§ EXEMPTIONS FOR DOCTORS, DENTISTS, VETERINARY SURGEONS AND VETERINARY PRACTITIONERS
§ Mr. Scott-HopkinsI beg to move Amendment No. 11, in page 7, line 24, after 'herd' insert' not exceeding 100 animals'.
Our discussions in Committee made it clear that veterinary surgeons can drive a coach and horses through the provisions of the Bill. I will not go over the whole argument again. The Clause relates to the important practice of getting together in a group practice. As the Clause stands, veterinary surgeons in a group practice will be exempted from the provisions of Clauses 7 and 8. Therefore, they will be able to manufacture and supply drugs for the animals under their control, and in addition they will be able to do it for their colleagues in another group practice, which may be in another part of the United Kingdom.
8.45 p.m.
We are talking about group practices which could manufacture drugs for a very large number of animals—over 1,000, and perhaps over 5,000 or 6,000 head of cattle, and 10,000 to 30,000 head of sheep. I am not talking about products such as vaccines, serum or plasma, but solely about medicinal products specially prepared at the request of another veterinary surgeon.
I know that many veterinary practitioners and surgeons and their professional bodies do not like the idea of having a number inserted, whether it be 100, 500 or 1,000. But unless subsection (2,b) is to make an absolute mockery of the Clause, there must be a restriction.
The Parliamentary Secretary wrote to me explaining his views, and I am very grateful. Nobody wants to restrict the right of the veterinary surgeon to manufacture a drug he believes is right for a particular animal or herd. But when one comes to a group practice manufacturing drugs for a large number of animals, as could happen, then the whole purpose of Clauses 7 and 8 goes by the board.
As he did in his letter to me, the Parliamentary Secretary may rest his argument on a later Clause under which 1420 regulations and orders can be made to limit this provision should it be found that something has gone wrong in practice. That is the wrong way of going about things. It is closing the stable door after the horse has gone. When he finds that the provisions of Clauses 7 and 8 are being flouted, the Minister will make an order to stop that happening. It will be too late, and it could be very dangerous.
One short example is that an application could be made to the Commission for a product licence for a veterinary drug which is turned down on grounds of efficacy and even of safety. Yet under subsection (2)(b) a group veterinary practice could manufacture it for thousands of head of cattle, and if their neighbours wish to try it on their cattle as well they could be asked to manufacture it for them. So a drug turned down by the Commission could be manufactured by veterinary practitioners, with the help of pharmacists, for a very large number of animals throughout the country. That is not the Minister's intention.
That is why I ask the House to accept the limit of 100. It is an arbitrary figure, but a limit must be fixed somewhere, and I ask the House to accept it as the best compromise that can be arrived at.
§ Mr. John MackieThe Amendment would restrict the preparation of medicinal products by a veterinarian for a colleague to the case where the herd to be treated does not exceed 100 animals. As the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) said, the figure in the Amendment is very arbitrary. The Amendment is impracticable. How would the veterinarian preparing the product know the size of the herd? He knows full well that it can vary as animals are bought and sold and so on.
What is to happen when veterinarians in group practice or partnerships prepare medicinal products for each other? Why stop a veterinarian from preparing a product for his colleagues when any one of them could get the product prepared by a pharmacist? Or is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that we must impose the same arbitrary restriction on pharmacists? The hon. Member will not be surprised if I ask the House to reject the Amendment.
The Amendment stems from a fear among hon. Members opposite that 1421 veterinarians, in particular, are going to start turning into large-scale manufacturers of all sorts of medicinal products. The hon. Gentleman rather suggested that. We do not share these fears. It is a question of balance between the practitioner's time-honoured freedom to prescribe what he thinks is right for his patients—animal or human—and the possibility of the practitioner becoming a manufacturer of drugs. We think that, in present circumstances, we have got the balance about right, and if it becomes necessary to change it we can do so.
As the hon. Gentleman suggested during the Committee stage, we have consulted the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, the Association of British Pharmaceutical Industry, the British Veterinary Association, the Pharmaceutical Society and the National Farmers' Union, and they agree that Clause 9 seems a fair and reasonable way of dealing with the complex issues involved. They also think that it would be impracticable and unduly restrictive in present circumstances to attempt to control veterinarians any further.
Another Amendment has been put down by hon. Members opposite to safeguard the practitioner's right to prescribe and to get his prescriptions dispensed. I am sure, therefore, that they will agree that veterinarians must be free to prepare what they consider to be the most suitable medicinal products for the effective treatment of any animals under their care.
It follows that it is also right and proper for one veterinarian to be able to get one of his colleagues to prepare a product for him without having to go round counting the number of animals in the herd in order to ensure that there are not more than one hundred. For instance, a veterinarian acting as consultant to another might prepare some particular remedy which had previously been used successfully in treating the condition concerned.
The hon. Gentleman said that veterinarians could drive a horse and cart through the Bill. I should point out that we have, nevertheless, carefully contained the veterinarian. To be exempt from the licensing arrangements, a medicinal product has to be specially prepared for administration to a particular animal or herd and has to be supplied to a 1422 person having possession or control of that animal or herd. We must have—and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has— faith in veterinarians that this is what they will do and that they will not go in for wholesale manufacture.
Over and above that, there are severe restrictions on the preparation of vaccines, plasma and sera. No poultry vaccines may be prepared unless they have been licensed and the preparation of other vaccines is limited to those specially prepared for the treatment of a particular patient from material derived from the individual animal and must be administered to the same animal.
The hon. Gentleman said that he was not thinking of autogenous vaccines but this is made clear in Clause 9 (2) (b). This exemption is necessary to allow the time-honoured treatment in this way of certain conditions such as warts in cattle and other localised infections to continue.
We must also allow veterinarians who prepare a serum or plasma to treat certain conditions within a herd. In this form of treatment, it is important that the serum or plasma should contain antibodies against the particular strain or organism present in the environment. This means, in effect, obtaining it from apparently healthy animals in the herd which is exposed to that strain of organism. It follows that serum or plasma obtained from animals in one herd might well be useless for the treatment of animals in another, so that the exemption does not lend itself to the abuse feared by the hon. Gentleman.
If, with the passage of time, a change is needed—if there are, for instance, further developments in inventivism—the exemption can be amended in accordance with Clause 15. In view of this explanation, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the Amendment.
§ Mr. John Farr (Harborough)I only intervene because it appears to me that the whole sense of this subsection depends on the interpretation of the term "medicinal product". That is interpreted at some length in Clause 116. I am not certain whether my hon. Friend's suggested amended figure of 100 on a herd basis is a correct one, but I call attention to the fact that many small farmers, who have difficulty in procuring 1423 drugs such as penicillin and streptomycin, which are identified in the Bill as medicinal products, often fear to call in a veterinary surgeon for the treatment of small animals, such as weaner pigs or lambs, because the yet may charge three or four guineas, which is almost the cost of the animal concerned.
I intervene to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to give further consideration to this point, which is of great concern to many farmers who breed pigs and lambs and who fear to call in a vet, with the result that the animal dies. This could well be prevented if the simple drugs such as penicillin and streptomycin were generally available for use by the farmer.
§ Mr. Scott-HopkinsThe Parliamentary Secretary's answer was extremely unsatisfactory. He did not put forward a single reasonable ground for saying that my Amendment was impracticable. I concede that 100 is an arbitrary figure and should perhaps be 200, but he should have further consultations with the people concerned so as to fix a proper figure if he is not satisfied with 100. Whatever figure is fixed is always unsatisfactory, but a figure must be fixed, otherwise one is relying on the good sense and good nature of the veterinary profession. They are most honourable and reputable people, but the Parliamentary Secretary knows as well as I do that there have in the past been cases where live vaccine has been manufactured by veterinary surgeons and disseminated through the north of England. That happened not many years ago, and it could happen again, not with live vaccine but with other drugs.
My submission is that the difficulties raised by the hon. Gentleman are covered. I am not trying to stop the veterinary surgeon from being allowed to prescribe and manufacture whatever drugs he wishes for any animal or small herd, or from asking a consultant to manufacture it. I am saying that some provision should be put into the Bill to stop the whole purpose of the Bill being flouted. The Bill deals with safety, efficacy and quality of medicinal products, be those veterinary or human. If a veterinary surgeon, a vet in group practice or a consultant, is to be allowed to get round those provisions, I say that this is wrong and should be stopped, 1424 and I hope that my hon. Friends will support the Amendment.
§ Mr. MackieI do not think the point raised by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Park) comes under this Amendment, but I will take note of what he says. I appreciate the point, but I do not think that vets charge three or four guineas a visit.
The hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) destroys his own case by saying, "Fix a figure, any figure will do." This is practically what he said. As he knows, needs are changing, there are small herds, large herds, and there are companies with herds up to one thousand. As I said in my opening remarks, it is impracticable and arbitrary to fix the figure, we have had consultations again and again, and I am sorry that I cannot follow his argument for this restriction.
§ 9.0 p.m.
§ Mr. Maurice MacmillanI find it hard to realise that we are still talking about safety, quality, and efficacy. It seems to me that we are now discussing administrative convenience, which is not quite so important.
We on this side of the House do not suggest that there is any reason why the veterinary profession should abuse this legislation, but why give its members an incentive to do so? Why show a bias in favour of those who might be dishonest or sensible enough to take advantage of a loophole which the Minister refuses to close?
As it stands, the Bill allows a large group practice to become, in effect, a group of manufacturers. If they intend to market their products, no doubt they will require a licence, but if the use of the products is confined to the group practice, the manufacturing unit escapes all the licensing provisions. What is the effect when a group of veterinary practitioners in group practice set up such a manufacturing and importing unit, which I understand has happened, for reasons of efficiency and to serve their customers? I am thinking of a practice which covers a large area. Naturally, the veterinary surgeons concerned use the products which their unit produces, because they regard them as more efficacious, safe and of higher quality, and I suspect that they are also extremely competitive in price.
1425 Is the Minister happy in that such a unit escapes all the proposed licensing provisions? However unselfish and desirable the motives of those who set up such a unit, I do not see why they should be privileged in this way.
§ Mr. MackieIt appears that neither the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Maurice Macmillan) nor the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) listened to the argument in the latter part or my speech. I pointed out that we have carefully contained the veterinarians by the fact that, to be exempt from the licensing arrangements, a medicinal product must be specially prepared for administering to a particular animal or herd, and so on. If a group of veterinarians decides to set up a manufacturing unit and to market the products, they will
§ require to comply with the licensing provisions.
§ Mr. Scott-HopkinsThe wording is to the effect that the restrictions do not apply to anything done by a veterinary surgeon or a veterinary practitioner which
relates to a medicinal product specially prepared for administration to a particular animal or herd which is under his care, and consists of manuacturing … the products to a person having the possession or control of that animal or herd.That is as wide as one could wish. There is no restriction. I hope that my hon. Friends will support the Amendment.
§ Question put, That the Amendment be made: —
§ The House divided: Ayes 93, Noes 129.
1427| Division No. 227.] | AYES | [9.4 p.m. |
| Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n) | Fisher, Nigel | Nabarro, Sir Gerald |
| Bell, Ronald | Fietcher-Cooke, Charles | Onslow, Cranley |
| Biffen, John | Fortescue, Tim | Page, Graham (Crosby) |
| Biggs-Davison, John | Foster, Sir John | Page, John (Harrow, W.) |
| Black, Sir Cyril | Gibson-Watt, David | Pink, R. Bonner |
| Blaker, Peter | Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.) | Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch |
| Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.) | Grant-Ferris, R. | Pym, Francis |
| Body, Richard | Gresham Cooke, R. | Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James |
| Braine, Bernard | Grieve, Percy | Rawtinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter |
| Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) | Hall, John (Wycombe) | Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David |
| Bruce-Gardyne, J. | Hall-Davis, A. G. F. | Rhyt Williams, Sir Brandon |
| Buck, Antony (Colchester) | Hawkins, Paul | Ridsdale, Julian |
| Bullus, Sir Eric | Hirst, Geofirey | Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey) |
| Burden, F. A. | Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin | Russell, Sir Ronald |
| Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.) | Holland, Philip | Scott, Nicholas |
| Chichester-Clark, R. | Hunt, John | Scott-Hopkins, James |
| Clegg, Walter | Iremonger, T. L. | Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby) |
| Cordle, John | Johnson Smith, C. (E. Grinetead) | Silvester, Frederick |
| Corfield, F. V. | Kaberry, Sir Donald | Sinclair, Sir George |
| Costain, A. P. | Kershaw, Anthony | Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington) |
| Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne) | Kirk, Peter | Speed, Keith |
| Crouch, David | Lane, David | Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H. |
| Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.) | Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) | Walker, Peter (Worcester) |
| Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford) | MacArthur, Ian | Ward, Dame Irene |
| Dodds-Parker, Douglas | McMaster, Stanley | Webster, David |
| Doughty, Charles | MacmilIan, Maurice (Farnham) | Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William |
| Drayson, G. B. | Maude, Angus | Williams, Donald (Dudley) |
| Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) | Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. | Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro) |
| Elliott, R.W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne.N.) | Miscampbell, Norman | Worsley, Marcus |
| Emery, Peter | More, Jasper | |
| Errington, Sir Eric | Morrison, Charles (Devizes) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
| Farr, John | Murton, Oscar | Mr. Anthony Royle and |
| Mr. Hector Monro. | ||
| NOES | ||
| Anderson, Donald | Crawshaw, Richard | Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) |
| Armstrong, Ernest | Cronin, John | Forrester, John |
| Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham) | Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard | Fowler, Gerry |
| Barnes, Michael | Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway) | Gourlay, Harry |
| Beaney, Alan | Dell, Edmund | Gregory, Arnold |
| Bidwell, Sydney | Dewar, Donald | Grey, Charles (Durham) |
| Blackburn, F. | Dickens, James | Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly) |
| Blenkinsop, Arthur | Dobson, Ray | Grimond, Rt. Hn. J. |
| Booth, Albert | Driberg, Tom | Hamilton, William (Fife, W.) |
| Boston, Terence | Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e) | Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) |
| Braddock, Mrs. E. M. | Eadie, Alex | Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith |
| Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) | Ellis, John | Hilton, W. S. |
| Coleman, Donald | Ennals, David | Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town) |
| Concannon, J. D. | Fitch, Alan (Wigan) | Homer, John |
| Corbet, Mrs. Freda | Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston) | Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough) |
| Hoy, James | Mendelson, J. J. | Rogers, George (Kensington, N.) |
| Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) | Mikardo, Ian | Rosa, Rt. Hn. William |
| Hunter, Adam | Millan, Bruce | Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.) |
| Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill) | Miller, Dr. M. S. | Ryan, John |
| Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak) | Milne, Edward (Blyth) | Shaw, Arnold (llford, S.) |
| Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.) | Molloy, William | Short, Rt. Hn. Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne) |
| Johnston, Russell (Inverness) | Moonman, Eric | Short, Mrs. Renée(W'hampton,N.E.) |
| Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.) | Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire) | Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford) |
| Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) | Murray, Albert | Silverman, Julius |
| Judd, Frank | Ogden, Eric | Skeffington, Arthur |
| Kelley, Richard | O'Malley, Brian | Slater, Joseph |
| Kerr, Russell (Feltham) | Oram, Albert E. | Small, William |
| Lawson, George | Oswald, Thomas | Snow, Julian |
| Ledger, Ron | Owen, Wilt (Morpeth) | Swingler, Stephen |
| Lestor, Miss Joan | Page, Derek (King's Lynn) | Thomas, Rt. Hn. George |
| Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.) | Palmer, Arthur | Tinn, James |
| Luard, Evan | Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred | Tuck, Raphael |
| Lubbock, Eric | Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.) | Urwin, T. W. |
| Lyon, Alexander W. (York) | Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.) | Varley, Eric G. |
| Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.) | Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E. | Walden, Brian (All Saints) |
| McBride, Neil | Price, Thomas (Westhoughton) | Walker, Harold (Doncaster) |
| MacColl, James | Price, William (Rugby) | Watkins, David (Consett) |
| McKay, Mrs. Margaret | Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W. | Wells, William (Walsall, N.) |
| Mackenzie, Gregor (Ruthorglen) | Rhodes, Geoffrey | Wilson, William (Coventry, S.) |
| Mackie, John | Richard, Ivor | Winnick, David |
| McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.) | Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.) | Winstanley, Dr. M. P. |
| MacPherson, Malcolm | Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St.P'c'as) | |
| Marquand, David | Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
| Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy | Roebuck, Roy | Mr. Joseph Harper and |
| Mr. Ioan L. Evans. |