§ 21. Mr. Pavittasked the Minister of Health if he will establish uniform criteria to be applied by all local executive councils when reviewing the appointment of assistants in general practice.
§ Mr. Walker-SmithThe circumstances in which an assistant may be employed vary widely and I do not think it would be desirable to limit Executive Councils' discretion in the way suggested.
§ Mr. PavittI thank the Minister for that reply, but is it necessary to think in terms of limitation? If there were some standard of criteria it would get rid of the present anomaly whereby the method of review on one side of a county boundary is different from that on the other side. Will he consider some means of stopping the exploitation which goes 16 on at the moment, in some few respects, of permanent assistants? Some general practitioners—a few only, I admit—employ, time after time, a series of assistants "with a view" which remains permanently on the horizon. Will the Minister reconsider the answer he has given?
§ Mr. Walker-SmithYes, Sir, but these difficulties are sought to be met first by the requirement of obtaining the consent of the executive council when a general practitioner wants to employ an assistant for more than three months, and secondly, by the periodical reviews of the consents given, which were introduced by the Regulations of 1956. It is clear that the consents are in no way permanent. They are subject to review.