NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (SUPERANNUATION) (Hansard, 25 June 1952)

§ Mr. A. Blenkinsop (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East)
I was on my feet to ask a question of the Minister of Health about the superannuation regulations which you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, were putting to the House, and I would ask, in view of the fact that these amendments are of a fairly considerable character, that we should have some explanation given to the House in spite of the disturbed state of the Chamber at the present time.
In particular, I should like to draw the attention of such Members of the House as may be interested, even at this moment, to the particular provisions of these Regulations in page 4, paragraph (9, a)which refer to the provisions for the superannuation of dentists. It so happens that exactly—[Interruption.]—a year ago to the day I moved certain rather similar Regulations in this House. I want to point out to the Minister that while it may be desirable that we should maintain the superannuation provisions for dentists by including in their remuneration such revenue as they may receive from patients, in view of the charges that were imposed last year, it does not necessarily follow from that that we should agree automatically to this provision today. I want to call the attention of the Minister—who, I hope, can hear me in spite of the general hub-bub——

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew)
Order. It is very difficult to hear; there is so much noise going on.

§ Mr. Blenkinsop
I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for your assistance, and I hope that after a moment or two it will be possible for me to be heard a little more clearly on the other side of the House.
We are confronted here with a point of principle, and I wish to call the attention of the House to it. We are approaching a point, if we have not already reached it, where the bulk of the revenue which the dentists receive will be not from the State, but from the patients.
I wish to ask whether we are satisfied in continuing with provisions for the maintenance of superannuation Regulations for dentists when, in fact, the State is to some extent ceasing to be the employer? As far as we can understand it, it is the intention of the Minister of Health not only to approve these existing charges which relate to this provision in the superannuation Regulations but possibly to propose other charges later. He has favoured us with the information that he approves of a system of charges generally. [Interruption.]

§ Mr. A. Woodburn (Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire)
On a point or order. I suggest that in a serious discussion of this kind it might be possible for hon. Members to allow my hon. Friend to be heard. They ought to carry on their discussions outside the House.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
I agree. I asked the House to make less noise. I hope that hon. Members will be less noisy and that they will allow the hon. Gentleman to make his speech.

§ Mr. Blenkinsop
Although I have reasonably good vocal expression and power of lungs, it would be much more helpful if I could adopt a more normal tone.
The point is that we understand that it is the intention of the Minister not only to maintain the existing health charges on a permanent basis but also possibly to propose further charges at a later date. If that happens we shall be confronted with the situation that the State ceases almost wholly to be the employer. Is it then proposed that we should maintain superannuation Regulations on the assumption 2372 that the State is the whole or at least the main employer of the dentists in this country?
This is a matter to which the Minister ought to pay some attention. The Minister should either say that this matter will be dealt with as we dealt with it a year ago, on the understanding that the health charges in relation to dental treatment were purely temporary or, alternatively, should give some assurance tonight that the Government are prepared to reconsider the whole question of the Regulations as they affect dentists in view of the fact that the State ceases very largely to be their employer.

§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Patricia Hornsby-Smith)
I should like to deal with the point raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop). I think that the other points in the Regulations are generally accepted. They are amendments which are wholly beneficial to those working in the Health Service, and I think that they will be made with the general agreement of the House.
On the matter raised by the hon. Gentleman, he has said exactly a year ago today he moved that similar Regulations would be accepted. They were based entirely on the same principle as those which we are now asking the House to accept. I find it a little difficult to follow the hon. Gentleman's somersault, in that it was right and proper that payments by patients should be made part of the remuneration of dentists accepted for the purpose of superannuation when the hon. Gentleman moved the Regulations last year, but now he thinks that they should be rejected.
There is no change of principle. The fact that the charges are extended and now cover a charge of up to £1, cannot in any way alter the principle that they are part and parcel of the general remuneration of dentists and that, as such, in all fairness they should be computed as part of their remuneration for the purposes of superannuation assessment. The hon. Gentleman made the point that our Regulations were not for a specific term and that his were for a definite term.

§ Mr. Blenkinsop
Do I understand from the hon. Lady that if the dentists were to receive the whole of their remuneration from patients and the State ceased in effect to be their employer, it would still be proposed to press these Regulations?

§ Miss Hornsby-Smith
That is a hypothetical question. If such provisions were extended in any way they would have to come before this House again in the form of Regulations and the House would have the same opportunity as they had a year ago, and as they have tonight, of deciding whether or not they should become operative.
So far as the dentists are concerned, it is impossible to believe that the House seriously considers that they should be deprived of this particular part of their remuneration for the purpose of computing their superannuation assessments. I hope that the House will not be led astray by the somersault of the hon. Gentleman into opposing a principle which it accepted last year, and bringing in what would be a very grave injustice to one section of practitioners in the service by depriving them of their normal rights under the National Health Service superannuation scheme.
If I may now say a word or two on the general terms of the Regulations, which appear to be very involved, I would say that there are many Amendments which have arisen as the result of the extensions under the Reserve and Auxiliary Forces Act. We have consulted the professional associations and the general practitioners' representatives and we have had consultations with the Staff Side of the Whitley Council, on particular aspects of the Regulations, and we have had no adverse comment.
We believe that they are fair and that they will remove anomalies, and will see that there is no hardship resulting either from people being called up as reservists or, alternatively, taking additional courses in their training. We believe that they are wholly to the benefit of employees or practitioners in the Health Service, and we hope that, on those grounds, the House will support them.

§ Mr. Blenkinsop
Will the hon. Lady say that she really believes, now that, in fact, the bulk of the income of the dentists is likely to be derived from patients and not from the State, these Regula- 2374 tions are desirable, without any further talks at all?

§ Miss Hornsby-Smith
I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's assessment that the bulk of the remuneration of practitioners under the Health Service will no longer come from the Health Service, but, even if that were so, and I do not admit it, I am convinced that the present charges should rightly be made part of the remuneration for superannuation purposes. If there were an extension, it would, indeed, again be a matter for the House to decide the proper alteration or amendment of the Superannuation Regulations.