UK rail minister got engineer sacked for raising safety concerns

[HarryL]

I think had Hendy still been the chair of Network Rail, he would definitely have had to resign from this. Especially after the veiled threat at the end of the letter.

With him now being a minister though and a relatively unknown one at that, I can see it ending up with him being told to lay low for a while for it to blow over. Especially given parliament isn't sitting again until next week by which point will it still be in people's minds. A fair amount of the media have reported on the story now but it hasn't broken BBC or Sky on the TV rounds yet so is it likely to ever do?

 

[Starmill]

I have seen those kind of letters before so it isn’t anything odd that Hendy has done but it has been done with the usual NR heavy handiness that we have all come to expect from that organisation.

Er, so because the misconduct is widespread among senior public sector executives and ministers, that makes Hendy's deeply unethical conduct less of a breach of standards?

We have to be fair. We've condemned these conflicts of interest and other standards breaches by senior managers and politicians when they're Tory-aligned, we can't let them slide because they're Labour-aligned.

Hendy's an embarrassment and a stain on Haigh's otherwise strong efforts.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

Yes, it will blow over. It hasn't risen above low-level chuntering on the inner pages of the press, the Opposition is in no fit state to campaign for anything, and a resignation would make much bigger headlines - so why would Starmer demand it? Still, extraordinarily ill advised by Hendy and I expect it will come back to bite him next time he's quizzed on safety matters.

 

[Starmill]

I think had Hendy still been the chair of Network Rail, he would definitely have had to resign from this. Especially after the veiled threat at the end of the letter.

With him now being a minister though and a relatively unknown one at that, I can see it ending up with him being told to lay low for a while for it to blow over. Especially given parliament isn't sitting again until next week by which point will it still be in people's minds. A fair amount of the media have reported on the story now but it hasn't broken BBC or Sky on the TV rounds yet so is it likely to ever do?

Unfortunately I think there's a risk the opposite is true. Sunak led a Cabinet rife with unethical behaviour and standards breaches, and his benches thrived on breaking the rules of both Houses. Starmer hasn't got anyone other than Hendy in hot water in the press for sleaze at the moment, so naturally the other parties and the tory-aligned papers will use it to make hay.

 

[Goldfish62]

I think Gareth Dennis speaks a lot of sense on Rail Matters (slight pun on his YouTube channel) and I used to contribute to his Patreon before he annoyed me by commenting on non rail issues and I stopped. For what it's worth he is correct about Euston.

However, he seemingly gave an unauthorised interview to the press. Like it or hate it this is a disciplinary matter.

He can't be an on-line critic of the rail industry and expect it to pay his mortgage. That might not be fair but it is how the realworldworks.

Exactly.

 

[noddingdonkey]

My prediction is this will all blow over.

Business have free will over who they will, or won't transact with.

Public bodies spending significant amounts of taxpayer's money, not so much. It goes to tender and the bidder who is the best balance of meeting the published requirements and value for money gets the contract.

 

[Starmill]

Business have free will over who they will, or won't transact with.

Kind of, but not really, and in any case, Network Rail isn't a private business.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Aug 2024 ==

Businesses don't have to work with suppliers whose representatives criticise them in the media.

Network Rail isn't a business in the sense you're thinking of. It's a state corporation which is obliged in law to manage public money responsibly. It's directors are accountable to Ministers and Parliament, i. e. the general public, not the "business".

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Aug 2024 ==

It doesn't matter whether or not the criticism is correct or backed up, why does it have to be that specific person that comes out with it in that manner? There are appropriate ways to formally raise safety concerns.

The criticism is of Hendy for his misconduct, not Dennis for the tone of his interventions.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Aug 2024 ==

Public bodies spending significant amounts of taxpayer's money, not so much. It goes to tender and the bidder who is the best balance of meeting the published requirements and value for money gets the contract.

Exactly. The money isn't Hendy's to decide how to spend. It's public money and it is to be spent in line with the law and the Treasury's rules. Any executive appropriating it's influence to their own ends is unfit and shouldn't be permitted to hold public office.

 

[SussexSeagull]

It is not clear that this was the case. GD has said that Systra had agreed he was able to do his industry commentator stuff.

The problem only arose when Hendy explicitly threatened Systra's eligbility for future NR work. That was a very foolish thing to do.

(And I'm generally sympathetic to Hendy and was pleased he was appointed to the DfT)

Systra obviously thought they were justified and it apparently isn't heading to tribunal.

 

[RJ]

Kind of, but not really, and in any case, Network Rail isn't a private business.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Aug 2024 ==


Network Rail isn't a business in the sense you're thinking of. It's a state corporation which is obliged in law to manage public money responsibly. It's directors are accountable to Ministers and Parliament, i. e. the general public, not the "business".

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Aug 2024 ==


The criticism is of Hendy for his misconduct, not Dennis for the tone of his interventions.

Public bodies spending significant amounts of taxpayer's money, not so much. It goes to tender and the bidder who is the best balance of meeting the published requirements and value for money gets the contract.

If a specific supplier is problematic, a reason can be found to not accept their bid and not a lot can be done about it.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

Reminds me of a Transpennine Express driver from York who was sacked a fair few years back in some ways. Made absolutely unhinged allegations, got the media involved etc, even to this day publishes a website claiming there's a huge cover up/conspiracy and safety issues which are being ignored.

Play stupid games, get stupid prizes.

I saw this chap gloating on social media yesterday that he'd edited Hendy's Wikipedia entry to include allegations of escorts and illicit Oyster Cards, before that was deleted by another editor. He's obviously got a personal vendetta with Hendy at this point, that is clouding his judgement and professionalism.

 

[Goldfish62]

He’s always had that reputation. He was like that at First Bus and he was definitely like that at TfL.

Just another one in the industry who fails upwards.

I faced his ire once many years ago. Wasn't at all pleasant and I don't like the bloke's character. However, I respect him hugely as a committed public transport professional.

Most people will never know what an influence he was on both Livingston and Johnson in kerbing the worst excesses of what they wanted to do to public transport in London. Certainly in the former case he turned London's buses' fortunes around entirely.

He's the one best hope that Labour have for implementing their rail reforms successfully. I wouldn't trust Louise Haig to be able to do it properly without Hendy around.

 

[Starmill]

If a specific supplier is problematic, a reason can be found to not accept their bid and not a lot can be done about it.

The reason has been given in Hendy's letter and it's improper, no need to do the job of covering it up for him. Hendy should face the consequences, let's just hope others aren't as eager to cover up misconduct in public office as your posts hint you are.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Aug 2024 ==

However, I don't see anywhere where Hendy said he should be sacked. He called for disciplinary action. "Disciplinary action" can be as little as a formal written warning. Clearly Systra had their own reasons to conclude that Davis was guilty of gross misconduct, so I suspect there was a lot more going on than Davis is admitting to. It'll all come out at the employment tribunal.

Hendy's second message to Salt plus his internal messages made it clear there'd be nothing short of getting rid of Dennis that he'd accept. No need to worry about waiting for the Tribunal to know that.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Aug 2024 ==

I faced his ire once many years ago. Wasn't at all pleasant and I don't like the bloke's character. However, I respect him hugely as a committed public transport professional.

Most people will never know what an influence he was on both Livingston and Johnson in kerbing the worst excesses of what they wanted to do to public transport in London. Certainly in the former case he turned London's buses' fortunes around entirely.

He's the one best hope that Labour have for implementing their rail reforms successfully. I wouldn't trust Louise Haig to be able to do it properly without Hendy around.

Having made some positive contributions in the past does not excuse the recent serious misconduct and fatal flaws of leadership. Nobody's saying Hendy hasn't made any positive contributions during his career, he obviously has. Most people who've denigrated their high office have at some point in their career made some kind of great contributions - doesn't mean they can be excused.

 

[43066]

The criticism is that he abused his office by threatening to withhold public money - i.e. your and my and everyone else's money, for personal gains to himself.

The criticism in the article in the OP is based on related to him pressuring SYSTRA regarding the comments made by one of its employees. There’s no suggestion of personal gains being made by Hendy, unless I’ve missed something?

Some of the other stuff that has come out is unsavoury for sure, the sex worker stuff especially, but I think the chairman of NR to want his own employees, and those of companies with which it does business, not to bring its name into disrepute is reasonable. There’s a proper way to raise concerns and it’s via the whistleblowing regime.

 

[Starmill]

Reminds me of a Transpennine Express driver from York who was sacked a fair few years back in some ways. Made absolutely unhinged allegations, got the media involved etc, even to this day publishes a website claiming there's a huge cover up/conspiracy and safety issues which are being ignored.

Play stupid games, get stupid prizes.

I saw this chap gloating on social media yesterday that he'd edited Hendy's Wikipedia entry to include allegations of escorts and illicit Oyster Cards, before that was deleted by another editor. He's obviously got a personal vendetta with Hendy at this point, that is clouding his judgement and professionalism.

Have you read Hendy's letter on Network Rail notepaper, signed in his official capacity as chair? And you're saying that's not a vendetta?

 

[Bletchleyite]

And if you know the company know of the problems but aren't doing anything about them?

 

[BAFRA77]

“See It, Say It, Get Sacked For It”

 

[43096]

Any executive appropriating it's influence to their own ends is unfit and shouldn't be permitted to hold public office.

It’s not for Hendy’s own ends. It’s not in NR’s interests to have a loose cannon working for a contractor - that is why action has been taken.

 

[Starmill]

The criticism in the article in the OP is based on related to him pressuring SYSTRA regarding the comments made by one of its employees. There’s no suggestion of personal gains being made by Hendy, unless I’ve missed something?

Some of the other stuff that has come out is unsavoury for sure, the sex worker stuff especially, but I think the chairman of NR to want his own employees, and those of companies with which it does business, not to bring its name into disrepute is reasonable. There’s a proper way to raise concerns and it’s via the whistleblowing regime.

It's a clear personal gain if you're a senior manager and you silence one of your critics. Doing that using public money is, without a shadow of a doubt, a misconduct.

As for whistleblowing in general yes, but in these circumstances the information wasn't privileged so there's no need to worry about the use of official channels. In any case maybe Dennis approach was poor, certainly it frequently is. But so what? The standards which apply to Hendy are far, far higher, because he was a senior state executive, still is a Parliamentarian, and has been since appointed a Minister of the Crown. Dennis is just some random engineer.

 

[James H]

Systra obviously thought they were justified and it apparently isn't heading to tribunal.

He had not been with Systra long enough to have acquired any rights

 

[Starmill]

He had not been with Systra long enough to have acquired any rights

The automatically unfair reasons and the convention rights don't need to be acquired through minimum service.

 

[WelshBluebird]

The automatically unfair reasons and the convention rights don't need to be acquired through minimum service.

Except the automatically unfair reasons are so narrowly defined that it's pretty easy for a business to avoid them if they want to. Basically if you have less than 2 years employment it's tough luck most of the time. The only possible one you could even argue could apply here is whistleblowing but it doesn't really fit that (and he isn't claiming it does anyway).

 

[Starmill]

Fair enough! Maybe we've just had our standards lowered by recent (and seemingly unending) Tory scandals. There's obvious a large scale to these things from "highly illegal" to "I would have advised against that".

I see it that we either want good objective standards in public life or we don't.

If we're not that bothered about this kind of conduct then that's absolutely fine. But we can't go criticising the other side for doing it if that's the case. Clearly most of us have dished out criticisms to Tory Ministers for this kind of breach and clearly it'd be a hypocritical thing to say Hendy's getting a pass because he's in a Labour government and they're less corrupt than the previous one.

 

[jfowkes]

There’s a proper way to raise concerns and it’s via the whistleblowing regime.

And if you know the company know of the problems but aren't doing anything about them?

Were SYSTRA involved in crowd control measures at Euston? I don't think Dennis was speaking from a position of "being a whistleblower" in that regard.

 

[43066]

It's a clear personal gain if you silence one of your critics. Doing that using public money is, without a shadow of a doubt, a misconduct.

I’m not sure it’s that clear cut. Yes he has criticised Hendy personally, and if he had only done that you may have a point.

However he has also undoubtedly brought the name of NR into disrepute. It seems fairly clear that, in his approach to SYSTRA, Hendy was purporting to act in his capacity as NR chairman, and (he would argue) defending the interests of that organisation. So it’s a little difficult to see where the personal gain arises.

He also hasn’t really silenced him. He has been dismissed for gross misconduct but remains free to say what he wishes via YouTube etc. In fact the whole episode has brought him more notoriety!

 

[Starmill]

Except the automatically unfair reasons are so narrowly defined that it's pretty easy for a business to avoid them if they want to. Basically if you have less than 2 years employment it's tough luck most of the time. The only possible one you could even argue could apply here is whistleblowing but it doesn't really fit that (and he isn't claiming it does anyway).

I think that it depends on the specifics of his alleged media agreement. Dennis has obviously decided that he isn't primarily after compensation though, and that sunlight is the best disinfectant. I don't really like Dennis' communication style at all, but good on him for that I say.

 

[Horizon22]

Er, so because the misconduct is widespread among senior public sector executives and ministers, that makes Hendy's deeply unethical conduct less of a breach of standards?

In what way is such a letter "misconduct"?

 

[Starmill]

Were SYSTRA involved in crowd control measures at Euston? I don't think Dennis was speaking from a position of "being a whistleblower" in that regard.

Given the information was just a repetition of the public domain I don't really think a protected disclosure can come into it.

 

[Horizon22]

If we're not that bothered about this kind of conduct then that's absolutely fine. But we can't go criticising the other side for doing it if that's the case. Clearly most of us have dished out criticisms to Tory Ministers for this kind of breach and clearly it'd be a hypocritical thing to say Hendy's getting a pass because he's in a Labour government and they're less corrupt than the previous one.

To be honest this is on the lower scale for me. I'd be critical of it no matter what political persuasion but not enough to be asking for resignations or select committees. It doesn't look good but it will blow over fairly quick imo.

 

[Starmill]

In what way is such a letter "misconduct"?

Have you read the thread? It's a threat to deny public money to a company unless they do what pleases Hendy personally. It couldn't be any more obvious that it's a breach of standards in public life.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Aug 2024 ==

To be honest this is on the lower scale for me. I'd be critical of it no matter what political persuasion but not enough to be asking for resignations or select committees. It doesn't look good but it will blow over fairly quick imo.

It's funny how frequently you post saying "this is just one of those things". I'm not sure I believe you to be honest because if you actually thought that you'd probably say it once then ignore it, but what you actually do is keep coming back to the thread to repeat yourself. For example your question above asking how this can be misconduct when in reality that point has been done to death above. Perhaps you can correct the record for us, what is your motivation for frequently saying that?

 

[43096]

It's a clear personal gain if you're a senior manager and you silence one of your critics. Doing that using public money is, without a shadow of a doubt, a misconduct.

I don’t know why you are persisting with this line about personal gain. It very obviously is not that.