§ 26. Mr. Somerville Hastingsasked the Minister of Health why he has decided to reverse the policy of Statutory Instrument 506 as regards the method of obtaining maternity medical services by encouraging doctors who have had no midwifery experience to undertake maternity work and arranging to pay them for it.
§ Mr. BevanI have decided after consultation with the medical profession to provide a lower fee for maternity medical services undertaken for his own patients by a doctor with ordinary experience. Such a doctor could not otherwise receive any fee for such services, either from public funds or from the patient. This does not affect the higher fees for special experience or the main objective that maternity work should generally be done by practitioners with such special experience.
§ Mr. HastingsDoes this not mean that doctors who have seen no midwifery cases for 20 years or more will be able not only to undertake them, but will be paid for them by the nation, and does he not think that this is a public danger and a scandal?
§ Mr. BevanThis does not alter the existing situation. A general practitioner can do obstetrical work now and does it, so there is no new scandal being created. What is happening is that a new system is being introduced which will mitigate the present evils and I hope before long entirely remove them.
§ Mr. HastingsDoes not my right hon. Friend feel that as he is responsible for the quality of the service he ought to take some steps to see that it is of a sufficient quality?
§ Mr. BevanSteps are being taken. The scheme is to create a panel of general practitioners who will do obstetrical work and relieve other general practitioners without the same experience from doing it. This will in fact powerfully modify and improve the existing practice.
§ Commander GalbraithCan we really give official recognition to what is an undesirable practice?
§ Mr. BevanI cannot quite understand what the hon. and gallant Member means. What this means is that a doctor will be paid for obstetrical work if he does that work for his own patient at the request of his own patient. This is, in fact, an attempt to preserve the relationship for which hon. Members opposite have clamoured for two years.