Martyn Pitman tribunal : Health trust never minuted meeting which led to the whistleblower consultant’s eventual sacking

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

The second day of the employment tribunal hearing brought by Dr Martyn Pitman, the whistleblower consultant obstetrician and gynaecologist, against Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, was entirely devoted to a character assassination by the trust’s lawyers to attempt to prove he could not work with anyone. This is the key point of the trust’s grounds for sacking him.

Yesterday the doctor had issued a statement – which I was unable to report because of the tribunal’s remote access tech crash – explaining why he had brought the case and why he thought patient safety was at risk under new management at the Royal Hampshire Hospital’s midwifery service.

As the Press Association, who were at the court ,reported: “Mr Pitman said the merger of Royal Hampshire County Hospital with Basingstoke and North Hampshire Hospital NHS Trust in 2012 “proved challenging due to significant differences in the philosophy of care and management style”.

“I was justifiably reluctant to follow the low-risk, senior midwifery-led, pro-normalisation model of care championed by our new partners. I believe that, in the 21st century, maternity care should be patient-focused.

“Unfortunately this stance, somewhat professionally unpopular at the time, but now fully supported following recent enforced changes in UK maternity practice, made me vulnerable to managerial challenge.”

Effectively it meant more home than hospital births raising issues of patient safety. It was this change that led to a revolt by midwives who threatened a ” vote of no confidence” that enraged the managers and which Dr Pitman, who had worked in the hospital for over 20 years supported them.

It was this that led to the clash. As he said in his statement:

“Instead of working with me and my fellow consultants to address the concerns that had been raised, senior managerial colleagues realised the individual and organisational damage that our disclosures could cause.

“They chose instead to recruit the willing assistance of their senior trust managerial colleagues to subject me to a formal Managing High Professional Standards Investigations (MHPSI).

“As a direct consequence of exerting my professional responsibility in whistleblowing concerns I was subjected to brutal retaliatory victimisation.”

Today it emerged that the initial meeting between management and the three senior midwifery managers that led to the decision to launch an internal investigation into Dr Pitman’s conduct in backing the dispute was never minuted. The three had already accused him of bullying and one claimed she had to rush to the toilet to cry after a meeting with him.

This decision is remarkably similar to the action taken by the managers at the Epsom and St Helier University NHS Trust – who set up an informal unminuted group – so they could pursue whistleblower cardiology consultant Usha Prasad and sack her for raising whistleblowing concerns and claims of racism and sexism.

Dr Pitman told the tribunal he was ” astonished ” there were no minutes of the meeting. ” This was the meeting that set in motion a process that led my eventual sacking and end of my career at the hospital.”

Day’s grilling by Mark Sutton, KC

His answer was part of a day’s grilling by Mark Sutton ,KC the former head of chambers and part time judge at Old Square Chambers, where he accused Dr Pitman, on behalf of the trust, of behaving in a rude and arrogant way, declining to meet people, neglecting patients, slamming a door at a meeting, causing one member of the senior midwifery managers, to hand in her resignation because of his bullying , planning revenge on the trust and raising issues that ” were not in the wider public interest” by bringing this case.

Dr Pitman refuted these allegations. He pointed out that the letter of resignation from the manager came at a time when he was not at the hospital so he could not have bullied her. The accusation of planning to take a holiday at Christmas when they needed a consultant and therefore neglecting patients was caused by the management not telling him they had changed the procedures for staff to book holidays.

He categorically denied planning revenge against the hospital management but told the tribunal that when he returned before he was dismissed he found the situation concerning the management of the midwifery service had not improved and was worse.

The hearing continues tomorrow.

The trust in a fresh statement said:

“The trust ensured that all issues raised by Mr Pitman were thoroughly and impartially investigated, including in some instances through external review. Every effort was made to repair his relationships with the maternity and clinical colleagues in question – efforts which were unfortunately unsuccessful.

“We are increasingly concerned that Mr Pitman’s representation of the reasons for his dismissal could discourage others from raising important issues.”

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

One-Time
Monthly
Yearly

Make a one-time donation

Make a monthly donation

Make a yearly donation

Choose an amount

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

Or enter a custom amount

£

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearly

please donate to Westminster Confidential

£10.00

Protest demos and tech chaos at the start of whistleblower obstetrician Martyn Pitman’s case at the employment tribunal

Posted on by

Hearing reveals disjointed top management at Royal Hampshire hospital with midwives threatening ” vote of no confidence” in senior staff

Patients and NHS staff supporters of Dr Pitman stage demo outside the court

The long awaited three week hearing brought by Martyn Pitman, the popular whistleblower obstetrician and gynaecologist, against his dismissal by Hampshire Hospitals NHS Trust began yesterday.

Before even the court met in Southampton demonstrators turned up outside the building with placards expressing support for the doctor with some saying ” whistleblower or witch hunt”. Dr Pitman has a Facebook page ” Friends of Martyn Pitman, which has 1,700 followers – such is his support in Hampshire.

The trust does not consider he was sacked for whistleblowing

Then before the hearing could begin the tribunal’s remote access system crashed under the weight of journalists, including the BBC and the Press Association, and people wanting to report and observe the case. There had been doubt whether remote access would be granted by the judge – as it was said it had been ruled out. But with possibly up to 100 people from prominent medics and other whistleblowers the judge who is hearing the case relented.

As a result apart from a few journalists who managed to get into the small court nobody could hear the morning’s hearing as Dr Pitman started his evidence.

Remote access was restored about 2.15 pm but only 25 people were allowed to use it. Luckily I was one of the 25.

Dr Martyn Pitman Pic Credit: Adele Bouchard Hampshire Chronicle

From the afternoon’s session when Dr Pitman was cross questioned by Old Square Chambers lawyer, Mark Sutton for the trust, it became pretty clear that the trust was going for a character assassination of the doctor who had raised patient and staff safety issues and was critical of the way senior management were handling it.

The issue discussed during the afternoon centred around strong misgiving by midwives working at the Winchester Hospital who were calling for a ” vote of no confidence ” against the nursing and midwives management. The consultant took up their cause.

Mr Sutton cited memos from senior staff which portrayed the consultant as an intimidating bully of women blocking the door at one meeting to prevent a senior manager leaving and leaving one senior manager ” crying in the toilet ” after a meeting with him. He was also dubbed ” an agitator” by Mr Sutton for taking up the midwives cause rather than leaving senior managers to sort it out between them.

Dr Pitman pointed out that the allegation he was a blocking a door was completely false as the meeting was in a small room and there were no seats left when he got there , so all he could do was lean against the door.

As for the meeting with another senior manager she had claimed that she had rushed out and went to the toilet to cry after meeting him. His version was this was a ” connivance” and not true. He told the tribunal that ” if this was true I would have been sacked the next day.” Instead he had been invited to further meetings to resolve it. It turned out both complainants were close friends.

And as for the accusation that he was an agitator Dr Pitman said that all he did was to ask for the opinions of all staff from health assistants to senior consultants about what they thought about the midwives concerns.

” I didn’t say what my opinion about it was so as not to influence them. I just asked what he thought.”

He added he had been “humbled ” by the fact that staff trusted him to look into the case.

The hearing continues today.

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

One-Time
Monthly
Yearly

Make a one-time donation

Make a monthly donation

Make a yearly donation

Choose an amount

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

Or enter a custom amount

£

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearly

Please donate to Westminster Confidential

£10.00

Dr Jocelynne Scutt on why mediation is the only legal way forward to solve the 13 year old pensions dispute for 1950s women

Posted on by
Davina Lloyd interviews Dr Jocelynne Scutt, author of the groundbreaking Judge’s report on the plight of 1950s women who faced a six year delay in getting their pensions

Meanwhile Rob Behrens, the Parliamentary Ombudsman, stalls WASPI on any date they will get his delayed findings

It is well worth watching the above video interview with Dr Jocelynne Scutt which explains clearly and concisely the current impasse over resolving the dispute between 3.5 million 1950s born women and the government over the six year delay in getting their pensions.

She provides both a clear explanation of why an Alternative Dispute Resolution is the only way to solve the impasse and why the Ombudsman’s current draft report – now being rewritten – only provides a partial solution to the problem by concentrating solely on the delay caused by maladministration and not on the direct discrimination against the women themselves under the UN Convention on the Elimination of all Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). The latter is crucial because Mrs Thatcher signed up and ratified this convention in 1986 and the UK is responsible to the UN in Geneva to follow its provisions.

As Dr Scutt argues ” the law is the law”.

Laura Trott MP Pensions Minister Pic credit: Official Portrait, House of Commons

Her explanation comes as the pension minister, Laura Trott, has muddied the waters saying that the offer of mediation by the internationally respected law firm Garden Court Chambers, cannot be taken up at the moment by Mel Stride, the works and pension secretary, because the Parliamentary Ombudsman is still working on his report.

Laura Trott is wrong. Mediation can go ahead while the Parliamentary Ombudsman is still investigating as it is an entirely separate from whatever the Ombudsman recommends. Indeed it might save Rob Behrens a lot of work as he is obviously struggling to put together a fresh report and would probably love to drop this hot potato.

The reason why Laura Trott is offering these lame excuses and why there is silence from Mel Stride, I suspect, is that Garden Court has started a legal process by writing now twice to the Secretary of State and offering to act as impartial mediators to end this dispute. Their reputation as impartial mediators is second to none.

“No reply” Mel Stride, secretary of State for Work and Pensions

He is trying to avoid replying because if he says yes – it will automatically go ahead. But if he says no, his lawyers at the Department for Work and Pensions have probably warned him he risks the whole matter going back to the courts. If that happens what sensible judge is not going to think the Secretary of State is being obstructive. To borrow Cabinet colleague Michael Gove’s words on another matter, he will be portrayed as “a blocker not a builder.”

The dilemma both the government and Parliamentary Ombudsman are facing is what is the position of the UK under CEDAW. If Dr Scutt’s cogent judgement is correct,, they just can’t ignore the implications of direct discrimination for this particular group of people. It is the ” elephant in the room.”

I am grateful to the Waspi Pembrokeshire branch for tweeting about the recent meeting between the Parliamentary Ombudsman and Waspi which ended in a stalemate despite them sending in two lawyers to help argue their case. The Ombudsman could give no publication date when this so called ” urgent” issue could be resolved and talked of completely rewriting the second part of its report because of the issues ” Waspi and others ” had raised.

Rebecca Hilsenrath,chief exec of the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s Office

I suspect the “others” refers to Dr Scutt’s judgement as I know CEDAWinLaw has sent her judgement to the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s chief executive, Rebecca Hilsenrath, and I can’t see how the Ombudsman can produce a report without referring to it. Mrs Hilsenrath has also agreed to meet CEDAWinLAW on a date yet to be agreed.

Again I advise everybody to watch the interview for a clear understanding of the present position taken by CEDAWinLAW as everyone awaits events.

Please donate to Westminster Confidential to allow me to continue my 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

Martyn Pitman: Tribunal opens next week on a popular sacked obstetrician’s fight against a NHS trust on patient safety

Posted on by

But it appears the employment tribunal is trying to block the public and press from attending the hearing

Martyn Pitman: Pic credit: Adele Bouchard Hampshire Chronicle

Next week in a cramped magistrates court in Southampton an employment tribunal judge will hear an extraordinary case about an extremely popular obstetrician and an exemplary clinician who was sacked by the Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust after he raised issues of patient and staff safety in its maternity services.

The trust has denied that he was dismissed because of whistleblowing or raising patient safety issues -claiming that it wants people to speak up about these issues. In a statement last June it said : ” no member of staff has ever been dismissed for whistleblowing or raising concerns over patient safety; and they never will be.” But despite the dispute with Dr Pitman going on for four and a half years it has never said publicly why it dismissed him and will have to explain itself to the tribunal next week.

In the meantime the 57 year old obstetrician and gynaecologist has had unprecedented support from the people in Hampshire . A Facebook group called Friends of Martyn Pitman was set up by Lynda Emptage, a patient of Martyn’s for 20 years, who was so upset about news of his dismissal, that she wanted an inquiry. It now has 1,700 members.

Sarah Parish Pic credit: Somerset Live

He has also been publicly praised by  Broadchurch actress Sarah Parish who credits Martyn with saving not only her life but also her daughter Nell’s life. She had a late baby in her early 40s and without his intervention in an emergency she believes both of them would have died. He has also had an article about his concerns in The Times and appeared on breakfast TV.

The timing of the case is also embarrassing for the trust as it comes straight after the national scandal at the Countess of Chester hospital where Lucy Letby, a nurse, was convicted by a jury of murdering babies and the management of the trust emerged as threatening doctors and forcing them to write a letter of apology to her after they raised genuine concerns.

The trust appears to have been extremely reluctant to have any employment tribunal hearing at all. In April this year it attempted to strike out his defence and was largely unsuccessful.

Mark Sutton KC
jack Mitchell

Now the trust has decided to spend hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayer’s money employing the former head of Old Square Chambers and part time employment judge, Mark Sutton, for the three week hearing. Mr Sutton is more used to taking cases to the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal as well as representing trusts and doctors ” fitness to practice ” cases. His CV says he” is the sort of person who would inspire confidence in any judge” but also an expert lawyer on doctor’s disciplinary cases.

Dr Pitman, who is backed by the British Medical Association, is also represented by Old Square Chambers. His brief is Jack Mitchell. His CV on Old Square Chambers website says he is the ” go to junior counsel ” for whistleblowers and he has written two books on whistleblowing and an article on  whistleblowing in sport. He has represented Babcock, Eurotunnel, Paul Smith, Royal Mail, Thomson Reuters, The Ritz, Terrence Higgins Trust and the BBC in previous cases. He has represented clients with successful claims against companies including, Lloyds Bank, HSBC and HP.”

So whatever happens in this case Old Square Chambers are going to make a small fortune out of this hearing. Solicitors in the case are Bevan Brittan, for the trust and Capital Law for Dr Pitman.

Entrance to Southampton Magistrates Court. Pic Credit: Southampton Daily Echo

There is also some concern about whether the public and the press will be able to hear and report the case. For a start Southampton Magistrates Court is a very small one. Some people say it is pokey and will hardly hold many people once the teams of lawyers and staff from the trust have taken up the seats. The entrance as you can see above is hardly inviting. Given the huge interest among the public in the case with 1700 on one website supporting Dr Pitman it is rather surprising the court authorities chose such a pokey venue.

It is also not listed as a hybrid hearing – both in person and on line – even though Southampton can have hearings remotely. People, including myself, and a number of distinguished physicians and whistleblowers across the UK have applied for a remote link to hear the proceedings but have had no response from the employment tribunal service beyond a standardised letter of acknowledgement.

Frankly as the judiciary is supposed to be committed to ” open justice” I think a refusal to allow people to attend remotely will be seen as ” hole in a corner justice” particularly as employment tribunals do not keep a record of the proceedings themselves.

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

One-Time
Monthly
Yearly

Make a one-time donation

Make a monthly donation

Make a yearly donation

Choose an amount

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

Or enter a custom amount

£

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearly

Please donate to Westminster Confidential

£10.00

BMA chair seeks whistleblower Dr Usha Prasad’s reinstatement and the dropping of cost hearings in the case

Posted on by

But the trust is rushing to reconvene the cost hearing before she can go to a tribunal to challenge the verdict against her

Dr Phil Banfield chair of the British Medical Association

The British Medical Association has belatedly intervened in the long running dispute between whistleblower cardiology consultant Dr Usha Prasad and the Epsom and St Helier University Trust (now combined with St George’s Hospital Trust).

Dr Phil Banfield, chair of the BMA, has written directly to the chief executive of the trust, Jacqueline Totterdell, asking her to drop the costs hearing and reinstate her.

Dr Prasad was facing a hearing last month where the trust was demanding that she pay £180,000 of its costs including the fees of 21 lawyers employed by Capsticks and a QC. It was called off at the last moment when one of the tribunal panel failed to turn up. The financial demand was suddenly reduced to £24,000 without any explanation from the trust at the same time. As reported previously 99.95 per cent of employment tribunals never ask the claimant to pay the employers’ costs. If it had gone ahead it would have been a record sum claimed by any health trust against one of its medical staff.

Dr Usha Prasad

The BMA’s top level intervention by its chairman comes after a long campaign by consultants supporting Dr Prasad to ask their union to act. The BMA previously decided not to give her legal support which meant much of the time she was a litigant in person fighting 21 lawyers. One hearing which I attended, she was represented by a barrister, but the judge Tony Hyams-Parish, who lives in the Epsom and Ewell area, threw out her whistleblowing claims and her race and sex discrimination claims as ” misconceived” or ” without merit”.

Jacqueline Totterdell, chief executive of the trust

The BMA in their letter to the trust highlights the race complaints.. Quoting from the trust’s own information it says: “The figures which Dr Prasad has shared with us are attached and point to a disproportionate impact on ethnic minority doctors during a period when Dr Prasad was employed by the Trust. It is notable that 10 of the 11 doctors subjected to conduct concerns were from an ethnic minority background when ethnic minority doctors made up approximately one in three of the workforce for the period 2018-2020. It is of further note that all of those excluded, referred to the GMC, or dismissed were from an ethnic minority background.”

The BMA has asked for an explanation. Certainly it seems to me that either the trust’s recruitment policy was so flawed about the BAME doctors it employed or the people responsible for this were racially biased. The judge who heard the same evidence ignored it.

judge tony hyams parish

The judge also expunged from the record whistleblowing claims by Dr Prasad about the ” avoidable death” of a heart patient whose death was never reported by the hospital to the coroner or the Care Quality Commission. At the hearing Dr Richard Bogle, the head of cardiology, admitted it was wrong and should have been reported. The judge ignored what he said allowing the trust to try and claim that whistleblowing has nothing to with her dismissal.

The letter from the BMA emphasises the distress caused to Dr Prasad. “It is with concern we note the impact that this is having on Dr Prasad who reports great distress at facing a cost application before her appeal is heard where she is seeking redress for whistleblowing detriments including discrimination and harassment which she vigorously contends she has suffered while in the employment of Epsom and St Hellier University Hospitals NHS Trust.”

It calls on the trust to withdraw from costs proceedings against Dr Prasad adding: “We are concerned that this threat from employers of legal costs may be used to discourage people from raising legitimate public interest concerns or seeking to redress workplace injustices in the future. As I am sure you are aware, it is important that doctors are able to raise concerns about behaviours and actions that may have an adverse effect on patient safety.”

The letter asks the trust to reconsider re-instating Dr Prasad adding ” alongside an apology and reversal of damages caused to her, thereby resolving this long running litigation and allowing Dr Prasad to fulfil her career in medicine.”

I asked the trust for its response. This is it:

“It is entirely inaccurate that the Trust is seeking legal fees in relation to issues stemming from Dr Prasad raising patient safety concerns. The Employment Tribunal heard a number of claims by Dr Prasad which they unanimously dismissed, and commented that some of them were ‘completely misconceived’. The Employment Tribunal will hold a further hearing to decide whether Dr Prasad should pay a contribution towards the Trust’s costs.

“We take patient safety concerns very seriously and encourage everyone who works at the Trust to raise issues at every opportunity so we can make improvements to patient care.”

The trust is as good as its word on rushing through the case. At the case management hearing that followed the adjournment of the hearing the KC for the trust got them to agree to rush through the next hearing despite a huge backlog of cases at that tribunal.

Dr Prasad has only until September 29 to tell them whether she can pay the £24,000 and provided full details and documents of her income and outgoings. She has until October 20 to provide a witness statement backing up the reasons why she cannot pay. She also has to provide a skeleton argument five days before the hearing. No date has yet been fixed but she has a date at the end of January for her employment appeal tribunal hearing where she can challenge the judge’s verdict.

Please donate to Westminster Confidential to allow me to continue investigative reporting like this.

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

Posted on by
Mel Stride, Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

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

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

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

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

Dr Jocelynne Scutt

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yasmin Qureshi, Labour’s women and equalities shadow minister

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

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

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

Gina Miller when she was interviewed by Channel 4

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One-Time
Monthly
Yearly

Make a one-time donation

Make a monthly donation

Make a yearly donation

Choose an amount

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

Or enter a custom amount

£

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearly

Please donate to Westminster Confidential

£10.00

Labour MP takes up scandal of the 9.8 million men who got free national insurance credits while women got nothing

Posted on by
Lloyd Russell – Moyle MP : Pic Credit: Labour South East

A Labour MP is challenging Mel Stride, the Work and Pensions Secretary, to ” correct the imbalance ” that allowed up to 9.8 million men to claim free national insurance contributions from the state while 50s born women were stopped from claiming anything.

He is the first MP to raise this issue, disclosed on this blog three years ago, directly with the Secretary of State. See here.

This huge subsidy only came to light when one of my readers ,Myfanwy Opeldus, one of 3.8 million women facing a six year delay to get her pension, got the admission from the ministry through a Freedom of Information request. three years ago.

Originally introduced in the 1980s by Margaret Thatcher and Sir Geoffrey Howe, the former Tory chancellor, to cut down the employment figures. men aged 60 got ” auto credits” – free national insurance payments- towards their state pension if they did not claim unemployment benefit.

Meant to be a temporary measure men could still claim this right up to 2018. Women born in the 1950s were promised to be able to claim this once the coalition government started raising the pension age from 60 to 66 but it was never implemented.

Mel Stride Works ands Pensions Secretary

The MP writes : “Recent revisions by the Department for Work and Pensions reveal that 9.8 million men received “auto credits” for pension eligibility—more than double the previously disclosed 4.65 million. This is particularly unsettling in comparison to the six-year pension delay faced by 1950s born women. The lack of transparency surrounding these payments for nearly four decades deepens these concerns. The timing of this disclosure, following a Court of Appeal hearing, underscores the need for prompt action. The substantial “auto credits” provided to men since 1983 to encourage male employment reveal an imbalance requiring correction.”

Mr Russell-Moyle is one of the MPs backing a bid to settle the long running disputed over compensation for the now 3.5 million women ( 300,000 have since died) by holding an alternative dispute resolution, hearing with the government. which is championed by Sir George Howarth, the Labour MP for Knowsley. This solution is being promoted by the CEDAWinLaw People’s Tribunal following a report by the former Australian anti discrimination commissioner, Dr Jocelynne Scutt, which says the UK broke international law by not compensating the women.

It is also a speedy way to resolve the problem compared to WASPI’s solution to get the Parliamentary Ombudsman, Rob Behrens, to recommend compensation which has been mired in delays and disputes for years.

This is the full test of his letter:

Please donate to Westminster Confidential to allow me to continue my in depth 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
£25.00
£5.00
£15.00
£100.00
£5.00
£15.00
£100.00

Or enter a custom amount

£

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearly

Please donate to Westminster Confidential

£10.00

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

Posted on by
Dr Chris Day
Dr Usha Prasad

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

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

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

Where the NHS whistleblower retaliators are – by Tristam Price

Where the NHS Whistleblower Retaliators are – by Tristam Price

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion:

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

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

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

Epsom Hospital – Usha Prasad

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

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

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

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

“Above all we value RESPECT

It helps us to live our behaviours:

  • Kind
  • Positive
  • Professional   
  • Teamwork. 

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

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

Lewisham Hospital – Dr Chris Day

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

Lewisham-Greenwich website says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“About Freedom to Speak Up (FTSU) guardians

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

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

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

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

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

One-Time
Monthly
Yearly

Make a one-time donation

Make a monthly donation

Make a yearly donation

Choose an amount

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

Or enter a custom amount

£

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearly

Please donate to Westminster Confidential

£10.00

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

Posted on by
Dr Usha Prasad

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

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

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

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

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

Jessica Blackburn, senior solicitor at Capsticks Ltd

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

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

St Helier Hospital

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

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

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

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

Councillor Ross Garrod, Labour leader of Merton Council

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

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

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

One-Time
Monthly
Yearly

Make a one-time donation

Make a monthly donation

Make a yearly donation

Choose an amount

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

Or enter a custom amount

£

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearly

Please donate to Westminster Confidential

£10.00

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

Posted on by

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

Typical tribunal room Pic credit: gov.uk

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

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

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

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

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

Dr James Marsh

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

Jessica Blackburn

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

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

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

Dr Usha Prasad

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

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

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

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

One-Time
Monthly
Yearly

Make a one-time donation

Make a monthly donation

Make a yearly donation

Choose an amount

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

Or enter a custom amount

£

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearly

Please donate to Westminster Confidential

£10.00