We should be able to sue the NHS

This culture of secrecy and gagging orders needs to be changed.

There are few more divisive political topics than the NHS. Those interfering with it risk the wrath of keyboard warriors, campaigners, journalists and politicians.

At the extremes, there are views that we are either dangerously nudging towards privatisation, or sleep walking into low quality "socialised" health provision that is far below the average standard of care within the developed world.

But regardless of which side of the political divide you sit on, it is hard to deny that the NHS needs to up its game.

However at the top of both camps’ hitlist are lawyers, it seems. “Ambulance chasers” lining their pockets on tax payers’ money, fleecing the NHS for every last penny when things go wrong. Because of this it seems anyone bringing a case against the NHS feels guilty for doing so, or, worse, treacherous.

But should that be the case?  No one else has the political will to change the NHS for the better. One could argue we are in a catch 22 situation where a decade of Labour "investment" is followed by a few more years of partial privatisation and Tory tinkering. None of which confronts the main problems faced by the NHS: massive institutional failings.

As a lawyer who has experienced the very best of NHS care when I severed my spinal cord during a motorcycle accident, it saddens me that now the NHS is stuck between a rock and a hard place, where politicians seem unable to tackle the institutions’ problems head on.

Alongside waste and poor distribution of resources, another major failing is at the frontline. While the NHS is staffed by compassionate, caring and committed workers, there are huge understaffing problems and many are locked into a system that breeds institutional negligence and huge, catastrophic mistakes. That’s why lawyers step in - as an important check and balance to try and raise standards of care within the NHS by investigating wrong doing, highlighting malpractice, negligence and failed systems.

This is not a small issue. Data shows that NHS negligence claims are on the increase - by 20 per cent year-on-year and 80 per cent since 2008. That’s a monumental £19bn bill – one fifth of the NHS budget. This is to service claims made by over 16,000 patients and families of those bereaved. These are voters of both political persuasions – left and right.

So are these costs purely to line the pockets of ambulance chasing scum or is this money compensation for patients and families who have suffered horrendous, life changing, often preventable incidents?

Month on month at Fletchers Solicitors, we are contacted about hundreds of new clinical negligence cases. These are terrible cases of people who have been denied basic care, such as food or water, suffered catastrophic injuries from simple surgical errors, right through to repeated and systematic failure to diagnose symptoms of preventable yet life-threatening illnesses.

While the individual stories are of course tragic the cost to the exchequer is also appalling. The fact of the matter is that the bulk of the £19bn cost could be dramatically reduced if the NHS’ culture of secrecy and gagging orders were changed in favour of a more open and honest approach to dealing with negligence investigations.

The majority of costs are not for compensation but proportional to the time taken to investigate the facts of the case and establish guilt. Claims against the NHS take longer than any other industry, and accrue more costs as a result.  Often cases take three times as long when most private sector businesses would have admitted guilt at a much earlier stage. An accountable NHS could shave tens of billions of its legal bill.

So should we sue the NHS? In a perfect world the medical negligence marketplace would be small and compensation would be given to people who deserved it.

Today there is now a large legal market which ultimately feeds off a sometimes disorganised and chaotic NHS. It’s our view, however, that the most important consideration for legal action against the NHS is that families whose lives have been destroyed by failings can in some way rebuild them again using their compensation.  Yes, it’s controversial but we’ve been very open and honest about the state of the NHS and our role in it. In fact, we are running a campaign to determine opinion about litigation, and we’re starting a debate to gauge the public mood around whether suing the NHS is ethical.

Ed Fletcher is the chief executive of Fletchers Solicitors

More information on the campaign can be found via its Facebook page.

 
Photograph: Getty Images

Ed Fletcher is the chief executive of Fletchers Solicitors

How Jim Murphy's mistake cost Labour - and helped make Ruth Davidson

Scottish Labour's former leader's great mistake was to run away from Labour's Scottish referendum, not on it.

The strange revival of Conservative Scotland? Another poll from north of the border, this time from the Times and YouGov, shows the Tories experiencing a revival in Scotland, up to 28 per cent of the vote, enough to net seven extra seats from the SNP.

Adding to the Nationalists’ misery, according to the same poll, they would lose East Dunbartonshire to the Liberal Democrats, reducing their strength in the Commons to a still-formidable 47 seats.

It could be worse than the polls suggest, however. In the elections to the Scottish Parliament last year, parties which backed a No vote in the referendum did better in the first-past-the-post seats than the polls would have suggested – thanks to tactical voting by No voters, who backed whichever party had the best chance of beating the SNP.

The strategic insight of Ruth Davidson, the Conservative leader in Scotland, was to to recast her party as the loudest defender of the Union between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. She has absorbed large chunks of that vote from the Liberal Democrats and Labour, but, paradoxically, at the Holyrood elections at least, the “Unionist coalition” she assembled helped those parties even though it cost the vote share.

The big thing to watch is not just where the parties of the Union make gains, but where they successfully form strong second-places against whoever the strongest pro-Union party is.

Davidson’s popularity and eye for a good photo opportunity – which came first is an interesting question – mean that the natural benefactor in most places will likely be the Tories.

But it could have been very different. The first politician to hit successfully upon the “last defender of the Union” routine was Ian Murray, the last Labour MP in Scotland, who squeezed both the  Liberal Democrat and Conservative vote in his seat of Edinburgh South.

His then-leader in Scotland, Jim Murphy, had a different idea. He fought the election in 2015 to the SNP’s left, with the slogan of “Whether you’re Yes, or No, the Tories have got to go”.  There were a couple of problems with that approach, as one  former staffer put it: “Firstly, the SNP weren’t going to put the Tories in, and everyone knew it. Secondly, no-one but us wanted to move on [from the referendum]”.

Then again under different leadership, this time under Kezia Dugdale, Scottish Labour once again fought a campaign explicitly to the left of the SNP, promising to increase taxation to blunt cuts devolved from Westminster, and an agnostic position on the referendum. Dugdale said she’d be open to voting to leave the United Kingdom if Britain left the European Union. Senior Scottish Labour figures flirted with the idea that the party might be neutral in a forthcoming election. Once again, the party tried to move on – but no-one else wanted to move on.

How different things might be if instead of running away from their referendum campaign, Jim Murphy had run towards it in 2015. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to British politics.

0800 7318496