§ 20 Mr. D. Howellasked the Minister of Health (1) whether the report of the legal adviser to the Birmingham Regional Hospital Board, dated 22nd May, 1957, to a Committee of the Board concerning contracts under inquiry and related matters was submitted to the 10 recent inquiry set up by him into matters affecting the Agnes Hunt Memorial Hospital; and what examination and cross-examination of witnesses took place upon this report;
(2) whether the recent departmental inquiry into matters affecting the Agnes Hunt Memorial Hospital had before it the details of the Birmingham Regional Hospital Board's own inquiry of 10th February, 1954; and what examination and cross-examination of witnesses took place at the recent inquiry concerning the earlier one;
(3) what observations he has to make upon the comments made by counsel representing the Birmingham Regional Hospital Board at the departmental inquiry into matters affecting the Agnes Hunt Memorial Hospital criticising his decision to set up that inquiry; and how many of those people criticised by counsel for not giving evidence were invited to do so.
§ Mr. Walker-SmithI have not yet received the report of those who held the inquiry and therefore it would be improper for me to comment now. The inquiry was in public, and it was open to anyone who wished to ask to give evidence. I am not responsible for comments made at the inquiry by counsel.
§ Mr. HowellIs the Minister aware that these questions were put on the Order Paper because the documents mentioned in Questions Nos. 21 and 22 are vital in respect of the whole inquiry? As I understand that no cross-examination or examination of any sort took place on these documents, would not the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that that would seriously handicap the proper assessment of evidence given at the inquiry? If these documents Were not produced and witnesses were not examined in respect of them, would not the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that it is most irregular that he himself having set up the inquiry because, presumably, he could not find the facts after lengthy investigation, counsel instructed by the regional board should criticise his decision to hold an inquiry?
§ Mr. Walker-SmithI am afraid that in the first part of his supplementary question the hon. Member is inviting me to do what I said I could not properly do, which is to comment at this stage on the 11 conduct of these proceedings. As to what counsel said, I rather agree with the hon. Member. It did not have much relevance to the issues, and I do not think that anybody need be very much concerned with that observation.