HC Deb 14 December 1959 vol 615 cc1043-7
36. Mr. Cronin

asked the Minister of Health if he will make a statement on the circumstances under which Mr. T. J. Drakeley, C.B.E., has ceased to be chairman of the Northern Group Hospital Management Committee; and who is to be his successor.

37. Mr. Reynolds

asked the Minister of Health why Mr. T. J. Drakeley, C.B.E., was not reappointed chairman of the Northern Group Hospital Management Committee, despite the fact that the management committee unanimously requested his reappointment.

Mr. Walker-Smith

I am informed that the North-West Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board proposes to appoint Mrs. Henry Brooke, a member of the board, as chairman of this hospital management committee in April next in succession to Mr. Drakeley. Appointments to hospital management committees are, by statute, a matter for the regional hospital board.

Mr. Cronin

Is the Minister aware that, owing to the vigour, health and personality of Mr. Drakeley, there is unanimous opposition to this change in the appointment? Is he aware that this change has been initiated by Lord Cottesloe, chairman of the regional hospital board, and that, although I have no doubt that he has had the most honourable of intentions, it is an unhappy coincidence that for ten years Lord Cottesloe represented on the London County Council the same constituency as the husband of the chairman-designate?

Mr. Walker-Smith

As the hon. Member should know, these appointments are not a matter for the Minister of Health. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It certainly shows a remarkable ignorance of the Act of 1946, especially on the part of the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher), who has some legal qualification. That is deplorable. It is quite clearly a matter for the regional hospital board, not for the Minister of Health. The regional hospital board is composed of various people rendering service to the hospital movement, including not only Lord Cottesloe, a very distinguished chairman, but also the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson).

Mr. Cronin

If this Question is not within the responsibility of the Minister of Health, is it not out of order?

Mr. Speaker

Prima facie, being on the Order Paper it is in order.

Mr. Reynolds

Is not the Minister aware that considerable pressure has been put on Mr. Drakeley in order to secure his acceptance of this position, presumably on the grounds of his age? Is the Minister aware that Mr. Drakeley's full-time position is that of principal of the Northern Polytechnic, in which position he has the full confidence of the governors of that college, the London County Council and, presumably, Her Majesty's Inspectors of Education? While one can agree that theoretically it is a decision for the regional hospital board, the Minister cannot dodge the fact that he is finally responsible for this matter.

Mr. Walker-Smith

All the regional hospital boards administer their services as agents of the Minister under the terms of the Act. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Certainly. It is no doubt for that reason that the Question is rightly on the Order Paper. Nevertheless, Part II of the Third Schedule is quite specific as to the methods of appointment. This is an appointment of the board, and is in no way an appointment of mine. I have no doubt that it is a very good appointment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why"] Because Mrs. Brooke is a lady of great ability who has rendered great service to the hospital movement. In saying that, I in no way derogate from the value of Mr. Drakeley's services in the past. This group is, as I understand it, looking forward to developments over the next six years or so, and it is therefore appropriate that he should be replaced by a younger chairman.

Sir T. Moore

Are we to gather from the attitude of the Opposition that a Minister's wife or other relative should be prohibited from serving the public in any capacity?

Mr. Walker-Smith

I do not think that even the inconsistencies of the Opposition would extend quite to that proposition.

Dr. Summerskill

Although it is refreshing to learn that there are "jobs for the girls", is there any precedent for ignoring the unanimous recommendation of a hospital management committee in such a matter?

Mr. Walker-Smith

I should not like to answer the last part of the right hon. Lady's question without checking up on it. On the first part of the question, I am glad that there is this honourable and useful position for Mrs. Brooke. On the general theme of "jobs for the girls", I am only sorry that Blackpool was not as generous.

Mr. Fletcher

Is the Minister aware that this disregard of the views of the hospital management committee and this apparent slight to Mr. Drakeley, who has had such a very distinguished record in North London, has created a most unfavourable impression, and particularly the fact that Mr. Drakeley has been superseded in the interests of the Minister's wife? Will the right hon. Gentleman, in the circumstances, make known to the board the views that have been expressed in the House?

Mr. Walker-Smith

Mr. Drakeley has not been superseded in the interests of the Minister's wife. The hon. Gentleman must try to get it into his head that the appointments are made in the interests of the hospital service. Appointments are made by the boards and not by the hospital management committees. I repeat that we are grateful to Mr. Drakeley for his services and to all the people who serve on the committees and boards.

Mr. Cronin

In view of the somewhat disagreeable implications of this matter, would it not be welcomed by Lord Cottesloe and the chairman-designate if the Minister instituted a full inquiry and published the result?

Mr. Walker-Smith

The only imputations are those which the hon. Gentleman is putting forward, in a way which I hope he will regret tomorrow. If he wants an inquiry, perhaps he would be good enough to address himself to his hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras. North (Mr. K. Robinson), who is a member of the board and helped to make the appointment.

Mr. D. Price

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are a number of hon. Members and their wives and relatives who serve on various hospital boards and that, if we are to be subjected to this sort of personal innuendo, we will not be prepared to serve? Does my right hon. Friend think that this is a proper way to conduct appointments? In view of the calumnies made by the Opposition, will my right hon. Friend induce the chairman of the regional hospital board concerned to give the voting of the board in favour of asking Mrs. Henry Brooke to be chairman of the management committee?

Mr. Walker-Smith

I think that the whole House will agree that these imputations are wholly out of place in a movement in which all service is given in a voluntary capacity. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) is insisting on making a series of unedifying and sedentary squawks from his place. If he has a supplementary question to put. I will gladly reply to it.

Mr. Cronin

On a point of order. I made it quite clear in my question that I thought that Lord Cottesloe had nothing but the most honourable intentions. Therefore, it is quite improper for the Minister to use that imputation to conceal his views.

Mr. G. Brown

The point I was putting, which I now put standing, is that the Minister's pompous remarks come ill from him, since he and the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."]—I am asking him if he is not aware—[Interruption.] You will not get me down now you have got me up.

Mr. Speaker

The right hon. Gentleman should address his remarks to me.

Mr. Brown

Sir, I do They will not get me down now that they have got me up. The point I asked the Minister about is this. Is he not aware that the remarks he now addresses to the House come ill from him, since he and his right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions were the ones who used these things repeatedly against us and friends of ours from 1951 onwards?

Mr. Walker-Smith

If the right hon. Gentleman can identify in a speech by me—[Interruption.] I will gladly give way to the right hon. Gentleman if he will identify any such passage. Also, he puts it from 1951 onwards. 1951 was the time at which, greatly in the interests of the country, the present Administration came into power, so the right hon. Gentleman is clearly quite mistaken in what he said.

Mr. Reynolds

On a point of order. Owing to the fact that my Question has not been answered and the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I give notice that I shall attempt to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. Kershaw

Further to that point of order. Are not these innuendos extremely suitable at the present time? Is it not the only thing for which the Opposition are fit today?

Mr. Speaker

They may or may not be suitable, but they are not points of order.