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

Getty
Show Hide image

The joy of only winning once: why England should be proud of 1966

We feel the glory of that triumphant moment, 50 years ago, all the more because of all the other occasions when we have failed to win.

There’s a phrase in football that I really hate. It used to be “Thirty years of hurt”. Each time the England team crashes out of a major tournament it gets regurgitated with extra years added. Rather predictably, when England lost to Iceland in Euro 2016, it became “Fifty years of hurt”. We’ve never won the European Championship and in 17 attempts to win the World Cup we have only won once. I’m going to tell you why that’s a record to cherish.

I was seven in 1966. Our telly was broken so I had to watch the World Cup final with a neighbour. I sat squeezed on my friend Colin’s settee as his dad cheered on England with phrases like “Sock it to them Bobby”, as old fashioned now as a football rattle. When England took the lead for the second time I remember thinking, what will it feel like, when we English are actually Champions of the World. Not long after I knew. It felt good.

Wembley Stadium, 30 July 1966, was our only ever World Cup win. But let’s imagine what it would be like if, as with our rivals, we’d won it many times? Brazil have been World Champions on five occasions, Germany four, and Italy four. Most England fans would be “over the moon” if they could boast a similarly glorious record. They’re wrong. I believe it’s wonderful that we’ve only triumphed once. We all share that one single powerful memory. Sometimes in life less is definitely more.

Something extraordinary has happened. Few of us are even old enough to remember, but somehow, we all know everything that happened that day. Even if you care little about the beautiful game, I’m going to bet that you can recall as many as five iconic moments from 50 years ago. You will have clearly in your mind the BBC commentator Kenneth Wolstenholme’s famous lines, as Geoff Hurst tore down the pitch to score his hat-trick: “Some people are on the pitch. They think it’s all over. It is now”. And it was. 4 - 2 to England against West Germany. Thirty minutes earlier the Germans had equalised in the dying moments of the second half to take the game to extra time.

More drama we all share: Geoff Hurst’s second goal. Or the goal that wasn’t, as technology has since, I think, conclusively proved. The shot that crashed off the cross bar and did or didn’t cross the line. Of course, even if you weren’t alive at the time, you will know that the linesman, one Tofiq Bakhramov, from Azerbaijan (often incorrectly referred to as “Russian”) could speak not a word of English, signalled it as a goal.

Then there’s the England Captain, the oh-so-young and handsome Bobby Moore. The very embodiment of the era. You can picture him now wiping his muddy hands on his white shorts before he shakes hands with a youthful Queen Elizabeth. Later you see him lifted aloft by his team mates holding the small golden Jules Rimet trophy.

How incredible, how simply marvellous that as a nation we share such golden memories. How sad for the Brazilians and Germans. Their more numerous triumphs are dissipated through the generations. In those countries each generation will remember each victory but not with the intensity with which we English still celebrate 1966. It’s as if sex was best the first time. The first cut is the deepest.

On Colin’s dad’s TV the pictures were black and white and so were the flags. Recently I looked at the full colour Pathe newsreel of the game. It’s the red, white and blue of the Union Jack that dominates. The red cross of Saint George didn’t really come into prominence until the Nineties. The left don’t like flags much, unless they’re “deepest red”. Certainly not the Union Flag. It smacks of imperialism perhaps. In 1966 we didn’t seem to know if we were English or British. Maybe there was, and still is, something admirable and casual about not knowing who we are or what is our proper flag. 

Twelve years later I’m in Cuba at the “World Festival of Youth” – the only occasion I’ve represented my country. It was my chance to march into a stadium under my nation’s flag. Sadly, it never happened as my fellow delegates argued for hours over what, if any, flag we British should walk behind. The delegation leaders – you will have heard of them now, but they were young and unknown then – Peter Mandelson, Trevor Phillips and Charles Clarke, had to find a way out of this impasse. In the end, each delegation walked into the stadium behind their flag, except the British. Poor Mandelson stood alone for hours holding Union Jack, sweltering in the tropical sun. No other country seemed to have a problem with their flag. I guess theirs speak of revolution; ours of colonialism.

On Saturday 30 July BBC Radio 2 will commemorate the 50th anniversary of the 1966 World Cup Final, live from Wembley Arena. Such a celebration is only possible because on 16 occasions we failed to win that trophy. Let’s banish this idea of “Fifty years of hurt” once and for all and embrace the joy of only winning once.

Phil Jones edits the Jeremy Vine Show on BBC Radio 2. On Saturday 30 July the station celebrates the 50th anniversary of the 1966 World Cup Final live from Wembley Arena, telling the story of football’s most famous match, minute by minuteTickets are available from: www.wc66.org