AMENDMENT OF 1968 ACT (Hansard, 14 July 1978)

§ Mr. Peter Bottomley (Woolwich, West)
I beg to move amendment no. 1, 2014 in page 1, line 11, leave out 'shall' and insert 'may'.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine)
With this we may take the following amendments:

§ Mr. Bottomley
I should like to make three preliminary points. First, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) for the work that he has done for the deaf and those with hearing difficulties during his time in the House. The House will know that it was he who promoted the Hearing Aid Council Act 1968.
The second point is that no one in this House would want to support reprehensible practices by anyone involved in the industry. It is very important that these points should be put on the record at the beginning of the debate.
The third point—this became clear in Committee—is that the positions adopted in the industry over some of the proposals affecting it are not diametrically opposed, in terms of intent. There may be some people who totally object to any provision for private dispensing in the industry, but in Committee very few speeches were made putting forward that point of view. It is accepted that at the present time there is room for private dispensing of hearing aids, and the question is how best to regulate the industry.
As the House will know, for the last 10 years there has been regulation through the Hearing Aid Council. The question concerns the degree to which further changes should be made—whether it is 2015 appropriate to make them through the precise form of wording in the Bill or whether it should be done through the provisions and under the guidance of the advertising standards. In other words, there is doubt about the best way to go about it.
Those are the matters to which my amendments are addressed.
In Committee there was disagreement on the question whether the amendments that had been accepted by the Bill's sponsors had not already wrecked the Bill. It was said, for example, that by including a provision that the Hearing Aid Council shall have power to bring forward a code of practice, the Bill was already wrecked. This refers, of course, to the point about "shall" or "may", with which my first amendment deals.
My view is that that was an incorrect point of view and that the Bill has not been wrecked. Nor would it be wrecked by any of the amendments that I am now proposing.

§ Mr. Laurie Pavitt (Brent, South)
The hon. Member has made it clear that he is not opposed to the principle of trying to help deaf and old people but that he is moving a number of amendments to improve the Bill. If I give him the assurance that I accept all those amendments, may we proceed, because by so doing the Bill will be preserved? If we do not accept those amendments and proceed immediately, I am afraid that under the timetable the Bill will fall. I give the hon. Member the assurance that all his amendments will be accepted. That being so, would it not be better not to delay the House further?

§ Mr. Bottomley
I am grateful for that intervention. However, there are a number of difficulties. The first is that some of the amendments are mutually exclusive, and that is a very important point. The second, which is also important, is that the advice from the Hearing Aid Council was that the regulations which might be brought forward or the code of practice which has now been substituted for the regulations would have to be brought in over an extended period, and in its view the time scale would be extended at least until 1981.
2016 My view is that this House, as part of Parliament, has a responsibility to make sure that legislation leaves it in a comprehensible form. As I say, some of my amendments are mutually exclusive. If they were accepted en masse, it would make a mockery of this House, and we have a responsibility not to do that.
The other question is one that is very importantly addressed to the Treasury Bench. It is whether the Government feel that this Bill is fulfilling the purpose to which those hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee addressed themselves.

§ The Minister of State, Department of Prices and Consumer Protection (Mr. John Fraser)
Having dealt with that objection, I hope that the hon. Member will now get on with moving his amendments.

§ Mr. Bottomley
I am afraid that I did not catch that intervention. If the point is that the Government believe that the provisions in the Bill and the amendments which the hon. Member for Brent, South now says that he is prepared to accept—some of which were put forward in Committee, especially amendment no. 1, changing the word "shall" to "may"—are acceptable, I believe that there will be no difficulty either in having a presentation Bill if this Bill fails to get through this Session or in the Government's bringing forward the non-controversial measure which this Bill, together with the amendments, would make it.
I turn now to the amendments themselves and use one example—

§ Mr. Pavitt
Does the hon. Member agree that he has now made it quite obvious that he does not want to improve the Bill? He is trying to block the Bill. If he really wants to improve the Bill he can have all the improvements that he seeks immediately. Is not the hon. Member quite insincere when he says that he is seeking only to improve the Bill? He is trying to block the Bill, and he appears to be succeeding.

§ Mr. Bottomley
The hon. Member for Brent, South is sufficiently experienced in this House to recognise that allegations of insincerity are not appropriate. I shall not pick up that point.
2017 I should like now to go through the amendments, because I believe that they are important.
Amendment no. 4 seeks to leave out that part of the Bill which says that the Council shall draw up a code of practice regulating the carrying on of practice or business by persons registered as dispensers and persons employing such dispensers under names other than those under which they are registered; We know that the members of certain professions are prohibited from taking part, or can have their right to take part, in other businesses outside the profession regulated by a professional body. Reading this clause, one assumes that the same thing would apply to the dispensers of hearing aids. That is the kind of sloppy drafting that should be examined very carefully.
A second point concerns the whole question of advertising. It is not clear from the Hearing Aid Council whether it has a considered view on this aspect or whether—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Further consideration what day? No day named.