Modern
Leader
Modern Leader Limited 3 Canwick Hall Mews Canwick, Lincoln Lincolnshire, LN4 2RY Tel: 0843 289 5599 E-­‐mail: info@modernleader.co.uk Ruth May
By email: ruthmay@nhs.net
Date: 10 July 2013
Our reference: GW/RM
Dear Ruth
Subject: Mr Paul Richardson
Thank you for your email of 5 July 2013 requesting further evidence to support my
claim regarding concealment of evidence to an employment tribunal by Mr
Richardson. I have set out the evidence against Mr Richardson below including other
matters you may wish to consider. Deliberately misleading a tribunal or any court is a
serious criminal offence of contempt.
I will not go into the details of my employment dispute since that is a matter of public
record1 but the contents of the transcript I have attached, as evidence of the Trust’s
concealment, by its nature, describes the employment issues. The legal threats to
sue me should I discuss these employment issues remains in force and has not been
withdrawn by the Trust so I remain at risk from disclosing these matters to you but I
do so as the matter is in the public interest.
The evidence I provide here supports the following allegations:
1. Mr Richardson (who was appointed with direct involvement of Barbara Hakin)
deliberately and knowingly removed all evidence of my protected disclosures
regarding patient safety, health and safety, threats made by Barbara Hakin
that attempted to endanger patient safety (currently the subject of a GMC
investigation), and in so doing provided a deliberately false account to an
Employment Tribunal.
2. Mr Richardson attempted to pay me off in 2009 without approval from the
Board (serious breach of governance and SOs), SHA, Department of Health
or HM Treasury.
3. Mr Richardson concealed witness evidence from the disciplinary hearing and
the Employment Tribunal that exonerated me and proved beyond reasonable
doubt the Trust had an agenda to remove me at all costs.
4. Mr Richardson used considerable public resources to settle the Judicial
Mediation case in 2011 preventing the issues in this letter and many other
1 http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/Health/FRA03GaryWalkerA-L.pdf
Modern Leader Ltd in registered in England no. 07136233
Visit: www.modernleader.co.uk for more information and our business terms
issues, from entering the public domain. To conceal personal failures and
potentially unlawful actions is misconduct in public office which carries a
custodial sentence.
5. The current CEO of ULHT stated to the media and to staff that the Trust
never ‘intended’ to gag me over patient safety issues or matters in the public
interest. This is untrue and the Trust had every intention of gagging me and
threatened to sue me for raising patient safety issues.
6. Many other governance failures have occurred in the past three years
including increased mortality, significant debts, substantial failures in
performance despite increased bed capacity, complaints from a Clinical
Director about targets being before patient safety that were never
investigated, a series of adverse reports by the CQC including dangerous
staffing levels. All of which have been ignored by the former SHA.
Deliberately concealing evidence to an Employment Tribunal
During the disciplinary process undertaken by the Trust on 23rd December 2009, I
was promised a transcript of the two-hour meeting. Subsequently the Trust refused
to provide any record of that hearing (written or audio) despite repeated requests. Mr
Richardson stated in a letter to me on 14 January 2010 that he would no longer
agree to provide any record of the hearing and that there would be 'no further
discussion on this point'. I should point out that following various requests for
disclosure I made through the Tribunal the Trust did provide their version of a
transcript of that meeting on 19 January 2011, over a year after the fact; a version
that cannot be verified.
Based on the Trust’s refusal to allow me appropriate representation at the second
hearing on 1 February 2010 and Mr Richardson’s previous promise then refusal to
provide a copy of the transcript, I recorded the meeting. My concerns about Mr
Richardson’s lack of honesty were well founded. The transcript produced by the
Trust (Document 1) omits the entries relating to five occasions I raised my protected
disclosures under the Public Interest Disclosure Act.
Items removed from my version are set out below (amd taken from Document 2):
Para 535 – “The trust chairman, yourself Mr [Richardson], is chair of the
disciplinary hearing. I have written to you/him, apologies for the way it is
worded, on a number of occasions with regard to the trust's treatment of
myself following protected disclosures relating to bullying and harassment by
the trust and the SHA which refer to potential endangerment of health and
safety of myself, patients and staff.”
Para 5372 – “Further Mr Richardson was present when I was threatened by
Barbara Hakin of the SHA…He was also present at a meeting where the
threat to my continued employment if I were to continue to complain about the
SHA conduct towards me was discussed.”
Para 646 – “the bullying and harassment from the SHA.”
2 Para 537 was also amended by Beechcroft and agreed by the Trust (purple text) and is mostly
accurate but not entirely. For example: Beechcroft have attempted to write themselves out of the record
and blame Capsticks in para 537. Capsticks were in fact never involved in any aspect of my
employment dispute and only Beechcroft made offers to settle on behalf of Paul Richardson).
Modern Leader Ltd in registered in England no. 07136233
Visit: www.modernleader.co.uk for more information and our business terms
Para 655 - “I deny the allegations which have been made against me. In my
view the trust have manufactured a case against me following issues of
bullying and harassment by the trust and the SHA being raised by me. This is
this is in my view victimisation directly related to the previous allegations”
Para 941 – “I don't believe the evidence has been collected in a transparent
way and certainly the answers have been led. I've already stated that I
believe that to be as a direct result of the claims I've made against the trust
and the SHA.”
These statements were removed from the Trust’s transcript and are highly relevant to
the claim I made to the Employment Tribunal including whistleblowing. They were
removed presumably to hide the fact that I had blown the whistle at all.
The Trust and its lawyers accepted these entries were deleted only after I provided
my recording and transcript in 2011 (Document 2). The Trust had previously
maintained and intended to argue in the Tribunal that their version of the transcript
was accurate. The reason given by the Trust for the five deletions was that they
were not relevant. This of course is nonsense both in terms of accurate record
keeping procedures, and relevance to my legal action. My claim in the Employment
Tribunal was based on protected disclosures (whistleblowing). The fact that I
whistleblew and only after that fact disciplinary action was taken against me was
highly relevant. To conceal this information from a Tribunal is a deliberate act not
only to mislead that Tribunal but a serious case of dishonesty.
Unauthorised attempt by Mr Richardson to pay me off in November 2009 &
actual breach of NHS policy for the payoff in November 2011
It is normal for employers to make offers to settle employment disputes prior to
disciplinary meetings or indeed Tribunal hearings. However, strict rules govern how
any offer must be approved. In November 2009, the Trust’s lawyers, authorised by
Mr Richardson personally, offered to pay me off prior to the first disciplinary hearing.
This offer should have been approved by the Trust’s Remuneration Committee, the
SHA, Department of Health and Treasury. None of the above was involved in the
approval of that offer.
None of the following guidance was followed: the guidance from NHS Employers
(Document 3), Sir David Nicholson’s letter to the NHS on 1 November 2007
(Document 4) or HM Treasury guidance: “Managing Public Money”. This guidance
states the following: “4.13.11 Departments should not treat special severance as a
soft option, eg to avoid management action, disciplinary processes, unwelcome
publicity or reputational damage. Box A4.13B sets out the factors the Treasury needs
to evaluate in dealing with special severance cases. It is important to ensure that
Treasury approval is sought before any offers, whether oral or in writing, are
made.” (emphasis added)
These rules were in place in November 2009 and therefore Mr Richardson breached
all NHS policies in relation to making a offer to settle the employment dispute in 2009.
The Department of Health sought to change the rules in 2011 to omit the Treasury
stage of approval for Judicial Mediation payments. Other stages such as SHA and
DH approval were not changed.
The fact that Mr Richardson himself then, offered, negotiated and authorised my payoff in November 2011 using public money to prevent the issues I have hitherto
Modern Leader Ltd in registered in England no. 07136233
Visit: www.modernleader.co.uk for more information and our business terms
described, and many other matters being disclosed, can only be described as
misconduct in public office which as you know carries a custodial sentence.
Deliberately concealing witness evidence to an Employment Tribunal
Ros Edwards the former Director of Human Resources at ULHT claimed that Carol
Brown, Regional Officer for UNISON, complained to her regarding my use of
language at a meeting on 22 July 2009. However, after I was dismissed and at the
end of March 2010, I was contacted by Carol Brown who had been at the meeting on
22 July 2009. She informed me that she had not complained about me at all. Indeed
in her statement to the Employment Tribunal she stated that Ros Edward’s evidence
was "fabricated". Carol Brown informed me, among other things, that it was ULHT
that had approached her to make a complaint about me, which she had refused to do.
It was clear to me that my concerns about the process had been well founded since
ULHT had sought to solicit complaints about me. This was a process directly
managed by Mr Richardson.
Carol Brown had highly relevant evidence that exonerated me that was known to
ULHT but was not provided at the disciplinary hearing. I had previously asked Mr
Richardson for the names of the witnesses approached by ULHT but Carol Brown's
name was never declared.
Current CEO Misleading the public, staff and Secretary of State for Health
On 12 February 2013, I received letter from DAC Beachcroft at 9:20pm (Document 5).
The letter states: “Having seen an outline of the issues, we have advised our client
that if you have provided an interview or should this interview proceed you will be in
clear breach of the agreement and as a result the Trust would be entitled to recover
from you the payments made under the agreement and any costs including its legal
costs.” (emphasis added).
The “outline of the issues” was given to the Trust by the BBC Today programme. A
transcript of the news item clearly covers only patient safety issues and matters in
the public interest (Document 6).
The letter from DAC Beachcroft also states: “You agree that the dispute between you
and the Respondent, the East Midlands SHA, the Department of Health and the
Appointments Commission is hereby at an end and shall not repeat the allegations
contained in your witness statements which were served on the Respondent
during the proceedings. You agree to take reasonable steps by asking the other
witnesses to abide by the same duties of confidentiality as are agreed by you
under this Agreement.” (emphasis added).
My allegations included 16 protected disclosures (Document 7) concerning patient
safety and other matters in the public interest. Several of these were reviewed by an
employment judge during preliminary stages of the Employment Tribunal process
(Document 8). The judge described all those examined as “prima facie protected
disclosures”, falling under the protection of the Employment Rights Act 1996, which
incorporates the Public Interest Disclosure Act (PIDA). Those documents included
correspondence with Barbara Hakin and David Nicholson. DAC Beachcroft’s
statement, on behalf of ULHT, is therefore a clear attempt to prevent me speaking
out about matters protected in law. Their actions are contrary to PIDA and unlawful.
In contrast to the current CEO’s claim that there was no ‘intention’ to gag me, there
was blatantly a deliberate and specific attempt with menace to intimidate me not to
Modern Leader Ltd in registered in England no. 07136233
Visit: www.modernleader.co.uk for more information and our business terms
speak out about patient safety issues at ULHT. The Trust’s statement to the
Secretary of State is therefore also untrue.
Misleading the public
In December 2009 or possibly January 2010 there was a serious clinical incident
(along with several other clinical and non-clinical incidents) that was reported to me
after I was dismissed from ULHT. One incident involving a patient whose tibia was
shattered which the surgeon claimed was a direct result of the pressure to hit targets.
The Trust has repeatedly denied this event ever occurred and refused to release any
governance reports to the Board concerning that period of time.
Documentary evidence of the investigation that followed has been concealed by the
Trust who continue to deny to the CQC and media the incident ever happened.
To conceal clinical errors or harm is completely unacceptable. You may wish to
contact the surgeon involved who is Mr Emyr Morris. I understand he has recently
retired and that the GMC may also require him to give evidence in any further
investigation of Barbara Hakin.
General Governance Issues
More generally the failures of governance at ULHT appear to have gone unchecked
for several years. A few examples are given below:
1. Stephen Layton, at the time a Clinical Director, sent a letter to Mr Richardson
in 2010 raising serious concerns about patient safety and pressure from
managers leading to unsafe care. This letter was not shared with the Board,
investigated or anything approaching a reasonable response made by Mr
Richardson.
2. There have been many adverse reports from CQC and others about the
clinical standards at ULHT between 2011 and 2013. I believe the number to
be six. The most recent of which describes inadequate staffing and yet the
Trust presents the CQC report to its staff and the public only focusing on what
an improvement there has been. This misses the point entirely. And it can be
no coincidence that a substantial recruitment campaign was announced
following the Prime Minister’s announcement regarding the Keogh review.
3. Financial and operational targets have been comprehensively missed for the
past three years. I should add that it has been claimed by the SHA that they
had concerns about my performance and that was the reason why I was
dismissed. This is clearly untrue and a perpetuation of a smear campaign.
However, in my three years as CEO the Trust met almost all of the key
targets, reducing waiting times by half, infection rates to some of the lowest
levels nationally, repaying all historical debts and reducing mortality3. For a
few months in 2009 the Trust ran into difficulty on two operational targets as a
result of significant un-commissioned/planned demand. So much was this
excessive demand that 100 beds had to be built later that year, in complete
contrast to Lincs PCT strategy, which had collapsed. The Trust was in fact
delivering all targets at the time I was forced out in July 2009. Between 2011
and 2013 the Trust has failed in almost every governance, performance, and
3 Mortality rates in 2009/10 were 95.8 according to http://www.thisislincolnshire.co.uk/Trust-s-death-rateUK-average/story-11224016-detail/story.html#axzz2YXuVffRc
Modern Leader Ltd in registered in England no. 07136233
Visit: www.modernleader.co.uk for more information and our business terms
finance domain. In the past three years there has been comprehensive
organisational failure yet the current board have been allowed to continue
without any obvious form of accountability. The current position of the Trust is
almost identical to that I was drafted in to solve in 2006.
Conclusion
The Trust, and predominately driven by Mr Richardson and current CEO (who I have
not met), has proven its ability to delete/remove or conceal damaging evidence,
attempt to mislead Tribunals, mislead the public, mislead staff and mislead the
Secretary of State, all on matters that are clearly in the public interest. Given this
situation I find it implausible that all or perhaps any of the information you have been
provided with in the two days you spent at the Trust will be accurate or truthful. It
must at the very least cast considerable doubt on your overall investigation if those
providing evidence to you have previously misinformed at best and lied at worst.
There has been a comprehensive failure in governance and implicated in this are two
people, Barbara Hakin and David Nicholson, heading up NHS England to which you
ultimately report. I would be very interested to learn how you will resolve the conflict
of interest you personally have in dealing with the information in this letter.
Terms of reference
I refer to your terms of reference:
1. whether existing action by these trusts to improve quality is adequate and
whether any additional steps should be taken
2. any additional external support that should be made available to these trusts
to help them improve
3. any areas that may require regulatory action in order to protect patients.
Considering the Trust received a very good assessment of clinical safety by the
SHA's Director of Nursing, Dame Catherine Elcoat in 2009 the current Board and
chairmain have presided over systematic downgrading of quality and safety as
described by CQC from 2011 onwards, and by complaints from senior staff. The
Trust continues to view that mortality is a 'coding issue' (as evidenced in Board
reports) which must be the most dangerous approach possible in any healthcare
organisation.
Not only should regulatory action be taken to replace Chairman and non-executives
for allowing this situation to occur, but executives should be interviewed and
assessed for competence. The Chief Executive should be suspended pending a
formal investigation into the matters I have disclosed here.
I have written this letter and my previous letter on the assumption that it will be
published as set out in the terms of reference. If you require any further evidence or
documents please let me know and I will attempt to retrieve them from my files or
from journalists.
Yours sincerely
Gary Walker
Director
Modern Leader Ltd
Modern Leader Ltd in registered in England no. 07136233
Visit: www.modernleader.co.uk for more information and our business terms