§ Mr. Fort (Clitheroe)I beg to move, in page 11, line 31, to leave out "twenty-eight days," and to insert three months.'
I have moved this Amendment in order to increase the length of time in which a doctor has the right to lodge his appeal to the Privy Council. The reason we do so is two-fold: first, that 28 days, in fact, come down to rather under three weeks' working time by the time the week-ends have been taken into account. The second reason is that in similar provisions there is a three-month period allowed. We find in practice that it is a reasonable length of time for a man to collect his evidence and put it into correct legal form in order to present his case properly before the relevant court.
§ Mr. BevanI cannot accept this Amendment, and I hope it will not be pressed. The assumption here is that a doctor whom the General Medical Council has decided is unfit to hold his practice, shall be allowed to go on practising for three months. That is the effect of the Amendment. We think 28 days is quite sufficient, and I should have 2206 thought that would have been generally agreed. In some cases it would not be the case that he was unfit to practise because he had appealed to the Privy Council against sentence. It might not be erasure from the register, it could be other things as well. In such a case it would not be particularly serious, but the effect of the Amendment would be to allow a man to practise for three months when the gravest doubts might have been cast on his professional capacity to do so.
§ Sir H. Lucas-ToothAn appeal to the Privy Council would be a very expensive business for the person concerned. It is something of a novelty—although I do not wish to raise that point—to have a direct appeal to the Privy Council; but there are precedents. It may well be that the Privy Council is the best body to which to appeal. But so far as this Amendment is concerned, such an appeal would be very expensive. The doctor affected would have to consider whether he was prepared to put his hand in his pocket to the tune of several hundreds of pounds, and possibly more if the case was a difficult one. I think it only fair that where he i., faced with the risk of being struck off the register he should have ample time to consider his position.
§ Sir H. Lucas-ToothIt may well be that the appropriate action to take would be that he should not be allowed to practise during the period when he has been ordered to be struck off the register until he has decided whether he will appeal. It may well be that some compromise of that sort would he suitable.
Dr. HillFor what would an appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council be, other than against erasure from the register?
§ Sir H. Lucas-ToothIf it is an appeal against not being allowed to practise the point is exactly the same. If he had been 2207 found guilty and been ordered to be struck off the register or suspended immediately after the order he should be in a state of suspense. But I do not think it altogether fair that a man who is about to lose his means of livelihood should have to make up his mind whether or not he is to risk what may be a large proportion of his savings in an attempt to clear himself in a matter of what may very well be in effect, a few days. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider this point again.
§ Mr. BevanWe have put 28 days in the Bill. The Medical Defence Association and the British Medical Association suggested 21 days.
§ Sir H. Lucas-ToothThey may be wrong.
§ Mr. BevanI dare say, but we have added seven more days, and I should have thought that in those circumstances we ought to stick by the 28 days, and consider for a change—it appears almost unusual—the protection of the British public.
§ Mr. FortWould not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the British public, in these cases, have in their own hands a protection which they could certainly exercise by withdrawing themselves from a doctor who was in this difficulty?
§ Question put, and negatived.
§ Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.