§ Mr. Brian Sedgemore (Hackney, South and Shoreditch)I am delighted to be able to participate in this Adjournment debate. It is the Friday before Christmas, and I am looking forward to going to Venice; so one is more emollient in this debate than one might otherwise be.
I raise an important issue, because, to put it mildly, these have been unhappy times for the City and Hackney district health authority. Only just over a year ago there was a riot at a meeting of the authority. On that occasion, I had to escort the authority chairman out in order to protect him. That involved me in sharp political criticism. However, I am glad that we got him out of the meeting in good order.
It is interesting to note that Mr. Louis Freedman, who has just retired as chairman of the City and Hackney health authority—I think I could call him a high Tory and a millionaire racehorse owner—expressed some unhappiness about the Department of Health and Social Security. He thought that decisions had been taken too quickly and that the authority had not been allowed to adapt to new circumstances. I would put it more strongly and say that the closure of the hospital is creating great discomfort and unhappiness in Hackney.
Mr. Freedman has gone, and Mr. Evan Stone has taken his place. I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State will be pleased to note that I do not intend attacking Mr. Stone. I should have preferred Mr. Donald Hoodless, whom I and the community health authority recommended to the post, but Mr. Stone is in office and he must be judged on his performance and not condemned before he starts.
As it happens, neither Mr. Stone nor Mr. Hoodless came from Hackney or the City. I believe that they both came from Islington. It is worrying that there are fewer local people on the City and Hackney district health authority than on any other health authority. I may be wrong, but I should be surprised to hear otherwise. Well under half of its members live either in the City or in Hackney.
We talk a great deal about devolving powers to the people, taking power from central Government and local people knowing what is best for them. I believe that that is right. I am not sure why Hackney has been picked out for preferment. Why is it that, of all the areas in Britain, it is in the City and Hackney that there are thought to be insufficient decent people able to conduct the affairs of their own health authority? That cannot be right, and it is time that Ministers started to shift the balance.
One of the reasons for this action concerns the conduct of some members on the authority and the events that followed the occupation of St. Leonard's hospital. Following the Minister's announcement of the effective closure of St. Leonard's hospital, an occupation occurred in the summer. Following that occupation, disciplinary action was taken against Miss Andrea Campbell and Mr. Geoffrey Craig. Miss Campbell was a shop steward for the Confederation of Health Service Employees and Mr. Craig was a shop steward for the National Union of Public Employees. They were dismissed as a result of that disciplinary hearing, and they then appealed. I did not give evidence at the original hearing, but I did so at the appeal 704 on behalf of both those people. I believe that, when selecting members of a district health authority, one must select members who not only can carry out the administration properly, fairly and justly, but can carry out tribunal hearings properly, fairly and justly.
I have been puzzled about the reasons why disciplinary proceedings were taken against those two people. Thousands of people in Hackney were involved in the occupation. I went to the hospital both during and following the occupation. I spoke to members of NUPE and to nurses sitting on the wall outside waiting for vehicles to take them home. I spoke at meetings composed of hundreds of workers, most of whom worked at that hospital. They all supported the occupation. One might say that the occupation was right or that it was wrong. One might say that it was responsible or that it was irresponsible. It is extraordinary to note that, of all the workers who supported the occupation, only two were picked out to be the subject of disciplinary hearings.
I have tried to find out from Mr. John Dennis, the district administrator, why he acted in that way. Is it that he wants war and not peace? Does he think that adopting a hard line will help him to be the general manager of the authority? If society is to act fairly — I speak as a barrister—one cannot arbitrarily pick out two people from the hundreds involved in a particular industrial dispute and say, "We will subject you to condign criticism, we will punish you publicly; we will make you scapegoats; we will set an example; we will show the public that we are not prepared to tolerate this by picking out two individuals."
In addition to the workers who started the occupation, there were thousands of members of the public. What is more important, if I can catch the Minister's ear for a few moments—
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. John Patten)I apologise. I was consulting my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for the Environment.
§ Mr. SedgemoreI am glad that the Department of the Environment and the Department of Health and Social Security liaise. It does not always happen but perhaps a change for the better is coming.
It is also noteworthy that at least one third of the members of the district health authority supported the occupation, and, rightly or wrongly, that the two local Members of Parliament supported it.
As I said at the appeal hearing, the district health authority might have liked to try the two Members of Parliament and the one third of its own members, and it might have liked to take disciplinary proceedings against members of the public. Given that all these people with all these different roles in public and private life were involved in that occupation, how could one take those two individuals and say, "It is just you two whom we are bringing before this tribunal."
The first tribunal which dealt with Miss Andrea Campbell's case upheld her appeal and said that it would remove the dismissal notices and that she would be given a warning.
When I gave evidence to the tribunal, I found that it was relaxed, friendly and courteous. As I was giving evidence, I did not know what decision it would reach. The tribunal seemed to be conducted properly. When I gave evidence 705 to the tribunal which dealt with Mr. Geoffrey Craig, it was rather different. To put it mildly, it was cold, abrupt and unfriendly. The tribunal consisted of Sir Robin Brooks, who was in the chair, Mr. D. Joines, a former treasurer of the authority, and a Miss B. M. Bartram, who is a nursing officer. I did not find their conduct satisfactory, which is why I am raising this matter, because I am not sure that the three of them should be members of the district health authority. If they are about to retire, I hope that their membership will not be renewed.
I do not want to be unkind to Sir Robin. I suppose that one way to describe him is to say that he is a dinosaur living in the wrong age; another would be to say that he is the sarcophagus of a philosophical theory that has perhaps seen its day. I detect from his conduct of the tribunal and his general conduct at the meetings of the district health authority that he appears to be motivated by political ideology, if not by spite.
I am unhappy about the way in which that tribunal was conducted. I am unhappy that one of the members of the district health authority, Ms. Lucy De Groot, gave evidence, but was not allowed to make a statement. After she had been asked some questions, she asked whether she could make a statement at the end of her evidence. That is a normal practice at a tribunal, as I know from my experience at the Bar. She was abruptly and discourteously told that she could not make that statement.
I have also spoken to Miss Dorothy Hardman, who conducted the case on behalf of Mr. Geoffrey Craig. She was treated in an unfriendly and discourteous manner. When tribunal hearings are being conducted, and when there is such sensitivity and public opinion has been outraged—there have been many difficulties over the past years—these things should be done differently.
I was also disturbed by the manner in which I was questioned at the second tribunal, not because I cannot handle it—good Lord, I used to go into the courts every day of the week—but by the way in which Mr. Joines seemed to be injecting prejudice into his questions. That is all right for a defence barrister in a criminal case where there might be a question of life or death or of someone getting three or five years' imprisonment, but in an orthodox tribunal hearing interested in the possible dismissal of an employee, people should not ask questions, all of which are leading, and seem to inject the prejudice of the questioner. What that and the whole atmosphere suggested was that the people on the tribunal had made up their minds before they had heard the evidence. That appeared to be borne out by the fact that, having heard the evidence over a number of days, the tribunal retired for about five minutes and reached an extraordinarily quick decision. It seems inconceivable that it could during that time have weighed up and balanced the evidence given at that hearing.
We should ask whether the three people involved in the hearing are fit to run tribunals. We should question whether they should now be on the district health authority. I have talked to many people and many MPs involved with the Health Service and they say that the City and Hackney district health authority has a reputation for being hopelessly out of date with its industrial relations. I do not know the history of that because I am fairly new to the area. I hope that the Minister is prepared to appoint 706 more younger and more local people to that district health authority so that we can have a new start. If the Minister can tell me that—
§ Mr. John PattenOn a point of clarification, the Department does not appoint members to district health authorities; they are appointed by the regional health authority. The ministerial appointment to the district health authority is that of the chairman. The hon. Gentleman's remarks might best be addressed to the chairman of the regional health authority rather than to me.
§ Mr. SedgemoreI am grateful to the Minister for that information. We all know the way that these political processes work. The region should be appointing, with the Minister's encouragement, more younger and more local people to the district health authority.
If when he replies the Minister can assure us that he will encourage such appointments, we can all go home for Christmas even happier and I can have an even more pleasant time in Venice than I would otherwise have.
§ 11.5 am
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. John Patten)I hope that the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) has an agreeable and enjoyable time in that most beautiful of cities. I must apologise to the hon. Gentleman for appearing momentarily not to be paying his speech the closest attention. I was in consultation with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) whom I am happy to see on the Front Bench. He was telling me that in an earlier manifestation as one of my predecessors in the Department, he had answered a similar debate from another hon. Member from the area. My hon. Friend has a distinguished career in answering Adjournment debates. Indeed, today, 21 December 1984, will see my hon. Friend breaking his ton and answering his 100th Adjournment debate.
There are a number of things for which I must thank the hon. Gentleman. I join in the thanks of Mr. Freedman, for his actions during that unruly health authority meeting — which it is best to draw a veil over and to forget—for helping to protect him. The hon. Gentleman's considerable size and stature and his expertise, no doubt acquired during his distinguished rugby-playing career, must have helped a great deal when he protected Mr. Louis Freedman during the problems that were facing him during that lamentable series of occurrences.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health and myself are all deeply indebted to Mr. Freedman for the work that he did as chairman of the health authority. We wish his successor, Mr. Stone, a distinguished Queen's counsel, good fortune in what he does as chairman of the authority in the future.
I entirely share the hon. Gentleman's views about Mr. Hoodless. He is a man with an exceptional record and, because he has that exceptional record, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has recently renewed his appointment as a member of the regional health authority, where he has done such good work for such a long time. I know Mr. Hoodless and I greatly respect what he has done for both housing and health over the years. I hope that people will continue to give public service in the selfless way that he has during his career thus far.
707 When my right hon. Friend selects people to serve as chairmen of regional health authorities, as members of regional health authorities and chairmen of district health authorities, he invariably seeks, on the advice of officials, colleagues and people who know the community to appoint those people whom he believes will do the job best. I am convinced that the regional health authority that appoints members to the district health authority does exactly the same with regard to the City and Hackney district health authority.
I was looking at the list of members, and without wishing to read it out or go through their high personal qualities, the authority is lucky to have such a strong membership. I do not share the hon. Gentleman's views of Sir Robin Brook. We have complete confidence in the work of members of district health authorities such as Sir Robin and nominees of, for example, the TUC, such as Ms. de Groot. We are very lucky to have such people to help us to carry out Government policy, reflect the interests and demands of local people and help to mould health care in the City and Hackney area.
The hon. Gentleman made two real points. One concerned his feeling that the balance of the district health authority membership was not quite right, and that there were not enough young people on it. One often hears such a complaint about public bodies. Sometimes it is hard to find younger people to take up the job, which is understandable, because of the careers that they are following, they are just married, have mortgages to pay and all the other problems that make people say, "No, I shall not do a job at 30 or 40 that I shall be content to do at 50 or 60." It is a pity, but it is understandable. I shall draw the contents of the hon. Gentleman's speech to the attention of the chairman of the regional health authority. I shall send him a copy of Hansard so that he can read what the hon. Gentleman said and in future years, with his authority and membership panel, take the hon. Gentleman's feelings into account because I know that the hon. Gentleman does his best to reflect the feelings of those whom he represents.
The hon. Gentleman's second point, which was substantial, concerned his fears about the conduct of a tribunal that led to disciplinary action in a couple of cases. I know that he is motivated by the interests of the individuals and of making sure that natural justice was observed and they were treated properly. His own distinguished legal career suits him well for that purpose.
However, it would be inappropriate and probably highly improper of me to comment in any way on the details of the case raised by the hon. Gentleman because it is entirely a matter for the health authorities concerned. In a sense, the issue is also sub judice as regards his constituent and those authorities. Under standard Whitley council procedures agreed between employer and employee, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has no locus whatsoever in the case. I should like to explain that.
I was interested to see the facts when, through the assiduity of one of the characteristically alert civil servants whom we employ in the Department of Health and Social Security, I was warned that this topic was likely to be the one that my hon. Friend would raise. I am sorry, I meant the hon. Gentleman. I must not carry the Christmas spirit too far.
Each district health authority has procedures for dealing with disciplinary matters concerning its employees. They 708 are set out in the authority's terms and conditions of service for its staff. They are based on the nationally agreed procedures set out in the Whitley council handbook, that voluminous and detailed tome. A district health authority's terms and conditions of service set out the full procedures for disciplinary matters — from warnings, either oral or written, through suspension to dismissal. In cases where the action leads finally to dismissal there is provision — as there is for written reprimand or warning — for appeal to the health authority. The procedure for such appeals is in turn set out in the authority's standing orders. All district health authorities up and down the land have that procedure written into their standing orders.
If an appeal to the authority is unsuccessful, the matter does not end there. The employee can seek redress elsewhere if he or she wishes. There is provision under section 40 of the general Whitley council handbook—which might be interesting Christmas reading for the hon. Gentleman in Venice—for an employee of a district health authority who has exhausted its procedures to seek an appeal to the appropriate regional health authority. Whether an appeal is granted is not a matter for Ministers but is entirely at the discretion of the regional health authority. The decision is for it. It has the responsibility for deciding whether there are grounds for an appeal. If the regional health authority decides that there are no grounds for such an appeal or if an appeal is heard and turned down, there is no provision for appeal beyond the regional health authority. Neither the Department of Health and Social Security nor Ministers, including the Secretary of State and my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health, have any locus in the matter.
That is the sequence of events under National Health Service procedures. For completeness, I should also mention, although I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is also aware of this, that an employee who feels that he has been unfairly dismissed can appeal to an industrial tribunal for it to review his case. The employee has to apply within three months of the date of dismissal.
Those are the procedures for disciplinary action and dismissal of district health authority employees. As I have explained, the Secretary of State, because of the very nature of an agreement between employer and employee and not for any other reason, is not involved at any stage. It would therefore be totally inappropriate for me to comment on the events described by the hon. Gentleman or, indeed, to respond to his specific questions. In this case, it would be doubly inappropriate because I understand that that case is in a sense sub judice. I am advised that the hon. Gentleman's constituent has appealed against his dismissal, as is his right, and City and Hackney health authority heard his appeal at three hearings on 12 and 19 November and 4 December, and that its recommendation went to the full authority for ratification or otherwise only last Monday, 17 December. When the appellant is notified of the result, he will need to consider what his next steps, if any, will be. I have tried to outline, in the hope of being as helpful as I can, what the next stages might be.
The hon. Gentleman said that the dismissal of his constituent was a draconian punishment. He criticised the members of the authority who heard the appeal, one of them quite forcibly. If the appeal is upheld by the full authority—I do not know what the result is—no doubt he will criticise it as well. He is, of course, entitled to his 709 opinions on those matters, but this morning I cannot and must not comment on them because they are not issues that concern Ministers. That is not because we do not care about the fate of individuals who work in the NHS but because it would be totally wrong for Ministers to seek to intervene and vary procedures that have been set down through agreements that have been freely entered into between employer and employee. That is not what I would seek to do. I am sure that criticism would rain down on our heads if we sought to do so at any stage. In this particular case, we must await the outcome of events.
§ Mr. Laurie Pavitt (Brent, South)On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should like to mention this matter before the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security leaves.
The House is in some difficulty. An important decision was made yesterday on the Gillick case about advice on contraception to girls under the age of 16. Naturally, one thought that there would be a statement to the House this morning. Late last night question 162 for written answer on this subject was tabled, and obviously there will be an answer in Hansard when we return on 9 January. I wonder whether you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, could consult Mr. Speaker to see whether there is any way in which the House can be protected in such a case, when on the last day before a recess something of national importance occurs. The Minister for Health will have either to accept or to reject the idea of altering legislation. Naturally our constituents, especially general practitioners, will be concerned—
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong)Order. The hon. Gentleman must not pursue the argument. It is not a matter for me. The Minister is here, and there are several other important matters about which the House would like to be informed.
§ Mr. John PattenFurther to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Government do not control the sitting patterns of the courts, which take their decisions on days that suit them. The decision happened to be taken yesterday by the court. Further, the matter is still within the courts as my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health has announced his intention to appeal to the House of Lords against the decision.
§ Mr. PavittI am most grateful.