CAB129-52 — Page 109

Page 109 medical staffs and thence to the non-medical staffs of the universities. Reactions would then spread first to the higher Civil Service, then probably to the teaching professions and ultimately widely throughout the public services. Moreover, if large numbers of the higher paid staff in the public services were given substantial salary increases at the present time it would be quite impossible to expect the lower paid staffs or workers in industry to exercise restraint. Unless, therefore, the chain of reactions is broken at the first link, viz., the consultants, we shall find that a further inflationary cycle in the country at large has been started.

7. I consider that we should be justified in going to considerable lengths to prevent these reactions. I think we must declare publicly that we are not prepared to apply the principles of the Danckwerts Award to other professional classes, and indeed that we cannot continue to be bound by the recommendations of the Spens Reports (of which the Danckwerts Award was supposed to be an application).

8. If my colleagues agree that a statement to this effect should be made, we have the alternative of waiting and making it in reply to some particular claim (e.g., that of the consultants which is understood to be in preparation) or of taking the initiative and making an early statement in anticipation of claims for increases corresponding to those of the Danckwerts Award. If we wait until an opportunity arises in negotiations on a particular claim, we may be accused of making up our policy on the spur of the moment for the purpose of dealing with that particular claim, and we may also in the meantime encourage, by our silence, classes who are nourishing hopes of supporting salary claims by appealing to the argument that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

9. A refusal to extend Danckwerts increases to consultants will not be an easy proposition. Spens dealt with consultants and general practitioners on precisely the same basis in so far as he recommended rates of remuneration applicable to the conditions of 1939, leaving it to subsequent negotiation to settle how far these rates should be increased to take account of subsequent changes in the value of money. Before Danckwerts both general practitioners and specialists got the Spens rates plus 20 per cent.—a figure prescribed by the Government but not accepted by the B.M.A. The consultants will certainly say that it is manifestly unjust that Spens's recommendations should be implemented for the general practitioners but be discounted by 80 per cent. in their own case. They may also argue that the Spens Committee, as a body of independent experts of high standing, established a relationship between the remuneration of consultants and that of general practi- tioners which should not be disturbed without reference to some similar independent body. If we meet these arguments by a flat refusal of the Danckwerts increase we shall almost certainly be involved in a row with the Consultants Committee and probably also with the B.M.A. But if we are to avoid the serious consequences I have outlined in paragraph 6 above, I consider that we must take a tough line on this question, even at the risk of criticism.

10. I therefore ask my colleagues to agree that I should make an early public statement, in reply to an arranged question, on the lines of the draft attached. I understand that the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Health are in broad agreement with my conclusions.

Treasury Chambers, S.W. 1,

11th June, 1952.

R. A. B.

Page 109

Page 109

3