| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Cunningham: I endorse that, and I am interested to learn that the Minister has considered the argument that the case has gone on for too long. The question for him now is, what will he do about it? As I have said, many people in Coventry are very concerned. My hon. Friends and I are not taking sides; what concerns us is that justice should be done and the doctor's human rights protected. If this had happened in a factory in Coventry, there would have been a strike because people would not have tolerated it. Why is it taking nearly three years to deal with a disciplinary matter? An industrial relations dispute outside the hospital would have been resolved within a maximum of about three months. It utterly defies belief.
We want the situation to be resolved as soon as possible. Someone has to cover for the doctor. People tend to forget that. They also tend to forget that, while Dr. Mattu has not been practising his trade, medicine has advanced and there is a danger that we could lose his skills because he has not been allowed to practise and develop his skills using the latest techniques. If he had been a football player and denied the opportunity to ply
21 Jul 2004 : Column 458
his trade, the European Court of Justice would have intervened—someone would have intervened and said, "Enough is enough."
I ask the Minister to sort the matter out. Let us get it cleared up once and for all. It is a running sore in Coventry and it must be sorted out.
8 pm
Mr. Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry, North-West) (Lab): I join my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham) in thanking the Speaker for granting this debate, and I thank my hon. Friend for securing it. May I say how pleased we are to see my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Plaskitt) lending us his support?
Whatever else is said about this matter, it has gone on far too long and has cost far too much money. The longer it has gone on, the murkier it has got. We put it to the Minister that his intervention is absolutely required. If he cannot go to the extent of reinstatement, there are certain things that he can do. They were alluded to by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South when he referred to the rumours that are flying around Coventry.
The wretched rumours that I heard just yesterday—I am in no way critical of the staff at Walsgrave; to my knowledge, it is the chairman and chief executive who seem to be leading the campaign against Dr. Mattu—were to the effect that Dr. Mattu was involved in a court case, that the charges against him in that case were serious and that therefore the people who support Dr. Mattu had to be careful because there was new information that was damaging to his case, about which they should be aware before continuing that support.
It is a serious business to have such briefing, which is emanating, as far as we can see, from the top at the trust, brought to our attention by Tory Members and by the chairman of the campaign to reinstate Dr. Mattu. One of our Labour councillors who is closely associated with the case also referred to it in a conversation with me.
I thought that the best way to get the matter cleared up—it coincides neatly with today's debate, which I only heard about yesterday—was to write to Bryan Stoten, chairman of the University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust, to ask him whether there was anything in the rumours about new information. I received a remarkable letter straight back, from which it is appropriate to read and to which I specifically draw the Minister's attention: Bryan Stoten says:
"Thank you for your letter, received this morning.
It is indeed the case"—
"that new information has arisen concerning Dr. Mattu."
The chairman identifies the new information as being as follows:
"I received a letter, copied to the General Medical Council (GMC), from a member of the public regarding Dr. Mattu. The individual claimed that Dr. Mattu had appeared in court on a serious charge and stated that the case was 'not proven'."
That is an interesting use of words.
Mr. Cunningham:
Scottish law.
21 Jul 2004 : Column 459
Mr. Robinson: I think that the chairman must have thought that Dr. Mattu had migrated to the sheriff court in Glasgow or Edinburgh, as if that would wash. What he was really trying to do was much more insidious and I will come to that shortly.
The chairman goes on to say that the GMC has requested that the trust provide
"any relevant information which the Trust has in its possession pertaining to these issues, so that these issues can be considered under the GMC's Fitness to Practise procedures."
He finishes by saying that the trust has sought its own legal opinion and we will be following that.
I spoke to a solicitor, Mr Paul Dentith, who has agreed that I can name and quote him tonight. I believe that he represented Dr. Mattu in the only court case in which Dr. Mattu was involved; at least it is the only court case I know of in which he was involved. I asked Mr. Dentith what the case was about. He said that the case occurred about seven and a half years ago, so it is pretty new. The result of the court case is in the public domain, so that cannot possibly be new. The outcome of the case was an absolute, unequivocal acquittal of Dr. Mattu, who was also awarded costs, all of which information is in the public domain.
Why does the chairman of the Walsgrave trust write to me—his letter was not labelled personal, or private and confidential; therefore, it is quite right for me to put it into the public domain via this debate—to say that the outcome of the court case was not proven? First, we all know that, in English law, one is either guilty or not; we do not have the third option that is available in Scottish law. So why put that into the public domain? I can tell the House why; he wants to create doubts about Dr. Mattu's character, which will then influence public opinion and influence us against continuing to support him. I do not think much of that.
The information has been available since a snippet on the "Today" programme about Dr. Mattu on 29 May. It is now 21 July. Why has not the chairman informed himself so that he does not continue to spread this sort of disinformation to the public?
Keith Vaz (Leicester, East) (Lab): I congratulate my hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham) on pursuing the matter. I came to the last debate on the subject in Westminster Hall. Is he as disappointed as I am at the lack of progress over the last few months and at the attitude of Ministers? Should not they be doing much more to bring the trust to account?
Mr. Robinson: I agree with every word that my hon. Friend has said. It may be unpleasant for the Minister; I recall that, on the last occasion we debated the issue, he felt that we were being unfair to the trust and were using a position of which they could not avail themselves.
Keith Vaz: That is why we are here.
Mr. Robinson:
Precisely. If the trust had not put disinformation into the public domain and had put in some real facts about the situation, it would have helped a great deal.
21 Jul 2004 : Column 460
I fear that the same will happen tonight but, on that occasion, the Minister said that he could not do anything about it and that procedures were procedures. However, some Ministers take a different view about procedures. We will be into the fourth year of this poor doctor's suspension. What in God's name can be right about these procedures—on a simple test case of alleged bullying, which happens every day of the week and has to be sorted out—that prevents a Minister from stepping in?
Instead, we have a continuing campaign of snide implication, instead of getting to the bottom of the facts and dealing with them. I have written to the chairman, copying to him my words tonight, to the Minister and to the GMC to make sure that the actuality of the court case is brought to everybody's attention. Of course it should not be used at all; Mr. Paul Dentith authorised me to say that any organisation or person who sought to make reference to the case or go behind the decision of the court would be behaving very improperly.
I hope that the Minister will take that on board, but if we hear the usual thing tonight—that we are being irresponsible, that he is a Minister and that procedures must continue—we can cut the debate short because we know it all before he starts. One thing he could do tonight would be to make it clear that this sort of briefing against Dr. Mattu should not continue. That is the minimum we ask for and I ask him to do that now.
The answer, as my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South has said in all the debates we have had on the issue, is to have an independent inquiry. That is different from using the existing procedures and processes, but the fact is that the procedures have already been changed. It was the trust that insisted that we should deal with Dr. Mattu under the old procedures, which can last for an eternity. Why do we not use the current ones? That is the minimum that the Minister should do, and he could do it with no loss of face to anyone involved. Why does he not stop people continuing to brief against Dr. Mattu?
If we had had an independent inquiry all those months ago, when we began this process—indeed, that is three or four Adjournment debates ago—the matter would have been settled by now and there would be no problem. One way or another, a conclusion would have been reached. As we have said all along, it is not for us to prejudge the outcome of whatever inquiry takes place. I am afraid that the inquiry will not finish by next January but will go on at least until March, by which time we will be into the fourth year of Dr. Mattu's suspension. If that is normal procedure, heaven help us when the procedure is abnormal.
There are two other points to which I should like to draw the Minister's attention. [Interruption.] Sadly, having been through this issue with him at least once before, I think that I know what he is going to say. The trust found that it was within its rights to deny three recommendations that were made to the panel by Dr. Sancassia, a most distinguished surgeon at the trust. On what grounds did it do so? That spun things out for another few months; indeed, everything that the trust does seems to point in that direction.
The Minister will doubtless tell us that we are locked into this process and that we are to have another six or seven months of unjustified suspension. It is no good
21 Jul 2004 : Column 461
telling us that this is a neutral act, because we all know that it is by no means neutral. One only has to talk to the Deputy Prime Minister about trying to get a chief police officer suspended to see how neutrally that act is regarded; one has to go to a court of law to get a suspension—a neutral act—agreed. If the Minister can do nothing in this regard, will he at least deal with the continual briefing against Dr. Mattu? I can show the Minister the relevant correspondence, so that he can see the way in which matters have been handled. Can he not at least take direct ministerial action to stop the briefing?
8.11 pm
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |