HC Deb 04 April 1979 vol 965 cc1351-2

Lords amendment No. 1 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 2, in page 2, line 4, leave out from "midwives" to end of line 5 and insert health visitors or registered medical practitioners, or have such qualification and experience in education

5.8 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. Roland Moyle)

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 6 and 7.

Dr. Gerard Vaughan (Reading,South)

This is an important amendment because it introduces the possibility of a doctor being appointed to the new council. We appreciate the purpose of the amendment but, in our view, this is very much a matter now on which the various nursing professions should advise. Therefore, we hope that the Secretary of State will not make appointments without first taking their advice.

Mr. Robin Hodgson (Walsall, North)

I am not entirely happy with this amendment, and in reading the reports of the debate in another place I find the arguments less than persuasive. The suggestion was made by the proposer of the amendment that the automatic right of doctors to be nominated to the council would not lead to their tending to dominate the proceedings. I feel that that is probably far from the case. The noble Lord, Lord Smith, who moved the amendment in another place, shot his own fox when he said that the nurses would need specialised medical advice because medicine was becoming more and more complex.

If a group of four doctors is the only group on the council to be able to offer such specialised advice, that could lead to doctors dominating the proceedings of the council. I and many nurses would fear that.

I wonder how the noble Lord, who I understand is a registered medical practitioner, would react if the Medical Act was amended to give nurses automatic rights of nomination to the General Medical Council. The members of the General Medical Council are nominated, without any preconditions, by Her Majesty on the advice of the Privy Council. By comparison, the proposed amendment is an entirely unsatisfactory way of tying down the structure of this new body.

When, in Committee, we were discussing the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, South (Dr. Vaughan) and we were asking about one or two aspects of the make-up of the council, the Minister said: If, however, that does not work out, there is provision for the appointment of people to the Central Council by my right hon. Friend, or by whatever machinery there is to ensure that there is a proper spread and proper representation of people who can teach health visiting, midwifery, general nursing and its various aspects."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 28 November 1978; c. 19.] If the Minister did not want his hands tied in Committee on 28 November, he should not have his hands tied by this amendment. I find it unsatisfactory.

Mr. Moyle

My hands are not tied. The clause is purely permissive. It is not a very important amendment, and I am sorry to take issue in this matter. It merely clarifies the situation. Some noble Lords were suspicious. They thought that we might be able to appoint vets under the existing wording. We therefore changed it.

Question put and agreed to.

Back to
Forward to