A BARRISTER who demanded information from the Liverpool Women’s Hospital about the use of “gagging clauses� on doctors has been made the subject of a professional complaint.
Andrew Bousfield, who grew up on the Wirral, has been reported to the Bar Standards Council essentially for allegedly using behaviour unbecoming of a barrister.
The complaint has been made by the hospital’s solicitor Martin Edwards, of Liverpool firm Mace and Jones, a renowned employment expert in the city who also writes crime novels.
It is understood the complaint was made with permission from the hospital.
Last night a spokesman for the trust said it could not comment on the complaint, but defended the use of “gagging clauses� saying they are used widely in the NHS.
A spokesman for Mr Edwards said: “For reasons of confidentiality this is not something the firm can comment on.�
Mr Bousfield, a media barrister, has campaigned for the release of information from the hospital – specifically whether it was using so-called “gagging clauses� on doctors who had left its employment.
In January the Daily Post reported how the trust had the second worst bullying rate, from manager or team leaders, in the country in the past 12 months.
Data from the Health Care Commission, showed that 14% of staff at the trust which runs Liverpool’s Women’s experienced bullying or harassment from managers or team leaders.
Actors were brought in to the hospital to help staff recognise bullying behaviour.
The latest figures show that figure fell to 7% in the 2007 staff survey.
The Health Care Commission also found in its latest report that staff experiencing harassment, bullying or abuse from staff in the previous 12 months had fallen from 25% to 20%, however, this was not deemed to be a significant change.
Mr Bousfield had discovered the original bullying rate from the hospital using the Freedom of Information Act.
He also requested information under the Act about “gagging clauses� used when doctors were paid-off or had taken early retirement.
The hospital refused to release the information saying any “compromise agreements� entered into were covered by reciprocal confidentiality clauses and covered by the Data Protection Act.
Last night Mr Bousfield said he had been prepared to abandon the matter, but now that a professional complaint had been made he would be appealing against the trust’s decision not to release the data to the Information Commissioner.
Mr Bousfield said that against the trust’s bullying record there was a clear public interest in the information about the “gagging clauses� being released.
“When people go to these lengths then it’s clear to me there is absolutely something they are hiding.
“I think this has arisen to try to shut me up and to stop investigative journalism.
“Failings are often hidden behind league tables and result is that real people often suffer because of this.
“The most important thing for NHS trusts is not the quality of service, but the quality of perception.�
A trust spokesman said: “So far as any complaint to the Information Commissioner is concerned, we are satisfied that we have provided information on the issues raised under the Freedom of Information Act so far as we are permitted to do so by that legislation and by the Data Protection Act.
“Obviously we cannot disclose personal data belonging to individuals without their express consent.
“On the matter of compromise agreements, these are widely used in commercial organisations and in the NHS and other public bodies when senior people leave their employment.
“Such agreements are seen as mutually protective, and are entered into by employee and employer with full legal advice to protect the individual as well as the organisation.�