Negotiator?
by David Roberts

I recently had the opportunity of meeting and speaking personally to one of our negotiating team. I can only say that I was not impressed and more importantly I would doubt whether Kenneth Clarke was during the ‘negotiations’.

There seems to be good reason for general practitioners being in the fix they are in. We have a leader who has treated his word cavalierly as revealed in my piece ‘Willigo Wilson’ which was so aptly quoted by the Health Secretary—and another Team member who seemed to have all the impact of David Owen on the Liberals upon the large meeting I attended. So effective was 

Lest I be accused of an obsession against our negotiators may I say in defence that the gentleman in question spent nearly an hour reciting a farago of their failures and was unable to suggest any positive measures for the future. Of equal importance he was unable to give any cogent reason as to how the Secretary of State came to be able to roll them over so easily.

I was impressed by one utterance. When I put to him the fact that Dr. Wilson had said, in an interview in G.P., that he would not put himself forward for re-election if the crucial votes went against him, the eminent doctor replied ‘He didn’t’. A quoting of the relevant question and answer from the newspaper, with the remark that it had not been denied, proved unanswerable.

Another doctor asked what improvements there had been since the inital "Contract"* was proposed. Our negotiator seemed
unable to grasp the basics of negotiations. In case he reads this, I would tell him that it is a basic principle to ask for more than you expect to get—and that is precisely what Clarke did. A measure of his success is that he left the Wilson & Co. feeling it was their idea and what’s more they still do!

Later in a private conversation I attempted to put to him my very strong belief—and that of many, many other doctors—that
the weapon of resignation had been forfeited by Dr. Wilson at the start of the negotiations and that this had to a large extent 
contributed to their failure. His reply was to turn his back on me, shuffle his papers and off-handedly say that they had had to obey a
vote of somebody or other. He failed to say when this vote had been taken or whether G.P.s as a whole had ever been consulted.
We were not!

I believe that this was crass stupidity. The G.M.S.C. and B.M.A. should have done their homework and made financial and
administrative preparations for resignation. Then with positive (and I use the word deliberately) leadership a large proportion of
doctors would have followed that suggestion and Clarke would have been brought to heel months ago. It should be remembered
that the day they chose to commend the Contract was the eve of the Welsh by-election where the Tories took such a drubbing. A day when things were looking black for the Government and a time when Clarke was already very rattled.

But then, over the years, one has come not to expect positive leadership from the G.M.S.C.

As an aside, one has come to hear over the years that the B.M.A. is the strongest Union! Presumably, then, the G.M.S.C.
is not part of that union?

To more serious matters again. What of the future? Our negotiator told us that there is likely to be a further meeting of the L.M.C. Conference in March after the Contract has been priced and maybe even another referendum. When asked what they
would do then if the vote went against the Contract once more, bearing in mind that they had ignored the last referendum vote,
he preferred not to say. Some may believe that this is wise others, like me, may believe it to be extremely unwise since the Secretary of State knows that he can depend upon their silence. A second rejection should be sufficient to rouse even this currently servile negotiating team, particularly after our mouths have been stuffed with as little gold as Clarke believes he can get away with. How- ever, my own dislike of the Contract is its repressive and wasteful nature rather than just finance.

My dread of the future is that the current team will remain in post and by negative leadership will persuade the majority of my colleagues that the Contract isn’t so bad, after all. If that does come to pass then it will be a bleak period for our patients who will be denied our services when they most need them, when they are sick.

It has been suggested that professional negotiators be appointed and a nightmare of equal magnitude would be if Michael Wilson resigned his practice and took up a paid post as Chief Negotiator! That really would be jobs for the boys!

I am very likely going to be taken to task for rocking the boat in attacking the ‘leadership’ as fiercely and consistently as I have
over the past year. My name will be further blacked in the Establishment but I believe that the issues are too important for doctors and patients for me to remain silent. I also believe that the present negotiating team have inexcusably and disastrously let the profession down. Most importantly I believe that there will be no redemption unless they have the moral courage to admit their mistakes and step down.

I fear that they have not got that courage.


--------------

* ‘Contract—doctors will by now know that what is called a contract is in fact a government diktat, an open ended commitment and logically by extending it further the Government could compel doctors, by their terms of service to commit murder, euthanasia or breach of confidence. I wonder whether even these would persuade G.M.S.C. to act? And if so, then again logically, what is stopping them now? 

THE DDA JOURNAL — JANUARY 1990

Page 19

(Reprinted 5 August 2004)