1).  I am not looking to discourage and suppress public interest whistle blowing.  I am looking to demonstrate by bringing publicity to my case that the existing protection offered to “whistle-blowers” is inadequate and that changes need to be made, before particularly individuals working for public bodies can feel confident that they will be protected if they do what is right.   My experience was that not only did the NHS offer me no assistance at all, even though I was a proven “whistle-blower”, they refused to investigate my claims of wrong doing at St George’s Hospital until 2004 more than three years after I made the allegations.  If the NHS genuinely want to help “whistle-blowers”, why did they allow the St George’s Chairman Miss McLoughlin and Chief Executive Ian Hamilton to given false information to the Employment Tribunal about the matter being sorted out quickly, when the official report issued years later showed that the “whistle-blowing” excuses went on for months and months.  You say I view you actions as a personal attack and the answer is yes I do, because you miss out vital information like this, which proves what I said in the Employment Tribunal was true and what the NHS said was untrue, yet because of the way the NHS timed events, they managed to get the Employment Tribunal Chairman to rule that the “whistle-blowing” was not related to my dismissal, when it was of course the major reason for my dismissal.   Proper protection should have ensured that the matter was properly investigated at the time of the Employment Tribunal and not years later when it was far to late to have it produced in evidence to support my case.  This is of course all ties in with why I was denied my right to an internal NHS appeal against my proven unfair dismissal, it ensured that the matter of my “whistle-blowing” was never going to investigated by anyone other than the very people who had everything to lose if it was proven to be the reason for my dismissal.

2). St George’s claimed that the “Whistle-blowing” took place a year before my dismissal.  While it is true it was in October 2001 that I made the protected disclosure and as a result stopped the mis-reporting of cancelled operations figures it was on Thursday July 25^th 2003, while I was on leave that the Hospital Star Ratings were published.  What the ratings showed was that St George’s had achieved the requisite target level in eight of the nine categories on which hospitals were assessed to determine if they would win three star status and be able to become Foundation status hospitals the ambition of every large hospital like St George’s.  The only category that St George’s failed in and which prevented them from achieving three star status, was the cancelled operations target which through my “whistle-blowing” I had stopped from being manipulated.  On my first minute back in the hospital on Monday 29^th July 2003, after this information was made public I was asked to resign from my  post and told that if I refused I would be subject to a disciplinary hearing that would make sure I never worked in the NHS ever again.  During the Employment Tribunal the NHS witnesses denied that the three star ratings were published on the 25^th July and it was left to me to produce the information that showed this was exactly the date that the impact of my “whistle-blowing” became apparent.    Why the Employment Tribunal decided that this did not cast any doubt on their decision that the “whistle-blowing” was nothing to do with my dismissal is a matter for them, but it does not alter the factual position which you could check for yourself through the links on my website if you were so minded. 

3). Another mystery was why the Employment Tribunal decided that I had become impossible to work with.  I was a long-standing employee of some sixteen years and no formal complaint was made about me either before or after the “whistle-blowing”.  In fact at the beginning of 2001 just ten months before I made my protected disclosure I was asked to extend my management responsibilities at the St George’s and take on the management of the Computing and Information functions in addition  to my existing duties of managing the Finance, Procurement and Legal functions.   Only three witness gave evidence on behalf of the St George’s to the Employment Tribunal and these were the Chief Executive who was the person who had asked me to resign, the Chairman of the Trust who chaired  what the Employment Tribunal found as a matter of fact was an unfair and biased disciplinary hearing and Miss Mark who was only other person to sit with the Chairman while she conducted her unfair and biased disciplinary.  On my side many people came and gave evidence to refute the fact that I was impossible to work with,  the Deputy Director of Finance, the Head of Information, the Chief Accountant, the acting Director of Finance of a Primary Care Trust, Tracy Goulding the person who originally reported the mis-reporting of the cancelled operations, the longest serving General Manager in the hospital Dr Cumberbatch , my secretary and unusually my solicitor.  All gave evidence on oath to say that what was being said about me was untrue and that not only was I easy to work with but they all had no knowledge of any complaints or concerns ever having been raised about me, prior to the NHS disciplinary hearing.  Why the Employment Tribunal preferred the evidence of the three people who had been responsible for my proven unfair dismissal, rather than evidence given by a range of St George’s senior employees is again a mystery to me.   If you want to check the validity of this again you can check out most of my witnesses statements on my website www.nhsexpose.co.uk .  I must admit when the Employment Tribunal ordered the disclosure of the KPMG report towards the end of the hearing, which showed the Trust had given perjured evidence to the Tribunal, when they had claimed under oath that a fair procedure had been followed and that discussions about dismissing me prior to the start of disciplinary proceedings against me had not taken place, I had thought that this would have persuaded the Tribunal that it was my witnesses (who had nothing to gain from giving evidence on behalf of an ex-employee against their current employer) who should have been believed.  However, despite refusing my barristers request that Miss McLoughlin return to be further cross examined to explain why what she had said under oath had been so clearly contradicted by the KPMG report, the Employment Tribunal still decided to believe Miss McLoughlin, Mr Hamilton and Miss Mark instead of my witnesses.

4).  I simply do not understand the point you make here.  The fact that the courts have not referred to my claim that I was principally fired because of “Whistle-blowing” does not mean I have not made it clear when I have submitted the appeals that this was the principal reason for my dismissal.  Every appeal I have made makes this perfectly clear.  There are lots of things about the reasoning of the Courts I do not understand.  For instance I do not understand why my Court of Appeal hearing scheduled for the 12^th May 2005, was for an unexplained  judicial decision (taken less than twenty-four hours before the hearing date) switched to the 28^th July 2005 giving rise to additional legal fees in excess of £20,000.   

6).  I don’t quite know how I get it through to you that I am still claiming that my Court of Appeal case was about the whistle blowing law.  Again you are looking at my case from too narrow a viewpoint.  The fact that the Court of Appeal did not see it was connected to “Whistle-blowing” is part of what I am complaining about. 

7). (i) & (ii)  You claim that I did not contact you until 2004.  This is simply untrue I first contacted you in July 2003 on the advice of Dr Tony Wright MP the then Chairman of the Public Administration Select Committee well before the result of my Employment Tribunal was known and over a year before my case went to the Employment Appeal Tribunal, asking for assistance.   I still have copies of the e-mails that we exchanged at the time and they do not contain any of the detailed legal advice that your recent e-mails to me have contained.   

(iii)  I also agree with you point that making a protected disclosure should not provide absolute immunity because it is possible that even “Whistle-blowers” could be capable of other wrong doing.  However, the law is not strong enough where in cases like mine, at very senior level in public sector organisations, proven “whistle-blowing” can be so easily dismissed without proper independent investigation. 

For your information I am forwarding a copy of this e-mail to Heather Mills at Private Eye.

Yours sincerely

Ian Perkin

Guy Dehn
Director
Public Concern at Work