Dr Minh Alexander NHS whistleblower and retired consultant psychiatrist 2 July 2023
Summary: This is a brief post to share documentation which shows that the private company WhistleblowersUK’s business model continues to be based partly on charging whistleblowers for help, and that it has linked with another company which sells services to barristers.
WhistleblowersUK also asks people for money if they wish to become “associate members”.
A statement of interests to Somerset Council by WhistleblowersUK’s Chair wrongly indicates that WhistleblowersUK is a public authority, and does not disclose that Whistleblowers seeks to influence public opinion and policy.
Background
WhistleblowersUK acts as the external secretariat of the Whistleblowing APPG. Leading members of the APPG and WhistleblowersUK seek to introduce a US model of bounty hunting.
WhistleblowersUK recently co-produced a lengthy document singing the praises of whistleblower rewards, with two major US bounty hunting law firms. However, the document omitted to mention serious drawbacks of the US bounty hunting model, such as its exploitative nature and the fact that the majority of whistleblowers are left with nothing, even if they suffer reprisal and loss. The model also siphons money into lawyers’ coffers. Bounty hunting is a billion dollar US industry led by lawyers. Lucrative cases from the financial sector generate huge bounties.
WhistleblowersUK’s document on rewards for informers also claimed that historically, the model worked well in England. Historical studies reveal that the model generated scams and corrupt practices, as has been the case with its modern successor.
I reported here about these issues:
I have since been contacted by someone who approached WhistleblowersUK for help and who obtained the following documents, which they have shared with me:
- A revised, updated version of WhistleblowersUK’s “Statement of cooperation”
I have previously published an earlier version of this document.
WhistleblowersUK’s statement of cooperation and agreement
This is the more recent version of the document, which was used as recently as 2022:
NEW WhistleblowersUK statement of cooperation and agreement 2021
Changes include the fact that this appears to be a joint document produced with another private company, the “Barrister Consultancy Services”.
The Barrister Consultancy Services’ logo also appears on this document, and the document reads:
“If appropriate we will introduce you to our trusted partner Barrister Consultancy Services (BCS), who will provide you with legal project management services enabling us to work together on your case from start to finish.” [my emphasis]
The document also indicates that WhistleblowersUK may arrange initial pro bono assistance by barristers that is not legal advice. It appears to imply that BCS may be involved in arranging access to barristers:
“We help you retain full control at all times because you know your case best.
Our specialist panel of barristers usually provide initial pro bono assistance (not legal advice) based on the chronology and supporting information that you supply. All barristers on our panel are regulated by the Bar Standards Board in England & Wales and/or Faculty of Advocates in Scotland, be assured that separate letters of agreement will be sent to you before any official legal advice is provided. You will not incur any legal costs without your agreement. WBUK & BCS does not accept responsibility or liability for any independent legal advice provided.”
The statement of cooperation links to the website of the BCS to a page about the BCS’ privacy policy.
The BCS website suggests that this company primarily provides specialist administrative support to barristers:
“Barristers in the UK often work independently in Chambers and are mostly self-employed. Therefore, they are responsible for managing their own practices and developing their business. However, managing a legal practice can be complex and time-consuming, which is why many barristers and their clerks turn to Barrister Consultancy Services for assistance.”
The “About” page of the BCS states:
“As former Barrister Clerks and Practice Managers, our primary objective is to enhance and refine internal practice management processes and procedures within barrister’s chambers.”
At the bottom of the pages of the BCS website, it is stated:
“Barrister Consultancy Services is the trading name of David Wright a self-employed consultant at DW Business Consultancy, a Company Registered at 23 Franmil Road, Hornchurch, Essex, RM12 4TR No: 10431011”
David Wright’s LinkedIn entry indicates that he has worked as a barrister’s clerk, legal practice manager and director of business at various Chambers.
The Companies House entry for DW Business Consultancy lists Linda Wright as company secretary and David Wright as director. The nature of the business is stated to be: “70229 – Management consultancy activities other than financial management”.
According to Companies House, BCS was incorporated on 17 October 2016, and it last filed accounts last year, with “Accounts for a dormant company made up to 31 December 2021”.
These accounts state that the company was dormant in the reporting period, received no income and incurred no expenditure.
BCS also has a post on Facebook as follows:
An examination of the metadata of the revised Statement of Cooperation by WhistleblowersUK reveals that it was last edited by David Wright:
In comparing the new “statement of cooperation” with the previous version that I published, the section “What we will do for you” has been expanded, with insertion of an additional service:
“We will help you identify and instruct specialist legal advisors.”
The latest statement of cooperation indicates that WhistleblowersUK still charges whistleblowers £100 per hour for its services, albeit it now states that it will provide initial assistance without charge for up to two hours.
The latest statement of cooperation indicates that WhistleblowersUK also asks for a “percentage” of any financial award that a whistleblower may receive. It differs from the previous version of the document in that where five percent was previously specified, there is now no numerical value given, and no clear limit on what share of financial awards WhistleblowersUK propose to take.
- WhistleblowersUK’s application form for associate membership
This is the form: Associate Membership application form
This form states that membership advantages are:
WhistleblowersUK states in the application form that it does not charge fees for membership.
However, it asks any individuals wishing to join as an associate member for a minimum donation of £120 per annum.
There is a section at the end of the document which states:
“Financial hardship is not a barrier to becoming an Associate Member. The Directors will consider applications to waive the requirement for a regular donation. Please advise WBUK in Section 2, Question 3 if you wish to apply for a waiver.”
This is the clause in the application form which asks applicants to commit to the payment of £120 and to abide by the company’s by-laws:
I could find no company by-laws on the WhistleblowerUK’s website or recorded in documents filed at Companies House.
But the application form indicates in bold text that WhistleblowersUK’s directors can terminate membership at any time:
“Associate Memberships are approved by the directors and can be terminated without notice at any time.”
WhistleblowersUK states that its objectives include expanding its associate membership:
“We Grow our community through our associate membership promoting engagement, collaboration, and sharing of ideas and perspectives among our members.”
The company publicises dates for meetings of associate members, the most recent being 26 June 2023:
However, I could find no record of the current or past number of associate members, or of the level of income generated by associate members’ required donations of a minimum £120 per annum.
By the end of 2022, WhistleblowersUK’s accounts submitted to Companies House showed that the company had a total of £3,905 assets.
I asked WhistleblowersUK through its Chair Tessa Munt former Liberal Democrat MP, now local councillor, if the organisation wished to comment on matters arising from the above two WhistleblowersUK documents, but I have not yet received a reply.
“Tessa Munt
Chair of WhistleblowersUK
29 June 2023
Dear Ms Munt,
I write to ask if WhistleblowersUK would like to comment on and/or elaborate on reports that:
i) WhistleblowersUK asks whistleblowers for £120 minimum donation per annum to be associate members
ii) WhistleblowersUK offers pro bono assistance from lawyers which is not legal advice, from a panel of specialist barristers
iii) WhistleblowersUK now works in partnership with Barrister Consultancy Services
Many thanks.
Dr Minh Alexander”
Munt is Liberal Democrat councillor for Wells, Somerset.
I note in Munt’s declaration of interests to Somerset Council that she is described as “interim” chair of WhistleblowersUK, and has declared that WhistleblowersUK is a public authority when it is a private company.
I have written today to the CEO of Somerset Council and the Leader of the Council about this factual inaccuracy, and also raised an issue of whether Munt should have declared the fact that Whistleblowers is an organisation which seeks to influence public opinion and policy.
BY EMAIL
Duncan Sharkey
CEO Somerset Council
2 July 2023
Dear Mr Sharkey,
Declaration of Interests by Councillor Tessa Munt: error and omission
I am sure it is a mistake but the council currently publishes inaccurate information about Councillor Munt’s interests.
Ms Munt’s declaration of interests states under Question 9 “Do you hold membership of other Public Authorities?” that she is “director and interim chair” of WhistleblowersUK.
WhistleblowersUK is not a public authority but a private company (09347927) which had £3,905 assets by end 2022, according to documents filed at Companies House. By the end of the previous year, WhistleblowersUK only reportedly had £736 assets.
WhistleblowersUK is seeking to introduce a controversial and exploitative US model of bounty hunting, which if ever adopted as the UK national model would disadvantage the majority of UK whistleblowers and lead to only a tiny handful receiving vast rewards. The model primarily benefits bounty hunting law firms and is a billion dollar US industry, which has been trying to the break into the UK market for some years now. This model primarily targets the financial sector, where bounties from recovered monies can be huge.
Under question 11 of Ms Munt’s declaration of interests, “11. Do you hold membership of bodies influencing Public Opinion or Policy (including any political party)?”, Miss Munt has only declared membership of the Liberal Democrats.
I believe she should also arguably declare her leadership position at WhistleblowersUK under this section because this company campaigns for whistleblower financial rewards and law changes which would open the door to such financial rewards.
WhistleblowersUK recently co-authored a document with two major US bounty hunting law firms, which praised the benefits of financial rewards for whistleblowers.
The company states on its website that it explicitly seeks to influence public opinion and policy. It seeks to introduce an Office Of The Whistleblower, which mirrors the US Securities and Exchange Commission’s Office of the Whistleblower which handles a high profile whistleblower reward programme.
For example, WhistleblowersUK state on their website:
“We Transform the way everyone thinks about whistleblowing, educate the public, and demonstrate the importance of whistleblowers in a fair and transparent society.
We Campaign for the Office of the Whistleblower now a Bill going through Parliament that will revolutionise the treatment of concerns and the people who raise them.”
Of note, WhistleblowersUK has since 2018 acted as the external secretariat to a Whistleblowing All Party Parliamentary Group, which explicitly campaigns for the law change which would open the door to the US style whistleblowing rewards. When the Whistleblowing APPG was first established in 2018, its declarations showed that it accepted money from Constantine Cannon, a major US bounty hunting law firm. This funding was badged as payment for WhistleblowersUK’s services as external secretariat.
Sir Norman Lamb former Liberal Democrat MP was a member of the Whistleblowing APPG but resigned after the CEO of WhistleblowersUK refused to answer questions about conflicts of interest and finances which I put to the APPG:
Norman Lamb MP has resigned from the Whistleblowing All Party Parliamentary Group
I copy below correspondence to Councillor Munt in her capacity as WhistleblowersUK Chair, seeking greater transparency about WhistleblowersUK’s financial arrangements and the handling of whistleblowers’ highly sensitive personal data. I have received no reply to my letter of 4 May 2023, and I await a reply to my letter of 29 June 2023.
Please confirm receipt of this letter and advise what action Somerset Council will take to ensure that Councillor Munt’s declaration of interests is accurate.
Many thanks.
Yours sincerely,
Dr Minh Alexander
NHS whistleblower and retired consultant psychiatrist
Cc Bill Revans Liberal Democrat councillor North Petherton, Leader of Somerset Council and Lead Member for Governance & Communications
RELATED ITEMS
The Whistleblowing Hunger Games: Why we should reject the Whistleblowing APPG
A Tory MP who is a pro bounty, former member of the Whistleblowing APPG
secured a junior ministerial post this year and launched a review of UK
whistleblowing law:
Alexander's Excavations 