The Consequences, To Hoc Standards

Our letter to the house of Commons Standards Committee

 To House of Commons, Standards Committee

              From Eileen Chubb Compassion in Care

                      The Consequences

As a result of a large number of genuine whistleblowers contacting this charities national helpline, we published these concerns and brought them to the attention of all members of the APPPG on Whistleblowing, various other MPs and Peers, Government Departments, the Tsar for transparency Ian Paterson and others We made repeated efforts to elicit a response to these concerns in vain. The concerns we raised are summarised as follows.

 

  1. We were given a large number of copies of a WBUK contract which asked Whistleblowers to agree to pay WBUK £100 an hour for help and 10% of any compensation. Whistleblowers contacting WBUK believed it was a support organisation and its website until only recently made no reference what so ever that payment for support was expected.
  2. Whistleblowers could not afford to pay the above covert charges; this caused a delay in them seeking and finding help from elsewhere.
  3. It was clear from the witnesses that all low paid staff were being eliminated as non-profitable early on and these whistleblowers were not even contacted back by WBUK.
  4. Please note that whistleblowers can be very distressed at the point they seek help, some that had contacted WBUK were at high risk of self-harm. Most important whilst these whistleblowers waited for a response that never came, those whose lives and safety depended on these whistleblowers continued to be at risk and suffer harm. Our evidence includes vulnerable elderly people left without fluids and at risk of death from renal failure.

At no time has WBUK acknowledged or denied these facts. Given the culture and operating methods of WBUK the above consequences were not only likely but inevitable.

What WBUK chose to do was conduct a systematic attack on this charity by making covert malicious allegations to various bodies such as the ICO, Police and Charity Commission in the middle of a pandemic when our helpline was coping with a 60% increase in calls.

WBUK nearly brought this charity to its knees for raising valid concerns on behalf of our beneficiaries; elderly people in care and whistleblowers. Also, this was all reported to the APPG members and those listed in paragraph one, no response.

Raising these concerns was our duty and we would do so again, but some chose to use the false narrative that we were having a spat or dispute with WBUK, that we were lying, or the whistleblowers were lying.

. Why would dozens of whistleblowers who needed help due to the situation they found themselves in, a situation that arose as a result of their honesty and integrity, suddenly all decide to contact this charity and lie about WBUK?

. How would these whistleblowers have managed to have identical copies of the same WBUK contract, which is not publicly available?

. Why is it acceptable to ignore the harm done to both the whistleblowers and the vulnerable who continued to suffer?

Given we are talking about the secretariate and membership of the APPG on Whistleblowing, why has the hypocrisy of this misconduct been deemed acceptable by so many?