Veteran NHS whistleblower campaigner, Dr Chris Day, has written a damning letter to Lord Fairley, President of the Employment Appeal Tribunal, accusing the system of “Institutional Corruption” in the way it has handled his case.
Dr Day, who has just lost an appeal case heard by employment appeal judge Sheldon, compared the way both the employment appeal court and the previous employment tribunal handled the proceedings to the verdict in the infamous Daniel Morgan murder case which has never been solved after a trial of suspects collapsed.
The way this murder was handled by the Metropolitan police led the independent panel to rule: ““Concealing or denying failings, for the sake of an organisation’s public image, is dishonesty on the part of the organisation for reputational benefit. In the Panel’s view, this constitutes a form of institutional corruption.”
Dr Day has emerged bloodied but not unbowed from a judgment that rejected all the detriments he claimed and was surprisingly unconcerned about the defendants Lewisham and Greenwich Health Trust’s chief executive lying on oath about a board meeting and its deputy communications office, Mr Cocke, destroying 90,000 emails that could have been useful to his case during the hearing. The worst the judgment could say was this was ” troubling.” Given this centred on his whistleblowing about the avoidable deaths of two patients in Woolwich hospital’s intensive care unit, which the trust has always tried to deny, this is a remarkably tame comment.
What was particularly hurtful to Dr Day is that at the appeal hearing he was accused in open court of lying about cost threats. He had been clear that he was forced at one stage to try to settle his case because he was told by his barrister that he would face a proposed application from the NHS for £500,000. See my report on his wife’s evidence here.
Effectively he was being called a liar by saying this had happened. Instead there is copious evidence that it did happen.
As he says in his letter: “At my most recent hearing, Mr Justice Sheldon explicitly stated in front of public observers that I was “lying” about being threatened for costs. He did this in circumstances when he knew my belief in cost threats was robustly grounded on written material from by former barrister Chris Milsom. He also knew that this material was enough to convince 2 MPs, the Telegraph and Financial Times that I had been threatened for costs. Accusing me of lying about cost threats in these circumstances was nothing more than a cheap smear to make me look like a liar in public.”
Or as he wrote earlier: “Dishonest or deluded whistleblowers don’t tend to have the support of former health ministers, senior doctors and the BMA to fund a KC.”
Also there is ample evidence in reports by lawyers that attempts to put costs on whistleblowers are commonplace. Indeed some lawyers moan they can’t get enough of them.
Dt Chris Day
His complaint about ” institutional corruption ” is not directed at individual judges but at the legal system where lawyers socialise with each other and don’t want to see a colleague’s reputation or career damaged by having to admit they got it wrong.
As he says in his letter: “My complaint is not directed solely at individual judges but at the institutional handling of this matter. The EAT has placed judges in an impossible position: adjudicating on issues that, if determined on the evidence, would have serious implications for people with whom they admit to having ongoing professional or social relationships including being connected on social media. “This is precisely the type of reputational self-protection identified as “institutional corruption” in the Daniel Morgan inquiry. I am not expecting you or the EAT to do anything about this but want to record my position and the fact that it has been put to you as EAT president. You will note 2 MPs have called for a public inquiry into this case.”
My view from covering a number of tribunals- both involving whistleblower doctors, nurses and in the world of industry and the arts – is that lawyers are getting too cosy and comfortable with each other. Add to this the loss of media interest in all but the most lurid of court cases, there are precious few journalists left to observe what is happening in the courts.
All this is to the detriment of the ordinary member of the public when they fight their case. Arraigned against them is a club that knows how to fix the outcome. And this is destroying the principle of open justice and why we need radical reform of both the employment tribunal and county court system.
While opera lovers have been enjoying in blissful sunshine a season of high operatic drama in the prestigious grounds of Glyndebourne in the Sussex countryside, another very different drama has been unfolding quietly inside the organisation itself.
Edward Romain, aged 39, a well-qualified fundraiser and writer whose previous roles included raising money for the Yehudi Menuhin music school, was appointed as a senior fundraiser for Glyndebourne, which relies on high-value donor support to sustain its world-class productions.
He began on a probationary period. Towards the end of that period, in October 2023, he tried to understand how earlier probationers had fared, to improve his own chances of securing a permanent role. In doing so, he came across a file containing previous probation reviews. The file was not password protected and included sensitive personal information, including medical histories.
Alarmed that such information was accessible to staff via an unsecured file, Romain reported the issue to management — raising what he believed to be a serious data protection failure — and effectively becoming a whistleblower.
However, Glyndebourne’s version of events, submitted in legal papers now before the court, tells a very different story.
They state:
“On or around October 2023 the Claimant accessed and read several confidential Probation Review Forms which he found in an unsecure file created by his line manager. The Claimant took screenshots of these Probation Review Forms and sent them to the Defendant’s HR and Head of Governance thereby procuring and committing a data breach. The Claimant subsequently sent repeated emails that were entirely inappropriate in tone and appeared to be blackmailing the Defendant into bringing his probation period to an end and using the alleged data breach as leverage to pass his probation.”
In short, Romain was accused of committing a data breach — rather than reporting one. Glyndebourne dismissed him for “gross misconduct.”
The matter was resolved by a confidential agreement under which Romain resigned, received a financial settlement, and was promised a reference. The agreement, according to court papers, included standard confidentiality and non-disparagement clauses. It also discouraged further escalation, including reporting the breach to the Information Commissioner.
The existence of the incident remained unknown until the High Court proceedings brought it into the open.
All appeared quiet until the following year, when Romain applied for a fundraising position at Bede’s Senior School in Upper Dicker, East Sussex. According to documents filed in court, he was offered the job in April 2024 — but the offer was then revoked. Romain alleges that someone from Glyndebourne contacted the school in breach of the settlement. Glyndebourne denies this.
The school’s letter stated:
“This decision has been made based on the checks that were carried out and the references we received during the final stages of our hiring process being unsatisfactory.”
At that point, Romain took legal action against both Glyndebourne Productions Ltd and Loch Employment Law Ltd, the firm that had drafted the original settlement on Glyndebourne’s behalf. He issued proceedings in the County Court through the Civil National Business Centre.
The litigation followed Glyndebourne’s alleged failure to respond to data subject access requests — with only 34 out of an estimated 500 documents released, according to Romain. When neither Glyndebourne nor Loch responded to the initial claim, their defences were struck out in January 2024. Romain applied for default judgment.
Judge Andrew Worthley
Then things took an unusual turn.
The case was, without his agreement, transferred to Worthing County Court. There, District Judge Andrew Worthley declined to recognise the earlier strike-out, stating there had been no valid default. He also rebuked Romain for continuing to pursue the matter.
Romain appealed to the Circuit Bench. His appeal was dismissed by HHJ Jonathan Simpkiss, the senior circuit judge in Sussex, who held that the claim was without merit.
In May, at a further hearing before Judge Robin Penfold, some of Romain’s claims were struck out and the case was concluded.
Joe Milner, former director of Loch Employment Law, who acted for Glyndebourne
But fresh controversy followed. After the hearing, Romain received what appeared to be court directions from Loch Employment Law — specifically from Joe Milner, a partner in the firm. These were contained in a Word document not issued by the court, and which bore no seal, signature, or court markings.
According to Romain, the unsealed document materially differed from the official sealed order. He says it was then sent to HHJ Simpkiss with a request for a General Civil Restraint Order — despite no formal application appearing to have been made at that time.
When the actual sealed order arrived days later, it did not match the earlier version. The court ultimately issued a three-year General Civil Restraint Order against Romain, on the basis that certain applications made were held to be totally without merit — a decision Romain strongly contests.
Undeterred, Romain launched fresh proceedings in the High Court, where the matter is now before a different judge. He is seeking £350,000 in damages, as well as aggravated or exemplary damages — typically reserved for particularly serious or malicious conduct. He is also seeking recovery of legal costs.
The claim names both Glyndebourne and Loch Employment Law as defendants and includes allegations of malicious falsehood, defamation, breach of contract, and abuse of the court process. Romain maintains that the allegations made against him were false, and repeated without proper basis or legal justification.
Now acting as a litigant in person, Romain says the process has taken a major toll on his life and health. He has moved in with his uncle, David Grossman, and is no longer working.
Grossman wrote in a letter to the court:
“I write this not as a legal expert, but as someone who has stood by and watched my nephew endure something that has gone far beyond a legal dispute. Over the course of this case, I have seen the toll it has taken on him and us as a family — not just financially, but emotionally, physically, and mentally. What began as a breach of agreement has become something far deeper: a prolonged and destabilising ordeal that has cost him years of peace, stability, and health.”
The Solicitors Regulation Authority declined to take regulatory action against Loch following a referral containing evidence — including the Word document. However, Joe Milner stepped down as a director of the firm in late July. He was ” not available” when I tried to contact him.
Whatever happens next, Romain has established Blind Justice CIC, a community interest company aiming to support others who find themselves failed by the legal system.
“The matter is now before the High Court. I have confidence in the integrity of that process,” he said.
Given the wide readership of this site, and the striking issues raised — from data protection to judicial process — it is likely Romain will receive support from others who believe their own whistleblowing or access to justice has been unfairly shut down.
Glyndebourne has previously declined to comment about the saga when approached by journalists and bloggers. Unfortunately apart from the prestigious New York site of Law 360, none of the other media have written about this case, including to my surprise, Private Eye.
For those with long memories some 32 months ago I wrote a disparaging blog about justice in employment tribunals after sitting through yet another hearing involving Dr Chris Day’s ten year whistleblowing battle against the Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust. So shocked I was over the way justice was meted out to Dr Day that I labelled it as the Tribunal of the Absurd – liking it to a Harold Pinter play that could be set in a court room.
This was the tribunal that revealed that lawyers and the Trust had held back evidence which should have been given to him and his lawyers years ago; that the chief executive of the trust, Ben Travis had lied under oath about a virtual board meeting and other matters to discuss his case, and that a senior communications officer of the trust, David Cocke, had gone into the trust’s offices at 5.0 am and destroyed 90,000 emails which could have been relevant to his case. The latter happened while the hearing was taking place and he then failed to appear as a witness.
Yet the judge Anne Martin ignored all this and exonerated the trust’s case against Dr Day. To remind readers the original claim was a serious patient safety issue – two people had died in the intensive care unit of Woolwich Hospital where he was working because of serious mistakes by other staff. Yet the trust for reputational reasons has always denied this really happened.
Now a long time later – the courts take ages to progress issues – a judge at an employment appeal tribunal has largely rubber stamped her decision and found against Dr Day and rejected an application to return legal costs to the British Medical Association to compensate for the extra days of hearing caused by the destruction and concealment of evidence. Worse than that during the hearing Dr Day’s reputation for telling the truth about a previous hearing was called into question. It was like the second house in the theatre of the absurd.
Mr Justice Sheldon who presided over the hearing found only two faults. He thought the tribunal should have ruled on whether the trust was wrong not to remove disparaging comments about Dr Day sent to MPs and the press after concerns were raised by the watchdog body, the Care Quality Commission was a detriment to Dr Day. And it criticised the tribunal for misinterpreting one area of employment law.
But the judgment adds: “The Employment Appeal Tribunal concluded that the errors were immaterial to the outcome, as the Employment Tribunal had correctly found that the protected disclosures did not materially influence the Respondent’s actions. The appeal against the Costs Judgment was also dismissed, with the Employment Tribunal’s reasoning found to be within its discretion and supported by the evidence.”
It refused to return the case to another employment tribunal for reconsideration.
What this means is that the trust’s actions in this case have been exonerated by a higher court. Mr Ben Travis is regarded as a credible witness despite not telling the truth under oath about the board meeting.
And Mr Cocke’s destruction of 90,000 emails while thought to be ” troubling” are largely exonerated setting what could be a dangerous precedent in other whistleblowing cases for people in NHS trusts and private companies to destroy evidence that should be passed under discovery to the claimant. They can now cite this judgment.
What was also amazing and bizarre was that the judge accepted from Daniel Talbot Brown KC , instructed by lawyers Capsticks, an argument used in another legal case which said that tribunals could take a benevolent view of the proceedings and if they did not comment on a finding it did not mean they had not considered it.
This seems to go against forensic testing of arguments put forward at a hearing – where both sides must probe for the truth. If they do this and a judge decides not to comment on the issue, surely this more like a dereliction of duty than anything else.
This judgment marks a bad day for whistleblowers and good day for bureaucrats who want to hide the truth. It shows that even if you have the support of medical experts to back your judgment and the support of two prominent former politicians, Jeremy Hunt, the former health secretary and Norman Lamb, a former health minister, this counts for nothing in the eyes of judges.
Perhaps the judges prefer the judicial theatre of the absurd to life in the real world.
Reforms without addressing core issues may lead to persistence of key flaws or omissions in any future changes with risks to patients
Last month I wrote about the government proposing the first major reforms for 40 years in the running of the General Medical Council. My blog was meant as a warning to ministers to scrutinise the changes very carefully because I was sceptical, after talking to a number of doctors, that there were flaws in the changes. You can read the blog here.
Now the GMC has published its new guidance by Dr Andrew Hoyle, an assistant director in the GMC’s Fitness to Practise Team He is both a doctor and a barrister.
In a high minded piece on Linked In and in a blog ( see the article here) he promises greater clarity and consistency .. and fair, flexible and compassionate fitness to practise processes. He also emphasises the GMC’s duty under the 1983 Medical Act to protect, promote and maintain the health, safety and well being of the public, promote public confidence in the profession and promote and maintain professional standards and conduct by doctors.
Now from the patient’s point of view how is this being enacted by a change to one simple process?
The first point is drawing up guidance for the decision makers on whether to proceed. There is a comprehensive list of issues to consider for the decision makers whether to start an investigation into a doctor. But the response to the concern raiser, the guidance does not specify who the decision makers are. Are they fully competent in the field or even sub-field of medicine practised by the doctor to make a sound judgment about clinical matters? I have heard from some doctors that this is not always the case. On the question of accountability should it not be made public who made the decision and their qualifications to do so. This would reassure the public and the patients that it had been properly investigated.
The current process’s most crucial step, the “initial triage and closure of concerns” relies on the “opinions” of the GMC postholders who in turn rely on managers. There is no mandatory requirement to immediately investigate serious harms or near miss issues that may have led to consequences to that or other patients.
This is particularly relevant asthere is also the issue of the seriousness of the concern. The guidelines suggest that if there is evidence of repeated bad practice this should be relevant to striking off doctors. But there is a second flaw in this process. How does the GMC know about a bad doctor? The answer is because he or she is reported to the GMC by the responsible officer – normally the medical director or chief medical officer of the trust or far less by patients and or colleagues who are more in the know of bad practices but are fearful of consequences. See article inthe Lancet.
Therefore the issue the GMC knows about may not be the first one and the GMC cannot verify it with the current approach neither can the complainant know of all issues.
From earlier blogs I have found this process to be flawed – either because the responsible officer has targeted a doctor who has raised whistleblowing issues – whether patient safety or fraud – to discredit a perfectly good doctor – the case of Usha Prasad, a former cardiologist at St Helier and Epsom hospital is a current example – or covered up bad practice to save the reputation of the trust or private hospital.
The most egregious example of the latter is the case of Mr Ian Paterson, a breast and general surgeon, now serving a 20 year prison sentence after performing unnecessary operations on hundreds if not thousands of unsuspecting patients until a lawyer brought a civil case against him.
The public inquiry into his practice concluded “They were then let down both by an NHS trust and an independent healthcare provider who failed to supervise him appropriately and did not respond correctly to well-evidenced complaints about his practice.”
It went on: “The recall of patients did not put their safety and care first, which led many of them to consider the Heart of England NHS Foundation Trust and Spire were primarily concerned for their own reputation. Patients were further let down when they complained to regulators and believed themselves frequently treated with disdain.”
Imagine how different the outcome for hundreds of patients if this had been first reported by a responsible officer to the GMC – life changing needless operations would have been stopped rather than covered up. What the GMC should demand is that the management of NHS trusts and private hospital groups have to sign a ” duty of candour” putting them on par with doctors who raise complaints. This would require them to notify the GMC about the practices of the doctor involved and meet the legal requirement that the GMC has to protect patients and promote higher standards in the profession. Otherwise the assessment of a serious repeated bad practice is a hollow gesture in many cases.
However if the GMC has been and appears it is continuing to rely on the Responsible Officers to provide a response can the GMC’s decisions be evidence-based and safe for public. Even if a small minority of doctors are unsafe or dishonest, the impact on the patient and profession must be the core of decision.
The third point is when a doctor acts inappropriately or unsafely that can be investigated by the GMC personnel but who are potentially not being regulated by any one and via a process built on reliance on an RO and in at times without transparency or evidence verification and opinion based decisions are taken that can affect lives This does not appear to be a safe approach as multiple scandals continue to occur; suggesting concerns are not really reaching the GMC due to its current system or are being ignored.
The current concern management requires a complete overhaul and not just superficial tweaks
Since I started looking at this issue I have been contacted by doctors across the country about the GMC and I intend to follow this up in a future blog.
Wes Streeting, the health secretary has promised new protections for whistleblowers but do they go far enough? Dr David Ward gives a detailed list of proposals that the NHS should implement and calls for lawyers and courts to play no part in the process.
NHS whistleblowers are obliged by law to raise patient safety concerns and are punished having done so. (Arising out of conversations with other doctors particularly members of Justice For Doctors. https://www.justice4doctors.co.uk).
1. All “whistleblowing” issues should be formally logged by the Trust (hospital) in which they have arisen and in a statutory, independent central register which is open to scrutiny and auditable. Isn’t an audit trail essential for regulatory and financial reasons?
2.Hospitals should be banned from dismissing a doctor who has raised safety concerns as they are obliged to do by MHPS, Duty of Candour laws and the Hippocratic Oath. This is a simple idea which could be implemented without complex regulatory amendments. Devices such as dismissal by “Some other substantial reason or “SOSR” are convenient for the dismissing Trust to bury all sorts of evidence. NDAs are another trick which could impede investigation of evidence. It reeks of “dodginess”
3.Hospitals and their managements should be compelled by statuteto urgently investigate concerns raised by a whistleblower. Failure to do so could be regarded as some sort of Tort because harm to patients could (and probably will) recur. (The concerns cannot be investigated if they are not known, doh!). Investigations should be conducted independently not by internal personnel because these are known to be biased (no, really?). External investigators (whether MHPS or otherwise) can be paid large sums by the Trust. The results are not infrequently “favourable” to the Trust. A new, more open and accountable system should be introduced.
4.The problems reported by a whistleblower should be remedied as soon as possible to reduce the risk of further harm. This hardly needs stating, does it? But a remedial approach (even if it is instigated) nearly always takes second place to hyper-investigation (persecution) of the doctor who has reported the problem. Imagine if such vigour could be directed toward correcting any shortcomings, improving processes, enhancing safety and so on. It could even save money as well as improving patient safety. “A stitch in time….” 5.NHS Trust Managers should be formally regulated by a statutory independent body. They should be subject to regulatory bodies just as the medical professions are – and disciplined if they “manipulate” the truth. There are examples of “wild west behaviour” by managers which would be stopped immediately if regulation were in place. 6.“Maintaining High Professional Standards” (MHPS) investigationsare internal and unregulated. (See St Helier Hospital saga on this blog). “Marking one’s own homework” comes to mind. Investigators can be “hired guns” who will produce a report favourable to the Trust for a “fee” (taxpayer funded of course). Corrupted or what? (Let me be clear, I am not suggesting any cause-and-effect relationship between the fees paid and an outcome “favourable to the Trust”). Data about any of these matters which are prevalent all over the NHS is, unsurprisingly, not available (see 1).
7.Stop the wastage of £millions of taxpayers’ money on lawyers defending Trusts at Employment Tribunals against the unfunded “claimant” (the solution is at 2). This egregious inequality of arms should be disallowed but if (2) was implemented it would not arise. Another way of putting this is “stop persecuting whistleblowers who are doing their duty”. It is the Tribunal system which endorses a Trust’s decision to dismiss a doctor (if the dismissed doctor seeks the support of a Tribunal he is unlikely to succeed: see 15) . (How much taxpayer funded money is expended on law firms supporting Trusts against the claims of a dismissed doctor? This is my FOI request February 2023:
The answer was “DHSC does not hold information relevant to your request”. Perhaps not but I am willing to bet it is kept somewhere.
8.Lawyers and Courts have no place in the investigation of patient safety issues (see 2 and 6). Lawyers have little or no appreciation of health issues and the operation of a hospital. They are not best placed to investigate patient safety issues which are, unsurprisingly, central in whistleblowing cases.
9.Patient safety is prime. There should be no stigmata or detriments attached to raising patient safety concerns. Failure to raise or conceal a concern could be an offence. 10.Non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) about safety issues should be banned. They may be abused to conceal safety evidence. Information which is not disclosed cannot be tested can it. Could this be an intended (or unintended?) consequence of NDAs? 11.PIDA 1996 (section2, 47b (1): “A worker has the right not to be subjected to any detriment by any act, or any deliberate failure to act, by his employer done on the ground that the worker has made a protected disclosure”. So, no whistleblower can be dismissed because they have “made a protected disclosure” as that is forbidden by PIDA. But they can be dismissed (conveniently) “having made such a disclosure” just not for that reason. Usually one of the 5 “fair” reasons for dismissal is invoked including, “committing some form of misconduct” and “SOSR” (see 13). (See the case of Martyn Pitman on this blog). The section of PIDA referred to above is a loophole which is open to (possibly deliberate) misinterpretation. Perhaps it was written like this for a reason, who knows. Shouldn’t the loophole be closed and PIDA updated?
12.Is the Dunning-Kruger effect (qv) relevant? Yes. It could apply to elements and procedures of the British Establishment – such as the Judiciary and the Employment Tribunal system. “The Dunning–Kruger effect is defined as the tendency of people with low ability in a specific area to give overly positive assessments of this ability”. (Wikipedia). Take a moment to think about D-K in the context of the treatment of whistleblowers. It rings true, doesn’t it.
13.Dismissal of an employee can be for any one of the 5 reasons specified in the Employment Rights Act 1996, Section 98. The last of these is “SOSR” or “some other substantial reason” which need not be specified (obviously) which is very convenient (see 11). Some reasons are specified but these are not exclusive and there is no need to specify a reason – which is why this clause exists, right? I need not enlarge on why this is another fudge but it is open to abuse. The notable observer and blogger, Dr Minh Alexander has ascertained (via an FOI request) that over 10,604 staff were dismissed by the “SOSR” method between 2010 and 2018 (Yes, she does provide a detailed breakdown of the figures, see link). This is a staggering statistic which surely points to a profound failure of process.
14.Resurrect the “problems of whistleblower persecution” for debate in Parliament with an emphasis on “protection”. I believe several proposals are under consideration including some by the Rt Hon Wes Streeting MP, Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, who will become a hero to many if he achieves what is required.
15.Doctors who have been whistleblowers and subsequently dismissed are well advised to avoid the legal profession. One thing that does emerge from my exploration of this fraught topic is that doctors (as a retired medic I can speak for this profession) who have been “dismissed” should not go anywhere near a law firm or engage the Employment Tribunal process for all the reasons I need not enumerate here. Fewer than 3% who do so will emerge victorious. Some have been bankrupted by the process. Open and fair justice? I don’t think so
Who are the ultimate losers in all this ?You may ask why make such a fuss? I will answer directly. It’s not primarily about the Judiciary, or the Employment tribunal system, or hospital managements, or even doctors and healthcare staff. On the contrary it is fundamentally about sick people, or “patients” when they seek medical advice. It is these “end-users” of the NHS who suffer when doctors (or any HealthCare professionals) who speak up about patient safety (aka whistleblowers) are subjected to kangaroo courts and persecution culminating in their dismissal and whose lives are consequently ruined: loss of a career, loss of self-esteem, disruption of family life, possible financial ruin (lawyers bills really are “astronomical”), and even more extreme consequences. If you think I am exaggerating read the story of Mr Martyn Pitman FRCOG, Consultant Obstetrician a man of high integrity and whistleblower who lost his career at the whim of a Tribunal sitting before a judge who probably has no idea what a Fallopian tube is. The Tribunal stated:
“Our issue was never about the concerns raised by Mr Pitman, but about concerns
raised by others of disruptive behaviour and then a breakdown in working
relationships. These factors are damaging in any workplace, but in a healthcare setting, which is by its nature an intense and pressurised environment, their destabilising effect
The judgment refers to “bullying and undermining behaviour” or similar 6 times but the word “concerns” appears 123 times. Have I made the point?
Anyone who knows anything about the modus operandi of Employment Tribunals will see through this obfuscatory gobbledegook immediately. I doubt even the Tribunal persons who wrote it knew what they were talking about. What is happening to justice in this country?
Karin Smyth – health minister responsible for professional regulation reform
The new Labour government is embarking in the first reform of the professional regulation of the General Medical Council for 40 years. This welcome development comes after the GMC extended its scope to cover physician and anaesthesia associates at the end of last year. In theory it will allow the GMC more flexibility to change its rules and allow less adversity among fitness to practice cases involving doctors thus avoiding referrals to the overloaded and often unfair employment tribunals. It also abolishes an arbitrary rule that prevents it looking at cases that are more than five years old.
From my observations of recent complaints against doctors who raise patient safety cases and conversations with doctors who are concerned about referrals to the GMC the whole process needs a radical overhaul. It is also an overhaul that requires some political intervention.
How the GMC handles individual complaints against doctors is by no means transparent. Nor is the GMC directly accountable for their failings and omissions and its workings can be manipulated by individual health trusts. I am about to give you two different examples,
Many doctors think the complaints system is flawed because of a practice of referring the case to the so called ” responsible officer ” to handle it. The responsible officer is often the person who has brought the complaint in the first place – the chief medical officer of the trust. Now the chief medical officer is not what the public might think – the ultimate person protecting medical standards on behalf of patients. He is part of the trust’s management team whose main purpose is to protect the reputation of the trust which may not be in the interest of patients. So surely this is a conflict of interest?
NHS Managers labelled one doctor ” too passionate about patient safety”
There was also an extraordinary experience of a whistle-blower who was a warned by local managers against being too “passionate about patient safety.”
And does the GMC do a thorough job when it investigates.? Doctors are sceptical. In one example it appears the complaints about serious safety issues, were closed at the first step and not even seen by GMC clinician. The bald reply from the GMC confirmed that to be the case; neither the team had nor did they seek any advice or expert opinion.
The GMC’s current practices enable its staff without clinical knowledge to close clinical concerns in such manner or only with hospital managers’ response, even when the concerns about the said managers are known to the GMC. In one example it appears the complaint was not even seen by fellow clinicians.
Given the whole point, according to many of the doctors who have raised patient issues, is the worry that either patients have already been harmed or more are left at risk of being harmed by such poor medical practice, these do not appear to be safe concern closure processes for a regulatory body.
Dr Usha Prasad
There is another side and here I can quote an actual case – as it came up in an employment tribunal – the removal of cardiologist Dr Usha Prasad from the then Epsom and St Helier NHS Trust ( now merged with St George’s Hospital in Tooting, south London.)
Here the GMC faced with 41 complaints from the trust who wanted her removed did do a thorough investigation and checked with very senior cardiologists and exonerated her -including revalidating her working for the next five years.
But the trust’s chief medical officer, Dr James Marsh , refused to accept this, making the fatuous statement that the trust’s medical standards were ” higher than the GMC’s “. This is also ironic as the doctors from that organisation are being revalidated by, no one else but the GMC.
Where a doctor is revaluated the rules should be changed so in those circumstances the GMC’s decision is binding and final and this requires a politician to intervene to make sure this happens. An individual chief medical officer should not have the power to wreck a doctor’s career if their complaint to the GMC is utterly rejected. and not formally appealed against.
I would be very interested to see if other doctors have had similar experiences in both these areas and doctors can contact me on my website ie either concerns were dismissed without due consideration or the GMC decision was ignored by the managers. All contact will be treated in confidence unless the doctor wishes to go public.
This is a once in a lifetime reform and we need to get it right for both the benefit of the doctors and the safety of patients who entrust their lives to the NHS.
Karen Smyth, the minister of state for health, has a huge list of responsibilities from this area to cancer care and hospital car parking. The list is here. She needs to focus on this and ask pertinent questions.
The Sunday Mirror reports today of yet another potentially serious leak affecting worker safety at Sellafield which was not publicly released two years ago.
A whistleblower told the paper that an elevated level of nitrogen which can cause asphyxiation was released in the most dangerous building on the site – the Magnox nuclear storage facility which is also leaking contaminated water into the ground.
As I reported in Byline Times last month the 100 year clean up is already 13 years behind schedule and £20 billion over budget and its own nuclear safety experts say is becoming increasingly unsafe. The article is here.
What is disturbing is that the whistleblower told the newspaper. “It was most serious because it could have killed somebody. The whole point of having all these safety procedures is to stop people breathing in inert gas, so we can evacuate before there’s a chance of breathing it in.”
The source said the leak in May 2023 was raised as an incident report and “was of a level that needed to be escalated”. But it was not escalated, according to the whistleblower, who added that “no lessons were learned”.
The source said: “There is no confidence or trust in the senior management now. We are dealing with nuclear waste and people are afraid to speak up. The problem is that people are being victimised if they report safety issues.
“Or they are escalated to managers who then try to cover them up or sweep them under the carpet. And that is a really dangerous culture in a place like Sellafield.”
This new disclosure just comes after a report from the Commons Public Accounts Committee that was highly critical of the management at Sellafield and the oversight of the dangerous site by the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. It was also highlighted safety issues as the buildings reach the end end of their life span and MPs were sceptical of claims by the senior management that relations with staff are improving and a toxic culture of bullying and harassment had been stopped.
Officially Sellafield told the paper:”This was reported and investigated swiftly and thoroughly. Our regulator was informed in line with established protocols,” they said. “Our Safecall system remains independent providing a safe and confidential reporting system for the whole of the NDA group.
“Whistleblowers are respected, protected, and valued and we actively encourage employees to report matters of concern. Without exception, issues raised are taken seriously, investigated appropriately, and treated confidentially. We strongly advise anyone with a concern about a safety event or investigation to report it so we can act on it.”
They added that during routine testing of a nitrogen delivery system in the Magnox Swarf Storage Silo in 2023, a control valve was opened causing a ‘brief increase in flow and pressure of nitrogen’.
The paper reports that Ex-Sellafield HR consultant Alison McDermott raised safety concerns in an employment tribunal in 2021. The management ended and her contract and spent hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ money to undermine her concerns at employment tribunals.
Alison McDermott
Alison, who lives near Ilkley, West Yorks, said: “In my experience, leaders cover up problems and lash out at people who speak out. That’s a terrifying state of affairs at a nuclear site. In my 30 years in HR it’s the most secretive, punitive toxic culture I’ve ever experienced.”
To my mind it suggests that Sellafield still has a very long way to go to convince Parliament and the public that they are handling safety issues properly at this plant.
From L to R: Alex Whitfield, Hampshire Ben Travis, Lewisham Daniel Elkeles London Ambulance
Three of the top 50 NHS chief executives chosen by a panel set up by the Health Services Journal in 2024 as the best people to run the NHS have been involved in attempting to cover up patient deaths and persecuting doctors and nurses who raised the issues.
One of the top three NHS awards went to Daniel Elkeles, as chief executive of London Ambulance Service Trust and is now chief executive of NHS Providers. He was chief executive of the Epsom and St Helier Trust when Usha Prasad, a cardiologist, reported the ” avoidable death ” of a heart patient. He told her to drop her case at an employment tribunal or face an internal disciplinary hearing which led to her being sacked.
I have since been told that Mr Elkeles was involved in an alleged cover up at the London Ambulance Service when a paramedic was suspended during the stressful period of the pandemic. He had alleged bullying, Elkeles said he would investigate but got the person to sign a non disclosure agreement. When it was signed it is said any investigation was dropped.
The second chief executive is Alex Whitfield who heads Hampshire Hospitals Foundation Trust, was involved in the sacking of Dr Martyn Pitman, a well respected obstetrician and gynaecologist, who raised patient safety issues in the already nationally stressed maternity services. The former oil executive is rated the 15th best chief executive.
The lack of care at the hospital in Winchester led to one mother and a baby dying, but Alex Whitfield used the tribunal to claim that Dr Pitman was ” putting patients at risk” rather than supporting the doctor and midwives who were helping patients. Lawyers for the trust monstered Dr Pitman claiming he was a bully for raising these issues.
Julie Dawes, the chief nursing officer at the trust, who also pursued Dr Pitman ,has just been awarded an MBE for services to nursing in the King’s Birthday Honours List.
The third award winner is Ben Travis, chief executive of Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust, which the Care Quality Commission, say ” requires improvement.”
Ben Travis was heavily involved in the 2022 tribunal hearings brought by Dr Chris Day, who has fought the trust for 10 years after he raised important patient safety concerns that became associated with two avoidable deaths in the intensive care unit of Woolwich Hospital, run by the trust. The 2022 tribunal ruled against him despite evidence given by Ben Travis which shown to be untrue, the destruction of 90,000 emails during the hearing and the discovery of fresh documents .which should have been released by the trust to him to help his case.
The results of the last hearing is up for appeal on six grounds next week. He won the right to appeal that some of the findings of the judgment were perverse, that the judgment failed to draw any inferences from the destruction of 90,000 emails and the failure to provide documents that would have helped Dr Day’s case. This in particular followed the disclosure in documents that under oath the chief executive, Ben Travis gave an untrue account about a board meeting and had hidden he had contacted other trust chief executives about Dr Day.
Chris DayUsha PrasadMartyn Pitman
Yet Mr Travis won the award on his personal performance over the last year; the performance of the organisation he led, given the circumstances it is in; and the contribution made to the wider health and social care system.
Award for Diversity
At the same time the trust has won a second award for its equality, diversity and inclusiveness despite its NHS staff report showing that it has a below average rating for the fair promotion of ethnic minority staff and for racial discrimination inside the trust and from members of the public.
The panel who decided the awards for the best chief executives included Dr Rosie Benneyworth, chief executive, Health Service Safety Investigations Body:Steve Brine, former Tory MP for Winchester and former chair, Commons Health and Social Care Committee,; Matthew Taylor, head of the NHS Confederation;Sir Julian Hartley, former chief executive of NHS Providers; Patricia Marquis, executive director for England, Royal College of Nursing and Dr Vish Sharma, chair, BMA’s consultant committee.
It is inconceivable that many of them did not know about the whistleblower cases. Dr Chris Day’s case is high profile; Dr Martyn Pitman’s case was in the national press and Steve Brine was his local MP. Usha Prasad’s case was a long running one.
There is another issue which is worth pursuing in a later blog – how ethnic minorities are treated in the NHS and the level of racial discrimination and whether black and Asian people have fair promotion prospects. Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust is not alone
The logo of the JCIO Pic Credit: Ministry of Justice
The 13 claimants who allege bullying and misogyny by judge Philip Lancaster, most of them women, took their complaints against the JCIO to a new level last week when their all women team of lawyers issued what is known as a ” letter before action” to the investigatory body.
Their lawyers, DFG, standing for Deighton, Pierce and Glynn, have given the JCIO until Monday to reply or face action for a judicial review.
The statement in their letter reads in bold type: “By this Group Complaint, we are therefore requesting the JCIO to open a proper investigation into the cases of all these complainants on the grounds that it is now clear that Judge Lancaster has repeatedly engaged in misconduct in his judicial role over many years.
“The misconduct consists of regular bullying of litigants-in-person and legal representatives, including shouting, harsh and inappropriate personal criticisms, intimidation and interruption of evidence. We make clear that if this longstanding pattern of Judge Lancaster’s misconduct is not properly investigated by the JCIO we intend to challenge that decision by way of judicial review.
As I reported in Byline Times earlier this year ( see the article here) the Good Law Project first announced it was backing the then ten women who had faced bullying and misogynist comments from the elderly judge. Since then they have been joined by men who say they faced the same bullying tone from the judge who sits on the Leeds employment tribunal.
Judge Lancaster
The campaign began after the treatment of Alison McDermott, the now famous whistleblower, who exposed bullying and harassment at Sellafield nuclear waste facility, only to be bullied and rudely treated herself by judge Lancaster and lawyers representing Sellafield and the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority.
Judge Barry Clarke
Barry Clarke, President of the Employment Tribunal system, claimed she was fit to lodge a complaint — despite having no medical qualifications and ignoring a GP’s note saying she was suffering from severe clinical depression. He used this self-made “diagnosis” to deny her an extension, effectively blocking any investigation into Judge Lancaster, even as serious complaints from others were piling up.
The ramifications of what has happened since are causing serious problems for the nuclear waste plant and the judiciary. MPs on the Public Accounts Committee are now sceptical of claims by the top executives at the plant that there is no bullying or harassment and one MP, Anna Dixon, the new Labour MP for Shipley, and a member of the PAC, demanded in public that the chief executive of Sellafield apologise to her for the way Sellafield has behaved to her.
Harriet Harman Pic Credit:BBC
Meanwhile, Baroness Harriet Harman is conducting a separate investigation, with the support of the Bar Standards Board, into sexual harassment at the bar and in the judiciary — and has reportedly taken a direct interest in the Lancaster complaints.
Lawyers have demanded the JCIO does a complete and thorough investigation into Judge Lancaster.
1 A comprehensive review of all complaints submitted against Judge Lancaster, including those previously dismissed without investigation. 2 Statements from each complainant to ensure their full accounts are properly recorded and considered. 3.Interviews with relevant witnesses — including legal professionals, medical experts, accredited journalists, and public observers who attended the hearings and submitted complaints or documentation. 4 Consideration of the Employment Appeal Tribunal’s formal criticisms of Judge Lancaster’s conduct as part of the evidentiary record. 5 An analysis of Judge Lancaster’s written judgments to identify recurring patterns of reasoning, tone, and language indicating systemic bias. We have found consistent indicators of gender bias in descriptions of female claimants versus male respondents, including demeaning language, unsupported character judgments, and disparate procedural treatment.
Alison McDermott
The JCIO originally said it did not comment on individual cases but now says it considers complaints carefully.
This is not the view of the complainants, their lawyers, and soon I expect if this gets more coverage, the general public.
Guest blog from Dr David Ward on the appalling treatment of whistleblowers in the NHS
Patient safety and the judiciary
What business has the judiciary with patient safety matters you may ask? I am referring primarily to the processes which may unwind when a doctor, having raised patient safety concerns is sacked by the Hospital Trust where they worked and seeks recourse via the corrupt Employment Tribunal system. (NB not sacked “for having raised the alarm” as that is expressly forbidden by the Public Interest Disclosure Act (PIDA 1998[1]). For example, if a piece of equipment is malfunctioning in such a way as to cause harm to a patient; if a process such as preparing a patient for a procedure is flawed in such a way as to put the patient at risk; an inadequate consent process; understaffing in, say, a post-operative ward; inadequately qualified personnel. Each of these deficiencies may put a patient at risk of harm and all have at some time been reported by doctors or nurses. There are many others. A responsible doctor witnessing any of these will be concerned and has a duty to raise an alarm. This is set out in Good Medical Practice, a guide produced by the GMC[2]. It is also part of the Duty of Candour regulations [3][4] and for traditionalists, in “The Hippocratic Oath”[5] the central tenet of which is “primum non nocere” or “do no harm”.
A problem may arise when a doctor (or healthcare worker) reports a “patient safety event” and the Trust reacts adversely (the psychology of such reactions is discussed elsewhere) which is a very common. It may trigger a series of defensive responses by the Trust which almost always ends badly for the doctor. This is seen time and again with “whistleblowers” who have had the “temerity” to raise a concern. The “playbook” is almost set in stone. In several recent cases where a dismissed doctor (Claimant) has sought recourse at an Employment Tribunal, the Respondent (the Trust or Hospital) has reacted vengefully rather than responsibly and promptly to look into the concerns.
The following is a brief account of the saga of a colleague who was referred to the GMC (after she reported safety concerns) in what can only be described as an act of vengeance by the Trust and the CEO who, having taken offence at the temerity of the doctor to report some shortcomings to the Trust, decided to “punish” her culminating with dismissal. Furthermore, the Trust prioritised this vengeful reaction over and above an urgent investigation into the problems she raised. It’s the same “playbook” with many other NHS whistleblowers (see Westminster Confidential 6 7).
Patient safety concerns.
If a doctor “raises a concern”, the most common of which is about something which may jeopardise “patient safety”, the obvious and reasonable response is to investigate it and correct any problems as soon as possible. Astonishingly, this is rarely what happens. The Trust not uncommonly reacts vengefully to the report, for example, by restricting the activities of the doctor who reported it. They may be “hauled over the coals”, have their duties limited, suspended for a period, referred to the GMC or even the CQC. The GMC may commission an external assessment of the doctor in question by an independent party usually another doctor in the same specialty. The Trust is not obliged to take any notice of this report. For example (I could cite many), a colleague who was referred to the GMC by her employing Trust was completely exonerated but she was dismissed all the same.[6] The CEO of the hospital, St Helier Hospital, Daniel Elkeles, made a veiled threat in a letter if she did not cooperate with his dismissal proposals:
4) ESTH agree to cease the MHPS process which means we can find a way to
ensure you are re-validated (not my area of expertise but i am sure there will be a
way)
5) You need to drop all the actions you are taking against ESTH.
If we can agree this then I would hope that everyone can move forward positively.
(This letter is in the Tribunal bundle in the public domain)
Another whistleblowing case where there are ongoing grave concerns about the propriety of the Employment Tribunal decisions (and others) in support of the dismissing Hospital Trust is that of Dr Chris Day whose case features extensively in columns of Westminster Confidential.[7]
Unregulated “Maintaining High Professional Standards”[8]
This code of practice was introduced in 2003 to update and clarify how concerns about a doctor and the associated “disciplinary” procedures are managed.
This entire process is unregulated and no independent body is statutorily involved. In fact, there is not even a statutory register of these processes or the events they purport to investigate. There is no register of NHS whistleblowers or the safety concerns they have raised. Trusts do not keep records, the regulators (BMA, CQC) don’t keep records. The NHS does not keep records (I confirmed this by asking the now defunct NHSE). HM Government does not keep records despite HM Treasury giving £millions (directly or via various organisations) to Trusts to pay inscrutable legal firms to defend the Trust against claims made by doctors who have raised safety concerns. This means a Trust can hire anyone they choose to conduct the investigation. There may even be an “informal agreement” or they may just be a ”pal” of the CEO. The investigator is not required to have any special qualifications and there is no register of such people. The St Helier Hospital case referred to above is a particularly egregious example of how this chumminess may operate. The “investigator”, a retired nurse[9], in her report invoked a fictitious “regulation” not previously seen in this context. The doctor in question was eventually dismissed on the grounds that she was not “fit-for-purpose”[10]. This is entirely confabulated by the investigator (who describes herself as a “non-practising barrister” but is not on any English register of barristers[11]) as no such “reason” for dismissal (or anything relating to humans) exists in English Employment law and the term is not applicable to a “human being” but rather to goods or services. How this has not, so far, been challenged in the Courts eludes me. Could this case even be cited as a “precedent” (pro or anti) in future similar cases?
It doesn’t take a leap of the imagination to conclude that if a Trust wishes to be rid of a doctor it will choose a compliant “investigator” with a reputation for such behaviour. This service costs money (provided, of course, by the taxpayer) and investigators can be very expensive. But hand-picked unregulated quasi-independent “investigators” are very compliant, aren’t they? Money talks… but conveniently no formal or open register is kept of money used to silence whistleblowers (pay the lawyers, investigators, payoffs, seal a Non-Disclosure Agreement etc). I wonder why?
A doctor threatened with dismissal (or who has been dismissed) may just move on, get another job (if possible having been “slandered” by the previous employer), leave the profession altogether, move abroad or any of these choices. Unfortunately, many will seek recourse via the arcane and grossly biased Employment Tribunal system. This may come about because the embattled doctor has received, shall we say, less than impartial advice, possibly from a law firm, recommending this route. Less than 3% of claimants at an Employment Tribunal emerge victorious (whatever that means)[12]. In other words over 95% of Claimants who brave this course will lose their case. Fair and open justice? I think not.
Who bears responsibility for all this?
Is it the doctor who “blew the whistle”? No, it is their duty to raise safety concerns.
Is it the Trust which dismissed the doctor? The Trust will deny dismissing the doctor (for raising concerns) and invoke PIDA 1998 47B in their support (1):
A worker has the right not to be subjected to any detriment by any act, or any deliberate failure to act, by his employer done on the ground that the worker has made a protected disclosure.
The Trust will say “oh no, it wasn’t because he raised a concern…it was because his manner was inappropriate/rude and …” (see story of Martyn Pitman, below). However, it is quite a different matter when it comes to dismissing a doctor “who has raised concerns”. This is not “unlawful” because it is consistent with PIDA. This is why the law needs to be changed; to ban the dismissal of “doctors who have raised safety concerns”. It’s a “no brainer” isn’t it?
Is it the lawyers who advised (and assisted) the dismissed whistleblower to seek recourse via the biased ET system? Yes, they are complicit once dismissed the employees submit themselves to the process. Millions of taxpayers’ money is spent on lawyers defending Trusts against claims made by whistleblowers yet almost nothing (no data are collected so we can’t be sure about this but we can infer it) on investigating and correcting the problems that gave rise to the claims. Sheer madness or what?
Is it the Trust managers who confabulate the case against the whistleblower? They have one aim in mind; to get rid of the “nuisance” doctor and by so doing avoid the “inconvenience” of looking into the safety “issues” raised in detail which could be very embarrassing if gross incompetence or negligence by the Trust or its employees is exposed.
And patient safety? Oh, that’s where the proverbial “carpet and brush” come in, as wielded by Trust managers (with legal advice) who themselves are unregulated[13]. If you want evidence for these claims read the newspapers (or search a major news website).
Inadequate regulations and deficient laws.
The regulations drawn up by regulators (and equally the inadequate laws passed by legislators) have contributed to this unsatisfactory situation where doctors are terrified of speaking up about patient safety because they fear for their careers and the livelihoods. If the regulations were tighter, we wouldn’t be here, would we?
A simple and almost cost-free solution to all these inappropriate behaviours is available without too much hassle and only minor changes to regulations and it based on the supremacy of maintaining patient safety: ban Trusts from dismissing doctors who have raised patient safety concerns and compel the Trust (by statute) to investigate those concerns. Just think of the benefits: no lawyers, no Tribunals, no money filling the coffers of law firms but instead expended on, inter alia, investigating and rectifying the concerns raised, improving care and communication. More openness and less retribution will encourage doctors to ‘’raise a hand” without fear of reprisals. Furthermore, is it not preferable to retain the services of an expensively trained, competent and dedicated doctor who had the courage to speak-up and has committed no offence, rather than destroying their careers and depriving patients of their skills? (This is the “playbook” in the cases of so many NHS whistleblowers I could list here). At present the judiciary (and the regulations they invoke), whether they agree or not, are complicit in covering-up patient safety issues and the adverse consequences of so doing.
Isn’t it time for a change of attitude and changes in the law related to raising concerns about patient safety – also known as “whistleblowing”? Why are the ”powers that be” not listening to the many supporters of whistleblowers who are raising the same issues time and time again?
Just one more thing: there are seven reasons which can be invoked in British Employment law to dismiss an employee[14]. None of them is especially relevant in this context except one.
“Some other Substantial Reason”, a most convenient clause for all the reasons one might imagine: if it isn’t covered by the other 6 this one should satisfy the Trust’s requirement to get rid of the doctor. Furthermore, it may obviate detailed scrutiny of evidence (isn’t that the reason it’s called SOSR?). Other reasons which are commonly exploited include: ”it’s impossible to carry on employing you” and “not being able to do your job properly”. The vagueness, highly subjective and unquantifiable nature of these clauses suggests they have a less-than-straightforward purpose.
If a Trust wants to dismiss a doctor it will find a way to do so. In the case of Martyn Pitman, Consultant Obstetrician and Gynaecologist, the Royal Hampshire Hospital strenuously denied that he had been dismissed for raising concerns. No, of course he wasn’t. The astonishing inanity of it was reported in the Guardian thus[15]:
“The judgment found the “overarching reason” for what has happened to Pitman was down to his communication style and not the message he was trying to convey”. (I couldn’t find this sentence in the 75 pages of the “unsearchable” official judgment).[16] So here is a senior and respected gynaecologist – who has done no wrong – being dismissed for his unacceptable “communication style”. You could not make it up!
It is a truism to state that the health of the nation is the single most important asset it has. (This is why “privatisation” of the NHS which would put “shareholders” ahead of patients would be a disaster). If the workforce is not healthy everything else will decline (I don’t need to explain this assertion but judging by what is happening in Westminster, politicians don’t seem to have grasped this concept. (Neither has the judiciary for that matter but I wouldn’t expect this self-serving body to opine on such “trivial” issues).
“If they [the judiciary and the JCIO] continue to do this, they are acting as a party to suppressing patient safety in the National Health Service and in the case of Sellafield, because it is such a contaminated and dangerous place, putting the general public at risk.
Is anyone listening to critics of the judiciary and its arcane processes in judging NHS doctors, nurses and other healthcare workers who raise patient safety concerns? Is anyone taking notice of the sufferings of the doctors who are doing their best (especially during the recent pandemic) for their patients? Is anyone calling out the absurdly illogical Employment Tribunal judgments which heap suffering on the Claimant (Doctor) and indirectly on patients? I know of one journalist who is – David Hencke. 17
Westminster Confidential 