---

Shipman Inquiry

I was shocked that you had even made a mistake, Mr. Hancock, such is your reputation for accuracy. I certainly did not take it personally. I hope that you do not mind me not taking it personally if you misaddress me, because I know that you are a perfectionist in all matters. The Liberal Democrats welcome the debate and the opportunity to discuss these issues with the Minister in this sort of atmosphere. Several statements on the subject have been made in the House, but there is a limited scope for inquiry with statements. It has been extremely helpful to have a clear exposition of the background and the proposals from the Minister, and to hear from the hon. Members for Calder Valley (Chris McCafferty) and for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne). They spoke very well and with clarity and sensitivity on behalf of their constituents, and they showed how much they have thought about this matter as a result of the representations made to them and because of their need to represent their constituents. They have added value to the debate and to the discussion of the matter in this House. I understand that everyone involved could speak for a long time, so I was grateful to hear them summarise the remaining questions that they have for the Minister and the points that they wanted to make. Given that there is an opportunity for a direct exchange, it would not be appropriate for me to comment in detail on what the hon. Members for Calder Valley and for Denton and Reddish said. I merely say that, for the most part, I agreed with their points and the importance that they attached to some of them. I want to raise a couple of points in response on which I do not completely share their perspective. I hope that they will allow me the opportunity to do so, even though I recognise the importance, relevance and accuracy of almost everything that they said. I should like to put on the record my condolences to the families of the victims of Harold Shipman, the biggest mass murderer in British history. It is appropriate to say that now, because the pain never goes. I imagine that every day, relatives of those whose lives were lost are reminded of what happened, the fact that people are no longer with us and that the manner of the deaths was evil, rather than natural, although many of the victims were in old age. I cannot imagine what it must feel like, particularly given the media coverage that followed and the references to that man. I am a doctor. I qualified in 1991, but have not practised direct clinical medicine since 1994 and have only been called on to use my medical training on an occasional basis since. I am still on the medical register, so I ought to declare an interest in that I am potentially liable to be referred to the General Medical Council and to be subject to its revalidation procedures, if they ever happen—I hope that they do as soon as possible. I fully anticipate not being able to take part in those because of my lack of recent clinical practice and, at an appropriate point, expect to come off the register. I am also a member of the BMA’s medical ethics committee, and attend the BMA annual representative meeting as a member from the Oxford division. I do so mainly to discuss medical ethics matters. I shall refer to some of the BMA’s concerns, although I do not agree with them all. In the case of those to which I do refer, I shall be asking questions on the BMA’s behalf, and I shall indicate where my party—not me personally—agrees that there are relevant questions to answer. A couple of premises need to be stated and some myths need to be abolished. I am interested to know the Minister’s view on a couple of important themes that run through what I am about to say. Does he accept the principle that doctors are more likely to be tougher on the underperformance, poor performance or criminal behaviour of other doctors than patients and the public? A strong argument can be made that doctors attach such significance to their responsibilities and greatly recognise the privilege that they have in practising medicine with the consent of their patients—they are able to do things to patients that people would not be able to do without the qualification—that they have a much lower level of tolerance for medical misfeasance and malpractice than the average member of the public. That is my experience. When dealing with my casework, I get visibly angry in my surgeries when I hear of allegations that appear to have some substance of poor practice or, especially, of attempts by management—this usually involves them but it can include some doctors—to cover up or unreasonably seek to excuse the behaviour of their close colleagues and other colleagues. My general point is that the profession has a huge vested interest in having zero tolerance for doctors who behave in bad faith in a way that damages patients and, in doing so, damages the reputation of the profession. I invite the Minister to agree with that view, because it goes to the question of whether general professional self-regulation, rather than doctors judging doctors whom they know, is in any way weaker than the alternative that the Government appear to be proposing of Government regulation. They also have vested interests.