05/07/2024. London, United Kingdom. Rachel Reeves, Chancellor of the Exchequer poses for a photograph following her appointment to Cabinet by Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer in 10 Downing Street. Picture by Lauren Hurley / No 10 Downing Street
Last year the biggest hit on this blog was when I condemned the decision by Sir Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves to abolish the winter fuel allowance for all pensioners except the poorest on pension credit. The blog went viral and currently stands at 188,400 with 129 comments.
The decision – one of the first by an incoming Labour government – was inept, stupid, ill thought out, and rushed – and showed that the Labour government was completely out of touch with its base and its reputation for helping the poorest.
There was a decent case for restricting the payment to the wealthiest members of society who did not need help with their fuel bills. But by setting the figure so low as £11,300 to get it and trying to get people to claim pension credit – which has been a policy failure for years – this was a serious own goal.
The decision to use regulations to do this was attacked by the House of Lords statutory instruments committee – when they examined the detail – and ministers by passed their own benefits advisory committee, the Social Security Advisory Committee, on the flimsiest excuse that they didn’t have time to do this to make sure it could be implemented as an emergency. The committee itself when it finally got to discuss the regulations pointed out it was perfectly capable to look at it at an emergency session. It did this when the last government introduced massive social security changes to cope with lockdown during the pandemic.
The optics also looked bad for any politician. Claiming they had found a huge black hole in government finances it looked as though the first people who would plug the gap were pensioners, many of them surviving on incomes less than £20,000 a year. Pensioners and the disabled also need warm homes in winter probably more than any other people and the government’s claim it was implementing the triple lock to raise pensions was no use in the winter. It would not be paid until the spring when temperatures begin to rise and some would be scrimping and saving to try and keep warm before receiving an extra penny.
The result came back to bite Labour in the spring council elections and Parliamentary by-election in Runcorn, when voters dumped Labour in droves turning to Reform, the Greens and the Liberal Democrats instead.
Labour MPs and activists found this was one of the most cited reasons why people turned against them during the election. As a result Reform could capitalise by gaining control of a swarth of county councils and some mayoralties. The Conservatives were still not trusted by people after their 14 years in government, but to be fair to them they never proposed to cut the winter fuel allowance in the first place.
Luckily for Labour it is four years to the next general election so there is a chance it might be forgotten how stupid they were after four winters. And the mechanism they have proposed to pay the allowance back to nine million pensioners is fair with those earning £35,000 or more having to pay back the money in their annual tax return. The big question is why they didn’t do this in the first place.
The overall policy will still save £450m versus the universal system. But £1.25bn of the £1.7bn projected saving when this policy was announced is gone. Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, was claiming she couldn’t have done this when the government came into power because of the state of the finances, but can now because the situation has improved. She will have to explain this big change in her statement to MPs this week.
In my view the government overall has lost a lot of support by targeting pensioners not only in this way but also in the way it has treated 50swomen who had to wait six years for their pension by completely rejecting any compensation for them and ruling out mediation. I am sceptical that the WASPI campaign will get anywhere by going to court to try and revive the now rejected Parliamentary Ombudsman’s report on partial maladministration.
The issue was always discrimination as well as maladministration and the Ombudsman’s report was a very tepid solution for those who lost tens of thousands of pounds.
And ministers are being dilatory in paying out money to HIV contaminated blood victims and those swindled by the Post Office computer scam. All these affect many in the same age group.
The government has got a lot to do to regain popularity to get a second term in office, but this U turn on the winter fuel allowance is only a start.
Last night I attended a reception by the City of London to welcome the opening in three years time of Britain’s first national Migration Museum which will be located in the heart of the capital.
You could not have had a better antidote to the current political antipathy to migrants whether it is from Nigel Farage’s by election and Reform council election victories or Sir Keir Starmer’s ill judged views that we are becoming a nation of strangers because of the number of people wanting to live here.
Nor could there be a bigger statement of support from the City of London in choosing the prestigious Livery Hall at London’s Guildhall to launch this. Talking to officials from the City of London at the reception it was very clear they are extremely enthusiastic about the project.
The Migration Museum project is now 10 years old. It has moved from an old fire station at the back of the Albert Embankment to an empty H & M store in Lewisham shopping centre before getting to the City. It will be a new three floor museum in a brand new building in Aldgate. This latest move has only been made possible by a superb gift from a successful property company , Dominus, set up by a refugee to the UK.
The brilliance of this museum is that it focuses on human interest stories and treats everybody as a human being – not as some bogeyman or threat to the stability of our country. And the stories and history of migration and emigration are so rich and diverse and so much part of this country that it is amazing that no such museum has been created until now to celebrate this.
Also it will not have a metropolitan bias. There are plans for pop up museums all over the country to bring the same human interest stories to the rest of Britain. It will be popular with schools visits and when it is open it is expected to attract 140,000 visitors a year plus another 100,000 on the internet.
Last night’s launch included a panel discussion with Sathnam Sanghera , David Olusoga , Es Devlin, Indhu Rubasingham mediated by BBC news presenter Reeta Chakrabarti.
You can see how enthusiastic people were from this short Youtube video from Dr Krishna Kandiah, director of the Sanctuary Foundation. He says it better than I could express it.
On the way back home from the event on the tube I noticed a couple opposite me. The young man was a typical white Englishman with dark black hair. His girlfriend was a brown Asian lady. It was quite clear they were in love. And I thought those who claim we are a nation of strangers have got it wrong. The missing ingredient is love. In such a diverse country these attempts to drive wedges between people of different races will not resonate with them. Those who want to stir up fear and loathing are on the wrong side of history. Love will conquer all.
Charlotte Proudman Pic Credit:charlotteproudman.com
Last week I attended with Janice Chapman from CEDAWinLAW the launch of barrister Charlotte Proudman’s book He Said, She Said in London.
She is an extraordinary brave woman who stands up for sexually abused women and children in one of the most secretive parts of the judicial system – the family court – where estranged couples fight for custody of their children following a marriage breakdown. Most hearings are in private, ostensibly to protect the children, though a few can be reported in public following recent reforms.
For those familiar with my reporting of judgments in employment tribunals where whistleblowers stand only a 4 per cent chance of success this may not be such a surprise. Hearings such as those conducted by Leeds employment judge Philip Lancaster who has received 16 complaints from women he has insulted, belittled and patronised during hearings fit a pattern that seems rife in the family court system.
Janice Chapman and me with Charlotte Proudman at her book launch on the roof garden at Carmelite House. Janice asked her as a patron of CEDAWinLAW about the convention for the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women and why it needed to become law here.. Evidently the UK has not had a representative on the Geneva based committee under the last government and Baroness Helena Kennedy did not know whether the present government had to done anything to rectify this.
The book is a shocking eye opener into what goes on these largely secretive area of justice and exposes the appalling treatment of women in family courts – both by husbands and judges and ends with a failed attempt by the Bar Standards Board to end Charlotte’s career because she was exposing the mentality of the “boys club” world by both some male barristers and judges.
Among these is the case of a judge -Judge Scarratt – who threatened a woman who had been raped by her abusive partner and had been forced by him to take drugs to take away her daughter and put her in care and report her to social services for taking drugs. He made it clear that he was going to allow her abusive husband to have unsupervised contact with her daughter and said the whole proceedings were a waste of time. Charlotte Proudman managed to get his decision reversed by the Court of Appeal but by then the woman was traumatised as she says ” forcing even those who win to crawl over broken glass, leaving wounds that may never heal.”
Other highly disturbing material in the book includes the role of parental alienation used against women by men to say that women are turning their children against them. Extraordinarily these claims are backed up by so called experts – some who have no qualifications – who seem to be making a business out of the family court system.
Husband made wife sign a written contract allowing him to sexually assault his wife whenever he wanted
The most disgusting stuff is in a chapter on abortion and and reproductive coercion. It includes two contracts one before a woman became pregnant – which men forced on their partners. One insisted the husband would not have to give his sporting hobbies while she had to agree to shop for clothes in charity shops and ” keep the house as tidy as possible” and included the phrase ” I will entertain all sex requests- whenever and whatever -with a smile on my face and as a willing participant. It went to specify conditions for oral sex. As she comments; “It was, in effect, a charter for a man to rape and sexually assault his wife whenever he chose – a disgusting power fantasy.”
Two other chapters deal with a tragic case that involved the Hague Convention which is so limited in its scope that a woman fleeing her partner in Australia with her child because of domestic abuse was forced to return to him – as the issue of domestic abuse could not be used as a reason under the Hague Convention as it would have to be decided in Australia. The man then broke all his promises to the court.
Another case involved the hostile environment against child asylum seekers who faced female genital mutilation in their own country. Though the practice is illegal in the UK, the Home Office decided to split two sisters – allowing an 11 year old to stay but to deport her 14 year old sister on the wrong grounds she was too old to have FGM. After a desperate battle Charlotte managed to prevent the 14 year old from being deported.
The final part of the book turns the tables on Charlotte herself when she finds herself facing a tribunal at the Bar Standards Board for bringing the judiciary into disrepute – while far worse attacks are made against her on line by other barristers and men who lost their cases.
The tribunal decides that the justice system is robust enough to accept her on line criticisms of it – and board loses the case. The arguments put by the board to discredit her frankly look pathetic.
What this devastating book shows is that we still have along way to go to reform the judiciary and end the outdated boys club mentality. But Charlotte Proudman is on the right side of history and I am sure will prevail.
Last week I attended a conference which aims to unite diverse groups fighting racism to form a national campaign to stop the rising tide of prejudice, harassment and ideological views that portray black and brown people ( especially immigrants) as a threat.
The conference was organised by the law firm Equal Justice Solicitors whose chief executive Lawrence Davies made an impassioned speech at the end saying “no ” to all these traits and go on the offensive to get real integration in this multi racial country.
The response is opportune as the forces backing discrimination are rising high here and in the United States. Donald Trump is abolishing any approach that backs diversity, equality and inclusivity and Reform, who are expected to do well in the local elections this week, are committed to abolish the Equality Act, leave the European Court of Human Rights and will need to leave the UN Convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women and girls, which Margaret Thatcher agreed to join in 1986.
Lawrence Davies put up a blog on his newsletter The Intercessor and it very much reflects what he said at the conference so I am reproducing most of it here as it covers a lot of issues and has good examples.
He wrote:”Obviously, at present we are in the midst of an invisible war. The “culture wars” were quietly declared by the Conservative government in 2020. Their aim was to prevent black people empowering themselves by mobilising and using the energy from the #BlackLivesMatter movement to become a political force, such as that which helped the Democrats win the November 2020 election.
“It is an ideological war. Those who do not accept the alleged British way of life (“white is right”) are to be humiliated, made to feel unwelcome, harassed and invited to leave Britian. DEI is to be ended. Unconscious bias training is to stop in the civil service. White (northern working class) people are to be viewed as the real victims, not black people or women. Diversity (and equality) has gone too far. The term “Institutional Racism” is unhelpful and must not be used by the EHRC in any report findings. Black ministers (NB: who ideologically see no racism) were deployed to implement the war tactics to deflect from and provide deniability from their innate racist motivation.
One chess move in that war was the decision by the institutionally racist Home Office (which oversees the institutionally racist Met Police) to implement the Hostile Environment – a policy of deliberately seeking to make the Windrush generation uncomfortable and unwelcome living in the Britain.
Another was to label all illegal immigrants as criminally minded threats to our way of life and culture.
It started in 2016, although ideologically decades before that. The anti-foreigner element to the Brexit campaign was a rallying call to lone wolf social media racists and incels alike.
Racial harassment at work rose from 16% to 31% in the period of 2016 to 2020. It has become much worse since then.
We had race riots in the summer of 2024. Every alleged crime committed by a black person was taken as a justification to visit personal injury on the whole black community, be it in Southport or anywhere else, due to racist stereotypes about aggressive black people. They are all the same. They have it coming etc.
By contrast, every heinous crime committed by white people of course did not lead to any attacks on the majority white community. The ideologically motivated, Andrew Tate loving, Kyle Clifford was not stereotyped as the danger that white people pose to others.
Reform UK promised in its manifesto to abolish the Equality Act 2010, removing all legal protection against racism at work, in education and in health services. They believe, like Jeremy Clarkson, in the white man’s right to call a black person a “N…” at work or in a hospital, without accountability, or liability.
In any non-racist, civilised country, the Law should of course protect the black community from such racism. However, our Law does not. 30% of black people suffer racism at work but only 1% feel sufficiently safe and empowered to utilise their rights under the Equality Act 2010. 99% of racist incidents therefore are simply suffered and not formally complained of. Any Law that 99% of victims are too afraid to use is NOT fit for purpose.
No incentive for organisations or corporations to change
Of the 4% (within that 1%) who exercise their rights and win, they win small and the employer does not change. It is statistically more likely that the racist co-worker or manager will be promoted rather than sacked. Awards for racism which would attract $10 million compensation in the USA attract an award of less than £12,000 in the UK. There is no economic incentive for corporations and organisations to change culturally over a £12,000 award.
Public inquiries into the worst racist cases from the Lawrence Report to Casey Report in 2023 have uncovered the obvious Institutional Racism but led to no real or structural change. In fact, matters are regressing. Doreen Lawrence told me that the police are as bad now as they were in 1993.
In any event “landmark” Employment Tribunal cases do not effect structural change. They just enthuse the claimant and the lawyers who believe that such case do lead to change. But 99% of victims of the new rights won’t exercise them. Metaphorically successfully sailing a boat across a hostile ocean, and against the constant current, to land somewhere (hopefully) safe does not change the presiding structural current, or get close to freezing the Moon – that invisible power, wealth, influence controller.
Meanwhile, Racists are becoming emboldened. That’s exactly what happens when the Law does not work to protect people at work, or outside work.
Wayne Hammond (white) called John J Campbell (black, Union official) a “fucking monkey” at work (Sheffield Teaching North Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust) in a heated discussion about union subscription deductions from wages. The Employment Tribunal found that the remark at work was not made by Hammond in the course of his employment and that the Trust had taken all reasonable steps to prevent such remarks being made (even though it is clear that the steps had not prevented the racist abuse), so neither the Trust nor Hammond were liable.
On 20 March 2025 the Employment Appeal Tribunal rejected the union (UNISON) backed appeal. The union failed to challenge the ET Decision on the grounds that it was perverse.
So the current Law permits a black worker to be called a “fucking monkey” at work provided the conversation is about union matters and the Trust has carried out all reasonably practicable preventative steps to prevent such racist conduct.
The current Law also says that if you are called an “N” at work and pinned to the wall by your manager in front of witnesses it is not perverse (legally wrong) for you to receive only £2,500 in compensation. Nor is it perverse for the appeal court to opine that awarding more than £20,000 in punitive damages would bring UK Law into disrepute, whereas in fact the opposite is true.
The current Law says I can (randomly) scream at you at work and cause you to have a mental breakdown and you have 3 years to sue me but if I (deliberately) scream racist abuse at you causing the same injury you only have 3 months less a day to sue me. Of course, the Law says you have 6 years to sue me if I sell you a defective television…..
Betty Knight posted a post on LinkedIn which tagged a former colleague and effectively stated that the senior team at the college was racist (having previously won a claim at the ET that her constructive dismissal was an act of racial harassment). One white employer (then the head of HR) said she felt harassed by that posting and rather than blocking Betty, instead, chose to report her to the police for criminal harassment. The aggressor said that she did so on her own phone, from her car in the car park, and her employer knew nothing about it and had not authorised the reporting. The ET found that extremely aggressive conduct was not done in the course of the perpetrator’s employment. The matter is on appeal. Either the EAT will find that (allegedly) popping out of the office to report a black person to the police for a LinkedIn post, that LinkedIn itself had no issue with, is part of the employer’s responsibility under the current Law or it will not. In either case, the current Equality Act 2010 is not fit for purpose. No Law that 99% of race victims fail to utilise protects the race victim. The fear of retaliation and the knowledge that Justice will be very expensive and unlikely to be achieved (4%) means that we have only cosmetic rights.
We need a new Inequality Act to be implemented as soon as possible to tackle the rising and ideologically driven racial harassment and tackle the underlying and long-standing structural racism.
In the last year, a black man shopping in an ASDA in London, with a black elderly friend who had had a stroke, was surrounded by plain-clothed security staff and asked about their intentions, being the only black customers in the store. He was then asked if he knew how to lift a voodoo curse from a white person.
Similarly, a black women made her way around Tescos with her daughter only to be surrounded by security staff and asked about her intentions, again being the only black customers in the store. When she complained a manager/supervisor apologised for the matter and offered her “a “bunch of bananas”, smirking at her.
None of the racist white Tesco or ASDA staff concerned were dismissed.
So reading this post, you may feel that won’t happen to me, and as only 25% of British people admit to be very or a little racist, you may (hopefully) avoid being targeted and harassed at work, but know if unfortunately you end up working with or for a racist colleague, once you complain you will be retaliated against because the current Law does not prevent retaliation, or the original racist act, any more than the training the Sheffield Trust did. In fact it permits and encourages it.
Anyone telling you that you have rights not to be racially discriminated against is lying. Yes, there are rights but almost all are unable and/or too afraid to exercise them. A right is not a right unless it is enforceable, and can be exercised safely.
Further, 95% of black school children face racist banter and harassment at school. So the next generation, will face a far more racist world than you did. Racist banter is becoming normalised. It is destroying black lives, and people’s sense of safety and damaging their mental health.
As our society becomes more intolerant under the hate-mongering by Reform UK and BRUV (Andrew Tate’s political vehicle to become PM – NB: 27% of men under 40 years of age believe his misogynistic views of women are correct and kids are 5 times more likely to view violence against women as legitimate having viewed his literature).
So do YOU feel safe at work, in education, in the NHS, when contacting the police, online and offline?
What more can WE do to ensure black people, women and the community as a whole are safe from racist sexist (RaX) people?
Finally, if 25% of British people remain admittedly racist, hopefully that means than more than 50% are not racist and therefore in fact that being British no longer means being racist. Because cultures evolve. So being British no longer means being slave-owners or profiting from the slave trade. Or where the rape of an unmarried girl or women is seen as a criminal rape and no longer viewed as damage to property. Our culture did evolve into a fair and more tolerant (ie: less racist), diverse community but war has been declared on that evolved culture and they want to drag us back to the 1970s culture (and some want to drag us back into chains).
It is time to say NO.
NO more.
Be safe, and prosper, “
Professor Patrick Vernon
Among those who spoke at the conference were Professor Patrick Vernon, pro chancellor at the University of Wolverhampton and board chair of the Birmingham and Solihull Trust; Professor Miranda K Brawn Ahmed who is chair of People, Culture and Education Committee on Guy’s and St Thomas NHS Foundation Trust, veteran race discrimination campaigner Lee Jasper, Andy George, president of the National Black Police Association; Roger Kline, research fellow at Middlesex University; Hira Ali, an author and Ritka Wadhwa, founder of Cultural Intelligence. All were determined to make a big change so expect some strong action soon.
Three were good examples from the audience notably at Waltham Forest council where the executives and managers were being held to account over cuts and redundancies to make sure black people were not unfairly treated.
I don’t usually run appeals for money on my blog but I am making an exception in this case because of the huge injustice in the employment tribunal system that allows some judges to insult, berate and patronise women who come before them.
if you want to donate this is the link. DO NOT CLICK ON THE YELLOW BUTTON ON TOP OF THE PAGE WHERE IT SAYS DONATE – as this will go to the general fund for the Good Law Project and not to the women. INSTEAD SCROLL DOWN AND CLICK ON DONATE BY CARD.
To do so they have to get a judicial review against the Judicial Conduct Investigation Office which is both refusing to investigate their complaints and ironically believes it is above our freedom of information laws so it doesn’t have to answer any questions from the press or the public on simple facts like how many complaints there have been against judges. This view is not shared by the Information Commissioner who ruled it should comply with FOI but the Ministry of Justice is planning to appeal this decision.
The case the women want to bring is not just against the bullying Judge Philip Lancaster – but against the whole employment tribunal system which doesn’t allow access to judges’ notes and does not produce court records for all cases and even when it does makes sure it is very expensive to get hold of them.
The women’s case has been taken up by the Good Law Project but the women still have to raise some £13,OOO to cover legal opinions. So far they have raised just over £5000. The case was covered by me in Byline Times here. Now it has been taken up by the BBC programme Look North.
You can see their report below.
BBC Look North coverage of the complaints against Judge Lancaster with interviews with Alison McDermott and Dr Hinaa Toheed.
The treatment of management and diversity consultant Alison Mcdermott, by Sellafield who spent £750,000 on top flight lawyers to oppose her claim at an employment tribunal presided over by judge Lancaster led to her local MP Anna Dixon to request an apology from Sellafield’s chief Euan Hutton at a recent Parliamentary hearing. None was forthcoming. Dr Hinnha Toheed, a GP, tells how she was shouted at 16 times by Judge Lancaster during a maternity discrimination hearing She says: “Judge Lancaster shouted at me 16 times, called my case an “omnishambles” before we had even begun, and showed open bias and contempt throughout the hearing. The experience was devastating. My barrister formally documented his behaviour and submitted a written statement to support my complaint. Yet despite this evidence, the system protected him — and he remains in post to this day.”
She is one of two doctors and a nurse who have put in complaints about Judge Lancaster.
These women need support to get to the position of bringing a judicial review because of the enormous cost of doing so – another barrier against people being able to challenge the judiciary. Their legal team include Emily Soothill of Deighton Pierce Glynn, Dr. Charlotte Proudman, and a prominent King’s Counsel have agreed to capped fees. But they need this money to be able to pay for this advice – and that is why there is a need for this crowdfunder.
II have chosen not to call for any donations for my site on this blog so the money can go direct to the women.
Last week Salford City Radio’s Ian Rothwell devoted a whole programme to the CedawinLaw case for mediation to solve the impasse of compensation for the 50swomen who faced a six year delay in getting their pension. Three speakers discussed the issues. Jocelynne Scutt, a former Australian judge and anti discrimination commissioner for Tasmania, gave an update description of the present legal position and how you do not have to court to start a mediation process. Janice Chapman ,a 1950s woman, gives a heart rending account of how women have already been discriminated against before they got their pension and then had to wait six more years before they could get it and how alternatives to work longer are often not possible. I give an interview questioning the wisdom of Waspi’s legal case for partial maladministration and how the All Party Group on State Pension Equality is moving towards insisting that all groups campaign together rather than the division between Waspi and all the other groups which has bedeviled the issue for years.
This blog arose from the recent case highlighted by the Health Services Journal of Dr Susan Gilby, the former chief executive of the Countess of Chester hospital in giving evidence to the Thirlwell Inquiry about the resistance from senior NHS people she faced trying to admit mistakesthere. This is the hospital where a nurse Lucy Letby was found guilty of murdering seven babies and is now trying to get the case reconsidered. The CEO ultimately left the trust in late 2021, shortly after Letby’s trial began. An employment tribunal this month found she had been unfairly forced out by the trust and Mr Ian Haythornthwaite, the former chairman because she had raised concerns about his bullying behaviour. He resigned after the verdict.
Dr Susan Gilby Pic credit: BBC
Dr Susan Gilby is brave. Her experience is in keeping with many others who have raised concerns including patient safety issues. Dr David Drew’s comments ( See HSJ 08.44, 25 Feb) are spot on: the whole play book is sanctioned from above (NHSE and probably higher). Some colleagues and I have spoken to NHSE on several occasions (including in person, at Wellington House, SE London). We have nothing to show for it other than placations and weaselly words. Action, there is none.
Regarding NDAs (anon HSJ 13.39) in relation to healthcare and the NHS, they should be banned. They are “lawful” means of concealing (potentially very important) evidence which therefore cannot be tested in court. That’s the raison d’être of NDAs, isn’t it? And this is England, in the 21st century! And yes, Sir Robert Francis tried but was evidently misguided (see his 290 odd recommendations!). Jeremy Hunt did nothing to improve the “status” of NHS whistleblowers; if anything he made it worse by ignoring the problem and trying to belittle them.
On the Lucy Letby case there are now several authoritative sources seriously questioning the safety of the judgment (see Google). Let us hope that these processes will be allowed to evolve openly and unhindered.
It is high time the NHS leadership, politicians (West Streeting MP, SoS Health, are you listening?) reviewed the whole process of the treatment of NHS whistleblowers (they are “canaries in the coal mine”, right?).
If Trusts were banned from dismissing a doctor (or any Healthcare worker) who has “blown the whistle” or raised patient-safety issues (not “because” they have raised those concerns as that is banned by PIDA) it would save £millions. It would avoid hugely expensive law firms (of course taxpayer funded in the rôle of defending a Trust), Employment Tribunals and all the disastrous personal and professional consequences these Tribunals’ ill-considered decisions may lead to. Another consequence would be to eliminate the unfair and unnecessary loss of competent and sorely needed highly skilled doctors, (see Dr Chris Day’s case, Health Service Journal and elsewhere – its beyond belief but true). Training a doctor takes years, dismissing them takes minutes.
Employment tribunal system unaccountable
The Employment Tribunal system is unaccountable (well, if it is, it is to another branch of the judiciary, the Employment Appeal Tribunal process; marking one’s own homework?). It is heavily biased and has no place evaluating or investigating “patient safety issues” which it doesn’t understand. Neither does it understand the modus operandi of the NHS and medical matters (I won’t rehearse those arguments here – but for a start no offences have been committed and no laws broken by raising safety issues). In fact, raising safety concerns is not only strongly encouraged by professional medical bodies, but also part of a doctor’s code of conduct.
Internal management of “whistleblowing” matters are unregulated and unsupervised by an independent body. They are akin to “marking your own homework” because they are directed by the Trust CEO and perhaps some “chums” who can be relied on to give a favourable opinion. This is hardly appropriate, is it? WB may lose their jobs, their careers, £0000’s. Their professional and personal lives may be destroyed all in a process funded by the taxpayer. How is that “fair and open justice”? It is not!
The last thing a WB wants to do is go to an Employment Tribunal presided over by a “dodgy” ET Judge who delivers questionable judgments and pay “dodgy” law firms £000s for a <3% of winning (whatever “winning” means; if it comes it usually does so at the end of a spiral of losing first ET, appeal at EAT, lose EAT appeal. A “win’ may mean the case is referred back to the ET and round and round we go! This is the gist of things anyway. No wonder dismissed doctors are strongly advised (not by lawyers of course) to give the ET circus a miss, save their hard-earned money instead of paying extortionate fees to law firms and take the less stressful path of getting on with their lives. (NB The Tribunal step could be all but eliminated at a stroke by banning dismissal of a doctor who has raised patient safety issues).
If a Hospital Trust doctor raises patient safety concerns, history tell us they are very likely to suffer serious detriments in the form of restrictions, disciplinary hearings, pay cuts, referred for MHPS investigations concerning contrived allegations of incompetence or whatever, and suspensions as part of a vindictive reaction of Trust management who have (for some reason) taken offence. Instead, should they not be promptly investigating and correcting the shortcomings, how they were raised and by whom? If these adverse rill-informed reactions can be stopped there is hope for progress. One consultant, a colleague, was submitted to a flawed MHPS process (using an external agency) which supported the Trust’s claims of “incompetence” by alleging the doctor was not “fit-for-purpose”. (Further information provided upon request). As far as I know the confabulated charge of “not-fit-for-purpose” does not exist in (English) Employment law, but it was accepted without question by the Trust and the doctor was dismissed. As the saying goes, “You pays your money and you takes your choice”, (Aldous Huxley, Brave New World). The Trust had achieved its aim – to secure dismissal of a “difficult” doctor through what can only be described as a “corrupt” process. I asked people at NHS England if the charge of not “fit-for-purpose” was legitimate. NHSE claimed it was. I’ve searched online and checked with lawyers and found nothing to support its legitimacy. Ten years later that doctor is still fighting for their career. (And no doubt many others).
New laws and regulations to deal fairly with whistleblowing issues are URGENTLY required! The whole process is corrupt and in serious need of a profound and far-reaching review. The current system is ineffective but, more importantly, it is destructive.
A ground breaking decision by the Information Commissioner which would lead to the end of secrecy around the behaviour of judges will soon be tested in one of the highest tribunals in the country.
For years the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office, which, among other matters investigates complaints against judges, has claimed it is a private independent body which is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act, which covers the rest of Whitehall and the courts. It tells anyone who puts in a request that a reply will be discretionary and refuses to give the information.
And the Ministry of Justice, which is subject to the Freedom of Information Act, if asked the same information sidesteps the issue by saying it doesn’t hold the information.
Now John Edwards, the Information Commissioner, has blown the JCIO’s defence apart by saying it is a public body and like the rest of government should have to answer freedom of information requests.
Information Commissioner backing complainants
By doing so, he is backing at least two complainants who have taken their cases through tribunals plus numerous other people who have sought to get into the public domain how many judges are subject to complaints. The whole matter is going to be settled in an appeal to the Upper Tier Tribunal after a judge ruled that the decision by the Information Commissioner has to be included in the proceedings.
The Ministry of Justice, on behalf of the JCIO, is seeking to squash the decision. No date has been fixed yet for the hearing.
The Information Commissioner’s says: “the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice (now Lady Chief Justice)are jointly responsible for judicial discipline’. The JCIO, therefore supports not just the Lord Chief Justice but also the Lord Chancellor in relation to such matters.
“This highlights how the structure of the JO and JCIO is not simply to support the judiciary, with wider public functions included within its ambit. The Commissioner further notes that the Judicial Appointment and Conduct Ombudsman, the statutory office sitting at the head of the complaints process of which the JCIO is part, was added by parliament to the scope of FOIA. In the Commissioner’s view, it seems unlikely that it would have concluded that the operation of part of this process should fall in scope of FOIA, with others outside of it.”
“Based on the summary above, the Commissioner’s conclusion is that the JCIO is part of the JO, which, while operating at arms length in practice, is still part of the MOJ for the purposes of FOIA. In light of this, it is not necessary for the JO or JCIO to be listed separately in Schedule 1 FOIA for it to be within scope of the legislation.”
He adds:” Any information request made to the JCIO is effectively a request made to the MOJ and should be treated as such. This is important in order for the MOJ to carry out its functions under FOIA, and to enable individuals to exercise their statutory right to public information.”
Judge Philip Lancaster
The Information Commissioner’s decision is very important because of its context that judges are being protected by senior members of the judiciary from any scrutiny about their behaviour. The BBC and this blog have already reported that judge Philip Lancaster, an employment judge, has received as many as 12 complaints from women who have appeared before him that he is patronising, biased and rude towards female litigants. See my blog here.
Barry Clarke, President of the Employment Tribunals in England, steadfastly refuses to entertain any criticism of his judges thereby blocking any information about complaints. And Baroness Sue Carr, the Lady Chief Justice, appears to be equally protective.
So this ruling while not likely to see the naming of judges will be able to provide the context of just how many complaints there have been and upheld and show the scope of the problem.
From right to left Jocelynne Scutt, former Australian judge; Ian Byrne, Labour MP for Liverpool,West Derby and myself a journalist and a patron of CEDAWinLAW.
Waspi threaten further legal action and another judicial review
The present impasse over whether 50swomen should receive any compensation at all after ministers refused to pay must cease.
WASPI who relied on the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s weak findings of partial maladministration to get somewhere between £1000 and £3000 compensation for the 3.5 million women who suffered up to a six year delay in their pensions have been totally defeated and are having to restart from scratch.
CEDAWinLAW, formerly BackTo60, are now pressing to avoid further legal action and go straight to mediation with the government – hence the letter to the PM Sir Keir Starmer, the chancellor, Rachel Reeves and the work and pensions secretary, Liz Kendall.
The government is now facing a two pronged attack over the issue from two groups with different approaches but both are aiming to provide some compensation for the 50swomen.
The approach by CEDAWinLAW is much broader than WASPI which is only concerned with getting some recompense for the partial maladministration Sir Robert Behrens, the former Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, made in his long drawn out findings even though he conceded that the women were not directly financially affected by their lack of knowledge.
CEDAWinLAW are putting forward a case that the women were both subject to discrimination by being the only group affected by the delay and by the fact that unlike men they did not have the opportunities to build up the numbers of years to get a full pensions by historic discriminatory measures such as being barred from making contributions.
CEDAW is also relying on two key points. The UK under Margaret Thatcher signed up to the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women in 1986. This body is monitoring the UK’s progress in meeting the terms of the convention – and the issue of discrimination against 50s women is on their agenda in Geneva and will also be raised next month at a women’s conference on discrimination in New York.
Secondly the UK is moving domestically to accept that mediation is a better way of solving issues across the board rather than clogging up the courts with long running disputes. All this explained succinctly by Jocelynne Scutt, a former Australian judge and a women’s campaigner, in the video below
Now WASPI are planning to do the opposite and engage in a long war of attrition again in the courts against the DWP for throwing out any hope of compensation. Now having covered the long running judicial review by Backto60 from the initial hearing to the Court of Appeal ( the Supreme Court wouldn’t even hear it) this is committing their supporters to years of waiting and a huge financial burden running well into six figures to maintain the fight.
John Halford, head of public law and human rights, Bindmans. Pic credit: Bindmans website
The scale of the issue can be shown by the pre action letter sent to by John Halford of Bindman’s to the DWP. Not only is he is asking the ministry to cancel the decision they made not to compensate the women but he gets involved in a long convoluted argument into why the women should be paid and into the minutie of the detail of various surveys the ministry undertook to make his case.. Given the courts preference to look at precedents he will not be able to escape the DWP making references to the previous judicial review and using it to their advantage to quash such an action. The full text of his letter is reproduced below.
Now buried in this is a U turn by WASPI. The letter states it would like to explore an alternative disputes resolution to solve the problem. This is extraordinary about turn because only last year CEDAWinLAW put forward the same idea and invited WASPI to be an interested party. John Halford sent for all the papers and flatly rejected the approach. Not only that but presumably on the orders of Angela Madden, who runs the WASPI company, decided to side with the DWP against CEDAWinLAW if it came to court. Again the DWP could use it against them if they get a good lawyer.
In many ways this is a very sad tale as no agreement is possible between any of the groups fighting to get justice for the 3.5 million 50swomen. which in the short term will suit the DWP who can play off one group against another. There is also no real leadership from the All Party Parliamentary Group on State Pension Equality for Women led by Rebecca Long Bayley, MP for Salford, who describes herself as a wife, mother and proud Socialist, to bang heads together and go for the government over this.
In the meantime the cohort is starting to die out which will be very convenient for all those MPs and ministers whose inaction just prolongs any justice.
But in the long term this issue, the axing of the winter fuel allowance and what I hear is going to be the biggest assault on disabled people’s benefits in a generation will lose Labour its core support and pave the way for Nigel Farage to be our next Prime Minister.
Sir Brian Langstaff, chair of the infected blood inquiry
Lawyers representing thousands of haemophiliacs who unknowingly got hepatitis, HIV and Aids from blood transfusions provided by drug addicts and criminals in the United States in one of Britain’s biggest health scandals could be gagged from publicly criticising compensation payments.
A new draft contract proposed by the Infected Blood Compensation Authority (ICBA), the body set up by the government to pay out an estimated £11.8 billion by 2029 ,could take legal action for ” reputational damage” if lawyers publicly criticise the authority’s actions without their permission.
The ICBA, despite its name, is not a public body, but a private contractor to the Cabinet Office, so it intends to impose a standard contract on people who deal with it.
The draft clauses read;
15.7.1 not make any press announcement or other public statement or publicise the Contract or any part of it in any way, or make any public statement about the Scheme, without the prior written consent of the Buyer [the Cabinet Office] and must take all reasonable endeavours to ensure that Supplier Staff do not either; and
15.7.2 not (and must ensure its Subcontractors do not) embarrass the Buyer or IBCA or otherwise bring the Buyer or IBCA into disrepute or diminish trust placed in the Buyer or IBCA (“Reputational Damage”) by engaging in any act or omission which is reasonably likely to diminish the trust that the public or Scheme Applicantsplace in the Buyer and/or IBCAor impacts the reputation of the Buyerand/or IBCA,
This effectively amounts to a comprehensive “gagging clause”, specifically prohibiting lawyers from making “any press announcement or other public statement” about the scheme without prior Cabinet Office approval. Firms would also be required to ensure their staff comply with these restrictions.
The ICBA is seeking requirements that could compel law firms to take specific actions or make public statements at the IBCA’s direction to mitigate perceived reputational damage, regardless of whether any breach has occurred.
One law firm said; “On any basis this variation is unacceptable to us for professional, ethical and regulatory reasons. This firm is instructed by individual clients to provide individual, independent legal advice regarding the scheme and will continue to do so.”
The Haemophilia Society, which also supports victims, is consulting lawyers about what action it should take to counter these proposed restrictions.
The Cabinet Office has told people that these are standard clauses in procurement processes for private companies being paid taxpayers money, but that they are in conversations with IBCA but could not confirm the outcome.
The issue follows negative publicity over problems with interim compensation payments to people which generated criticism of the IBCA.
An IBCA spokesperson said:
“We are committed to supporting the infected blood community, and are working with legal providers currently to agree contracts that will provide support for those claiming.
“The legal providers are not restricted in the legal advice they deliver to people claiming compensation, and we provided amended terms to clarify this.
“We welcome an open discussion with all those who are impacted by infected blood, and those who represent them.”
Years of cover ups
Given the history of the infected blood scandal which dates back to the 1970s, culminating in the recent interim report by Sir Brian Langstaff, there have been years of cover -ups. People were never informed that their relatives were infected, there were attempts to use ” commercial confidentiality” to hide the source of the contamination, and this will not add to public trust or increase transparency.
So far £1 billion has been paid out in £100,000 interim payments and the IBCA is just starting to pay full compensation to other people.
Nick Thomas-Symonds, Minister for Cabinet Office, updated Parliament with IBCA’s latest compensation figures this week.
113 people have been invited to start their compensation claim
84 people have accepted their invitations and submitted their claim
23 offers of compensation have been made, totalling £34.4m
So far 14 people have accepted their offers with more than £13.3m paid in compensation
New laws will also be passed by the government extending payments to relatives of infected blood victims, which could lead to an extra 140,000 people claiming.
Westminster Confidential 