HL Deb 21 June 1968 vol 293 cc1089-91

2.38 p.m.

LORD SORENSEN

My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.

Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Sorensen.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Clause 1 [Hearing Aid Council.]:

LORD SORENSEN

My Lords, I wonder whether I might have the permission of the House to move practically the whole of these Amendments en bloc. They are entirely of a drafting or technical or minor nature, with the exception of Amendments Nos. 8 and 9, about which I should like to say just a word or two. I would ask permission to move Nos. 1 to 7 en bloc.

LORD DRUMALBYN

So far as I am concerned, that would be perfectly agreeable.

LORD SORENSEN

Very briefly, indeed, then, a comment on these. The first two Amendments are grammatical corrections. The third Amendment is consequential upon an Amendment made at the Committee stage. Then, in regard to Amendment No. 4, it appears that there is some inconsistency which it is desired this Amendment should clarify. Amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 7 are purely technical. I beg to move the first seven Amendments.

Amendments moved—

Clause 1, page 1, line 22, leave out ("they consider") and insert ("it considers").

Clause 1, page 2, line 14, leave out ("they consider") and insert ("it considers").

Clause 2, page 3, line 21, leave out ("as a supplier of hearing aids") and insert ("pursuant to subsection (1)(b) of this section").

Clause 4, page 5, line 3, at end insert ("and which the Disciplinary Committee has directed to be restored").

Clause 7, page 6, line 25, leave out ("is") and insert ("are").

Clause 7,line 37, leave out ("or supplier").

Clause 7,line 37, after ("aids") insert ("or employing such a dispenser").—(Lord Sorensen.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 10 [Procedure of Disciplinary Committee.]:

LORD SORENSEN

My Lords, in regard to Amendment No. 8, the note given to me says that the purpose of this Amendment is to avoid a present overlap in the rule-making power of the council under Clause 10(4)(e) and (f). Paragraph (e) of subsection (4) provides that the Council shall make rules for requiring the Disciplinary Committee to record a finding that a person alleged to have been guilty of serious misconduct under Clause 7(1)(b) is not guilty of such misconduct where they judge that the allegation has not been proved. As it stands, paragraph (f) relates to the whole of Clause 7, while paragraph (e) provides a special régime for Clause 7(1)(b). The Amendment is designed to limit paragraph (f) to subsections (2), (3) and (4) of Clause 7. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 8, line 32, after ("under") insert ("subsection (2), (3) or (4) of").—(Lord Sorensen.)

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, I should be exaggerating if I said that the noble Lord has made the purposes of his Amendment crystal clear; but I am certain that he is right.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD SORENSEN

My Lords, I hope to make this explanation on Amendment No. 9 a little nearer the crystal clarity which the noble Lord desires, but I share with him the slight miasma that possibly is in his mind. My note states that this Amendment is designed to enlarge the rule-making power of the Council where it is deficient at present. It is quite clear so far. Under Clause 7(2) or Clause 7(4) an employer of dispensers. other than a body corporate, could be the subject of disciplinary proceedings and the powers of the Council to make rules to require the Disciplinary Committee to record a finding of not guilty of the matter alleged should be extended to such employers of dispensers. I think that that is really crystal clear. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 8, line 34, leave out ("dispenser or body corporate") and insert ("person").—(Lord Sorensen.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.