HC Deb 23 July 1946 vol 425 cc2011-2
Mr. Linstead

I beg to move, in page 69, line 5, to leave out "six," and to insert "seven."

Perhaps it may be for the convenience of the House if I discuss this Amendment and the two following Amendments in my name, together. The object of this Amendment is to meet a difficulty which has been experienced by the dental profession, which is feeling a little concerned about the position of some dental practitioners under the provision of this Schedule. There is provision in this Schedule for a panel from which an appropriate tribunal for each profession is to be drawn. It will be noticed that in the case of opticians two classes are provided for—the optician engaged in sight testing, and the optician engaged in dispensing. The Amendment seeks to provide for the representation of the two classes of dental practitioner.

At the moment, there is provision only for the dental practitioner who has, presumably, to be an L.D.S. There is a group of dental practitioners registered under the Dentists Act, 1921, and it is not an unreasonable claim that they make, that should one of their group of dentists have to go before a tribunal the professional representative, in that case, should be one of the dentists registered under the 1921 Act. The purpose of the Amendment is to give the Minister power to have two dental men to draw from—one an L.D.S., and the other a 1921 dentist.

I believe the argument against this will be that the 1921 dentists are a closed group, who will ultimately die out. If the Minister cared to press that to its logical conclusion he could say that the last of those men would be the only man on the tribunal waiting to judge himself, and that when he finally died he could no longer constitute a panel, because there would be no one to appoint. But I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not drive himself to that conclusion, because there are hundreds of these people in existence at the moment, and it will be many years before that position arises. May I also appeal to the right hon. Gentleman on another basis? This is the last Opposition Amendment on the Order Paper, and as, no doubt, he wishes to part with the Bill by leaving a sweet taste in the mouths of Members on this side of the House, perhaps he will accept the Amendment.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth

I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. Bevan

I am almost persuaded by the seductiveness of the last remark from the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Linstead), but I must resist that temptation. Surely, I cannot be asked to accept what is an illogical Amendment in order that we might end on a harmonious note. This class of dentists is dying out. Surely it is not suggested that a registered dentist on the tribunal would not be an effective member in considering one of his fellow dentists merely because he happened to belong to the 1921 class. It is slightly artificial. I must resist the Amendment, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press it.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Linstead

As the Minister has been so forthcoming, I would press him this much further. He may feel that there is no need for the dental profession to take this point of view, but, in fact, they do take it. They feel that, when one of their cases is coming up, they want one of their own men there. One of the essentials of a tribunal of this kind is that it shall have the confidence of the people who are to come before it. It will make that little bit of difference to them to know that one of their men is sitting there. There is more in this than the Minister appears to think, and I do ask him to look at it again.

Mr. Bevan

I will look at it administratively and see what the possibilities are.

Mr. Linstead

I am very grateful to the Minister for what he has said. In those circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.