HC Deb 20 April 1978 vol 948 cc843-8
Mr. Robert Boscawen (Wells)

I beg to move Amendment No. 25, in page 36, line 20, at end insert provided that after a person is accused of an offence no matter likely to lead members of the public to identify the accused in relation to that accusation shall either be published in England, Wales, Northern Ireland or Scotland in a written publication available to the public or be broadcast in England, Wales, Northern Ireland or Scotland until the Committee has announced its decision in any proceedings relating to the alleged offence". We are glad to be able to return to this subject on the Floor of the House. This issue deals with the reporting of a professional conduct hearing. We felt in Committee, and we still feel, that there should be a restriction on reporting where a doctor is found not guilty. We were concerned in Committee that the reply we received from the Minister was rather thin. We felt that it had not considered fully both the feelings expressed in the Merrison Report and the feelings on the Conservative side of the Committee.

11.15 p.m.

The Minister in Committee thought that the broad principle of British justice that publicity is an aid to justice should be the guiding principle in the schedule. However, I feel that the point should be put that this disciplinary hearing is not a court of law. The doctor is not being accused of a crime. He may have been on a previous occasion, but he is not being accused of a crime before the disciplinary committee. He is being tried for professional misconduct of one kind or another.

Unlike in a court of law, as I understand it, these proceedings are not held on oath; evidence is not given on oath, and evidence could be given which is not accepted by the disciplinary committee and which could be very unreliable and extremely damaging to the doctor concerned. Yet, if the schedule stands as it is, all such evidence could be fully reported and the doctor's name attached to it, and, although he might be cleared entirely of any infringement of professional conduct, some of what had been said in the hearing could stick and could damage him for the rest of his professional career.

We feel that that could be an injustice to the doctor concerned. We were reinforced in our view by the great strength of feeling shown in the Merrison Committee when that committee went some way to try to find a solution, which it called the "middle way". The middle way is as suggested in this amendment, to the effect that there should be no means whereby the name of the doctor can be identified should he be found not guilty as a result of the hearing.

I understand that in other professions, when an individual is brought before a disciplinary committee—of the Law Society, for example—the proceedings are not held in public. Although I can see that there is a case, because of the public importance of the medical profession and the way it is in contact with the public, that where an individual is found guilty of misconduct the proceedings should be published, I feel that it is in the interests of confidence in the GMC by the profession generally that a doctor who is not found guilty should not be punished a second or third time—perhaps even for the rest of his life—because of something that was said in a professional conduct committee and of which he was not found guilty but for which he has no redress at all afterwards. It could affect his career for the rest of his professional life. I hope that the Government will reconsider their position on this Schedule.

Dr. Glyn

I support my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Boscawen). I think that this is probably one of the most important amendments that we have considered. It is absolutely right that the disciplinary committee is entirely different from a court of law. Things may be said during the proceedings which could affect a doctor adversely throughout his life. Even if at the end of the case he is shown to be innocent, there is still a stigma which lingers.

We all know that sometimes doctors are brought up on charges which prove to be spurious. They go through absolute agony in the period before the case is heard, and even when later the case is dismissed they suffer because of the mention of their names in any report of the case. My hon. Friend put the matter well when he said that first the man has suffered by being brought before the disciplinary committee and secondly by having his name associated with a charge of which he was not guilty. It is quite unnecessary for this to happen.

I believe that the amendment provides the minimum protection that we can give to a doctor who is proved to be innocent at the end of his ordeal. If he is guilty, of course, the public will know that he is guilty, but if he is innocent at least he will have avoided unpleasant publicity, which could stay with him for the rest of his professional career.

Mr. Hodgson

I support my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Boscawen). When we were in Committee, the amendment related to line 27 on page 25. It now relates to line 20 on page 36. The expansion of the Bill has gone on apace. When we recall the length of the Bill when it first went to their lordships in another place and we look at its present size, we can see what a valuable role their lordships have played. I hope that the Labour Party, when considering the future role of the House of Lords, will bear in mind the valuable work done by their lordships—particularly by Lord Hunt—on this measure and on others.

The Minister, in supporting the various parts of the Bill, both on Second Reading and in Committee, frequently prayed in aid Professor Merrison. I should like to draw to his attention some of the Merrison Committee's comments, as the committee went further than we have gone in the amendment. In paragraph 323, the committee's fourth and "most important recommendation" was that press reporting of a hearing not resolved in a finding of serious professional misconduct should be banned. In other words, the committe was concerned that mud once thrown was never washed away completely and that the doctor was left with a slur on his name. We have contented ourselves with the third of the committee's recommendations, which was that press reporting of hearings of allegations of serious professional misconduct should be banned until the completion of the hearing'. In paragraph 322 the committee quotes the comments of a doctor who maintained that To subject a man to a week of headlines like 'Sex on the Surgery Couch' is to punish him. The fact that he may be found not guilty at the week's end does not erase the headline from people's memories. That says everything that needs to be said on the amendment, and it is with that phrase in mind that I support my hon. Friend.

Mr. Moyle

I urge the House to resist the amendment, but in doing so I express the hope that we shall be able to reach an accommodation on the different views on this matter.

I was impressed by the strength of feeling with which Conservative Members argued their case in Committee, and I decided in the interval to look at what happens in other professions in matters of this sort. I found that the dentists tend to have the same procedure as the General Medical Council—in other words, they deal with these matters in public, unless there is very good reason for making an exception.

The Architects' Registration Council also holds its meetings in public. The Institute of Chartered Accountants has a very peculiar procedure whereby it holds its disciplinary proceedings in private, although there is usually no opposition to members of the public being present if they so wished. I do not quite know how that system works in practice.

In the senate of the Bar Council the matter is governed by a byelaw of the senate whereby proceedings are held in private unless the respondent barrister requests otherwise. I was mightily impressed by the obvious wisdom of the Bar Council. The Law Society has a very similar provision. It has its disciplinary proceedings in private. The whole argument that we had in Committee might have been totally unnecessary, because in the course of the debate I found that Schedule 4, paragraph 1(2) (d), says: requiring proceedings before the Committee to be held in public except in so far as may be provided by the rules". Obviously that gives the GMC powers to hold these matters in private, unless the doctor concerned wishes them to be held in public.

In the circumstances, I think that there is adequate provision for the protection of doctors' reputations where this is necessary. For that reason, I urge the House to reject the amendment because the Bill as it stands goes a long way towards meeting the points that hon. Members have raised.

Mr. Boscawen

I drew the Minister's attention to that paragraph in Committee. The GMC can instruct the committee concerned as to how it should carry out its proceedings. We accept that this is some safeguard. We should have liked it to be spelled out in the Bill, but we accept what the Minister has said.

Dr. Glyn

Surely this would be an unusual procedure. The usual procedure—to which the doctors object—is that the proceedings are held in public.

Mr. Boscawen

No, I think that the discretion is with the GMC. Perhaps, if I am not correct, the Minister will intervene. The GMC has discretion on whether reporting is restricted. If that is so, we are prepared to accept it, although we would have preferred to see a safeguard written into the Bill.

Dr. Vaughan

Will the Minister consider conveying to the new body that there was considerable feeling in the House that it should exercise its judgment and hold proceedings in private wherever possible?

Mr. Moyle

I am always willing to convey messages to the GMC. I think it will be seized of the point because it has taken considerable interest in our debates. It felt that it had a duty to do so.

The initiative is with the GMC to make its own arrangements in these matters. Having had some experience of trying to get legislation relating to another profession through the House, I emphasise the importance of having the maximum flexibility when considering Bills of this nature. It can never be calculated when amending legislation is being passed through the House. The way the Bill is drafted gives maximum flexibility to a responsible profession to order its affairs in its own way and to take account, if necessary, of the points that have been urged in debate by hon. Members.

11.30 p.m.

Dr. Glyn

Can the Minister indicate what proportion of cases have been held in camera and what proportion in public?

Mr. Moyle

I should require notice of that question. My impression is that most of the cases have been held in public, but there has been fairly strong expression that this should not be so and I am sure that the GMC will take note of that in considering future arrangements.

Mr. Boscawen

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Forward to