The Whistleblowing Charity The Whistleblowing Commission Is the law protecting whistleblowers? A review of PIDA claims Foreword W elcome to Public Concern at Work’s latest report into the operation of the law that protects whistleblowers in the UK, the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998. In this report we highlight the key trends arising from all employment tribunal decisions in 2011-2013 which involve whistleblowing. This research comes at a time when whistleblowing continues to remain high on the public agenda with countless headlines demonstrating that whistleblowers are too often ignored and vilified rather than celebrated and championed. At the same time we have seen a major report in the NHS and new regulatory rules in the financial sector on whistleblowing as well as new guidance from government on the issue. Legislative reform has taken place; including a new public interest test, the removal of the good faith test and vicarious liability for employers for victimisation by co-workers. Regulators are also being asked to report to parliament in relation to whistleblowing activity although the fine detail of this reform is yet to be confirmed. All of this is welcome if it results in better outcomes for workers who speak truth to power. But there is also some bad news. In a year that marks the 800th anniversary of the Magna Carta it is of great concern that one of the headlines from our research demonstrates that employment tribunals are punishing claimants with costs at a far higher rate than they do respondents. Given the fact that claimants are required to pay a fee to issue an employment tribunal claim and those who are not represented fail in their cases more often, we are concerned that in whistleblowing cases the odds are stacked to a great degree against workers and the cost of justice is far too high. We highlight in this report the reforms we believe are necessary to improve matters and redress the balance. We do hope that you will find this report of interest and that you will continue to support the work of this charity to promote and protect public interest whistleblowing. Cathy James Chief Executive Public Concern at Work, the whistleblowing charity, aims to protect society by encouraging workplace whistleblowing. We do this in three ways: we operate a free, confidential advice line for workers with whistleblowing dilemmas, we support organisations in establishing effective arrangements for staff to speak up, and we inform public policy and campaign for legislative reform. Please see our website for further details: www.pcaw.org.uk Table of contents Key findings 4 Methodology 5 An introduction to the law 6 Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 6 The Whistleblowing Commission 7 The Government’s Call for Evidence and the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 8 2011-2013: A synopsis 9 Barriers to justice 15 Recommendations 18 Case studies 19 3 Key findings: Access to justice Many workers, including GPs, foster carers, non-executive directors, volunteers and healthcare students, were denied protection under the law Only 7% of claimants who brought interim relief claims were successful Fifty-six percent (56%) of claimants do not have legal representation and this group has much poorer success rates compared to those with legal representation There was a 20% drop in the number of whistleblowing claims lodged with the employment tribunal following the introduction of fees Costs of over three quarters of a million pounds were ordered in cases involving a whistleblowing claim A comprehensive review of the operation of the law is made impossible by the absence of an open register of claims A profile of claimants Sixty-six percent (66%) of claims are lodged by claimants in the private sector Twenty-one percent (21%) of claims relate to the health and social care sectors Discrimination/harassment was the most common concern in whistleblowing claims, followed by concerns about work safety and financial malpractice Ninety-one percent (91%) of whistleblowers first raise their concern internally. In cases where whistleblowers raise their concern more than once, the employer is the final recipient in 81% of cases Over £7.3 million was awarded to whistleblowing claimants 4 Methodology T his report presents our findings of a review of employment tribunal judgments handed down between 2011-2013 which involve a whistleblowing claim. We review these judgments in order to monitor the effectiveness of the whistleblowing law, the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998, and use the findings to inform our public policy objectives. The judgments we reviewed involved cases where an initial whistleblowing claim was advanced.1 In a large proportion of these cases the whistleblowing claim was either withdrawn, struck out, settled, or dismissed for some other reason. Sixty-eight percent (68%) of PIDA claims that were disposed between 1 April 2010 and 31 April 2014 were withdrawn or settled through ACAS or by the parties .2 This reflects an ongoing pattern with PIDA cases – the vast majority are withdrawn or settled. A much smaller fraction of the cases have a detailed judgment on a whistleblowing claim. Where possible we extracted information from these judgments, including the industry and sector from which the claim arose; the type of hearing (case management, preliminary, interim or a full hearing); whether the claimant had representation; the main cause of action (detriment, unfair dismissal or constructive unfair dismissal); with whom the concern was initially and then finally raised; the nature of the wrongdoing the whistleblower brought to light; the outcome of the case (won on PIDA, won on other grounds, lost or withdrawn); the damages awarded; and whether costs were ordered and the size of the order. This information was entered into a database and analysed to identify trends and patterns. We also summarised cases that contained information regarding the whistleblowing claim. We have included a selection of these cases at the end of this report (see pages 19 – 25). Acknowledgements Thank you to our Legal Research Officer Sam Bereket who led this research project and drafted the report. We would also like to thank our legal research volunteers who assisted with this project and spent many hours reading and analysing the judgments we received: Roxana Bota, Olivia Duffield, Giles Ekblom, Janine Fess, Emily Hislop, Paul Hogarth, Hafsa Jabbar, Whitnii Levon, Evan MacDonald, Juhi Mirchandani, Kerissa Naidoo and Laura Schofield. 1 As yet there is no online register of employment tribunal judgments and we are reliant on HM Courts and Tribunals Service to provide us with these judgements 2 HM Courts and Tribunal Service and the Department of Trade and Industry (now the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills, http://www.pcaw.org.uk/pida-statistics 5 An introduction to the law T he Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (PIDA) is the UK’s whistleblower protection law.3 It was introduced in response to a number of major disasters, scandals and corporate collapses in the 1980s and 1990s including the Clapham Junction rail crash, the BCCI banking scandal and the sinking of the Herald of Free Enterprise. Investigations carried out in the aftermath of these disasters revealed that staff had been aware of risk or wrongdoing but were afraid to raise their concern, ignored, or had not raised their concern in an effective way. The introduction of a law to protect whistleblowers was a vital step toward changing the cultural perception that speaking truth to power is wrong, futile or dangerous. PIDA sets out a tiered disclosure regime, which protects workers who raise concerns with their employer, with regulators and/or with a member of parliament.4 The legislation also recognises the need for wider accountability, providing protection for individuals who make disclosures of information externally with campaigning NGOs and with the media in certain circumstances. Although the provision for wider accountability is an important component in the legislation, it is rarely used in practice and most of the cases considered in this review involve whistleblowing disclosures made to employers. The law also voids any provision in a contract or settlement agreement purporting to prevent a worker from raising a public interest issue.5 PIDA protects workers and employees by giving them the right to bring a claim in the employment tribunal (ET) for uncapped compensation if they suffer detriment or are dismissed for raising a concern. PIDA provides an ‘after the event’ remedy for whistleblowers who have been victimised rather than a shield that prevents victimisation taking place. It does not require an employer or regulator to look into the issue that has been raised. Rather, it looks to compensate the worker if detriment or dismissal occurs as a result of a disclosure. PIDA is a ‘backstop’ for when things go wrong and not a substitute for an open and transparent workplace culture. The protection provided by PIDA applies from the very beginning of employment. Unlike ordinary unfair dismissal claims, there is no need for the employee to have worked for a qualifying period of employment to have a right to a claim.6 Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 The Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 (ERRA) made a number of key changes to PIDA.7 It introduced a ‘public interest’ test to PIDA in order to close a perceived legal loophole created by Parkins v Sodexho Ltd.8 In this case, it was held that workers were able to rely on PIDA if they suffer detriment or dismissal for raising a concern about a breach of their own contract of employment. The government concluded that this decision was not in keeping with the original aims of the legislation, and so introduced a new test requiring workers to have a reasonable belief that the disclosure is in the public interest. 3 Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998, http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/23/contents A change to the law introduced in 2014 means that all UK Members of Parliament (MPs) are prescribed persons under the legislation 5 Section 43J states that: "(1) Any provision in an agreement to which this section applies is void in so far as it purports to preclude the worker from making a protected disclosure." 6 This is currently 2 years under the Employment Rights Act 1996, http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2012/9780111519974 7 Sections 17-20 of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013, http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/24/contents/enacted 8 Parkins v. Sodexho Ltd [2001] UKEAT 1239_00_2206, http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2001/1239_00_2206.html 4 6 The ERRA also changed the ‘good faith’ test in PIDA. This test was originally intended as a safeguard for employers against unworthy claims but had become a powerful weapon against whistleblowers. In many cases whistleblowers found their claims dismissed on bad faith grounds, regardless of whether the information raised was made with an honestly held belief and was true. In Street v Derbyshire UWC the Court of Appeal (CA) held that where the dominant motive for making a disclosure was unrelated to the public interest objectives of PIDA, the good faith test would not be satisfied and the worker would lose the protection of the legislation.9 This was changed by a provision in the ERRA so that a disclosure does not have to be made in good faith to be protected. However, if a disclosure is found to have been made in bad faith the ET has a discretionary power to reduce compensation by up to 25%. The ERRA also extended whistleblowing protection to workers who have been bullied and harassed by co-workers as a result of making a protected disclosure. This amendment followed the release of the Francis Report into the poor care and high mortality rates at Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust,10 and was intended to close the loophole that arose following the decision in NHS Manchester v Fecitt & Ors.11 Under the amendment employers will be vicariously liable for workers and agents who victimise whistleblowers. This new liability is subject to a defence if the employer has taken all reasonable steps to prevent the victimisation. The amendment also introduced personal liability for co-workers who victimise whistleblowers. These changes to PIDA apply to disclosures made after 25 June 2013 and therefore few of the judgments analysed in this report involved consideration of the new provisions introduced in the ERRA. The Whistleblowing Commission In February 2013, we set up an independent Commission chaired by Lord Justice of Appeal Sir Anthony Hooper which included representatives from a range of disciplines. The independent Commission oversaw a public consultation and evidence gathering process to look at whistleblowing from a number of angles including the effectiveness of PIDA. In its report published in November 2013 the Commission concluded that PIDA is “not working” and immediate change is needed to ensure whistleblowers have the confidence to speak out without fear of adverse repercussions. The report made several recommendations for strengthening the whistleblowing law in the UK.12 The primary recommendation was for the introduction of a statutory Code of Practice for whistleblowing arrangements to assist employers, workers and their representatives in addressing whistleblowing concerns. This Code could be taken into account by courts when considering whistleblowing claims, and by regulators when assessing the effectiveness of the whistleblowing arrangements of those that they regulate. The Commission also called for a simplification of PIDA, extending PIDA protection to job applicants, foster carers and many other groups of workers, a more expansive definition of wrongdoing and a strengthening of the antigagging provision in PIDA. 9 Street v Derbyshire Unemployed Workers' Centre [2004] EWCA Civ 964, http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2004/964.html 10 The Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust Public Inquiry, http://www.midstaffspublicinquiry.com/ 11 In this case involving three nurses who claimed to have suffered because they blew the whistle, the CA found against the nurses saying that even though the Trust could and should have done more to protect them, the decisions taken by the Trust were not because of the whistleblowing. Significantly the CA found that employers are not vicariously liable for retaliatory acts of other workers, NHS Manchester v Fecitt & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 1190, http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2011/1190.html 12 The Whistleblowing Commission’s Report on the effectiveness of existing arrangements for workplace whistleblowing in the UK, http://www.pcaw.org.uk/files/WBC%20Report%20Final.pdf 7 Whistleblowing Framework Call for Evidence and the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 In July 2013, the Government launched its own call for evidence on the effectiveness of the whistleblowing legislation. Their response to the call for evidence was released in June 2014. It proposed a number of reforms, including: A duty on regulators to publish information about whistleblowing concerns raised with them; Improved guidance from the Government for those facing a whistleblowing dilemma and help for businesses to deliver best practice; Changing the scope of PIDA to include student nurses (but not other categories of workers, such as non-executive directors, public appointments, volunteers, interns and those working in the armed forces and national security services); A review of the ET regulatory referral process (at present a claimant must provide consent for their claim form to be sent to a regulator). The duty on regulators was the only statutory measure within the proposals and formed part of the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill (SBEEB) that entered Parliament in October 2014. SBEEB was also used as a vehicle to enact recommendations made by Sir Robert Francis in his report into the state of whistleblowing in the National Health Service. The 2015 report entitled “Freedom to Speak Up?” called on the Government to review the decision not to extend whistleblower protection for job applicants.13 The report also called for the list of regulators prescribed under PIDA to be extended to include all relevant national oversight, commissioning, scrutiny and training bodies including NHS Protect, NHS England, NHS Clinical Commissioning Groups, Public Health England, Healthwatch England, local Healthwatch, Health Education England, Local Education and Training Boards and the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. Finally, Sir Robert asked the Government to ensure that its proposal to widen the scope of protection under the Employment Rights Act 1996 includes all students working towards a career in healthcare. In response, the Government included a provision in SBEEB which provides the Secretary of State with a power through regulations to prohibit defined NHS employers from discriminating against a job applicant because it appears to the NHS employer that the applicant has made a protected disclosure. The Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 received Royal Assent in March 2015.14 Although Public Concern at Work welcomes these changes, we believe this was a missed opportunity for a comprehensive reform of the law. The many problems identified by the Whistleblowing Commission and echoed by this report into ET judgments (see pages 15 – 18) remain outstanding. 13 Report on the Freedom to Speak Up review, http://freedomtospeakup.org.uk/the-report/ Sections 148 and 149 of the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015, http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/26/contents/enacted 14 8 2011-2013: A synopsis W e read a total of 2,969 judgments including both full and preliminary hearings. 1,260 were final judgments following a substantive hearing. Of these, 12% of cases were successful on PIDA grounds, 26% were won on other grounds, and the remainder were lost or struck out. This is in line with previous research on case outcomes.15 Damages The total amount of damages awarded to successful claimants was over £7.3 million.16 This represents the small number of claims that reach final hearing. As most claims are settled before this stage, it must be the case that this figure represents but a fraction of the total amounts received in settlement of PIDA claims out of court. The highest award was given in Best v Medical Marketing International Group plc).17 In that case, a company director who was automatically unfairly dismissed for raising concerns about his fellow directors’ activities was awarded £3.4 million in compensation (see page 19 for a summary of this case). Bad faith We identified a significant rise in the number of cases where employers accused whistleblowers of acting in ‘bad faith’. Bad faith was raised in 11% of cases, an increase of 7% from cases in 20092010.18 We have long argued that a whistleblower’s motive should not matter providing the individual has a genuinely held concern. The increase in the frequency of employers questioning whistleblowers’ motives was a key reason for our campaign to remove the ‘good faith’ test from the legislation. The Government partially agreed with us on this issue and the law on good faith was changed in June 2013 (see page 7). Interim relief Fifty-seven of the judgments were for interim relief. Claimants were successful in only 7% of these hearings. Interim relief applications allow employees to bring a claim for re-instatement within 7 days of the date of dismissal. Claimants must demonstrate that their claim has a “good chance of success” to win at an interim relief hearing. If they succeed, the ET can order re-instatement or a continuation order, whereby the employer must continue to pay the claimant until the claim has been determined. Claims by sector PIDA protects a broad range of workers, across all industries and sectors. The majority of claimants in the cases reviewed for this report were from the private sector (see graph 1). 15 Whistleblowing: beyond the law, pages 13-14, http://www.pcaw.org.uk/files/PCAW_Review_beyondthelaw.pdf This figure includes awards claimants may have won for additional claims 17 Best v Medical Marketing International Group plc (in voluntary liquidation) [2013], http://www.pcaw.org.uk/files/DW%20Best%20v%20Medical%20Marketing%20International%20Group%20Plc%20'in%20v oluntary%20liquidation'.pdf 18 Ibid 15, pages 13-14 16 9 GRAPH 1: CASES BY SECTOR 4% 4% Private Public 26% Voluntary Unknown 66% 20% Sector breakdown The largest proportion of claims (21%) was brought by whistleblowers in the health and care sectors (see graph 2). We see significant differences when we compare these figures with calls to our advice line. Thirty-four percent of whistleblowing calls to our advice line stem from the health and care sectors (see graph 3). A possible reason for this disparity is that our advice line is better promoted in the health and care sectors and therefore we receive disproportionately more calls from these sectors. Another is that many claims from the care sector may be low value and will either not be issued or are settled quickly. 7% 6% 5% 4% 4% 4% 4% 3% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNKNOWN FINANCIAL SERVICES RETAIL FOOD/BEVERAGE TRANSPORT CONSTRUCTION CHARITABLE LEISURE/HOSPITALITY MANUFACTURING LEGAL SERVICES SCIENCE/TECHNOLOGY UTILITIES POLICE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OTHER 7% EDUCATION CARE HEALTH 9% 12% GRAPH 2: SECTOR BREAKDOWN The number of PIDA claims from the education sector rose from 5% in 2009-2010 to 7% in 2011-13.19 The increase in the number of calls we received to our advice line over the same period from the education sector has been more dramatic. The number of calls we received from individuals in the education sector rose by 92%, from 199 calls in 2011 to 382 in 2013. Calls from the education sector 19 Ibid 15, pages 13-14 10 made up a fifth of the calls we received in 2013 and 2014. We have an ongoing concern about a lack of coherence in the way schools are regulated. This has been compounded by a lack of local authority oversight in the growing number of academies and free schools. This potentially has a role to play in explaining the huge increase in the number of calls from the education sector. We will continue to monitor whether the factors which appear to be driving up the number of education calls to our advice line have a comparable effect on the number of claims lodged with the ET. The statistics also show that although only 1% of the whistleblowing calls we receive are from those working in transport, the number of whistleblowing claims from the transport sector stood at 4% in 2011-13. GRAPH 3: PIDA CASES AND ADVICE LINE CALLS BY TOP TEN SECTORS IN 2011 -2013 17% Whistleblowing calls to the advice line 6% 3% CHARITABLE 4% 4% 2% TRANSPORT 1% 4% 2% FOOD/BEVERAGE CONSTRUCTION 4% 3% RETAIL 5% 5% FINANCIAL SERVICES 7% 7% LOCAL GOVERNMENT 7% EDUCATION CARE HEALTH 9% 12% 16% 18% PIDA cases Types of wrongdoing Discrimination/harassment was the most common concern (18%) in the cases we reviewed (see graph 4). Work safety was the concern in 12% of cases and 9% of cases concerned financial malpractice. This can be contrasted with our advice line where financial malpractice was the most common concern during the same period (15%). There is no open register of claims to the ET. This means it is not possible to identify the type of wrongdoing that gave rise to a PIDA claim in cases that settle before trial.20 This makes it difficult to interpret how the legislation operates in practice as there is no way of knowing whether there are unreported incidents of wrongdoing or malpractice contained within these claims. We are calling on this issue to be revisited. There should be a register of PIDA claims available to the public (or at a minimum this should be available for research purposes) (see page 18). 20 Ibid 2, note that the vast majority of claims are settled 11 4% ETHICAL 2% 4% BULLYING ABUSE IN CARE 5% PUBLIC SAFETY 9% OTHER 5% 9% PRIVATE EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS PATIENT SAFETY 9% FINANCIAL MALPRACTICE WORK SAFETY DISCRIMINATION/ HARASSMENT MULTIPLE 12% 18% 23% GRAPH 4: CASES BY TYPE OF MALPRACTICE Public interest test Nine percent of the cases reviewed concerned breaches of private employment rights. It remains to be seen whether the introduction of the public interest test will result in a reduction in the number of these claims. The public interest test was not interpreted in any of the cases we reviewed. However, we noted some cases where the ET stated that if the public interest test had been in place it is possible the judgment would not have gone in the claimant’s favour. For example, in Buckley and O’Connell v Chief Constable of Nottinghamshire Constabulary, a police officer claimed a sergeant had unfairly questioned his professionalism, training qualifications and general ability, that the sergeant had received preferential treatment and that he had suffered from stress as a result. The judge commented that had the public interest test been in place, the disclosures might have failed the test and therefore might not have qualified for protection.21 The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) considered the public interest test for the first time in the case of Chesterton Global v Nurmohamed. In this case the respondent had raised a concern that between £2-3 million of actual costs and liabilities were being deliberately misstated, which affected the earnings of over 100 senior managers, himself included. The EAT accepted that Nurmohamed reasonably believed the disclosure was in the interest of the 100 managers. This was a sufficient number of people for the disclosure to be in the ‘public interest’.22 We will continue to monitor how the new ‘public interest’ test is interpreted by the courts. 21 Buckley and O’Connell v Chief Constable of Nottinghamshire Constabulary [2013], http://www.pcaw.org.uk/files/D%20Buckley%20and%20S%20O'Connell%20v%20Chief%20Constable%20of%20Nottingham shire%20Constabulary.pdf 22 Chersterton Global Ltd (t/a Chestertons) & Anor v Nurmohamed [2015] UKEAT 0335_14_0804, http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2015/0335_14_0804.html 12 With whom did claimants raise their concerns? There is a common misconception that whistleblowing necessarily involves the external disclosure of information. In reality, 73% of claimants, in the cases we reviewed, initially raised their concern with line management (see graph 5). Eighteen percent raised their concern with senior management. This means that 9 out of 10 whistleblowers first raised their concern internally. Only 2% of whistleblowers first raised their concern with a ‘prescribed person’. Prescribed persons are principally regulators, such as the Care Quality Commission, the Financial Conduct Authority or the Health and Safety Executive, but also include other persons and bodies that a worker may approach outside their workplace to report malpractice or wrongdoing such as MPs or professional bodies. GRAPH 5: WITH WHOM WAS THE CONCERN INITIALLY RAISED? Manager, 73% 17% Senior Management/Executive, 17% Other, 6% Prescribed Person, 2% 6% 73% 2% Multiple, 2% 2% In the cases where the whistleblower raised their concern more than once, the final recipient of the concern was senior management in 54% of cases (see graph 6). The concern was still raised within the organisation in 81% of the cases. The claimant approached a prescribed person in 6% of cases. The media, MPs and the police were the final recipients in 1% of cases respectively. This is in keeping with previous statistics on the operation of the legislation.23 23 Where's whistleblowing now? 10 years of legal protection for whistleblowers, page 6, http://www.pcaw.org.uk/files/PIDA_10year_Final_PDF.pdf 13 GRAPH 6: WITH WHOM WAS THE CONCERN FINALLY RAISED? Senior Management/Executive, 54% 27% Manager, 27% 6% Prescribed Person, 6% 6% Other, 6% Multiple, 4% 4% Media, 1% Police, 1% 1% 1% 54% 1% MP, 1% These findings support the results of our collaborative research project with the University of Greenwich24, and the results of our bi-annual YouGov survey.25 24 The resulting report detailed the experiences of 1,000 whistleblowers and found that the vast majority of whistleblowers only ever raise their concern internally, Whistleblowing: The Inside Story (May 2013), http://www.pcaw.org.uk/files/Whistleblowing%20-%20the%20inside%20story%20FINAL.pdf 25 Our 2013 YouGov survey also found that 83% of workers said they would like to raise a concern about wrongdoing or malpractice directly with their employers, http://www.pcaw.org.uk/files/PRYouGovFINAL%202013.pdf 14 Barriers to justice Protection of workers P IDA applies to all workers as defined by section 230(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA 1996). Additionally, by virtue of section 43K of PIDA, a number of other categories of worker are protected including contractors, agency workers and trainees. We came across many cases where whistleblowers were denied protection because they did not fall within PIDA’s definition of worker, including GPs, foster carers, non-executive directors, and student nurses and doctors.26 One of the recommendations of the Whistleblowing Commission called for an extension of the scope of PIDA to reflect the Equality Act 2010 which provides more comprehensive protection for workers.27 We would strongly agree with this recommendation. If the law is to fulfil its objective of encouraging public interest whistleblowing, all groups of workers who may need to report wrongdoing, risk or malpractice should be included within its scope. Legal representation In the cases we reviewed, 40% of claimants were self-represented, 44% had legal representation, 9% were assisted by an unqualified representative and 4% were represented by friends or family. Claimants were significantly more likely to be successful in their claim where they had legal representation (see graph 7). Claimants who were represented were also more likely to withdraw their claims. It is worrying that representation is having such a significant impact on the outcome of cases as the ET is supposed to be a litigant in person friendly environment. This reflects our experience on our advice line that many litigants in person have difficulties in understanding the procedural aspects of the ET system. GRAPH 7: CASES BY OUTCOME WON ON OTHER GROUNDS LOST 3% 2% 31% 23% 13% 9% WON ON PIDA 53% Represented litigants 68% Self-represented litigants WITHDRAWN The situation has been exacerbated by significant changes to civil legal aid in England and Wales which came into effect in 2013. These changes have meant that legal aid is no longer available in 26 There have also been significant decisions over the last two years which extend the remit of workers who can seek a remedy under PIDA. See Clyde & Co LLP & Anor v van Winklehof (Rev 1) [2014] UKSC 32 http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2014/32.html and Keppel Seghers UK Ltd v Hinds [2014] UKEAT 0019_14_2006 (20 June 2014) http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2014/0019_14_2006.html 27 Ibid 12, Recommendation 10 15 whistleblowing claims. During this time we have seen an increase in the number of whistleblowers approaching our advice line in need of legal assistance and representation. We argue that more assistance should be provided to claimants in whistleblowing cases. Cuts to legal aid should also be reversed. Whistleblowing claims should be treated in the same way as discrimination claims, and legal aid support should continue to be provided. We also agree with the Whistleblowing Commission’s recommendation that the Government undertake research to assess whether there should be a state sponsored agency with responsibility for whistleblowing.28 Costs Our research has demonstrated a worrying increase in the number and size of costs ordered against claimants. The total amount of costs ordered against claimants bringing PIDA claims was £753,135, while for respondents this figure was much smaller at £183,992.29 These figures do not take into account the many cases we came across that were referred to the county court because the size of the costs sought exceeded the capped amount the ET can award.30 Many callers on our advice line ask about costs. When coupled with the introduction of fees in the employment tribunal system, many individuals are deterred from seeking justice in the ET. If this vital safety net is weakened, workers may be put off raising a concern in the first place. If we are to overcome the sense that the law is not working, then there is an urgent need for a review of the costs regime in the ET and for PIDA claims to be separately reviewed on public interest grounds when costs orders are being considered. Allegations Many of the cases we reviewed confirmed our concern about the distinction drawn between allegations and disclosures of information. This distinction arises from the case of Cavendish Munro Professional Risk Management Ltd v Geduld.31 The EAT held that while a disclosure of information was protected, making allegations did not qualify for protection. The judgment explained that communicating information would, for example, be "the wards have not been cleaned for the past two weeks. Yesterday, sharps were left lying around." In contrast with stating: "you are not complying with Health and Safety requirements," which would be an allegation and not protected. In one of the cases we read the claimant’s disclosures about being so overworked that she was suffering “stress and was unable to take breaks” was held to be an allegation rather than a disclosure of information.32 In another case it was held that the claimant had not conveyed information when they made disclosures about risk assessments not being performed and failures that were made in a redundancy process.33 28 Ibid 12, Recommendation 25 It was reported last year that in the case of Makanjuola v London Borough of Waltham Forest, among the cases we read for this report, the ET awarded costs of £117,110.73 against Makanjuola subject to a detailed assessment. Unless the detailed assessment reduces the costs award, it is thought that this will be the largest single costs award made by the ET, http://www.bristows.com/newsletters/costs-in-the-employment-tribunal#sthash.a48B63L0.dpuf 30 For all cases presented on or after April 2012, the maximum amount of costs an ET can award has been increased from £10,000 to £20,000 31 Cavendish Munro Professional Risks Management Ltd v. Geduld (Rev 1) [2009] UKEAT 0195_09_0608, http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2009/0195_09_0608.html 32 Delikatnaya v Roust Trading (Cyprus) Ltd t/a Russian Standard Vodka International, 2202004/2013 33 Gebremariam v Ethiopian Airlines Enterprise (t/a Ethiopian Airlines) 3301965/2011 29 16 The Whistleblowing Commission recommended that this distinction between an ‘allegation’ and ‘information’ is artificial and undermines the purpose of the legislation which is to offer a remedy to workers who suffer victimisation for raising a concern.34 Workers who are facing a dilemma about whether to raise a concern should not also have to worry about whether their disclosure would fall on the right side of the allegation/information distinction. We continue to call for this gap in the legal protection to be remedied. Fees On 29 July 2013, fees were introduced in the ET and in the EAT. All claimants must now pay a fee to issue a claim and to proceed to a hearing. Simple claims such as unlawful deductions from wages cost £160 to issue and £230 for the case to be heard. More complex claims, such as discrimination and whistleblowing claims, cost £250 to issue and £950 for the hearing. It can be seen from the table below that this is having an impact on the number of whistleblowing claims being issued. 2,744 PIDA claims were received and accepted by the ET during 2012-13. This figure fell by almost 20% to 2,212 during 2013-14. The number of applications made to an Employment Tribunal under the Public Interest Disclosure Act (1998)35 Year 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 Number of PIDA Applications 2,200 2,500 2,744 2,212 We are concerned that the new fees regime does not take into account the public policy aims that underpin PIDA. The purpose of the legislation is described in the preamble to the Act as being: ‘to protect individuals who make certain disclosures of information in the public interest; to allow such individuals to bring action in respect of victimisation; and for connected purposes.’ The key policy aim is to provide legal protection for individuals who witness wrongdoing, malpractice or a danger in their workplace, so they can raise their concern at the earliest opportunity. Without this vital backstop, whistleblowers may be discouraged from coming forward, and this could have disastrous consequences for the public interest. In our response to the Ministry of Justice’s consultation on ‘Charging Fees in Employment Tribunals and Employment Appeal Tribunal’, we recommended that PIDA claims should be entirely exempt from the fee structure or that there should be a means by which the fee can be suspended or waived if it is in the public interest to pursue the claim. Alternatively, we recommended that the level of fees charged should be reduced so as to avoid a chilling effect on whistleblowing in the future. We maintain this opposition to the fees regime and call on the government to reconsider the appropriateness of imposing fees on whistleblowing claims. 34 35 Ibid 12, Recommendation 19 Ibid 2 17 Recommendations As a result of this research and the work of the Whistleblowing Commission there are many areas in need of reform in the UK’s whistleblowing legal framework. We set these out below: Recommendation 1: PIDA should be simplified and should contain a nonexhaustive list of the categories of wrongdoing, including gross waste or mismanagement of funds and serious misuse or abuse of authority Recommendation 8: The decision of Cavendish Munro Professional Risk Management v Geduld should be overturned so that the distinction between allegations and information is removed Recommendation 9: PIDA should be amended to include obtaining advice from trade unions Recommendation 2: PIDA protection should be extended to all job applicants, General Practitioners in the health service, regardless of their contractual arrangements, volunteers and interns, nonexecutive directors, public appointments, ministers of religion, foster carers and all categories of workers listed under the Equality Act 2010 Recommendation 10: There should be a register of PIDA claims available to the public (or at a minimum this should be available for research purposes) Recommendation 11: The Government should reconsider the appropriateness of imposing fees on whistleblowing cases Recommendation 3: PIDA protection should be extended to cover overseas workers raising concerns about their UK employers and subsidiaries Recommendation 12: The Government should undertake research to assess whether there should be a state sponsored agency with responsibility for whistleblowing Recommendation 4: Workers who are wrongly identified as having made a protected disclosure should be protected Recommendation 13: Legal aid should be available in whistleblowing claims and whistleblowing claimants should be better supported Recommendation 5: The causation tests for dismissal and detriment in PIDA should be the same Recommendation 6: The interim relief provisions in PIDA should apply to detriment as well as dismissal and the time within which to bring an interim relief claim should be extended Recommendation 14: The Government should introduce an online system of all ET judgments in order to increase transparency and knowledge of the law Recommendation 15: PIDA claims should be separately reviewed on public interest grounds when costs orders are being considered and the costs regime should be reviewed Recommendation 7: The anti-gagging provision in Section 43J PIDA should be amended to make it clearer and advice on the impact of this provision should be given to claimants upon settlement 18 Case studies T he cases we reviewed reinforce the importance of whistleblowing as a way of bringing to light public interest concerns, and remind us of the price many whistleblowers pay for speaking truth to power. The following is a selection of some of the cases we considered during the course of our research for this report. Ball; Gomez Soto – v – Improving Prospects Ltd Case No.: 1401349/2012; 1400386/2012 Gomez suffered a period of anxiety and was very concerned about the organisation’s behaviour and cover-up, so escalated the concerns to the CQC and the local safeguarding team. Gomez was dismissed a couple of months later on spurious grounds. The employer’s criticism of whistleblowers was an attempt to deflect attention from malpractice The ET found that the respondent operated a culture in which it was unwilling to accept that there could be any legitimacy in criticisms of their care of the service user. Gomez and Ball’s treatment was designed to distract attention away from the concern they raised. Both Gomez and Ball were found to have suffered detriment and automatic unfair dismissal by virtue of making a protected disclosure. Gomez and Ball both worked as support workers in the home of a man with learning difficulties and challenging behaviour. The respondent had won the contract to operate the funded care package. Gomez and Ball raised concerns regarding the restraint techniques used on the service user by a fellow support worker. In one instance, Gomez witnessed the support worker inappropriately restrain the service user by lying on top of him and in another there were reports that the support worker had been involved in dragging the service user along the floor. Ball was awarded £35,764 in damages including the sum of £31,500 for injury to feelings. Gomez Soto was awarded £51,662 in damages including £28,000 for injury to feelings. The support worker the two of them reported was suspended but then returned to work the next day. Best – v – Medical Marketing International Group Plc ‘in voluntary liquidation’ Case No.: 1501248/2008 Gomez and Ball subsequently found themselves under close scrutiny and had tenuous allegations made against them. The claimant’s unfair dismissal for whistleblowing caused him considerable reputational damage Gomez was subjected to a disciplinary process where she was kept in the dark about allegations and was not allowed a union representative. Although there were no reported allegations of wrongdoing regarding Gomez’s behaviour, the organisation also reported her to the CQC. Gomez was eventually dismissed for gross misconduct. Best was Executive Chairman and Group Managing Director of the Medical Marketing International Group Plc, where he became concerned about the conduct of his fellow Board Members. He suspected the directors were depressing the price of shares in the company by withholding the results of clinical trials allowing the company's stock to be bought at an artificially low price. Further, he believed they were transferring assets from 19 the Respondent Company to subsidiaries and leaving liabilities in the Respondent. implemented. She was also concerned that the service user was going to be attending the same youth club at the same time as the patient whom he had accused of sexual assault. She sent an email expressing her concerns to members of the multi-agency team. After raising these concerns with his colleagues, Best was dismissed under the guise of an irretrievable breakdown of trust and confidence between him and the Board. The ET concluded Best was dismissed because he raised concerns and commented that the mindset of the Respondent Company was to rid themselves of Best whose pointed and persistent concerns were causing unease. The fact that there had been a breakdown in relations between Best and the rest of the Board, the ET added, was because the Board refused to consider the concerns Best had raised or address them with any seriousness. Bhebne was suspended and redeployed for sending the email on the grounds that it breached confidentiality. There were also complaints from others in the multi-agency team about her professionalism. In the meantime, the service user’s file could not be located and it later transpired that Bhebne had retained his notes to defend her position. Bhebne sought advice from a legal consultant who wrote a letter raising a grievance that she had suffered a detriment for having made protected disclosures. The letter from the legal consultant was sent by post. It contained sensitive patient information. The ET found that Best's dismissal had caused him substantial reputational damage in the pharmaceutical and biomedical world. Best was awarded £3,402,245.31. The ET held that the email sent by Bhebne to the multi-agency team was related to an exceptionally serious concern and was protected under section 43H of PIDA notwithstanding the issue of patient confidentiality. This was inextricably bound with the protected disclosure. The ET noted that although cases under section 43H are rare, the reasonableness of making the disclosure would be judged objectively, having regard to the identity of the person to whom the disclosure was made. In relation to the serious nature of the disclosure, the ET commented that they would be influenced by the number of people affected and also the nature of the harm. Bhebhe – v – Birmingham Community Healthcare NHS Trust Case No.: 1304678/2011; 1311736/2012 A disclosure regarding an exceptionally serious concern is protected (s.43H); a disclosure to an employment consultant is protected (S.43D) Bhebne was a senior nurse working for Birmingham Community Healthcare NHS Trust. She was part of a multi-agency team looking after a service user with learning disabilities. An opportunity arose for the service user to attend a residential weekend. A risk assessment was signed by the organisers but was not applied because they felt it was unduly restrictive. The ET ruled in favour of a wide interpretation of section 43D of PIDA, which protects workers who make a disclosure to a legal adviser. It held that the legislation does cover individuals who seek legal advice from an employment consultant relating to their disclosure. The service user complained that he had been sexually assaulted by another patient during the weekend. Bhebne became concerned that the risk assessment for the weekend had not been Bhebne was awarded £6,098, £6,000 of which 20 was for injury to feelings. Remedy unknown Champion – v – Leicester City Council Case No.: 1950119/2010 Clinton – v – After Care (North West) Limited Case No.: 2100739/2011 An employer’s failure to deal with a concern in line with their whistleblowing policy constitutes a detriment An employer’s failure to respect a whistleblower’s confidentiality and prevarication over addressing grievances constitutes a detriment Champion was a Planning Officer at Leicester City Council and responsible for administering the tree protection mechanisms. In March 2007, Champion recommended that an application by a fellow employee to fell trees be refused. The application was refused and a Tree Replacement Notice (TRN) was served on this employee in December 2008. Clinton was employed as a residential childcare worker in a care home. In July 2010, she met with the managing director of the home to tell him she had witnessed the manager and the deputy manager taking money out of petty cash. She also alleged that undated taxi receipts were fabricated. The managing director reported the matter to the operations manager who in turn informed those accused of the allegations. In a subsequent meeting, Champion claimed that this fellow employee had purchased the land in question in 1999 after using his then power to declare a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) on the site and thereby render it commercially worthless. From 2001-2007, he began removing trees that were subject to TPOs with the intention of developing the land for residential purposes. Clinton was then subjected to a series of detriments. Her calls were ignored by colleagues, she received conflicting instructions from her managers and accusations were made that she was grooming young people in her care. This resulted in sickness absence due to work related stress and culminated in her constructive unfair dismissal four months after she raised her concern. The accused employee did not comply with the TRN and personally attacked Champion in correspondence with colleagues and others. Champion was kept in the dark for months regarding the whistleblowing investigation, resulting in him taking time off work with work related stress. In August 2010, following his lengthy absence, Champion was dismissed on capability grounds. The ET agreed that Clinton had been subjected to detriment and unfairly dismissed for whistleblowing. It was satisfied that the detrimental acts amounted to a significant breach going to the root of the contract and that the motivation behind the acts were the concerns raised by Clinton. The ET found that the respondent failed to keep Clinton’s concerns confidential and had prevaricated over resolving the grievance lodged by her in response to the way she had been treated. Champion claimed he had been subjected to a detriment and unfairly dismissed for making a protected disclosure. The ET ruled in Champion’s favour. Champion’s illness was caused by his exclusion from meetings and the removal of his responsibilities as well as the failure of the organisation to deal with the concern he raised in line with their whistleblowing policy, including their failure to inform Champion of the outcome of the investigation. Clinton was awarded £30,400 including £20,000 for injury to feelings. 21 Fulton – v – Austin Hughes t/a Camden Place Dental Practice Case No.: 2410615/2009 Garside – v – Darlington Primary Care Trust Case No.: 2512351/2009 A disclosure to a professional body is protected A concern can be raised through an agent Fulton was employed as a trainee dental nurse at Camden Place Dental Practice. Three weeks into her employment she suffered a needlestick injury. That same day Fulton's mother called the organisation on her daughter's behalf to express concerns about health and safety. Ten days later Fulton was dismissed. The employer cited Fulton's conduct and competence as the reason for the dismissal. Garside was a nurse working in Low Newton prison for Darling Primary Care Trust. He was known to be very diligent in ensuring compliance with proper procedures. For example, inmates had a tendency to ‘pouch’ medication they received in their mouths instead of swallowing so that they could smuggle the drugs onto other inmates. Garside began to inspect this and started to implement a new system of inspecting inmates’ mouths after giving the medication. Garside raised a concern regarding a doctor who was prescribing a number of paracetamol packets to an inmate known to be on suicide risk. After raising the matter internally, Garside raised the issue with the professional body for doctors, the General Medical Council. Fulton and her family were concerned about the risk that she had contracted an infectious disease during the needle stick injury and were dismayed by the employer’s passivity in dealing with this issue. Fulton's mother contacted the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). Fulton secured employment in another dental practice but Camden Place Dental Practice found out about her new employment and informed them that a concern had been raised with the HSE. Fulton was subsequently dismissed by her new employer. Around the same time a number of complaints were made about Garside by inmates and by his colleagues. An internal investigation was launched and Garside was suspended, disciplined and finally dismissed. His dismissal was later retracted after some issues with correct notice periods. Fulton claimed she had been subjected to several acts of detriment as a result of the concerns raised by her mother. The ET found in Fulton’s favour and held a concern can be raised by an agent. It held that Fulton had been subjected to a number of detriments including her former employer’s decision to inform her new employer of the concern raised with the HSE. Garside pursued a claim for detriment for having blown the whistle. The ET found that the claim for detriment based on the making of a protected disclosure was well founded. The ET noted that the complaints from the inmates had to be seen in the light of Garside being a meticulous nurse enforcing new, stricter procedures which would make him unpopular with inmates. The ET also found that the internal investigation carried out by the organisation lasted a long time, was protracted and incompetently handled. The concern raised by Garside was held to be a very serious matter which the employer had done its best to bury by attempting to eject him on the basis of very doubtful grounds. Remedy unknown. Garside was awarded £58,052.50, £20,000 of 22 which was for injury to feelings. dismissal was that he had made protected disclosures. Harlock – v – Mouchel Limited Case No.: 1200984/2011 Remedy unknown. Stress and depression suffered because an employer does not deal with the concern raised constitutes a detriment Mehmet – v – Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd Case No.: 2313194/2010 An employer is vicariously liable for an assault on a whistleblower Mouchel Limited was engaged in a 12 year public/private partnership with the local authority of the Borough of Milton Keynes (“The Council”). The organisation had a team whose key responsibility was to manage and maintain the Council’s bridges and highway structures within budget. Mehmet was working as a Night Shift Assistant for the supermarket giant Sainsbury’s. He was concerned that two of his colleagues were stealing goods and raised this with the Loss Prevention Manager. The management team at Mehmet’s store was informed of the allegations and that Mehmet had raised the concern. An investigation was launched but no action was taken against the accused. There was an altercation between Mehmet and one of those accused of the theft. Mehmet punched this colleague in selfdefence after a verbal and physical attack. Both Mehmet and the accused were dismissed following a disciplinary process. Harlock worked for Mouchel Limited as a Bridge Inspector and found a number of structural defects which he considered to be serious safety issues. Harlock reported this to management but rather than take action, the employer accused Harlock of undermining management. Over the course of 2010, Harlock escalated his concern to various people, including representatives from the council, his local councillor, the Mayor of the Council and his MP. He informed his employer of his actions. The ET held that Mehmet was attacked because of the concern he raised regarding the theft of goods and that the attack on him was sufficiently closely connected with his employment for the employer to be vicariously liable. Harlock lodged a formal grievance with his employer. He was absent from work due to illness for four months and was subsequently made redundant. Sainsbury's was ordered to re-engage Mehmet and pay him £30,971.50, including £9,000 for injury to feelings. Harlock claimed he had been subjected to detriment as a result of his employer’s refusal to deal with the concerns he had raised. As a consequence, he suffered stress and depression. The ET found in favour of the claimant. The organisation could not establish that it had ignored the disclosures for any other reason than that alleged by Harlock. The ET also found that although there was a redundancy situation at the time of Harlock’s dismissal, the principal reason for Harlock’s 23 O’Donnell – v – A2 Dominion Housing Group Case No.: 2200934/2011 Packman – v – Retrograde Limited Case No.: 1100693/2012 A worker’s external disclosure regarding a child safeguarding matter is protected A worker’s disclosure to his employer regarding his van being overloaded is protected O’Donnell worked as a Resettlement and Support Officer for A2 Dominion Housing Group, providing housing assistance to individuals with disabilities in London. She was providing support to two residents (X and Y), the first of whom was being criminally investigated for abusing the second resident’s young daughter, Y2. The Crown Prosecution Service dropped the case but the threat to Y’s daughter remained a concern. Packman was employed as a driver for Retrograde Limited, a transport company that collects recyclable waste from charity shops. Packman became concerned that his vehicle was being loaded with excessive weight and feared that he could lose his licence and be subject to a fine if stopped by the police. Packman texted his manager several times informing him of the situation, asking for advice and saying he was taking a safety risk and breaking the law. His manager initially did not believe him and said Packman should stop working for them. The organisation secured alternative accommodation for X to keep him away from Y2. O’Donnell became aware that X’s new flat was near to Y & Y2, and raised the matter with her employer. O’Donnell then discovered X could look directly into Y2’s bedroom due to the proximity of his flat to Y. She raised this with her employer and Y’s social worker. Packman was subsequently engaged on a more casual basis where he would work on an “as required” basis. While working under this new agreement, Packman raised further concerns with his manager about his van being overloaded. His manager told him to “stop moaning” and assured him that if Packman was fined, the organisation would pay for it. O’Donnell was informed that she was to be suspended for her disclosure to the social worker because she had circumvented management in doing so and there were concerns she had breached X’s confidentiality. O’Donnell suffered a mental breakdown in response to the way she was treated and was advised by her doctor to not go back to work until the matter had been resolved. O’Donnell resigned after she was threatened with further disciplinary action for her refusal to return to work. Packman expressed further concerns about losing his licence. In January 2012, his manager sent him a text informing him he was dismissed and would not receive any more work, stating “no driver dictates what they will and won’t do…”. The ET held that O’Donnell’s claims for detriment and unfair constructive dismissal were well-founded. The employer could not have had a reasonable belief that O’Donnell had breached X’s confidentiality because her decision to approach the social worker with the concern in question was reasonable given the severity of the continuing danger to Y2. The ET found that the dismissive responses to his concerns, renegotiating his working arrangement to a more casual basis and having his work stopped after January 2012 were all detriments which were linked to the fact that Packman had raised concerns about the weight of his van. O’Donnell was awarded £81,965.50. Packman was awarded £600 for accrued but untaken holiday pay. A separate hearing was 24 set for a later date to determine further remedy. him over £20,000 in damages. Thompson – v – Northern Balance Limited Case No.: 1604809/2011 Sanderson – v – Audere Medical Case No.: 1604809/2011 A disciplinary process constitutes a detriment A disclosure to a legal adviser is protected Thompson was employed as a service engineer by Northern Balance Limited. He raised health and safety concerns with his manager about the incorrect use of slings for hanging pans, after which he was subjected to disciplinary action and issued with a final written warning. Thompson soon after resigned. Thompson pursued a claim for detriment and automatic constructive unfair dismissal. Sanderson was employed as a field services engineer for the respondent. He believed that his employer was overcharging the NHS. The respondent’s whistleblowing policy stated that employees who raise a concern to an outside entity, without having first raised their concerns internally, may face disciplinary action. Sanderson informed his employer that he had sought advice from Public Concern at Work about his concerns. After a series of meetings, Sanderson was suspended and dismissed as a result of various allegations, the majority of which relating to incidents which had occurred months ago. The ET held that the respondent had behaved unreasonably in disciplining Thompson on trumped up charges and that this was in retaliation to the concern he had raised. The preparation of a compromise agreement and a final written warning in advance of the conclusion of the disciplinary meeting was taken by the ET as further evidence that the employer’s actions were unfair and their behaviour amounted to a repudiatory breach of Thompson’s employment contract which amounted to constructive unfair dismissal. Sanderson claimed that he had been dismissed for having made a protected disclosure to a legal adviser (s.43 (D)) (Public Concern at Work). The ET upheld Sanderson’s claim and awarded Thompson was awarded £30,000. 25 The Whistleblowing Commission Public Concern at Work 3rd Floor, Bank Chambers 6-10 Borough High Street London SE1 9QQ Tel: 020 7404 6609 (advice line) Tel: 020 3117 2520 (other enquiries) Fax: 020 7403 8823 Email: whistle@pcaw.org.uk www.pcaw.org.uk VAT no 626 7725 17 Registered charity number 1025557 Company registered in England 2849833