HC Deb 27 June 1973 vol 858 cc1507-10
6. Mr. Gourlay

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he took into account the evidence submitted to the South-Eastern Regional Hospital Board's committee of investigation into the supply of surgical appliances to East and West Fife Hospitals Board of Management before he released to the Press a copy of his letter of 7th June to the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Monro

Yes, Sir. I should like to thank the committee of investigation for what has clearly been a thorough and painstaking inquiry into the circumstances leading to irregular payments being made to the surgical appliance contractor.

I am satisfied that the committee has investigated all the evidence thoroughly and given all the factors due weight in reaching its conclusions. I regard the laxity in applying proper arrangements for financial security as both serious and regrettable. Procedures have now been tightened up in Fife and my Department is considering urgently with regional hospital boards what further measures can be taken to prevent incidents of this nature occurring.

Mr. Gourlay

Is the Minister aware that the purpose of my request to him last July for a public inquiry was to ensure that all the evidence would be made public? In fact, that has not happened. The Minister is in a very privileged position compared with other hon. Members. Further, is he aware that, while the report contains damning statements about some of the clinical staff, sections 3.5 and 3.6 of the report virtually condone the malpractices disclosed?

Is the Minister aware that his endorsement of the committee's conclusions confirm my previous suspicion that this was a major whitewashing operation? In view of the seriousness of the offences, will not the Minister reconsider the position, particularly of those who violated the code of conduct, which states that they should be scrupulously impartial and honest and beyond suspicion? I suggest that the Minister should consider having at least a severe reprimand administered to those concerned. May I—

Mr. Speaker

Order. That is enough.

Mr. Monro

I note what the hon. Gentleman has said. It is important for him to know that the chairman of the committee announced that those involved would be able to see the introductory part of the report before it was discussed by the board and that only the final report, containing the committee's conclusions and recommendations, was to be issued by the board. I think that the evidence and all the facts were most carefully considered. My Department was represented by an assessor who sat on the committee. I feel in no doubt that the recommendations of the board were the best in all the circumstances.

Mr. Adam Hunter

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I endorse almost everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Mr. Gourlay) has said? Further, is he aware that the contractor in this case is being sued in the civil court by the regional board for over £4,000? Is he also aware that I consider that the consultants and clinicians involved in receiving gifts and making so-called purchases should be asked to return the gifts or the cash value, or the savings from the purchases, to the regional board?

Mr. Monro

The employees of the board whom the hon. Gentleman mentioned were criticised strongly in the report, and that has been published. There is no advantage in pursuing condemnation any further.

Mr. William Hamilton

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that answer is absolutely disgraceful? Does he accept that disciplinary action must be taken against the people who have offended in the way which has been suggested? Further, is he aware that there is a good deal of disquiet in Scotland, and particularly in Fife, about the manner in which this case has been dealt with? It seems that some people have been found out and punished and that others have been found out and not punished. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that what applies to one should apply to all?

Mr. Monro

I am not at all surprised by the hon. Gentleman's approach to the matter. The inquiry went into the whole matter in great detail and the evidence was taken most carefully. In the light of the report from the regional hospital board, I do not think that further action is required.

Mr. Robert Hughes

Am I correct in saying that one party to these transactions was convicted in court of an offence relating to supplies? If that is so, does the Minister accept that there were violations of the code by people in the employ of the Fife Regional Hospital Board? In the circumstances, does he not feel that a thorough inquiry should have led at least to a reprimand of the other parties to the offence, who apparently got off scot free?

Mr. Monro

The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that one party was convicted in court and a suitable decision was made by the court. In relation to the consultants and the others mentioned in the inquiry, that information has been published and that is a reprimand.

Mr. Gourlay

On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's replies, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.