HC Deb 09 July 1948 vol 453 cc719-31

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered,

Mr. Speaker

Sir Ian Fraser.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore (Ayr Burghs)

On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. As you have called the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser), does that mean you have not selected the new Clause—[Docking of tails]—which stands in the name of myself and five other hon. Members?

Mr. Speaker

No, it has not been selected.

Sir T. Moore

rose—

Mr. Speaker

My selection cannot be argued. I have not selected the new Clause, and that is the end of the matter.

Sir T. Moore

I was not intending to dispute your Ruling, Sir. I was only going to ask whether it would be possible for the Minister to make a statement about an agreed Bill at a later date?

Mr. Speaker

That is outside this Bill. We can only deal with what is in the Bill, and docking of tails is not in the Bill. Might I also say that I have not selected the next Amendment, in the name of the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen), in page 10, line 3, after "London" to insert "and Wales," as that was discussed in Committee and negatived.

11.12 a.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. George Brown)

I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

I think it would be for the convenience of the House if I said a few words about the Bill. It is a matter of great satisfaction to my right hon. Friend, who is, unfortunately, unable to be here, that the two principles which form the main substance of the Bill—the extension of facilities for veterinary education and the control of unqualified practice—have met with the approval of all sides of the House. I am sure that those Members who have taken part in the discussions on this Measure will agree that it will make a considerable contribution to the improvement in our animal health, which is so urgent and essential.

I should like to deal with two matters which cropped up during the Committee stage, and into which my right hon. Friend promised to look again. One was that of aliens, which was raised by Members on both sides of the Committee. The position is that Section 13 of the Veterinary Surgeons Act, 1881, permits the registration in the Register of Veterinary Surgeons of holders of any recognised veterinary diploma granted in a British possession or in a foreign country. I need not go into details, but the essence of the matter is that the Royal College already have power to register practitioners holding recognised foreign diplomas in suitable cases, so that no new powers in that respect appear to be required.

The second question was whether it would be possible for an unqualified man, now to be registered, to enter into a partnership with a veterinary surgeon? The particular case that was evidently most in mind was that of a father who was himself unqualified, but who wanted to take into partnership his qualified son. We were asked whether it would not be unfair if they were not permitted to enter into partnership together. I understand that it would not be regarded as proper for a registered veterinary surgeon to enter into partnership with an unregistered person. Indeed, by a by-law of the Royal College, a veterinary surgeon is precluded from assisting an unregistered person by his presence, countenance, advice, assistance or co-operation in attending an animal in respect of matters requiring professional discretion and skill. This ban, however, did not apply to existing practitioners registered under the Act of 1881. Partnerships between persons registered in the Veterinary Surgeons' Register and in the Register of Existing Practitioners were allowed. I would point out that persons registered in the Supplementary Register will, similarly, have a status in the profession, and will be subject to the same rules of discipline and professional conduct as registered veterinary surgeons.

I expect the House will agree with me that the question of what should constitute professional conduct in matters such as this is best left to the governing body of the profession to decide; but the precedent I have mentioned suggests that the decision in this particular case is likely to be the sensible and practical one, and I think we can safely leave it there. I do not think I need do more than add an expression of gratitude on behalf of my right hon. Friend and myself to right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House, and to others outside, who have given us great assistance and encouragement, for their help in getting this Bill through the House, and so enabling us to add one more to the growing number of agricultural Measures which stand to the credit of this Government and of my right hon. Friend since we came into power.

11.17 a.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore (Ayr Burghs)

I am grateful that I have caught your eye, Sir, on this occasion, and that I am able to congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary and, through him, his right hon. Friend, on what I believe to be a good Bill. It has certain omissions which we all deeply regret and to which I cannot now, unfortunately, refer, but no doubt I can have a word with the Parliamentary Secretary afterwards to see whether anything can be done about the very powerful demand that has come from all parts of the House.

This Bill depends on one thing for its success, and that is the profession itself. In my opinion, those who lead it will have to exercise wisdom, tolerance and a certain amount of judgment. It will give the profession a great status which is well merited and which will carry with it, at the same time, obligations and opportunities. Much will depend on whether the leaders of the profession and the practitioners themselves live up to the great opportunity that is now presenting itself. Many new and so-called unqualified men are being admitted to the Register but, on the other hand, they have to subscribe to certain standards of skill, conduct and character. I imagine that their closer integration and co-operation with the older and qualified members of the profession will quickly bring them up to the high standard of ability and capacity that is now prevalent throughout the profession.

One or two points which arose in Committee created, I think, unnecessary heat, and certainly an unnecessary amount of correspondence with Members of Parliament. One was about the name which should be given to new entrants and their general status. We all recognise, and I think the profession will recognise now, that this is a purely passing phase, that these new entrants will inevitably become permanent practitioners within the profession, and that in due course all members of the profession will subscribe to the qualifications laid down by the Council of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. I am glad that there are these safeguards both for the profession itself and also for the would-be entrants. The profession, for the first time, has constitutional powers of discipline. Those who are guilty of unbecoming conduct can be expelled, but happily there is a safeguard giving the defendant the right of appeal. That goes a long way beyond the Acts of Parliament giving similar powers to doctors and dentists, because neither of those Acts of Parliament gives the same rights and powers as the veterinary profession has in this case. I can only hope that it will exercise these powers wisely and in its own best interests.

When the Minister replies, I hope he will make some reference to the point that was raised in Committee but which was ruled out of Order today by you, Mr. Speaker. It would be a great comfort to many in this House and outside who feel very strongly on this subject. We now leave this Bill in the hands of those who will have to administer it. I believe it is in the best interests of those who practise in the profession and who have so deservedly earned a debt of gratitude for their services both in war and in peace. I wish them good luck and Godspeed in the future.

11.22 a.m.

Mr. Bowen (Cardigan)

I am afraid that all the matters on which I feel particularly strongly in this Bill have now been ruled out of Order. I respect your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, but naturally it is a matter of very great regret to me and to my Welsh colleagues that we shall have no further opportunity of ventilating what we believe to be a very genuine grievance in this matter. I should like to say—Land I hope that in saying it I shall be in Order—that while the provisions of the Bill and the intentions behind them are highly desirable, it should be remembered that they are very limited and of a narrow character.

I hope that in the months and years to come, the Minister, when considering the implementation of this Bill, will bear in mind that the real intention is to provide this country with a wider and more general service in the field of veterinary science. If that is to be produced, the powers and scope of the Bill will have to be widened, and there will have to be far greater facilities for training in all spheres. In the sphere in which I and my Welsh colleagues are particularly interested, it will be necessary for the Minister to give full consideration to the arguments that have been put forward. Having said that, I hope the Minister will look upon the representations which will be made to him in that regard with the greatest possible sympathy.

11.25 a.m.

Sir Henry Morris-Jones (Denbigh)

I had not the advantage of being a Member of the Standing Committee which dealt with this Bill, but I have read its proceedings, as I am very interested in the Bill, and I should like to say a word or two before it finally leaves this House. The Bill completes the process of regularising the professions dealing with human beings and animals. I remember in the old days in medicine we had qualified assistants. They were very fine men, and they knew a great deal about the human body. Eventually, through the passage of a Bill in this House, they became registered, and very fine medical practitioners they made. The same can be said of dentistry. Under a Measure that was passed, these unqualified dentists were allowed to enter the profession and become registered. Now we are doing the same thing for the veterinary surgeon.

So far as the Principality of Wales is concerned, there is a considerable body of men who come within this unqualified class. They are first-class men with a wonderful intuition and knowledge of the animal kingdom in all its branches. Some of them are so able and practical that many farmers seek their advice in preference to that of a fully qualified veterinary surgeon. Under the law, of course, they are bound to seek advice from those who are professionally qualified, and I would not for one moment say that that is not always the right course to take, because unqualified knowledge can sometimes be dangerous. It is only fair to say that, so far as Wales is concerned, the work done by this class of unqualified veterinary practitioner over many years has been excellent and has contributed very materially to the welfare of animals in the Principality.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen), under your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, I am, of course, debarred from ventilating a matter which we had hoped to ventilate if you, in your judgment, had called the Amendment in the names of some hon. Members representing Welsh constituencies. However, I hope I shall be allowed to say that this Bill will not be complete in regard to the setting up of university courses in the United Kingdom until Wales has charge of its own science and scientific experiments and is permitted to develop veterinary science within the Principality itself. I trust that the Minister will again review the matter.

11.30 a.m.

Sir Ian Fraser (Lonsdale)

In the Committee stage of this Measure, the question was raised as to whether it was right that persons like therapists, masseurs, and bonesetters should be permitted to practise on animals. The Minister gave us an assurance that he would see whether, under Clause 5, it would be possible to make an order to license such persons to practice. I want to ask whether inquiries in that respect have been fruitful or not.

Whatever is the answer to that question, I want to register a protest against the limitations placed upon the practice of these people. We have this extraordinary anomaly, that whereas I can call in a physio-therapist, a masseur or bonesetter—even Sir Herbert Barker himself—to treat my daughter's ankle, I could not call in any of these gentlemen to treat my racehorse's fetlock. It seems rather absurd to place this limitation on skilled persons, and I cannot see the reason for the difference between the limitation placed where animals are concerned and that placed where human beings are concerned. Will the Minister tell me whether these persons can practise under licence or whether there is any possibility, even now, of altering the Measure to prevent this anomaly from occurring?

11.32 a.m.

Major Sir Thomas Dugdale (Richmond)

Like other hon. Members on this side of the House, I agree with the principles contained in this Bill, and should like to say that we wish it well in its operation when it becomes law. There are, however, one or two points to which I draw the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary. The first is on the general principle that the trouble in which we find ourselves today is due to the serious shortage of veterinary surgeons. I hope the Ministry will go very carefully in regard to the proposed target. We had a discussion on this point in Committee, and we understood from the Government that the target likely to be achieved is 220 students per year coming from the veterinary colleges throughout the country. Is that sufficient? We should probably be in agreement that it is not sufficient, and, while welcoming this Bill, I urge the Government to give the most careful consideration to this point and to do their utmost to get a higher target at the earliest possible date.

That brings me to the points raised by the hon. Members for Denbigh (Sir H. Morris-Jones) and Cardigan (Mr. Bowen), so far as Wales is concerned. There is nothing in the Bill to exclude Wales from receiving the full benefits of the Bill, but I would like to draw the Government's attention to the fact that the Principality is really very advanced in this field of veterinary science, and that it has a number of herds which have been cleared of bovine tuberculosis. As the hon. Member for Denbigh said, there are, in addition to the qualified veterinary surgeons, a large number of good men who have given great service to agriculture, and I think that the more they can be encouraged, and the more young students can be encouraged, to join the veterinary profession, the better it will be for the national interest. On behalf of my hon. Friends, I hope the Government will pay particular attention to that point in the operation of the Measure.

The Parliamentary Secretary explained the position concerning the qualified and unqualified practitioners coming together in partnership, and I gathered from what he said that in the operation of this Measure, so far as those who come under the Supplementary Register are concerned, the lines of the Act of 1881 will be followed, and, therefore, it will be possible for father and son to go into partnership. Will the hon. Gentleman say a further word or two on that subject?

As to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser), we had a considerable discussion on the treatment which could be given to animals, and we admitted, in Committee, that it would probably be a limited number of animals which will be treated by physiotherapy. I think we were satisfied by the Minister, in Committee, that, under Clause 5 (2, b), the Minister can make an order whereby this treatment can be given, as well as electrical treatment for animals, particularly horses. The Parliamentary Secretary did not refer to that in his remarks today, and we should like from him the assurance which was given the Committee that it will be possible for these people to treat animals, as they have done heretofore. We appreciated, during an earlier stage of the Bill, that the Minister said that these people would be able to practise, provided that a veterinary surgeon recommended that such treatment should be given to the animals.

Those are the further points which have emerged from the passage of the Bill through the House. I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore), who said that he thought a very great deal of heat had been generated as to the possible name of the new entrants to the Supplementary Register. That is a point upon which we on this side of the House do not and cannot see eye to eye with the Government, but, the point having been debated both in another place and here during Second Reading and on the Committee Stage, I do not see that any useful purpose would be served by going into the arguments again now.

The Bill is now passing from this House and will soon be on the Statute Book. I would only add the hope that the profession will give its wholehearted support to the Measure because, at the end of the day, its success will depend upon the drive which is put into it by the members of the profession throughout the length and breadth of the country.

11.38 a.m.

Mr. G. Brown

By leave of the House, I should like to say a few words in reply to some of the points that have been raised. On the question of the shortage of veterinary surgeons, it is true that the Government are concerned—and, by this Bill, have demonstrated their concern—that we should, in fact, increase as rapidly as is convenient and wise—and I emphasise that—the number of qualified people in the veterinary profession, who are so important for improving the health of our herds, and, because of that, the health of the people. There is a longterm view to be taken here as well as the short-term view. I repeat that nothing would be more foolish, or could do more harm to the interests of veterinary science at this stage than to encourage a lot of young men to go through this expensive and long training if they could not, in fact, be sure of a position when they had completed it.

Therefore, while one does not want to err on the side of overcaution, one has to remember that people have to go on working for some time ahead, and what we have done is to take the advice of the Loveday Committee, which gave the fullest attention to this matter and took into account all the important considerations, including the availability of teaching staff, the availability of buildings and the opportunties available to people as they come forward. What we have done is to provide for a number of teaching centres and to aim to raise our technique of veterinary science so as to produce 220 new entrants a year, which we think is about right.

I would, however, repeat with such emphasis as I can command what the hon. Baronet said—that there is nothing in this Bill to limit the output to 220 a year. We feel that is where we should begin. Clause 1 is as wide as can be and gives the Privy Council power to authorise any university to do the job if it can show that it can do the job properly. Therefore, the University of Wales—I hope there will be no anxiety or upset among our friends in the Principality because there is no reason for it—or any other university is authorised to give courses as soon as it is clear that they have all the facilities and that it would be wise to raise the sights a little higher than the figure we now have.

Mr. Bowen

How does the hon. Gentleman reconcile his statement that that is what the Loveday Committee has reported, with what the Loveday Committee reported in 1938—that other universities had been discouraged from undertaking veterinary instruction because of an official statement that aid from public funds would not be forthcoming and by a provision in the Charter reconstituting the Council of the R.C.V.S. that no other university should be represented on the Council?

Mr. Brown

We are getting rather confused. What I said was that, taking the figure of 220 at the beginning, we had taken the advice of the Committee and were following their views on that. The hon. Gentleman has galloped on to say that the Committee also said that other things should be done which we have not done. I was not necessarily saying that we took all the advice about everything which the Loveday Committee gave us. I said that in fixing the figure of 220, so far we were taking their advice. I have sat under Dr. Loveday on a similar committee, and I know full well how much care and attention he gives to getting the right kind of answer to a question of this kind.

Clause 1 is as wide as can be, and any university which can show that it can do the job can be authorised if it appears to the people concerned—the Privy Council and the others—that the 220 will not be enough and that we ought to raise the sights. Therefore, the Principality can be quite happy. No door is shut to it. I say that with all the emphasis I can, hoping that it will be some comfort to my hon. Friends. I ought to say that I gladly pay my tribute to the work which has been done in the Principality about the clearance of T.B. from herds. As a member of the minority race from England, I hope it will not be long before we catch up with the very great lead given to us by our friends in the Principality.

On the question of partnerships, the hon. and gallant Member for Richmond (Sir T. Dugdale) interpreted what I said in a wider sense than I intended. I said that this seems to us to be a matter of professional etiquette and a professional code of conduct, and that we ought really to leave it to the professional body to deal with and that it is not for us to prejudge the issue or lay down here what should be done about a professional code. On the other hand, once before they had to deal with the same situation, and they took the view that partnerships could be entered into between the two classes existing at that date, the then registered existing practitioners and the qualified men, and I said that I felt quite sure that what was then the practical and sensible step would again be taken. However, we must leave it to them to do.

The hon. Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) raised the point about physiotherapists. The assurance of my right hon. Friend was not quite the assurance to which he referred today. We did not say that we would look into the Bill to see whether it is possible to make an order. In fact, it is possible to make an order. What my right hon. Friend and I said was that between now and the point at which an order would have to be made—namely, in a year's time; the point cannot arise for the first year—we will give the most careful and sympathetic consideration to the actual making of an order. It is possible to do it, and it is our intention very sympathetically and fully to consider what sort of an order we can make, and to consider making such an order before the time when the need arises. The only ban we have in mind is a ban on diagnosis, and not on treatment. We are very sympathetic to the idea that these people should be permitted to treat the animals, but we feel that the diagnosis should be carried out by a qualified veterinary surgeon.

Sir I. Fraser

No justification has been given to support that contention. As I said, I could call in Sir Herbert Barker to diagnose and treat my child's ankle, but not to treat my racehorse's fetlock. Why?

Mr. Brown

At this stage I ought not to go further into details. We had a most interesting discussion about that during the Committee stage. On the whole, hon. Members felt that the course we were taking was about right. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would be kind enough to refer to that discussion and absolve me from going into details again. We think we are about right, and I am sure that the cause he has at heart will not suffer as a result of what we are proposing to do.

No other invitation has been held out to me, except the invitation of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore) to involve myself with you, Mr. Speaker, by getting out of Order. I prefer not to do that. I will wind up with a word about titles. We have discussed that subject at some length during the passage of the Bill. I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Richmond and the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs that it is now a matter for the profession to forget whatever arose during the discussions. For good or ill, we have embarked on a course which everybody agrees will ultimately be in the interests of the profession. How much it will be so depends on them and the outside world. How quickly all that has gone before will be forgotten depends on them. We are sure that we shall have the fullest co-operation from the profession.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.