HANSARD

DEBATE ON 21 JUL 2004

HOUSE OF COMMONS

21 Jul 2004 : Column 456

Dr. Raj Mattu

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Heppell.]

7.53 pm

Mr. Jim Cunningham (Coventry, South) (Lab): I begin by thanking Mr. Speaker for granting the debate, and my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) and I appreciate his allowing us once again to debate the matter. The debate is by no means meant to constitute an attack on the staff at Walsgrave hospital, who have done a wonderful job, especially since the change in leadership.

This debate is probably the fourth on Dr. Mattu's suspension, and it is the third case of an unresolved suspension at Walsgrave hospital. The current cost of those three suspensions amounts to £1.2 million, which could have been used to deliver better NHS services. It is therefore vital that we resolve the matter, especially given the growing economic cost to the public, which has caused much community protest, not to mention the loss of a competent doctor from Walsgrave hospital.

Dr. Mattu's suspension has lasted for more than two and a half years and, given that the time period for the panel to examine the case will extend to the end of January and possibly February, I think—my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West probably agrees—the doctor should be reinstated without prejudice until the matter is sorted out.

We now find that the disciplinary panel chosen to deal with the case will not meet until the end of January 2005, a further six months away. Surely such a procedure cannot be deemed adequate. I believe that in such cases it benefits neither the doctor in question nor the hospital for action to be delayed for more than two and a half years—approaching three, in fact. This is having a lasting effect on the doctor and his family, and the cost to the NHS is growing.

There is something fundamentally wrong with a system that has no time for the resolution of cases such as Dr. Mattu's. What has happened to the implementation of the National Audit Office's report and recommendations? I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West agrees that there should be an independent inquiry into the three cases that have occurred over the past three or four years, to find out exactly how the trust has handled them. There is a big question mark over the way in which it deals with such cases.

I stress that we are not prejudicing the outcome of the case, and only want to resolve the issue once and for all. We are asking for justice for Dr. Mattu. While we must question the competence and efficiency of a disciplinary process that has continued for perhaps more than three years and has yet to reach a conclusion, we believe that Dr. Mattu was suspended for whistleblowing. If there are other documented reasons—my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West will probably mention this—the trust should make us aware of them, rather than allowing rumours to fly about all over Coventry. That is in the public interest, and will restore confidence in the competence of the trust's decision making.

We understand that the cost of Dr. Mattu's case is now probably more than £500,000, although it should be borne in mind that that goes back to about six

21 Jul 2004 : Column 457

months ago. There should be an independent inquiry into the way in which the case has been handled. It should be dealt with by an independently selected panel to ensure its validity, and to ensure that there is a timely resolution at the least possible cost to the public. As far as we are aware, Dr. Mattu was not suspended for medical reasons.

I believe that Dr. Mattu's human rights are being denied because of the time that his case has taken, and the inappropriate way in which the trust has been handling matters. The trust should bring to a conclusion any other allegations against Dr. Mattu, and state what they are and the reasons for his suspension. As I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West will agree, the Minister should intervene directly. It is no good passing the matter on to the trust; the Minister has the powers, and should deal with it in a proper manner. He should set up a proper independent inquiry, and reinstate the doctor until such time as the panel does meet and decide whether he is guilty as charged.

As I am sure the Minister knows, there is public concern in Coventry and rumours—not very pleasant rumours—are flying about. I hope that he will take what I have said on board, and look into the matter. It seems to me that every time a consultant or other doctor is suspended at that hospital, all sorts of stories circulate and we eventually find that there was no basis for them. That is no way in which to conduct the business of a hospital and, in particular, a disciplinary procedure.

Mr. James Plaskitt (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab): I greatly admire the hard work done by my hon. Friends the Members for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham) and for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) on this case. I intervene because, during this lengthy inquiry, Dr. Mattu has become a constituent of mine. When I contacted my hon. Friend the Minister on behalf of my constituent, he confirmed that the matter had been unresolved for too long. Does that not add weight to my hon. Friend's point about the need for further ministerial intervention?

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"—

this is important—

"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

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—

The motion having been made after Seven o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Madam Deputy Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Back To Home Page