HC Deb 05 July 1951 vol 489 cc2660-8

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Wilkins.]

11.52 p.m.

Mr. Black (Wimbledon)

I wish to raise with the Minister of Health the case of a constituent of mine, Mr. John Griffith, who until his dismissal was the Chief Administrative Officer for the St. Helier Group Hospital Management Committee. It has long been laid down as a principle in this country that it is not only necessary that justice should be done but that justice should also appear to be done. In this case it is my contention that it is probable that justice has not been done, and it is certain that justice does not appear to have been done.

The case which I desire to raise has been dealt with at some length in a striking article which appeared in "The Hospital" for May, 1951, under the heading "A case history of victimisation." I am indebted to this article for much of the information which I desire to bring before the House tonight.

It has very properly become an accepted principle of employment in the public services that, subject to continued competence and good behaviour in the performance of their duties, officers employed in them should be afforded security of tenure. It has further become accepted that as a matter of normal practice there should exist a code of procedure for dealing with disciplinary cases, the accepted objects of such machinery being to ensure that before any severe disciplinary action is irrevocably taken against an officer he or she shall be made aware of the grounds on which the action is contemplated and afforded the opportunity of a hearing to appeal against it.

These normal standards of practice have, in my submission, been violated in the case which I am now bringing before the House and I will proceed to deal, as far as time permits, with the details of the case. The officer concerned in this matter, Mr. John Griffith, F.H.A., was appointed to the post of chief administrative officer of the St. Helier Group Hospital Management Committee in September, 1948. At the time, as reported in a letter from the regional hospital board to the Ministry of Health, the Committee expressed the view—and this is a quotation—that the group "required a secretary of the right calibre" and that in its view Mr. Griffith fulfils all "requirements," being "outstanding" among the applicants for the post.

Until after March, 1950, Mr. Griffith's efficiency and conduct in his office was at no time the subject of criticism by his committee. On the other hand, it is clear that various aspects of the policy of the management committee were resented by certain of the senior medical and nursing officers in the group and complaints clandestinely made behind the back of the committee to the regional hospital board headquarters. These backstairs representations evidently bore fruit and differences of opinion arose between the committee and the regional hospital board.

Such differences came to a head in March, 1950, when the chairman of the management committee, Mr. Bentley Purchase, a well-known, respected and experienced public figure, and the chairman of its establishment committee, Mr. F. J. Grimme, were not re-appointed at the expiry of their term of office, in consequence of which the chairman of its finance committee, Mr. Milton Ely, resigned in protest. On 17th April, 1950, the vice-chairman of the regional board, Mr. A. G. Linfield, was appointed acting-chairman of the management committee and has remained as such since, while at the same time five vacancies in a total committee membership of 19 were allowed to remain unfilled.

Although he sought at the time for an explanation, none was offered to Mr. Bentley Purchase in respect of the de- cision not to re-appoint him. Since, however, at the same time he was offered the chairmanship of another management committee in the same group, his removal was presumably not made on the grounds of incompetence, or other unsuitability for such a post. In effect, all the evidence points to the fact that he and the chairman of the establishment committee were removed from their offices not merely with the object of re-organising the management committee with personalities who would be willing to pursue a policy more in conformity with that thought desirable by the regional hospital board, but with the further specific object of securing the removal of Mr. Griffith from his post of chief administrative officer. In a word, here was what appears to be a case of packing the committee.

Following the appointment of the vice-chairman of the regional board as acting chairman of the committee, Mr. Griffith's removal did not take long to develop. On the occasion of his first visit to the group, the new chairman referred to the "unhappy state of affairs in the group," but subsequently never fulfilled an undertaking to discuss the alleged difficulties with the chief administrative officer. On 25th May, 1950, less than two months later, he spoke to Mr. Griffith of the possibility of his position being considered, but without specifying in what way, and then shortly afterwards instructed the chief administrative officer to include in the notice of a meeting of the management committee to be held on 12th June. 1950, the following note: The Chairman will be glad if following the conclusion of the official business members will remain to consider questions relating to the staffing of the group. No indication whatsoever was given to Mr. Griffith at or prior to this meeting that his own position was to be under review. At the conclusion of the meeting he and other officers were instructed to withdraw. Afterwards, Mr. Griffith was seen by the acting chairman, who informed him that it was the wish of the committee that he should leave and that he should be given the option of tendering his resignation. Mr. Griffith asked what the alternative was, and he was informed that it was likely to be dismissal. He was further informed that his efficiency was not called into question, it being added that on the contrary the committee was in agreement that his effi- ciency and his personal and professional reputation were above question. The general lines of the committee's point of view were put to him as being rather that the man did not fit the job—though how this could properly be said without criticism of Mr. Griffith's efficiency or conduct it is difficult to understand.

Mr. Griffith did not tender his resignation, but on 22nd June he wrote to the acting chairman, stating that it was his intention to meet their wishes by leaving as soon as he obtained a suitable post, which he hoped would not be long delayed. The reply then received by Mr. Griffith from the acting chairman was striking in two ways. First, it gave him notice of summary dismissal as from 10th July, 1950—later amended to 30th August—with three months' salary in lieu of notice. Secondly, it confirmed that Mr. Griffith's "efficiency was not in question" and that "there was no imputation whatever" on his "personal and professional reputation."

This remarkable insistence that neither Mr. Griffith's efficiency in his post nor his personal or professional reputation were in any way called into question were further stressed in a number of testimonials given to him by the acting chairman, the vice-chairman and other members of the management committee. These are the kind of phrases which are contained in these testimonials, which I have seen. He is described as energetic, efficient, capable, hardworking, conscientious, courteous, believing in consultation, and a man with whom it had been a pleasure and privilege to work. If, indeed, all these testimonials were true and there was no cause for criticism of Mr. Griffith's efficiency or of his personal and professional reputation, what grounds were there for his summary dismissal? No ground was in fact forthcoming.

Mr. Griffith's professional organisation, and his trade union, jointly took up his case with the hospital management committee. To their request that the action of dismissal should not be proceeded with without proper inquiry, the committee replied that it did not intend to formulate specific charges and that, as the notice of dismissal was one which it was legally empowered to make, it did not propose to alter it.

Ultimately, no less than four months later, alleged grounds were given for Mr. Griffith's dismissal by the management committee in a statement of the case submitted to the regional hospital board in November, 1950, when that body had agreed to set up a committee to hear an appeal by Mr. Griffith. A reply to this statement was jointly submitted on behalf of Mr. Griffith. It was then expected that, in the customary way, an oral hearing of the case, for which a date had been fixed and notified to the parties, would take place before the appeals committee, with both parties represented and calling such witnesses as they desired.

To the astonishment of Mr. Griffith and his organisations, this hearing never took place. Three days before it was due to be held, they were informed by the regional board that the appeals committee had decided that no hearing was necessary and that it had disallowed the appeal. That decision was subsequently confirmed by the board on the 3rd January, 1951. This decision not to hold an appeal would have been remarkable in any circumstances. In these circumstances it was literally a shocking proceeding.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Blenkinsop)

I do not want to interrupt unduly, but is the hon. Member suggesting that there is some automatic right of appeal to the regional board?

Mr. Black

I am not suggesting that there is an automatic right of appeal. What I am suggesting is that in circumstances of this kind justice demands that such an appeal should be held. I am submitting that a date was fixed, and it was only three days before the date fixed that the appeal was called off.

Mr. Blenkinsop

It is rather important. The employing body is unquestionably the management committee.

Mr. Black

Whether that is so or not, the board evidently took the view, in the first place, that it was competent to have an appeal, and that it was its -duty to do so, because it fixed a date, received written statements from the parties, and proceeded to adjudicate upon the appeal and to dismiss it without giving the parties an opportunity to be heard. Those are the facts. The charges which were listed in the written case before the appeals committee were vague, indefinite, and unsatisfactory in the extreme. They could not possibly be regarded as adequate grounds for dismissal.

After the refusal to hear the appeal, representations were made to the Minister requesting him in the circumstances, as a matter of common justice, to appoint a committee of inquiry. The answer to this request was a refusal by the Minister to intervene. Subsequently the case was again taken up with the Minister, this time with the support of the staff side of the Administrative and Clerical Staffs Whitley Council. But no action has resulted so far from these representations.

To a written Question in this House, a reply was given by the Minister. He took refuge in the assertion that the appointment and dismissal of hospital staff were matters for the hospital authority concerned, and that it was therefore not proper for him to intervene. He was, therefore, not prepared to intervene. That, I consider, is ill-founded and unsatisfactory. He chose to ignore that under the National Health Service Act the hospital authorities to which he referred carry out their functions as agents of the Minister, who, in his turn, is responsible to Parliament.

My appeal tonight is that the Minister should reconsider the untenable attitude he then adopted, and now provide facilities for a full and impartial inquiry into Mr. Griffith's case. The offer of a colonial appointment obtained by Mr. Griffith has been withdrawn, and he has had no employment for nearly a full year, and has only this week obtained another post at not much more than half of his previous salary. Justice and humanity demand that Mr. Griffith should be able to vindicate his good name and professional capacity and, even at this late hour, I say to the Minister, let justice be done.

12.12 a.m.

Mr. W. Griffiths (Manchester, Exchange)

I think that the whole House will be grateful to the hon. Member opposite for Wimbledon (Mr. Black) for having raised this case of a former employee of the St. Helier Group Hospital Management tonight. The hon. Gentleman has so fully and completely covered all aspects of this case that there is not much which I can add; but I would say that in my view Mr. Griffith has been treated quite monstrously.

I would just say this to the Parliamentary Secretary who is to reply; for myself, I do not care who was responsible for Mr. Griffith's dismissal. What I am concerned with is that, if prima facie, it is established that an injustice has been done, then it is the responsibility of the Minister of Health to set up an inquiry in order that it be made quite clear, beyond all possible doubt, that this man has been treated in the right way or, on the contrary, in a way which hon. Members on both sides of this House consider to be disgraceful.

Let me say to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary that if the Minister is going to say that this was something which took place before he assumed office, then he is taking refuge in something wrong. Dreyfus would have been on Devil's Island for ever had that been the principle, and this less well known and perhaps more humble man—who is not one of my constituents —will have to suffer. I had a circular about him, and as with so many circulars which hon. Members receive, I perhaps did not give it the attention I should have done. I am ashamed that I did not take the full interest which I should have done.

The hon. Member for Wimbledon has made a very good case tonight, and it would be disgraceful if the Minister should refuse an inquiry. Interested parties on the management committee offered the explanation that the reason for Mr. Griffith's dismissal was that his personality was incompatible with that of the rest of the management committee. All I can say is that if that ever becomes a criterion for employment in a public service, then we shall have reached a very dangerous stage indeed.

Let this House always be on guard against a public service developing a system where an individual employed in it cannot be suitably protected from the jealousies and the evil consequences of group practices against the rights of an individual.

12.16 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Blenkinsop)

After this short debate on this unfortunate dismissal, I should say that there appear to me to be two major issues. Firstly, there is the personal issue of the individual concerned, Mr. Griffith, and the question whether my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health should intervene in any way; and, secondly, there is the wider problem of the lack of any accepted disciplinary procedure in the hospital field.

In regard to the first point, which has been the major subject of the argument of the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Black), I find it very difficult to understand the arguments of Members opposite who, at one and the same time, complain of too much interference by Whitehall—or even by Savile Row, now that the Ministry of Health has moved there—in the day-to-day work of the hospital authorities, and yet, in individual cases, when they may dislike the decision of these hospital authorities, continuously demand that we should interfere. That seems to be a fantastic position. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about an appeal? "] In business and in the local authority world, there is, of course, an appeal to the employing authority, and we should naturally wish to ensure that there was that right of appeal.

The suggestion that there should be an automatic right of appeal to the Minister seems to me to go against the whole argument, particularly of hon. Members opposite, who complain bitterly, almost every day of the week, of the way in which the Minister and Whitehall are interfering with the conduct of the business of management committees and hospital authorities.

Dr. Hill (Luton)

Does the hon. Gentleman not appreciate that what is here sought is that the Minister should assume a responsibility for ensuring that no official of a regional hospital board or of a hospital management committee is unfairly dismissed? To call that centralisation and to compare it with other centralised organisations, is the merest nonsense.

Mr. Blenkinsop

Not at all. It is always assumed in each individual case raised with the Ministry by hon. Members that the Minister should intervene. If we agreed to the pressure we get from hon. Members opposite on a great number of occasions, not only about actual staff, but on matters concerning actual running of hospitals, then the position of the management committees and the regional hospital boards would be impossible. We could not expect to get members to serve upon them.

It seems to us, and it always has seemed, that the question of the employ- ment of a management committee's own staff is certainly a matter for that management committee. The power is certainly there. It is regrettable that there is not any agreed disciplinary procedure, and I shall deal with that point in a moment. It is absolutely clear that, lacking such agreed procedure, the management committee was at liberty to decide this issue in whatever they felt was the best way.

This matter has been considered on several occasions, both by the present Minister and by the former Minister, and both came to the same conclusion, that while we may have differing views about the details of the procedure adopted by the management committee, there is no evidence to suggest there is any reason why my right hon. Friend himself should intervene, either by calling for an inquiry or by asking, or requiring, the management committee to reverse the decision they took.

We may regret some of the details of the way in which the management committee took their action. It may be that they would have been wiser to act in another way, but I do resent the imputation the hon. Member for Wimbledon has made that the existing management committee are incapable of doing their job. There are no sort of grounds for the suggestion that they are not carrying out their work and fulfilling their duty and responsibility to their patients and to the group in the way we would wish them to.

Now I want to turn to the wider question of the agreed procedure, because that is a matter of great concern, not only in this case but in the wider field. If I were asked whether it were desirable that there should be some form of agreed procedure. I should say that it is most highly desirable. This is a matter first and foremost for the Whitley Council, and we are as disappointed as anybody that the Whitley Council, although they have been considering this for a very long time, have not come to a decision.

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'Clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twenty-two Minutes past Twelve o'Clock.