Category Archives: Uncategorized

Ukraine: An extraordinary project to revive the history of a once forgotten nation

Posted on by
Video of the full proceedings of the launch at the British Museum

What do you really know about Ukraine? Until Russia started its bloody war to invade the country probably little more than the exploits of the Cossacks and Britain’s role in the siege of Sebastopol during the Crimean War in 1854.

This week I was invited to the British Museum for a press conference to launch a remarkable international project to thoroughly research the history of this little known large country .

History is important to us all. That’s why students in the UK learn about the Romans, the Norman Conquest, Henry VIII, Cromwell, the British Empire, the first and second world wars, and the creation of the National Health Service to name but a few. These pivotal events shape our past and give us a sense of belonging and the interpretation of our past can be a catalyst for changes in the future.

This project – the Ukrainian History Global Initiative – was launched here because it will be based here. It is being financed by a wealthy Ukrainian oligarch, Victor Pinchuk, who owns Interpipe, which makes pipes and railway wheels, six TV stations and Grand Buildings, a London landmark in Trafalgar Square. He is one of the trustees – the others include Carl Bildt who is chair of the trustees and former prime minister of Swedenm and the historian Anne Applebaum, lawyer Philippe Sands, and Ukraine’s most celebrated poet, Serhiy Zhadan. Two generations of Ukrainian historians are contributing tto the project.

The project is enormous and will take three years to complete with no fewer than 90 academic researchers working on the history of Ukraine from across the world going back to its ancient past as well as more recent events leading up to the current war.

Ukraine is not on the periphery of Europe and Asia

What emerges is that Ukraine far from being on the periphery of Europe and Asia played a central role. It had strong links with ancient Greece Its wealthy assets as a bread basket for the world has meant it was invaded by the Nazis in the second world as Hitler wanted the land to feed his country. Russia seems to have its eyes on its land for similar reasons plus its mineral wealth. The Mongols dominated Ukraine for a period and there are strong connections between Poland, Lithuania and Ukraine. Jews, Muslims and Christians also play prominent roles in its development.

This rich background will provide historians with a feast to investigate.

Timothy Snyder, Professor of History at Yale University, who developed the academic concept of the project over the past three years, and is Chair of the International Academic Advisory Council and Member of the Board of Trustees of the Ukrainian History Global Initiative, said: “This Initiative will involve scholars from around the world in several disciplines, using traditional methods as well as new technology that helps us to handle the deep past. ‘Ukraine’ here is to be understood very broadly, as the lands and peoples, from the very beginning. There is much interesting to be said about the origins of our language, about the bronze age, about the Middle Ages, about modernity — from Amazons to Vikings, Ukraine is a territory where our standard view of history can be revised and made more vibrant.”

Please donate to Westminster Confidential to cover my 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
£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

Exclusive: DWP paper says paying any maladministration compensation to 3.5 million 50s women is ” a major fraud risk”

Posted on by

Entire DWP submission to Ombudsman on women’s right to pension compensation leaked to this blog

All 3.5 million 50s born women including the six “test case” complainants should get no compensation because there has been no maladministration and no evidence of financial loss, the DWP has told Rob Behrens, the Parliamentary Ombudsman. Even if there were maladministration the submission says his report does not show “there was injustice as a consequence of that maladministration.”

Their 118 paragraph submission rejects his entire draft report and his modest proposal of £1000 compensation for the six test cases, which the department says is, anyway, too high.

The coruscating response to the Ombudsman in a document marked ” official sensitive” is highly critical of his findings, the campaign to get compensation by WASPI, and makes the extraordinary suggestion that many of the claims by women could turn out to be fraudulent.

The attitude of the officials to the claim explains the real reason why Mel Stride, the Work and Pensions Secretary, is against mediation as he is obviously being advised that the ministry has no case to answer and why the Ombudsman, who must be embarrassed by the language in the submission, has turned to Parliament as a last resort.

The findings must be a major blow to Angela Madden, the organiser for WASPI, who only last year claimed at the Labour Party Conference that the women would get £10,000 to £20,000 compensation from the ministry.

Much of the submission is devoted to the Ombudsman’s proposal that all the women who have similar circumstances must get similar compensation and fund set up to deal with the wider question of compensation for financial loss. This means that the department would have to examine each case in detail which , according to the paper , would mean employing 5,500 extra staff, and take away people from other work like paying people’s pensions on their retirement and awarding pension credit.

The submission says: “DWP would not have information on all 1950s-born women and we would have to source their information – for example, through HMRC. We would also need bank details in order to make an automated payment and these would be obtained through outreach and/or some way for citizens to provide their details. Such a scenario would take significant setting-up and would have wide ranging impacts on DWP’s other critical business, with likely costs of the digital aspects.” It says this would take 18 months to set up.

It is the fraud claim over financial losses that is most extraordinary.

The submission says: “We are concerned that the Ombudsman’s proposed recommendations would generate a major fraud risk and be hugely and disproportionately burdensome to implement.”

“… we expect that the existence of a scheme would result in many claimants endeavouring to provide such evidence. The Department would then have to try out many extensive and expensive investigations to decide whether the evidence was sufficient to prove financial loss. We expect that claimants will be
encouraged to make claims for financial loss and that template letters will be circulated to support such claims. The cost of living crisis may also drive increased volumes of claims.

“This seems to be an entirely unnecessary expense for the taxpayer given that the Ombudsman has found no sufficient evidence on the 6 sample cases, we found no sufficient evidence on the 10,000 cases, and we cannot see how sufficient evidence could be available.”

The submission does not even accept that that there was anything wrong with the ministry’s communication to 50swomen. The Ombudsman makes another modest proposal that officials report to him and the chairs of the work and pensions and public administration select committtees, Stephen Timms and William Wragg on what they have done six months after his report is published.

“”You have recommended that within 6 months of your final report we explain to you and the chairs of the WPSC and PACAC what we have done since these events happened or what we plan to do.

….”we do not agree to report to you and the chairs of the 2 committees within 6 months of your final report being published. Also, your findings relate to historic events. We are not clear on the benefit of
considering these events with the advantage of hindsight.”

I am not surprised this confidential submission was labelled ” sensitive”. It shows up the arrogant way officials behave towards 3.5 million elderly women, their disdain for remarkably modest proposals from the Ombudsman, dislike of organisations like Waspi for organising ” template letters” and a level of complacency they have in their administration of this vexed and prolonged process of raising the pension age. Their official attitude is little better than Boris Johnson’s quip during the Covid pandemic “let the elderly die”.

I have not bothered to either inform or contact the Ombudsman’s Office or the DWP on this leaked report as the Ombudsman is bound by law from commenting during an investigation and the DWP never comment on leaked documents.

Please donate to Westminster Confidential so I can continue exposing what is really going on in government.

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

Exclusive: Parliamentary Ombudsman dodges recommending any maladministration compensation for 3.5 million 50s women

Posted on by
Rob Behrens, Parliamentary Ombudsman Pic Credit: PHSO website

Ombudsman capitulates to DWP intransigence NOT to pay a penny and leaves it to MPs to decide

In what must be the most extraordinary provisional decision by any Parliamentary Ombudsman Rob Behrens has decided NOT to make any recommendations for compensation for maladministration he found affecting 3.5 million 50s born women who had to wait an extra six years for their pensions.

Some details of his confidential letter sent out to Waspi, MPs, the test case complainants and 500 other pensioners have leaked out and show basically the Ombudsman has , in my words.” kopped out ” of his job to compensate people wronged by public bodies. This is after spending six years – with various breaks – investigating the issue.

The letter reveals that the Department for Work and Pensions has put enormous pressure on the Ombudsman not to award anything by telling him before he has completed his final report they have no intention of paying it.

These are the key paragraphs:

The official Ombudsman website says the aim is to publish this as a final report in March.

So what are the repercussions if this goes ahead? It obviously means it would go to Parliament which would have to have a debate and a vote on various levels of compensation. But the Parliamentary agenda is largely in the hands of the government and government whips. The government still has a large majority and Rishi Sunak, the PM, has shown little, if any, interest in this issue. All the government has to do is put down a motion saying the DWP doesn’t want to pay any of the women and whip Tory MPs to vote for it.

There might be a small rebellion by Tories but not enough to defeat it. It is by no means certain that Labour would support it, despite the former shadow chancellor, John McDonnell promising £58 billion to settle this issue. Labour seeing itself in power later next year would not necessarily be keen on paying a multi billion package to the women when faced with a tight spending constraints.

The other extraordinary result of such a provisional decision is that this is a bitter blow to Waspi, who went down the Parliamentary Ombudsman route. The have raised huge sums of money from these women – all it turns out for nothing. They are still running a crowd funder – supposedly for a judicial review into the Ombudsman’s decision. They capitulated at the court door- going for the Ombudsman to rewrite his findings. Well he has now, and recommends they get nothing. Should they continue to raise money now it could be seen as fleecing their supporters as they now have nowhere to go.

The only bright light in this terrible situation is that CEDAWinLAW has now raised all the £15,000 it needs for lawyers to go ahead to work out a strategy to bring a Group Class action against the DWP. Since it looks like the only thing that could make the DWP listen is a court decision, this is the only avenue left.

But there is something worse in the Ombudsman’s provisional decision. Should it go to a vote in Parliament and Parliament votes to give them nothing, that is the end of the matter. Parliament is supreme and even the courts have to bow to Parliament. In other words, the Ombudsman’s decision, however he likes to dress it up, condemns 3.5 million mainly poor pensioners to go to their graves without a penny in compensation. Some friend of the oppressed indeed.

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

Whistleblower Usha Prasad ordered to pay £20,000 costs in hearing held in her absence

Posted on by

Nadia Motraghi KC – from Old Square Chambers, barrister for the Epsom and St Helier NHS Trust

Judge rules her case had ” no prospect of success” and she was ” unreasonable ” to pursue the claim

UPDATE: The figure was amended when Usha received the judgement from exclusive of VAT to including VAT – that reducing the total figure to be paid to £20,000 instead of £24,000.

Employment Judge Ms EJ Mclaren today ordered Dr Usha Prasad to pay Epsom and St Helier University NHS Trust £20,000 in a hearing she did not attend due to ill health which had not been accepted by the tribunal.

The decision is a pyrrhic victory for the trust, Capsticks solicitors, and a barrister, Nadia Motraghi, from Old Square Chambers, who had originally sought to claim £150,000 but had their claim reduced to £20,000 – the maximum that can be charged in a summary hearing. Much of the money will be swallowed up in fees charged to the trust by lawyers, Nadia Motraghi, and Capsticks solicitor Jessica Blackburn, who have already made nearly £100,000 between them from pursuing Dr Prasad on behalf of the trust. See my blog on the paper submitted by Capsticks to the tribunal here.

Dr Usha Prasad

The handling of this case in my view is yet another example of why employment tribunals are totally unsuited to investigating whistleblowing cases.

For a start two judges have taken totally different views of whether Dr Prasad was fit to plead. Judge E J Baker basically decided that a doctor’s note was not good enough to prove she was ill. But only last month acting regional judge Katharine Andrews decided on a fresh doctor’s note to cancel another hearing involving the trust on the grounds that Dr Prasad needed a long rest and should not face any hearing until next April. It makes judicial decisions by non medically qualified judges seem like a lottery. This of course was not mentioned by Nadia Motraghi in the hearing as it would have undermined her client’s case.

Second the inequality of arms in these hearings. Dr Prasad has already spent a small fortune on lawyers in some of the hearings. So I know she decided she would not be represented by a brief at this hearing because if she lost it would cost her nearly double the cash -nearer £40,000. For the trust unlimited taxpayer’s funds can be spent on lawyers and it is not their money. Not bad for a trust that is already in financial difficulties – just cancel a few operations instead. I also note other lawyers offer a capped fixed fee if a private company is bringing a complex case against an employee – otherwise they would not get the business.

So it is rather hollow for the trust to claim as the judge solemnly pronounced – this is a big cost to a public authority caused by a case ” which had no prospect of success”. It is a big cost because the trust deliberately chose to use some of the most expensive lawyers in town – Old Square Chambers – and fell for paying for 21 lawyers from Capsticks.

Now Nadia Motraghi, whose submission was accepted in full by the judge, painted Dr Prasad as being a ” Jeckyll and Hyde ” character – not mature enough to realise her case was going nowhere and making repeated claims of unequal pay, racism and sexism she could not substantiate but turned into a totally different person when it came to paying the costs. She told the tribunal that she was very intelligent and capable of earning at least £116,000 a year as a good cardiologist and with a house that had gone up £300,000 in value which could be sold. She also used the fact that she was very popular in the Yorkshire hospital she had worked while being clinically restricted at Epsom. Any objective person might ask how come her talents weren’t equally recognised in Epsom.

Now the final issue is the whistleblowing claim. I had wondered why Jessica Blackburn, in a letter to her, had insisted it lacked any merit. Nadia Motraghi gave the game away. She had she had not produced any evidence to justify a risk to patient safety – no emails had been produced to prove this.

Then I remembered the judgement of Tony Hyams -Parish, which was used to justify the costs by judge E J Baker after he dismissed all her claims. There WAS pretty convincing evidence of a serious breach of procedure in an ” avoidable death ” of a heart patient and it was admitted by Dr Richard Bogle, head of the cardiology department. The death in the hospital was never reported to the coroner. You can read about this on my blog here. You can then read about the Hyams-Parish judgement. You can see it here.

What you will notice is that the evidence in the hearing is never covered in the judgement. Now judge Hyams-Parish, to borrow Nadia Motraghi’s words, is an intelligent man. He would know there are no record of the hearing and the judge’s notes are secret. So by not mentioning this in his judgement it is erased from the public record as if it never existed. Only the fortuitous chance that a journalist was there – and that is now very rare – is there a record. So that blog is the only record that it happened.

So it is not surprising that the trust can confidently claim there is no whistleblowing. The judge has been very helpful to the trust by expunging it from the record. As I wrote at the time this decision was a stain on British justice.

You may wonder why Dr Prasad, a whistleblower, did not turn up and the tribunal was unable to contact her. You can read the statement from Dr Ward here:

Dr David Ward, a retired cardiologist and supporter of Dr Prasad. put up a statement during the hearing in the tribunal chat box on he knew Dr Prasad was not attending :” I believe it is my duty as a consultant physician and longstanding colleague and witness to her state of mind throughout these prolonged proceedings to draw attention to the Tribunal that she is not fit to plead. She is in a state of extreme distress such that she is not able to attend. This hearing will cause further detriments to her health. I believe her GP has written a letter to this effect. “

Today he issued a further statement: “

Dr David Ward

“I wish to point out that the stress that has been experienced by Dr Usha Prasad throughout these proceedings was evident at the hearing in November 2021 before Mr Hyams-Parish. I know that Dr Prasad and the journalist, Mr David Hencke, have asked for the audio-visual recordings which I am sure would confirm this.  

2Her inability to recall events, emails, or to refer to documentation within the extensive bundle, whilst giving oral evidence is because of extreme distress. She was not merely tired, but suffered from mental fatigue, which leads to loss of concentration when “put on the spot” under cross-examination in public at a hearing.  

“I consider it is my professional obligation to point this out and would suggest that the audio-visual record of the proceedings of November 2021 are made available to provide objective evidence of the points I have made. It goes without saying that any costs awarded against Dr Prasad would be very damaging to her current state of mind and health. “

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

Parliamentary Ombudsman to send out confidential draft findings on 50s women pensions next week

Posted on by
A younger picture of Rebecca Hilsenrath

A confidential copy of the provisional findings of the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s report revealing what compensation the 3.5 million remaining 50swomen will get for their delayed pensions will be sent out to selected parties at the end of next week.

This long, long awaited move was announced by Rebecca Hilsenrath, chief executive of the Ombudsman’s Office, to Mps on the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee yesterday.

Ms Hilsenrath told MPs that this long drawn out investigation had been ” challenging” and the Ombudsman had needed expert legal advice on how to proceed with the report. She said the investigation which began in 2018 had twice been paused because of litigation. These included the judicial reviews brought by ” Backto60″ – now CEDAWinLAW and Waspi . Backto60 had fought the DWP over indirect discrimination in the process and Waspi had wanted the finding of maladministration widened to cover other circumstances which had affected women’s claims.

It was also revealed that the Department for Work and Pensions had contributed to the delay by asking for more time to consider the issues.

Altogether it will have taken seven years before the public release of the report expected in the New Year of the Ombudsman’s findings during which over 250,000 women have died.

John McDonnell, the former shadow chancellor, said these delays and extensions had mean it would mean ” justice delayed becoming justice denied” and pressed the Ombudsman not to grant any more extensions to the DWP or other parties.

The schedule announced by Ms Hilsenrath will give the six ” test case” complainants until Christmas to respond. The provisional findings are also being sent to the DWP and Waspi but not to CEDAWinLaw.

” We will then take into account their views before issuing a final report in the New Year.”, she said.

The announcement yesterday came as the £15,000 crowd funder launched by CEDAWinLAW has already raised over 70 per cent of the cash so lawyers could draw up a strategy to bring a group class action against Mel Stride, the works and pensions secretary, for direct discrimination in the way they handled the raising of the women’s state pension from 60 to 65.

The lawyers handling the case are human rights lawyer John Cooper, KC and David Greene.

John Cooper KC

John Cooper said: “This is an important challenge for so many women in this country. The weight of the evidence indicates a grave injustice to them and we will robustly represent their interests as we move forward with the assistance of a first class legal team”

David Greene is regarded as an expert in bringing Class Actions for groups and cited as one of the best litigators in the City. He is a past President of the Law Society which represents solicitors.

Initially the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s Office said the “as far as we are aware no legal proceedings have been issued so no implications for our investigation.”

Rob Behrens, Parliamentary Ombudsman

Yesterday Rob Behrens, the Parliamentary Ombudsman, changed his position warning that further litigation would delay proceedings for the publication of the report.

Jovelynne Scutt, the former Australian anti discrimination commissioner, who has compiled a report saying the DWP is in breach of international law, says the legal case should have no bearing on the Ombudsman’s report which is mainly about maladministration.

Yesterday Ms Hilsenrath also admitted that the office’s handling of the complaint would be reviewed by the Parliamentary Ombudsman to see what “lessons can be learned” over the long process it has taken. By then Rob Behrens, the current Ombudsman, will have retired and a new one would be in place.

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 donatge to wsestminster Confidential

£10.00

Exclusive: 50swomen prepare to take the DWP to court again over failure to compensate them for lost pensions

Posted on by

Top human rights lawyer and a past president of the Law Society to draw up legal case strategy for 3.5 million women

John Cooper KC Pic credit: 25 Bedford Row Chambers

CEDAWinLaw, the successor body to BackTo60, announced today that it has started preparations to take the Department for Work and Pensions to court again.

The move will re-ignite the row over the long drawn out dispute over the failure by government to compensate or recognise the plight of 3.5 million women who had to wait an extra six years for their pension. At present progress on the dispute is stymied by the long time the Parliamentary Ombudsman is taking to decide how much compensation the women are entitled to and the scope of their complaints.

David Greene. Pic credit: Law Society Gazette

Mel Stride, the work and pensions secretary, and Laura Trott, the pensions minister have also blocked any discussion of mediation between CEDAWinLAW and the government hiding behind Robert Behrens, the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s protracted delay in reaching any decision on the issue. This particular claim by ministers is vigorously contested by Jocelynne Scutt, the Australian judge, who says both processes are separate and mediation is possible while the Ombudsman considers his report

In a statement today CEDAWinLAW said: “CEDAWinLAW has instructed John Cooper KC ‘Top Silk’ out of 25bedfordrow.com via David Greene, Senior Partner, edwincoe.com to represent all 1950’s Women in a Group Class Action against the Secretary of State for Work & Pensions out of The Judge’s Report which sets out in depth the way in which those affected have enforceable rights which have been breached.

We plan to initially raise £15,000 to determine a case strategy with Counsel to be published, in due course.”

John Cooper is one of the leading human rights lawyers, having been the lead prosecutor in the People’s Iran Tribunal in The Hague; a leading KC in the Manchester Arena bombings inquiry, numerous high profile murder trials and fraud cases and is described as the preferred KC for cases which challenge the Establishment.

He said today: “This is an important challenge for so many women in this country. The weight of the evidence indicates a grave injustice to them and we will robustly represent their interests as we move forward with the assistance of a first class legal team”

David Greene is regarded as an expert in bringing Class Actions for groups and cited as one of the best litigators in the City. He is a past President of the Law Society which represents solicitors.

Mel Stride, work and pensions secretary

The announcement today was made inevitable by Mel Stride, the works and pensions secretary, refusing any mediation talks. These had been offered by Garden Court Chambers and ministers initially decided to ignore the request only to find themselves under pressure by Garden Court Chambers to have to respond. as it is a recognised legal process. Once he had refused he opened himself up to potential legal action. The offer for mediation still stands.

The decision today is also a victory for CEDAWinLAW, whose predecessor BackTo60, were refused a hearing of their judicial review by the Supreme Court after initially winning a case to bring it in the lower courts.

Jocelynne Scutt

By doggedly pursuing the issue despite this setback they got Jocelynne Scutt, former anti discrimination commissioner in Tasmania and an Australian judge, to hold a people’s tribunal, assisted by Garden Court Chambers. Her findings produced in a report found that 50swomen had been the subject of direct discrimination contrary to international law under the UN Convention of the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women and Girls, ratified by Margaret Thatcher in 1986.

Despite attempts to pretend this was of no significance notably by Andrew Gwynne, MP who supports WASPI and is now a Labour shadow minister for social care, as just ” a personal view”, lawyers from three firms, Garden Court Chambers ( for mediation) ,25 Bedford Row, and Edwin Coe (for the class action) have decided that it presents an arguable case.

CEDAWinLAW is seeking to raise £15,000 to cover the development of a legal case strategy . Their website if you want to donate is here.

A decision to go back to the courts will present fresh problems for the DWP which thought it had seen the end of legal action after the judicial review was blocked by the Supreme Court. It could also present problems for the Ombudsman’s Office as Robert Behrens used the previous legal action to pause his investigation.

I have asked both to comment. The Parliamentary Ombudsman’s Office said “as far as we are aware no legal proceedings have been issued so no implications for our investigation.”

“

Please donate to Westminster Confidential to allow me to continue my exclusive 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

Martyn Pitman judgement: a bad ruling that could endanger mothers in childbirth

Posted on by
Dr Martyn Pitman Pic credit: Hampshire Chronicle Adele Bouchard

Jonathan Gray, the employment judge hearing the case brought by whistleblower obstetrician Martyn Pitman against Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust used last Friday to issue his judgement dismissing all the doctor’s detriment claims against the trust. The judgement, despite widespread and national interest, has still at the time of writing, not been published by the HM Tribunals and Court Service.

Judge Jonathan Gray Pic credit: BDB Pitman

The judge, who previously worked for the law firm BDB Pitman in Southampton, managed both to accept virtually all his whistleblowing claims but throw out any claims that he had been persecuted by the trust for exposing them.

In short he believed every word given by Alex Whitfield, the former oil refinery executive turned trust chief executive; Lara Alloway, the former chief medical officer and Steve Erskine, the former businessman now chair of the trust and other leading figures who gave evidence for them. He didn’t believe a word of the case brought by Martyn Pitman of his bad treatment despite being ably defended by Jack Mitchell, funded by the BMA from Old Square Chambers.

What the judge did was turn Martyn Pitman against himself. His ruling at the end was :“Having considered each of the alleged detriments, there is in our view an overarching reason for what has happened to the Claimant that is not on the grounds of any of the alleged or proven protected qualifying disclosures. In short, it is the Claimant’s communication style and not the message he was trying to convey.”

To seal the deal the judge turned one of Martyn Pitman’s witnesses against him. He used the evidence of Dr Michael Heard, a fellow consultant, who backed up Dr Pitman’s whistleblowing claims to turn against Dr Pitman.

Dr Heard had made similar claims to Dr Pitman to the management at the trust and no action was taken against him. The judge used this to say it proved the trust management was keen to take whistleblowing seriously but not keen if it was presented in a forthright manner which affected the ” health and well being ” of the managers.

Alex Whitfield, chief executive, Hampshire Hospitals Trust

What was also strange in this hearing was that the person who made the most dramatic claims against Dr Pitman, Janice McKenzie, the divisional chief nurse and midwife, saying she had to leave the unminuted meeting dealing with patient safety with him, in tears to cry in the toilet, never gave evidence. But like ” Banqou’s Ghost” in Macbeth her claims hung over the hearing. I would have liked to see her testify given there is no written evidence of what happened there.

There was also a dispute – again unminuted – over the claim that towards the end of this long saga Dr Pitman was verbally told by Alex Whitfield, that he couldn’t continue working at the hospital because he was a risk to patient safety. She denied this and the judge believed her and not Dr Pitman.

Basingstoke Hospital Midwife team receiving an award in 2015 in better times. Pic credit: Basingstoke Gazette

Now there is a much wider issue in this judgement which goes well beyond this being a local hospital dispute. It arose because of a merger of two trusts which brought a clash of cultures between midwives who worked at the North Hampshire Hospital and those who worked at the Royal Hampshire Hospital in Winchester. Midwife managers from Basingstoke tried to impose their system on midwives in Winchester. This led to unrest and unhappiness in Winchester and Dr Pitman intervened because he was worried about patient safety and took it up with the midwifery managers who seemed unable to cope with criticism.

The management of this became a national issue when the Care Quality Commission inspected the maternity services at the trust and downgraded the trust (see here). Again I am surprised this was not mentioned in the tribunal.

But why I really think this ruling is bad is another event which coincidently emerged while this case was on. The Care Quality Commission published its annual report on maternity services and it makes grim reading. The number of inadequate trusts has doubled from 9 to 18, the number of trusts that require improvement has increased from 46 to 67 and only six are in the outstanding quality category. The CQC is obviously worried about this since they have only inspected 73 per cent of trusts and are planning to inspect the rest as a matter of urgency. The issues raised include poor management, lack of staffing, bad communication with patients, patient safety being inadequate and also racial inequalities.

Now judge Gray won’t know about this and probably say it was irrelevant to his hearing but his ruling will be a solace to managers worried about whistleblowers raising inconvenient claims of patient safety in maternity wards. By putting down such an eminent obstetrician ( even the judge and the health trust couldn’t find fault with his clinical judgement) he is potentially putting at risk the safety of millions of mothers giving birth in England. Who is going to raise their voice in the NHS about patient safety in the maternity ward if they see a doctor put down and not believed in a tribunal like that? Yes he may be forthright and strong minded but we need people to have high standards to improve the health service for everyone. Judge Gray has a lot to answer.

Please donate to Westminster Confidential to allow me to do detailed investigations.

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

Ian Rothwell’s radio show: Interviews with Dr Jocelynne Scutt, myself and Kris Gibson

Posted on by

Featuring latest developments in the long running battle to put right the injustice to 3.5m 50sborn women who faced delayed pensions

Australian former anti discrimination commissioner and judge Dr Jocelynne Scutt

The CEDAWinLaw organisation, which backs full implementation of the UN Convention for ending all discrimination against women and girls, has put up links to the interviews this week on Salford City Radio’s Ian Rothwell show. These reveal the latest move towards getting mediation for the 50s women who faced a six year extra wait to get their pensions.

Mel Stride, the work and pensions secretary has refused any mediation so tougher action is being considered and legal advice has been sought. The link to the website is here.

Worth watching developments over the next coming weeks. Doesn’t look like anyone is going away. Meanwhile the number of 50swomen who have died without getting any compensation has reached over 300,000.

Please donate to Westminster Confidential to allow me to continue my detailed investigations.

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

Alison McDermott – Sellafield whistle blower speaks out on employment tribunal failings at ECEC Conference

Posted on by

This is the first blog with me by my new assistant Joseph Eden, a City University journalism graduate, on a speech given by Alison McDermott, on her horrendous experience as a whistleblower trying to expose bullying and malpractice at Britain’s largest nuclear site and the appalling treatment she received at the hands of British Justice

Alison McDermott being interviewed by Katy Diggory

by Joseph Eden

Employment disputes are supposed to be settled in a free and fair way; the reality is much different. In an interview at the 2023 Annual European Compliance and Ethics Conference in Munich, the largest conference dedicated to this subject globally, whistle blower Alison McDermott spoke of her case, and of a system that is awash with discrimination, inequality and abuse – at the expense of those who need it most.

A recap for readers of this blog, Alison told the conference the ordeal Sellafield and its governing body, the NDA, have put her through. After speaking out about serious employee abuses and abject failures within the nuclear facility’s HR department in 2018, HR director Heather Roberts and Lesley Bowen, who was responsible for the company’s EDI strategy, dismissed Alison overnight, citing financial reasons. Later, when Alison pursued litigation, Sellafield changed its tune, instead saying they acted on concerns over her performance, only mentioning financial reasons “to be kind”.

“It just doesn’t stack up”, she told interviewer and communications consultant Katy Diggory. “There is nothing kind about telling someone that we’re sacking you for one reason, and then three months later introducing a new reason when you no longer have a right to reply because you’ve already left”.

In addition, Alison produced a document highlighting Sellafield’s offer of an 18-month contract renewal just one month before her dismissal, which detailed the nuclear site’s perception of her previous work there as excellent and trusted by the executive.

What followed Alison’s dismissal is another damning indictment of the employment tribunal system. From her initial claim to the verdict, Alison recounts the bullying and harassment she was subjected to, labelled a “self-absorbed, self-serving woman” by Sellafield’s barrister, who insinuated she was pursuing her employer purely for financial gain – despite full knowledge of Alison having refused a £160,000 settlement offer.

Her interview at the conference further highlights the egregious power imbalance within the tribunal system. From the contrasting legal budgets of self-funded claimants versus their employers (in this case, an employer whose £670,000 of legal fees were picked up by the taxpayer), to the absence of any court transcript, and the lack of safeguards to protect employees from having reputation-damaging judgements publicly made against them simply for speaking out.

“Imagine being in a boxing ring with your hands tied behind your back and having to absorb punch after punch” was the metaphor Alison used, her experience made even more shocking with Judge Philip Lancaster allowing her former employers to pursue her for the maximum allowed costs.

Sellafield

Research by Greenwich University supports the imbalance Alison described, finding that more than half of all whistleblowing claimants represent themselves at their hearings, usually as a result of financial constraints. At the same time, employers are securing more expert legal representation than ever before.

The conclusions point to a modern landscape at odds with the informal grounds upon which the employment tribunal system was founded. The requirement of an advanced understanding of legal dogma has accompanied the encroachment of major legal firms into the realm of employment law – with employers spending hundreds of thousands of pounds to defend themselves from the claims levied against them.

This calls into question how an individual claimant could ever be able to compete against their bosses. The outcomes of employment tribunal cases indicate that, in practice, they rarely can. Referencing the government’s own tribunal statistics, Alison told the conference that between 2007 and 2021 only 3% of whistle blowers were successful at tribunal, noting that for women, the challenges faced are even more difficult.

“I think it’s incredibly hard for anyone to blow the whistle because of the huge barriers and inequality”, she said. “But research shows that women’s motives are more likely to be mistrusted”.

Need for substantial reform of the Employment Tribunal system

This phenomenon, Alison says, was manifest in her own judgement, with Judge Lancaster determining she was “pursuing some ulterior motive related to her desire to position herself as the champion of inequality within the nuclear industry”.  This despite Judge Lancaster having reviewed evidence of Sellafield describing her as already a nationally respected expert in her field of work.

The experience of employment the tribunal system Alison shared with the ECEC stands as a clear example of why it needs substantial reform. Even now, following a successful appeal of her judgement, she is still being pursued by Sellafield for costs.

Alison at the conference

“Their duty is to create an environment where people are free to speak out, but hounding people for costs will obviously have the opposite effect” she said, adding that her tribunal experience has left others at Sellafield, the largest nuclear site in Europe, even more scared to raise concerns than they already were.

Closing her interview, Alison recommended several changes employers could implement, many of which are echoed by those who have gone through the same system. Assuming basic training and policies are in place, she prescribed a confidential way for employees to report concerns, a whistleblowing champion within organisations that values people who speak up, and finally that litigation should only be used as a last resort:

First, “investigate, investigate, investigate” she implored, ideally using external investigators. “I think that would send a very clear message to employees that the company really wants us to speak out.”

For those who want to hear directly from Alison the gruesome experiences of being a whistleblower there is a full video on YouTube of her speech. It is well worth watching.

Dr Usha Prasad whistleblower case: Judge cancels hearing from trust again at eleventh hour

Posted on by

Consultant cardiologist convinces judge she is too ill to attend and case cannot be listed until next spring

Dr Usha Prasad

Dr Usha Prasad, the whistleblower consultant cardiologist, yesterday won her argument that she was too ill, because of mental stress, to defend herself at another employment tribunal brought by Epsom and St Helier University NHS Trust without even having to attend the hearing.

The trust which originally wanted her to pay £180,000 costs- reduced in August to £24,000 – sought this week to strike out all her claims, including her whistleblowing case that an elderly man who died at the hospital was ” an avoidable death” which was never reported to the coroner.

The hearing was also set to go ahead tomorrow with remote links already sent out to people observing the case this afternoon when acting regional employment judge Katharine Andrews suddenly cancelled the hearing. This is the second time in two months hearings brought by the trust have been cancelled by a judge.

The costs hearing in August was cancelled when the tribunal met because according to judge Mrs E J R McLaren one of the panel members to hear the case could not attend. Dr Prasad had sent a letter from her GP saying she was under severe stress but another regional judge had rejected this.

This time Dr Prasad sent a fresh letter from her GP saying she was still under severe stress as a result of this long running case involving the trust.

Epsom Hospital

In her letter the judge says: “This hearing was first listed for 6 April 2023. The claimant’s application to postpone that hearing was refused although it did not in any event proceed as there was insufficient judicial resource available. Accordingly it was relisted to be heard on 6 June 2023. That hearing was then postponed at the claimant’s request as she was unavailable due to a professional commitment and also at the request of the respondent who considered that a one day hearing was required. The matter was then listed for one day to be heard tomorrow, 18 October 2023.

On 29 September 2023 the claimant applied to postpone tomorrow’s hearing due to her ill-health. That application was refused as the medical evidence enclosed within her application was insufficient.
The claimant has today repeated her application and enclosed a medical note (apparently from her GP) that does confirm that she is unfit to attend and that a delay of 3 to 4 months would enable her health to improve sufficiently.
The respondent has objected to the request referring to previous postponement requests by the claimants and costs they have incurred that will be wasted.
In all the circumstances the claimant’s application to postpone is granted and the hearing will be re-listed not before 1 March 2024. Any further applications by the claimant for a postponement are extremely unlikely to be granted. It is open to the respondent to make an application for wasted costs in due course if they believe that to be appropriate’ .”

Epsom and St Helier University Health trust have been fighting Dr Prasad for years and strongly objected to the hearing being postponed.

The regional judge who took the decision last heard one of her original tribunal cases in December 2020 when a tribunal was asked to rule again about the action of a fellow Indian doctor Dr Aran Kumar Perikala who wrote anonymous letters to the trust’s chief executive, the CQC, the GMC and Jeremy Hunt then health secretary, saying she was a danger to patient safety. He was unmasked but the trust did not take any action against him. Dr Prasad claimed he was sexist. The judge rejected this but ruled that he had behaved “unprofessionally ” by his actions. You can read my account of this bizarre hearing here. The whistleblowing allegations emerged at another hearing later.

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