Clause 9—(Increase In Number Of Elected Members Of Council And Revocation Of Sr & O 1909 No 916 And Sr & O 1931 No 719) Dr. Stross I beg to move, in page 6, line 14, to leave out the second "and." I wonder if it would meet with your approval, Major Milner, and be to the convenience of the Committee, if this Amendment were considered together with the following two Amendments in my name— In line 15, at end, to insert: "and (c) in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland shall be increased to two"; In line 25, after "Wales," to insert: "and of the persons elected in pursuance of paragraph (c) of the last foregoing subsection, one shall be elected as a person resident in the Republic of Ireland and one as a person resident in Northern Ireland." The Chairman indicated assent. Dr. Stross I am very much obliged. I think we are in agreement that any increase in the number of directly elected members of the Council is a desirable thing so long as the number is kept within reasonable bounds. As the Clause stands, the number is 10 and it is noted that two are elected from Scotland, eight from England and Wales and, in lines 24 and 25, there is a special mention of Wales. The wording is: "one shall he elected as a person resident in Wales;" I remember that on Second Reading my right hon. Friend wondered whether that was necessary. I think his sense of local feeling for Wales made him suggest that even if those words had not been inserted. Wales would have found it quite easy to contribute at least one member, even if no one had ever thought of it before, and certainly without the words being in the Bill. I wonder, therefore, why we have not some similar reference to Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Is it because everyone expects that names like Moynihan and Mayo still so resound in our ears, that there can be no doubt that Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland will have proper proportions, because this matter will be raised in Northern Ireland and in the Republic? The Parliamentary Secretary told the Committee that he thought everything was going on all right and that there would be no difficulty about reciprocity between the two countries. He suggested that legislation would follow on a par with what we are considering today. If that is the case, it seems all the more reason why the Minister should consider the Amendment I have put down. In two ways I think the Bill might be improved by these three Amendments. First, there is the fact that the number of members directly elected would be 12 instead of 10 and in this respect I would bring to the notice of the Committee and the Minister this interesting and important point. In a Clause which we shall reach later we shall be discussing the question of illness or death of elected members and how their places shall be filled. There will be a time-lag, and I suggest there may well occur times when it will be difficult, as a result of death or illness, to maintain a full disciplinary medical committee in accordance with the defined constitution of that committee. That is all the more reason to push up the number from 10 to 12. Dr. Broughton I wish to support this Amendment. I cannot understand why Ireland has been omitted from this part of the Bill. Northern Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom, and in Belfast there is a great medical school. I should like to see Northern Ireland represented in this way. During the Second Reading of the Bill my right hon. Friend the Minister said: "The General Medical Council still exercises some jurisdiction in relation to the Republic of Ireland, under an agreement entered into between the United Kingdom and the Irish Free State, as it then was, in 1927." He went on to say: "It has, therefore, been necessary to enter into consultations with the Government of the Republic to ensure that the present arrangements outlined in the Bill are acceptable to them and that they for their part would similarly he willing to amend their own law as necessary."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th June, 1950; Vol. 476, c. 2186-7.] In the Debate on Clause 6 my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary said that the assumption is that the arrangements in both countries will be on the same basis. If that is so, I think it would be not only a kindly gesture, but a very wise move to have an elected representative from the Republic of Ireland. That would help to maintain the close cooperation which is desirable. Mr. Iain MacLeod In one or two sentences I wish to put forward reasons which I think are of weight against this proposal. First, on principle, I think it is a bad thing to have a sort of Dutch auction with all the competing interests for seats on this body. Anyone who remembers the Committee stage of the parent Bill, the National Health Service Bill, will remember the interminable arguments for what one could call the vested interests. I know this suggestion is welcomed by the British Medical Association, which, for obvious reasons, is not surprising, but previously there were to be seven elected members on this committee, six for England and Wales and one represented Scotland and Ireland. The Bill originally increased the number to nine, and another place has made it 11. I should have thought that the time had come to call a halt to that process. I very much doubt whether it is constitutionally proper to put into the Bill in the Committee stage such a suggestion in relation to a country which, apart from various statutory provisions, is virtually a foreign country. I do not think we can legislate in regard to a country which has entirely severed itself from us. I do not think we can put into our legislation, at least without prior agreement, a suggestion allowing them to put forward one extra nominee to the Council. Finally, as the 1886 Act stands, there is already one representative of the whole of Ireland without division, because of course the Republic of Ireland and the province of Northern Ireland did not then exist. I see no reason why we should disturb an arrangement which requires them to agree on their representative. Almost the only other example of such agreement is their Rugby football team, which they select jointly. If they have an agreement that in ways best known to themselves they select a representative from Ireland in its geographical sense, I think that arrangement should stand. On grounds of numbers I can see a certain case for increasing the representation to two but that is not the point which this Amendment puts forward. It would be wrong and constitutionally improper to suggest that one representative should come from each of the two constituent parts of geographical Ireland, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will not agree to the suggestion. Mr. Blenkinsop I hope that my hon. Friend will not press this Amendment. It is the case, as the hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain MacLeod) has said, that Ireland has always been a unity in respect of medical education. The hon. Member instanced the further example of Rugby football. We on our side would not wish to make any alteration in the present position. A further and rather more important point is that if we were to raise this matter now, we should have to re-open the agreement we have made with the Republic of Ireland, upon which the whole of this Bill is based. We have had long and very friendly discussions with the Republic of Ireland and with their representatives, and we understand that this position is fully satisfactory to them. I feel that the only result of making any alteration now would be that we should have to enter into further discussions for which at this moment there is frankly not time. Nor do I think it would be desirable if we were to argue this matter on the basis of numbers. I am doubtful whether, even on that basis, the addition of a further member for Ireland could be justified. On these grounds, I hope that the Amendment will not be pressed. Dr. Stross In view of what the Parliamentary Secretary has said, and the reasons he has given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.