I was interviewed by Grant Thornton in February 2012 while on maternity leave. I was the person
who proposed we carry out this external investigation into CQC's activity at UHMB. David Behan
had supported my proposal and I was pleased it was taking place. I was asked about the existence of
an internal report into regulatory activity at UHMB. I told Grant Thornton that I had thought this was an
inadequate piece of work; I had hoped it would ask some tough questions about whether CQC's
historic regulatory action had been appropriate (the answer to my mind was clearly 'no') and provide
real learning for the future. However, the internal report concluded that CCQ would take the same
regulatory action again. I thought this sounded like a whitewash and failed to address serious issues
about whether CQC could have acted more swiftly and effectively to protect patients. The weakness
of this internal scrutiny led me to propose an independent review. Grant Thornton asked me whether I
had considered the report an 'FoI risk', which I thought was an odd emphasis (my concern was
whether the report did the job it needed to), but I said that I did not think it was fit for publication or
wider circulation for the reasons I had outlined.
I was asked about a 'delete' instruction - I said I could not remember 'Mr G' asking for the report to be
deleted, although I did remember a conversation which concluded that the report was not a good
piece of work. I myself kept a copy of the report - the same copy which was sent to Grant Thornton. I
was the most junior person in the room by some considerable distance - at the time of the meeting I
was a Media Manager, not a 'senior official' as stated in the report - but I was very keen to push for
proper external scrutiny of CQC’s actions at this Trust. I raised the need for this several times, the last
of which, at a meeting with David Behan in attendance, is minuted in an extract below. I shared these
minutes with Grant Thornton so was surprised and disappointed to see no reference to this in their
final report.
“AJ [Anna Jefferson] suggested we subject our historic regulatory activity about MB
[Morecambe Bay] to external independent scrutiny. The group agreed. DB [David Behan]
suggested this work should be completed before he officially starts on 28 July. AJ suggested
using PWC (or similar credible consultancy firm) rather than a clinician as this should be a
scrutiny of our regulatory processes, not clinical outcomes, and DB agreed."
The first time I saw the quote "This can never be in the public domain or subject to FoI." was in an
email sent by Grant Thornton on 11 April. I was horrified and wrote immediately to Grant Thornton
making it very clear that I had not and would never have said this and that this had not been put to me
during our interview. I cannot imagine why my former manager would have put these words in
my mouth - she has since said that they did not in fact attribute this quote to me. This quote is
completely untrue, uncorroborated by anyone else, and has since been retracted - on this
basis I assumed it would not appear in any final report. I am appalled that it has done so. My
primary concern was to get some real answers about what had gone wrong at this Trust and to
ensure we could do better for patients in the future; through the inclusion of this made-up
quote along with failure to include minuted evidence that I pushed for proper external scrutiny,
I have been portrayed as conspiring to cover up poor care.
I am a new mother myself and the thought of what the families who have lost babies at this
hospital have gone through is heartbreaking. I would never have conspired to cover up
anything which could have led to a better understanding of what went wrong in the regulation
of this hospital and I am devastated that I have been implicated in this way.
Below is the text of my email to Grant Thornton
Dear Mr X
Please find below my written representations in response to your email of 11 April.
I object in the strongest possible terms to the attribution of the remark “This can never be in the public
domain or subject to FoI” to me. I did not make this comment, and I find it difficult to believe that my
former manager has claimed that I did. This is completely untrue and there is no evidence to support
it. You have claimed that you put the quote attributed to me by Mr G to me during our interview of 21
February, and that I “failed to deny it”. This is not the case. Although you mentioned allegations that
Mr J’s report had been ‘suppressed’ due to concerns around FoI requests, you did not specifically put
this quote to me and say that it had been attributed to me by Mr G. Had you done so, I would certainly
have denied it and furthermore, would have been extremely shocked and upset. My recollection of
your failure to put this quote to me is supported by my current line manger, who was also present
during this interview.
Given that this quote is inaccurate, unsubstantiated and I was not given the opportunity to respond to
it, please provide assurance that it will not appear in any final document. If I do not receive this
assurance, I will be seeking legal advice via my union.
I dispute your interpretation of my comments at this interview, namely that I held up the quality of the
report’s writing “as the reason that [I] may have said words to the effect that the report was an “FoI”
risk.” At the interview, I shared with you my concerns about Mr J’s report; namely, that it did not ask
the right questions, was not robust, and came to the questionable conclusion that CQC would take the
same regulatory action again at UHMB. For this reason, I felt it was a wholly unsatisfactory piece of
work and would not have wished it to go further that the limited audience it was intended for, a fact I
was very open with you about. There is an enormous difference between voicing an opinion that a
piece of work is not fit for purpose and advising that more rigorous and objective approach is needed as I did - and actively advocating suppression on the grounds that it might be to subject to FoI
requests.
You also describe my concerns about the report as ‘form over substance’. This is not the case. My
concerns were very clearly about the substance of the report, in particular a conclusion that was glib
(you yourself agreed it “presented a dichotomy”) and did not address what I felt to be the real issues –
whether CQC’s regulatory action had been timely and appropriate in the case of UHMB or whether
prompter action, or better relationships with other regulators, would have benefitted patients.
I felt I had made these points during our interview, and have consulted with my current line manager,
who is also of this opinion. I have revisited the notes of the interview which you provided to me, and
do not believe these support your interpretation. Possibly the fact that I was required to attend the
interview whilst on maternity leave and was accompanied by my three month old baby, who became
distressed during the interview, may have impacted on my ability to communicate effectively. I hope I
have made my points more clearly here and trust that you will reflect these more accurately in the
final report.
I am surprised and disappointed that you do not appear to have included any reference to my
proposal that a more robust piece of external and independent scrutiny (the piece of work you are
currently engaged in) was needed to explore CQC’s regulatory action at UHMB. This does not
support your thesis that I was complicit in covering up a critical report which would damage the
reputation of the CQC; rather, it confirms that my concerns were indeed about the rigour and
objectivity of Mr J’s report. I have already sent you the full minutes of the 17 July meeting at which I
made this proposal – I include the relevant section again below. There is a clear requirement to
include this highly relevant documentary evidence from a meeting at which seven people including the
Chief Executive were in attendance, particularly given your apparent reliance on unsubstantiated
allegations elsewhere.
“AJ [Anna Jefferson] suggested we subject our historic regulatory activity about MB [Morecambe Bay]
to external independent scrutiny. The group agreed. DB [David Behan] suggested this work should be
completed before he officially starts on 28 July. AJ suggested using PWC (or similar credible
consultancy firm) rather than a clinician as this should be a scrutiny of our regulatory processes, not
clinical outcomes, and DB agreed."
Given my very serious concerns about the proposed content of the report in relation to myself, I wish
to make you aware that I will also be sharing my response with David Behan and with my current line
manager.
Regards
Anna Jefferson