ADVERTISING RESTRICTIONS IN THE PROFESSIONS: MMC REPORTS (Hansard, 16 March 1989)

§ Lord Young of Graffham

The three reports on advertising restrictions in the professions are published today. The findings of the commission with regard to each one are as follows:

Services of medical practitioners

The commission was asked to investigate and report on the advertising restrictions observed by registered medical practitioners and their effect on the public interest.

The commission finds that observance of the guidance of both the GMC and BMA governing advertising by specialists to members of the public does not operate against the public interest, except in so far as it prevents associations of specialists from responding to direct requests for information from members of the public.

The commission finds that observance of the GMC guidance (in the version currently circulated to members) and the similar BMA guidance restricting advertising by specialists to other doctors, operates against the public interest. During the inquiry the GMC amended its guidance to allow specialists to contact their colleagues as they see fit. The commission considers that these changes remove the adverse effects of this part of the GMC guidance.

The commission notes that during the inquiry the GMC relaxed, but did not entirely remove, restrictions on the ability of doctors or their professional associations to communicate with other bodies or professionals in circumstances where they are not offering medical treatment to patients. The commission finds that observance of the remaining restrictions on such contacts imposed by the GMC and BMA operates against the public interest.

The commission finds that observance of those parts of the GMC and BMA guidance which restrict advertising by general practitioners to members of the public operates against the public interest. The commission also finds that one part of the guidance offered by the Royal College of General Practitioners —namely, that general practitioners should ensure that their practice leaflets are acceptable to local colleagues —operates against the public interest.

The commission considers that the broad principles that should govern advertising by doctors are that advertising by them should not be of a character that could reasonably be regarded as likely to bring the profession into disrepute and that their advertising should not be such as to abuse the trust of patients or potential patients or exploit their lack of knowledge. It suggests that these principles might be reflected in guidelines for GPs advertising; that the content of advertisements should be limited to factual information, should be legal, decent, honest and truthful and should not disparage other doctors or make claims of superiority; that no advertisement should include explicit or implicit claims to cure particular complaints and that GPs should not use "cold calling" or other means of trying to target individual members of the public and should not advertise so frequently as to cause a nuisance to potential patients or put them under pressure.

The Government welcome the conclusions and recommendations of the report and today I have 449WA asked the Director General of Fair Trading to seek, under Section 88 of the Fair Trading Act, undertakings from each of the General Medical Council, British Medical Association and Royal College of General Practitioners that it will revise its guidance on advertising along the lines proposed by the commission and in a form to be agreed with the director general, within six months.

I have no doubt that the GMC, as the statutory body charged with advising doctors on standards of professional conduct, will implement swiftly the MMC's public interest findings and that the BMA and RCGP will follow a similar line. I do not therefore intend at present to use the order-making powers which are available in respect of these latter bodies.

Services of professionally regulated osteopaths

The commission was asked to investigate and report on the advertising rules observed by regulated osteopaths and the effects of their restrictions on the public interest.

There are 12 bodies representing osteopaths with rules that govern advertising by their members. The members of one body, the British Osteopathic Association, are nearly all registered medical practitioners and as such are bound by the rules of the General Medical Council which are the subject of the report already discussed. The commission finds the observance of the rules of all the other 11 bodies is against the public interest. The commission has recommended that the rules of these bodies should be no longer observed. The commission has suggested that the 11 bodies should consider the adoption of rules avoiding the detrimental effects identified. The commission considers that the broad principles underlying any new rules should be in accordance with the principles of the British Code of Advertising Practice, should contain nothing which would reasonably be regarded as likely to bring the profession into disrepute, and should not be such as to abuse the trust of potential patients or exploit their lack of knowledge.

The Government welcome the conclusions and recommendations of the report and accordingly I have asked the Director General of Fair Trading to seek, under Section 88 of the Fair Trading Act, undertakings from each of the bodies specified in paragraphs 7.34 and 7.35 of the commission's report that it will within a period of six months revise its rules according to the principles set out in the report and in a form to be agreed with the director general.

If any of the bodies fails to agree to amend its rules in accordance with the public interest findings of the commission there are order-making powers under the Fair Trading Act which may be brought to bear.

Civil engineering consultancy services

The commission was asked to investigate and report on the advertising rules observed by consulting civil engineers and the effects of their restrictions on the public interest.

The commission was primarily concerned with two sets of rules; those of the Institute of Civil 450WA Engineers (ICE) and those of the Association of Consulting Engineers (ACE).

The commission finds that observance of the ICE rules by consulting civil engineers is not against the public interest. The commission is concerned, however, that some members of ICE appear to believe that the ICE rules are more restrictive than the interpretation it was given, and the commission has suggested that ICE should take steps to clarify the situation.

The commission finds that the observance of the present ACE rules by its consulting cavil engineer members is against the public interest.

The commission considers that ACE should amend its rules to avoid the detrimental effects identified. The broad principles underlying any new rules should be that consulting civil engineers are free to advertise in accordance with the principles of the British Code of Advertising Practice but that such advertising should contain nothing which would reasonably be regarded as likely to bring the profession into disrepute.

The commission was told by ACE that its council would shortly be putting revised rules to the membership for approval.

The Government welcome the conclusions and recommendations of the report. I have asked the Director General of Fair Trading, to seek undertakings, under Section 88 of the Fair Trading Act, from ACE that, within six months, it will revise its rules and guidance on advertising in a form to be agreed with the director general on the principles stated in paragraph 7.35 of the report.

Given the proposals which ACE put to the commission, I believe that the order-making powers which are available under the Act are not appropriate at this time.

I have also invited the Director General of Fair Trading to discuss with ICE's council how the interpretation of its rules may be better publicised.