---

Sir Peter Lloyd rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:--

The House divided: Ayes 93, Noes 82.

Division No. 30 [2.24 pm

AYES

Ainger, Nick
Alexander, Richard
Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Austin-Walker, John
Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Bayley, Hugh
Betts, Clive
Boateng, Paul
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Burden, Richard
Butterfill, John
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Campbell-Savours, D N
Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)
Carrington, Matthew
Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Cohen, Harry
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Cox, Tom
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Deva, Nirj Joseph
Dykes, Hugh
Fabricant, Michael
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Fishburn, Dudley
Foulkes, George
Gale, Roger
Gerrard, Neil
Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Hampson, Dr Keith
Hannam, Sir John
Haselhurst, Sir Alan
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Hayes, Jerry
Henderson, Doug
Hicks, Robert
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence
Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Hodge, Margaret
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Jessel, Toby
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Key, Robert
Khabra, Piara S
Livingstone, Ken
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Mackinlay, Andrew
McNamara, Kevin
MacShane, Denis
Maxton, John
Mellor, Rt Hon David
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Olner, Bill
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Pendry, Tom
Pike, Peter L
Purchase, Ken
Rathbone, Tim
Rendel, David
Roche, Mrs Barbara
Ruddock, Joan
Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Sedgemore, Brian
Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Sims, Roger
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Timms, Stephen
Touhig, Don
Tyler, Paul
Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Viggers, Peter
Walden, George
Whitney, Ray
Wicks, Malcolm
Wiggin, Sir Jerry
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)
Wilshire, David
Wright, Dr Tony

Tellers for the Ayes:

Mr. David Atkinson and
Mr. Paul Flynn.

NOES

Adams, Mrs Irene
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Beith, Rt Hon A J
Bell, Stuart
Bendall, Vivian
Body, Sir Richard
Bray, Dr Jeremy
Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Canavan, Dennis
Chisholm, Malcolm
Clapham, Michael
Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Corbyn, Jeremy
Cormack, Sir Patrick
Cunningham, Roseanna
Dixon, Don
Duncan-Smith, Iain
Dunn, Bob
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Etherington, Bill
Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Fyfe, Maria
Gardiner, Sir George
Godman, Dr Norman A
Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Hain, Peter
Hoey, Kate
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Hunter, Andrew
Illsley, Eric
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)
Kirkwood, Archy
Knox, Sir David
Liddell, Mrs Helen
McAllion, John
McAvoy, Thomas
Macdonald, Calum
McFall, John
McKelvey, William
Maclennan, Robert
Madden, Max
Maddock, Diana
Mandelson, Peter
Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Neubert, Sir Michael
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Raynsford, Nick
Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Salmond, Alex
Shersby, Sir Michael
Skinner, Dennis
Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)
Spearing, Nigel
Stern, Michael
Stott, Roger
Strang, Dr. Gavin
Sumberg, David
Sutcliffe, Gerry
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)
Twinn, Dr Ian
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)
Wallace, James
Wareing, Robert N
Welsh, Andrew
Wigley, Dafydd
Wilkinson, John
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)
Wise, Audrey

Tellers for the Noes:

Mr. Phil Gallie and
Mr. John Home Robertson.

Whereupon Mr. Deputy Speaker declared that the Question was not decided in the affirmative because it was not supported by the majority prescribed by Standing Order No. 36 (Majority for closure or for proposal of question). It being after half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned. Debate to be resumed upon Friday next.

19 Jan 1996 : Column 1063

Mr. Alex Carlile (Montgomery): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Following the acquittal this afternoon of Kevin and Ian Maxwell and Larry Trachtenberg on all charges, is it not right for the Attorney-General to come to the House and explain how the disastrous decision to prosecute them at enormous public expense was taken, and to take responsibility for that disastrous decision?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): That is not a matter for the occupant of the Chair.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. On a procedural motion, the House must accept the result, but the country may feel that to lose another 2,000 lives over the next 10 years--

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has already made one speech today.

Remaining Private Members' Bills

DOGS (FOULING OF LAND) BILL

Read a Second time. Bill committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

Mr. Salmond: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Given that the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) has failed to mobilise even 100 hon. Members in support of his Bill, could he not give us all a rest and defer the campaign, so that we do not have to go through this process again? His case has failed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That also is not a matter for the occupant of the Chair.

WESTERN EUROPEAN TIME BILL [LORDS]

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

19 Jan 1996 : Column 1064

Title of Doctor Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.--[Mr. MacKay.]

2.30 pm

Mr. Michael Stern (Bristol, North-West): I make no apology for raising on the Adjournment a matter about which, although it is of limited and, some would say, sectional interest, I first contacted the Prime Minister in 1986. At the behest of a small number of my constituents, in particular a retired medical doctor, I have tabled questions to the Minister on a number of occasions, the latest being answered by him on 14 July. At that time, I asked the Secretary of State whether he would make it his policy to provide statutory protection for the title "doctor", as used in the field of medicine and in the professions allied to it. He replied that he was satisfied that the matter was adequately covered by section 49 of the Medical Act 1983. Like all apparently minor matters, the subject deeply engages the attention and the feelings of those who are most concerned about it. In medical professions, it involves whether a person who has obtained a doctorate, a doctoral degree in medicine, commonly referred to as an MD, is entitled to special protection of the use of the title "doctor" compared with the majority of medical practitioners who do not have such a doctoral degree. Some people who practise regularly as doctors have no degree at all, but have a qualification that has been awarded by one of the royal medical colleges. I have had drawn to my attention the case of one practitioner whose only qualification was LSA--that is, a licentiate of the Society of Apothecaries, but was nevertheless called, and by courtesy was entitled to be called, "doctor". In the United States and Canada, the use of the title "doctor" in medical circles is much more frequently restricted to those who have a doctoral degree, but that is because a first degree in medicine in those countries is usually at doctoral level, although many practitioners here would argue that its breadth and depth are slighter than the apparently inferior qualifications held by many practitioners in this country. It would be interesting to know whether the Minister, in the researches that were necessary to enable him to reply to the debate, has been able to establish the proportion of doctors of medicine as defined in the Medical Act who are holders of doctoral degrees. I shall now turn to that Act. Section 49(1) of the Act makes it an offence for

"any person who wilfully and falsely pretends to be or takes or uses the name or title of . . . doctor of medicine".

If he does so, he is liable to the penalty of a fine. Although the wording of the Act is fairly clear, I understand from the British Medical Association that, in practice, it has proved to be virtually impossible to enforce the section within the medical professions, because it is necessary to prove the intention to mislead a member of the public. That test has proved too stringent to enable a successful prosecution to be brought. I should like to hear the Minister's views on whether a medical practitioner is misleading the public, solely by reason of his not holding a doctoral degree, if he

19 Jan 1996 : Column 1065

accedes to the title "doctor" out of courtesy or long usage when he has no legal title to have the word used to him or to use it himself. The courtesy title of "doctor" seems to be the nub of the problem. I understand that, apart from general practitioners, ships' doctors are particularly used to the title "doctor", although few have the degree that would entitle them to it. There may be many other examples in medical professions where courtesy has overlaid the strict application of legality. Should we care? Should we be concerned that a practice that has grown up through centuries of usage is incorrect in law and in fact? Do not the public in general acquiesce in the fact that they are not being told the strict truth about the qualifications of the people they approach on medical matters? Should we follow the rather more strict line laid down by Dr. Johnson, a real doctor, when he argued that the antiquity of abuse is no reason for its continuance? If--I accept that there can be two opinions on the matter--the courtesy use of the title "doctor" is an abuse, clearly the toleration of such abuse is allowing it to extend itself. It was recently announced that the General Dental Council is about to introduce regulations--it may already have done so--to enable dentists to call themselves doctors, despite the fact that many of them are surgeons and are instead entitled to the courtesy title of Mr. or Mrs., which is at least less confusing. I understand that the reason for that departure is that dentists in other parts of the world style themselves "doctor", despite being equally unqualified in doctoral degree terms. If that is the reason for the new regulations, I regret it. I have always regarded the purpose of British culture as to export truth rather than to import falsehood. Nevertheless, the General Dental Council's decision gives added point to the debate. I do not expect my hon. Friend the Minister to announce his conversion to one side or the other of an issue that has occupied an admittedly small number of people for a long time. Indeed, I appreciate that any decision by the Government at this stage would be greeted by howls of protest whatever that decision were to be. I should like to ask the Minister, following this brief introduction to the subject, to tell me whether the Government believe that there is any potential for abuse in the use of courtesy titles which also have legal meanings, and whether he foresees that a possible growth in the use of that courtesy title would be an abuse that the Government would need to check.

---