§ Amendments made: No. 56, in page 57, line 24, leave out 'that' and insert 'the relevant Regional'.
§
No. 57, in page 57, line 25, after 'bodies', insert:
'(including any federation of workers' organisations)'.
§
No. 58, in page 61, line 24, after first 'regulations', insert:
1440
'and such directions as may be given by the Secretary of State'.
§
No. 59, in page 61, line 29, after 'functions' insert:
'of the authority or any other body'.
§
No. 60, in page 61, line 34, after 'another' insert:
'which is not a Family Practitioner Committee'.—[Mr. Alison.]
§ Dr. SummerskillI beg to move Amendment No. 61, in page 62, line 10, at end insert
'but such regulations shall not preclude an authority and consultants from agreeing by contract to such whole-time employment'.This is a question of emphasis and clarification. As it stands paragraph 5 does not require that consultants shall be whole time, but I think it desirable to provide that this does not mean that they cannot agree to be whole time. The emphasis at the moment is on almost encouraging them not to be whole time. In a Bill of this importance, consultants should be encouraged to be whole time. It is regrettable that only a third of all consultants in the Health Service at the moment practice full time, and we would wish to see far more in full-time practice.The next Labour Government will be phasing out pay beds so that there will be no scope for private practice within hospitals. It is right, therefore, that something should be in the Bill to encourage consultants to take up full-time work.
§ Mr. PavittI support my hon. Friend. The encouragement of which she spoke may receive a little impetus from the decision of the British Medical Association last week to do away with the secrecy which at the moment attaches to merit awards. The Amendment envisages the possibility of agreement being reached between the consultants and the employing authority for a whole different system of whole-time consultant employment.
If merit awards were attached more to full-time and less to part-time, nine-elevenths consultants, there would be a wide area in which agreement could be reached. After 25 years of accepting this business whereby one consultant gets twice as much as another and no-one knows which is which, the Amendment would facilitate further agreement.
§ Mr. AlisonThe hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) is popping up in all sorts of different parts of the Chamber. It is bewildering. His point goes wider than the subject of the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill).
Subparagraph (5) of paragraph 10—which the hon. Lady has sought to amend—does not prevent or discourage the employment of whole-time consultants. It does no more than carry forward into the new Bill the statutory safeguard provided by Mr. Aneurin Bevin in the context of the first post-war Labour Government against the introduction of a compulsory full-time service universally by regulation and by regulation alone. In other words, it means that legislation must be brought forward if there is to be a universal whole-time consultant service in the National Health Service.
It has been the policy of successive Governments since 1948, and remains the policy of the present Government, that, subject to the needs of the service, employing authorities should be able to offer the option of a whole-time or maximum part-time contract to a practitioner selected for a full-time consultant post. However, hospital authorities also have the right to advertise a whole-time post without giving the applicant the option of maximum part-time employment when the authority considers that the interests of the service requires it. In fact, at the moment not one-third but as much as 36.5 per cent. of all consultants are whole time, and the proportion has been rising in recent years. It is certainly not the intention of the present Government to discourage the appointment of consultants with a full sessional commitment, and it is hard to imagine that there would ever be any advantage in so doing. The amendment would provide a safeguard against something that is unlikely to occur.
The House can see from the evidence that I have given that the Government have happily gone along with the growing practice of appointment by regions of whole-time posts. There is no need for the amendment. I can assure the hon. Lady that the anxiety she has that regional boards and health authorities should have the real option to do what they want is safeguarded in the Bill. I 1442 therefore suggest that the House rejects the amendment.
§ Amendment negatived.