HC Deb 24 April 1953 vol 514 cc1657-62

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

12.43 p.m.

Mr. John Hall (Wycombe)

I beg to move, "That the Bill be read the Third time."

The Bill comes before us in its original form without any Amendment, and I hope I may be forgiven for saying that that might be some relief to the House when we recall the Amendments to another Bill which we have been discussing this week. I should like to draw attention to one or two matters discussed in the Standing Committee and to one or two Amendments which were suggested. The first related to Clause 5, which gives power to the Council of the Society to register as pharmaceutical chemists those who have obtained a proper university degree; and gives them power to do that without having to ask the university degree holder to take another examination.

It was suggested that, as the examination held by the universities was of an admittedly higher standard than that of the Pharmaceutical Society, any student who had taken all the subjects and passed in them but had failed to gain the total aggregate marks necessary to obtain a degree should, likewise, be exempted from taking the Society's examination. As I think the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) put it, it was equivalent to the old and well-known qualification, "Failed B.A. Hyderabad University." This is no reflection on a "Failed B.A. Hyderabad University" or any other university. It was felt that it would raise a number of difficulties if this were accepted, and the Amendment was not pressed.

The other Amendment related to fees chargeable by the Society. There are four main types of fee which cover registration and annual retention. It was suggested that the personal fee, the annual retention fee paid by the individual pharmaceutical chemist, on which there was a maximum of£2, should be retained at that amount, and the registration fee should be raised. The matter was discussed at some length and arguments were deployed both for and against. Eventually the Amendment was not accepted. The result is that the Bill is unaltered.

I consider that I was extremely fortunate in the Ballot in my first few days as a Member of this House. My fortune was all the more remarkable because as a rule in other kinds of ballots and draws which might entitle me to considerable tax-free emoluments I am not so lucky. I was also extremely fortunate in taking over this Bill which I think the House will agree is a good tidying-up Measure which will be of considerable benefit to the pharmaceutical profession as a whole. I should not like it to be thought that I am in any way trying to take credit for the Measure. It is almost entirely the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Linstead). aided by the Society of which he is the distinguished secretary, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health and her able staff.

As this Measure is the work of so many people, as it is one for which I can claim no credit except that of acting as its mouthpiece, and as it is bound to benefit many people in the profession. I can recommend it to the House for approval with the utmost confidence.

Mr. Hugh Linstead (Putney)

I beg to second the Motion.

12.48 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Patricia Homsby-Smith)

I am sure that the whole House will welcome the Bill which, although a domestic one mainly sponsored by the Pharmaceutical Society, tidies up the matter of the two registers which formerly operated for pharmaceutical chemists and chemists and druggists. I certainly think that the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) is too modest in disclaiming all responsibility for the success which has attended his efforts to carry this Bill through its various stages.

As he has said, within a few days of entering this House he was successful in the Ballot. I am sure that all hon. Members would wish to congratulate him on successfully piloting this Bill. He had to delve into many old Acts and Charters and various Measures of legislation in order to familiarise himself with the matter so as to be able and ready, as indeed he has been, to deal with any questions. We congratulate him on his success, especially in the Committee stage.

I should like to say a few words about one matter discussed by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) in Committee. The Bill was sponsored by the Pharmaceutical Society as a domestic measure dealing solely and exclusively with the professional qualifications, conduct and registration fees of their professional members, and I crossed swords with the hon. and learned Member in Committee when he sought to add to the Bill power to abolish the statutory limit of£3 as the registration fee for premises. Opinion in the Committee was divided on the subject, but I did not seek at the time to discuss the merits of the£3 registration fee on premises. I held then, and I still hold, that in a domestic measure promoted by professional members of the Pharmaceutical Society, it would be inappropriate and outside their province to introduce any matter which would require negotiation and consultation with non-professional bodies, in many cases limited companies, and would also require very much wider consultation with the Home Office.

We have been in consultation both with the Home Office and with the Privy Council to see whether they share our view on the domestic nature of the Bill. They accept that, as a Private Member's Bill, it is appropriately confined to matters relating to the domestic organisation and the professional members of the Pharmaceutical Society and that it rightly limits its terms to its effect on the individual pharmacists as professional men and does not seek to enter into the affairs of limited companies or, indeed, the registration of premises.

Lieut-Colonel Marcos Lipton (Brixton)

Or the 1s. prescription.

Miss Hornsby-Smith

Nor into that. A point made by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee was that, had the suggested addition been made, there would have been great danger of the limited companies, by virtue of paying higher subscriptions, demanding a voice in the professional running and conduct of the Pharmaceutical Society, which at the moment they have not. That was the overriding principle which decided the majority of hon. Members against any such addition.

I wanted to clarify the point and to make it clear that there has been no lack of consultation but that we believe that, quite rightly and properly, the Bill is limited to the professional members of the Society. As such it has the full support of the Ministry. I again congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe on the expedition with which he has conducted the Bill through the various stages.

12.53 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas (Lincoln)

I should like to congratulate the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall). He was exceedingly lucky in his success in the Ballot so soon after entering the House, but lucky generals and lucky Members of Parliament nevertheless often deserve praise. This is a Private Member's Bill and a good Bill, as many Private Members' Bills are. I know how often on Fridays, when I was at the Home Office, we discussed good work which had been done by private Members.

In view of the fact that we have so many other Bills on the Paper today and that we have had a tiring week, I hope no one will take advantage of the fact that we are so few in number, and that so many are probably resting, by counting us out. This is a good Bill, which I welcome.

12.54 p.m.

Mr. Linstead rose—

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member seconded the Motion. He can speak again only by leave of the House, but I have no doubt that the House will grant him that leave.

Hon. Members: Agreed.

Mr. Linslead

I was under the impression that it was possible formally to second and to reserve one's speech until later, but I gladly claim advantage of the leave which the House has accorded me. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) has said, I have an interest in the Bill as one of the secretaries of the Pharmaceutical Society, and it would not be appropriate to allow the Third Reading to take place without my taking the opportunity, both personally and on behalf of the Society, of thanking my hon. Friend and the Parliamentary Secretary and her staff for their co-operation.

This is a small Bill when seen against the national background but an extremely important Bill against the background of the Pharmaceutical Society. If the Bill is passed, I hope that a further stage will be taken, with the good will of the Privy Council and the Ministry of Health, to consolidate the present Pharmacy Acts, which are scattered about in bits and pieces through 100 years of legislation. I hope the Bill will be a contribution towards such consolidation.

Both the Parliamentary Secretary and my hon. Friend dealt with an important point which was raised in Committee— the extent to which corporate bodies should have a voice in the affairs of the Pharmaceutical Society. I was very glad that, after deliberation upstairs, the Committee decided that it would be wise as far as possible to keep the Society what it was intended to be—namely, a professional society of individual practitioners—and not a mixed organisation partly representing corporate bodies and partly representing individuals. As a result, the Bill today is in the same form as that which it took on Second Reading.

I want to make it clear, however, that there is no fundamental difference between the corporate bodies and the individual pharmacists. Some of the discussion in Committee might perhaps have led people to assume that there was a bitter feud. That is far from being the case. Nevertheless, there is a great deal to be said for keeping a professional body restricted to its professional members.

This Bill is linked with the draft of a new charter which is at present before Her Majesty for consideration. It may be valuable to have it on record that it is the hope of the Society that the date of the coming into force of the Bill and the date of the granting of the new charter will be co-ordinated so that there shall be no gap in time between the old provisions and the new provisions.

With those very few remarks and with this expression of gratitude to my hon. Friend, may I say that I hope the House will now be prepared to give the Bill its Third Reading.

12.58 p.m.

Lieut-Colonel Marcus Lipton (Brixton)

It is always a matter for congratulation when any private Member achieves anything in this honourable House, and the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) is therefore entitled to his mead of congratulation on this occasion. The Bill deals with pharmacists, a body for whom we all have the highest respect and with whom we all hope to have as little as possible to do in the course of our day-to-day existence.

I venture to hope that the further stages of the Bill will be as happy and succesful as its previous stages. Although I cannot give an undertaking, I hope there will be no series of Amendments in another place which will mean that when the Bill returns here we shall have to discuss a long series of Lords Amendments, which, of course might introduce all kinds of other considerations on which the House would have to express its opinion.

The short debate which we are having would not be complete if one of the few back bench Members present on this side of the House did not add his tribute to the hon. Member for Wycombe and his associates upon the success which has attended their efforts, although it is regrettable but perhaps understandable that so many of the sponsors of the Bill, who added their names to it, are not present to witness the culmination of their efforts. For various reasons they are not present to join in this happy event. I wish the Bill well and I have no doubt that it will lead to many desirable improvements in the domestic and professional affairs of the pharmacists of this country.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.