| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Sir Roger Sims (Chislehurst): I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and for the prompt action that he took as soon as he was alerted to the situation. The apparent lack of supervision at Ashworth is worrying. The suggestion of paedophilia and child abuse is horrifying and appalling.
My right hon. Friend referred to wider issues. Do those include the way in which such institutions are run? Anyone who needs medical treatment should surely receive it, but the people in Ashworth are there, first, because they have committed serious offences, and, secondly, because they need medical treatment. Should not security and supervision in such institutions be just as rigorous as in conventional prisons? Is it not self-evident that that was not the case at Ashworth?
Mr. Dorrell:
I am grateful for my hon. Friend's welcome for the prompt action that was taken. I entirely agree with him about the pre-eminent need for security in hospitals of this nature, although he is not entirely right in saying that every patient in a special hospital is an offender. People can be sent to such hospitals if they suffer from dangerous disorders, without having committed an offence. They are there because both they and the rest of society need the protection that a highly secure environment can provide. Hospitals are failing if they do not provide that security: they are failing their patients, and the wider public. My hon. Friend is right to emphasise that that is one of the prime responsibilities of such institutions.
As for the broader question of the long-term future of high-security psychiatric care, that--as I said in answer to an earlier question--is one of the issues that the commissioning board is now actively reviewing.
Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey):
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, and for the prompt action that has been taken. Like him, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahan).
May I put it to the right hon. Gentleman, however, that the answers that he has given today have not dealt with one issue? I refer to the fear that quasi-independent national health service trusts, and the management of the three special hospitals--Ashworth, Broadmoor and Rampton--are able to be semi-autonomous, and that no one checks that they carry out their activities in the interests of patients and the wider public, rather than in their own interests and with a view to their own managerial self-preservation.
May I suggest that the way forward--I should be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman would give it serious consideration--is the establishment of a standing inspectorate of health and social care that can inspect any trust, hospital or other health service facility at any time, at the instigation of patient, member of staff or friend or relative? We need to ensure that there is someone outside the premises who can check on what is going on. In this instance, the concern is that, although the allegations were made, for internal reasons people decided not to take them seriously or to do anything. That is a very worrying state of affairs.
Mr. Dorrell:
I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman's diagnosis. The problem is that such institutions are too tightly held, and that information that should properly be available to the accountability chain--including, ultimately, me as Secretary of State--apparently was not available. I have set up the inquiry to establish why it was not.
The hon. Gentleman asked for a separate agency or inspectorate to examine such issues. With all respect, that is not the solution that immediately suggests itself to me, given that we already have two agencies dealing specifically with mental health. The Health Advisory Service actually went to Ashworth in 1995, and delivered a report that suggested that the situation there was improving. That agency--an agency of the precise kind that the hon. Gentleman suggests--delivered a report which, although not devoid of criticism, was generally encouraging following that visit, which was not very long ago. Detained, restricted and sectioned patients also already have the protection of the Mental Health Act Commission. So, in the specific field of high-security psychiatric services, we already have two bodies of the kind that the hon. Gentleman is considering.
Ms Ann Coffey (Stockport):
They are not very effective.
Mr. Dorrell:
Indeed. That is why I do not think that we should leap to the conclusion that another of those agencies is the answer. We should be considering why information did not flow, at the time when it should have, to the people who were accountable for what went on in the hospital.
Mrs. Jane Kennedy (Liverpool, Broadgreen):
The Secretary of State suggests that the information was in the
Mr. Dorrell:
I have never sought to avoid ministerial responsibility for what goes on in any part of the health service, including special hospitals. That is why I took the action I did on Friday, when it was clear to me that questions had been asked, and that charges and allegations--serious allegations--had been made and had not been adequately examined by those in the front line. The question whether unannounced visits should take place is no doubt one of the questions that Mr. Fallon will examine.
However, with respect, I do not think that that can be the whole answer. I do think that there needs to be in place a management structure that observes the protocol between the Department of Health and individual special hospitals. That protocol makes it crystal clear that, where such allegations are made about treatment in the hospital, they should be reported. The advice available to me at present suggests that they were not.
Mr. David Alton (Liverpool, Mossley Hill):
Does the Secretary of State accept that, over a long period, there has been succession of inquiries, including by journalists--particularly the local newspaper editor, for instance, who suffered as a result of gagging restraints being placed on him because of speaking out about what was happening at Ashworth? That has all militated against bringing out into the open what takes place in the hospital.
Does the Secretary of State accept that the greatest public concern at present involves the presence of a child on those premises? Will he now tell the House which local authority that child is in the care of, and undertake that nothing will be done to impede the flow of any information that may come out of the inquiry to the Merseyside police, particularly in connection with their inquiry, which is already under way, into paedophile and child abuse activities in the region?
Mr. Dorrell:
I can give the absolute assurance that nothing will be done to impede the flow of information. I do not propose to reveal which local authority is responsible for the social services department, for the fairly obvious reason that it would be quite hard to preserve confidentiality in relation to the child if we narrowed it down to one local authority and an ex-Ashworth patient with a young child. That would severely jeopardise the ability to maintain that confidentiality.
Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover):
Is the Secretary of State aware that there is evidence that, some time ago, trade unionists who worked at the hospital received representations about the allegations, and that, in some cases, they were warned that, if they opened their mouths too wide, the union would be de-recognised? Is he aware that one of the features of this Government is that, more and
The Secretary of State and the Government should be aware of the fact that trade unions are not just about wages; they are about conditions, and they act as watchdogs to alert the management to practices. It is high time that more attention was paid to such people, who have to work for a living, so that they can alert the authorities to some of the abuses that have taken place at Ashworth and elsewhere.
Mr. Dorrell:
The suggestion that any part of the health service has threatened to remove recognition from a trade union that has raised such a concern is, frankly, ridiculous. One of the features of the hon. Gentleman's contributions to the House's debates is that they get further and further removed from anything that resembles the sort of world in which the rest of the House lives.
Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North):
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon), who carried out her parliamentary duties in the most conscientious way. A tribute should certainly be paid to her for so doing.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |