I beg to move, in page 8, line 28, after "five," to insert:
"of whom two shall he elected members of the Council."
At the same time, it might be convenient for the Committee to discuss the next Amendment in the name of the hon. Member, in line 33, at the end, to insert:
and the Amendment in the name of the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot), in line 35, after "hearing," to insert:"of whom three shall be elected members of the Council."
"at least two elected members of the Council and."
The purpose of the two Amendments in my name is simple and straightforward, and I hope that they will be accepted. We all agree that it is desirable to see an increase in the number of elected members of the Council. That is embodied in the Bill. Here we are dealing with a very important part of the machinery, the constitution of the Medical Disciplinary Committee, and its functions, and I therefore thought it proper to put in these small Amendments.
I am suggesting that, where the Committee normally consists of nine members, unless the circumstances are exceptional,—when the president or his nominee may increase the number—three members should be elected representatives, and, since the quorum is to be five, I have suggested that two shall be elected members. There is probably common agreement about this, and I do not think there would be any difficulty in finding these proportions of two out of five and three out of nine.I am afraid my hon. Friend is asking me to give him a little too much. I am prepared to have a look at the second Amendment, but I could not accept the first, because it might be entirely unworkable. The assumption is that two elected persons must be present. We must remember what we are dealing with here. We are dealing with a situation in which the accused person is summoned to be present, along with any witnesses who support him, and they may have travelled very considerable distances; yet, because of some reason over which neither the accused nor anybody else has any control, if two out of the five persons are not elected representatives, the proceedings cannot go forward. This is administratively an exceedingly difficult principle to operate, and I therefore hope it will not be pressed. After all, we have gone a very considerable way here in increasing the number of elected members. Surely, it is the duty of elected members to attend, and we ought not to impose a hardship or victimise those who have to be subjected to these proceedings if the elected persons do not do their duty.
When we come to the other Amendment, it is very much easier, because the idea is to ensure that the nine members who will be invited to hear most of the disciplinary cases might include three elected members. That is all right. Here we have an invitation, but in the other case it was a statutory command, and the two do not run together. I hope my hon. Friend will withdraw his first Amendment, and, if we are taking the two together, I will accept the second in principle.Since the Amendment in the name of my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) is being discussed with those of the hon. Gentleman opposite and is concerned with substantially the same point, I should like to draw attention to its purely permissive quality, as compared with the compulsory nature of that of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross).
It is clear that the elected members are a most valuable element in the constitution of the disciplinary committee, because the members of the General Medical Council, by and large, belong to very academic and learned bodies which in practice take different views on the various forms of misconduct. The Minister has stressed the point that the proceedings would come to a standstill in the absence of the requisite number of elected representatives, if their attendance was compulsory and if they were to be a certain proportion of the whole. The Amendment in the name of the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove, to which my name is attached, would provide that at least two elected members should sit, but that the proceedings do not fall down if they are not present.The remarks I made on the second Amendment apply also to this one. We are prepared to accept it in principle, although, perhaps, we should put "two" instead of "three."
Finding myself quite convinced by the Minister and accepting his compromise, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I do not propose to call the Amendment in page 8, line 39, in the name of the hon. Member for Warrington (Dr. Morgan) because it is inconsistent with the decision arrived at on an earlier Clause.
Did you say, Sir Charles, that the decision on the earlier Clause was against my Amendment on this Clause?
I am afraid the Amendment is inconsistent with the decision arrived at on Clause 13.
With great respect, Sir Charles, I submit that this Amendment is entirely different from the first one. It is asking that the disciplinary committee should be called the "penal cases committee." It is a very special committee.
I am afraid that as it was only put on the Order Paper this morning, I did not have time to study it properly. I thought it was out of order.
With great respect, Sir Charles, there are other Amendments which were only put on the Order Paper today, and which have been selected. I am sorry that you have decided not to select mine. I took careful advice from three lawyers about it, and I am sorry that your opinion, Sir Charles, differs from theirs.
Motion made, and Question proposed. "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."I wish to raise a point about subsections (4) and (5). Subsection (5) provides that:
which I assume include decisions of the Committee—"All acts"—
Subsection (4) provides that the constitution of the Committee for the purposes of proceedings of that sort is to be nine members. I think we agree on both sides of the Committee that very special powers are being given to the medical disciplinary committee. They are really acting as a kind of jury on matters which may easily result in the complete barring of an individual practitioner from carrying out the duties of his profession. It may mean professional suicide for a man if he is found guilty of committing professional misconduct. With such consequences hanging over his head, I think it is inappropriate that the majority of the votes of the Committee should decide his fate. After all, a man can be charged in this country with a minor criminal offence, such as driving a car without due care, and the jury's decision must be unanimous. If we insist in our law that a person can only be convicted on the unanimous verdict of 12 people, I think it is very wrong that we should decide that a person may be debarred from carrying out the performance of his profession by a mere majority vote. I ask the Minister to look at it again. I think that up to the present it has been the practice to decide by a majority vote. I have always thought that to be wrong. and I hope the Minister will think that a provision should be inserted in the Bill stating that such cases must be decided on the unanimous vote of the body concerned."shall be decided by the votes of a majority of the members present at any meeting."
3.15 p.m.
On the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill" I should like to refer to my Amendment which you, Sir, unfortunately ruled out as being not appropriate or out of order.
I must remind the hon. Member that he cannot talk about his Amendment now.
Surely, I can call attention to omissions from the Clause and say I am sorry that certain things are not in the Clause and deal with certain things that are in it.
No, the hon. Member cannot deal with omissions from the Clause. He can deal with what is in the Clause.
Then, I want to discuss the question of this General Medical Council having the right to have a special disciplinary committee to try a man in this way. This is simply a prolongation of the present system. Let me recall a case I was interested in a long time ago—the case of Dr. Hennessey practising in Leatherhead. He was charged by a patient with a certain unethical action towards her. That woman made a sworn statement in a charge against him to the General Medical Council. The Council took action. They tried him and heard him, and then decided that he was unfit to remain on the Register.
Let me tell the Committee what I have actually seen on the General Medical Council. I have been present at hearings by the Council, because I have always been interested in this body. On one occasion when I was present every member was over 65. Some were nearly blind, and certainly some were deaf and, I am sorry to say, a deaf one was appointed by the British Medical Association.Is the hon. Member suggesting that any member of the Genera! Medical Council is appointed by the British Medical Association? As a member of the council of that body he should get his facts right.
Six members are elected and this was one of the members submitted by the B.M.A. to the electorate, and they nearly always get in. But what is the good of interrupting on a trivial point like that?
Whether it is trivial or not, this has nothing to do with Clause 14.
Surely, I am entitled to say what they are able to do under Clause 14. I am talking about what is included in the Bill. Surely, it is utterly hopeless if men of that type are to adjudicate in what is really a court, and are to try the question of whether a man is to be registered or not. Frequently, when they have met they have gone and had tea for 10 or 15 minutes during the trial.
Why not?
Because judges trying cases do not usually go out to have meals and keep the court waiting, and then come back to continue the trial.
They do.
I have never seen it done. However, let us come back to this case. A charge was made against this man. They tried him in this peculiar way, and they struck him off the Register. He had no right of appeal. His practice was ruined, his wife suffered. He had no cash coming in, and he could not sign a medical certificate.
Someone advised this honest, decent, excellent doctor to charge this woman with slander and libel, and that case was taken to court. Mr. Justice Charles could not ascertain why this lay person, not very well educated, was able to quote professional terms in the course of her evidence. I was there at the time. He said. "Can anybody give me an explanation as to why this lay person is using professional words in describing what she saw of this man's person when he was alleged to be assaulting her?" The wife of the accused gentleman said, "I can explain." She was called to the witness box and gave evidence that this person was an experienced typist, and that she had seen her taking down the evidence as given to the British Medical Council by the professional man who had examined the accused. She was using the word "cicatrix" for "scar." The judge said that a young woman of this type of education did not use that word for "scar." [Interruption.] I do not know whether I have pronounced the word wrongly or not, but that was what I was taught in my college, after I left school—a very poor school; almost as poor as the one from which the Minister came. As a result of the evidence, Mr. Justice Charles found in favour of Dr. Hennessey, and awarded him £2,000 damages. The case came up again for hearing by the committee of the G.M.C., and 113 was reinstated on the register. I am trying to point out that under the system which is to be perpetuated now, laymen, without any knowledge of the law and of hearing evidence, and without any knowledge of balancing evidence with legal procedure, are in a position definitely to outlaw a man from society and his profession. Because of that, I protest against this Clause being in the Bill without Amendment and without further consideration of how it should be amended to bring it into line with the ordinary canons of justice, decency and professional consideration for a man who is trying to do his work well. This man was reinstated. No further charge was made against him. He is doing very well and remaining on the register. I protest, as a matter of principle, against this body being allowed to condemn a man for life in his professional career.I want to refer to a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Hay), with which I am in entire disagreement. The two matters which he raised were both put into the Bill in another place. First, the Amendment designed to ensure that not more than nine members of the committee should attend was put in on the principle, which is an excellent one, and mentioned in another place, that one cannot get justice from a mob of judges. Secondly, I think that the analogy with a jury is entirely false. I can see no valid comparison whatever there. A most useful Amendment put in this Bill in another place now ensures that this disciplinary committee can give a verdict of "not guilty" instead of the most unsatisfactory one of "not proved." With those two Amendments, which are a great improvement to the Bill, I think that we should rest content.
I see that, according to subsection (5), all acts of the committee shall be decided by the votes of the majority of members present at the meeting. It by any chance the votes should be even, does this provision not exclude the casting vote of the chairman? In the case of the vote being four to four, am I right in assuming that no decision can be reached?
Yes, Sir. May I ask the Committee to try to get ahead a little faster? This is supposed to be an unopposed Measure, and I do not want to repeat some of my previous experiences, that when a Bill is unopposed h immediately becomes contentious. There is not very much to be said in reply to what has been raised on the Clause. It must be borne in mind that the president, or anyone acting on his behalf can, if he considers a particular case sufficiently serious, important or far-reaching, have it tried by the 19 members. That is a sound protection.
I entirely agree that we cannot normally have cases tried by a large number of persons. I would remind the Committee again that there is now an appeal. The whole scene is changed by what we are doing in the Bill. Members are addressing themselves more to the protection of the doctor. We must also bear in mind that this body is charged with the discipline of a profession that is in the most intimate relationship with the public, and that the standards of the profession must be maintained and improved. The Bill goes much further in the protection of the doctor than the previous procedure, while at the same time holding the balance even for the general public.I do not want to delay the progress of the Bill. My point was not connected with the nine members, but to a decision being reached by a bare majority. I think that, as in the case of the jury, a decision should be unanimous.
Having had some experience of the principle of unanimity in other fields of human activity, I think that this is the very last place in which we ought to introduce it. If we did and one person disagreed, then the committee could not do its work of protecting the public. I am looking at the matter from the point of view of the person against whom a charge has been made. He is first of all screened, and then his case is investigated. If the majority of his peers consider him guilty, the principle of unanimity would mean that one person could deny the protection which the public ought to have. That, surely, tilts the whole balance the other way. I think that the individual concerned is adequately protected.
May I make a personal explanation? The Minister remarked just now that this is an agreed Measure. May I point out that I have spoken with the permission of the appropriate authority of my party, and that in that sense this is not an agreed Bill. Before I took any action in regard to this Measure, I went to the authorised persons in my party and laid the facts before them, and the liaison committee gave me permission to oppose the Bill on these special points, but did not give me the power to vote against it.
May we know what committee of the House is the liaison committee?
As I am not the chairman of that committee, I do not know.
I did not say that it was a committee of the House but of my party.
Question put, and agreed to.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.