| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Dorrell: I notice that, when the opportunity arises to make a contribution to one of the most difficult aspects of the health service, all the hon. Gentleman can think of is an opportunity to make silly party political points. I think that the House and the country will draw their own conclusions from his action.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington): If it is true that some information about these matters, in particular Mr. Daggett's comments, was being reported in the press in late autumn, is it not fair to say that the Minister's private office would have been aware of that? If it was aware of it, why did it not carry out inquiries as early as that, instead of the inquiry being set up today?
Mr. Dorrell: The answer is that questions were asked on behalf of Ministers, and answers were given that suggested that there was not a problem. It is precisely that failure to pass on the information central to proper accountability that is the focus of the inquiry that I have set up.
Mr. Andrew Faulds (Warley, East): Should not the whole question of the grouping together of so many people with the medical condition that leads to this sort of perverse conduct be re-examined? Is it really advisable that so many people should be congregated together who are only too likely to indulge themselves in this sort of improper performance and conduct? Should this not be a matter that is looked at in this investigation?
Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. Incidentally, it would be wrong to imagine that every
patient in the personality disorder unit is there because of sexual offences, as that is not the case. Personality disorder has a wider meaning than that.
However, there is a serious question about the proper provision for people with severe personality disorders. I suggest that lay Members of this House should approach this question by taking the advice of trained psychiatrists, who have a proper understanding of what is and is not possible with modern psychiatric science. Having said that, I believe that the hon. Gentleman is quite right to say that there are important questions about clinical judgment concerning the treatment of such patients, and that is exactly what the commissioning board is examining.
Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West):
Why is it that everything that goes right in government is the result of the work of Ministers, and everything that goes wrong is the fault of civil servants?
Mr. Dorrell:
Whenever I speak about the work of the NHS, I am careful to say that its successes are the result not of political insight but of the dedication and professionalism of the professional staff who work in the health service day after day. I find it rather difficult to stomach the slighting of their work that sometimes comes from Opposition Members.
Mr. John Gunnell (Morley and Leeds, South):
The Blom-Cooper report--all but one of whose recommendations have been followed--recommended that there should be an internal inquiry into the dissemination of what it described as "unacceptable literature". It is clear from what the Secretary of State has said that that inquiry has been held. What recommendations were made as a result of that inquiry? From what he has said and what has been reported today, it seems that the recommendations were not effective. When was the inquiry held? What system of accountability currently exists? At what point do he and his office become aware that the system is breaking down?
Mr. Dorrell:
I inherited the regime that was introduced following the report. The hon. Gentleman asked how I deal with the implementation of recommendations. The answer is that I make individuals responsible for them, and I set time scales for reports on the implementation of the proposals. I am advised, and am satisfied, that all the recommendations in the Blom-Cooper report, with the exception of the one concerning seclusion, were implemented. I do not know precisely what regime was set up to enforce accountability for the implementation.
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow):
Pursuant to the Secretary of State's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), what questions were asked, and what answers to those questions suggested that there was not a problem? It seems as if the Department's officials were deceived by the answers. Is that the case, or were the wrong questions asked?
Did any Minister or official go to or contact this hospital between September and January? As a former parliamentary private secretary to one of the Secretary of State's predecessors who had to deal with Ely, Farley and South Ockenden, I know how difficult questions relating to psychiatric hospitals are. However, I repeat: what questions were asked, and what answers led to the suggestion that there was no problem?
Mr. Dorrell:
The Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), visited the hospital last autumn. He discussed the issues with the hospital management when he was there. I refer the hon. Gentleman and the House to the paragraph in my statement in which I said:
Mr. Peter Thurnham (Bolton, North-East):
Further to the previous question, how often do Ministers visit such hospitals? Should not those hospitals be inspected regularly by official bodies, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) suggested, and by Ministers, in order to build a culture that encourages visits rather than a culture of neglect?
Mr. Dorrell:
The answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question is illustrated by the fact that my hon. Friend with direct responsibility for the special hospitals has visited all three in the four months that he has been responsible for them. In the period that I carried that responsibility, I visited two of the three. Those hospitals are regularly visited by Ministers, but anybody who believes that a ministerial visit is the means of discovering whether serious abuse is taking place on an individual ward has not carried out any ministerial visits.
Mr. George Foulkes (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley):
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Last week, I read in the press that the Prime Minister had given the Secretary of State for Health some constitutional responsibilities, so I attempted to table a question at the Table Office. My question was refused. If the Secretary of State has those additional responsibilities, should not hon. Members be able to ask him questions? Should he not be accountable to the House? In the light of the statement we have just heard about the Ashworth scandal, would it not be better for him to stick to the Department of Health?
Madam Speaker:
I always enjoy the hon. Gentleman's points of order and the way that he is able to keep his face straight when he is making the most facetious comments.
Ordered,
"Despite the availability of this evidence and of Mr. Daggett's allegations, the hospital continued to maintain that press reports of unacceptable and possibly unlawful activity within the . . . unit were unfounded."
The hon. Gentleman asked what questions were asked. The questions asked were the obvious ones, given the nature of the reports that were circulating: we asked, "May we please have advice about the nature of the allegations and what is being done to follow them up?" I do not propose to be drawn further on the advice that was given, beyond saying that the advice received by Ministers and officials in the Department of Health from the hospital made it clear that the hospital did not believe that there was a problem. That is one of the issues that will be at the centre of the inquiry that Mr. Fallon will lead.
4.6 pm
That the Birds (Registration Charges) Bill be referred to a Second Reading Committee.--[Mrs. Lait.]
10 Feb 1997 : Column 31
Orders of the Day
Merchant Shipping and Maritime Security Bill [Lords]
Order for Second Reading read.
4.7 pm
The Secretary of State for Transport (Sir George Young): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Merchant Shipping and Maritime Security Bill will make a major new contribution to the Government's highest priorities for shipping policy--improving safety and minimising pollution at sea.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |