---

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr. Stephen Ladyman): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham) for his continuing interest in his local national health service, and for his persistence in securing a further Adjournment debate on this issue. I fear that I will be every bit as disappointing as my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) expected, and I shall do my best to explain why.

I am concerned about this case. As my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Plaskitt) said, I confirmed to him in writing my view, which I have stated publicly, that this matter has gone on too long and at no little cost to the NHS. I have an ongoing interest in it, and the University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS trust has kept me informed of progress. However, I should make it clear from the outset that our position has not changed, and nor can it. Contrary to what my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West said, the trust's suspension of Dr Mattu is a neutral act. It is not, and should not be regarded as, a disciplinary sanction, and I can assure my hon. Friends that I am not taking sides on this issue.

My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West accuses the trust of putting matters into the public domain, but he has just told us that he wrote to the chairman of the trust. Was the chairman not supposed to reply? My hon. Friend has chosen to put this matter on the public record in Parliament—the most public platform of all.

I am aware that, from Dr Mattu's perspective, the last two years have been anxious and frustrating, as they have been for—

Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: Will the Minister give way?

Dr. Ladyman: No I will not. My hon. Friend has already taken up most of the time and I need to deal with some of the points that were raised.

I realise that this has been an anxious and frustrating time for Dr. Mattu, but it has also been so for those who made the allegations. As I asked in the previous Adjournment debate on this issue, is somebody going to represent those who made the allegations? I suspect that one of the Members in this House tonight is the MP for those who made the allegations. When is somebody going to stand up for those people? That is why we must consider this a neutral act and make sure that it is properly investigated.
 
21 Jul 2004 : Column 462
 

I want to make it clear that the allegations that were made in February 2002—that is far too long ago—were serious and substantial. They were of a nature whereby Dr. Mattu could not remain on duty while they were investigated. The trust rightly took the view that they should be thoroughly investigated.

An internal investigation was carried out, led by the trust's joint medical director, and in accordance with its agreed employment procedures. That investigation found that there was a prima facie case to be answered, and under those circumstances, and given the seriousness of the allegations, it was clearly correct for Dr. Mattu to be suspended while a formal investigation was undertaken.

The trust also decided that the matter was too serious to be dealt with as a personal misconduct case within the trust, so it was obliged to take it to a professional misconduct disciplinary process. The professional disciplinary process is a carefully laid down and legalistic process, and I fear it takes time. It has been agreed nationally between the BMA and the Government, and the process applied locally gives Dr. Mattu a great deal of representation and protection, so my hon. Friends should be confident that his best interests are being served by going down that route.

Mr. Jim Cunningham: I do not necessarily disagree that there should be a full investigation. Our problem is about why it has taken nearly three years. That is what bothers us.

Dr. Ladyman: One of the reasons for that is that it is a legalistic process, and the BMA, in agreeing the process with the Government, built in a series of measures to ensure that people who are complained against have the time and the opportunity to build a defence case.

It has been suggested, however, that the trust has been delaying the progress of the case, and even that it is in some way hoping that the issue will go away. I believe that such suggestions are disingenuous, and I can assure my hon. Friends that delays in progressing the case cannot be blamed entirely on the trust. For example, I am advised that there have been a number of occasions on which Dr. Mattu, I am sure for quite proper reasons, has cancelled pre-arranged meetings at the last minute, even telephoning the trust on the day of the meeting. I do not want to criticise—and I do not criticise—Dr. Mattu for the time that the case has been unable to make progress because of his unfortunate sickness in 2003, but it is not appropriate to blame the trust for that either.

In addition, Dr. Mattu and his supporters have kept up a correspondence and media campaign, and it is their right to do so, but in doing so they have tied up resources at the trust that could otherwise have been used to deal more expeditiously with the case. Given all this, and given the fact that the disciplinary process is in any case a thorough and full one in order to protect Dr. Mattu's rights and allow him to build his defence—

Mr. Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con): Who wrote this rubbish?

Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. The Minister is responding to the debate.
 
21 Jul 2004 : Column 463
 

Dr. Ladyman: Nobody should be blaming the trust for the slow progress.

Keith Vaz: I am absolutely astonished at the complacency of the Minister's answer. He is a Minister of the Crown. Members of Parliament representing Coventry and other areas—Dr. Mattu has come to see me at my surgery—have raised these issues with him. What has he done to ensure that our concerns, properly raised in this place—where else would my hon. Friend come to raise them—are dealt with? What has he done since the last time the matter was raised in the House?

Dr. Ladyman: I have made sure that the case goes through the proper process, which has been agreed with Dr. Mattu and his solicitors. That is the simple fact, even if my hon. Friends choose to ignore it.

My hon. Friends will also appreciate that the trust is restricted in the response that it has been able to make to allegations and criticisms put in the public domain. My hon. Friends can go much further tonight than I can, or than I would consider wise, but to a great extent we have a situation in which Dr. Mattu and his supporters, and Members of the House, have opportunities to spread around allegations and even attack the credibility and good will of those involved in making the complaints, while the trust and Ministers are unable to put the other side of the case, as we would then be seen to be prejudicing the disciplinary process.

Since Dr. Mattu was suspended, Ministers have been urged through both correspondence and pressure by the local media to intervene to bring this matter to a close. Frankly, I would be ill advised to intervene in a contractual matter between an employer and an employee, especially as NHS trusts are independent organisations. Ministers are certainly not experts in employment law and I am not party—nor would it be right for me to be so—to the detail of the allegations made against Dr. Mattu. Neither am I party to Dr. Mattu's response to those allegations or the complex legal arguments that are ongoing. This is, therefore, clearly a matter that has to be resolved between Dr. Mattu and the trust.

Every NHS trust, as an employer, has its own procedures for suspending and disciplining doctors. That is right and proper and protects employees from Whitehall interference. Since 1990, that disciplinary procedure has been a matter for the trust, as an employer. The Department of Health has issued guidance as to what the procedure should include, and has monitored trusts to ensure that it is in place. The trust reviewed its procedures for handling suspensions in the light of that guidance, so we can be confident that its procedures are robust.
 
21 Jul 2004 : Column 464
 

That brings me to the suggestion that Dr. Mattu should be reinstated while the disciplinary process continues. [Interruption.] The trust has been keeping this case under review and is satisfied that grounds remain for keeping the suspension in place. I would again ask my hon. Friends, as I did the last time we had an Adjournment debate, also to think about the rights of other parties involved and their feelings in this matter.

Ultimately, reinstatement is a matter for the trust to consider in its discussions with Dr. Mattu, but it would not be reasonable of the trust to ignore either the allegations or the rights and feelings of other parties. Nor would it be reasonable for Ministers to put pressure on the trust to do so.

All of that leads me to conclude that this complex and difficult matter is best dealt with using the formal procedures now agreed and with all sides agreeing that Dr.Mattu's suspension is a neutral position, suggesting neither innocence nor guilt. Indeed, I understand that the trust has now agreed with Dr. Mattu and his solicitors that the case should go through the formal disciplinary hearing, where both sides will air their views in front of an independent panel of three members, chaired by a QC. The agreed procedure allows that both parties should agree on the selection of the chair of the panel and Andrew Stafford, QC, has been agreed by both the trust and Dr. Mattu.

According to the trust's professional disciplinary procedure, the chair of the trust's senior hospital medical staff committee is then responsible for approving the other two panel members from suggestions made by the General Medical Council's joint consultative committee. One of the panel members, Dr. Robert Bain, an experienced consultant cardiologist based in Grimsby, has been selected. I understand that a name is currently being considered for the third place on the panel. The trust is making final checks that the person recommended does not know Dr. Mattu—either personally or in a professional capacity.

In my view, that is a sensible way forward as it will allow both parties to present the whole of their case in a fair and even-handed setting. It will also allow a proper review of the credibility of the evidence presented. Of course, it will take time—time for both sides to prepare their arguments and time for the panel to consider them. I repeat that—

---