§ 32 Page 6, line 8, after "facilities" insert "at at satisfactory standard"
§ 33 Page 6, line 9, leave out "available" and insert "accessible to patients and the practitioners of their choice"
§ 34 Page 6, line 10, after "hospitals)"insert "and available at reasonable cost"
§ 35 Page 6, line 13, leave out paragraph (c).
§ 36 Page 6, line 22, leave out paragraph (d).
§
37 Page 6, line 30, at end insert—
() that the authorisation of any such accommodation or services under those provisions for use in that connection should be revoked only if in the opinion of the Board those attempting to provide alternative accommodation or services have met with no unreasonable obstruction from any local authority or other organisation;
§
38 Page 6, line 30, at end insert—
() that the authorisation of any such accommodation or services under those provisions for use in that connection should not be revoked if the revocation would result in a substantial reduction in the freedom of resident or nonresident hospital patients to engage the services of medical or dental practitioners of the sex, race, colour, language, religion or national or social origin of their choice.
§ The Commons disagreed to these Amendments for the following Reason:
§ 39 Because they considerably alter the four principles which were an integral part of the proposals announced on 15th December 1975.
1708§ Lord WELLS-PESTELLMy Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendments Nos. 32 to 38 inclusive en bloc to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason numbered 39.
§ Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendments, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason numbered 39.—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)
§ Lord SANDYSMy Lords, I am surprised that the Government have stated their Reason in the terms that the Amendments "considerably alter". It is a matter of judgment, but in this case we did offer Amendments which we felt were going to ensure that both the spirit of Goodman was preserved and the drafting was greatly improved. On the drafting point I should particularly refer to page 6, line 13 and our Amendment to leave out paragraph (c). I should like to refer once again to the grammar here. It is a most astonishing piece of English to be written into a Statute. The Government intend to write it into the Statute because it is the wording agreed in the Goodman Proposals but I think that there is a very unfortunate precedent being set here, that when a Government of the day agree a principle with another party in whatever English, however hastily it has been drafted, the words are still retained. The words are these, and I must say that we find them incomprehensible. Paragraph (c) reads:
that the continued authorisation of any such accommodation or services under those provisions for use in that connection should depend on there having been or being taken all reasonable steps to provide, otherwise than at NHS hospitals, sufficient reasonable accommodation and facilities for the private practice of medicine and dentistry to meet the reasonable demand for them in the area or areas served by the hospital or hospitals in question.What we object to here is this astonishing use of the impersonal passive in a Statute, to the phrase: "there having been or being taken all reasonable steps …" It is very difficult to appreciate quite how this is going to be interpreted. This will be interpreted with great care at some stage before the courts, or it could be interpreted before some other legal body. Nevertheless, I have stated our objection to that and, indeed, to paragraph (d), which I will not weary the House in reading. That is equal nonsense so far as its drafting is concerned. It is a great 1709 pity that the Government have not listened to our arguments in this connection, because the Bill could have been re-drafted, the Government could have introduced their own Amendments which would have adhered to the Goodman Proposals and taken the main sense from our suggested improvements. This is not a Party matter; it is a drafting matter. The Government should have listened to reason which was put forward with universal concern in this Chamber.
§ Lord WELLS-PESTELLMy Lords, the noble Lord does the Government an injustice. He starts off by saying that he is astonished that the Government did nothing about it. We were equally astonished that the noble Lord and his friends should seek to alter substantially the principles to which the Board is to have regard when drawing up proposals for the progressive phasing out of pay beds. Nothing has been said in your Lordships' House during Committee and Report stage, and, if I may say so, the few Amendments on Third Reading, that has not been looked at very carefully. If I say that I know that the noble Lord will take my word for it. As I tried to explain at the end of the Third Reading, in our view we have struck the right balance. We are just as astonished that the noble Lord should feel that his view in this matter is any better than the Government's because the Amendment would substantially alter the principles of the Bill. He must not say that the Government took no notice; we took a good deal of notice—in some respects perhaps not enough—and we have been able to make certain Amendments which noble Lords have put forward.