§
Amendment proposed: In page 9, line 29, at the end, insert:
(f) for securing that no complaint or information investigated by the Penal Cases Sub-Committee, other than a decision in a court of law, shall be referred to the Committee for adjudication unless the circumstances upon which such complaint or information is founded shall have been verified by statutory declaration of the person making the same, or, where such complaint is made or such information submitted by any public department, authority, or other body, by statutory declaration of an officer of such public department, authority, or other body, duly authorised for the purpose."—[Dr. Hill.]
§ Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
2174§ Mr. I. J. Pitman (Bath)On a point of order. I was in the middle of addressing the Committee when the time limit was reached on Friday.
The ChairmanI am sorry. The rule which applies in the House does not apply when we are in Committee. Dr. Hill.
§ 10.15 p.m.
§ Dr. Hill (Luton)On Friday last, some 15 minutes were spent on this Amendment, so I will be brief and not cover the ground again. The essence of it is simply this. Until recently, it was the invariable practice of the General Medical Council to insist on there being a complainant and a complaint before it considered allegations of professional misconduct and the like. There has recently grown up, or there are signs that it is growing up, a practice under which a Government Department, the Ministry of Health, sends along certain papers, but does not make a complaint, does not put in any statement of complaint, but sends along these papers for the interest, it seems, of the General Medical Council. For example, recently, a practitioner was brought before the internal machinery of 2175 the National Health Service on a particular set of allegations, and the case went to the tribunal.
§ Mr. Blackburn (Birmingham, Northfield)On a point of order. Could you not, Major Milner, possibly persuade hon. Members of the Opposition to listen with a certain amount of courtesy to the remarks now being made by the hon. Member opposite?
§ Dr. HillIn this case, the practitioner was not found guilty by the tribunal, but the Ministry of Health subsequently sent the papers along to the General Medical Council in case they were interested.
The sole purpose of this Amendment is to secure that a person or body making a complaint shall make a sworn statement of what it is that they complain about, and that a Government Department shall be in no different position from anyone else in this matter. The purpose of the Amendment is not to protect doctors. Indeed, if I may recall what the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health said last Friday, he will say that this practice or this beginning of a practice by the Ministry of Health is to protect the doctors, and that to suggest that in every case he should make a sworn declaration would lead him to swear even more frequently than he does at the present time.
I suggest that there is a simple point here, and it is that a Government Department should not be freed from the requirement of saying what the complaint is, and should not be freed from the obligation of appearing and making the complaint and of being questioned about the complaint, as is anyone else. So this Amendment to Clause 15 is put down merely to secure that a statutory declaration is made by a person or a body, so that the Ministry of Health and any other Government Department or public body shall be in exactly the same position as an individual person and be required to say what is the complaint which it is desired that the General Medical Council should investigate.
§ The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan)Perhaps it will be for the convenience of the Committee if I make a statement at this stage, because, as those hon. Members who took an interest in this matter last Friday are aware—and 2176 there are a great many more taking an interest in it this evening than there were last Friday—I have had some discussions about this matter, and, as I indicated last Friday, I am accepting the first part of this Amendment. It is the second part which, so far, I am resisting.
However, I have considered it and it seems to me that there is some point in the contention that, where a doctor has appeared before the tribunal under the National Health Service Act and has been acquitted before that tribunal, he ought not to be tried twice, and that the papers in such a case ought not to be sent to the General Medical Council. I am prepared to give an assurance that the Health Department will not send the papers to the General Medical Council in a case where the doctor has been acquitted by the tribunal set up under the National Health Service Act. I think that meets the substance of the case which has been made.
However, I must make it clear that the decisions of the tribunal are published, and that the General Medical Council may take cognisance of the published decisions and may start proceedings themselves. If in such a case they ask for the papers, then, of course, I think it would be generally agreed that the papers would have to be supplied; but where the doctor has successfully appealed to the tribunal, I am prepared to give an undertaking that in such a case the papers will not be passed on.
§ Dr. HillIn view of the statement which the right hon. Gentleman has made, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
§ Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.