Lords Sitting of 4 May 1950

Preamble
The House met at four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Prayers
The Earl of Yarborough—Took the Oath.
The Lord Walpole—Took the Oath.

POLICE HOUSES
4.6 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT): My Lords, may I correct a figure which appeared in the Hansard report of yesterday's debate on the Police Forces? I said that on March 31, 1950, there were 297 houses under construction by the police authorities, all of which would be completed within the course of the year. I was then made to say that I had ascertained that 547 houses would be completed by next month. The figure 547 is obviously not a part of 297. The right figure of the number to be completed by next month is 50, and that is the figure I should have mentioned. I desire to make that correction, because otherwise there might be misapprehension.

NATIONAL ASSISTANCE (DETERMINATION OF NEED) AMENDMENT REGULATIONS, 1950
4.7 p.m.
LORD KERSHAW: My Lords, I beg to move that the Special Order as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Thursday last be approved. I am sure your Lordships will welcome Regulation 2, but you may feel that I ought to explain in a few words what it purports to do. It will be remembered that by the National Assistance Act, 1948, the Poor Law was abolished. We have under that Act, and in the regulations then passed under that Act, what is known as the determination of need regulation, which in one way attempted to make uniform throughout the country the standard of assistance that should be given to people who otherwise were not entitled to benefits under the
134
other Acts of social insurance. Your Lordships will remember that the scales as laid down in these regulations are not scales that must be taken as scales of benefit: they are merely a standard by which must be determined whether or not: a person needs further assistance from State funds. Many outside and other resources that a person might have are excluded from the tables which will be found in the regulations. For instance, the value of a person's residence is excluded completely from these tables—or, putting it another way, the amount of rent a person has to pay is usually added to the scale as laid down in the regulations. Certain war savings, trade union benefits and friendly society benefits, up to a limit which will be seen in the regulations, are also excluded from the calculations. In addition, the Minister has a discretionary power, which is unaffected by the regulations we are now discussing, to increase allowances for special reasons—extra food for sick people and, in many cases, domestic help have been given.
It will interest your Lordships to know that one-quarter of the whole of the applicants for assistance under this scheme have received or were receiving, this extra discretionary grant last year, at a cost to the Exchequer of some £3,000,000. As to the rates—and it is the rates only which are altered by the regulations before your Lordships—there are special rates which I should call to your attention for blind and tubercular people. Until your Lordships pass this regulation, the rates are that a man and wife both of whom are blind or suffering from tuberculosis receive 65s. a week, outside the rent or any of the other benefits I mentioned. In future, that rate will be 68s. 6d. There were 45,000 blind people and 25,000 suffering from tuberculosis who received those special rates last year.
I now want to call attention to the alterations in the ordinary rate proposed by these regulations. The ordinary rate for a married couple under the present regulations is 40s. a week. That is to be raised by 3s. 6d. to 43s. 6d. a week, and a single person's rate is to be raised from 24s. to 26s. Your Lordships will be interested to know that there were rather fewer than 1,200,000 people receiving assistance under these regulations in March of this year, of whom over

135
700,000 were old age pensioners, who, in total, amount to 4,500,000. It is a particular pleasure to me to have the duty of putting this Order before your Lordships. I am sure you will not wish me to debate at any length the need for an increase in these amounts. That need is due to the increase in the cost of living, which no doubt will in the near future be debated at length in your Lordships' House. For the moment, accepting the circumstances as they are, that the cost of living has gone up, it is a pleasure to me to be able to ask your Lordships to consent to these regulations which give a more generous allowance to the people who so greatly need it. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Special Order as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Thursday last, be approved.—(Lord Kershaw.)
4.10 p.m.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kershaw, not only for the news which he has announced, but also for the clear exposition of the subject which he has given to us. That will relieve me of saying a great deal of what I wanted to say. It is perfectly true that this is a great advance, and I am glad that His Majesty's Government have chosen this time to make it. At the same time, from letters which have come flooding in upon me from all quarters, I think that old people living alone or living with their wives without children may still need some extra concessions. Case after case has been brought to my notice. There is one case of an old man living with his wife who receives the normal allowances and an extra supplementary allowance, which I think is about 14s.—my noble friend will correct me if I am wrong—bringing the total income of the pair up to, at the most, 58s., which has to cover rent and everything.
I do not think it is possible to live a life which can properly be called a life on that sum, and while I do not ask His Majesty's Government to increase those amounts, I should like to make the suggestion that in spite of what the noble Lord has said about the extra grants which are made at the discretion of the Minister over and above the statutory grants, the Assistance Board still do not exercise their discretion fully enough, especially in the
136
cases of old persons. The noble Lord rightly said that the Poor Law has been done away with, but we should remember that the duty of the old relieving officer was to relieve the need as and where he found it, and to spend what was necessary to relieve that need. The matter has been transferred to the Assistance Board, and I cannot help feeling that the Treasury auditor stands rather too close behind them and they are frightened to exercise their discretion as freely as they might otherwise do. I ask the noble Lord to examine that side of the question and see whether a little further relaxation cannot be made in the case of old people living alone.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MEDICAL BILL [H.L.]
4.15 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—{Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
Certificate of experience in approved hospital
2.—(1) A certificate for the purposes of paragraph (a) of the foregoing section shall not be granted in respect of any person unless after passing a qualifying examination he has been engaged in employment in a resident medical capacity in one or more approved hospitals or approved institutions for such period, not being less than twelve months, as may be prescribed by regulations of the Council approved by order of the Privy Council.
LORD HORDER LORD HORDER had given notice to move, in subsection (1) to leave out "or" and to insert "approved health centres or other." The noble Lord said: When I gave notice of this Amendment, it was not within my knowledge that the noble Lord who has charge of the Bill intended to move the insertion of a new clause. That clause appears on the second page of the Marshalled List of Amendments. I have read that new clause carefully, and it covers the point which is inherent in my own Amendment. Therefore, I do not move my Amendment.
LORD WEBB-JOHNSON LORD WEBB-JOHNSON moved, in subsection (1) to omit "not being less than twelve months." The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to avoid the rigid laying down of a period of not less than twelve months for interne service. It is hoped that, if your Lordships accept this Amendment, the removal of this rigidity may enable the reform outlined in this Part of the Bill to be put into operation at an earlier date. It will also leave the General Medical Council free discretion in times of difficulty—when dealing with demands for doctors for the Forces, for example—to vary the regulations and the period according to need. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 23, leave out from ("period") to ("as") in line 24.—(Lord Webb-Johnson.)
LORD SHEPHERD: It is the view of the Government that, in the normal way, when the general services are in full working order, not less than twelve months' service as an interne will be found necessary. Your Lordships may remember that the Goodenough Committee which examined this question were firmly of the opinion that the period ought to be not less than twelve months. Moreover, I believe it to be true that noble Lords who are supporting this Amendment are not doing so because they think twelve months is too long their purpose is merely to solve a little difficulty which may be anticipated at the beginning, or in times of national stress. In that spirit, I am instructed by His Majesty's Government to accept the Amendment.
LORD LLEWELLIN: Before we pass from this Amendment, I should like to say that I am very much obliged to the noble Lord. I think he has met the point which was giving concern to some of us. Although the noble Lord has not said anything about it to-day, I should like to comment on the suggestion I have heard that it may be possible to make this new training scheme in hospitals or other institutions start at different times in different parts of the country. I hold that that would be quite unworkable, and that is why, although I am in favour of the full twelve months' training so long as there are sufficient places for these young men and women to go to, I think we might have to delay for a rather long time the bringing into operation of this Bill, when
138
it becomes an Act, if we were rigidly to stick to a period of twelve months. We should, of course, all like it to be twelve months, provided the places were available, but probably a period of nine to ten months would have to be prescribed at the start.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved, after subsection (3) to insert:
"() Where during any period of such employment as is referred to in subsection (1) of this section an applicant has been engaged in medicine and in surgery, or in medicine, in surgery and in midwifery, the period shall be apportioned for the purposes of the foregoing provisions of this section in such manner as may be determined by the body granting the qualifying diploma by virtue of which the applicant claims registration."
The noble Lord said: Clause 2(2) provides for a person during his interne period to serve for a period (to be specified by regulations of the General Medical Council) in medicine and, similarly, to serve for a specified period in surgery. Subsection (3) enables the doctor to count time spent in midwifery as either time spent in medicine or as time spent in surgery, as he may choose. The purpose of this Amendment is to give power to the body giving the diploma to indicate the length of service he has to give in each of the three classes I have mentioned. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 19, at end insert the said sub-section.—(Lord Shepherd.)
LORD LLEWELLIN: I am obliged to the noble Lord for putting down this Amendment. It meets a point that some of us made, that the clause as originally drawn was perhaps too rigid and did not provide for the apportionment of the time to be spent in each of these branches of medicine—if I may use that word. This Amendment makes the matter much more elastic and, I believe, much more workable.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SHEPHERD: This Amendment is consequential on the Amendment just agreed to. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 34, leave out ("reference in subsection (2) of") and insert ("references in").—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SHEPHERD: This also is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 36, leave out ("a reference") and insert ("references").—(Lard Shepherd.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SHEPHERD: This is another consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 40, leave out ("subsection (2) of").—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved, after Clause 2 to insert the following new clause:
Special provisions as to employment in Health Centres.
".—,(1) For the purposes of the last foregoing section the expression "institution" includes a health centre if, and only if, it is a centre provided under section twenty-one of the National Health Service Act, 1946, section fifteen of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act, 1947 or section seventeen of the Health Services Act (Northern Ireland), 1948.
(2) Employment in such a centre shall not be treated as employment for the purposes of the last foregoing section unless it is either—

(a) employment by a registered medical practitioner in the provision of general medical services under Part IV of the said Act of 1946, Part 1V of the said Act of 1947 or Part III of the said Act of 1948, or

(b) employment in the provision of outpatient services as are mentioned in paragraph (e) of subsection (1) of section twenty-one of the said Act of 1946 or paragraph (d) of subsection (1) of section fifteen of the said Act of 1947, or such out-patient services, other than supplementary eye services, as are mentioned in paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of section seventeen of the said Act of 1948.

(3) The Council may by regulations provide that the period of employment in a health centre which may be reckoned towards the completion of any of the periods mentioned in paragraph (a) of subsection (2) of the last foregoing section shall not exceed such period as may be specified in the regulations."
The noble Lord said: In moving this new clause I think it would be proper for me to express the appreciation of His Majesty's Government at the courtesy of the noble Lord, Lord Horder, in not moving his own Amendment which stood at the head of the Order Paper to-day. We are grateful, because it enables us to propose an Amendment which we
140
believe covers the whole case. This Amendment makes it possible for service in an approved health centre to be counted towards the interne period. The health centre will have to be one of those provided under the relevant National Health Service Acts. It will have to be approved by a licensing body—that is to say, the university or the medical corporation concerned. The service at the centre which may be counted is employment as an assistant in general practice or employment on hospital (outpatient) work there. The General Medical Council, as the responsible body for medical education, are given power under the clause to make regulations fixing the amount of service at a health centre which may count towards the interne period. We believe we shall thus be able to meet any requirements put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Horder, and at the same time, safeguard the Health Services generally. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 2, insert the proposed new clause.—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Provisional registration]:
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved, after subsection (3) to insert:
"() In section forty of the Medical Act, 1858 (which among other things makes it an offence falsely to pretend to be registered) after the words registered under this Act' there shall be inserted the words or proisionally registered by virtue of section four of the Medical Act, 1950.'"
The noble Lord said: At present, if a person pretends to be a registered medical practitioner, he is guilty of an offence; and he can be proceeded against and heavily fined. As your Lordships will see later on, there is a provision in the Bill to increase the fine for misrepresentation of this kind. This particular Amendment proposes that not only the fully-registered medical practitioner but also the practitioner who is provisionally registered shall be safeguarded, and that anyone falsely professing to be a provisionally-registered practitioner shall suffer in the same way as a person pretending to be a medical practitioner. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 38, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Shepherd.)
LORD LLEWELLIN: This Amendment is obviously right. It is clear that there ought to be a penalty for a man who holds himself out to be a provisionally-registered practitioner when he is not, just as there should be a penalty for the person who holds himself out to be a fully-registered medical practitioner when he is not. After all, these provisionally-registered practitioners will be called upon to deal with dangerous drugs, to issue death certificates and so forth, and it is obviously right that such functions should be jealously safeguarded. I think the Amendment is necessary, and I support it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Amendments as to members of Council nominated by His Majesty]:
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved to add to the clause:
"() Any person nominated as aforesaid before the passing of this Act who is neither a registered medical practitioner nor the holder of a qualifying diploma shall be deemed as from the passing of this Act to have been nominated in pursuance of the last foregoing subsection and not in pursuance of section seven of the Medical Act, 1886."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment has been introduced in order to govern the date of nomination of someone who may be sitting on the Council at the present time—the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, for example. The object is to put right a defect in the present draft. As Clause 6 stands, the three laymen to be appointed would, until Lord Nathan retires, be additional to the noble Lord, thus giving for a time four laymen, in addition to four doctors, among the Crown nominees. The Government's intention, however, was that there should be three laymen and five doctors; and not four and four. By this Amendment we seek to assure that Lord Nathan becomes properly nominated under the new conditions and, therefore, becomes one of the three. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 13, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Shepherd.)
LORD LLEWELLIN: I was wondering whether Lord Nathan was going to rise and say "thank you"!
LORD NATHAN: I must say that I was surprised to hear my name specifically mentioned in this regard. I do not greatly mind whether I am a fact or only "deemed to be" a fact. Either is agreeable to me.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8:
Increase in number of elected members of Council and revocation of S.R. & O. 1909 No. 916 and S.R. & O. 1931 No. 719
8.—(1) The number of persons to be elected from time to time to the Council under subsection (1) of section seven of the Medical Act, 1886, by medical practitioners resident—

(a) in England and Wales, shall be increased to six, and

(b) in Scotland, shall be increased to two;

and without prejudice to the provisions of section ten of that Act which among other things enable His Majesty by Order in Council to provide for the election of additional members to the Council the two Orders in Council made under the said section ten and dated respectively the tenth day of August, nineteen hundred and nine, and the eleventh day of August, nineteen hundred and thirty-one, are hereby revoked.
(2) This section shall come into operation on the appointed day.
4.30 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved, in subsection (1)(a) to leave out "six" and insert "eight." The noble Lord said: It will be remembered that on the Second Reading of the Bill a number of noble Lords suggested that it would be a good thing to increase the number of elected representatives to the General Medical Council. Indeed, it was suggested, I think by the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, who is sitting opposite to-day, that the number should be raised from nine to twelve. The Government have given consideration to this matter and, in view of the way in which the noble Lord's figure of twelve was made up, have reached the conclusion that a better number, for State purposes, would be eleven rather than twelve. Under the new Amendment, it is proposed that in England and Wales the number should be increased from six to eight. As your Lordships will see from a subsequent Amendment, one of the eight will be a representative front Wales

143
who will be separately elected. There will be two from Scotland and one from the whole of Ireland. I think the noble Lord's suggestion was that there should be two from Ireland—one from the North and one from the South. Ireland has always been an entity in the medical world and we think it desirable to keep that entity as far as we can by retaining the representation at one. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 27, leave out ("six") and insert ("eight").—(Lord Shepherd.)
LORD LLEWELLIN: I am obliged to the noble Lord. What I asked for on Second Reading was that the elected members for England and Wales should be nine instead of six. I have obtained a compromise of more than half-way. The noble Lord has raised it to eight, and I am quite prepared to accept that figure. I do not think I then raised the question of Ireland at all. Indeed, if it is united medically, do not let us do anything to cause any disunion in that sphere. I was as insistent as I could be that Wales should have one member resident in Wales. I am glad to hear that the noble Lord, as I should expect, agrees with me in that matter. It is just as well that some of us, whose names at any rate indicate Welsh origin, should stand up for that part of the United Kingdom, as we are only too used to members who come from the North standing up for their Scottish interests. I am glad that this time we have put Wales in this respect on an equality with Ireland as a whole. I am grateful to the noble Lord for having met me in this way.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SHEPHERD: I beg formally to move this Amendment. I have already dealt with it.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 35, at end insert:
"() Of the persons elected in pursuance of paragraph (a) of the last foregoing subsection, one shall be elected as a person resident in Wales; and regulations of the Privy Council under subsection (4) of section eight of the Medical Act. 1886 (which provides that elections of direct representatives shall be conducted in such manner as may be provided by such regulations) shall make provision for the separate election of the said one person and otherwise for giving effect to the provisions of this subsection."—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved to leave out subsection (2) and insert:
"() In subsection (6) of section eight of the Medical Act, 1886 (which provides for the time at which direct representatives are to come into office) for the words to fill a vacancy caused by the death or resignation of any such representative' there shall be substituted the words 'in any other circumstances.'
() The foregoing provisions of this section shall not have effect as respects the election of persons for a term of office beginning before the appointed day."
The noble Lord said: There was some doubt whether the original subsection (2) of Clause 8 would have enabled the necessary preliminaries to the election of the increased number of representatives to the General Medical Council to be carried out before whatever is the appointed day. The second of the two new subsections substitutes revised wording which will make it clear that the necessary preliminaries to the election can, in fact, be carried out before the appointed day, so that the increased number of members will be elected ready to sit by the appointed day. It is important that the additional members should take office on the appointed day; otherwise the purpose of Clause 9 (1)—a common retiring date for all elected members—would be defeated. A consequential Amendment is also made by the first of the two new subsections in Section 8(6) of the Medical Act, 1886. As it stands, that provision covers only elections to fill vacancies caused by death or resignation or by effluxion of time. Since, in consequence of the Bill vacancies will arise in a third way, by an increase in numbers, Section 8 (6) of the 1886 Act must be amended to cover this class of vacancy as well. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 36, leave out subsection (2) and insert the said new subsections.—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 9 [Term of office of elected members of Council]:
LORD SHEPHERD: Taken with a subsequent Amendment, this Amendment alters the wording of subsection (4) of Clause 9 so as to make the provisions of Section 8 (3) of the Medical Act, 1886,

145
which relate to elections, applicable (subject to the amendments contained in this Bill) to the election of the additional representative members. The reason for the Amendment is the same as the reason for the first subsection which has already been dealt with. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6 line 11, leave out from beginning to ("the") in line 12 and insert—
("(4) In subsection (3) of section eight of the Medical Act, 1886, for the words from "and such returning officer" to the end of the subsection (which require ").—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SHEPHERD: I mentioned this Amendment in my brief speech on the last Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 16, leave out from ("twenty-one days)") to the end of line 20 and insert ("there shall be substituted the words and—

(a) not more than three months nor less than two months before the day by which any vacancy in the office of direct representative for any part of the United Kingdom will require to be filled, either by reason of the effluxion of time or by reason of an increase in the number of direct representatives, or

(b) as soon as conveniently may be after the occurrence of such a vacancy arising by death or resignation, not being a vacancy to which subsection (3) of section nine of the Medical Act, 1950 applies,

the returning officer shall issue his precept to the branch council for the said part of the United Kingdom, requiring that council to cause an election for filling the vacancy to be held within forty days after the receipt at the precept of the returning officer'.") —(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 10 and 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Medical Disciplinary Committee]:
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved, in subsection (2) to leave out "pending at" and to insert "in which the hearing before the Council has been begun before." The noble Lord said: This Amendment is rendered necessary because of the wording of the clause, and in particular the use of the word "pending." If, for instance, the General Medical Council as a whole were to continue to deal with all the cases pending at the time when the Disciplinary Committee was appointed, there might still be a great deal of work
146
for them to perform, because the word "pending" might cover a mere notice having been given to them of something that has occurred. Under this Amendment, the only matters which will be left with the General Medical Council after the Disciplinary Committee has been formed are those cases which are actually in the course of trial before the General Medical Council. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 2, leave out ("pending at") and insert ("in which the hearing before the Council has been begun before").—(Lord Shepherd.)
LORD LLEWELLIN: I think this Amendment is obviously right. "Pending" is a very wide word. One did not know how much it covered and how much it did not cover. By the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, we shall know exactly where we are, and so will the Disciplinary Committee. I think it is all to the good to have this alteration.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 13:
Constitution of Medical Disciplinary Committee
13.—(1) The Medical Disciplinary Committee (hereinafter referred to as "the Committee") shall consist o the President and eighteen other members of the Council, of whom at least six shall be elected members of the Council and at least one shall be a person, who is neither a registered medical practitioner nor the holder of a qualifying diploma.
(4) The quorum of the Committee shall be nine.
(5) In case of an equality of votes the chairman shall, in addition to his vote as a member of the Committee, lave a casting vote.
4.40 p.m.
LORD HACKING LORD HACKING moved, in subsection (1) to omit all words from and including "at least" and to insert:
"three shall he persons none of whom is a registered medical practitioner or the holder of a qualifying diploma,"
The noble Lord said: We are making rapid progress on the Committee stage of this Bill, so I hope your Lordships will not mind if for a few moments I put on the brake. Clause 13, to which I as a lay member of the General Medical Council, attach great importance, deals with the, constitution of the Medical Disciplinary Committee. The object of my Amendment is to increase from one to three the number of laymen on this Disciplinary Committee.
On the Second Reading of the Bill I explained that I thought one layman on this Committee was insufficient. I do not desire to repeat what I said then but there are two main reasons for having this Disciplinary Committee at all. The first, though in my opinion perhaps not the more important, is to protect the good name and reputation of the medical profession by removing from the Medical Register the names of undesirable and disreputable members of the profession. The second reason for having the Committee is by the same method of erasure to protect the public against those doctors who are unworthy to bear the title "Doctor" and those others who, for some mysterious reason, never call themselves doctors but prefer to be known by the title of "Mister." How are the general public to be satisfied? Surely, the best method is to have a fair proportion of laymen on the Disciplinary Committee.
I maintain that one of the best examples which could be given of not only doing justice but appearing to do justice, is in the Amendment which I am moving. I do not believe that it will give the appearance of doing justice to the public to have only one layman on the Disciplinary Committee. What would happen if this one member, the only layman, happened to be ill and was unable to attend? Yet the Bill, as drafted, provides for three laymen on the General Council, which does not deal with discipline at all. The full Council deals amongst other things with qualifying examinations, the granting of diplomas, the approval of hospitals and other institutions for the purpose of gaining medical experience, and the time which students should give to various subjects such as surgery, medicine and midwifery. It deals with the instruction to be given at various establishments, and also with the preparation of the British Pharmacopœia. I ask the Committee: What do laymen know about any of those subjects, or any kindred subjects? The answer, I think, is that they know nothing whatsoever about these purely medical matters. Yet there are to be three laymen on the Council.
The layman does, however, know something about how a doctor should behave—for example, that it is not a good thing for the safety of the public that doctors should frequently get drunk, or take drugs
148
or misbehave themselves in other ways. The layman does understand that sort of problem and yet, upon the Disciplinary Committee which deals with these matters of discipline, according to the terms of the Bill the public has only one representative. I submit that that is quite out of proportion, and I feel that it is wrong. The Bill as at present drafted says that all members of the Disciplinary Committee must be members of the full Council. It follows, then, that if there are only three lay members on the full Council there cannot be more than three lay members on the Disciplinary Committee. Therefore, unless this Bill is drastically amended, the number of laymen on the Disciplinary Committee is limited to three. I believe that even three is insufficient to deal with these matters of discipline, although, since drastic alteration of the Bill may not be possible, I may have to be satisfied with two. However, I hope that the Minister who is dealing with this measure in this House will do his best to meet my request in full. An increase of from one to two is, I realise, a 100 per cent. increase, and I may have to be content with that. None the less, I hope that some consideration will be given to my suggestion that the number should be three. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 8, leave out from ("and") to the end of the subsection, and insert the said new words.—(Lord Hacking.)
LORD MORAN: The primary functions of the General Medical Council are very important, and the noble Lord who has just spoken and myself, as members of the General Medical Council, are much concerned with them. My experience, on the General Medical Council has been that a Disciplinary Committee can be effective only in two circumstances: Either the members have a legal training or, if they have not, they must receive judicial direction such as juries do. There is little doubt that those who are unfortunate enough to appear before the General Medical Council, will enter an appeal if they lose their case. They will then have the benefit of appearing before the highest legal luminaries. I feel very happy at what may happen in the future, because I think there should be this right of appeal. In the first instance, doctors appear before the Disciplinary Committee, and certain things have been done which will greatly improve the

149
procedure. First, there is the reduction of the Disciplinary Committee to nine members; and, secondly, there is the right of appeal. There is now the proposal which we have just heard—namely, that there should be more laymen. We doctors feel very strongly about many of the flutters that come before the General Medical Council, and therefore I feel that those who are in possession of greater detachment, who can dispassionately review these matters, are of great value. For that reason I should like to support what the noble Lord has said.
LORD SHEPHERD: The Government have a good deal of sympathy for the object behind the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, but they cannot accept the full demand that he has made. It has to be remembered that this Committee is a Disciplinary Committee. It is a Committee which has to look into the cases of medical men, and it must be predominantly a Committee upon which medical experience figures. Moreover, other difficulties arise if we begin to specify by figures how the Disciplinary Committee should be made up. If we once open the gate in a particular case it is likely to lead to other demands. I have said, however, that the Government are sympathetic. I do not know whether the noble Lord has had a preview of decisions which have been reached, or whether he has a prophetic sense. If the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment or change it, I have been authorised to offer two representatives instead of one on the Disciplinary Committee. If he is favourable to that course, I suggest that his Amendment should be altered to this effect—namely, to leave out all words in the subsection after the word "and" and insert "two shall be representatives who are neither registered medical practitioners nor the holders of qualifying diplomas." I sincerely trust that the noble Lord will be able to accept the offer which I have made.
LORD HACKING: I have never been particularly grasping. When I cannot get all my own way, I am generally prepared to accept part of what I want. Subject to Lord Moran's agreeing, I shall be happy to withdraw my Amendment and to move it in the form suggested by Lord Shepherd.
LORD LLEWELLIN: Before we pass this Amendment in its new form may make a suggestion? The latter part of subsection (1) as drafted reads:
"of whom at least six shall be elected members of the Council and at least one shall he a person who is neither a registered medical practitioner, nor the holder of a qualifying diploma."
I suggest that the new passage proposed in the Amendment should begin with the words "at least two". That will mean that if the General Medical. Council wish to appoint more they can do so, but normally they will have to appoint at least two.
LORD HACKING: I am obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, for that suggestion. It goes further than the Government proposal, and if the Government are prepared to accept it I will move an Amendment in that form.
LORD SHEPHERD: We agree.
LORD HACKING: Then I beg leave to withdraw my original Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD HACKING: I beg to move my Amendment in its amended form.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 8, leave out from ("and") to the end of the subsection, and insert ("at least two shall he persons who are neither registered medical practitioners nor the holders of qualifying diplomas").—(Lord Hacking.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.52 p.m.
LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN moved, in subsection (4) to leave out "nine" and to insert:
"five; and in the Committee shall make arrangements for securing that, except where it appears to the President or a member of the Committee authorised by him to act on his behalf that there are circumstances requiring the presence of a greater number of members of the Committee, not more than nine members of the Committee shall attend for the hearing of any case."
The noble Lord said: Your Lordships who were in the House when we gave this Bill a Second Reading, will remember that I pointed out—and I received a very sympathetic reply from the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack—that I thought this Disciplinary Committee was too large. It is true that there was a good answer, to the effect that the Committee had been a great deal larger

151
because the whole of the General Medical Council had either sat upon it or had been entitled to sit upon it when it was considering disciplinary matters. Nevertheless, I still think that this Committee is too large to sit, except perhaps in exceptional cases where the general field covered by the appeal before the Disciplinary Committee is so wide that the whole body may want to be present. But where the matter before the Committee is just a question of some alleged misconduct by an individual, I do not suppose that all the members would wish to sit. Such a case can be much better conducted by a smaller tribunal. When I used to practise at the Bar, I suffered sometimes from quarter sessions upon whose benches every county magistrate was entitled to sit. Occasionally, there would be as many as forty or fifty sitting round the back of the court, and that was an extremely difficult body before which to present a case adequately, because one could not keep them all under one's eye. In the same way, I think that with the thirty-seven members of which the Disciplinary Committee would consist—
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT ADDISON): The number is nineteen. Thirty-seven is the number of the Council.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I apologise, and accept the noble Viscount's correction. My Amendment seeks to reduce the quorum, first of all, to one of five, which would normally be the President and four people sitting with him, and then to provide that the Committee shall not, unless there is a particular reason for so doing, sit at greater strength than nine members. That is in line with what Parliament has recently done in the Justices of the Peace Act, and I submit that it will provide the General Medical Council with a far more efficient Committee to hear these individual cases. Moreover, the people coming before the Committee will, I believe, have much more reason to feel satisfied that their cases have been fairly dealt with by a tribunal which will be more or less recognised as the tribunal, and the members of which (because their number will be small) will naturally have to be present all the time.
Perhaps at this stage I may say a word about the Amendment to my Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, has put down. I certainly visualise that one
152
of the panel of nine, if not two, may be a lay member. I agree that a lay member of the General Medical Council is probably not of much use when a discussion is going on about the British Pharthacopœia, or some other text book of that sort. But he can do good in certain circumstances, and, indeed, the reason he was originally appointed was so that there should be some outside person who would be present and, in the case of all the doctors banding together—if such a thing could happen—could draw public attention to the matter by, if necessary, resigning. If the Government agree, I am prepared to accept Lord Nathan's Amendment to my Amendment, because I visualise one lay member always being there—though, if I may say so, the noble Lord's Amendment is somewhat clumsily drafted and probably does not quite fit in where it is. In regard to the principle that there should be at least one lay member on this panel of five to nine, I am in complete agreement. We are all convinced, I believe, that a small tribunal is better. In some cases the whole of the Disciplinary Committee may want to sit, but I say that normally there should be this smaller panel. That is the reason why I now beg to move my Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 17, leave out ("nine") and insert the said words.—(Lord Llewellin.)
LORD NATHAN LORD NATHAN moved to amend the above Amendment by inserting after the last word "Committee" "including a lay member." The noble Lord said: I have to make a declaration, though perhaps it is scarcely necessary. As most of your Lordships no doubt know, I am at present the only lay member of the General Medical Council, and when this Bill becomes an Act I shall be the only lay member deemed to have been appointed under the Act. The object of my Amendment, as Lord Llewellin has rightly surmised, is to ensure that what was intended by the Bill, as already drawn, in relation to the whole Disciplinary Committee of nineteen members should apply equally if the Disciplinary Committee were meeting merely in panels of nine. I agree with Lord Llewellin that the Amendment is not very aptly drawn, because, as I see on reflection, it might be interpreted as involving that the panel of nine could not meet unless a lay member were present.

153
That, of course, is not the intention of the Amendment. The intention of the Amendment is merely to preserve the position as regards the nine as it was originally drafted with regard to the Disciplinary Committee. I do not think more can be wished than that amongst the panel of nine there should be a nominated lay member. If a lay member should, by any chance, be unable to attend, that no reason why the panel should not sit, provided there is a quorum. I move the Amendment in order to give my noble friend in charge of the Bill an opportunity of making any comment he wishes to make on this matter, but I say at once that I recognise that if the principle is accepted, and I think it will be, the Amendment requires some re-drafting.
Amendment moved—
Line 6 of the Amendment, at end insert ("including a lay member").—(Lord Nathan.)
LORD HACKING: Before the Minister replies, may I say that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, in his Amendment? It is a desirable thing to make certain that we have one layman, at any rate, on the smaller panel. I was surprised to hear the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, say he found it difficult to address a large audience. I should have thought that the larger the audience, the more successful he might have been. We all like to have a large number of people to address. I think the noble Lord speaks just as effectively and as well when he has a large audience as when he has a small one, I do not believe that counsel are really shy when they have to appear on behalf of their clients before the General Medical Council. I certainly have never noticed it. Even in such a large panel as the General Medical Council, which at the present moment is one of thirty-nine, I do not think there has been any failure to do justice on account of the shyness of a counsel who has been there to defend his client.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I am quite willing to address a meeting in the Albert Hall, but I do not think a large panel is the right one to decide such a specific point as a charge against the character of a man.
LORD HACKING: The trials are not to take place in the Albert Hall, so the
154
noble Lord will not have that opportunity. I have found from experience—and I think the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, will support me in this matter—that justice has been done even with a panel of the size of thirty-nine, and counsel defending their clients do not appear to be put in a difficult position because of the size of the panel before which they have to appear. I do not know whether the Minister has considered this other matter, but possibly he may do so when he replies. How are the nine to be selected from the nineteen members of the panel? Is it to be left with the President to select the nine for any particular case? I should have thought the President had enough responsibilities at the present moment without having others thrust upon him. It should be realised that the Disciplinary Committee has other responsibilities. For example, subsection (2) of Clause 14 states:
"Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Committee shall make rules as to the times and places of the meetings of the Committee and the mode of summoning the members,…"
Would the noble Lord consider it right that the smaller panel of nine should reach those decisions and make rules?
LORD LLEWELLIN: The proposed words meet that case. They are:
"except where it appears to the President or a member of the Committee authorised by him to act on his behalf that there are circumstances requiring the presence of a greater number of members of the Committee."
If it was thought that the whole of the Committee should appear on the panel selected, it would be right and proper to summon the whole Disciplinary Committee to make the rules.
LORD HACKING: That is quite satisfactory, if that is the intention. Assuming that fifteen members of the Committee all desire to attend a particular case, who would decide that? Would that be one of the circumstances which under Lord Llewellin's Amendment would require the presence of a greater number? Would the President have the decision there?
LORD LLEWELLIN: The Committee as a whole would probably make these rules, just as quarter sessions as a whole arrange who shall sit on the panel of justices to hear a case at different quarter sessions. If it is a case where there is good reason to believe that general matters are

155
involved, no doubt the Committee, on the advice of the President, will decide that they should all sit, as is done by quarter sessions. But if it is a case of someone wanting to hear a rather interesting case, I do not think that should alter the quorum from five or nine.
LORD HACKING: I do not want to be difficult, but I want to know where we stand and to get some explanation. I should like to ask a question which arises under Clause 18 dealing with the restoration of names to the register. Would the smaller Committee be sufficient to restore to the register those delinquents whose names had been erased? I think one difficulty would arise in that regard. If we had a panel of nineteen, then we should be more likely to get a large number of those who heard the case when the name was taken off the register, and I should have thought it desirable to have on the panel dealing with the question of restoration as many as possible of those who had heard the case originally. If we had only a small panel of nine or five, it would be less likely to contain people who were present when the erasure took place. That may be a small point, but I think it should be considered. I am not opposing the Amendment, but I hope the noble Lord will consider these points before he makes up his mind.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I should like to say a word, not on the special issue raised here but on the more general question as to whether, when a charge is made and a tribunal is constituted to hear evidence and to decide whether the charge is made out or not, it is in principle desirable to have a large number of members or a small number composing the tribunal. I have never appeared before the General Medical Council, but when at the Bar I had the experience a good many times of appearing before the disciplinary tribunal of the solicitors which, if I recollect rightly, usually consists of five members. As your Lordships know, the same situation occurs in our own courts of appeal. There are three members as a rule sitting in the Court of Appeal, though we might have six or even nine. In your Lordships' House for appeals we have five as a rule, sometimes seven. The same thing is true of Scotland, though there
156
are occasions when the whole Court of Session, numbering I think fifteen, sit. I must say, from my own experience, both as an advocate and as a member of such tribunals, that there are great advantages in having the number of members of a tribunal strictly limited. With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, it is not a question of whether counsel feel any embarrassment in addressing a large number. Still less is it a question as to whether justice is not sought to be done. The point is that when we have a limited and serious issue to decide—and nothing could be more serious than the deciding of a charge that comes before this body—it is most important that every member should give his whole mind to it all the time.
I suppose that is the reason why, when we have a Committee appointed by this House for the purpose of dealing with a private Bill, the number of noble Lords comprising the Committee is five. It is not that if you added ten more you would not be having, on the whole, fifteen excellent people: but the mere fact that there are large numbers has, perhaps unconsciously, the effect of relieving each member of his full sense of responsibility. Everybody who has addressed a public meeting knows that you may succeed in getting the attention of some people, but it is possible—at least, it is with most of us—that some others will not be attending at all. Somebody said just now that it was possible to keep your eye on a limited number of those whom you are addressing, but it is difficult to keep your eye on a large crowd. That is perfectly true. The real point in a tribunal is that if you have too large a number some of the members may well say: "I can leave it to my companions and I can have a nap, or write a letter, or attend to this message." It is essential, if a man's reputation is at stake on some serious issue, that every single person attending to it shall attend to it with all his might. I myself believe, from such experience as I have had—and it is a long and varied experience—that it is most important for this purpose, speaking generally, not to have too many members. Socrates, if I remember correctly, was tried before a tribunal of 500 judges and found guilty by a majority. Whether they were right or

157
wrong I do not know; but that every Athenian citizen took an equally conscientious part in the decision, I do not believe. There is a danger that, in this sort of matter, numbers are not the hallmark of safety. Safety that the decision is correct does not lie in numbers. I venture to make these observations with sincere apology, because I do not know the details of this medical case at all. But on general principles I am sure that the view I have expressed is one shared by a good many people who have had extensive judicial experience, or experience of appearing before tribunals of this kind.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I rise to say that I entirely agree with every observation that has fallen from the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon. I think I have quoted before the words of the great Coke. He said on one occasion:
"You cannot get justice from a mob of judges."
In my view, the reason is partly this. When you are appearing as advocate in a case, it is essential, in order that you may get the bound and rebound of argument between yourself and the bench, that you should know and be able to see who are your judges. You put some point, and you want to see from the smiles on the judges' faces how they are taking it. When I was at the Bar and appeared in a licensing case there used to be a mob of people. They would sometimes be sitting in the dock; they would be sitting perhaps on your right hand side, and you would not have the least idea whether they were judges or not. They would then all retire and come to a decision. It was a most unsatisfactory business. I entirely agree with what Lord Simon has said. I believe, if you are going to get justice, that as a rule you want a comparatively small tribunal; you want to know who they are, and you want to be assured that they are sitting up and taking notice and not leaving it to somebody else. As I said on the earlier stage, in normal cases I would far rather have a tribunal of nine than of nineteen, if I wanted to do justice. Although when it comes to a political meeting or anything of that sort I am in favour of the Albert Hall and a large crowd, when it comes to the question of administering justice—which is a different proposition—I should
158
prefer a small body of people, so that I could see how they were taking the matter and be sure that they were attending to the case.
LORD HACKING: It would be ungracious of me, after we have been given the advice and wisdom of the two noble and learned Lords who have just spoken, not to say that I unreservedly withdraw my comments on this Amendment. We are told that when people are trying a case they must listen with great attention to every word that is said. I admit, frankly, that on occasions when there has been this large body of thirty-nine trying a case, I have myself, in the past, occasionally felt a little sleepy.
LORD SHEPHERD: In view of the way in which the discussion has gone, I feel it would be wrong to say anything about the latter stages. I am a layman, purely and simply, and I had better leave those points where they are. However, I rise to say that the Government are pleased to accept the new Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin. We feel that in doing so we are on perfectly safe ground. With regard to the Amendment to the Amendment, I. have to say that vie have entire sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, but we do not think his Amendment as drafted will give him exactly what he wants. Indeed, it might be, as already indicated, that if one of the laymen happened to be absent from the tribunal either the proceedings would be nullified or the tribunal would cease to sit. However, I can say that if the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, withdraws his Amendment to the Amendment, the Government will introduce an Amendment on the Report stage.
LORD NATHAN: beg leave to withdraw the Amendment to the Amendment standing in my name.
Amendment to the Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I should like to thank the noble Lord for accepting my Amendment. I indicated quite clearly my attitude to the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Nathan—that is to say, that we all wish to see one layman nominated on these panels, but we do not want the work of the panel nullified because the layman happens to be ill or for some reason of that kind. If some

159
words can be introduced to do what we all wish to see done, I shall welcome them as an Amendment to the Amendment that has just been accepted.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD WEBB-JOHNSON LORD WEBB-JOHNSON moved to leave out subsection (5) and to insert:
"() All acts of the Committee shall be decided by the votes of a majority of the members present at any meeting."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is devised to ensure that a conviction carrying such a terrible penalty shall not be arrived at merely by the casting vote of the Chairman. It also covers the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, in regard to restoration to the register. It seems desirable in these cases that a decision of such importance should be taken by a majority. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 18, leave out subsection (5) and insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Webb-Johnson.)
LORD SHEPHERD: It gives me great pleasure on behalf of the Government to accept this Amendment.
LORD HACKING: Before this Amendment is put to the Committee I should like to ask what would happen in the event of the vote resulting in a tie, which might happen if only four members turned up. I take it that the doctor would then be discharged, and there would not necessarily be a re-trial.
LORD WEBB-JOHNSON: I hope that it would be so, but I thought that the judges in their wisdom ensured that they sat as a company comprising an odd number.
LORD SHEPHERD: In the event of a tie the doctor would be discharged.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 14:
Procedure of Medical Disciplinary Committee
14.—(1) For the purpose of proceedings before the Committee the Committee may administer oaths, and any party to the proceedings may sue out writs of sub poena ad testificandum and duces tecum; and section forty-nine of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925 (which provides a special procedure for the issue of such writs so as to be in force throughout the United
160
Kingdom) shall apply in relation to proceedings before the Committee as it applies in relation to causes or matters in the High Court.
(2) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Committee shall make rules as to the times and places of the meetings of the Committee and the mode of summoning the members, and as to the procedure to be followed and rules of evidence to be observed in proceedings before the Committee, and in particular—
5.20 p.m.
LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN moved, in subsection (1) after "tecum" to insert:
"but no person shall be compelled under any such writ to produce any document which he could not be compelled to produce on the trial of an action."
The noble Lord said: For the first time we are giving this body power to send for papers and to subpoena persons. When that power has previously been given by Statute to similar bodies, such as those who adjudicate on solicitors, the words that I am seeking to insert here have always been included, so that we do not inadvertently give them more power than the High Court itself possesses. Since they have been included, I believe without exception, in similar circumstances to this, if we did not include them here it might be thought that we meant to give this body wider power. It is for that short and simple reason that I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 24, after ("tecum") insert the said words.—(Lord Llewellin.)
LORD SHEPHERD: We agree that there are many precedents for the inclusion of these words in Bills and Measures, and therefore we have much pleasure in accepting the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD WEBB-JOHNSON LORD WEBB-JOHNSON moved to add to the clause:
"(e) for requiring in cases where it is alleged that a registered medical practitioner has been guilty of infamous conduct in any professional respect that where the Committee judge that the allegation has not been proved they shall record a finding that the practitioner is not guilty of such conduct in respect of the matters to which the allegation relates."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is designed to ensure that now that subpoenas can be issued and evidence taken on oath; the accused individual shall be entitled to a verdict of "Not guilty" when he is not found guilty. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 3, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(Lord Webb-Johnson.)
LORD HACKING: I take no exception at all to these words, which are probably an improvement, although I do not think they effect much change on the present methods. The words which are used now in the case of a doctor who is not found guilty are these:
"The facts alleged against the doctor have not been proved to the satisfaction of the Council."
I think there is very little difference, but if it is more satisfactory to be able to tell the individual definitely, in so many words, that he is not guilty, it will probably be better understood, especially in some of the provincial newspapers.
LORD LLEWELLIN: Of course, there is all the difference in the world. One is the intermediate verdict which has always been possible in Scotland—the verdict of "Not proven"—and the other is what a man is always entitled to in English law. If he is not found guilty, he is entitled to a verdict of "Not guilty." That is what the noble Lord is trying to do here, and I do not see why a doctor should not be entitled to that, as is any other man brought before the courts for any other offence.
LORD HACKING: I was not disagreeing with the noble Lord's Amendment.
LORD SHEPHERD: May I say that we are in agreement with the Amendment moved by the noble Lord?
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 15 to 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 [Restoration of names to medical register]:
LORD SHEPHERD: To some extent, this next is a drafting Amendment, the purpose of which is to put on the same footing all applicants for restoration and the like. Under the Bill as it stands, a doctor whose name was erased at the November session of the Disciplinary Committee would be able to submit an application for restoration to be considered at the subsequent November session of the Committee and, if that were refused, would be able to apply once more in the following May; that is to say, after only six months. On the other
162
hand, a doctor erased in May could apply for restoration in May and, if refused, would have to wait before applying again until the following May; that is to say, a period of twelve months. We think that this is wrong and, therefore, the Amendment is moved to put both applicants on the same basis. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 43, leave out ("calendar year") and insert ("period of eleven months").—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved, after sub section (3) to insert:
"() Subsection (2) of section fourteen of this Act shall not apply to proceedings under this section; but the Committee may for the purposes of such proceedings make rules as to any of the matters mentioned in the said subsection (2), and subsections (3) and (4) of the said section fourteen shall apply to rules under this section as they apply to rules under the said subsection (2)."
The noble Lord said: This new subsection enables the Medical Disciplinary Committee to make rules about their procedure for dealing with applications for restoration which may deal with any of the matters provided fir in Clause 14 (2). Clause 14 (2) was drafted with proceedings for erasure particularly in mind, and some of the provisions at any rate do not quite fit proceedings for restoration. For example, in the case of restoration it would not be appropriate that "notice that the proceedings ore to be brought" should be given; the wording does not fit the circumstances of applications for restoration. In general, however, it is intended that the Committee shall make rules broadly similar to those in proceedings for erasure, including, for example, rules giving arty party to the proceedings the right to be heard by the Committee or to be represented by counsel or solicitor. The last part of the new subsection makes it clear that, as with the rules relating to proceedings for erasure, the Committee will have to consult with the medical profession before making the rules, and the rules will be subject to the approval of the Privy Council. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 45, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 20:
Appointment of visitors of medical schools
20.—(1) The Council may appoint persons, not being members of the Council, to visit places where instruction is given to medical students under the direction of any body having power to grant a qualifying diploma, not being a Commonwealth or foreign diploma.
5.28 p.m.
LORD MORAN LORD MORAN moved, in subsection (1), after "may" to insert "with the approval of the Privy Council." The noble Lord said: The purpose of my Amendment is to avoid unnecessary multiplication of inspections of medical schools. It is not that I believe that such inspections serve no useful purpose. On the contrary, during the twenty-five years in which I was dean of a medical school I was convinced that these inspections quickened the pulse of a school which had become indolent, and led to a review of things left undone. There is already machinery for securing these benefits, however, and I do not think anybody has suggested that this machinery is inefficient. In London—and this applies largely to London and not the provinces—where there are twelve medical schools, they are inspected by the University Grants Committee, with special reference to finance, and by the University of London on academic standards. If this clause is passed as drafted the London schools will be inspected by three different bodies—the University Grants Committee, the University of London and the General Medical Council.
As is well known, these inspections may suggest changes in the policy, and so it means that there are three bodies governing the policy. That is bound to create confusion and, quite apart from that disadvantage, everybody with educational interests is convinced, I think, that we ought to strengthen the hold of the London University over its constituent medical schools. It will certainly not strengthen that hold to set up a rival method of inspection. Therefore, for the avoiding of this multiplicity I suggest that all that is necessary is that, where inspections by the University of London and the General Medical Council are concerned, there should be one inspection and not two. That can be readily brought about if the external inspector of the London University (and there always is an external inspector) represents the
164
General Medical Council. That would bring about all I am asking for, which is the avoidance of unnecessary duplication. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 15, after ("may,") insert ("with the approval of the Privy Council").—(Lord Moran.)
LORD CHORLEY: I should like to support this Amendment. The clause, of course, is based on the recommendation of the Goodenough Committee, and I think everybody agreed that the recommendation was a very proper one. It was aimed particularly, however, at the non-university medical schools in Scotland, and there was no need for such a provision in connection with university medical schools in this country, particularly the great medical schools of the University of London. As the noble Lord, Lord Moran, has pointed out, there is a double system of inspection there. Moreover, from a considerable knowledge of university work (though not, of course, in medical schools), while I entirely agree with Lord Moran that it does, so to speak, "pep up" a department to be inspected, it also means that the professors and tutors are put to a considerable amount of extra work, on top of their teaching work, in connection with these inspections. And if a third inspection is to be added, the work of the professors and lecturers may be seriously interfered with. I believe that the clause is now unnecessary; but at least this Amendment would provide a way out of the difficulty because it would enable the Privy Council to decide, say, in the case of a university medical school whether an inspection of this kind was necessary. I support the Amendment.
LORD SHEPHERD: I am sure that on reflection it will be agreed that the General Medical Council are entitled to know that the teaching in the medical schools is efficient, and that the students are getting all they have a right to expect. There may be objections to a multiplicity of inspections, and I understand that some perturbation has been expressed in the London University on the subject—indeed, there was some expressed, I think, in the course of the debate on the Second Reading of this Bill. Noble Lords may remember that when the subject was mentioned I indicated that steps had already been taken to deal with the points raised.

165
I am glad to report that there have been discussions between representatives about arranging for University and General Medical Council inspections being undertaken jointly—that is to say, that the inspection undertaken by the University shall be on behalf of both the University and the General Medical Council. In view of the fact that agreement has been reached, I hope the noble Lord will not find it necessary to press this Amendment.
LORD LLEWELLIN: That means, I take it, that at any rate while the present General Medical Council and the present governors of the London University last, they have agreed that the inspectors who go there on behalf of the University shall act for the General Medical Council also.
LORD SHEPHERD: That is right.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I do not, of course, know what the noble Lord, Lord Moran, will say, but to me that seems satisfactory. At the same time, such a state of things as the noble Lord indicated may not last permanently. The noble Lord's announcement has not even been given as a Government undertaking. It might be helpful if some words could be included providing that this matter should be in the hands of the Government of the day. The words suggested by Lord Moran would do.
LORD SHEPHERD: If the noble Lord, Lord Moran, cares to withdraw his Amendment, I will give an undertaking that we will look at the matter again between now and the Report stage, in the light of what Lord Llewellin has said.
LORD MORAN: In view of what the noble Lord says, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 20 agreed to.
Clauses 21 to 23 agreed to.
Clause 24 [Amendment as to joint qualifying examinations]:
LORD SHEPHERD: This is really a drafting Amendment, moved in order to cover the omission of the Welsh universities from the arrangements that have been made under the clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 27, after ("England") insert ("or Wales").—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 25 agreed to.
LORD WEBB-JOHNSON LORD WEBB-JOHNSON moved, after Clause 25 to insert the following new clause:
Amendment of s.40 of the Medical Act, 1858
".Section forty of the Medical Act, 1858 (which provides for the imposition of a penalty upon any person falsely pretending to be a registered person) shall have effect as if for the word 'twenty' therein, there were substituted the words 'five hundred'."
The noble Lord said: This proposed new clause is designed to correct what is now the law: that the quite inadequate penalty of a fine of £20 should be inflicted on anyone who falsely pretends to be a registered medical practitioner. I hope that noble Lords will not think that the sum of £500 now proposed is in any way excessive for such an offence. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 25, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Webb-Johnson.)
LORD SHEPHERD: We have considered this matter, and we are prepared to accept this Amendment.
LORD WEBB-JOHNSON: I thank the noble Lord for his acceptance of this Amendment, and for his generous understanding of the other Amendments which I have proposed.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 26 agreed to.
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved after Clause 26 to insert the following new clause:
Subsistence allowances for members of Council
" Section twelve of the Medical Act. 1858 and subsection (2) of section eight of the Medical Act, 1886 (which provide that members of the Council shall he paid such fees for attendance and such reasonable travelling expenses as are fixed under the said section twelve) shall have effect, and be deemed always to have had effect, as if the references to travelling expenses included references to subsistence allowances."
The noble Lord said: It has always been assumed by the General Medical Council that they were entitled to meet the expenses of members of the Council. This is a provision to cover the whole subject, in case there is any doubt. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 26, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clauses 27 to 29 agreed to.
Clause 30:
Rules and orders
(2) Any statutory instrument made in the exercise of the powers conferred by subsection (3) of section four, subsection (4) of section fourteen, subsection {2) of section fifteen, or subsection (4) of section twenty-two of this Act shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN moved, in subsection (2) to omit all words after "by" down to "shall" and to insert:
"this Act, other than powers to make orders appointing a day."
The noble Lord said: The Amendment which I rise to move, if accepted, will have this effect, and, so far as I can see, this effect only: that either House of Parliament, by negative Resolution, will be able to pray against an order made under Clause 2 of this Bill. Probably the most important orders to be made under this Bill will be those made under Clause 2. Such an order will affect a man whose training, before he can be a fully registered medical practitioner, has to be, if I may use a paraphrase, by attachment to a hospital or institution. The kind of things about which either House may well want to know are: for what period you are going to do it, whether you are going to do it over the country as a whole, or whether you are satisfied that there are enough places open to these young mean. The last thing we want to see is a man who has already spent five or six years of his life obtaining his qualifying degrees having to wait about because there is not a hospital or institution in which a place can be found for him. That is the kind of matter that quite rightly Parliament should keep under its control and should know about, for it affects the lives and prospects of some people. My Amendment would merely include that as a matter against which we could properly pray, as from the drafting of the Bill we can already pray against other possibly
168
less important provisions of the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 17, leave out from ("by") to ("shall") in line 19, and insert the said new words.—(Lord Llewellin.)
LORD SHEPHERD: I agree with the noble Lord in his description of the effect of this Amendment. I also agree with him in his statement to the effect that all other provisions in the Bill come under what he now proposes. In those circumstances, I am prepared to accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 30, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedule [Enactments applicable to provisional registration]:
LORD SHEPHERD: I beg to move this Amendment, which is consequential upon something we did earlier.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, leave out lines 14 and 15.—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed.

PUBLIC REGISTERS AND RECORDS (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
5.44 p.m.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order).

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (WOOLWICH SUBSIDENCES) BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
House adjourned at a quarter before six o'clock.