19^th August 2002

Mr Bryan Stoten

Chairman, Walsgrave Hospitals NHS Trust

Dear Mr Stoten,

It is widely known that in December 2001, you addressed your senior consultants and assured them that you would protect patient care, install high standards, facilitate improvements and stop the fear culture within the Trust. You strenuously declared that you would not stand for any further intimidation of staff and that no more consultant suspensions could occur without your direct involvement, knowledge and approval.

Yet eight weeks later you suspended Dr R Mattu, Consultant Cardiologist. You were informed that Mr Loughton had publicly declared his wish to get rid of Dr Mattu and 4 other Consultants who had shown the courage to overcome the 'fear culture' and speak out for patient safety and care. Why and how did you fail Dr Mattu and the local people, by permitting his continued victimisation and intimidation? It is ironic that you permitted the most established and biggest bully in the Trust, Mr Loughton, to contrive his ill treatment of Dr Mattu right under your nose. Did your declaration in December exclude Mr Loughton from having to uphold acceptable conduct?

I very much hope that you prove to be more than just a health care politician, and offer more than hollow rhetoric to spin to the public. The recent alarming revelations surrounding the totally unnecessary and protracted suspension of Dr Mattu, have understandably disturbed local people. I am sure that you will also appreciate their growing disquiet about the sinister goings-on in their Trust.

Did you and the Trust not learn any lessons from the case of Mr A Barros D'Sa? Only last year, the Trust received condemnation in the high court from Mr Justice Blofeld regarding the treatment of Mr Barros D'Sa and his suspension. He stated, "it behoves Trusts of this nature to be scrupulous in following properly the procedures laid down by them. It was not done so here." It has manifestly not done so again.

Indeed, it is interesting that when the Trust has again breached it's own procedures, an alarming lack of knowledge and understanding of Trust procedures amongst the Trust Management has become apparent. Unfortunately, it has become evident from your dealings with the Dr Mattu suspension that this also includes yourself.

Having previously pronounced that future Consultant suspensions could only occur with your knowledge and approval, you have claimed subsequently that you were then not involved with the suspension of Dr Mattu and have no details surrounding it. You have argued that you have purposely avoided knowledge of the suspension, as you may be involved in the appeal.

This is quite an extraordinary claim and difficult to reconcile with the Trust's procedures and the facts. Have you pre-judged the informal inquiry and assumed that the Trust will progress from Policy number sixteen, to policy number three (a) and then to a subsequent appeal from Dr Mattu? I should not need to point out that your only role in any appeal against disciplinary action is to nominate a chair-person for the panel that will hear the appeal. You do not hear the evidence and you are also not involved in the decision making process. If I am mistaken, I would be grateful if you could direct me to the appropriate section of the procedures for my perusal.

As Trust Chairman however you take ultimate responsibility for activities in the organisation, as all good Trust Chairmen should. But it is quite bizarre for you to demonstrate a wish to remain ignorant of the details of something as serious as one of your senior and internationally recognised specialists being suspended from the Trust. Many people have appealed to you as Trust Chairman to put right, wrong doing that occurs within your organisation. However, with regards to Dr Mattu you have refused to do this, defending your inaction with your ill-considered view about your role in any future appeal.

Herein lies another paradox. Whilst you accept that it is your responsibility to ensure that the allegations raised against Dr Mattu are investigated following due process, you also insist that you neither wish nor have knowledge of the detail or progress of the inquiry. How then do you personally monitor for any breach of procedure? Or do you just accept and regurgitate what your managers tell you? Managers recently exposed as incompetent during Mr Barros D'Sa's case. I understand from many local sources that you are not personally cognizant with the procedures, so how are you ensuring that you can satisfactorily discharge your responsibilities to this inquiry? It is most inappropriate, especially in a public organisation, for the Chairman to wish to remain unaware of the details of the on-going investigation into one of their senior employees. I hope you will honour and accept your responsibilities, and stand by the position that you have currently adopted when the many breaches are duly exposed, as they were in the case of Mr Barros D'Sa.

I understand you claim that Dr Harrison, investigating officer, completed his inquiry two months ago. Could you kindly explain how Dr Harrison could have completed his inquiry without interviewing Dr Mattu or his witnesses? Is this your due process?

It is also noteworthy, that you and other senior managers demonstrate a lack of concern for Dr Mattu's well being, who after all is a senior employee in your organisation. I am led to believe that you are of the view that Dr Mattu's suspension is a neutral act and has not punished him in any way. It is interesting that only last year the inquiry panel into Mr Barros D'Sa's case and subsequently Mr Justice Blofeld (High Court) both made strong comment that his suspension "had been a strong and extended punishment". Are you suggesting that after deliberating over details of his suspension for many days, their firmly expressed views were misplaced?

I look forward to receiving your views.

Yours sincerely,

Mr Brian King
For Raj Mattu Reinstatement Committee

cc Mr A Blair, Mr I Duncan-Smith, Mr A Milburn, Mr R Ainsworth, Mr J Cunningham, Mr G Robinson, Mr A King, Mr M O'Brien, Mr J Plaskitt, Mr W Olner, Dr L Fox, Dr E Harris, Mrs C Spellman, Mr J Maples, Ms K Taylor

10^th September 2002

Mr Bryan Stoten

Chairman, Walsgrave Hospitals NHS Trust

Dear Mr Stoten,

You appear to have overlooked responding to my letter dated 19th August 2002 and the serious issues that I raised. I appreciate your busy schedule and would be grateful for a response.

I enclose another copy of my letter for your attention.

Yours sincerely,

MR BRIAN KING
FOR RAJ MATTU REINSTATEMENT COMMITTEE

cc Mr A Blair, Mr I Duncan-Smith, Mr A Milburn, Mr R Ainsworth, Mr J Cunningham, Mr G Robinson, Mr A King, Mr M O'Brien, Mr J Plaskitt, Mr W Olner, Dr L Fox, Dr E Harris, Mrs C Spellman, Mr J Maples, Ms K Taylor

19^th September 2002

Mr Bryan Stoten

Chairman, University Hospitals Coventry & Warwickshire

Mr Stoten,

Thank you for your letter dated 4th September 2002, received by me 18th September 2002, the contents of which I will respond to.

Firstly, you claim that you and your team of executive directors are engaged in the process of creating a culture and working environment, which is respectful of all employees. This apparently does not apply to Dr Mattu or Ms. Ackroyd. In the case of Dr Mattu you were the Chairman of the Board of Trustees who, after telling the senior staff in December 2001 following the Barros D'Sa debacle "there will be no more suspensions without my sanction", endorsed the suspension of Dr Mattu.

Furthermore, it is on record that prior to Dr Mattu's suspension, a number of consultants, including Dr Mattu had personally informed you that the Executive Directors and Chief Executive, Mr Loughton, had declared that they intended to get rid of Dr Mattu. What did you do to ensure that the working environment was respectful and safe for Dr Mattu? Moreover, I would be most grateful if you could afford me the courtesy of a response to the first two paragraphs of my letter of the 19th August 2002.

You claim "It is a matter of public record that Dr Mattu was suspended from duty following receipt of a claim of Serious and protracted bullying and harassment from junior staff". It is unfortunate that yet again you have provided misinformation. It is only on record that Dr Mattu has been suspended on a charge of bullying a single junior doctor. There has been no mention or public record of the duration of alleged bullying and additional junior doctors that may have allegedly been bullied. The only further public record was presented to a public meeting by Mr Bob Ainsworth MP, quoting yourself as his source, regarding the Trust's position in terms of specific proposed meeting dates. Once again the Trust policies and procedures have been breached, in this case, if Mr Ainsworth is to be believed, by yourself.

Moreover, you have breached the procedures again in your letter of 4th September 2002, by adding information that is not public record, about the alleged protracted nature and the involvement of multiple junior doctors.

Of considerable worry are also the alarming comments that you have previously made to senior public figures from December 2001, prior to the suspension of Dr Mattu, to date.

It is a matter of public record that Dr Mattu was suspended on the 21st February 2002. This was on the basis of a formal statement, not even a complaint or grievance, by a single junior doctor, and before the matter was even investigated. The Trust's own procedures were breached by this action. I am aware that prior to, and since, other such complaints against members of staff have been made, but no one has been suspended. In fact, I am aware that there have been other professional transgressions of a far more serious nature that you are aware of and (without prejudice) no one else has been suspended. Could you please explain this inequity?

You state, "Due to the complexity of allegations made against Dr Mattu, the investigation has taken some time in order that it is thorough and free from unnecessary assumptions"? and then add "that Dr Mattu's case remains a priority for the Trust". If this case was such a priority why did the Trust take more than 6 months to provide the detailed allegations? Moreover, why did Dr Harrison at first agree to release the information and then renege upon the agreement? Once more your claims just do not match the facts. In addition, surely Dr Harrison's part-time attendance as Medical Director has exacerbated the delays. You cannot ignore the fact that a 7 month suspension is excessive to undertake such an inquiry?

Since it is never justifiable to have suspended Dr Mattu following receipt of a claim (your word claim) that does not endanger patients or imminently compromise staff, leads me to believe that the actions against Dr Mattu must have been based on an assumption of guilt, or partiality, or vindictiveness, or an alternative agenda; five beds in a four-bed bay.

Yet again, you make another inexcusable and misleading claim, which is, that Dr Mattu has been invited to a number of investigatory meetings. Dr Mattu's first meeting with the Trust following his suspension was after more than 3 months had elapsed, on 29th May 2002. Contrary, to the Hospital's claims in the media, Dr Mattu and his representative were prevented from rebutting the allegations in the formal statement, under which Dr Mattu had been suspended since 21st February 2002.

Instead, on 29th May 2002, the Trust deployed the same trick that had been tried and condemned by the Judge in the case of Mr Alban Barros D'Sa, which was to add new allegations to the original matter.

You state that, "some aspects of the investigation have been completed". Is this not contrary to your repeated claims, "I know nothing, I have no wish to know anything, as I may be involved in the disciplinary procedure"? Furthermore, does this not entirely contradict your previous assertion that is also on record, "my understanding is that Dr Harrison has completed his inquiry some two months ago".

You also state that as Chairman of the Trust it would be entirely inappropriate for you to become involved in the details of an ongoing investigation. I find this a strange claim, as a mutual acquaintance tells me a different story!

In relation to the case of Mr Barros D'Sa, as you were not the Chairman you can not be held responsible but it is not excusable for you not to be aware that Mr Alban Barros D'Sa was suspended for bullying, and therefore is related, in fact it is identical.

Although you fail to assure me that Dr Mattu's case remains a priority for the Trust, I do accept that it is a matter of regular discussion between Dr Harrison and yourself. In fact, according to the Trusts standing orders, this should have been so since they require the Medical Director(s) to keep you informed and updated of suspensions on a two weekly basis. Therefore, when you told the Trust Board meeting in May 2002 "I know nothing, I have no wish to know anything, as I may be involved in the disciplinary procedure" you were being economical with the truth, and remained economical when you repeated this at a meeting you attended at the Bangladeshi community centre. This claim of having no knowledge and wish to have knowledge is further contradicted by your statement to a mutual acquaintance that you had knowledge of the Trust's big thick file on Dr Mattu, which included allegations of sexual impropriety. Mr Stoten, either he or you are being economical with the truth. Moreover, is there a further breach of confidentiality.

Mr Stoten, you have failed to answer my questions fully and honestly from 19th August 2002; you have failed Dr Mattu and allowed suspension when it was not necessary and permitted it to be inexcusably continued for such a protracted period; you have failed the government that placed you at our Trust to resolve the issues that have damaged our local hospitals and quality of care; most importantly you have failed us, the public, the shareholders and your effective employers. Mr Stoten we want truthful hard work and not excuses or procedural jargon, behind which to hide underachievement or mistakes. We desperately need people who know what they are doing and work to high standards. Your handling of Dr Mattu's suspension falls very short of that and other matters are also beginning to expose some serious errors of judgement at the DoH, who appointed you on our behalf.

On 11th September 2002, you told the Trust Board meeting that if attendees wished to continue to discuss the matter of a previous Trust Board decision, namely the progression to yet another panel hearing in the case of Briony Ackroyd despite clear guidance from the GMC, that you and the Chief Executive, David Roberts, would have to leave the meeting in order to retain your impartiality. You, Mr Chairman, are not impartial and were therefore misleading the meeting. You then warned that if the discussion continued you would have to close the meeting and reconvene it in another room. You closed the discussion by threatening me that if I continued this line of questioning, then I would be excluded from the meeting. I stated that I had no wish to disrupt the meeting, but wished to continue to secure an answer to my question on this subject, and asked you "Are you saying that I will have to leave this meeting?" to which you replied "Yes!"

By your action, you denied me, a member of the public, my democratic rights. You are responsible for ensuring that the Trust carries out it's responsibilities and meets it's regulatory requirements. However, The Trust failed me by refusing fair and legitimate questions during the meeting, by expelling me from the meeting and by denying me access to the draft minutes of the previous meeting (July 2002) up to five days before, and on the day, and again at the meeting.

You denied me the right to discuss matters of great importance and concern to the people of Coventry and Warwickshire on the basis of maintaining your impartiality. In the case of the new Chief Executive I can accept this, but not in your case, you are not impartial and it is becoming clear that you lack integrity. Aside from wishing to have the answers to my questions, for publicly humiliating me and denying me my rights, I demand an unreserved and unequivocal public apology.

Yours truthfully,

Brian King
For The Dr Raj Mattu Reinstatement Committee

Cc: A Blair, I Duncan-Smith, C Kennedy, A Milburn, G Robinson, J Cunningham, A King, W Olner, M O'Brien, C Spellman, J Plaskitt, J Maples

17^th September 2002

Mr Bryan Stoten

Chairman Walsgrave Hospital

Dear Mr Stoten,

Having attended the recent public meeting organised by The Dr Raj Mattu Reinstatement Committee, I was alarmed by what I discovered about the University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust of which you are Chairman and therefore responsible.

However, amongst the many clinical governance and management problems that were highlighted, it is not the country's worst CHI report, the excess mortality from Surgery or Cardiac surgery, or the fear culture under which doctors work under at your Trust that I wish to discuss here, but your outrageous and appalling personal conduct.

At the meeting, it became very apparent that there are some very serious issues concerning your integrity and therefore your suitability to be running the Trust, or indeed any Trust for that matter. Nonetheless, it is your disgraceful selfishness, insensitivity and hypocrisy that I wish to comment upon here.

It is outrageous for you to have telephoned the Reverend Jim Canning in the aggressive and threatening manner that he recounted before the packed meeting, after he had sent a letter by recorded delivery to your home in Halford. You bellowed at him that the postman's knock at your door upset and disturbed your wife in the morning and that you did not wish for your work related matters to encroach upon your home life and your wife.

As a wife myself, I ask if it ever occurred to you as to how many times Dr Mattu's partner has been awoken, disturbed and frightened in the early hours of the morning by the postman's knock for recorded deliveries that the Trust has sent him under your Chairmanship. Or is this privacy a privilege that only you and your wife are entitled to?

Do you honestly believe that you posses the right qualities and integrity for your post, and are you really suited to provide us the service that one expects from the Chairman of an Acute NHS Trust? I will appreciate an early response to my letter and at the very least an apology to the Reverend Jim Canning for your inexcusable bullying and threatening behaviour towards him.

Yours sincerely,

Dr R Holland

cc Mr A Blair, Mr I Duncan-Smith, Mr C Kennedy, Mrs C Spellman, Mr J Maples, Mr R Ainsworth, Mr J Cunningham, Mr G Robinson, Mr A King, Mr M O'Brien, Mr W Olner, Mr J Plaskitt,

17^th November 2002

Mr Bryan Stoten

Chairman Walsgrave Hospital

Dear Mr Stoten,

Having now written to you over 2 months ago, it is unfortunate that you have chosen not to respond to my letter dated 17th September 2002. I enclose a further copy for you, and would be obliged if you could respond to it

Dr R Holland

29^th May 2003

Mr Bryan Stoten, Chairman

UHCW NHS Trust

Dear Mr Stoten,

I have followed local health issues for some time and recently noted that your job as Chairman of the Trust Board was advertised in the Coventry Evening Telegraph, and that the interviews for this were imminent. There is one outstanding issue of grave concern to the local community that requires your immediate and urgent attention, and certainly prior to a change in Chair at our Trust.

You will be aware that during your tenure your Trust suspended Dr Raj Mattu, and that over 15 months later he is still being prevented from returning to work at our hospital. Over this lengthy suspension the Trust management's handling of their investigation into Dr Mattu has been flawed with procedural breaches, and you must bear the ultimate responsibility for your senior managers conduct and failure. The procedures clearly set out that it is imperative for the Trust to conduct a thorough, impartial and objective investigation that is fair to all parties. Dr Mattu has not been treated fairly. The procedures also indicate the Trust management's requirement to inform and update you of the investigation on a fortnightly basis. Any claims of ignorance on your part would therefore not be credible.

You will recall that, in September 2001, the CHI report damned the Trust and exposed the 'fear culture' of Trust managers oppressing doctors who raise clinical concerns. You were appointed in December 2001. Dr Mattu had raised clinical concerns and yet he was still suspended in February 2002, after publication of this report and during your stewardship.

Mr Stoten, you are currently Chairman of our Trust, and as such we expect you to diligently attend to your responsibility to treat Dr Mattu fairly. There has been no evidence of either you doing this or ensuring fairness in the investigation. It would be inexcusable if you were to divest your responsibilities and leave it to someone else to sort out this debacle. We require you to reinstate Dr Mattu and accept an independent investigation into the allegations against him. I will await your response.

Yours sincerely,

Mr S Nahar

Cc: Mr A Blair MP, Mr I Duncan-Smith MP, Mr C Kennedy MP, Mr A Milburn MP, Dr L Fox MP, Dr E Harris MP, Mr R Ainsworth MP, Mr J Cunningham MP, Mr G Robinson MP, Mr A King MP, Mr W Olner MP, Mr M O'Brien MP, Mr J Plaskitt MP, Mrs C Spellman MP, Mr J Maples MP, NAO, DoH

17^th June 2003

Mr Bryan Stoten, Chairman

UHCW NHS Trust

Dear Mr Stoten,

I have received your response to my letter of the 29th May 2003. I am disappointed by your unwillingness to personally address the issues that I raised, and instead pass the matter to the Chief Executive, Mr David Roberts. I cannot accept any claim that the issues that I raised are beyond your remit as a Non-Executive Chairman and draw your attention to the key points raised in my letter of 29th May, and again formally request a full and personal response.

You are specifically responsible for ensuring that:

The Trust Executive charged with investigating Dr Mattu, adhere to the Trust and NHS procedures and policies. (They have NOT)

The Executives conduct a thorough, impartial and objective investigation that is fair to all parties. (They have NOT)

Dr Mattu receives equitable treatment, free of discrimination (He has NOT)

Whilst you remain the Chairman of our Trust, a public authority, we expect you to attend to your responsibilities to the local community, and not deflect legitimate concerns raised about the Trust Executive's actions surrounding Dr Mattu to a third party when it suits you. This is unacceptable and particularly significant since it is commonly known that both Executive and Non-executive officers of the Trust, including yourself, have briefed politicians, dignitaries and community leaders on Dr Mattu and his suspension. Because you have been regularly briefed on this matter by the Senior Trust Managers, and you have briefed others in turn, you cannot now claim no involvement.

Your duties include holding the Executive to account on our behalf, and therefore require you to address Dr Mattu's mistreatment. I request you to have the courtesy to reply fully to my previous and current letters.

Yours sincerely,

Mr S Nahar

Cc: Dr J Reid MP, Mr A Blair PM, Mr I Duncan-Smith MP, Mr C Kennedy MP, Dr L Fox MP, Dr E Harris MP, Mr R Ainsworth MP, Mr J Cunningham MP, Mr G Robinson MP, Mr A King MP, Mr W Olner MP, Mr M O'Brien MP, Mr J Plaskitt MP, Mrs C Spellman MP, Mr J Maples MP, NAO, DoH

3^rd July 2003

Mr Bryan Stoten, Chairman

UHCW NHS Trust

Dear Mr Stoten,

Thank you for your letter of 23rd June 2003. It is regrettable that in spite of my repeated requests for a full reply to my letters, you have again refused to do so. Your recent reply does however cause me great concern.

Let me start by clarifying my position once again. I have faith in truth, honesty and openness from our representatives in public office unless they act in a manner that causes this to be lost. I maintain that I do not accept your repeated claims about having no remit to address my concerns. The fact that we do not agree about your duties and role as Chair to our Trust Board does not necessarily mean that I totally discount your faith. Having said that, you will note on reading the guidance to the duties and role of a Chair, that you are required to fulfil the obligations that I listed in my letter of 17th June. Hence your reasons for failing to deal with the issues that I had raised are unfounded excuses.

Turning now to the specific sources of concern in your last letter. You claim "I can assure you that I have not briefed anyone on Dr Mattu's suspension". I must therefore formally ask you:

Have you ever briefed MPs about Dr Mattu and his case?

Why did a Minister from Her Majesty's Government tell over 400 people on 7th September 2002 that you had briefed him about Dr Mattu and his case?

Why are MPs claiming that two months later, 7th November 2002, they were briefed by you in London, accompanied by Mr Roberts (CEO), on Dr Mattu and his case?

You will understand my concerns about your claims relating to the above because they do not to reconcile with the comments by a large number of MPs.

I am at best surprised by your claim on 23rd June that "I have received absolutely no evidence that there is any issue of discrimination involved". Being of a generous nature, I will believe your responses and not discount the good faith in which you have replied. Therefore let me now take the opportunity to make sure that you are in possession of some evidence that very obviously gives the appearance of discrimination towards Dr Mattu:

In May 2001 Policy # 16 was ratified by the Trust Board and became official hospital procedure. Dr Mattu is suspended under this policy.

In June 2001 Dr Mattu raised a formal grievance against Dr A Khan for having raised false allegations against him, after encouragement and direct involvement from Dr M Been (Consultant Cardiologist). The Senior Executives refused to investigate this complaint (Medical Director, CEO, Director of Personnel, and the Deputy Director of Personnel, Mrs K Martin). Dr Khan was not suspended and had no repercussions.

In July 2001 Dr Mattu raised a formal complaint against Dr Been for victimisation and harassment, after Dr Been had made numerous false complaints, encouraged a number of others to make complaints, and even sought to get people to join him in placing a private detective onto Dr Mattu to generate further complaints. The Senior Executives refused to investigate this complaint. Dr Been was not suspended and had no repercussions.

In July 2001 Dr Mattu raised a formal grievance against Mr R Cave, Directorate Manager, after he had been physically threatened. Dr Mattu also formally reported this incident to the Police, and a witness was identified. The Trust refused to conduct a formal inquiry into the complaint. Mr Cave was not suspended and faced no repercussions.

In July 2001 Dr Mattu raised formal grievances against Dr S Evans, Clinical Director, and Mr Burley, Directorate Manager, for harassment and bullying. The Trust reluctantly investigated the complaints. However on 21st September 2001 both senior Managers simply walked out of the inquiry because they did not want to be cross-examined and investigated. Neither Dr Evans nor Mr Burley were suspended or had repercussions.

Is it not true that on 17th December 2001 you addressed the consultants and told them that there would be no more consultant suspensions without your agreement and knowledge?

Did you not summon Dr Mattu to a meeting with you on 30th January 2002 and emphatically denied that CHI had warned about the fear culture within the Trust, where consultants were too frightened to speak out because of victimisation by senior Managers?

Is it not true that you threatened Dr Mattu at this meeting, claiming that you would act against, and not tolerate, any consultant leaking information to the media, whilst implying that Dr Mattu was the source of a leak to the Birmingham Post about colon surgery, even though he had nothing to do with this?

Is it not true that Dr Mattu was passed a letter by Dr Harrison dated 31st January 2002 on 15th February 2002, claiming that he had re-investigated deaths related to the 5 in 4 Policy?

Is it not true that at this meeting on 15th February, Dr Mattu had expressed reservations about how any decent investigation could again fail to interview any of the three senior clinicians who had witnessed the incident, and signed and submitted the serious clinical incident report form?

On 21st February 2002 Dr Mattu was suspended facing allegations of bullying a junior researcher. This was under Policy # 16.

On 22nd May 2002, a researcher that the Management knew to be supportive of Dr Mattu, Mr Needham, raised a formal complaint against Professor Janet Powell for victimisation, and harassment. Professor Janet Powell was never suspended even though Mr Needham remained under her direct supervision. Mr Needham complained that a seriously flawed and biased investigation was conducted by the Trust, and they concluded that there was no case to answer, even though other consultants had witnessed and testified to her overt threats towards Mr Needham. Does this not appear irregular to you?

There have been over 15 complaints of bullying against consultants at the Trust during the last 5 years. Only two of these consultants have not been white. They are the ONLY TWO consultants to have been suspended, Dr Mattu & Mr Barros D'sa. Does this not appear irregular and discriminatory to you?

More recently a white consultant, who is also a manager, had two senior nurses make formal complaints of bullying against him. He has neither been suspended nor faced any inquiry.

After Dr Mattu's suspension, four consultants formally complained about Dr Evans and Mr Burley and their bullying. Neither was suspended or faced a formal investigation.

Indeed, did you not write to all four consultants and invite them to individual meetings with you about this matter?

Is it not true, that paradoxically, you threatened these consultants that you would not tolerate any consultants threatening and bullying any of your managers?

Did you therefore not directly intervene in a personnel "matter of this kind"?

How can you claim that these facts do not give the appearance that Dr Mattu has been targeted and victimised.

Is Policy # 16 reserved to selectively justify the suspension of Indian doctors?

I would very much like to believe that you know what is happening at our Trust, especially in view of the recent poor history of our Trust Executive. You will therefore understand why I find it most irregular for you to claim no knowledge of any of the above, even though you have been involved with some issues. I trust that you will no longer claim to have "received absolutely no evidence that there is any issue of discrimination involved".

There is most certainly every point in continuing correspondence. Firstly, because you have still not answered my previous correspondence fully. Secondly, because I expect you, as Chair of our Trust Board, to provide me a detailed reply to this letter and the points that I have raised. I await these by return of post.

Yours sincerely,

Mr S Nahar

Cc: Mr A Blair MP, Mr I Duncan-Smith MP, Mr C Kennedy MP, Dr J Reid MP, Dr L Fox MP, Dr E Harris MP, Mr R Ainsworth MP, Mr J Cunningham MP, Mr G Robinson MP, Mr A King MP, Mr W Olner MP, Mr M O'Brien MP, Mr J Plaskitt MP, Mrs C Spellman MP, Mr J Maples MP, NAO, DoH, NHS Executive

21^st August 2003

Mr Bryan Stoten, Chairman

UHCW NHS Trust

Dear Mr Stoten,

Thank you for your letter of 10th July 2003, which I received on 16th July. Due to being on leave, I am only now in a position to reply.

The obvious lack of openness and transparency by our Trust Management reveals a real and present danger that the Management in foundation hospitals will be even more dismissive of local stakeholders, and similarly display a complete disregard for local communities. The actions of our hospital management and yourself are a stark warning for the need of an urgent moratorium on foundation hospitals.

I hoped that you would have shown a little interest and concern for the views of local stakeholders, and had enough decency to reply properly to my letters of 29th May, 17th June and 3rd July. Instead you have provided, in so much as your minimal responses can be interpreted, conflicting and deceptive replies. I have reached the view that you are deliberately evading legitimate concerns and issues that I am bringing to your attention. As Chair of our Trust, these actions are not acceptable.

I raised specific questions and concerns in my correspondence on 29th May, centred on the mistreatment of Dr Mattu. It is a matter of record that on 11th June you first tried to brush me off to the Chief Executive by falsely claiming that matters such as the Executive's compliance with good clinical and managerial governance, adherence to equal opportunities, and prevention of racial discrimination were beyond the remit and role of the Chair. Importantly you did not reply to a single question that I had brought before you.

On 17th June, I pointed out why your assertion was unfounded and referred you to the guidance on the statutory duties for an NHS Trust Chair. I also raised further specific questions about your actions and claims, relating to the case of Dr Mattu.

On 19th June I discovered your next method for trying to brush me off when I received a response from Bevan Ashford Solicitors, who informed me that the Trust had instructed them to act on your behalf.

· Following your instructions, they advised me "His only knowledge about the case is as a result of stories which have appeared in the media and so are in the public domain."

· They also gave me the assurance that you had instructed them "Mr Stoten has no involvement with Dr Mattu's case".

On 23rd June you corresponded with me.

· "I can assure you that I have not briefed anyone on Dr Mattu's suspension". Having received my complaints and concerns about alleged misconduct by the Trust's Senior Executive's and Staff, you either purposely or simple-mindedly, also claimed "I am assured, however, by my Executive Directors that due process has been followed".

· You went on to claim "I have received absolutely no evidence that there is any issue of discrimination involved"

Bearing in mind that you had previously made absolutely no effort to reply to my questions, and that in your letter of 23rd June you had merely offered a token gesture, you went on and made a pitiful attempt to brush me off once again by trying to distract attention away from the issues that I had raised, in order to try to avoid addressing my difficult enquiries, by claiming "Clearly if you are unable to believe the responses I give you there is little point in continuing correspondence."

On 3rd July I took considerable time and trouble to carefully set out more details about your own questionable actions, along with considerable evidence supporting obvious discrimination to which Dr Mattu has been subjected.

On 10th July you sent an interesting reply and significantly gave me an explicit brush off "I had intended not to respond to further correspondence from you." The details set out above clearly manifest the paucity of your responses and your deliberate distortion of correspondence in order to justify your unwillingness to answer my specific questions, and just brush me off. Nonetheless, I continue to maintain my position and seek full and frank replies to all of my correspondence.

· You disregarded my latest letter, 3rd July, by limiting your reply to only two short paragraphs, claiming "the matters you raise in it are, in general, completely foreign to me".

· And contradicting your earlier contention "Mr Ainsworth is absolutely clear in that he was briefed by my Chief Executive and myself on the progress of the case to which you refer".

· You also added "He was not briefed on its substance since neither I nor my Chief Executive have access to the file containing information about the matter."

It is regrettable that you remain unwilling to provide full and truthful responses to the points that I have raised in all my correspondence. Instead you state that the matters that I raise are, in general, completely foreign to you. This is hard to accept since a large number of the issues that I raise refer directly to your actions and activities. For the record are you stating that you did not brief MPs in Westminster on 7th November 2002, and that you did not meet with Dr Mattu prior to his suspension on 30th January 2002? Are you also now stating that Mr Ainsworth is wrong in claiming that his comments on 7th September 2002 were derived from your briefings? Are you also now stating that Mr Ainsworth was wrong in his claim that he had detail of the case and the allegations, from his briefing?

You have ignored the substance of my letters in the hope of avoiding addressing the issues. It is precisely because of their gravity and central importance regarding equity, justice and dignity at the work place, that the very serious matters that I raise will not disappear. Your avoidance will not be allowed to discount them and may even lead to more disastrous consequences for many.

Your paradoxical invitation "I would suggest you make an appointment to come and see me", also helps to make it abundantly clear that you are unwilling to provide written responses to my questions and indeed avoid having to be accountable for your actions and for events during your chairmanship. I must however insist that you provide complete and truthful replies, and that these are in writing.

Although I may have contemplated a meeting with you back in May, I must advise about being reluctant to do so at this time, a view that is consistent with the formal advice that I have received. Following the emergence of reports about your intimidatory, bullying nature, also witnessed by many at the recent meeting of the Trust Board on Wednesday 9th July, I also have increasing concerns about my safety and well being in such a meeting with you. The Coventry Evening Telegraph reported your open display of anger and aggression, when you became irate and started banging the table and shouting at members of the public at this meeting, merely because you had been asked a difficult, or what you perceived as a controversial, question from the public.

You will therefore understand my caution at this time in deciding to decline your invitation to meet with you, since I would similarly be asking legitimate and sensitive questions, and I would not want to face your wrath or agitate your low threshold to behaving aggressively towards the public. Additionally, there is now the emergence of a particular need to ensure openness and transparency, which written exchanges will provide. There is consequently no reason for you not to fulfil your duties as Chair of our NHS Trust and now provide me a full written response to the concerns raised in each of my letters.

In response to your continued unwillingness to reply, I quote you from the Trust Board meeting "I don't know what we can do, we have been asking for information for the last nine months. We have done everything we can to get the information, what is going on".

End your hypocrisy now and provide us decency, openness and honesty, and practice what you preached at the Trust Board "Why play games, give us the information." After all Mr Stoten, your are afforded the privilege of Chair to our Board of Trustees, a public authority that oversees provision of our local health care and not some secret government Ministry. I will now expect the decency of an complete and truthful reply to all my letters, by means of early correspondence.

Yours sincerely,

Mr S Nahar

Cc: Mr A Blair MP, Mr I Duncan-Smith MP, Mr C Kennedy MP, Dr J Reid MP, Dr L Fox MP, Dr E Harris MP, Mr R Ainsworth MP, Mr J Cunningham MP, Mr G Robinson MP, Mr A King MP, Mr W Olner MP, Mr M O'Brien MP, Mr J Plaskitt MP, Mrs C Spellman MP, Mr J Maples MP, NAO, DoH, Sir Nigel Drisp, Mr J Goody, Mrs Jane Isaacs, Dr R Moore, Sir William Wells

3^rd June 2003

Mr Bryan Stoten

University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust

Dear Mr Stoten,

It is inexcusable that you have allowed Dr Raj Mattu's suspension to enter its 16th month, whilst your Trust purports to investigate him for alleged bullying. This extensive delay will naturally be extremely detrimental to Dr Mattu's well-being. Imagine yourself being subjected to the same inhumane treatment.

I have closely followed the Trust's investigation of this matter and I will not accept that this delay has been caused by any reason other than the Trust's continuous breaches of the procedures which it is bound to follow, i.e. Trust Policy number 16 and HSG (94)49. The Trust was bound to substantiate the particulars of the allegations against Dr Mattu within 10 days. The Trust did not do this, and only eventually released the particulars substantiating the allegations to Dr Mattu more than 7 months after he was suspended.

After almost 12 months the Trust breached 'Dignity at Work' again and set-up an 'independent' panel to investigate Dr Mattu, without securing agreement with him. There is no mention of a panel anywhere in your Trust policy number 16. Nor is a panel mentioned in HSG(94)49. Any claim that the panel was 'independent' is also untrue as it comprised a senior member of the Trust Board and an appointee by the Trust that was well known to the Trust Board member's husband and was NOT 'agreed by all parties'.

The Trust also improperly amalgamated procedures and tried to rush the panel into deciding about disciplinary action, when they should have been charged with determining a prima facie case for investigation. This exposes the Trust's failure to be 'thorough, impartial and objective' in the investigation.

You have been updated on the investigation every two weeks and cannot claim no knowledge of it, and naturally you are required to know your Trust procedures; why have you therefore allowed serious prejudicial breaches?

This unfair and discriminatory investigation can only have occurred if:

The senior managers have mistakenly compromised the investigation
or
The breaches have been intentionally engineered
or

You have failed to establish what is truly happening in your Trust

Since the causes implicitly involve incompetence, malevolence or both, the matter raises serious concerns about the probity of the investigation and the integrity of the Executive and non-Executive Trust Board, not least your self.

It cannot be coincidental that the only other doctor to be suspended by the Trust on similar allegations in the last 4 years, namely Mr Barros D'Sa, was also Asian. You will not need reminding that the Trust was finally forced to reinstate him after a series of expensive Court cases.

Why has Dr Mattu also been singled out for this discriminatory treatment when you are aware that other senior white colleagues also facing allegations of bullying have not been suspended over this period?

You are also aware that Dr Mattu prior to his suspension had raised a formal grievance against senior managers in the Trust for victimisation and you had been personally notified that he was being bullied by Mr Loughton, and that the Trust Senior Management and Board Members had threatened to get rid of Dr Mattu and destroy his career. What personal actions did you take to ensure civil and fair treatment for Dr Mattu?

As these matters had definitely been brought to your attention the onus was firmly upon you, as Chairman of our Board of Trustees, to ensure that Dr Mattu was treated as fairly as all other Trust employees. How can you countenance these failures and totally disregard your obligations to Dr Mattu and other ethnic doctors at the Trust. This shameful treatment of Dr Mattu and these inexcusable actions cannot be allowed to continue. Nor will I accept that they result from difficulties in the implementation of the national disciplinary procedures that govern suspensions of Medical and Dental staff.

The local community is extremely disturbed by the information that we have garnered regarding the Trust Management's overt hostility and ill-intent towards Dr Mattu. We are increasingly concerned that you are also embroiled in this. We expect our Trust Chairman to intervene NOW and reinstate Dr Mattu and agree an independent, decent and fair investigation into the allegations against him, conducted by an external body with NO links with the Trust or its senior staff. I hope that you are not found wanting and anticipate an early reply.

Yours sincerely,

Mr S Sangha

cc Trust Board, Community leaders, MPs, DOH, CREC, CHAI, NAO, CMO

16^th June 2003

Mr Bryan Stoten

University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust

Dear Mr Stoten,

Thank you for responding to my letter of 3rd June 2003. However, your nonchalant disregard for my legitimate concerns about very important issues manifests a disdain for the local people that you serve and a neglectful attitude towards your obligations as Trust Chairman.

You were appointed as Chairman to our Board of Trustees to represent the interests of local people, scrutinising and maintaining surveillance of the Trust Executive regarding compliance with national standards, legal obligations and adherence to NHS procedures and policies. You are required to ensure that the Trust Executive is compliant with the Health & Safety Act, Human Rights Act, Race Relations Act, Data Protection Act and Employment Law, amongst others.

The matters that I raised directly with you on 3rd June relate to the Trust Executive breaching procedures and policies, threatening the career and well being of a number of our consultants, victimising Dr Mattu, discriminating against Dr Mattu, Racism within our NHS Trust, amongst others. These definitely fall within your remit.

It is significant that you have improperly advised the Chief Executive Officer to respond to my concerns about the conduct of the Senior Executive Officers at the Trust. It raises serious doubts over your independence and legitimacy in occupying the good offices that you hold. I expect the courtesy of a proper and exhaustive reply to my letter dated 3rd June 2003, and kindly request that you at last meet the obligations of your office.

Yours sincerely,

Mr S Sangha

cc Trust Board, Community leaders, MPs, DOH, CREC, CHAI, NAO, CMO

27^th June 2003

Mr Bryan Stoten

University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust

Dear Mr Stoten,

Thank you for your letter of 23rd June 2003. This again serves to confirm your obvious disdain for the local people that you serve, particularly your neglect of your duty to develop links with the community that you serve and your attitude towards the importance of engaging and involving patients.

Although your reply is woefully inadequate and unacceptable, I shall underline the claims that you do make in your letter such that there is no uncertainty:

· You claim "you are wrong in your understanding of my role in this Trust"

· You accept "it is important that due process be followed when a complaint is made"

· You claim that due process has been followed in the case of Dr Raj Mattu

· You claim you "have no further information about the substance of the complaint other than what has come into the public domain"

· You accept "as Chairman, it is necessary that I ensure that due process is adhered to"

· You advise that regarding your duty to ensure that policies and procedures are adhered to "I have made this point to my Chief Executive on numerous occasions"

Could you please provide full and frank replies to the following specific enquiries?:

1. Exactly what steps have you taken to determine and ensure that policies and procedures have been adhered to in the case of Dr Mattu, beyond merely telling the Chief Executive on numerous occasions that it was your role to ensure this?

2. Exactly what steps did you take to determine and ensure that policies and procedures were adhered to when you were informed that Dr Mattu had made complaints of bullying against senior managers and the former Chief Executive, Mr Loughton?

3. With what certainty can I rely upon your claim and reassurance that due process has not been breached in the case of Dr Mattu?

To help you to be better able to comprehend my concerns, I hope that by restricting this letter and my questions you may at least attempt to afford me the courtesy of a proper and exhaustive reply to my very serious and legitimate questions. I would be most grateful if you could do this in a timely manner, and also now provide a full reply to my previous letters of 3rd June and 16th June.

Yours sincerely,

Mr S Sangha

cc Trust Board, Community leaders, MPs, DOH, CREC, CHAI, NAO,
Appointments Commission, Dame Rennie Fritchie

3^rd June 2003

Mr Bryan Stoten (Chairman)

Walsgrave Hospital,

Dear Mr Stoten,

Having previously openly threatened his career, the Trust Management has now suspended Dr Raj Mattu for more than 15 months. During this unduly extensive time we have watched the Trust's flawed and biased investigation into Dr Mattu with interest, as we did when the Trust suspended another Asian doctor, Mr Barros D'Sa. The Trust suspended both doctors after they had earlier exposed senior managers and Mr Loughton by speaking out for patient safety, yet neither faced allegations regarding their clinical skills.

Other white consultants at the Trust facing similar allegations have not been suspended by the Trust. Maybe you can explain this obvious discrimination.

We expect the Trust to treat all its employees fairly, irrespective of colour and creed. As Chairman you are required to ensure this. This has not happened in the case of Dr Mattu, or for Mr Barros D'Sa. The coroner's inquiry recently criticised Dr Martin Been for inadequate care leading to the preventable death of a 30 year old. Maybe you can explain why have you afforded this white doctor protection, especially when his clinical skills have been questioned?

The local community has also come to learn about the terrible unfairness and faults in the investigation of Dr Mattu. This issue is of great concern to us and we require that Dr Mattu be returned to work immediately whilst independent outside organisations investigate allegations against him.

Failure to do this will continue the unfairness and discrimination that is apparent to local people, and we shall then have to seek justice elsewhere.

Yours sincerely,

J Khalsi

Trust Board, Lord Mayor, Trevor Phillips, Roger Banning, Keith Vaz, National Audit Office, DoH, Cov & Warks MPs, Prime Minister, Chancellor, CMO

14^th June 2003

Mr Bryan Stoten (Chairman)

Walsgrave Hospital,

Dear Mr Stoten,

I must admit surprise at your reply to my recent letter of 4th June. Having made specific enquiries, I cannot accept that the issues that I raised are outside of your remit as our NHS Trust Chairman. Could you specifically confirm whether you are claiming that the following very serious matters are not in your remit:

· Discrimination and racism within our NHS Trust Management.

· The Trust Executive's violation of Trust procedures.

· Senior Trust Management's continuance of the fear culture that CHI reported.

· Consultants facing overt threats against their career and employment from our NHS Trust Executives.

As a stakeholder I expect the Non-Executive Chairman to provide me a frank and honest reply to both my letters. You may have overlooked the fact that you are appointed as our representative to check and monitor activities of the Trust Executives against the norms of business conduct and regarding legal requirements. Moreover, we expect you to ensure decency and a moral code of conduct for all employees within the Trust, regardless of colour and creed.

Yours sincerely,

J Khalsi

Trust Board, Lord Mayor, Trevor Phillips, Roger Banning, Keith Vaz, National Audit Office, DoH, Cov & Warks MPs, Prime Minister, Chancellor, CMO

4^th June 2003

Mr Bryan Stoten

Chairman Walsgrave Hospital

Dear Mr Stoten,

Our generation faced great hardship and made lots of sacrifices to gain acceptance into British Society and we hoped that following generations would not be discriminated against. It is now very upsetting to see Dr Mattu being subjected to awful persecution at the NHS Trust. You are acutely aware of the struggles faced by economic migrants and persecuted peoples, yet you have allowed Dr Raj Mattu to suffer sustained victimisation by our Trust under your Chairmanship, with suspicion that you may be complicit.

Our community and its leaders have determined the TRUTH about events at the Trust and we are most displeased at what has been uncovered. No reason can excuse the Trust for inappropriately subjecting Dr Mattu to the excessive punishment of being prevented from working for the last 15 months, under the guise of suspension to investigate bullying.

We know that the complainant has doubtful integrity and the key witness appears to have committed perjury and therefore the evidence against Dr Mattu is unreliable and dubious. Yet the Trust ignored Dr Mattu's earlier grievance of bullying against Senior Management.

We know that Senior Management expressed open hostility towards Dr Mattu and declared their intention to get rid of him. The Management has deliberately built up a file against Dr Mattu, encouraging complaints and circulating a number of vicious rumours. Unsurprisingly, the Trust Management's flawed investigation into Dr Mattu has been irregular, scant, biased, full of procedural violations and prejudicial to Dr Mattu.

Dr Mattu grew up locally and cares about the health of Coventry people and he spoke up for us. Before this another Asian doctor, Mr Barros D'Sa, was suspended for 20 months. You will understand our intolerance of any further discrimination against Dr Mattu.

Allegations against any doctor, including Dr Mattu, must be carefully investigated but the Trust has demonstrated that a senior management that has openly threatened Dr Mattu and his career is unable to conduct an independent and fair investigation. Dr Mattu must be reinstated immediately and the investigation moved outside the organisation and undertaken in a transparent and fair platform where natural justice can be done.

Yours sincerely,

Mr KS Purewal

Cc MPs, councillors, Department of Health, Trevor Phillips.

17^th June 2003

Mr Bryan Stoten

Chairman Walsgrave Hospital

Dear Mr Stoten,

We are disappointed by the disregard that you manifest in your reply dated 11th June 2003 about the very serious matters that we raised in our letter of 4th June 2003. It is significant that you have asked the Chief Executive to deal with issues relating to potentially very serious misconduct by senior executives and members of the Trust Board.

We are surprised that you do not consider concerns about potential discrimination, racism and improper conduct by the Trust Executive as matters of central importance for the Trust Chairman to investigate. Do you honestly think that this is appropriate and proper discharge of your duties? Could you please reply fully to our letter of 4th June.

We previously referred to the community's extensive knowledge of the persecution and victimisation of Dr Mattu by the Trust Management, and cannot also consider a prejudicial and improper investigation into Dr Mattu by the very same Trust Management as being outside your responsibilities to remedy.

We hope you will also personally provide a full and frank answer as to why Dr Mattu was suspended shortly after white Trust Managers were allowed to simply walk out of a Trust inquiry into very serious allegations of bullying against them in Dr Mattu's grievance, and they faced no suspension or repercussions for refusing to comply. It would be unfortunate if you were to fail to do the decent and honourable thing and ensure that natural justice is done and that Dr Mattu is also afforded the same protection as his white colleagues.

Additionally, did you not also address your senior staff in December 2001 and declare that there would be NO further consultant suspensions without your knowledge and agreement? Consequently why did you selectively endorse the suspension of Dr Mattu under a Chief Executive who had openly declared hostility and an intention to get rid of Dr Mattu, and about which you were personally informed and aware of since January 2002?

Dr Mattu must now be reinstated immediately and investigated outside the organisation in a genuinely fair and independent setting. It is also important that a transparent external investigation is undertaken into the conduct of the Senior Management.

Yours sincerely,

Mr KS Purewal

Cc MPs, councillors, Department of Health, Trevor Phillips.

26^th June 2003

Mr Bryan Stoten

Chairman Walsgrave Hospital

Dear Mr Stoten,

Re Racism at University Hospitals Coventry & Warwickshire NHS Trust

After the BMA reported "racism is rife in the health service and even seen as acceptable" the Mirror newspaper claimed the "NHS IS RACIST" (24/06/03). This reflects the strong and rapidly growing view amongst the local community about our own NHS Trust, of which you are Chairman. We receive regular reports of racism from ethnic minority staff, and this is supported by our own enquiries. Ethnic doctors and nurses are too frightened to speak out and have no safe Trust or NHS platform for this. I must therefore formally ask you what you are doing about it, in light of the warning from CHI?

Just consider the current facts regarding senior Medical staff. During the last 5 years the Management at our Trust has received over 15 formal complaints against consultants for bullying. Only 2 of these have involved non-white doctors, Mr A Barros D'Sa and Dr R Mattu. Is it coincidence that they are the only 2 consultants that have been suspended by the Trust under these allegations?

In February 2001 Dr Mattu received a near unanimous vote from his 14 consultant colleagues in the Heart Department to replace the white Clinical Director, Dr S Evans, whom had received a near unanimous vote of no confidence. The Trust Management refused to allow Dr Mattu to join the management. The Consultants again nominated him as their chosen Clinical Director, and he was again refused this position. Why?

Dr Evans openly accepted that he was victimising Dr Mattu and that this was with the blessing of Mr Loughton, former Chief Executive, who openly declared that he and the senior management wanted to get rid of Dr Mattu and also destroy his career. We know that you are aware of this, so why have you done nothing about it? Are you complicit? We ask you to now urgently look into this matter and take proper action.

Dr Mattu raised formal grievances, which the Management largely refused to investigate, and on the only occasion that they did, Dr Evans and another manager, Mr G Burley, simply walked out of the inquiry because they did not wish to be cross-examined and be investigated. Dr Evans faced no suspension or repercussions. Why? We ask you to look into this matter.

The Management refused to investigate a grievance against Dr Martin Been for victimising Dr Mattu, even though Dr Been has made unfounded complaints against Dr Mattu, contacted staff within and outside the Trust to make complaints against Dr Mattu and even encouraged others to join him in using a private detective on Dr Mattu to generate more complaints. Why is Dr Been being protected despite such outrageous conduct? Have you some undisclosed association? Again, we formally ask you to investigate this now.

A year later, February 2002, Mr Loughton's newly promoted manager, Dr LJ Booth, suspended Dr Mattu. Dr Booth and Mrs K Martin (Director of Human Resources) knew about the actions of Dr Evans, Dr Been and many Senior Executives. So why has Dr Mattu been singled out and discriminated against in this way? At the time that Dr Mattu was suspended, over 30% of the 200 consultants at our Trust were from non-white ethnic minorities, but only one had been allowed to hold a management post. At this time there were also no non-white members on the Trust Board. Does this not concern you? Is it related to why Dr Booth, Mr Loughton and Mrs K Martin arranged and you authorised the highly selective suspension of Dr Mattu?

Contrast this with the actions of the Trust Executive only a few months ago, when two senior nurses made formal complaints of bullying against a white senior consultant who is also a manager. It is widely known that not only was he not suspended but he has also not even faced any formal investigation. Why? Are white consultants exempt from the same policies and procedures? It is outrageous that you claim that the Executive adheres to procedures and that it has done so in the case of Dr Mattu. An urgent explanation is required and I expect you to deal with this now.

It is well established from a number of health care evaluations and stakeholders that our Trust Executive has many failings and is dysfunctional, and therefore this requires you to scrutinise and monitor them even more closely on behalf of the local community. However, you have failed to discharge your duties and do what a worthy chairman should do on our behalf. I will not accept you merely echoing what the Chief Executive tells you, and expect you to establish an independent examination of these matters. I raise very serious issues in this letter relating to discrimination, persecution and racism, and expect you to look into them.

Racism will not be accepted in our local health service, yet Dr Mattu continues to suffer persecution and blatant racism. It is high time you served the local community's interests and did your job as Chairman of our Board of Trustees. I urge you to correct your previous failings and urgently respond to this letter. How much more blatant must the Racism become before you wake up to the problem and take your duties seriously and act?

Yours sincerely,

Mr Dilbagh Singh Gill
(Secretary)

Cc Trust Board, Temples, Churches, Buddhist Society, Trades Council, Councillors, MPs, CRE, DoH, BMA

2^nd July 2003

Mr Bryan Stoten

Chairman

Dear Mr Stoten,

We have read your letter dated 23rd June 2003 with interest. We note your comments (in bold) and ask the following specific questions:

1. "I have no knowledge of Dr Mattu's case in terms of substance"

2. ""I have been assured that I must remain entirely separate from the matter"

a. Did Dr LJ Booth not get promoted to a senior management position by Mr Loughton in November 2001?

b. Did you inform the consultants that no further consultant suspensions would take place without your knowledge and agreement on 18th December 2001?

c. In January 2001 did you not inform local MPs that you had read a large file on Dr Mattu that contained numerous serious complaints?

d. In January 2001 did you not inform MPs that you were so concerned about the conduct of Dr Mattu, that his file and the whole matter were to be passed to the region and DoH?

e. Did you summon Dr Mattu to a personal meeting with you on 30th January 2002?

f. Did Dr LJ Booth remain in attendance throughout this meeting, despite repeated requests by Dr Mattu for his departure?

g. Did Dr LJ Booth not specifically suspend only Dr Mattu despite being aware of similar outstanding grievances of bullying against other senior managers and consultants?

h. Did Dr Booth not also selectively suspend another non-white consultant, Mr Alban Barros D'Sa, with the same allegations of bullying a junior, on behalf of the Professional Standards Committee, on which Mr Loughton also served?

i. Has Dr Booth given you fortnightly reviews about Dr Mattu's case?

j. Before 7th September 2002 had you not provided a Minister in Her Majesty's Government, details of the allegations that Dr Mattu was facing?

k. Before 7th September 2002 had you not provided a Minister in Her Majesty's Government, details of the numerous complaints in Dr Mattu's file?

l. Before 7th September 2002 had you not provided a Minister in Her Majesty's Government, details of the meetings, including specific dates, that Dr Mattu had allegedly failed to attend?

m. Between 7th September and November 2002, did you not brief MPs, councillors and Executives in the NHS and DoH about Dr Mattu's case?

n. On 7th November 2002, did you not attend a meeting in London with Mr D Roberts (CEO) and brief MPs about Dr Mattu's case?

o. How do you reconcile these matters with your claims in 1 & 2 above?

3. "It is not appropriate for a non Executive Chairman to be involved in matters of personnel and human relations within the Trust"

4. "Any arbitrary intervention by myself as a result of external pressures would be - quite properly - criticised and I could not in good conscience be part of such a course of action"

a. Why then did you inform the consultants at the Trust, on 18th December 2002, that there would be no further suspensions of consultants without your knowledge and agreement?

b. Why then did you summon Dr Mattu to a personal meeting with you on 17th January 2002?

c. Why then did you threaten Dr Mattu on 17th January 2002 that you would act against any consultant that faced complaints of intimidating managers at the Trust?

d. Why then did you threaten Dr Mattu on 17th January 2002 that you would not tolerate any facts being leaked to the media, and that you would act against any consultants that did?

e. Why then, on 17th January 2002, did you wrongly accuse Dr Mattu of leaking information about colorectal surgery problems at the Trust to the Birmingham Post? Particularly as totally different people had taken that matter forward, and Dr Mattu had played absolutely no part.

f. Why then, on 17th January 2002were you adamant, along with Dr Booth, that the CHI report had been critical of consultants intimidating managers when describing the fear culture within our Trust and not as Dr Mattu had pointed out, that CHI had warned of senior clinicians being in fear of speaking out because of victimisation by the senior management?

g. Why did you give agreement for the suspension of Dr Mattu after 17th January 2002?

h. Why did you prepare MPs for your agreement to suspend Dr Mattu by circulating details about "serious" complaints in his file?

i. During 2002, why did you summon 4 consultants in the heart department to meet you individually, after they had raised formal complaints against the same two senior managers against whom Dr Mattu had previously raised his outstanding grievances of bullying?

j. Why did you threaten these 4 consultants that you would act against any consultant that faced complaints of intimidating managers at the Trust?

k. Do the above support your claims of abstaining from and maintaining neutrality about staff interactions and personnel matters?

5. "I have absolutely no reason to believe that any member of my senior management is anything other than objective in their addressing of these matters"

a. Let us start by reminding you that you are the non-Executive Chair of a "Public Body" and, as such, represent the local community on our NHS Trust Board, along with the other Trustees. Consequently they are no more 'your' senior management than they are 'ours'. Therefore, it is inappropriate for you to adopt the 'us & them' position that you have obviously taken.

b. By definition you are advising us that you have concluded that there is no substance to our concerns about highly irregular and improper actions by the Trust Executive and other senior staff.

c. Could you please advise us of exactly what steps and investigations you undertook to reach that conclusion?

d. It is unfortunate and significant that you have such disregard for the views of the local community, and instead insist that we have given you absolutely no reason to believe that there may have been serious misconduct by the senior management.

Would you therefore please advise us about whether you consider any of the following actions by our senior management and consultants as serious?

e. Open threats to destroy Dr Mattu's career after he had raised health issues

f. Subjecting Dr Mattu to victimisation and discrimination

g. Racist behaviour towards Dr Mattu and other ethnic staff at the Trust

h. Senior Staff actively encouraging many inside and outside the Trust to make complaints against Dr Mattu and even use a private detective against him.

i. That evidence relied upon by the Senior management to suspend and continue the persecution of Dr Mattu is derived from two highly unreliable witnesses with doubtful integrity and collected under very dubious circumstances

j. That both witnesses have completely changed their stories.

k. That one of the doctors at the Trust has committed perjury in order to give evidence against Dr Mattu.

l. Dr LJ Booth, Dr M Harrison (investigating officer), Mrs K Martin (Director of Human Resources) and Mrs A Casey (Chief Operating Officer) have breached procedures during the suspension and investigation of Dr Mattu.

m. That Trust Executives have tampered with evidence during Dr Mattu's investigation.

n. That the Executive used a flawed and prejudicial panel during the inquiry.

o. That Trust Executives have conducted a biased investigation.

We cannot reconcile your confident claims about the conduct of Senior Executives in this matter with the facts. We are therefore naturally concerned about your role, and whether you may be complicit in the obvious wrong-doing by the senior management.

We also remain disappointed by your disregard for our concerns, and find it significant that you have asked the Chief Executive to deal with issues that undoubtedly infer very serious misconduct by senior executives and members of the Trust Board.

We do not accept "I am unable to answer your letter in the way in which you would like". What we "would like" is for you to provide us open and honest answers. We insist that you now simply give us straight truthful answers to our concerns and questions.

We expect you to reply to our letters dated 4th & 17th June and this correspondence by return.

Yours sincerely,

Mr KS Purewal

Cc MPs, councilors, Department of Health, CRE, NHS Executive, Appts Commission.

5^th July 2003

Mr Bryan Stoten

Chairman Walsgrave Hospital

Dear Mr Stoten,

Re Racism at University Hospitals Coventry & Warwickshire NHS Trust

We are disappointed that almost 2 weeks have passed and you have failed to reply to, or even acknowledge our important letter dated 26th June 2003. It was only after extensive enquiry that the local community reached what is clearly emerging as the correct view, that Dr Mattu has suffered extensive victimisation and discrimination. It is however significant that you have elected to ignore the serious issue of racism at our Trust. You will understand the resultant scrutiny and concerns over your role.

The Chairman of the Senior Staff committee of the Hospital has come down very strongly in support of the conclusion that the local people had independently reached some time ago. This leader of the senior consultants has clearly evidenced widespread wrong-doing by the senior management towards Dr Mattu and says that "he had a catalogue of complaints regarding discrepancies in Dr Mattu's case and the issues surrounding it"

· We have identified some very serious irregularities in the treatment, suspension and investigation of Dr Mattu.

· We have given you evidence that supports the charges of discrimination and victimisation of Dr Mattu, and will supply plenty more.

· We have also reminded you about the findings of two very able external agencies that have warned of victimisation of senior clinicians by senior managers causing a fear culture at the Trust (CHI) and that racism is rife in the NHS and even seen as acceptable (BMA).

You appear to hold no interest in serving the local community or to ensure that you fulfil your duties and role as Chair, such as "promotes equality of opportunity in its treatment of staff and patients", and "meets legal and contractual duties and obligations…….patient, public or staff safety", plus "develops links with its community, engaging and involving patients"

We are aware that the latest CHI visit and findings were founded on the Trust manipulating the investigation by making access to staff highly selective and also by briefing the staff due to meet the CHI. Examples will be provided when needed.

Your disregard for our concerns either manifests an obvious acceptance of racism by you, or that you may be complicit, or both. Both eventualities are alarming.

Mr Stoten, you will no longer be allowed to hide behind the many excuses you have given us in your 20-month tenure. We demand to know the TRUTH behind the outrageous persecution of one of the country's most eminent rising specialists in heart disease. We sincerely hope that your prevarication in this matter is not motivated by racism.

You have vocalised your intolerance of victimisation and intimidation and discriminately protected Dr Been, and other white Consultants and Managers, from this. You will understand the very serious doubts we have about your position on this matter, and why you appear to be complicit to discrimination against Dr Mattu and therefore racism.

In modern Britain where most decent people want a truly multicultural and diverse society, we will not accept or tolerate racism, in any form. This must be addressed vigorously and supported with due resources.

Dr Mattu is a clear victim of extensive, relentless and intense victimisation and discrimination at our Trust. You have repeatedly ignored calls to look into the matter and remedy the situation. The Mirror newspaper claimed that the "NHS is Racist". Our observations over Dr Mattu, other staff and from patient experiences, clearly demonstrate THE UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS COVENTRY & WARWICKSHIRE NHS TRUST IS RACIST. We genuinely hope that Mr Stoten is not racist.

Mr Stoten your inadequacies have clearly been exposed during your time at the Trust, and you have lost the confidence of the local people. We hope that racism is not a trait that we should be adding to the list.

As Chair, we demand that you now reply to each and every question that we put before you in our previous letter of 26th June and this communication. You will understand our reasons for now also formally referring this matter and yourself to the Commission for Racial Equality and the NHS Executive.

We expect a full reply by return.

Yours sincerely,

Mr Dilbagh Singh Gill
(Secretary)

Cc Trust Board, Temples, Churches, Buddhist Society, Trades Council, Councillors, MPs, CRE, DoH, BMA, NHS Executive

16^th June 2003

Mr Bryan Stoten

Walsgrave Hospital NHS Trust

Dear Mr Stoten,

As a Coventrian and stakeholder in our health service I take a keen interest in matters affecting our Trust. An issue of great concern to myself, and the public in Coventry, is the prolonged suspension of Dr Raj Mattu, a consultant cardiologist at our hospital. I realise that, having arrived at our Trust in December 2001, you had less than 3 months working knowledge of Dr Mattu before your senior managers suspended him on charges of bullying in February 2002, however you ought not to forget that he remains an employee of the Trust.

It is now June 2003 and the Trust is still maintaining Dr Mattu's suspension and preventing him from doing his job and pursuing his vocation. It is an absolute disgrace that this has lasted for more than fifteen months, and it must be of considerable personal cost to Dr Mattu in terms of his well-being. Aside from affording him a salary, what steps have you taken to protect Dr Mattu's well-being during this period?

I am also concerned about the considerable monetary cost to our Trust of this needless act. No doubt you are aware that the Trust is required to report the costs associated with Dr Mattu's suspension. These will not be inconsiderable since Dr Mattu is employed as a Consultant Cardiologist and Physician. You will therefore have had to employ 2 locum consultants at a conservative cost of approximately £60,000 per person per year. I doubt that you would have found a single locum Consultant willing to fill both posts at the same time for a single Consultant's remuneration. If this is not the case please advise me?

On this basis alone, a cautious estimate of the personnel costs would put the expenditure in excess of £250,000. Is this justifiable when Dr Mattu has not been suspended on any charge related to his clinical practice and is therefore perfectly capable and, I am sure, more than willing to undertake his duties?

Doubtless there are also substantial legal costs already incurred, independent of any Court action that may ensue. You will also not need reminding the excessive costs of the Trust's injudicious suspension of Mr Barros D'Sa after he too blew the whistle about patient safety. These are widely estimated to be in excess of £500,000. How can you just accept yet another costly suspension at our Trust, and not take preventative action? Particularly since you notified the consultant body in December 2001, that no further suspensions of consultants would take place without your knowledge and agreement.

Notwithstanding the above, you should be aware that Dr Mattu had a thriving research program and was extremely successful at securing research grants and awards, which amounted to around one million pounds over the past 5 years. Aside from the damage that the Trust's suspension has had on Dr Mattu's research and reputation over this period there would be more than £200,000 in lost research monies. How can these sequelae be reconciled with your aspirations of developing a University Teaching Hospital and fostering world class research at your institute? These consequences certainly do not equate with the principles and traditions of developing and furthering scientific research espoused in the Midlands by the Lunar Society.

Clearly Dr Mattu has been suspended for far too long, and it is time for you to exercise your role as Trust Chair to justly administer the Trust policies with honesty and transparency to protect Dr Mattu's interests by reinstating him and acceding to a truly independent investigation. I will await your response.

Yours sincerely,

Mr P Ignjatovic

Cc: Mr A Blair, Dr J Reid, Mr I Duncan-Smith, Dr L Fox, Mr C Kennedy, Dr E Harris, Mr G Robinson, Mr J Cunningham, Mr R Ainsworth, Mr M O'Brien, Mrs C Spellman, Mr A King, Mr W Olner, Mr J Plaskitt, Mr K Vaz, Mr J Maples, Ms. L. Lynne, Mr S Murphy, Sir Liam Donaldson, Ms. K Taylor

29^th June 2003

Mr Bryan Stoten

Walsgrave Hospital NHS Trust

Dear Mr Stoten,

Thank you for your letter dated 23 June. As Chairman of our Trustees on the NHS Trust Board, you should be under no misapprehension that your role is specifically to represent the local community and their interests, and certainly not those of the Executive. When stakeholders and members of the local community raise legitimate matters related to our NHS Trust, your duties oblige you to engage us and respond honestly and completely. It is noteworthy that you have chosen not to answer the questions that I put to you either honestly or openly. Could you please read my letter once again and fulfil your duties and now do that.

To make it easier for you to comprehend what I detailed in my letter dated 16th June, I shall try and help you by clarifying the questions to which I expect you to provide honest and full answers. In order to avoid confusing you any further, I shall deal with the specific points that you raise in your letter dated 23 June, under cover of a separate response.

1. You are aware of the Trust Executive's poor record over matters relating to compliance with disciplinary procedures (Appeal court judge ruling, consultant vote of no confidence).

2. You are aware that the CHI strongly criticised the Trust Executive and senior Management about victimising senior clinicians who speak out about patient care, and also for creating a fear culture within the Trust.

3. Prior to the suspension of Dr Mattu, you were made personally aware of the Chief Executive (Mr Loughton), and other managers, making open threats to get rid of Dr Mattu and destroy his career.

4. Prior to suspension, you were made personally aware that Dr Mattu had grievances for bullying against senior managers that the management refused to investigate, and that on the single occasion that they did, the managers walked out of the hearing without any comeback, even to date. Why has the Trust done this?

5. You are aware that weeks after Mr Loughton had promoted Dr LJ Booth to join the Trust Management, he suspended Dr Mattu.

6. Dr Booth took this action even though he was aware that Mr Loughton had threatened Dr Mattu, and that there were outstanding grievances raised by Dr Mattu against the senior management.

7. Mr Loughton remained in office for more than 7 months after suspension, with his new Director of personnel, Mrs K Martin, who had benefited from the patronage under which Mr Loughgton operated. She remains in office, and has overseen the many breaches of procedure that have taken place during Dr Mattu's suspension and investigation.

8. On 17 December 2001 you addressed the Trust consultants and told them that you would ensure that no further suspensions of consultants would take place at the Trust without your knowledge and agreement.

9. During the last 5 years there have been more than 15 formal complaints of bullying against consultants in the Trust. Only 2 have involved consultants that are not white, Dr Mattu and Mr Barros D'Sa. Why have they been the only two to be suspended?

10. Although both consultants were suspended on the decision of Mr Loughton, Dr Mattu was suspended only after your agreement.

11. Following the suspension of Dr Mattu you personally got involved in formal complaints of bullying raised by 4 consultants, against two of your senior managers, and you called the complaining consultants to individual meetings with you.

12. These complaints resulted in both of these managers (who had previously walked out of a hearing) each facing 5 complaints of bullying over a period of about 12 months, including one from Dr Mattu. They have never been suspended or faced any formal inquiries. Why?

13. One of those managers, an anaesthetist, still remains a clinical director, how?

14. In the last few months a white consultant faced formal complaints of bullying by 2 senior nurses, he has not been suspended and neither has he been subjected to any formal inquiry. Why?

15. The local community expects you to fulfil your obligations as the Chair, and therefore assess and monitor the Trust's compliance with procedures and policies, being particularly diligent in light of the above.

16. The local community also expects you to fulfil your obligations as the Chair and ensure that the Trust complies with procedures and policies.

17. Surely, even you must consider the above (numbers 1-16) highly irregular, particularly on the background of well known events at the Trust?

18. I therefore repeat my previous question, can you please detail exactly what steps have you taken to protect Dr Mattu's well-being during this period?

19. I also ask you to detail exactly what you have done to get to the bottom of these irregularities by the Trust Executive?

20. The Trust made Dr Mattu provide full time services of both a consultant physician and also of a consultant cardiologist. His attempts to reduce this undue and onerous workload was constantly prevented by the very senior managers about whom Dr Mattu has raised grievances of bullying him.

21. During his suspension full-time locum consultants have been employed to cover his medical duties and roster. Bearing in mind that locums cost substantially more than regular NHS staff, let me demonstrate a very conservative costing based on a non-locum, regular NHS consultant with a mid range basic salary of over £62, 000/ year and then adding the employers-costs of at least 30%, which adds a further £18, 600/ year. This costs the Trust more than £80, 600/ year.

22. Since Dr Mattu has now been suspended into his 17th month, he will have been suspended for 1.42 years (17/12 months)

23. Consequently at the end of July 2003 it will have cost the Trust over £114, 000 (1.42 x 75,000) to have Dr Mattu's duties in General Medicine covered.

24. During this period locum consultants have also been employed in the cardiology department to cover Dr Mattu's cardiology work. The Trust have deliberately not called them locums for Dr Mattu even though they have covered his duties, including clinics and rosters in Cardiology.

25. The Cardiology locums will also have cost over £114, 000 by the end of July 2003.

26. Both locums together will have cost more than £228, 000 to cover Dr Mattu's duties over the suspension period.

27. Meanwhile Dr Mattu will have cost the Trust a similar figure of over £114, 000 to sit at home and not provide his excellent service.

28. Consequently, the Trust has paid over £342, 000 to maintain the very basic level of service that Dr Mattu previously provided, without it being delivered by a consultant of international standing and one in which the people of Coventry believe and Trust in.

29. I therefore repeat my previous question, is this justifiable when Dr Mattu has not been suspended on any charge related to his clinical practice and is therefore perfectly capable of and, I am sure, more than willing to undertake his duties?

30. Doubtless there are also substantial legal costs already incurred, independent of any Court action that may ensue. Following the needless costs recently incurred by the Trust to resolve the suspension of Mr Barros D'Sa, I therefore repeat my previous question, how can you just accept yet another costly suspension at our Trust, and not take preventative action?

31. As well as his high level of patient care and the attention that he personally provided, it is widely known that improvements in the cardiac department in recent years have largely come through the efforts of Dr Mattu, in the face of an obstructive Management.

32. He set up the TOE heart scanning service, chest pain ward, improved blood tests to screen for heart attacks and risk, improvements in prevention of heart attacks, rapid access chest pain clinic, facilities for emergency heart scanning, amongst many others.

33. Dr Mattu also established treatment guidelines for heart attacks, chest pain, to reduce heart attack risk, heart failure and prevention, amongst countless other improvements.

34. Dr Mattu transformed the heart scanning service and secured large amounts of extra external funds to purchase the latest scanning equipment and recruit extra staff.

35. Dr Mattu secured over £250, 000 of extra external funding into the cardiology department for service improvements alone.

36. Dr Mattu established academia within the department and established a thriving research program and was extremely successful at securing research grants and awards, which amounted to around one million pounds over the past 5 years. (Averaging £200, 000/ year)

37. The Trust Management deliberately dismantled and destroyed Dr Mattu's research programme, outrageously making false claims of absent funds and also sending Dr Mattu's researchers atrocious unwarranted letters of termination of contract, amongst other actions. Why? What are you going to do about this? How do you propose to investigate this sinister conduct by the Trust Management?

38. The Trust has lost more than £200,000/ year in research funds that Dr Mattu had been attracting. During his suspension period this has resulted in a loss of at least £280, 000 of research funds.

39. I therefore repeat my question how can these sequelae be reconciled with your expressed aspirations of developing a University Teaching Hospital and fostering world class research at our Trust?

40. I have not even begun to highlight the dreadful violations in procedure during Dr Mattu's investigation and the blatant bias with which it has been conducted.

41. I am formally advising you of the flawed investigation and the many irregularities by the Trust Executive described above and request a formal reply as to what you intend to do to investigate our Trust Executive regarding this whole matter.

42. I trust you are aware of the above and ask why you have not previously acted upon our behalf.

43. If you have no knowledge of the above, it begs the question as to whether you have any idea of what is going on at our Trust and about what the Executive has been up to, in our name.

44. Our NHS Trust is a public organisation, run for us by public servants, and with our money. As Chair to our Trustees you are wholly responsible for determining and ensuring whether our Executive is compliant with policies, procedures and the law, and you are clearly accountable to the local community, the Chair of the strategic Health Authority and Dr J Reid, our Secretary of State for Health.

45. I advise that I will not simply accept what the Chief Executive tells you, as he may be complicit in these matters and integral to the problem. I expect you to fulfil your duties as Chair and provide an honest and full reply by return.

To help you respond to each and every point that I raise, I have assisted you by numbering them all and fully expect you to give complete replies and specifically challenge any that you do not agree with, and naturally supply me with your contention.

The local community is fed up with the debacle over which you have been presiding and now expect truth and honesty to our genuine and substantiated concerns.

I await an early reply to my previous correspondence dated 16 June and this letter.

Yours sincerely,

Mr P Ignjatovic

Cc: Mr D Roberts, Trust Board, Dr J Reid, Mr A Blair, Mr I Duncan-Smith, Mr C Kennedy, Dr L Fox, Dr E Harris, Mr G Robinson, Mr J Cunningham, Mr R Ainsworth, Mr M O'Brien, Mrs C Spellman, Mr A King, Mr W Olner, Mr J Plaskitt, Mr K Vaz, Mr J Maples, Ms. L. Lynne, Mr S Murphy, Sir Liam Donaldson, Ms. K Taylor, CHAIR SHA, Sir Nigel Crisp, Dame Rennie Fritchie

30^th June 2003

Mr Bryan Stoten

Walsgrave Hospital NHS Trust

Dear Mr Stoten,

Thank you for your letter dated 23 June. It appears that you have either missed the point of my letter or been deliberately evasive. Both possibilities have significant implications with respect to the good offices that are afforded to you on behalf of the local community. This important matter is naturally for separate correspondence and goes some way to explaining why the local community does not Trust you or have faith in your Chairmanship.

It is also significant that you have been so dismissive and not taken your responsibilities seriously towards the local community and regarding promotion of equality in the Trust's treatment of staff and patients, even if as you say, I had just raised personnel matters, where the trust Executive exhibited constant prejudice.

It is regrettable that I have to remind you of your duties as Chairman. As Chairman of our Trustees on the NHS Hospitals Board, you should be under no misapprehension that your duties and role specifically includes representation of the local community and their interests.

When stakeholders and members of the local community raise legitimate concerns about misconduct by our NHS Trust Executive, your duties oblige you to engage us and provide complete and honest replies, after having personally arranged investigation of the matter. We are well aware of how we have been repeatedly misled in the past, and will therefore not accept you simply repeating to us what the Executive have merely told you when you receive serious complaints about our Executives.

The issues that I outline in my letter of 16 June and 29 June are far more important and sinister than merely "personnel matters". These are very serious issues and implicate possible discrimination, racism, deception, incompetence of Senior Executives and Trustees, abuse of power by the Executive for the purposes of persecuting a whistleblower, amongst many others. You are either rather naive or being deliberately obtuse to suggest that these are simply "personnel matters", because the treatment of Dr Mattu has been the vehicle that has exposed these extremely serious problems within our Trust Executive.

Could you please confirm that you are indeed claiming that when I raise the issues listed in the paragraph above about possible serious misconduct by the Trust Executive that you are "unable to undertake any action of my own independently of my Executive Directors"

You downgrade my concerns by patronisingly claiming that I am not aware of the full facts and wrong, yet smugly offer no clarification. Please provide me those answers such that we can engage properly on the matter and determine who is right here.

I do not accept your claims that I am wrong about the suspension of Dr Mattu having a detrimental effect upon the finances of the Trust and that my "concerns about the impact on finances of the Trust are unfounded". In my letters of 16 June and 29 June I have set out the matter and I now expect a straight and full response from you about this.

You assure me that my understanding regarding the irregularities surrounding the suspension of Dr Mattu is incomplete. Could you please advise me in detail about exactly what you have done to determine the facts and how you have assessed the veracity of the alternative claims to verify their authenticity. I can assure that my sources are very reliable and will give evidence at the right time.

You are ultimately responsible for holding our Trust Executive to account and charged with ensuring that they do not breach procedures. I await an early reply to all my correspondence and Trust that this will be complete and truthful.

Yours sincerely,

Mr P Ignjatovic

Cc: Mr D Roberts, Trust Board, Dr J Reid, Mr A Blair, Mr I Duncan-Smith, Mr C Kennedy, Dr L Fox, Dr E Harris, Mr G Robinson, Mr J Cunningham, Mr R Ainsworth, Mr M O'Brien, Mrs C Spellman, Mr A King, Mr W Olner, Mr J Plaskitt, Mr K Vaz, Mr J Maples, Ms. L. Lynne, Mr S Murphy, Sir Liam Donaldson, Ms. K Taylor, Mr Charles Goody, Sir Nigel Crisp, Mrs Jane Isaacs, Sir William Wells, Dame Rennie Fritchie

30^th July 2003

Mr Bryan Stoten

Walsgrave Hospital NHS Trust

Dear Mr Stoten,

There can be absolutely no doubt that the very serious issues that I have raised with you are of great importance and may highlight disturbing and potentially sinister conduct by senior Executives, Board members and staff at the Trust. It is extremely disappointing and noteworthy that over one month later you have still not bothered to reply to a single one of those issues.

I first wrote to you on 16 June and you wrongfully tried to brush me off to the Chief Executive on 23 June. I clarified my concerns on 29 June and again asked for you to oblige your statutory duties and reply to my two letters. On 30 June I afforded you the courtesy of a detailed reply to your letter of the 23 June and sought further responses from you. On 10 July I was provided an assurance of a response. So far you have failed to do so.

On looking through my correspondence, I noted that you had been forwarded a draft copy of my letter of 29 June 2003. For your convenience, I have again enclosed all my correspondence, and included the final version of 29 June.

Once more I ask you to have the decency to provide me complete and truthful replies to ALL my concerns and questions, and respond fully to ALL my letters. You will undoubtedly understand that if you continue to refuse to discharge your duties, I will need to report the matter, and yourself, to higher authorities and bring, what is emerging as a sinister cover-up, to their attention.

Yours sincerely,

Mr P Ignjatovic

Cc: Mr D Roberts, Trust Board, Dr J Reid, Mr A Blair, Mr I Duncan-Smith, Mr C Kennedy, Dr L Fox, Dr E Harris, Mr G Robinson, Mr J Cunningham, Mr R Ainsworth, Mr M O'Brien, Mrs C Spellman, Mr A King, Mr W Olner, Mr J Plaskitt, Mr K Vaz, Mr J Maples, Ms. L. Lynne, Mr S Murphy, Sir Liam Donaldson, Ms. K Taylor, Mr Charles Goody, Sir Nigel Crisp, Mrs Jane Isaacs, Sir William Wells, Dame Rennie Fritchie

30^th July 2003

Mr Bryan Stoten

Walsgrave Hospital NHS Trust

Dear Mr Stoten,

Further to my previous letters I draw attention to the Trust's overspend causing cut backs in staffing levels. It is pertinent that the Coventry Evening Telegraph has exposed the Trust as having a £1.5 million deficit, where "heart and chest surgery, is overspent by a massive £943, 000." Moreover, it is revealed that "The use of bank and agency nurses and locum doctors is one area where too much has been paid out". Did you not dismiss this concern after I had alerted you?

The emerging facts about Trust finances cannot be reconciled with your previous wrongful claims "your concerns about the impact on the finances of the Trust are unfounded". You will understand why local people are concerned over growing evidence for a likely cover up at the Trust, and about your integrity and role. I can only conclude that you have either been deliberately misleading or that you have done this inadvertently through incompetence. I hope that I am not being inappropriately naive in being generous and assuming that the latter is the reason for you making unfounded and wrongful claims. Affording you the benefit of doubt, I remind you that you are required to know what is happening at our Trust

Finding that you are oblivious of what is going on reflects poor performance and ability on your part, however, the fact that you have not even bothered to initiate any independent evaluation to determine the true facts following my enquiries and serious comments, reveals your shear ineptitude, apathy and fundamental unsuitability for the Chair of our NHS Trust. I await a reply by return.

Yours sincerely,

Mr P Ignjatovic
enc
Cc: Mr D Roberts, Trust Board, Dr J Reid, Mr A Blair, Mr I Duncan-Smith, Mr C Kennedy, Dr L Fox, Dr E Harris, Mr G Robinson, Mr J Cunningham, Mr R Ainsworth, Mr M O'Brien, Mrs C Spellman, Mr A King, Mr W Olner, Mr J Plaskitt, Mr K Vaz, Mr J Maples, Ms. L. Lynne, Mr S Murphy, Sir Liam Donaldson, Ms. K Taylor, Mr Charles Goody, Sir Nigel Crisp, Mrs Jane Isaacs, Sir William Wells, Dame Rennie Fritchie

17^th June 2003

Mr Bryan Stoten

Chairman Walsgrave Hospital

Dear Mr Stoten,

CHI and the Times reports confirmed serious deficiencies in the quality of care at our Trust, and those who were exposed as being responsible for the poor state of local health care have shamelessly misled stakeholders and attempted a cover up. They responded by persecuting the advocates for our community, such as Dr Raj Mattu, who bravely spoke out for us amidst the fear culture at the Trust.

The truth about what is behind the long suspension of Dr Mattu is out, and local people are bothered by it. Senior managers and members of the Trust Board have announced intentions to get rid of Dr Mattu and damage his career. They have then approached many NHS staff and encouraged complaints against Dr Mattu, even the use of a private detective to build up a file against him. I must formally ask what you have done about these actions?

In January 2001 you were personally informed about the victimisation and bullying that Dr Mattu was suffering from senior management, but you chose to take no action and also disregard the un-investigated formal grievance that Dr Mattu had raised. Instead, in February 2002 you approved the suspension of Dr Mattu under the same allegations that he had raised against senior management. The senior managers that suspended Dr Mattu were well aware of his outstanding grievance, yet they discriminated against him and selectively suspended Dr Mattu. It can hardly be coincidence that from more than 15 complaints of bullying against consultants during the last 5 years only 2 consultants have been suspended and they just happen to be the only non-white consultants facing such allegations. I formally ask you why they have been selectively discriminated against?

A number of community leaders advise about your claims of having examined a large file made up by the Trust on Dr Mattu that contains serious allegations, and about your briefings on Dr Mattu. In our society all persons are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Do you think it was therefore appropriate for you to make your public claims about Dr Mattu and also to betray employee confidentiality?

You are appointed Chair of our Trust Board and entrusted as our advocate along with other Trustees. You are required to scrutinise improper actions by Trust Executives, which includes their mistreatment of Dr Mattu and biased investigation. Local people call upon you to do your duty and immediately end the unjustified suffering of Dr Mattu by reinstating him and establishing a proper investigation of Dr Mattu by a genuinely independent and fair-minded external agency that does not harbour malice towards him, such that real justice is finally done.

Yours sincerely,

Mr Brian King

Cc Trust Board, Department of Health, MPs, councillors, Commission for Racial Equality.

9^th July 2003

Mr B Stoten

Chairman, University Hospitals Coventry & Warwickshire NHS Trust

Dear Mr Stoten,

Dr Mattu was suspended in February 2002, it is now June 2003 and you are still stopping him from doing his job. He has been accused of being a bully, but where is the evidence? If there is any natural justice at the Trust, and assuming Dr Mattu is found guilty, without previous recorded guilt, he is only justly liable for a verbal or written warning. However, strong evidence shows that he is being victimised and persecuted by the Trust, thus the Trust Executive may try to wrongly dismiss him. Under watchful scrutiny of local people the Executive would certainly need irrefutable and totally defensible reasons to even try to do this, but we will rely upon you to ensure that there is no such miscarriage of justice.

Irrespective of guilt the 16-month suspension has already served as a severe and unjustified punishment for Dr Mattu. This is an abuse of human rights that would interest Amnesty International were it happening elsewhere, and it should not be allowed to continue. Why have you accepted and permitted yet another extensive suspension at our hospital? Why have white consultants facing the same allegations not had the same treatment or policies?

I attended many public meetings where it was shown that there is an awful smear campaign attempting to blacken Dr Mattu's name that emanates from the Trust, after he had spoken out for the people of Coventry and drawn attention to our Trust Executive's failings. It is claimed that you have circulated unfounded allegations against Dr Mattu. What's more the dirty tricks campaign against Dr Mattu exposed at the public meetings appears to implicate you playing a role. Is this true?

If there is any truth to these malicious rumours then why has no criminal action been taken against Dr Mattu on these charges? Mr Stoten, it is time for you to either put up or shut up, and stop the deliberate blackening of Dr Mattu's name. Have you been briefing MPs and others about Dr Mattu and his suspension?

Yours sincerely

Mr P Cochrane

Back To Top

Back To Correspondence