A LEADING patient safety campaigner is hopeful the 'full truth' about how the UK's nursing regulator handled the case of a disgraced midwife will emerge following an 'encouraging' legal hearing today.

James Titcombe OBE, lost his newborn son Joshua after the infant received substandard care from midwife Lindsey Biggs in 2008.

However, Miss Biggs was allowed to continue in her role at Barrow's maternity unit for seven years before being struck off.

The Nursing and Midwifery Council have refused to publish a review into whether it should have suspended the Furness General Hospital worker before a second baby - Poppy Rushton - died in 2016.

An inquest heard that little Poppy and her mother Kayleigh Rushton had also received poor care under the supervision of Miss Biggs.

Today, a judge heard the case for making that review public in a battle for transparency brought forward by The Mail.

Judge Brian Kennedy QC agreed to adjourn the proceedings until an external report on the NMC's behaviour is published by the Professional Standards Agency - the UK's regulator of regulators.

This report, Mr Kennedy said, may contain information that is pertinent to The Mail's legal challenge.

Mr Titcombe, who appeared as a witness at the tribunal hearing in Manchester, condemned the secretive actions of the NMC.

He said: “The court hearing today was really encouraging.

"The judge clearly understood the considerable public interest in full disclosure of this crucial review.

"The NMC argued that the forthcoming PSA review of the NMC’s handling of all the cases relating to Morecambe Bay would address the issues covered in the Kark report.

"For this reason the tribunal decided that a second hearing will now be called once the PSA report has been published."

He added: "One way or another we can now be hopeful that the full truth about how the NMC have acted in this case will eventually emerge, but it’s a damning indictment of the NMC’s leadership that the full facts have been kept secret for so long.

"This has made it impossible to scrutinise whether the NMC have taken the necessary action to prevent the same circumstances happening again.

"As a model for a public organisation to demonstrate accountability and learning, the NMC have surely provided a perfect example of how to get it wrong.

"Furthermore, their secretive approach must have cost significant amounts of money - all paid for my the fees of midwives and nurses who are registered with them."

The Mail has been battling for 18 months to gain access to the review commissioned by the NMC from Tom Kark QC.

The organisation said Mr Kark had concluded the NMC had done nothing wrong in allowing Miss Biggs to continue to work unsupervised after Joshua's death.

But bosses refused to release the document under the Freedom of Information Act after stating it contained confidential legal advice from their lawyer.

James Higgins, group editor at CN Group, The Mail's parent company, said: "The tribunal took very seriously the case we laid out before it today, to the degree that they decided to adjourn proceedings to await the publication of a report which may reveal information pertinent to the case.

"For the last 18 months The Mail has been fighting for the release of a report into NMC processes because the public has a right to know if any lessons can be learned.

"We have taken an important step in that journey and I look forward to the resumption of the hearing so we can further press for the right outcome."

What is the report in question?

The report was written by barrister Tom Kark QC.

It looked at whether the NMC should have suspended midwife Lindsey Biggs following the death of Joshua Titcombe.

Miss Biggs was struck off for the poor care she gave to Joshua before he died - but not until seven years later.

Why won't the NMC publish the report?

The NMC said the report was a review of its actions in the case of Midwife Biggs.

Later it said it was actually confidential legal advice from its lawyer which it is allowed, by law, to keep secret from the public.

Who paid for the report?

The NMC receives public funds to carry out its duties.

It also receives an annual 'registration fee' from every nurse and midwife in the UK.

The NMC paid Mr Kark for the report.

Why is it vital that this report is published?

The NMC is responsible for checking that nurses and midwives are competent to look after people in hospital.

If the report contains criticisms of the way the NMC carries out this function, it is imperative that changes are seen to be implemented to keep patients, mothers and babies safe in the future.