19th August 2002
Mr Bryan Stoten
Chairman
Walsgrave Hospitals NHS Trust
Clifford Bridge Road, Coventry
CV2 2DX

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
10th September 2002
Mr Bryan Stoten
Chairman
Walsgrave Hospitals NHS Trust
Clifford Bridge Road, Coventry
CV2 2DX

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

19th September 2002
Mr Bryan Stoten, Chairman
University Hospitals Coventry & Warwickshire
Clifford Bridge Road
Coventry
CV2 2DX

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