Exclusive: Top law firm writes to Mel Stride inviting him to start mediation talks on restitution for 50swomen

Mel Stride, Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

One of London’s top law firms has written to Mel Stride, the work and pensions secretary, inviting him to agree to mediation talks to end the long suffering impasse on awarding compensation to the now 3.5 million 50s born women who had to wait another six years before they got their pension.

Garden Court Chambers, which takes up human rights issues, has a specialist role in mediation. Next month it will be hosting a seminar evaluating the use of mediation in the Court of Protection, which makes and regulates decisions on behalf of people who don’t have the mental capacity do so, publishing research done by Dr Jaime Lindsey of Essex University.

The law firm has a long history of looking at women’s equality issues and two years ago hosted a people’s tribunal looking at the full implementation in the UK of the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) which Lady Thatcher ratified in 1986.

Six barristers and leading KC’s from the firm gave their time pro bono to advise on the legal arguments and took evidence from witnesses. The pro bono support was seen as unprecedented at the time. Each session was chaired by a panel of senior lawyers from the firm. They were ” counsel assisting ” to Dr Jocelynne Scutt, the former Australian judge and anti discrimination, who chaired the hearings.

Dr Jocelynne Scutt

Dr Scutt also chaired a one day inquiry which looked into the long standing plight of 50s women who were having to wait for their pension. Dr Elgun Safarov, vice chair of (CEDAW) from Geneva, gave evidence. She is in the UK teaching law at Buckingham University.

Dr Scutt’s report into the issue was published at the end of November and concluded that there was direct discrimination of women for all pensioners born after 1950 but those born up to 1960 had to bear the full brunt of the change.

Dr Scutt said: “What my report says is that women born 1950s were directedly discriminated against because they were targeted to bear the full impact of the change from 60 years, so as to equalise the retirement age with men’s retirement age. Most had no notice, or inadequate notice, of the change so suffered egregious economic hardship, stress, anxiety and psychological trauma as they had to change retirement plans and try to negotiate staying in their jobs or getting a new job in a time frame that was unrealistic or impossible to do.”

It has also to be taken into account that 9.8m men were given 5 years free auto credits to retire 5 years early, aged 60, whilst the state pension of 3.8m 1950’s women was twice deferred, by stealth, and they were then coerced back to work for up to another 6 years having been denied the promised similar auto credits awarded to men.

Dr Scutt hand delivered the report to Rishi Sunak at Downing Street just before it was published. It was also delivered to Robert Behrens, the Parliamentary Ombudsman, who is currently involved in a long inquiry into how much the women should be compensated after finding partial maladminstration.

CEDAWinLAW.com sent the judge’s report to Garden Court Chambers and briefed the law firm on the issue. and asked them whether this injustice would benefit from mediation talks.

The law firm has now written to Mel Stride inviting him to consider impartial mediation talks as a further pro bono move.

This move chimed in with MPs who have been calling for an an Alternative Disputes Resolution talks. Sir George Howarth, Labour MP for Knowsley and Lloyd Russell-Moyle, MP for Brighton, Kemptown and Peacehaven, have already written to Mr Stride.

Yasmin Qureshi, Labour’s women and equalities shadow minister

Yasmin Qureshi, Labour shadow women and equalities minister, has added her voice saying ” 50s women have been left in the lurch” and drawing Mr Stride’s attention to the judge’s report’s conclusion:

‘Government and Parliament have a responsibility to face up to and acknowledge the grave wrong done. There is no room for obfuscation or quibbling. Historical discrimination requires relief. There is a moral imperative to right this wrong. The law is on the side of the 1950s-born women. 1950s born women alone are the group targeted.This is a debt of law and honour. Full restitution is the only proper legal, ethical and moral outcome.’

Some 50 MPs from the Labour Party to the Scottish National Party, Plaid Cymru, the SDLP, Alba and the Democratic Unionist Party support Sir George’s initiative.

Gina Miller when she was interviewed by Channel 4

At the same time the campaigner, Gina Miller. leader of the True & Fair Party, and best known for her fight with the government over Brexit, has accepted an invitation to advocate with CEDAWinLAW on behalf of all 1950’s women victims.

Finally Ms Rebecca Hilsenrath, Chief Executive Officer of the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s office, has agreed she will meet Joanne Welch, from CEDAWinLAW.com. A date has to be agreed between both parties.

This is the statement issued by CEDAWinLAW:
“CEDAWinLAW.COM takes this welcome opportunity to thank The Hon Dr Jocelynne Scutt AO for her ongoing treasured pro bono counsel.

Today, Gina Miller, Leader, True & Fair Party, welcomes CEDAWinLAW.COM’s announcement below and has accepted our invitation to join us as we advocate for 1950’s Women with said matters in hand.

Garden Court Chambers impartial invitation letter to Mediation Talks with Joanne Welch, Founder, CEDAWinLAW.COM, [on behalf of all 1950’s Women out of The Judge’s Report] has been sent to the Rt Hon Mel Stride MP, Secretary of State for Work & Pensions.

Ms Rebecca Hilsenrath, CEO, PHSO, has invited Ms Welch to meet with her.”

Please donate to my blog so I can continue my forensic reporting on this and other issues.

One-Time
Monthly
Yearly

Make a one-time donation

Make a monthly donation

Make a yearly donation

Choose an amount

£5.00
£10.00
£20.00
£5.00
£15.00
£100.00
£5.00
£15.00
£100.00

Or enter a custom amount

£

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearly

Please donate to Westminster Confidential

£10.00

How New Zealand whistleblowers and law advocates are watching ” retaliatory NHS trusts” in the UK who stamp on doctors

The scandal of the murdered babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital and the threats by managers to doctors who wanted it investigated has gone global. So has the treatment of Dr Chris Day – who has an international following – and Dr Usha Prasad – whistleblowers at two NHS trusts.

This is a guest blog by Tristam Price, a whistleblower from Wellington, who runs an employment law website with two law advocates in Auckland. Their site Leighton Associates can be found here. They were particularly interested in Dr Usha Prasad’s case as under New Zealand law an unsuccessful litigant can be asked to pay £2000 a day for the hearing.

This is a long read but I thought UK readers would be interested to know how much detailed coverage NZ readers are getting on a site aimed at lawyers and whistleblowers in the country. Two of my blogs on Usha’s case have had nearly 2000 hits on their site.

Where the NHS whistleblower retaliators are – by Tristam Price

Where the NHS Whistleblower Retaliators are – by Tristam Price

This map shows where the whistleblower cases are – future articles could populate these case

Letby case, Countess of Chester Hospital (murder of seven infants, attempted murder of another six)

There were two whistleblowers, Dr Stephen Brearey and Dr Ravi Jayaram who shared an office.

It’s too early to go into too much detail as there is an enquiry underway. But we can stand back and examine publicised reports for evidence of whistleblower retaliation.

  • There were 7 deaths for which nurse Lucy Letby was found guilty of murder, between 8 June 2015 and 24 June 2016.
  • Dr Brearley raised concerns with managers Eirian Powell and Alison Kelly, Oct 2015.  It was brushed off as a coincidence and no action was taken.
  • In February 2016, Dr Ravi Jarayam noted suspicious behaviour (a baby had stopped breathing).
  • Dr Brearley demanded Letby be taken off duty in June 2016, after the last two suspicious deaths later found to be murders (the hospital initially refused, but then moved Letby to an admin role, and the deaths stopped).
  • Medical Director Ian Harvey and another senior manager Stephen Cross opposed calling the police, preferring another agency the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health to investigate, which they did in Sept 2016, recommending a further external review which did not happen.  After Letby’s arrest in July 2018 it was discovered that Ian Harvey had Dr Brearey marked for retaliatory action, namely a complaint to the General Medical Council (GMC).  Fortunately that retaliatory complaint didn’t happen.
  • In January 2017 the CEO Tony Chambers met with seven neonatal consultants and insisted they apologise to Letby, and warned them not to “cross the line” again.  That apology happened on 28 Feb 2017 in a mediation that Dr Jarayam attended with Letby (but Dr Breary refused to).  However, the consultants persisted and persuaded hospital management to ask police to investigate. 
  • Police quickly launched Operation Hummingbird in April 2017.  Letby was prevented from returning to the neonatal unit and instead worked in the admin role for a further year before her arrest in July 2018.  That was nearly three years after Dr Brearey raised the alarm.   Around April 2018 Dr Brearey found evidence that one baby had been poisoned by insulin.
  • Ian Harvey was replaced by Dr Susan Gilby the following month, in August 2018.  She found evidence in Harvey’s office of poor reporting practices and an overly secretive management culture.  A few months later CEO Tony Chambers resigned and Dr Gilby replaced him, staying in that post until 2022.  She is now suing the NHS for unfair dismissal.
  • The Telegraph reported that, absurdly (or perhaps in typical DARVO style), Ian Harvey has attempted to shift blame onto the doctors.
  • Alison Kelly has been suspended from her subsequent job in light of evidence that emerged during the Letby trial (probably not listening to Dr Brearley in Oct 2015).

Conclusion:

  • Whistleblower retaliation at the low end by NHS standards
  • Bullying and malicious complaints at the low end by NHS standards
  • An overly secretive management culture; we’re not sure if this was normal by NHS standards
  • Negligence, which resulted in two more deaths than would have occurred if the whistleblowers were not stonewalled.

However, if Drs Brearley and Jarayan had experienced whistleblower retaliation (perhaps utilising a legal mechanism similar to Leighton Associates’ October 2020 “manual” on gagging whistleblowers with money, threats or both), then almost certainly more premature infants would have died at the hands of Letby.

Overall, while some poor decisions were made between October 2015 and June 2016 when Letby was finally put on administrative duties, putting a halt to the suspicious deaths and sparking investigations, however clumsily, there does not appear to have been whistleblower retaliation, just stonewalling.  Nobody close to the Letby case is likely to come out of this unscathed, but at least there should be comfort in the apparent absence of a “smoking gun” of whistleblower retaliation.

Epsom Hospital – Usha Prasad

Epsom and St Helier University NHB Trust (Epsom-St Helier), 15km South of Central London is where Dr Usha Prasad received the full Machiavellian treatment at the hands of senior management as punishment for making Public Interest Disclosures in relation to a coverup of the avoidable death of a heart patient.  Epsom-St Helier made 43 complaints about her to the GMC.  All were found to be without merit.  However, Epsom-St Heliers’ counsel did manage to argue Dr Prasad out of her whistleblower protection and her personal grievance for unjustified dismissal was unsuccessful.  In the vast majority of these cases, costs lie where they fall, but Epsom-St Helier chose to pursue Dr Prasad for costs anyway. 

Dr Prasad is now unable to afford a lawyer and her GP advised the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) that she was too unwell to attend a hearing on the costs claim against her.  Judge Khalil ruled that the 23 August hearing would go ahead anyway.  But given the fallout from the Letby case, Epsom-St Heliers appear to be panicking, with an initial reduction of its demand to £24,000, 13.3% of the amount it sought last week.  A hearing on the new amount was adjourned by Judge McLaren.

But the CEO can’t un-ring that bell.  While much of the litigation pre-dates “Ms T” who has been the CEO since August 2021, the initial £180,000 costs claim of against whistleblower Dr Usha Prasad seems unlikely to have progressed without the sweep of Ms T’s pen, or the click of her mouse.  If that is to be her legacy, it’s an unfortunate one.

For those who were wondering what Epsom-St Heliers’ values are:

Above all we value RESPECT

It helps us to live our behaviours:

  • Kind
  • Positive
  • Professional   
  • Teamwork. 

So we can achieve our mission statement: outstanding care, every day.”

Erm… that’s nice.  Let’s see what’s happening about 15km northeast.

Lewisham Hospital – Dr Chris Day

The South London Trust Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust (Lewisham-Greenwich) dismissed whistleblower Dr Chris Day in 2014, and he has been involved in litigation since.  He had similarly raised concerns about patient safety.

Lewisham-Greenwich website says:

“The judgment of the June/July 2022 Employment Tribunal case between Dr Chris Day and Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust has been published. This has been a complex, long-running and high-profile case, difficult for many involved.

The Trust welcomes the Tribunal’s finding that “the Claimant’s claims of detriment for having raised protected disclosures are not well founded and are dismissed.”

The judgment did find, however, that some of the wording of a press statement issued by the Trust was detrimental to Dr Day. We apologise for that.

We also recognise that the judgment contains some criticism of the Trust, in particular with reference to storage and retrieval of corporate records. We acknowledge that there are lessons to learn here and we commit to doing so.

As a Trust we are fully committed to an open culture, where everyone should feel able to raise any concerns, and be supported in that.”

Lewisham-Greenwich destroyed evidence valuable to Dr Day, apologised for it, and won. 

On whistleblowing, Lewisham-Greenwich’s website goes on to say:

About Freedom to Speak Up (FTSU) guardians

FTSU guardians in NHS trusts were recommended by Sir Robert Francis, following his review and subsequent report into the failings in Mid-Staffordshire. FTSU guardians have a key role in helping our staff with concerns they might have with or within the Trust. The guardians help ensure our Trust is an open and transparent place to work, where everyone is encouraged to speak up safely to address any concerns or issues they might have.”

Yeah, good luck with that, Lewisham-Greenwich staff.

We won’t be surprised if more NHS cases come out of the woodwork.  But are we suggesting New Zealand is any better?  No.  For example, a District Health Board spent at least £150,000 on a SLAPP against a cardiac physiologist and her advocate, and a Tauranga City Council had a whistleblower, who it had already bankrupted on indemnity costs, briefly jailed for refusing to cease disclosing the Council’s malfeasence.

With the fallout from the Letby case it seems likely that the burden of whistleblower retaliation will shift to the retaliators themselves, and not only in the UK.

Please donate to Westminster Confidential to allow me to continue my forensic reporting on whistleblower issues.

One-Time
Monthly
Yearly

Make a one-time donation

Make a monthly donation

Make a yearly donation

Choose an amount

£5.00
£10.00
£20.00
£5.00
£15.00
£100.00
£5.00
£15.00
£100.00

Or enter a custom amount

£

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearly

Please donate to Westminster Confidential

£10.00

Revealed: The battalions of Capsticks lawyers employed to pursue whistleblower consultant cardiologist Dr Usha Prasad

Dr Usha Prasad

The adjournment on Wednesday of the costs hearing against whistleblower Dr Usha Prasad provided welcome relief for embattled and mentally stressed consultant cardiologist dismissed by the Epsom and St Helier University NHS trust.

But before the case was adjourned by judge Mrs E J McLaren ( and the trust’s claim cut from £180,000 to £24,000) Capsticks had submitted a breakdown of their costs to the judge. They had to do this to get the trust’s costs back and it provides a rare public insight into the length lawyers go to pursue whistleblowers at the trust’s behest.

Remember all the money spent by the trust comes from you the taxpayer and is used by the management of the trust to pursue whistleblowers rather than provide more patient care. And also remember again that in 99.95 per cent of all employment tribunal cases the employee is not asked to pay the employer’s costs.

So the £172,000 bill presented by Capsticks to the tribunal makes very interesting reading. It reveals that at various times no fewer than 20 lawyers and paralegals were involved in countering Dr Usha Prasad various claims. They were paid anything from £82 to £160 an hour. They included two partners on £160 an hour, three in house barristers two on £160 an hour and one on £120 an hour;, two legal directors again on £160 an hour, four senior solicitors on between £130 and £160 an hour; three solicitors on £143 and £120 an hour, two trainee solicitors on £96 an hour and five paralegals on £82 an hour.

Counsel Fees for the barrister Miss Nadia Motraghi totalled £50.775 .These were for a Preliminary Hearing on 30.09.21 and a brief and refresher on a Final Hearing on 01.11.21 for 16 day hearing.

Jessica Blackburn, senior solicitor at Capsticks Ltd

The biggest payout among the 20 lawyers working for Capsticks was to Jessica Blackburn, a senior solicitor who was promoted half way through the case, earned over £47,000 in fees for pursuing Dr Usha Prasad. There is a profile of her on this site here. She was the most combative in her approach , ignoring her doctor’s plea for a postponement and telling her everything she had claimed, including the whistleblower case over an ” avoidable death ” of a heart patient was ” without merit”.

In contrast Dr Usha Prasad could only afford one barrister for part of the time and relied on a friend and fellow consultant Dr Philip Howard to support her pro bono. Otherwise she was a litigant in person facing a team of 20 lawyers.

St Helier Hospital

What is the most disturbing is that the Epsom and St Helier University NHS Trust can ill afford to spend hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayer’s money pursuing a consultant cardiologist. She had to spend 28 months in the office on ” restricted clinical duty” while the trust investigated 43 cases against her. They sent them to the General Medical Council which not only exonerated her but extended her licence to practice without the need for further revalidation. Any sane person would have decided then and there to drop all this and reinstated her after the GMC findings.

Instead they continued what can be only described as a vendetta against her putting her under more and more stress until she was barely able to cope attending another tribunal hearing.

Meanwhile the trust is building up debts – the latest board meeting in July revealed it is £35 million in the red ( up from £27 million in April). Patients waiting for cardiac procedures, mainly imaging, and reviews are having to wait longer and the waiting list is growing – up from 2551 in July 2022 to 2901 in April 2023 -according to the NHS waiting list tracker.

Until this started Dr Usha Prasad who had been there since 2010 had seen 15,000 patients and had no complaints. If she had been reinstated the waiting list might not be so high and more patients would have been treated. And all this taxpayers money would not have been wasted if the trust had decided to use their own hr management to sort this out without going to a tribunal.

Councillor Ross Garrod, Labour leader of Merton Council

Meanwhile the growing deficit has led the trust to plan closing St Helier’s emergency department, maternity services and children’s in patient services provoking fury from residents. Councillor Ross Garrod, leader of Merton council, has called for re-assessment of the impact of this and a campaign group has been set up to fight the proposals. The website is here.

It’s time the trust got its priorities right. Stop spending hundreds of thousands of pounds fighting whistleblowers and spend more time and energy in running your services better.

Please donate to my blog so I can continue my forensic reporting on cases like Usha’s.

One-Time
Monthly
Yearly

Make a one-time donation

Make a monthly donation

Make a yearly donation

Choose an amount

£5.00
£10.00
£20.00
£5.00
£15.00
£100.00
£5.00
£15.00
£100.00

Or enter a custom amount

£

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearly

Please donate to Westminster Confidential

£10.00

Judge adjourns £180,000 costs hearing case against whistleblower consultant Dr Usha Prasad

Trust scales down cost claim from £180,000 to £24,000 in private case management meeting

Typical tribunal room Pic credit: gov.uk

In a surprise move this morning judge Mrs E J McLaren adjourned the £180,000 costs hearing brought by Epsom and St Helier University NHS Trust against whistleblower consultant cardiologist Dr Usha Prasad.

She took the decision before the hearing started and explained that one of the panellists who heard the original employment tribunal hearing under judge Tony Hyams-Parish was now unable to attend. This appears to have happened in the last 24 hours as the acting regional judge Omar Khalil had ordered the hearing to go ahead. No explanation was given why the panellist couldn’t suddenly attend.

The decision also comes as Dr Usha Prasad has repeatedly requested a postponement of the hearing because she is ill and couldn’t think straight because of mental stress and sent the tribunal a doctor’s note confirming this. This had been repeatedly ignored by lawyers Capsticks, who represent the trust, and the tribunal but the judge said yesterday that Dr Prasad’s health will be discussed in a private case management meeting convened immediately after the adjournment. At that meeting with the judge the trust caved in and reduced the costs claim from £180,000 to £24,000 and accepted it would have to wait some time for a fresh hearing.

The adjournment also comes at a time of national public outrage following the baby murder conviction of nurse Lucy Letby at the Countess of Chester Hospital when it was revealed that managers threatened to report consultants who raised the alarm to the General Medical Council and forced them to write a letter of apology to the murderer nurse.

The situation was worse for Dr Prasad at the Epsom trust as she was reported to the General Medical Council by the trust . A document listing 43 cases was sent to the GMC who investigated her and then exonerated her taking the unusual decision to revalidate her to practice without any further application from her. That having failed the trust held an internal inquiry branding her as ” unfit for purpose ” as a human being because they could no longer say she wasn’t an excellent doctor.

Dr James Marsh

The man behind the continual pursuit of Dr Prasad is thought to be Dr James Marsh, the joint deputy chief executive and joint medical director of the St George’s, Epsom and St Helier hospital group, who gave evidence against her at the tribunal.

Jessica Blackburn

In a final act to put pressure on Dr Prasad before today’s tribunal Mrs Jessica Blackburn, the senior solicitor for lawyers, Capsticks representing the trust, sent her two new bundles of documents the previous night and Usha didn’t see it until only a few minutes before the tribunal was due to start. Given she knew she was mentally stressed and was a litigant in person with no lawyer to help her understand them, it looks to me like either a singularly callous act or she was rather late in finalising the trust’s case.

There is a wider issue here. As I have said before in 99.95 per cent of cases at employment tribunals, the employee does not pay the employer’s costs.

The picture that is now emerging is that the exception to this rule is the whistleblower. Usha’s case is not unique in this respect.

Dr Usha Prasad

Cost threats have been made against Dr Chris Day, who has been involved in a ten year battle with the Health Education Executive and Greenwich and Lewisham NHS trust over patient deaths and safety at Woolwich Hospital intensive care unit; Dr Peter Duffy, a urologist at the University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust, later vindicated over patient deaths; and outside the NHS, Alison McDermott, a management consultant, over bullying and harassment at Sellafield and the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. Two more whistleblowers have now come forward at Sellafield and are under threat.

This list is the tip of the iceberg – I know of a number of other doctors, belonging to the informal Justice for Doctors group, who haven’t made their cases public yet, who have also been threatened with huge costs.

It is almost as though NHS and public sector managers have devised a standard playbook to use against any whistleblower who dares bring up the issue of patient safety to frighten them from doing anything about it. This is an area which both the inquiry and MPs on the Commons health and social care committee must look into – for the sake of all hospital patients and the nuclear safety of our country. Management bullies who threaten caring doctors and nurses must be removed from their jobs. No whistleblower should suffer like Usha Prasad ever again.

Please donate to Westminster Confidential to allow me to investigate forensically any injustice.

One-Time
Monthly
Yearly

Make a one-time donation

Make a monthly donation

Make a yearly donation

Choose an amount

£5.00
£10.00
£20.00
£5.00
£15.00
£100.00
£5.00
£15.00
£100.00

Or enter a custom amount

£

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearly

Please donate to Westminster Confidential

£10.00

Judge insists whistleblower Dr Prasad £180,000 cost hearing must go ahead despite her GP’s warning of mental stress

Acting regional employment judge Omar Khalil

A senior employment judge has intervened to try and force whistleblower consultant cardiologist Dr Usha Prasad, who is now ill, to attend the Croydon costs hearing on Wednesday where she will face a £180,000 bill after losing an employment tribunal case.

Judge Omar Khalil has ignored a letter from her GP warning that she is under severe mental stress after years of appearances before employment tribunals, being referred to the General Medical Council which exonerated her but then lead to an internal inquiry run by the Epsom and St Helier University NHS Trust which tried to brand her as ” unfit for purpose” as a human being because it had to say she was an excellent doctor.

Her disclosure that the trust covered up an ” avoidable death” of a heart patient at the trust by not reporting it to the coroner was confirmed by Dr Richard Bogle, the head of cardiology , during an employment tribunal hearing.

But judge Tony Hyams-Parish, mindful that there are no records kept of tribunal hearings, expunged this disclosure in his judgement which rejected all her claims.

Dr Usha Prasad has asked for a postponement because she doesn’t feel well enough or capable of defending herself against expensive lawyers hired at the taxpayers’ expense by Epsom and St Helier University NHS Trust. She hasn’t the money now to employ a barrister to defend her at the hearing.

Dr P Bailey, her GP in Wakefield has written to the costs tribunal saying “”She is experiencing physical and emotional signs of distress…. she does not feel in an appropriate state of mind at present to represent herself in the process currently.”

“… I would be grateful if her current mental state was taken into account regarding scheduling and potential postponement.”

The regional judge and tribunal are refusing to take any notice of the GP’s plea.

In reply Lynn Head, for the tribunal says today:

“Acting Regional Judge Khalil has asked me to write to the parties.
The claimant’s application to postpone the Costs hearing listed for 23 and 24 August 2023 is refused.
The Hearing has been listed since 8 March 2023 and the dates should thus have been reserved from receipt of that notice.
“The Tribunal has previously addressed that an outstanding EAT appeal relating to liability is not a reason in itself not to proceed with a Costs Hearing. The question of enforcement of any Costs Order (if made) is a separate consideration pending an outstanding appeal.
“The claimant’s request for notes has also received judicial consideration previously, more than once. No details have been proved of the claimant’s important meeting.

“The claimant could have provided dates of unavailability of his counsel (shortly after the Tribunal indicated it would be listing a Costs Hearing (17 February 2023), as the respondent did, but the claimant did not do so.
The Tribunal has considered the claimant’s medical evidence dated 18 August 2023 but in the light of the listing of this Hearing since 8 March 2023, the claimant could and should have made arrangements for alternative representation if her previous Counsel was unavailable. A postponement would cause a considerable delay before the panel could reconvene. That is not an overriding objective. The Liability Hearing took place in November 2021.”
At this stage it is not clear whether Dr Prasad can or will attend the hearing. The presiding judge will then have to decide what to do.

Please donate to Westminster Confidential to allow me to continue my forensic reporting.

One-Time
Monthly
Yearly

Make a one-time donation

Make a monthly donation

Make a yearly donation

Choose an amount

£5.00
£10.00
£20.00
£5.00
£15.00
£100.00
£5.00
£15.00
£100.00

Or enter a custom amount

£

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearly

Please donate to Westminster Confidential

£10.00

Jessica Blackburn: The ambitious Capsticks lawyer with a mission to unsettle whistleblowers

Jessica Blackburn senior associate Capsticks Pic Credit:London Portrait photographer David Woolfall

Jessica Blackburn is the senior solicitor and driving force behind the bid by Epsom and St Helier University NHS Trust(ESHUT) to get record £180,000 costs against Dr Usha Prasad, the whistleblower cardiologist who was dismissed by the trust for her disclosures.

As reported earlier a hearing like this is extremely rare, as in 99.95 per cent of all employment tribunal cases no complainant pays any of the employer’s costs – much to chagrin of big employment law firms like Capsticks.

She was educated at the highly selective Wallington High School for Girls and graduated from the University of Southampton Law School in 2014. She took two postgraduate legal practice courses at the private University of Law in London and got a distinction. She was a trainee solicitor at RadcliffesLeBrasseur , a law firm now part of Weightmans. She took a job as a qualified solicitor with Capsticks in 2018 and was promoted to a senior associate three years later. A native English speaker, among the languages she has is elementary knowledge is Yoruba, a West African tribal language. She also played a senior role in Capsticks celebrations of Black History Month last year.

Claire McLaughlan ,chairs MHPS inquiries

At Capsticks she specialises in defending health trusts and the police and cites dealing with whistleblowers as one of her specialities. She is also involved in advising trusts running  complex doctor cases under the national framework, Maintaining High Professional Standards in the Modern NHS – internal hearings like the one already held by ESHUT over Dr Usha Prasad chaired by Claire Mclaughlan that came to the bizarre decision that she was “unfit for purpose”.( see my blog here and here.)

Her top tribunal case cited on her page is one heard by Judge Auerbach in 2021 between Mr Abgeze and Barnet, Enfield and Haringey Mental Health Trust ( judgement here) over the controversial issue of people’s rights in zero hours contracts. Mr Abgeze, who was on a zero hours contract, was suspended and then reinstated by the trust. But because he was on a zero hours contract he was unable to apply for shifts and claimed compensation. Judge Auerbach threw out his claim.

She writes: “This will be a welcome decision to NHS Trusts, and other organisations that have similar casual worker arrangements.”

Certainly as this week’s cost hearing approaches there is a big stand off between her and Dr Usha Prasad who under increasing stress and suffering health issues and asked for a postponement. But it looks like that either Jessica Blackburn doesn’t believe her (despite a doctor’s note) or does not want to believe her and doesn’t want her schedule for the historic case delayed.

Forensic details of Usha Prasad’s finances demanded by Capsticks for the health trust

This is the letter she sent demanding details of Dr Prasad’s finances to make sure she will be ready to pay the £180,000.

“We write in respect of the hearing to determine the Respondent’s costs application against you listed by the Tribunal for 23 and 24 August 2023. The Trust has incurred in excess of £150,000 plus VAT in legal costs in defending your claims (2 and 3), which were all dismissed.  

On 19 June 2023, we wrote to you in the following terms:

“As part of the Tribunal’s consideration of the Respondent’s costs application, the Tribunal may take into account your financial means. Therefore, please can you disclose by 23 July 2023, any evidence of your means if you intend to rely on this at the costs hearing, so that this information can be contained within the costs hearing bundle.”

To date we have received nothing. We are not clear whether this is because, if you are ordered to pay costs, that your position is that you would be financially able to meet any order made by the Tribunal, or, on the other hand that you have elected not to disclose any information. 

We remind you that under Schedule 1,  rule 84 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, the Tribunal may (but is not required in all circumstances) take into account a paying party’s ability to pay. 

Ability to pay

84.  In deciding whether to make a costs, preparation time, or wasted costs order, and if so in what amount, the Tribunal may have regard to the paying party’s (or, where a wasted costs order is made, the representative’s) ability to pay.

If you intend to argue (or might do so, depending on the level of costs awarded) that you would not be financially able to meet the terms of any costs award, if so ordered, the Respondent requests you urgently provide supporting information and evidence of the same.  

This should include:

·         information about your present level of income and remuneration as well as of what you have earned since the liability judgment; any property you currently own (whether in whole or in part, whether land, buildings or otherwise), any investments, and the content of any bank / building society or similar accounts and any other information relevant to your ability to pay an award of costs. This information should cover assets worldwide not only in the UK. 

·         You should also provide information and evidence regarding your financial commitments such as rent/ mortgage. 

·         Evidence to support the information provided should be provided. 

·         As regards your employment related earnings, pay slips, P60s, tax returns or record of invoices paid through agencies or similar and any current or recent contract of employment, or for your services. 

·         As regards bank accounts, savings and investments, including ISAs, this should include copies of your recent bank (etc) statements. Downloaded statements or screenshots from a bank (etc)’s website are acceptable. 

·         The Tribunal will need to understand your current financial commitments, therefore if you have any loans, mortgages, or other regular payments made such as rent or utilities, documents in support of the same (e.g. mortgage statement, loan agreement/payment schedule, rent payments) should be provided. 

·         Where you own one or more properties you should identify the approximate current value of the property concerned and the balance of any mortgage. 

·         Please can you also confirm your current employment/engagement status, including whether the number of hours worked and whether that if permanent or temporary (and if so on what basis) and your residential address.

Threat judge will be told if she does not provide the information

The Respondent will draw this letter to the Tribunal if the information and evidence requested is not supplied prior to the hearing but where you contend (whether in writing, or at the hearing) that your means should be taken into account by the Tribunal. It is important that the Respondent understands your position in good time prior to the hearing. In addition, we urgently request confirmation of your position regarding your financial means in order to address this issue in written submissions, the absence of which is delaying completion.

We look forward to receiving confirmation of your position, together with the requested documentation where applicable, as a matter of urgency.”

When she sent the doctor’s note Jessica Blackburn ignored it. You can see what detail Capsticks want – and other whistleblowers facing cost hearings say they have not received such detailed demands.

I informed Jessica Blackburn I was proposing to write a profile of her. Capstick’s press office replied that she could not comment at this time.

Please donate to Westminster Confidential so I can continue my forensic reporting.

One-Time
Monthly
Yearly

Make a one-time donation

Make a monthly donation

Make a yearly donation

Choose an amount

£5.00
£10.00
£20.00
£5.00
£15.00
£100.00
£5.00
£15.00
£100.00

Or enter a custom amount

£

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearly

please donate to Westminster Confidential

£10.00

A toothless quadriplegic prisoner, Tthe Lord Chief Justice and a boiled sweet

Lord Burnett, the Lord Chief Justice

Lord Burnett, the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales (salary £275,534 a year) and two other Court of Appeal judges ( salaries £225,978 each) spent this week delivering a judgement on whether a prisoner could eat a boiled sweet.

In what must be one of the most lofty and byzantine judgements of the year a judicial review at the Court of Appeal threw out a request from a disabled prisoner at Liverpool jail to be able to eat boiled sweets.

The prisoner only known to the courts as JJ is a toothless quadriplegic inmate serving time until 2027 in the health wing of the prison. Lady Justice King delivered the verdict, which the Lord Chief Justice and Lord Justice Lewis concurred after spending time on a hearing and taking advice from the Royal College of Physicians.

In what must have been a very expensive case -since it was an appeal from another high court judge – barristers from top NHS lawyers Hill Dickenson and DAC Beachcroft to defend the prison’s healthcare company, Spectrum community Health. who were caring for him in jail while JJ was in the health wing. JJ had his own barrister, Aswini Weereratne KC.

Lady Justice King pic credit: Law Gazette

Lady Justice King said: “JJ is quadriplegic and without teeth. While his cognitive and communication skills are unimpaired, his physical capacity is limited to pushing a button with one finger. Since 2016 he has been bed-bound and wholly dependent on care staff for all his personal cares and for feeding. He is nursed in a supine position.”

“As a consequence of JJ’s condition, eating food poses a risk of death or serious injury by choking or aspiration. Some foods pose a more significant risk than others. Until 2021, JJ ate a mixed diet of soft and non-soft foods. Meals would be sent to his cell and he would decide whether he was capable of eating them. He would regularly supplement his diet with snacks bought from the prison canteen, including non-soft foods such as boiled sweets.”

Prisoner goes on hunger strike over the denial of boiled sweets

There have been several instances of him choking on food but JJ insisted that he would take responsibility for himself and still wanted to suck boiled sweets.

The care company however were worried about his choking. They called in a therapist who decided that he should only eat soft and bite sized food once his supply of boiled sweets ran out. JJ wanted to choose what he ate and when this was not allowed went on hunger strike only taking high energy fluids to stay alive.

The judge said: “JJ’s approach was, and is, that he could exercise his basic freedom of choice to decide what he will eat, being fully aware of the risks.”

Do not resuscitate me says prisoner

Spectrum wouldn’t agree to this so in December 2021 JJ signed an Advance Decision to Refuse Treatment. In this, JJ confirmed that food refusal was to apply even when his life is at risk and that he does not wish to be ventilated or to have cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). It follows that in the event that JJ choked or aspirated as a consequence of eating a boiled sweet which, as he is quadriplegic, would have been put into his mouth by a carer, neither that carer nor any other medical professional on the ward would be able to intervene to give JJ lifesaving CPR.”

In July 2022, JJ brought a claim for judicial review, contending that Spectrum’s refusal to feed him foods of his choice was irrational, discriminatory, in breach of his common law right of autonomy and his Article 8 right to physical and psychological integrity.”

It went to court and he lost and the judge refused an appeal. But it was decided as the issue was a compelling one it should go to the Court of Appeal.

Here the key issue was elevated to whether a patient can refuse to follow a clinician’s treatment and the fact that prisoners cannot choose what food they can eat – only what the prison choose to provide.

Also a bombshell ruling that as Spectrum was regulated by the Care Quality Commission if a nurse gave JJ a boiled sweet and he choked to death would he or she be prosecuted for gross negligence manslaughter?

Liverpool prison where JJ is held

JJ filed a statement to the court : ” In it he describes how he has little or no quality of life. He is completely bed-bound, lying on his back for 24 hours a day, and is unable to do anything for himself other than call for help or control a television. He concludes his statement by saying that he has lost almost everything in his life and ‘being able to eat what I want represents my last shred of humanity and dignity. I want o be able to cling on to it for as long as I can’.

But the judges rejected this saying ” It may be that in certain different medical circumstances the balance would come down in JJ’s favour but not, in my view, in this case. JJ cannot feed himself. He cannot obtain boiled sweets from the prison shop, unwrap them and put them in his own mouth. The provision of boiled sweets in circumstances where JJ cannot even put a sweet into his mouth is different; it is treatment or care carrying with it the considerable risk that on any given day, giving JJ that boiled sweet may cause him to choke to death and in circumstances where JJs advance decision would prevent all but the most basic life-saving intervention on the part of the person who had given him the boiled sweet.”

So what would happen if a friend came to visit him at Liverpool jail? Presumably the prison will have to confiscate any boiled sweets to comply with the Lord Chief Justice’s ruling. We hear of drugs, illicit mobile phones and porn being smuggled into jail now in this case the judiciary’s top judge has extended it to boiled sweets. Given JJ’s brain is the one part of him not impaired It is over the top.

For highly intelligent people the three cold hearted Court of Appeal judges lack any empathy or humanity in this case. Their judgement is more concerned with avoiding liability for the company and the prison if JJ dies rather than granting him a boiled sweet to make his limited life more pleasurable.

Please donate to Westminster Confidential to allow me to continue my reporting.

One-Time
Monthly
Yearly

Make a one-time donation

Make a monthly donation

Make a yearly donation

Choose an amount

£5.00
£10.00
£20.00
£5.00
£15.00
£100.00
£5.00
£15.00
£100.00

Or enter a custom amount

£

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearly

Please donate to Westminster Confidential

£10.00

Half baked and half finished: How courts and tribunals burned through £1 billion on computers to improve access to justice and failed

Royal Courts of Justice

It is portrayed by HM Courts and Tribunals Service as “our vision for reform to make the justice system more straightforward, accessible and efficient.”

But this £1.3 billion digital court reform programme has been exposed by the National Audit Office and last week by the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee for having failed to meet its objectives. This ambitious programme started in 2016 has been much delayed and only half completed. As MPs commented last week it has ” burned through” over £1 billion of public money and is the on the verge of running out of cash before half the benefits can be realised.

No one would argue that the courts and tribunal system is antiquated and needs reform. One only has to watch judges in the employment tribunal system writing down what claimants and respondents are saying by hand in courts that don’t keep proper records of hearings to realise how antiquated it is.

But once again it looks like that Whitehall has fallen for an expensive simplistic digital solution for a service which is incredibly wide ranging and complex. The aim was to create a common computer platform to serve 44 different aspects of justice from the criminal courts to magistrates courts and from the family and divorce courts to the probate service and the tribunal service.

Timetable five years behind schedule

It also had a timetable to be completed by 2020. Now we will be lucky whether the truncated programme will be up and running by 2025. Also £1.3 billion won’t be enough – there is only £120 million left to spend and that is nowhere enough to meet what is needed. And £22 million was wasted trying to integrate the Crown Prosecution Service into the system which didn’t work.

Also there are promises of big savings by going digital. This is always promised and we will see whether that really happens.

Also plans to have fully digital probate and divorce services had not fully worked. The MPs said:

“HMCTS found that significant proportions of its online divorce and probate cases required manual interventions from staff and in March 2022 HMCTS identified that 55% of divorce cases could not be completed online.”

In addition it appeared that both services discriminated against ethnic minorities.

Both the Bar Council and the Law Society were not impressed. The report says:

The Law Society “explained that there were functionality issues with online portals for family services, such as family public law. These issues led to problems, including instances of solicitors not getting necessary notifications which made the system difficult to use and, in some cases, significantly delayed cases. It told us that it had frequently expressed concerns to HMCTS about the functionality and design of some reformed services.”

System developed in a vacuum – Bar Council

The Bar Council told MPs:” the designers and producers of the common platform appeared to
have a limited understanding of working needs and practices, and “displayed a marked reluctance for the system to be designed in conjunction with, and for the benefit of, professional court users”.

It said it looked like the system had been designed in a vacuum.

As for the general public, it looked like that it was going to be a problem at magistrates courts ,purely because most of the defendants didn’t have any legal representation and therefore might not have proper access to the system to defend themselves.

Meanwhile the project continues so far with the pausing of integrating possession orders, special tribunals except for the Criminal Injuries Compensation Tribunal.

Dame Meg Hillier MP

Dame Meg Hillier MP, Chair of the Committee, said:

“Our courts were already stretched thin before the pandemic, and the backlogs now faced pose a real threat to timely access to justice. These are services crying out for critical reform, but frustratingly HM Courts & Tribunal’s attempts appear in some cases to be actively hindering its own staff’s ability to carry out their jobs. In particular, the roll-out of the Common Platform digital system was a blow upon a bruise for pressured court users.”

Given there are already many issues whether the courts do deliver justice, this rather botched computer programme does not give you much faith in the system.

Please donate to Westminster Confidential to allow me to continue my forensic reporting.

One-Time
Monthly
Yearly

Make a one-time donation

Make a monthly donation

Make a yearly donation

Choose an amount

£5.00
£10.00
£20.00
£3.00
£9.00
£60.00
£3.00
£9.00
£60.00

Or enter a custom amount

£

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearly

Please donate to Westminster Conbfidential

£10.00

50s women pensions: Will rival attempts to speed up compensation for the 3.6 million work?

Royal Courts of Justice

While I have been away there have been significant developments in the long battle to get justice for the 50swomen who lost tens of thousands of pounds through maladministration, discrimination and lack of communication over the six year rise in their pension age.

Like everything in this long tortured tale the developments have not been straight forward.

Basically two separate initiatives have been launched. WASPI after first going along the route of seeking justice for 50swomen through Rob Behrens the Parliamentary Ombudsman, suddenly turned on him threatening him with a judicial review and launching a crowdfunder to fight him which raised nearly £150,000.

Alternative Disputes Resolution

Backto60, as the only organisation that campaigns for full restitution for the women, launched a plan to call for an Alternative Disputes Resolution, to negotiate a settlement with Mel Stride, the secretary of state for works and pensions, to end this long running dispute which has angered so many women who feel cheated by the DWP. This is backed by 54 MPs, petitions that have attracted 87,000 signatures and a Parliamentary motion.

Both the initiatives I suspect followed the leaking of the Ombudsman’s first and second stage reports on the issue on this blog. Without them becoming public the 3.6 million women affected would not have known the full and frankly paltry proposals by the Ombudsman to solve this dispute. And I have not forgotten senior people from Waspi pressing me to remove the posts so the reports would remain part of a private discussion between them, the Ombudsman and selected MPs rather than allowing the 3.6 million victims the opportunity to read them. And the second one is still not published.

The reason that I suspect WASPI turned is that it was becoming clear that the compensation would be meagre and limited – the DWP could decide ( as they have following other Ombudsman’s reports) that only the six complainants would automatically get compensation of £1000 and some 600 will have to fight for it .It looked a far cry from the promise by Waspi’s chief spokesman, Angela Madden at last year’s Labour conference of between £10,000 and £20,000 for everybody. That is still a lot less for many people owed up to £50,000.

Angela Madden WASPI

Now developments have moved fast on this proposal. It is clear that WASPI, the Ombudsman and teams of lawyers from Bindman’s and Blackstone Chambers have come to a compromise which ended up in the high court last week. Reading the order from Judge Kirsty Brimelow it is clear that parts of the Ombudsman’s second stage report are quashed. These deal with the latter part of the report which rejected any financial compensation for women whose well being and life choices were affected by the delay and did not acknowledge the impact of the DWP pausing sending out letters to women.

The section was admitted by the Ombudsman to have been legally flawed by not taking everything into account.

Crowdfunder page

Since then WASPI have issued on their Crowdfunder page a series of ten conditions which ,it says, the Ombudsman should fulfill.

“WASPI will not be passively waiting for its outcome. At each stage we will be pressing the Ombudsman not only to complete his investigation in a way that is as rapid as possible but also thorough and fair. We will also be raising concerns about this with MPs, particularly those who sit on the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee (PACAC) which oversees the Ombudsman’s work. And we will turn to our lawyers for their expert input when responding to the Ombudsman’s draft reports and if we have concerns his investigation may be derailed again.”

The Ombudsman has been more cautious. He has agreed that he will show Waspi and the complainants his proposed changes and accept comments before finally presenting his report to Parliament.

A spokesperson committed them to looking at the report again adding” We don’t currently have a timeline, but we want to resolve the investigation as swiftly as possible, so any mechanism for remedy can be implemented for those affected.”

Now while this is happening Back to 60 pursued a different tack. The key issue for them has been the People’s Tribunal which looked into the plight of the 50swomen under the UN Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) Tribunal held last year and the judgement given by Judge Jocelynne Scutt which ruled that the women had suffered both maladministration and discrimination.

Jocelynne Scutt

Some critics have tried to say the tribunal and the report are irrelevant because they have no standing. Given that the deputy chair of CEDAW in Geneva gave evidence to it and the judge was one of Australia’s first discrimination commissioners, such criticism seems rather ridiculous. to put it mildly.

The judge took a strong view that Parliament had a moral duty to this. “Government and Parliament have a responsibility to face up to and acknowledge the grave wrong done. There is no room for obfuscation or quibbling. Historic discrimination requires relief. There is a moral imperative to right this wrong. The law is on the side of 1950s women.”

Sir George Howarth

Sir George Howarth, Labour MP for Knowsley, who chairs the Alternative Disputes Resolution project has already written to Mel Stride, asking to come to a meeting. The organisers have also invited Waspi who have not replied.

What is missing is what the DWP will do. It has registered as an interested party to the proceedings over the ombudsman’s report but did not send lawyers to the hearing last week.

Any question to ministers on these developments is met with the answer that it is ” neutral” and would not comment because of the legal proceedings.

This is not surprising , the DWP can’t commit to implementing the Ombudsman’s findings if it doesn’t know what they are. The proper procedure will be after the final report is published.

Will these initiatives work?

The stumbling block for Waspi is that the Ombudsman cannot compel the DWP to accept his findings – even if he does everything Waspi wants. This is one reason why legislation needs updating to strengthen his power which the government is reluctant to do.

The disputes procedure cannot get off the ground without the DWP agreeing to come either.

We could be left with a stalemate with the DWP playing one side against the other and sadly it will still mean women will not get the compensation they badly need. Difficult and confusing times lie ahead.

Please donate to Westminster Confidential

£10.00

One-Time
Monthly
Yearly

Make a one-time donation

Make a monthly donation

Make a yearly donation

Choose an amount

£5.00
£10.00
£20.00
£3.00
£9.00
£60.00
£3.00
£9.00
£60.00

Or enter a custom amount

£

Your contribution is appreciated. Please donate to continue my work

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearly

The growing scandal of the multi billion pound payments owed to pensioners and claimants by the DWP

Readers of my blog will be familiar with the scandalous story of the billions owed to 50s born women who both suffered maladministration and direct discrimination over the raising of the pension age from 60 to 66.

But what has emerged over the past year appears to show that this is part of a pattern where pensioners and disabled people are frankly swindled out of their money by the incompetence, maladministration and meanness of top management and politicians who run the Department for Work and Pensions.

Far from the 50swomen being an isolated case where mistakes were made those at the top of the DWP administration appear to have a playbook to deprive people of their rightful pensions and benefits, especially if they happen to be women. Nearly all the cases hit women much worse than men and as I have highlighted before – men have had privileges denied to women – such as the long running auto enrolment scheme that allowed men to have their national insurance contributions paid by the state from 60 to 65 while denying women any such privileges.

One of the worse cases which saved the state billions was a decision not to pay out extra pensions to people whose firms had contracted them out of Serps – an old style second pension- so they lost out of a Guaranteed Minimum Pension still payable in the public sector. A lot will have been women

The blog I wrote on this – despite being fiendishly complicated to explain- attracted over 15,000 hits – yet only two people got any compensation as the DWP made it difficult to claim.

Time to sign this petition

Christopher Thompson, a retired expert on this, has put up a petition to Parliament to protest about this and restore the indexation, but sadly only 311 people have signed. If everybody who read the blog signed it it would force the government to have to explain to Parliament why they did it. So please sign if you can.

Then there was the case of 237,000 pensioners – again a lot of them women – cheated out of £1.46 billion from their pensions – by miscalculations by the ministry raised by former pensions minister, Sir Steve Webb. The department is slowly trying reimburse them – some have decades of extra pension owed -but it will take at least to 2024 before it is completed.

Now Sir Steve has found another scandal which only affects women who should have received credits for looking after children from the late 70s. He has launched a campaign Mothers Missing Millions to try and get women’s pensions raised to make up the money – in one case a women was not credited with 14 years contributions.

And you have to add the scandal of the 118,000 disabled people put on a lower rather than benefit rate where the ministry has declined to compensate them – only giving money to the one person who complained to the Parliamentary Ombudsman. Even the Ombudsman has been silenced by the ministry who refuse to budge on this issue -leaving him appealling to MPs for help.

Time for an inquiry into the running of the DWP

What I am saying here is if you put all these cases together it is quite clear there is a pattern of underpayment and maladministration where the department do their best to avoid doing anything about it. It is without doubt discriminatory against women and suggests that ministers don’t want to pay them.

It is time women pressed all MPs to take up these issues. There is a strong case for an inquiry into the running of the DWP – there are too many cases for this to be just a coincidence.

Please donate to Westminster Confidential to allow me to continue my investigative work

One-Time
Monthly
Yearly

Make a one-time donation

Make a monthly donation

Make a yearly donation

Choose an amount

£5.00
£10.00
£20.00
£3.00
£9.00
£60.00
£3.00
£9.00
£60.00

Or enter a custom amount

£

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearly

Please donate to Westminster Confidential

£10.00