§ [The references are to Bill [60] as first printed for the House of Commons]
§ (No. 1)
§
Clause 19, page 12, line 26, at end insert—
("(c) the performance by a registered medical practitioner of an operation on an animal for the purpose of removing an organ or tissue for use in the treatment of human beings;
(d) the carrying out or performance of any treatment, test or operation by a registered medical practitioner or a registered dentist at the request of a person registered in the register of veterinary surgeons or the supplementary veterinary register.")
§ (Nos. 2–8)
§ Clause 28, page 17, line 18, leave out ("of veterinary surgeons")
§ Clause 28, page 17, line 24, leave out ("that") and insert ("the")
§ Clause 28, page 17, line 28, leave out ("that") and insert ("the")
§ Clause 28, page 17, line 47, leave out ("coming into operation") and insert ("commencement")
§ Clause 28, page 18, line 10, after ("commencement") insert ("of sections 19 and 20")
§ Clause 28, page 18, line 11, leave out ("the commencement of")
§ Clause 28, page 18, line 17, leave out ("commencement") and insert ("passing")
§ (Nos. 9–13)
§ Schedule 1, page 19, line 13, leave out from ("If") to end and insert ("on the coming into force of a recognition order for any university a member of the Council is appointed by the university")
§ Schedule 1, page 19, line 16, leave out from first ("of") to ("shall") and insert ("that member")
§ Schedule 2, page 20, line 43, leave out ("1967") and insert ("1968")
§ Schedule 2, page 20, Line 45, leave out ("1967") and insert ("1968")
§ Schedule 2, Page 23, line 10, leave out ("for") and insert ("to")
1178§ (Nos. 14–19)
§ Schedule 3, page 24, leave out lines 1 to 4 and insert ("anything (except a laparotomy) done, otherwise than for reward, to an animal used in agriculture, as defined in the Agriculture Act 1947, by the owner of the animal or by a person engaged or employed in caring for animals so used")
§ Schedule 3, page 24, leave out line 7
§ Schedule 3, page 24, line 10, at end insert ("whether by chemical means or otherwise")
§ Schedule 3, page 24, leave out line 11
§
Schedule 3, page 24, line 15, at end insert—
("The performance, by any person of the age of seventeen undergoing instruction in animal husbandry, of any operation mentioned in the last foregoing paragraph if either of the following conditions is complied with:—
and in this paragraph 'recognised institution' means—
§
Schedule 3, page 24, leave out lines 19 to 28 and insert—
("(a) of a horse, pony, ass or mule;
(b) of a bull which has reached the age of twelve months; or
(c) of a goat, ram, boar, cat or dog which has reached the age of six months.")
§ LORD CHAMPIONMy Lords, I beg to move, with the leave of the House, that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1 to 19. Before I mention briefly the main changes made to our old friend the Veterinary Surgeons Bill, I would point out that a large number of these Amendments are purely drafting ones. They are the Amendments numbered 2 to 10 and 13 on the Order Paper, including the technical Amendments to Schedule 2—Nos. 11 and 12. In addition, however, there has been one Amendment of substance to Clause 19, and a large number of Amendments to 1179 Schedule 3. I should like to say briefly a few words about the most important of these.
The Amendment to Clause 19 will enable a few surgeons specialising in this field to operate on animals for the purpose of transplanting animal organs to human beings. This is a useful provision, to enable a promising line of development inhuman medicine to continue. It will also enable members of the veterinary profession to obtain the assistance of medical specialists in the treatment of animals. This is obviously useful.
The Recess has provided time in which to enable discussions on Schedule 3 to the Bill to take place with the various interests concerned. It has therefore proved possible to make Amendments to the Schedule which bring it up to date. These are matters in which I know your Lordships have a particular interest, because we had a number of discussions upon these points when the Bill was going through its various stages in this House. I am sure, therefore, that the House will expect me to devote a little time to running through the main changes.
The first change does two things. It limits the term "anything done", which would cover any treatment and any surgical operations. This exemption was discussed with the Royal College, the British Veterinary Association and the Farmers' Unions and we agreed that it should be limited by the exclusion of laparotomy, which is a short way of saying the cutting open of the abdominal cavity. But this limitation is not intended to exclude, for instance, the puncture of the rumen for dealing with bloat. As it happens, this would be covered in any case by the provision relating to first aid in the Schedule. But other examples of operations not excluded are the minor operations listed in the Schedule, which are recognised as normally bēing carried out by stockmen and shepherds. There is also another limitation. This exemption is confined to the owners of animals used in agriculture or to people who are used to dealing with these animals. We feel that it is wrong, for instance, to allow a horticulturist or a tractor driver who never deals with these animals to be exempted. It seems right and proper that this exemption should be one allowed only to the owner of the animals or someone who is used to dealing with them.
1180 As your Lordships well know, Schedule 3 sets out certain exemptions to the prohibition on the practice of veterinary surgery by unqualified persons which is contained in Clause 19. Another change that has been made, therefore, is to delete the exemption about the destruction of an animal, since this is not veterinary surgery. With this Amendment it would be legal, for instance, for a shepherd to put an injured sheep out of its misery; without it, there is doubt about the legality of such an action. This does not, of course, open the way for anyone to destroy animals by painful methods. That is a matter dealt with by the legislation relating to cruelty to animals. Two other small Amendments are to make it quite clear that the operation of caponising may be carried out by chemical means and to delete the operation of the spaying of a pig from the list of minor operations. Another important Amendment makes provisions which enable young people of seventeen to perform certain minor operations as part of an educational course and under appropriate supervision.
I believe that there is, and will be, no disagreement on the merits of providing adequate training for stockmen. There has however been some criticism of the form of words used in this Schedule, in that it does not provide for the teachers themselves to be trained by veterinary surgeons. The Government consider that the teachers who give such training ought themselves to be trained by veterinary surgeons. But it is not possible to express this in an Act without defining the word "training"; and it makes no difference whether it is called "training" or "appropriate courses of instruction" or any other similar vague phrase, because until the words are defined the courts cannot really come to any firm conclusion. We have therefore defined the bodies that may give the instruction and insist that they should appoint instructors for this purpose, with the idea that it should be left to the Department of Education and Science to ensure, through administrative means, that as full effect as practicable can be given to the principle of the training of the instructors by veterinary surgeons. If in the course of time courses that can be identified in legislation, and certificates that can be similarly identified, are provided, then 1181 consideration can be given to amending the Schedule to tighten up these provisions.
The remaining change is to Part II of Schedule 3. This has been brought up to date by reducing the ages below which certain animals may be castrated by laymen. The Royal College and the British Veterinary Association have taken the view that for the horse, pony, ass and mule unqualified performance of this operation should not be allowed at all. This has been accepted. However, the Royal College and the B.V.A. also think that the cat and the dog should be put into this same group on the ground that a general anæthetic is used and both operations are veterinary surgery. But they accept the practical difficulties in preventing lay castration of farm animals.
The People's Dispensary for Sick Animals, on the other hand, oppose the singling out of cats and dogs from the other animals. I have pointed already to the practical difficulties for farm animals. The P.D.S.A. also run a number of clinics where these operations are carried out by laymen under veterinary supervision. Finance is also no doubt relevant here. As a charitable organisation the P.D.S.A. provide services for people who cannot afford the fees of a veterinary surgeon.
This problem was carefully considered in another place, and it was decided to leave the age for cats and dogs as it stands to-day, on the grounds that we had little information to justify alteration. It was also pointed out with some cogency that it would be easier to alter the ages downwards by an amending Order at a later stage should this be considered desirable, than to alter them upwards should a mistake have been made in putting them too low. This, like the previous point on which there is some controversy, is one that can be changed by an amending Order requiring an Affirmative Resolution of both Houses of Parliament, should further investigation show that the Government—supported, I may say, by the Opposition in the other place—have made a mistake in fixing the maximum age at which cats and dogs may be castrated, at six months. The revised ages will still, of course, mean that unqualified persons must observe the Protection of Animals (Anæthetics) Acts in carrying out the operation of castration.
1182 My Lords, I do not think I need say more about these Amendments. I commend them to the House, and I shall be happy to listen to anything which noble Lords have to say on this Bill, which has in the past proved of such interest to this House. I beg to move.
§ Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Champion.)
§ 3.2 p.m.
§ LORD DRUMALBYNMy Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for having explained the purport of these Amendments to your Lordships. With Amendments Nos. 1 and 14 we are of course in full agreement. The noble Lord will recall that at an earlier stage of the Bill he told your Lordships that it would not be possible to reach finality on Schedule 3 before the Bill became law. In the course of his remarks to-day, he made it clear that there was some opportunity for further consideration, but what the British Veterinary Association, the R.S.P.C.A. and the N.F.U. are also concerned about is that, while the concluding stage of a Statute has a certain air of finality about it, inevitably this is not the end of the story so far as Schedule 3 is concerned.
The noble Lord's remarks have made it clear that the Government's mind remains open on a number of these aspects, particularly on the question of defining the qualifications of instructors at institutions at which instruction is given to students in animal husbandry. On this subject the noble Lord said—and he emphasised the words—that as full effect as practicable would be given to the agreement which was reached between the R.S.P.C.A., the N.F.U., the Department of Education and Science, the Animal Health Division the B.V.A. and the Royal College on this matter; that is to say, after the initial instruction which has to be given by qualified veterinary surgeons, those who give further instruction will themselves have received some appropriate training from a member of the veterinary profession.
What is not clear is why it is not possible for the Department of Education and Science to insist and to ensure that this is so. Why is it possible for the noble Lord to qualify this requirement by saying only that it will be done so far as practicable? I am told that there 1183 is no shortage of veterinary surgeons to give this kind of instruction to students of animal husbandry; and there certainly will be no shortage of veterinary surgeons who can give instructions to the instructors of these students. Therefore, it seems odd that the noble Lord should have to qualify it in this way. It would give a great deal of satisfaction if he could go a little further.
The noble Lord said that as soon as the courses themselves had been defined it would be possible to introduce an order to carry this agreement into effect. I would ask him to be a little more specific about any difficulties which exist in the meantime in giving what he called administrative effect to this agreement. Would he tell the House what these difficulties are; and would he further state what steps are being taken to minimise and, ultimately, to eliminate them? The object, of course, is to ensure that animal husbandry students will later carry out the operations as to avoid pain, and in the most efficient manner possible. It seems quite obvious that, if that is to be so, those who give the instruction must themselves have received adequate instruction. This is what I am asking the noble Lord to ensure, even though I recognise the immediate drafting difficulties which have prevented his giving effect to this in the Schedule itself.
May I now turn to the other point on Amendment No. 19? As the noble Lord said, the issue here is whether the words "cat or dog" should be included. I would remind noble Lords (or inform them, if they have not already heard of this) that at the Committee stage in another place the Government's spokesman said:
Having heard the discussion in the Committee, we would be prepared to table an Amendment on Report to remove 'cat or dog' from paragraph (c) and to insert 'cat or dog' in paragraph (a)".—which sets out the animals that may not be castrated by unqualified persons. Of course that has not been done. The noble Lord has given us the reasons, but it must clearly be an unsatisfactory situation when this very delicate operation is being carried out by people who are not fully qualified. I hope the Government will adhere to the undertaking they have given—and I quote from what the Parliamentary Secretary said in another place: 1184After the Bill becomes law, I think that we should have a look at this again."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 735 (No. 94), col. 1791; 11/11/66.]I would ask the noble Lord to say that, in having a look at this matter, he will bear in mind two points. The first is the great difficulty involved in getting evidence of cruelty in the carrying out of these operations, so that the mere negative that there is no evidence will not be adduced; and, secondly, that he should bear in mind that it is no argument to say that, because there are likely to be some infringements of a Statute, therefore certain provisions should not be included in that Statute. Neither of these arguments will really hold water, and I would ask him to make clear that, in considering this matter, he will bear these points in mind.One recognises the difficulties, and one recognises also that these operations are currently carried out on cats, and have been for a long time. But I would suggest to your Lordships that there is no justification for the exclusion of dogs, whatever may be the case for cats. I would urge the noble Lord to introduce an order at the earliest possible moment to transfer dogs from paragraph (c) to paragraph (a), in order to ensure that these operations on dogs are carried out only by people fully qualified to do so—and we hope that in due course the same restriction will apply to cats.
§ 3.10 p.m.
§ LORD SOMERSMy Lords, I should like to support everything my noble friend has said. While I am glad to see the improvements that have been made to Schedule 3, about which I must admit I was extremely unhappy, I think the inclusion in paragraph (a) not only of dogs but also of cats would be advisable, and would not be beyond practicable application. Dogs and cats may present something of a problem in areas where a veterinary surgeon may be some way away, but not beyond that of the other animals which are already covered in this paragraph.
§ LORD CHAMPIONMy Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has, I think, called attention to the fact that throughout the whole process of the Bill through this House I said that probably we should not be able to resolve the doubts and difficulties on Schedule 3 1185 while the Bill was going through the other place. This has been found possible. I do not know that any of us can be completely happy with Schedule 3 as it now stands, and that is why I was careful to emphasise the fact that the working of Schedule 3will be watched carefully in regard to what we are all anxious to do, which is to secure the maximum prevention of cruelty to animals by unqualified people. Of course, this Bill went through the other place and was subjected to all the democratic pressures that can be brought to bear on Committees, on Ministers, and indeed on the House as a whole, and what emerged from discussions there was this Schedule 3 as it will be after these Amendments are embodied in it.
What I will say to the noble Lord is that, so far as I personally am concerned, and for as long as I have any connection at all with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, it will be my desire to ensure that the Minister of the day in fact watches very carefully the operation of this Schedule 3. The noble Lord and I have lived with this Bill. Indeed, we are almost its father and mother. We started it in the last Parliament and have continued it in this, and I think we are a little proud of our offspring. That does not always apply to one's offspring, but it does in this case. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Somers, for his continued interest in animal welfare.
On the question of the qualification of instructors, what I said was that as full effect as is practicable can be given to the principle of the training of instructors by veterinary surgeons, and I went on to qualify those words, as the noble Lord has admitted. We know the difficulties that are visualised in some people's minds, but we cannot see that any difficulties will in fact exist about the administrative arrangements involved. We have considered the practicability of these courses, their definition, the question of a certificate of qualification, and so on. We have all these points in mind. But I am not going to pronounce on this whole matter in answer to a question raised by the noble Lord. All I can do is to give him the undertaking that I am sure he is asking me to give—namely, that we will also watch this aspect very carefully, because it is a part of the job that he 1186 and I, and indeed Parliament as a whole, have been engaged on for so long. My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will now be able to accept the Amendments from another place.
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.