§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Warner)My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health has made the following Written Ministerial Statement today.
The report of the committee of inquiry into how the National Health Service handled allegations about the conduct of Richard Neale (Cm 6315) was published today and copies have been placed in the Library. This is one of the three inquiries announced in July 2001 by my right honourable friend, Alan Milburn, the then Secretary of State for Health. The other two inquiries were to consider how the NHS handled allegations about the conduct of Clifford Ayling, a former GP; and William Kerr and Michael Haslam, former psychiatrists.
103WSThe Government would like to thank the chairman of the inquiry, Her Honour Judge Suzan Matthews QC and the two members of her panel, Christine Funnell and Derek Caldwell, for their thorough review of the circumstances surrounding the appointments to and employment of Richard Neale in the NHS. Their hard work in bringing together the relevant issues and their sympathy and understanding in dealing with them is very much appreciated. The Government would also like to thank the secretariat and legal team who provided such excellent support for the review.
The Government are very grateful to the former patients of Richard Neale who chose to provide evidence to the inquiry, and to Richard Neale's former colleagues and other witnesses who also gave evidence, all of whom generously gave their time to assist the Inquiry.
If we are to learn the lessons when things go wrong we must ensure that systems are in place which have the confidence of patients who wish to raise concerns. All patients have the right to expect a high standard of care from clinicians. Richard Neale fell short of these standards and as a result caused the patients in his care unnecessary distress. I should like to extend my sympathies to all those patients involved who suffered in this way.
The NHS failed many of Richard Neale's former patients and the inquiry has provided the opportunity not only for their voices to be heard, but also to ensure that their experiences will help to strengthen the systems now in place to try to prevent similar incidents in the future.
The report sets out in detail the history of Richard Neale's appointments in Canada and his subsequent employment in the UK. It charts the system failures that allowed him to be employed as a consultant without a proper understanding of his background; and a mixture of similar failures coupled with complacency that permitted him to continue practising in spite of concerns being raised about him.
Since these events have come to light, we have taken a number of steps to help avoid similar incidents in the future. In setting out details of the failures over many years, the inquiry found that "… even before the Inquiry began many of the wider lessons had been learnt and change implemented". The NHS has indeed been subject to considerable changes over the past few years, many having the specific aim of improving the patient experience, especially patient safety. But we are not complacent and we recognise the need for further improvements. The inquiry's conclusions and recommendations, together with those of the Clifford Ayling inquiry also published today, will help us to ensure that the patient experience is properly at the centre of our work in the NHS.
Many of the recommendations made by this inquiry are concerned with improvements in the way that complaints are handled by the NHS. These include ensuring that patients have both sufficient and correct information about their treatment to inform their decisions as well as strengthening the role of the Patient Advisory Liaison Service (PALS) to support 104WS patients who have concerns, and some of this work is already underway. Issues around complaints are also being considered by the Shipman inquiry, which is likely to produce recommendations in its fifth report due later this year. They are also being considered by the William Kerr/Michael Haslam inquiry, whose report is also expected later this year. We will therefore consider these recommendations together with those of the Shipman, Clifford Ayling and William Kerr/Michael Haslam inquiries and give a detailed response in due course.
In the mean time, the Government will consider very carefully the other recommendations concerning the appointment and employment of consultants and doctors in other grades, as well as the role of the Council for the Regulation of Healthcare Professionals (now known as the Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence), and will respond to these as soon as we can.
We have made clear that patient safety is a priority and the UK has led the way in pushing forward in this area. Tomorrow, I will be talking to fellow EU health ministers about the lessons EU members can learn from one another and make clear that patient safety will be a key issue during the UK presidency of the EU next year.
This inquiry has provided a valuable insight into a series of errors over a long period of time in the appointment processes and in Richard Neale's employment performance. It has painstakingly identified the causes of those errors and has made helpful recommendations about how best to avoid repeating them. We will review the improvements we have made in the past few years to ensure that they address the concerns raised in the report. The Government are grateful to all those whose contributions to the review will help us to fulfil our commitment to patient safety.