HC Deb 24 March 1965 vol 709 cc701-10

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

10.0 p.m.

Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter (Kingston-upon-Thames)

It is some 14 years since I last sought from one of your predecessors, Mr. Speaker, permission to raise a matter on the Adjournment. I therefore feel tonight that I am entitled to claim some measure of quasi-virginity, which is perhaps rather appropriate in a debate involving the Minister of Health. In the course of what I have to say in raising this matter I shall feel hound to offer some criticisms of the right hon. Gentleman in respect of the appointment of the chairman of the South-West Metropolitan Hospital Board, which he handled personally. My criticisms, therefore, will be directed not to a matter for which the right hon. Gentleman has to assume the general responsibility which any Minister has to assume in respect of his Department but to a matter which, I do not think he disputes, he handled himself.

Before doing so I should like in fairness to say two things. First, having had some experience of ministerial office, I know that the patronage involved in making these appointments is one of the most time-consuming, boring and tedious of a Minister's duties, and I know what disagreeable problems they raise. Secondly, I should like to thank the right hon. Gentleman, in that since I gave him notice that I would be raising these matters he is present to answer the criti- cisms I shall make. That is characteristic of the right hon. Gentleman, as I have noted.

The chairman of the South-West Metropolitan Hospital Board for the next few days only is a constituent of mine, Mr. S. W. L. Ripley. As anyone who is acquainted with the public life of north Surrey or south-west London will be aware, he is a man of considerable standing. He is a man in his 50s who was until recently chairman of Surrey County Council. He is at present serving as a member of the Greater London Council and he is—and this is material to the discussion—and has been throughout his adult life a Conservative. He has taken an active part in Conservative politics, and a good many years ago stood as a Conservative Parliamentary candidate.

Mr. Ripley finishes at the end of this month his first term as chairman of the hospital board. It has not been a complete term, since he was appointed to fill a vacancy which had arisen, and he has served broadly some two years of the normal three-year term for which these chairmen are appointed still to run. Normally—and this is part of the case I wish to present—he would have expected to be reappointed. I base that statement not on any assertion of my own by on an Answer which the right hon. Gentleman gave to a Written Question, No. 75, of mine on 22nd February.

I asked the right hon. Gentleman what the practice had been about the reappointment after a first term of chairmen of these boards during the last 10 years. The right hon. Gentleman gave me an answer to the effect that the average term served by chairmen of these boards retiring in the last 10 years had been 8¼ years and that of those who had completed a first term, 12 had been reappointed and one had not. Mr. Ripley, therefore, in completing not a full term, but about two years of the original three-year term, was, in the normal way, entitled to expect reappointment. I am sure that the House will agree that the figures which I have given from the right hon. Gentleman's Answer sustain that. proposition.

Some weeks ago, however, Mr. Ripley was seen, on behalf of the right hon. Gentleman, by a very senior officer of his Department. Unless the right hon. Gentleman wishes me to do so, I shall not mention that official's name, since in these matters concerning Ministerial responsibility it is right, I believe, that we should not involve permanent officials.

This very senior officer told Mr. Ripley that the right hon. Gentleman did not intend to reappoint him and suggested that, in the circumstances, the most comfortable course to follow would be for Mr. Ripley to indicate that he did not wish to be considered for reappointment. Mr. Ripley was very surprised at this approach, particularly in the light of the general background to which I have referred and of which he was aware. He was given no explanation, but was left with the clear impression that the right hon. Gentleman was under some pressure in respect of these appointments.

To his credit—I hope that the House will agree—Mr. Ripley declined to take the easy way out of saying that he did not wish to be considered for reappointment. As a man of some experience in public life, he had, on the contrary, taken great pleasure in performing his responsible duties in his own area. However, the right hon. Gentleman did not reappoint him and, shortly thereafter, an announcement was made in the Press—I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in informing me in advance—of the appointment to this office of Viscount Addison.

It is no part of my argument this evening that there is anything against the noble Viscount. He is a 60-year old stockbroker who lives in the Chichester district and commutes daily to London. He has, I believe, a very good record on the local management committee, and he was, in fact, appointed as a member of this regional hospital board by one of my right hon. Friends before the change of Government. But it is significant and most material to the point I make that the noble Viscount is in receipt of the Labour Whip in the House of Lords. He is one of that small—I was about to say select—band of hereditary peers who are members of the Labour Party in the other place. Bluntly, the point I make is that this is the predominant reason for his appointment.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood) asked the right hon. Gentleman a Question a little time ago about the introduction of party politics into these matters. On 8th February last, he asked the Minister of Health to what extent, party political considerations are taken into account by him in making appointments and reappointments of chairmen of regional hospital boards". The right hon. Gentleman gave an interesting Answer: To no greater extent than my predecessors took such considerations into account, so far as I am aware. My aim is to appoint as chairmen those who, in my judgment, have most to contribute to the efficient running of the hospital service."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th February, 1965; Vol. 705, c. 6.] In other words, the Minister is accepting that party political considerations do enter into these appointments, but he is seeking to justify his taking these matters into account on the basis that, to the same extent, according to him, they have been taken into account by his predecessors.

I do not take the extreme view that these matters should be excluded. That would be asking more of human or, perhaps, ministerial nature than it would be reasonable to ask. If, when a genuine vacancy arose, the right hon. Gentleman, out of a number of suitable candidates, were to give preference to one with whose political views he happened to be in sympathy, I do not know that—although, perhaps, it would not be a very good thing—anyone would wish to take him seriously to task.

If the matter rested here, I certainly should not have sought Mr. Speaker's permission to raise the matter on the Adjournment tonight. What, however, does seem to me to deserve censure is to create a vacancy, contrary to the normal practice, for the purpose of filling it with a chairman of the right hon. Gentleman's political point of view. That is the distinction that I stress. No doubt—the right hon. Gentleman has the opportunity to get the facts and will, no doubt, tell the House—my hon. Friends who were his predecessors appointed a good many Conservatives to these boards. They also appointed a good many people of the right hon. Gentleman's view. Indeed, I think that one of them appointed the right hon. Gentleman himself, and, if I may say so, made a very good appointment in so doing.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Kenneth Robinson)

Reappointed me.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

That is even more relevant to the point we are discussing. I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his punctilious and helpful correction. One of his predecessors from my party also appointed Viscount Addison as a member of the board.

But the point to which I direct and invite the attention of the House is that to create a vacancy, no matter what pressures the right hon. Gentleman may have been subjected to, for the purpose of appointing a member of his political party raises a question of quite a different order of seriousness to that of, when a vacancy comes along, choosing one of his own political colleagues, who may be a perfectly admirable fellow, instead of an equally admirable fellow of another political persuasion.

This is the gravamen of the charge which I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be answering in a moment. I very much hope that at this stage of the proceedings he will not seek to defend himself by Indulging in any criticism of Mr. Ripley's capacity in the discharge of this office. First of all, it would be a ludicrous thing to do in view of the proved quality in public service of this gentleman. Secondly, it would be a very unconvincing thing to do, because in all the discussions that have taken place—discussions between the right lion. Gentleman's officer and Mr. Ripley, and the discussions between the right hon. Gentleman and myself—this has never previously been suggested.

If the right hon. Gentleman were—I think that I have too high a view of him to expect that he will—to try to argue the matter on this line, it would be singularly unconvincing and, if he will allow me to say it, singularly shabby at this stage of the proceedings, because it has never been suggested before.

What I want to know is what the right hon. Gentleman intends for the future. I understand that Viscount Addison had no particular enthusiasm for taking up this appointment, that lie was, indeed strongly pressed and urged on behalf of the right hon. Gentleman to do so. Certainly, he takes over—if in the circumstances he thinks it right to take over—in singularly unhappy circumstances, in the knowledge that, whatever his personal qualities—I do not criticise them; I do not wish to say anything about him—he comes into this office as a result of what seems to many of us a wrong treatment of his predecessor by the right hon. Gentleman.

The view which I express is not confined to those of my political view, certainly in the part of the country which I represent. The local newspaper, the Surrey Comet, which is a wholly independent and very ably run newspaper, published a leading article severely criticising the right hon. Gentleman for this transaction, and that is the view of a large number of people outside the political party to which I happen to belong, and representative of general opinion—the feeling that a distinguished public servant has been treated in an exceptional and unfair way with the only possible explanation that of a preference by the right hon. Gentleman for someone of his own political party.

May I go a little further? The supersession—for that is the substance of failure to reappoint in these circumstances—of a chairman of one of these boards on political grounds is a very serious thing from the point of view of the National Health Service and of the hospital service. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman, with his great personal experience of hospital board administration, will know that the introduction of this kind of element, with all its repercussions and interactions, must be harmful to the efficiency of the Health Service.

It seems to me rather strange and rather unhappy that this should have been done by a Minister who, of all Ministers, has personal experience of the running of the National Health Service. It is most surprising. Two points are involved. First, there is, it seems to me the wrong done to my constituent. Secondly, there is the damage done to the hospital service through the fact that the noble Viscount takes over in circumstances which, I am afraid, will be difficult and unhappy for him—circumstances in which he must know, as we all know, that his predecessor has not been fairly treated. That is not a good thing for the Health Service. It is the kind of thing which, if the Minister is to repeat it, will cause great damage to the service for which he has responsibility.

It is a case of individual injustice. It is a case, also, of damage to a vital national service. I do not know what explanation the right hon. Gentleman will give. I hope that he will acknowledge, and acknowledge in a way that the House will accept, that he made an error of judgment in this case in difficult circumstances. If he does that, I am sure that the House will accept it, as it always does. If he does not, he will have raised an issue of which he will not have heard the last and of which, I fear, our great hospital service will not have heard the last, either.

10.17 p.m.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Kenneth Robinson)

At the outset of his remarks, the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) made some general observations about patronage with which I would not go the whole way but from which I would not wholly dissent. Bearing in mind that a Minister of Health must every year make some 650 new appointments and reappointments to Hospital Boards and Executive Councils, it would be rather surprising if he were not, from time to time, to be criticised for some of them.

Certainly, few of my predecessors have been immune and I have been looking up the precedents. I find that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), when Minister of Health, was questioned on at least five occasions in this House, both on individual appointments he had made and on his general policy in making appointments to Boards and Committees. On none of these occasions was he prepared to give reasons for his decisions.

My hon. Friend the Member for Morpeth (Mr. Owen) asked the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West in 1963: … what system or method is employed in the selection of suitable persons to fill vacancies on regional hospital boards and hospital boards of management. The right hon. Gentleman replied: Selection is in accordance with the Third Schedule to the National Health Service Act, 1946."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th April, 1963; Vol. 675, c. 111.] In 1962, the right hon. Gentleman had been asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) why a member of the Birmingham Regional Hospital Board had been reappointed to serve on that Board. The right hon. Gentleman replied: … because I considered him to be a fit person."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th January, 1962; Vol. 652, c. 89.] I propose on this occasion to be guided by precedent.

The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames must appreciate, on reflection, how unwise it would be for any Minister publicly to give his reasons for any appointment he made and equally for any decision not to reappoint an existing member or chairman of a Board. I propose to say, therefore, no more than that I am satisfied that the change I have effected in the chairmanship of the South-West Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board is in the best interests of the hospital service.

Reappointment after the first term of office, while common, I admit, has never been regarded as automatic. Nor, in my view, should it be so regarded. It follows from that that failure to secure reappointment cannot legitimately be seen as a reflection on any individual. There is no question, as the right hon. Gentleman seems to suggest, of creating a vacancy. A vacancy existed, as it always exists at the termination of a period of office of a member or chairman.

Mr. Ripley was given every opportunity, as the right hon. Gentleman admitted to state that he did not wish to continue to serve as chairman. Had he done so, no one would have thought of questioning his decision, or his motives in taking the decision. That he did not avail himself of this opportunity was entirely his own choice. I do not propose to comment on the right hon. Gentleman's version of the conversation which is said to have taken place between Mr. Ripley and one of my officers, a conversation which I thought was understood on both sides to be confidential.

The right hon. Gentleman saw fit to suggest that I had imported party political considerations into my decision to replace Mr. Ripley. Before the right hon. Gentleman pursues that line further, I should like to advise him to read a Fabian pamphlet entitled "Unpaid public service", which was published last summer. The pamphlet sought to analyse the political affiliations of regional hospital board members and chairmen and it described the position which had been reached, no doubt quite fortuitously, after 13 years of a Conservative Government.

Of 15 regional hospital board chairmen, so the pamphlet states, not a single one was known to be a Labour supporter. If this is the position, and I have no wish to check it, nor do I intend to do so, it would be interesting to know whether the right hon. Gentleman considers it to be a reasonable position.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

Would the right hon. Gentleman say which of those 15 appointments were appointments made to replace a chairman who had served only one term?

Mr. Robinson

I do not think that that is particularly relevant, I am merely telling the right hon. Gentleman what this Fabian pamphlet found the situation to be after 13 years of a Conservative Government, and I still await his answer as to whether he considers that that is a reasonable position, or whether he feels that an appointment ceases to be nonpolitical only when it goes to a Socialist.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

The right hon. Gentleman asks me a question and he must take the answer. I told him, if he had listened to my speech, that I did not feel that one could press a Minister entirely to disregard the political views of those whom he appointed. What I said was that he should not press their claims to the point of refusing to follow the normal practice of reappointment after one term in order to create a vacancy, which is precisely what he has done in this case and for which, as he has now told the House, there is no precedent.

Mr. Robinson

I gather that the right hon. Gentleman is asserting that my predecessors did not entirely disregard party political considerations.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

That is what the right hon. Gentleman said.

Mr. Robinson

All I want to say, in conclusion, is that I propose to continue to discharge my duties of appointing chairmen and members of hospital boards in what I feel to be the best interests of the Service, and that I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I shall resist any pressures to do otherwise, from whatever quarter.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes past Ten o'clock.