Clause 2 (Hansard, 20 June 1968)

Mr. Deputy Speaker
We come now to Amendment No. 1, with which it will be convenient to take Amendment No. 2.

§ Mr. Michael English (Nottingham, West)
Before moving Amendment No. 1, I should like to raise two matters which partake of the nature of points of order in that they concern the Chair rather than my right hon. Friend.
It should be brought to the notice of the House that the volume of the OFFICIAL REPORT relating to the Standing Committee proceedings on the Bill has not yet been published. This is peculiarly unfortunate. Through no fault of the permanent HANSARD reporters, the Standing Committees are often reported by part-time reporters, as it were. In this case, in certain respects there were some inaccuracies which could have been, and no doubt will be, corrected in the volume if and when it is published. However, it is a bit late having it published after this debate has taken place.
The other point is that Mr. Speaker's provisional selection of Amendments, which always appears in the No Lobby, used also to appear on the Ways and Means corridor. During the last few weeks this practice has ceased. I think that it ought to be reinstituted.
Having said that, I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 28, leave out from 'industry' to end of line 29.
As you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, mentioned, it is also convenient to take with Amendment No. 1, Amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 29, at end insert: (f) so much of the pharmaceutical industry as relates to retail sale. The object of these Amendments, which are alternative to each other, is 1403 simple. I do not know what has happened with Clause 2. I suspect that during the course of drafting it was correctly believed that subsection 3(a). the practice of medicine (other than veterinary medicine)", balanced subsection 3(b), the practice of veterinary medicine", in suggesting the interests to be represented. This is correct.
I suspect that it was also believed that subsection 3(c), " the practice of pharmacy ", was supposed to be balanced by subsection 3(e), the pharmaceutical industry, except so much of it as relates to retail sale. Unfortunately, the practice of pharmacy is not necessarily the same as the retailing of pharmaceutical products. I do not propose to go into detail, because we may discuss this on a later Amendment. However, I suggest Amendment No. 1 as a minimum. In other words, to leave out the words, except so much of it as relates to retail sale. From what my right hon. Friend said in Standing Committee, he might be reasonably sympathetic to this Amendment. I do not think that it is wholly intentional on the part of the Ministry that the Clause should be worded as it is. I hope, therefore, that my right hon. Friend will accept Amendment No. 1 and will give me an assurance that, when selecting the members of the Medicines Commission, he will represent the interests of retailing as distinct from merely manufacturing or merely the practice of pharmacy.
A large section of the Bill relates, for example, to the advertising, labelling and marketing of products generally. It would, therefore, be wholly inappropriate if my right hon. Friend was advised by a Commission which had no representative of the marketing, advertising or other relevant interests. There are many subjects upon which my right hon. Friend will need advice. If the Commission is composed solely of the interests of manufacturers, doctors, "vets" and pharmacists, it will be incapable of advising my right hon. Friend as he should be advised.
I prefer that one should add a new section, which is the reason for Amendment No. 2, saying specifically that one should add some representatives of re- 1404 tailers. However, I would be extremely pleased if my right hon. Friend would accept one or other of these two Amendments.

§ Mr. Dudley Smith
I support what has been said by the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English). There is a great need for the Medicines Commission to be properly balanced. All aspects of the work involved should be reflected. It is crucial to the whole exercise and vital that the people appointed should be acceptable to the public, to the industries and to the individuals concerned. If the Bill is to work harmoniously, to be carried on with the right kind of co-operation, and to gain the confidence of the public and industry, all these interests must be properly reflected.
I hope that the Minister will pay great heed to the representations which will be made to him when the Bill becomes law.

§ Mr. Scott-Hopkins
The hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) has put forward a strong case in his own interest. We are concerned here with the representation on the Commission, the expert advice available to the Minister. One must be extremely careful, because there are several interests which will be affected. We had an instance a few minutes ago from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, when he spoke of types and kinds of substances which should be brought in where a manufacturer's licence and a product licence would be required. One could argue strongly that there should be a representative on the Commission representing those views, but they are not mentioned in Clause 2 at the moment. In Standing Committee, we argued extensively about the size of the Commission. One is getting into a dangerous position if one brings in representatives from any particular sector.

§ Mr. English
The hon. Gentleman is quite right. His comment applies to my second Amendment. I think that he would agree that the position is rather different in Amendment No. 1, because that relates to the portion of the Bill, as it now stands, which appears, although technically I believe it does not, to exclude retailers. This is unusual. It does not apply to any other case. It does not 1405 technically do this, but, on a quick reading in the Ministry at the time of appointment of members of the Commission, it might be taken to do so. I think that it would be better left out.

§ Mr. Scott-Hopkins
I am directing my remarks to Amendment No. 2. I accept the hon. Gentleman's Amendment No. 1, and I hope that the Minister will accept it. I am apprehensive about Amendment No. 2. If we widen the field and bring in all kinds of people that will be all right, but we simply cannot do that. We discussed this issue in Committee, and I was convinced by the Minister that we would get into an unmanageable position if this kind of proposal were accepted. I think that there are certain dangers here as I am sure both the Minister and the hon. Gentleman appreciate. I support the first Amendment, but not the second one.

§ Mr. K. Robinson
We had a full discussion on this point in Committee on the basis of an Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) relating to the reflection of retail pharmacy in the membership of the Medicines Commission. My hon. Friend explained then, as he reiterated today, that there was anxiety that the words "the practice of pharmacy", in subsection (3)(c), were not specific enough, whereas the explicit exclusion of retail sale in subsection (3)(e) greatly increased his anxiety because there was no corresponding positive mention in subsection (3)(c).
My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary explained that the phrase "the practice of pharmacy" covered retail pharmacy, although the words were not used; and he said—and I endorse it— that we should be extremely surprised if there were no person on the Commission with wide and recent experience of the retail practice of pharmacy. My hon. Friend went on to give an assurance about consultations with regard to the membership of the Commission, and made it clear that we would consult the National Pharmaceutical Union, the Company Chemists' Association, and the Co-operative Union, which are the three organisations representing all retail pharmacists, and also the Pharmaceutical Society.
1406 Although my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West withdrew his Amendment in Committee, it was clear that he was not altogether happy, hence, no doubt, the tabling of these two Amendments which he describes as alternatives. I am anxious to be helpful, and I see no objection to accepting the first Amendment, provided it is understood that in relation to subparagraph (e) we should have only the manufacturing or wholesale aspects in view.
My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary explained in Committee that it would be undesirable to insert an explicit reference to retail pharmacy in sub-paragraph (c), for the reason given by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins), that this would almost certainly stimulate requests for corresponding precision in relation to the practice of medicine, the practice of veterinary medicine, and so on. I gather from my hon. Friend that he was asking me to accept only one of the Amendments. I have pleasure in accepting the first one, and I hope that he will not press the second one.

§ Mr. K. Robinson
I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 2, line 38, leave out from ' committee' to ' established ' in line 39.
The Amendment removes the disqualification from membership of the House of Commons from members of committees appointed by the Medicines Commission. This is because members of such committees will be appointed, not by Ministers, but by the Medicines Commission itself, which is specifically stated in paragraph 7 of Schedule 1 not to enjoy any status of the Crown.
The effect of Clause 2(6) as it stands is to insert the entry in question into Schedule 1 of the House of Commons Disqualification Act, 1957. As far as I am aware there are no other entries in that Schedule, or in any later editions, referring to committees appointed by the bodies named in the Schedule. There is clearly no question of patronage by the Crown, and in our view there is no ground for creating a precedent for disqualifying second-tier bodies such as these committees appointed by the Commission. This is a minor point, but I think that it would be an undesirable precedent.