached to
Lords and an MP made possible thanks to their vote.
When the Health and Social Care
bill was being debated in the House of Commons, Conservative MP Nadhim Zahawi
rose in defence of the beleaguered Andrew Lansley to say
GPs were “absolutely passionate” about the reforms and that it was a “brilliant
piece of legislation”.
Nadhim Zahawi sits on the board
as a non-executive director of recruitment company SThree for which he receives
regular monthly payments of £2,916.67 for 7 hours work.
Sthree is the parent company of international recruitment leaders Real Staffing, who work in the Healthcare & Life Sciences sectors.
Sthree is the parent company of international recruitment leaders Real Staffing, who work in the Healthcare & Life Sciences sectors.
His enthusiasm for the reforms
was abundantly clear and his vote helped pass the bill into an Act, which
created the new Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs).
Now, it can revealed that Real Staffing have been working with the
new CCGs through new revenue opportunities made possible by Mr Zahawi’s vote.
The recruitment company, who has
previously worked in other areas of the NHS, turned their sights on CCGs once
they took over commissioning responsibilities. Freedom of Information requests sent out to all CCGs, revealed that the new commissioners have spent over two million pound on services provided by Real Staffing, covering areas such as
Programme projects, Business Infomatics and administration posts.
The financial benefits for recruitment are clear, costing one CCG £486,000 for 11 staff at a cost to the Bromley CCG of over £44,000 per position filled.
The financial benefits for recruitment are clear, costing one CCG £486,000 for 11 staff at a cost to the Bromley CCG of over £44,000 per position filled.
Personnel Profit
Companies attached to MPs and
Lords have led the recruitment bonanza in the new NHS, providing personnel into
key positions in the new structure created by the Health Act.
NHS regulator and competition enforcer, Monitor, has spent close to half a million on two companies attached to Lords to fill senior positions. 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. The Chairman, Richard Boggis-Rolfe, has given £207,500 in donations to the Conservative party between 2006 up until the General election. Odgers employ Baroness Bottomley as Chair of the Board and CEO practice and she also holds shares in their holding company Broomco Ltd.
NHS regulator and competition enforcer, Monitor, has spent close to half a million on two companies attached to Lords to fill senior positions. 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. The Chairman, Richard Boggis-Rolfe, has given £207,500 in donations to the Conservative party between 2006 up until the General election. Odgers employ Baroness Bottomley as Chair of the Board and CEO practice and she also holds shares in their holding company Broomco Ltd.
The question this blog keeps asking is why are MPs allowed to vote
on legislation when they have a financial interest? At local government level,
anyone with a financial or non-financial interest, is debarred from the vote. Given that Real
Staffing have now gained revenue through the CCGs, Mr Zahawi was asked whether
his vote was for the benefit of Sthree through Real Staffing or in the interest
of the public and whether he thought it was acceptable that there should be a
difference between the rules that apply to MPs and councillors.
He failed to address this question stating
only that his appointment with SThree took
place in 2008, prior to becoming an MP. He also stated that Real Staffing have
been providing services to the public sector prior to his appointment onto the
board and that he “never discussed any bills with any board members."
This may be the case, but why is
the public placed in a position in which they are forced to take the word of an
MP, when such doubt should be removed altogether. The
intentional loop-hole in the rules weakens democracy and places distrust
in the eyes of the public whether justified or otherwise.
In the meantime, the amount of companies that are financially connected to MPs and Lords who have gone on to gain contracts in the new NHS continues to increase and the question is, who do our parliamentarians serve?