First Schedule.—(THE GENERAL DENTAL COUNCIL AND ITS COMMITTEES.) (Hansard, 26 January 1956)

§ Miss Hornsby-Smith
I beg to move, in page 27, line 9, to leave out "sixteen" and insert "eighteen."
With the Amendment go the Amendments in page 27, line 14; in page 28, line 4; and in page 28, line 5. Together they give effect to the Minister's undertaking in Committee to increase the number of elected representatives to the General Dental Council from nine to eleven and to provide that the two extra members shall be elected by the dentists whose addresses in the register are in England, the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands, thus increasing the total number to be so selected from five to seven.
This matter was very fully discussed in Committee when representations were made on behalf of the British Dental Association. The Amendment goes all the way to carry out my right hon. Friend's undertaking to increase, by Amendment at this stage, the representation of the general practitioners' side by two. We feel it most important that this should be done without disturbing the all-important representation on a professional body of this kind of those from the dental faculties and the teaching side who have the greatest experience in the education and training of members of the profession.
I should point out at this stage that, although the two additional members come from England, the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands, the total representation for 12,500 dentists in England and Wales will be seven; for 1,700 dentists in Scotland, two; for 558 in Northern Ireland, one; and, for 617 in Wales, one. I think it fair to say that hon. Members who are so zealous about proportional representation will find that on a proportionate basis England is far worse off than anywhere else. I hope that hon. Members will accept the Amendment, which will give two additional representatives on the Council to the general practitioner side.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
The next Amendment, in the name of the hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. C. Hughes) in line 9.
407 to leave out "sixteen" and to insert "seventeen," falls.
Further Amendment made: In page 27, line 14, leave out "nine" and insert "eleven."—[Mr. Turton.]

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
The next Amendment, in the name of the hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. C. Hughes), in line 18, to leave out "three" and insert "four," also falls.

§ Mr. Cledwyn Hughes (Anglesey)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The purpose of my Amendment is to ensure that there shall be one lay member representing Wales on the Council. That is the purpose of my three Amendments, two of which are consequential. The Amendment proposed by the Parliamentary Secretary to line 9, with which we have just dealt, does not make for that arrangement.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
Perhaps I am wrong, but I understood that if "eleven" stood part the next Amendment fell. I think that the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Anglesey, in line 18, to leave out "three" and to insert "four" is in order, and he should now move it.

§ Mr. C. Hughes
I beg to move, in page 27, line 9, to leave out "sixteen" and insert "seventeen."
It would be for the convenience of the House if the three Amendments in my name were taken together.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
Order. The hon. Member is now moving the Amendment about which there is some confusion. I invited him to move the second Amendment in his name, which is to leave out "three" and insert "four". I think the trouble would be that the mathematics do not work out. To save confusion, perhaps the Minister could assist me. Does the proposed Amendment to line 19, after "England" to leave out "and" and insert "one for" fall, or does it not?

§ Mr. Turton
I am afraid that mathematically it falls. From every point of view I should like to help, but I am afraid that the mathematics would not allow of an additional member.

§ Mr. James Griffiths (Llanelly)
If there are to be additional members, does not 408 that make it easier for the Minister to concede the point put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey? Would the Minister not agree to consider that one of the additional members should be from Wales?

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
Of course the Minister cannot go back on what the House has agreed to.

§ Mr. Turton
I am only concerned with order and the mathematics of the question. There were originally sixteen members, and the Bill prescribed their division. We have now agreed to raise the total number to eighteen, and the figure of nine to eleven; and, therefore, we have provided for all eighteen members. It would not be possible within the rules of order, in my submission, to increase the "three" to "four" in line 18, as suggested by the hon. Member for Anglesey.

§ Mr. Leslie Hale (Oldham, West)
With respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker——

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
May I answer one point at a time? The total is eighteen, and this proposal would go beyond that number.

§ Mr. Baird
On a point of order. We have not yet decided whether we are to nominate a member for Northern Ireland. We might want to leave that out and to include a member for Wales. We have to consider paragraph (d) in regard to Northern Ireland.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
There is no Amendment on the Order Paper about that.

§ Mr. Hale
An important Parliamentary point has been raised. It has always been the rule of the House, even on Report stage, that an Amendment could not be ruled out of order merely because something which has not been discussed is dealt with by Amendments on the Order Paper. I suggest that it would be technically in order for a manuscript Amendment to be accepted to rectify the difficulty about Northern Ireland in paragraph (d) as at the moment we are discussing paragraph (c).

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
I could not accept a manuscript Amendment. I think the problem is simplified as the 409 arithmetic does not work out correctly. Certainly an Amendment which does not make sense is not in order.

§ Dr. Summerskill
If an Amendment does not make sense is it not the rule in this House that an hon. Member should be warned of that? When you rise, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and tell us which Amendments you are going to call, I think it is customary to warn an hon. Member that his Amendment will not be called precisely for the reason that it does not make sense. My hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. C. Hughes) is very anxious for Wales to have greater representation. It happens that because his addition or his subtraction—or that of Mr. Deputy-Speaker—has not been correct he is not to have an opportunity of putting his argument. An occasion of this kind does not often arise. Therefore, I would ask you to exercise a little compassion and allow my hon. Friend to put this point and ask the Minister whether, under the circumstances, he could not so adjust the figures that the Amendment could be accepted.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
I am very sorry of there has been any confusion, but I am only deputising. Had this happened in Committee we should probably have found a way out, but on this occasion I arrived here only an hour or so ago and this was put into my hand. I beg the hon. Member's pardon if he has not been warned. We cannot go back on what has been decided. I understand that the Government are likely to move the Third Reading immediately after Report stage. This point could be raised then.

§ Mr. Baird
I am not an expert on procedure, but as I see it we have not yet agreed to accept the Amendment in the name of the Minister, in page 28, line 4, to leave out "nine" and insert "eleven." Surely my hon. Friend could object and raise this question then?

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
I gather these Amendments are consequential on the one that we have just agreed to.

§ Mr. J. Griffiths
There is the Amendment, in page 28, line 4, to leave out "nine" and insert "eleven," and the following Amendment, in line 5, to leave out "five" and insert "seven." Would it be in order for my hon. Friend to move his Amendment then?

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
Those are consequential Amendments to the Amendment to which we have agreed.

§ Mr. Griffiths
They may be consequential, but the House has a right of rejecting or accepting them, and my hon. Friend would have the opportunity of debate.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
I think that that would overcome the difficulty. It is not usually done, but it would seem to meet the point.

§ Mr. Hale
It would be unfortunate if the Ruling went forth from the Chair that Bills had to make sense. If that were so, every Measure introduced by Her Majesty's present advisers would be out of order in toto.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
That may very likely be true—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—but that is not what I said. I said that any Amendment that would be called must make sense, and it would be my responsibility to see that it did make sense. I do not draft Bills.
The next Amendment, in the name of the hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. C. Hughes), in page 27, line 19, after "England," to leave out "and" and insert "one for" falls.
Amendment proposed: In page 28, line 4, leave out "nine" and insert"eleven."—[Mr. Turton.]

§ Mr. C. Hughes
I placed my Amendments on the Order Paper before the Christmas Recess and before I knew that the Minister proposed to change the arithmetic of the composition of the General Dental Council. The point I had in mind is not covered by the Amendment which was moved by the Parliamentary Secretary. The House will observe in paragraph 2 (2, c) of the Schedule that three lay members representing England and Wales and Scotland are to be nominated. There are to be only two for England and Wales. My submission is that, as the hon. Lady has already suggested, the representation for England is not very great. England will have those two members and, therefore, Wales will not have a lay member on the General Dental Council.
411 In paragraph 3 (3, b) we see that the dentists of Wales are to have one representative. The dentists of Northern Ireland are to have one representative, Scotland is to have two and five are to be elected by the dentists of England, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands. In other words, Wales is treated in one way in paragraph 2 (2, c), and in another way in paragraph 3 (3, b) That is to the disadvantage of the Principality, and I see no reason why Wales should be treated differently from Northern Ireland and Scotland. We have no guarantee whatever that under the Schedule we shall have more than one representative on the General Dental Council, and he will be a dentist. We shall not have a lay representative because the weighting will, obviously, be in favour of England. My Amendment sought to give Wales one lay member in the terms of paragraph 2 (2, c). I thought that that was a very reasonable suggestion. When we were discussing the matter upstairs in Committee the then Minister, who is now Minister of Labour, was good enough to say that he would look at it before Report, but apparently the matter has not been looked at. I am extremely disappointed.
There will be considerable feeling about this matter in the Principality, for I see absolutely no argument against having one Welsh lay representative. The former Minister said in Committee that there was no dental school in Wales. I cannot see what that has to do with this matter. What we want is equitable representation on the General Dental Council, and I fail to see why the Government cannot give it to us. I hope that the Minister will be prepared to consider the point and, perhaps, to propose a manuscript Amendment to meet it.

§ Mr. Turton
There is every sympathy with the Welsh point of view, but I should like to point out to the hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. C. Hughes) that Wales is being amply provided for. The hon. Member referred to paragraph 3 (3), which deals with dentists. It is quite clear that on a population basis Wales is getting a higher proportion of representatives of the dentists.

§ Mr. Hughes
How is that?

§ Mr. Turton
That point was dealt with on another Amendment. Taking into account the number of dentists, Wales is getting a higher proportion than England of the number of dentists on the Council.

§ Mr. Hughes
It is not higher than Northern Ireland.

§ Mr. Turton
No, but compared with England, Wales is getting a greater advantage.
Next, we come to the point concerning dental schools. We hope there will come a time, in the not distant future, when Cardiff University will have its dental school. Then, it will get its representative under paragraph 2 of the Schedule.
Thirdly, there is the question of the lay representatives. On the General Medical Council, there are three lay representatives out of forty-seven. The General Dental Council will have thirty-five members. It would be unreasonable to suggest that the lay representation should be larger than on the General Medical Council. That is why I should have been averse to accepting an Amendment to line 18 increasing the number from three to four.
I am certainly anxious to follow the undertaking given by my predecessor in Standing Committee, when he said: I will consider the point about Welsh representation … and even if I do not find it possible to alter the balance, I am quite certain that the Privy Council and those who advise it when it is selecting the members will take notice of it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 22nd November, 1955; c. 115.] That means that the Privy Council, under paragraph 2 (2, c), will have to select three laymen, two of whom will be chosen for England and Wales. It could happen that both of those who were chosen were Welshmen; it might be that one was Welsh and one English, or two English and none Welsh. We will choose the best people for the job, whatever their nationality. That is the assurance that I give to the hon. Member tor Anglesey.
The hon. Member asked why Scotland was to be treated differently. The reason why Scotland will have a representative is not that there are more Scots than Welsh, but that the National Health Service in Scotland is quite distinct from the English Health Service. The two lay members are to represent the English Health Service——

§ Mr. J. Griffiths
The Minister means that Scotland is distinct from England in administration. But the Health Service is also distinct in its administration in Wales, for hospital and other purposes.

§ Mr. Turton
The point is that at present, one Minister deals with administration in England and in Wales——

§ Mr. Griffiths
It is one Health Service. It is true that because the Secretary of State for Scotland is also the Health Minister, he has Ministerial responsibility. For administrative purposes, the services of the National Health Service Act in Wales and Monmouthshire are under one administration for the Principality as such.

§ Mr. Turton
The right hon. Gentleman should know the Acts, because they were passed in the time of the Labour Government. There is a separate National Health Service Act for Scotland. For that reason, it is necessary, when setting up a General Dental Council, to have a separate lay representative for Scotland.

§ Mr. Griffiths
Where does Northern Ireland come in? It is not covered by our National Health Service. The Minister argues that Scotland should have separate representation because for constitutional reasons it has a separate Health Service Act; but Northern Ireland does not have a separate Act. Why, therefore, select Northern Ireland and leave out Wales?

§ Mr. Turton
Northern Ireland has a separate Parliament. The Northern Ireland dentists come on to the Register. For that reason, they have to be included in paragraph 3 (3, d). Because they are on the Register, the General Dental Council will look after their professional interests and discipline them. Therefore, there should be a lay representative for Northern Ireland. England and Wales, however, come under the same National Health Service Act. Because of Welsh importance and English importance, we are suggesting two members for them. I ask not to be fettered in my choice of the best people. I want to have the best lay members on this Council.

§ Mr. W. R. Williams (Manchester, Openshaw)
If Welsh people want more representatives then they must go on with their claim for a separate Parliament for Wales.

§ Mr. Turton
That does not arise on this Amendment.

§ Mr. Michael Stewart (Fulham)
I should like to support the hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. C. Hughes), not so much on the claim for Wales as on the claim for England in this matter. The Minister's reasons for not doing anything to help my hon. Friend have not been convincing. He suggested that he did not want to see the total of lay representatives in paragraph 2 (2, c) increased from three to four and, therefore, of course, the total of lay representatives increased from four to five, with the member for Northern Ireland, because thatwould make the proportion of lay representatives too great in comparison with that of the General Medical Council. I think that is a rather thin argument.
I cannot believe that the professional members will feel themselves in danger of being browbeaten or over-weighted because there are five lay representatives instead of four. Then the Minister suggested that Wales should be consoled for lack of protection of her interests in paragraph 2 (2) because she was over-represented as compared with England in paragraph 3. When we look at page 28 of the Bill, and the composition and recruitment of the professional members, Wales is, of course, over-represented as compared with England, but. as we know perfectly well, England always is under-represented because if it were represented according to population the body in question would become intolerably large or the representation of the smaller parts of the United Kingdom would be squeezed to an impractically low limit.
The point is that, in page 28, in the matter of professional members Wales is not over-represented in comparison with Scotland and Northern Ireland, so that the Welsh can get no consolation from the fact that their interests are not protected in paragraph 2 (2) of the Schedule.
What is going to happen if we keep paragraph 2 (2) as it is? There are to be two representatives for England and Wales, and, as the Minister says they may both be English or both Welsh or one representing each country. That means that Wales can only have any chance of getting a representative on the assumption that, of the four lay members, England has only one. That is to say that 415 Wales can only get a chance if England is to be quite ridiculously under-represented when we consider its population and its position in the United Kingdom.
Another thing will happen. In view of the feeling expressed by my hon. Friend, and which no doubt will be expressed further in Wales, when the question of actually making a choice comes, is not the Government of the day going to say, "Well, we have, after all, to pay attention to opinion in Wales, and on the whole it would be desirable to see that one of these two is a Welshman"? That will work to the disadvantage of England and to the disadvantage of choosing the best men.
There are all these difficulties. The grievance of Wales and the danger of under-representation of England could be overcome by amending the Bill to ensure that Wales, like Scotland and Northern Ireland, has at any rate one representative, but to reserve two for England. To do that would require an Amendment in another place.
Everyone is looking desperately at the moment for another argument to justify the existence of the other place, and this is exactly the kind of thing that it is for—to put things right when we get into procedural difficulties here. The suggestion that such an Amendment would provide for too many lay members on the Council—five instead of four—I do not think carries conviction, even with the Minister. It would be easy for him to get up and say that the Government will look at this matter again, and that an Amendment will be introduced in another place to the equal gratification of England and Wales.

§ Miss Hornsby-Smith
I beg to move, in page 29, line 47, at the end to insert: Provided that this sub-paragraph shall not authorise the making of rules varying the provisions of this Schedule as to the quorum of the Disciplinary Committee. This Amendment ties up with the Amendment in page 30, line 44, that the quorum for a meeting of the Disciplinary Committee shall be five, of whom at least one shall be an elected dentist.
416 The present Amendment is designed to prevent the Council, when exercising its general powers to make rules for regulating the proceedings—including quorum—of committee, from varying the provisions of the Schedule fixing the quorum of the Disciplinary Committee. We regard this as a necessary provision because the Disciplinary Committee is so important a body that it should be formally laid down that the necessary quorum must be present and that it should not be within the power of the Committee to alter it.

§ Mr. Hale
I have not the slightest doubt that the hon. Lady has had the advice of Parliamentary draftsmen on this and that they suggested it. I venture to put it to the right hon. Gentleman that it will make Parliament look ridiculous to put in an Act of Parliament that rules delegated by an Act of Parliament shall not have power to alter the Act. The provision is perfectly clear in the Bill. How can rules to make rules give the power to alter the provisions of the Bill? It seems a regrettable form of Amendment. Every time that, in order to avoid some almost mystical question which may arise in the minds of some doubtful or hesitant legislator, we expressly put something down to prevent it, we are really creating much more the impression that such a thing should be done.

Mr. Torton
I will look at the point which the hon. Gentleman has made. If, on consideration, I find that he is right, I will have the necessary Amendment made in another place. At the moment, I am satisfied that the present Amendment is right.

§ Mr. J. Hynd
I beg to move, in page 30, line 24, to leave out "five" and to insert "six."
I think it would be for the convenience of the House if we could deal with this Amendment and the subsequent two Amendments in my name, in page 30, line 25, to leave out "one" and to insert "two," and in line 34, to leave out "at least."
The point is a simple one. It is, however, a rather important one which, 1 think, I raised in Committee. The Amendment to leave out "five" and to insert "six" is, of course, dependent on the 417 second Amendment to leave out "one" and to insert "two." The third Amendment, in page 30, line 34, would be consequent on the other two. The point is that in this part of the Schedule it is provided that there should be two committees for dealing with disciplinary matters. The first is a committee which sifts complaints about dentists and decides which are of sufficient importance to require either a warning to the dentist or the case to be referred to the disciplinary committee which is the final court to judge the cases.
The Schedule provides that in the first committee there shall be only one lay member. In the second committee, the Disciplinary Committee, there shall be at least two. On the General Dental Council there are to be in all four lay members. It seems more practical to have two lay members on each of these committees than have one member on one committee and possibly three on another.
The experience of the General Medical Council, on which there are only three lay members, has been that where there is only one member on either of these two committees—and similar committees operate on the General Medical Council—should a member be ill or otherwise unable to attend there is no real representation on the committee at all. This is most important, because I can assure the House that doctors on the General Medical Council are concerned that lay opinion should be available when the Council is considering disciplinary cases.
I hope that there is no suggestion in the distribution of representation on the two committees proposed in the Bill that the preliminary committee is less important than the final Disciplinary Committee. It might be regarded, on the contrary, that the committee which deals with large numbers of complaints made and decides on their importance or otherwise and establishes a prima facie case for submission to the other committee could be regarded as even more important than the other committee.
I hope that the Minister will be prepared to accept the Amendment, which is quite practicable. The Bill provides that there shall be at least two members on the Disciplinary Committee, which means that there can be two or that there may be three, whereas on the first preliminary committee there can be only one. I 418 apologise to the House for having overlooked a consequential Amendment that should have been made to line 25 which states, even with the Amendment, that … of whom one shall be a person. … That is a grammatical or mathematical error which I apologise for having overlooked. In view of what I have said and the complete reasonableness of it, based on the experience of the General Medical Council, I hope that the Minister will be prepared to accept the Amendment.

§ Mr. Hastings
I beg to second the Amendment.

§ Mr. Turton
I understand that the figures in the first Amendment are exactly the same figures as apply in the case of the General Medical Council and that the arrangement has proved satisfactory to the Council. I should have thought that the House would have been wiser to have stuck to the same number of lay members as are on the General Medical Council. If we increased the numbers, professional men might think that they were being overweighted by lay members. I would ask the House not to accept the Amendment for these reasons and because the Schedule providing for this composition has been generally talked over and agreed with the profession. I cannot see why there should be more lay members on a particular committee of the General Dental Council than there are on a similar committee of the General Medical Council. It is a narrow point, but, on balance, I suggest that the hon. Member has not made his case.

§ Mr. J. Hynd
It seems rather strange that we should say that whatever the experience of the General Medical Council, which is the only body which has experience of this kind of arrangement, and whatever inconvenience that Council has found as a result of such an arrangement, we must not benefit in any circumstance from that experience in setting up this new body.

§ Mr. Turton
I have not heard any evidence of the General Medical Council experiencing inconvenience with these numbers. That is the point.

§ Mr. Hynd
As one who has served for five years as a lay member of the General Medical Council, I assure the Minister that that is so. Four lay 419 members are to be appointed to this new body and their primary function must necessarily be with regard to disciplinary matters, because they cannot give any expert assistance in the matter of teaching or qualifications. Their specific purpose is to assist dentists by giving the public point of view on disciplinary matters. The Bill provides for one member on one committee and at least two on the other, and, therefore, leaves one of the four members not in use at all. I do not see the purpose of his being on the Council. Alternatively, the arrangement allows one to be on one committee and, in order to use the third member, three members are appointed to the other committee. That is quite illogical and makes no provision at all for absence.
If the Minister's point is that dentists do not want watchdogs on the committees that is quite opposite to the feeling of the General Medical Council which welcomes consultation with lay members. If that is the Minister's point, what is he going to think of three members on the Disciplinary Committee? There should be a logical and sensible distribution of these four members, who are appointed to deal specifically with disciplinary matters, as between these two committees. If the Minister asserts that I have not made out a case, I cannot follow him, because he has not made out a case to the contrary.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
The next Amendment in page 30, line 25, falls. I thought that the hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. J. Hynd) said that it was consequential.

§ Mr. Hynd
On a point of order. What I said was that although the sequence was otherwise, because of the sequence in the Bill, the first Amendment is consequential on the second and the second Amendment can stand without the first being carried. The first only increases the total number of members on the Council, but I could not have avoided putting the first Amendment on the Order Paper after having put the second.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
I do not think that my mathematics are good enough to follow all that, but I will try.

§ Mr. Hynd
I beg formally to move, in page 30, line 25, to leave out "one" and to insert "two."

§ Mr. A. J. Champion (Derbyshire, South-East)
I beg to second the Amendment.

§ Miss Hornsby-Smith
I beg to move, in line 33, to leave out "three" and to insert "four."
The effect of the Amendment is to increase the minimum number of elected dentists of the Disciplinary Committee from three to four. Representations were made by hon. Members in Committee. The Amendment follows the undertaking given by my right hon. Friend the present Minister of Labour and National Service when it was suggested that the number should be increased from three to five. The Minister agreed to look into the matter and the proposal he then made was that at this stage he would move to increase the number to four.

§ Mr. Hale
I have hesitated so often in deference to the experts whom I thought might rise in this debate that frequently I have found that I have hesitated too long, which is not normally the case, but I felt like a Sassenach intruding in a Scottish debate in arriving on the scene at all.
I thank the Minister for this Amendment and for a number of other Amendments by which the difficulties which I promised to look after in this House have been met by the right hon. Gentleman. I have not thought fit to put down Amendments which clearly would have no great support, but I promised to be here throughout the debate to see that these views were put. So I take the opportunity of thanking the Minister for having met at least some of the objections. I am sure that he will undertake to keep under constant review and to explore every avenue and to leave no stone unturned to see that there is no sense of disquiet left in the profession.

§ Mr. J. Hynd
I beg to move, in page 30, line 44, after "present" to insert "and voting."
This Amendment deals with a simple point referred to in Committee. The Schedule reads: All acts of the Disciplinary Committee shall be decided by a majority of the members present at any meeting. 421 The point was raised as to whether this should not be "present and voting" at any meeting. On that occasion the Minister gave a clear undertaking that he realised it was a valid point and took it to mean present and voting, although the Bill does not say so. He said it was a new point and suggested that an Amendment put down in Committee should be withdrawn on the understanding that he would look into it.
The simple point is that if there were eight members present at the meeting and four voted in favour of a proposition, two voted against it and one or two abstained, it would not be carried. Yet the Bill reads as if, when a majority of those voting at a meeting are in favour of a proposition, it should be carried. I have put down this Amendment so that the Minister can implement what he said he understood was the meaning of the Bill as it stood.

§ Mr. Champion
I beg to second the Amendment.

§ Mr. Turton
I have looked at this matter and I would not recommend the House to accept this Amendment. As the Bill stands a decision must be made by a majority of the members present. The effect of this Amendment would be that a decision might be taken by a very small number of members. In the extreme case a single member could vote away another person's livelihood, with all the rest abstaining. I am certain that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Attercliffe (Mr. J. Hynd) would not wish that to happen. It is vital that in matters of such great importance, involving a professional livelihood, the person involved should feel that the decision would be reached by a majority of those present.
For those reasons, I hope the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his Amendment. It would be a mistake for the House to accept it, although I am glad that the point has been raised.