CONSTITUTION OF NATIONAL BOARDS (Hansard, 7 February 1979)

§ Mr. Moyle
I beg to move amendment No. 12, in page 4, line 8 leave out from "day" to end of line 12.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant God-man Irvine)
With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 13.

§ Mr. Moyle
The House has already accepted the principle contained in the amendment, which is to ensure the proper representation of teachers of nursing, midwifery and health visiting on the Central Council and national boards. I hope that the House will accept the amendment.

§ Mr. Hodgson
I am surprised at the brief way in which the Minister skipped through the amendments. Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 contain something considerably more significant than the right hon. Gentleman suggested in the few words that he addressed to the House. The first part of the amendment excises the second part of subsection (3) of clause 5 and puts the excision into subsection (5). That is significant, because in so doing lines 30 and 31 are omitted, and they say: but must include at least two members of the general public. In shuffling the subsections the Minister has managed to omit a critical phrase. It is critical because it was inserted in Committee following a Division and because we have recently divided the House on the same principle. We are dealing with national boards and the public interest. The House has made its wishes extremely clear following a Division, but within five minutes the Minister is suggesting two amendments which involve the same principle and not bothering to explain to the House that he is omitting 468 lines 30 and 31. I consider that to be misleading.
Unless someone had followed the Bill with a great deal of care—we all know that it is complex—it would not have been clear that the two lines were to be omitted. The House divided only recently on the principle that it wishes to see public representation on the committees of the new Council at both central and national level. The Minister was wrong not to have given a fuller explanation. When he replies to the debate, the least he can do is to say that in the light of the recent Division he is prepared to withdraw the amendment and to reconsider his position.

§ Mr. Moyle
These amendments were put down because of an undertaking that I gave in Committee. The House approved the principle set out in amendment No. 3. The Committee voted on the proposition that two members of the general public should be appointed to the midwifery committee, one of whom should be a woman. That provision of one woman constituted the most important part of the amendment. I do not see that there is any call to withdraw these amendments and rephrase them. I shall give thought to the decision which the Committee reached on the vote between now and the later stages of the Bill. However, I give no commitment.

§ Mr. Moyle
I beg to move amendment No. 14, in page 5, leave out lines 5 to 7 and insert: 'means a day appointed by the Secretary of State by order, which must be not more than three years from the coming into force of this section.'. This amendment has been tabled to meet a point that was raised in Committee. There was a general feeling in Committee that the term of office of the first members of the national boards should be strictly limited to three years rather than a period from three to five years, which I think we originally put forward. The amendment that was accepted talked about a term of three years from the commencement of the Act. That was regarded as a slightly vague phrase. We are now talking about three years from a day appointed by the Secretary of State by order, which must not be more than three years from the coming into force of this section which is a more precise way of expressing what the Committee wished to do.

§ Dr. Vaughan
We think that this is an important point. We strongly support the amendment.