Guest blog: Dr David Ward’s prescription for Wes Streeting’s promised reform to protect whistleblowers

Posted on August 8, 2025 by davidhencke

Wes Streeting, the health secretary has promised new protections for whistleblowers but do they go far enough? Dr David Ward gives a detailed list of proposals that the NHS should implement and calls for lawyers and courts to play no part in the process.

NHS whistleblowers are obliged by law to raise patient safety concerns and are punished having done so. (Arising out of conversations with other doctors particularly members of Justice For Doctors. https://www.justice4doctors.co.uk ).

1. All “whistleblowing” issues should be formally logged by the Trust (hospital) in which they have arisen and in a statutory, independent central register which is open to scrutiny and auditable. Isn’t an audit trail essential for regulatory and financial reasons?

2.Hospitals should be banned from dismissing a doctor who has raised safety concerns as they are obliged to do by MHPS, Duty of Candour laws and the Hippocratic Oath. This is a simple idea which could be implemented without complex regulatory amendments. Devices such as dismissal by “Some other substantial reason or “SOSR” are convenient for the dismissing Trust to bury all sorts of evidence. NDAs are another trick which could impede investigation of evidence. It reeks of “dodginess”

3.Hospitals and their managements should be compelled by statute to urgently investigate concerns raised by a whistleblower. Failure to do so could be regarded as some sort of Tort because harm to patients could (and probably will) recur. (The concerns cannot be investigated if they are not known, doh!). Investigations should be conducted independently not by internal personnel because these are known to be biased (no, really?). External investigators (whether MHPS or otherwise) can be paid large sums by the Trust. The results are not infrequently “favourable” to the Trust. A new, more open and accountable system should be introduced.

4.The problems reported by a whistleblower should be remedied as soon as possible to reduce the risk of further harm. This hardly needs stating, does it? But a remedial approach (even if it is instigated) nearly always takes second place to hyper-investigation (persecution) of the doctor who has reported the problem. Imagine if such vigour could be directed toward correcting any shortcomings, improving processes, enhancing safety and so on. It could even save money as well as improving patient safety. “A stitch in time….”
5.NHS Trust Managers should be formally regulated by a statutory independent body. They should be subject to regulatory bodies just as the medical professions are – and disciplined if they “manipulate” the truth. There are examples of “wild west behaviour” by managers which would be stopped immediately if regulation were in place.
6.“Maintaining High Professional Standards” (MHPS) investigations are internal and unregulated. (See St Helier Hospital saga on this blog). “Marking one’s own homework” comes to mind. Investigators can be “hired guns” who will produce a report favourable to the Trust for a “fee” (taxpayer funded of course). Corrupted or what? (Let me be clear, I am not suggesting any cause-and-effect relationship between the fees paid and an outcome “favourable to the Trust”). Data about any of these matters which are prevalent all over the NHS is, unsurprisingly, not available (see 1).

7.Stop the wastage of £millions of taxpayers’ money on lawyers defending Trusts at Employment Tribunals against the unfunded “claimant” (the solution is at 2). This egregious inequality of arms should be disallowed but if (2) was implemented it would not arise. Another way of putting this is “stop persecuting whistleblowers who are doing their duty”. It is the Tribunal system which endorses a Trust’s decision to dismiss a doctor (if the dismissed doctor seeks the support of a Tribunal he is unlikely to succeed: see 15) . (How much taxpayer funded money is expended on law firms supporting Trusts against the claims of a dismissed doctor? This is my FOI request February 2023:

Expenditure by NHS Trusts defending allegations by “whistleblowers”

The answer was “DHSC does not hold information relevant to your request”. Perhaps not but I am willing to bet it is kept somewhere.

8.Lawyers and Courts have no place in the investigation of patient safety issues (see 2 and 6). Lawyers have little or no appreciation of health issues and the operation of a hospital. They are not best placed to investigate patient safety issues which are, unsurprisingly, central in whistleblowing cases.

9.Patient safety is prime. There should be no stigmata or detriments attached to raising patient safety concerns. Failure to raise or conceal a concern could be an offence.
10.Non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) about safety issues should be banned. They may be abused to conceal safety evidence. Information which is not disclosed cannot be tested can it. Could this be an intended (or unintended?) consequence of NDAs?
11.PIDA 1996 (section2, 47b (1): “A worker has the right not to be subjected to any detriment by any act, or any deliberate failure to act, by his employer done on the ground that the worker has made a protected disclosure”. So, no whistleblower can be dismissed because they have “made a protected disclosure” as that is forbidden by PIDA. But they can be dismissed (conveniently) “having made such a disclosure” just not for that reason. Usually one of the 5 “fair” reasons for dismissal is invoked including, “committing some form of misconduct” and “SOSR” (see 13). (See the case of Martyn Pitman on this blog). The section of PIDA referred to above is a loophole which is open to (possibly deliberate) misinterpretation. Perhaps it was written like this for a reason, who knows. Shouldn’t the loophole be closed and PIDA updated?

12.Is the Dunning-Kruger effect (qv) relevant? Yes. It could apply to elements and procedures of the British Establishment – such as the Judiciary and the Employment Tribunal system. “The Dunning–Kruger effect is defined as the tendency of people with low ability in a specific area to give overly positive assessments of this ability”. (Wikipedia). Take a moment to think about D-K in the context of the treatment of whistleblowers. It rings true, doesn’t it.

13.Dismissal of an employee can be for any one of the 5 reasons specified in the Employment Rights Act 1996, Section 98. The last of these is “SOSR” or “some other substantial reason” which need not be specified (obviously) which is very convenient (see 11). Some reasons are specified but these are not exclusive and there is no need to specify a reason – which is why this clause exists, right? I need not enlarge on why this is another fudge but it is open to abuse. The notable observer and blogger, Dr Minh Alexander has ascertained (via an FOI request) that over 10,604 staff were dismissed by the “SOSR” method between 2010 and 2018 (Yes, she does provide a detailed breakdown of the figures, see link). This is a staggering statistic which surely points to a profound failure of process.

The Dismissal of over Ten Thousand NHS Staff via ‘Some Other Substantial Reason’

14.Resurrect the “problems of whistleblower persecution” for debate in Parliament with an emphasis on “protection”. I believe several proposals are under consideration including some by the Rt Hon Wes Streeting MP, Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, who will become a hero to many if he achieves what is required.

The Dismissal of over Ten Thousand NHS Staff via ‘Some Other Substantial Reason’

15.Doctors who have been whistleblowers and subsequently dismissed are well advised to avoid the legal profession. One thing that does emerge from my exploration of this fraught topic is that doctors (as a retired medic I can speak for this profession) who have been “dismissed” should not go anywhere near a law firm or engage the Employment Tribunal process for all the reasons I need not enumerate here. Fewer than 3% who do so will emerge victorious. Some have been bankrupted by the process. Open and fair justice? I don’t think so

Who are the ultimate losers in all this ? You may ask why make such a fuss? I will answer directly. It’s not primarily about the Judiciary, or the Employment tribunal system, or hospital managements, or even doctors and healthcare staff. On the contrary it is fundamentally about sick people, or “patients” when they seek medical advice. It is these “end-users” of the NHS who suffer when doctors (or any HealthCare professionals) who speak up about patient safety (aka whistleblowers) are subjected to kangaroo courts and persecution culminating in their dismissal and whose lives are consequently ruined: loss of a career, loss of self-esteem, disruption of family life, possible financial ruin (lawyers bills really are “astronomical”), and even more extreme consequences. If you think I am exaggerating read the story of Mr Martyn Pitman FRCOG, Consultant Obstetrician a man of high integrity and whistleblower who lost his career at the whim of a Tribunal sitting before a judge who probably has no idea what a Fallopian tube is. The Tribunal stated:

“Our issue was never about the concerns raised by Mr Pitman, but about concerns

raised by others of disruptive behaviour and then a breakdown in working

relationships. These factors are damaging in any workplace, but in a healthcare setting, which is by its nature an intense and pressurised environment, their destabilising effect

is even more serious.” https://www.theguardian.com/money/2023/oct/29/whistleblowing-cost-hampshire-doctor-dearly-after-he-loses-tribunal

The judgment refers to “bullying and undermining behaviour” or similar 6 times but the word “concerns” appears 123 times. Have I made the point?

Anyone who knows anything about the modus operandi of Employment Tribunals will see through this obfuscatory gobbledegook immediately. I doubt even the Tribunal persons who wrote it knew what they were talking about. What is happening to justice in this country?

David Hencke at Westminster Confidential dissects the absurdity of Judge Gray’s “reserved judgment” in this case. https://davidhencke.com/tag/judge-jonathan-gray/

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.

Donate Donate monthly Donate yearly

Please donate to Westminster Confidential

£10.00

A horrendous tale: How a strapping lad was injured for life at work and then fell victim to corporate power and unfair justice

Posted on August 6, 2025 by davidhencke

Happier times. Matthew Reynolds (right) enjoying a drink with his late dad, Howard, before his horrendous accident

Matthew Reynolds was a strong strapping lad who earned good money – £80,000 a year – as a welder at the Tata Steel works in Port Talbot, South Wales. He had already bought his own flat and his future was bright.

Then one day as he was welding steel a large heavy refractory brick in the roof of the works came loose and fell 150 feet hitting him on the side of his back. His injuries confined him at the time to a wheelchair, cost him his well paid job, and damaged his spine so he can’t easily move his neck and caused other painful injuries. He had to sell his flat in Port Talbot at a loss ( it was up a flight of stairs) and move back home with his mother in rural Lincolnshire. Today he can barely hobble around, needs help to dress himself and has very little likelihood of getting another job.

This story is not about his injuries -horrendous as they are – but what happened when he tried to claim compensation from Tata Steel so he could live a reasonable life as a disabled person who would always need expensive help and care.

Any reasonable person would expect a multinational company run by a billionaire to pay substantial compensation, especially as the incident had to be reported to the Health and Safety Executive and the company admitted liability.

But in today’s world corporate responsibility is not that straightforward or even ethical. Tata Steel appear to employ health insurers to assess their responsibility and the offer made to Matthew was less than his annual salary – over £50,000 – for a lifelong injury. The figure based on 6 per cent of his claim was recommended by Tata’s health insurers – either coincidently or in line with initial payments offered to sub postmasters.

Just £9500 initial compensation for being left in a wheelchair

As a result he has had to use the county court system for the last SEVEN years to put in a claim and it remains unpaid at the moment. The only money he has received is an initial interim payment of £9500.

Tata, Dousan Babcock, who were managing the site, and Primetals Technologies Ltd- combined to oppose his claim seem to be relying solely on the initial assessment made at accident and emergency department in October 2018 which found no bones were broken but there was serious damage to soft tissue. However three independent specialist doctors have linked other serious damage to himself to the accident. Three and half years later, Mr Caspar Aytott, of Cheltenham Spine Centre found the severe pain had spread from his lower back into his flank, up to his chest into the shoulder and neck with difficulty raising his left arm. This is despite having physiotherapy and two spine injections which had no effect.

Then a rheumatologist found 20 months later that he still had chronic pain and was suffering from fibromyalgia and post traumatic stress disorder due to the accident. A third independent doctor, Karen Simpson, who examined him found he had damaged nerves and wanted him to have rehabilitation which he never got.

What was clear was that he was not returning to full health and getting worse not better. In the meantime his case was dragging on through the slow county court system, which has been heavily exposed by the Commons Justice Committee in a recent report. See my story on this blog here.

During the proceedings that followed his solicitor, supposed to be a family friend who offered to take his case on a ” no win, no fee” basis gave him spectacularly bad advice. This included him cancelling his GMB union subscription, not getting a crucial Health and Safety Executive report on the accident and losing all his original wage slips so a judge could not give him a substantial interim payment at another hearing.

So bad was his role that a judge took a rare decision to remove him from representing Matthew on the grounds of bad communication and mismanagement. There is even an allegation that while representing Matthew he was trying to arrange a dinner with Tata’s leading solicitor in London, Leanne Conisbee.

Matthew and his mother Denniel were meanwhile getting poorer by the minute, racking up the maximum on Matthew’s credit cards, their house faced repossession and a huge bill from their solicitor for handling their case. His mother ended up taking a equity loan on the house. They now rely on food banks to eat and have to pay court fees for every hearing in his case. They have an old Fiat 500 to get around with an adapted front seat as Matthew is in pain if he bends his back.

In desperation Matthew from a wheelchair supervised some men at work to get money for the fees. He did not declare this to court and the lawyers for Tata were tipped off and pounced accusing him of being ” fundamentally dishonest” for not doing so.

After the solicitor had been taken off the case the bundles were returned to Matthew. Included was an email sent to Rodney Fern, a barrister who had tried to prevent the solicitor being removed from the case, which revealed the dirty tricks being prepared by Tata against Matthew.

It read: ” the insurers, as you rightly say, are going to try and starve Matthew Reynolds out. They are not going to withdraw the application on fundamentally dishonesty as this is to be used as a bargaining tool. although it is without any substance.”

Tata’s lawyers said he was ” fundamentally dishonest” in court

I saw it used at Doncaster County Court this year when Matthew tried to get an interim payment. It had to be refused by a sympathetic judge because the law says anybody judged to be ” fundamentally dishonest” cannot be paid. The barrister for Tata was determined he would not get any money.

The situation has now escalated. Last month Matthew asked for a longer period as a litigant in person to prepare for this week’s hearing. He wanted a longer hearing of 10 days, wanted to call 16 extra witnesses including people who witnessed the accident and professional medical people.

All this was refused by both the circuit judge William Hanbury, a former property and local government barrister and senior circuit judge, Mark Gargan. Seven years ago Mark Gargan was found to have given a wrong judgment by the court against a terminally ill claimant in a personal injury claim against a firm when he threw out his case claiming he and his lawyers had ” flagrant disregard” for the rules. The case was reported in the Law Society Gazette here.

Official Portrait: Lee Pitcher MP Pic Credit: Laurie Noble Photography

The judge took the decision despite receiving a letter from Matthew’s new Labour MP, Lee Pitcher, who represents Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme.

In it he points out that Matthew, through no fault of his own, has lost his lawyers and is now fighting three large corporations having to navigate ” complex legal proceedings at significant financial and emotional cost”.

He adds: ” it is difficult to see how this can be viewed as a fair and balanced process. That an individual in such a vulnerable position should be left to fight such a case unaided, while the companies involved have already accepted liability, raises serious questions about access to justice.”

“Mr Reynolds has shown remarkable courage in pursuing this case and deserves to be treated with dignity and fairness without.”

His GP also sent a letter to the court saying Matthew was in no fit state to conduct the case and the hearing should be delayed but this was rejected by the judge. Using rather twisted logic the judge rejected this saying even with a delay Matthew would still be in the same state of health in the future – something the big corporations are trying to deny in their case.

He was sent 1500 pages of evidence from the three corporations and given 10 days to digest it and respond before the hearing. He told the judge: ” OK I’ll give these barristers/ solicitors a welding manual. I’ll set them up, give them the equipment ..you’ve got 5-10 days to go for a perfect weld.”

The hearing never went ahead this week. Both Matthew, who had a week of sleepless nights, and his pensioner mother were too ill to attend and drive to the court in Sheffield. I contacted the clerk to the case to find out what would happen next but was told there was no hearing for the rest of the week.

The only new development is that lead solicitor, Leanne Conisbe from Clyde and Co in the City of London has submitted a 74 page victim impact statement – claiming that she and not Matthew had suffered as a result of organising the case. The judge has ruled out his mother putting in a four page victim impact statement.