§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Major.]
12.21 am§ Mr. Harry Ewing (Falkirk, East)In more than 30 years' experience in trade union and political work the case that I raise today is one of the worst instances of industrial persecution that I have ever come across. It concerns one of my constituents, a nursing sister whom I shall not name, employed at Falkirk royal infirmary but dismissed as the result of a disciplinary hearing on 11 November.
That hearing was preceded by a bizarre history. The nursing sister's troubles started when in the recent general election campaign she organised a photograph for the election address of my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan). When the election address was published, the sister was sent for and reprimanded for organising the photograph.
I must put it on record that it appears from m) inquiries that, although some of the nurses in the photograph—taken outside the outpatients department of the infirmary—were on their normal tea break, others had left their posts. I do not defend that, and my constituent, the nursing sister, accepts that she was entitled to be reprimanded for that incident.
As I unfold the sad story, however, it will be clear that those responsible for reprimanding the sister for organising the photograph had made up their minds from that point onwards to ensure that in one way or another this lady's excellent service to the infirmary over many years would be brought to an end and, if at all possible, her character, reputation and nursing standing damaged in the process.
Within days of the reprimand for organising the photograph, a search—more accurately, a check—was carried out of the drug cupboard on the ward for which the nursing sister was responsible. Two 50-tablet bottles of sulphur tablets were missing. When the nursing sister was confronted with the fact that those bottles were missing, she immediaterly admitted that she had taken them. She explained that she took them on a Sunday, that a member of her family suffered from an illness that was treated by sulphur tablets, and that because a doctor was not available to give a prescription, and she could not obtain the tablets from the chemist, she had taken them from the drugs cupboard. She openly admitted that.
The nursing sister was immediately suspended, and the senior nursing officer and the nursing officer of Falkirk royal infirmary reported my constituent to the police. When she came to see me, I immediately wrote to the secretary of Forth valley health board complaining that this lady was being persecuted. I had no doubt of that. I asked in that letter how many such incidents had been reported to the police during a given number of years. The secretary replied that, first, the board did not accept my charge that the lady was being persecuted—I still maintain that she was — and, secondly, that only two cases during that number of years had been reported to the police.
This lady then suffered the humiliation of being taken from her home to the police station at Falkirk and being put through the usual severe interrogation that such cases normally attract. She was subsequently charged with stealing a substantial quantity of drugs—not just the two bottles to which she had admitted, although they formed 441 part of the charge, but a host of other drugs that had apparently gone missing, not only from the ward for which the sister was responsible, but from other wards in the hospital where, at one time or another, she had worked.
The case came to Falkirk sheriff court in October this year. The case had been in progress for some time when, on 6 October, the sheriff decided that he was not satisfied with the prosecution's evidence, and suspended the case, saying that he would recall it a fortnight later. I understand that he did so to give the prosecution an opportunity to put its evidence in a better and more cohesive fashion and, if possible, to provide a stronger basis for the prosecution.
The case was recalled on 24 October, and it is significant that the sheriff then gave the nursing sister an absolute discharge. The Falkirk Herald is an active local paper, which reports without fear or favour—although I do not always agree with what it says—but it did not consider the case to be sufficiently significant or important as to warrant being reported
To many, if not all, fair-minded people, that would have been the end of the matter. The Forth valley health board, the senior nursing officer and the nursing officer at the royal infirmary thought that they would get their pound of flesh by pursuing this case through the courts, but they failed.
One would have thought that the absolute discharge would have been the end of the matter, but on 11 November a disciplinary hearing was convened at Falkirk royal infirmary, taken by the senior nursing officer and the nursing officer, and my constituent was dismissed. She appealed against her dismissal on 18 November, a week later. That is some weeks ago, and I spoke to my constituent tonight before I came into the House to check that the position was still the same. She has still not been told when the appeal will be heard and, as I understand it, she has not even had an acknowledgement from the Forth valley health board, or anything to say that the appeal has been lodged. It is now 7 December and my constituent still remains dismissed, with no salary or job, and still suffering the trauma of what the Forth valley health board had subjected her to.
Furthermore, an interesting feature of the case is that throughout the lady has been represented by Miss Martin, the legal adviser to the Royal College of Nursing, who has done an excellent job for my constituent. I place on record my gratitude for the vigorous representation that the college has provided for my constituent. As I understand it, the college asked the health board for copies of the documents used at the disciplinary hearing on 11 November, but up till Monday, although I did not check this again today, the documents had not been provided. I suspect that the health board is deliberately withholding copies of the documents because it is afraid that the college might have passed the documents to me to use in the debate. Significantly, at the disciplinary hearing some of the documents used in the court case were not produced. Since the date of the dismissal, no date has been given for hearing the appeal.
Since 15 June, six months ago—not six weeks or six days—this excellent nurse has been persecuted. During the court proceedings a number of consultants at the infirmary, without any coaxing or requests, voluntarily wrote letters to the sheriff clerk giving character references for my constituent, because they knew the value of her 442 work in the infirmary. They knew that better than the Johnnies-come-lately who have been persecuting this lady since she arranged the photographs for my hon. Friend's election address.
It is a scandal that this should happen, and it should not be tolerated in our civilised society. This lady has given outstanding service to her profession for many years. Her one aim in life is to make sure that sick people are healed and made well again. Nursing was the profession which she entered in England after leaving school, and she has served in it ever since, only to be treated in this fashion at this stage in her career. Six months of persecution and still no sign of when it will come to an end. If, in the present run-up to Christmas and the New Year, the appeal is not heard, we can imagine that it will be January, possibly even February, before it is. What way is that to treat someone who has given such loyal service?
In disciplined services such as nursing and the police, there is no question of double jeopardy. This is a case in which, because the employers were not able to achieve the objective which they set out to attain in June—proving the lady's guilt—they decided to call another form of court, or hearing as it was called, and dismissed the lady, having failed to have her dismissed after reporting her to the police. I cannot remember a case such as this in the five and a half years during which I was a health Minister.
It might be a forlorn hope, but I would wager that if the Labour party had won the June general election the case would never have arisen. There is more politics in this case than anything else. If those who have handled the case had thought that a Labour Administration would have occupied New St. Andrew's house after June, I bet that the case would have been forgotten. The drugs incident was sparked off as a result of the lady's persecution.
The Minister will tell me in his reply that the appeal procedure has not been exhausted. I am aware of that. The earlier stages of the appeal procedure could have been exhausted if the Forth valley health board had got off its lazy backside and tried to do something for the lady instead of pillorying her. It has no interest in helping her. Had it been interested in her, the first stage of the appeal procedure could have been completed by now. I am anxious to influence that appeal. If it fails, I am even more anxious to influence the subsequent appeal that will be made to the Secretary of State, for it is to him that the final appeal will be made. I hope that the Minister will not tell me that the appeal procedure has not been exhausted and that I am raising this issue on the Adjournment prematurely. There is not much point in closing the stable door after the horse has bolted. I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this matter, because I want to influence the appeal.
For the first time since I have been a Member, I am speaking above and beyond the House. I am speaking to senior nursing management at Falkirk royal infirmary and to senior management in the Forth valley health board. The latter body should never have allowed the matter to occur. It did not know that the lady had been reported to the police until I told it. It was left to local management to make the decision whether an employee should be reported to the police.
The senior nursing management at Falkirk royal infirmary and the health board should come to their senses, stop the persecution and bring justice to bear in this case. My constituent should be reinstated. Many of the patients 443 whom she has nursed and many of the consultants at the infirmary and others who know her well want her to be restored to her rightful position.
§ The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John MacKay)The hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) has amply demonstrated his concern over the circumstances which led to the dismissal of a sister at Falkirk royal infirmary, and I listened carefully to what he said.
The hon. Member is well aware that the general Whitley council disciplinary procedures on which the health boards' own procedures are based provide for an aggrieved party to appeal against dismissal, in the first instance to an appeals committee set up by the health board, but also, if she remains aggrieved thereafter, there is a further right of appeal to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. These are, of course, national guidelines within which health boards may determine locally their own arrangements and agree them with representatives of local staff interests. Within the Forth valley health board there are, I understand, provisions for successive appeals from hospital level to the district and area executive groups, and finally to the board itself.
It is for health boards to determine locally the extent of the authority of the various levels of management as regards disciplinary action. Serious disciplinary decisions in respect of nursing staff will be taken by senior nurse managers. Those managers are intimately concerned with staff management and are heavily engaged in decisions on the recruitment, training, deployment and operation of staff. They have all had experience of direct patient care, and know from first-hand how the service runs. They are also thoroughly au fait with Whitley agreements on terms and conditions of service and of the way that they operate. Staff counselling and professional development is one of their responsibilities. I am confident that the staff who are taking disciplinary decisions are experienced both in the running of hospitals and in the use of disciplinary procedures.
§ Mr. EwingMay I intervene to put an important point? Does the Minister think it satisfactory for any member of staff, leaving aside my constituent, to appeal against a disciplinary decision on 18 November and by 7 December still not know when the appeal is to be held?
§ Mr. MacKayI shall come to that in a moment.
There is no doubt that disciplinary procedure is a specialist area, and for that reason it is general practice for health boards to employ a special personnel nurse at senior level, who is available for advice and guidance on nurse personnel matters. Each board also has its personnel officer who is concerned with the totality of personnel work covering all grades and all disciplines, and he, or she, too, is available for advice and guidance. In addition, boards have access to the central legal office of the Common Services Agency, from which they can seek legal advice, if that is thought necessary.
It is, of course, important that appeals should be made and heard quickly. The Whitley procedures recommend that any appeal by an employee should be lodged within three weeks of the receipt of written notice. The hearing of the appeal committee should be held within five weeks 444 of the receipt of the appeal, although boards may in exceptional circumstances be entitled to extend the period. In the case that concerns the hon. Member, an appeal has been lodged, as he said, and I understand that a hearing has been fixed for 22 December at district executive level. From his own experience in Government, the hon. Member will readily appreciate, therefore, that it would be improper of me to comment specifically upon the case or, indeed, to comment on the application of the agreed national disciplinary procedures to the case. To do so might well prejudice the outcome of her appeal. I am not prepared to risk that.
There is also a further complication. As the hon. Member is aware, the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act 1979 provided for the establishment of the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting and four national boards, one in each of the four home countries. That Act lays responsibility for the regulation of the profession on those bodies, which are the successors of previous bodies like the General Nursing Council for Scotland. Rules made under the Act regulate how such cases should be dealt with. Cases where nurses have been the subject of court proceedings are referred to the National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting for Scotland, which, in terms of the 1979 Act, is responsible for investigating cases of alleged misconduct with a view to proceedings before the United Kingdom Central Council for a person to be removed from the register. It is possible that a further and separate course of professional action will be instituted against the sister. It would be quite improper to prejudice such an investigation by a discussion of the merits of the case in the House, no matter how well intentioned that discussion might be.
In those circumstances, I shall, therefore, confine my comments to the procedures which have been made for dealing with disciplinary action in respect of staff employed in the National Health Service. I shall also deal with the advice and guidance available to health boards when considering their action.
As I have explained, it is for health boards to design their own disciplinary proceedings and negotiate locally on them with staff interests. These procedures are, however, designed within the general framework of the procedures for staff employed within the NHS negotiated in the National Health Service Whitley council. As the hon. Member is aware, that council is comprised of members representing, on the one hand, Health Service management and, on the other, staff interests through the main professional organisations and NHS trade unions. The disciplinary procedures agreed by the general Whitley council are approved by the Secretary of State and form the basis for the conduct of the disciplinary action.
The procedures are well known. They are set out in full in the conditions of service handbook of the general Whitley council, copies of which are readily available to all NHS staff.
I should like to comment particularly on the arrangements made for appeals. The procedures are sensitive to the interests of the appellant and the provisions in respect of the composition of appeal committees have particular regard to the establishment of committees which are both impartial and knowledgeable of the appellant's area of work.
In the event of an appeal to the health board, the board is requested to set up an appeals committee consisting of not less than three members of the board. If possible, at 445 least one member of the committee should have a special knowledge of the employee's work. Where this is not possible in cases of appeal against dismissal the committee shall, at the request of the employee or his representative, appoint an assessor who is experienced in the particular discipline of the employee and who has not been directly involved in the circumstances leading to disciplinary action.
Similarly, the members of the appeal committee shall not include any member of the board of committee or subcommittee of the board who has been directly involved in the circumstances leading to disciplinary action.
The appellant has the right to appear personally before an appeals committee either alone or accompanied by a representative of his or her professional organisation or trade union. The hon. Member said tonight that his constituent is represented by an officer of the Royal College of Nursing. Those procedures have been in operation, largely unchanged, for some years. I am informed that there is no pressure upon the general Whitley council to review them, either from Health Service management or from staff interests.
In those circumstances, it is surely reasonable to conclude that the disciplinary arrangements have stood the test of time, are accepted by management and staff sides alike, are well capable of coping with cases which come before them and provide adequately for the representation of the interests of the aggrieved party.
An appeals mechanism sets out to ensure fair, impartial and knowledgeable hearings, and that culminates in the provision for an appeal to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I reiterate that for that reason it would be improper for me to comment on the circumstances as they affect this particular case. Moreover, the procedures neither take away an individual's rights under employment legislation nor deny him access to an industrial tribunal. He or she has the same rights in this respect as in any other area of employment.
I am not sure about double jeopardy that the hon. Member mentioned at Question Time. That principle prevents a person from being tried twice for the same offence before a criminal court. I do not think that that prevents an employee who has been tried by a criminal court from being subjected to his employer's disciplinary procedures, or vice versa. The principle extends much wider than nursing circles. The hon. Gentleman mentioned policemen. I am sure that he does not suggest that if a policeman is dismissed for assaulting a colleague or a superior he should not be involved in criminal proceedings, or vice versa.
446 If a lawyer embezzles a client's funds and one argues double jeopardy, one could say that he should be dismissed from his job, banned from the legal profession or face criminal proceedings. Such a person would face all three consequences.
§ Mr. EwingWhen a court has granted an absolute discharge or recorded a finding of not guilty, surely that should be the end of the matter. In this case an absolute discharge was granted, and then the board convened its court and sacked the lady. If a policeman is found not guilty of a criminal charge, the chief constable would not deal with that police officer.
§ Mr. MacKayI listened to the hon. Gentleman's argument on that ground. I am not discussing whether the circumstances are right or wrong or that they would necessarily follow.
I trust that the hon. Gentleman will be content with the explanation that I have provided. I know that he is concerned about this case, and I regret, for the reasons that I have given, that it has been impossible for me to deal with it specifically. That is because an appeal is pending and because the sister has an ultimate right of appeal to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. As the hon. Gentleman conceded, in the event of an appeal to my right hon. Friend, the papers would come to me. However, I believe that it should be reassuring for him to know that we are dealing with an established disciplinary system. It is accepted by management and by staff, and I am content to let that system come to its conclusion. I am content also that responsibility for the application of disciplinary procedures is vested in the sound and experienced hands of senior nurses who have great experience in running the Health Service.
Safeguards are built in that ensure that aggrieved staff have the right of appeal to their health boards. The system is designed to ensure that appeals are handled in an informed and fair way and does not involve the torment of delay. There is provision for appeal ultimately to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. Appeals by aggrieved staff can focus both on the merits of particulars and on the application of the appropriate procedures to the case. Outwith the Health Service, too, the employee has the right of access to industrial tribunals under employment legislation——
§ 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 nine minutes to One o'clock.