§ Mr. Buchanan-SmithI beg to move Amendment No. 18, in page 9, line, 38, at end insert:
(3A) The said Act of 1931 shall have effect subject to the provisions of Schedule (Licensing of bulls) to this Act, being provisions amending and modifying that Act in various respects and enabling its operation to be suspended by order.
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Ronald Russell)With this Amendment it will be convenient for the House to discuss Government Amendment No. 27 and sub-Amendment (a) thereto.
§ Mr. Buchanan-SmithI do not intend to comment on the sub-Amendment, although in winding up the debate I should be pleased to answer any points raised.
These Amendments are concerned with bull licensing, a topic which occupied us for a considerable period in Committee and provided a great deal of interest and division, and which, for the first time in the Committee, cut totally across party lines. We had very full and interesting debates in Committee, which I have heard commented upon favourably outside the House by people who have said that there were Members of the House, in particular the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang), who have a knowledge of these things and who are able to speak on these technical matters with considerable authority.
However, at the end of the day in Committee, I am glad to say that the majority view, which was not reflected everywhere, was that the broad principles on which we intend to found future bull licensing are right. I think I am correct in summarising that the Committee accepted that until the more scientific methods of selection which are now widely used in the pig industry are generally used in the cattle industry, it would be desirable to continue licensing control to ensure that only bulls which are of sound conformation, free of defects and healthy are used for breeding.
The Amendments do not affect those broad principles, but they give effect to a very important aspect of the Government's 1057 overall policy—that the Government should not provide services which can be provided by outside sources. In this instance, the Government have accepted the view of the veterinary profession that designated private veterinary surgeons in large animal practices can satisfactorily carry out bull licensing inspections. The Amendments will make this possible.
It may be helpful to the House if I explain some of the background, and I apologise in advance because this will necessarily be at some length. It may also help those outside the House who are interested in these matters.
The outline of the new system which we are to adopt for the licensing of bulls was determined at a meeting between agriculture Ministers and representatives of the industry and the veterinary profession held last August, when there was agreement in principle on arrangements under which the agriculture Departments would issue licences on the basis of a veterinary certificate to be obtained by the owner of the bull. Since last August, further meetings have been held with the profession and the industry to agree the details of the new arrangements. The new Schedule which is introduced by the new subsection (3A) to Clause 9 gives effect to those agreed arrangements.
The principal effect of the new Schedule is to enable agriculture Ministers to grant or to refuse to grant a licence on consideration of a certificate issued by a veterinary surgeon accredited for this purpose, by the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and the British Veterinary Association. The certificate which is provided by the veterinary surgeon will indicate whether the bull answers to the requirements of the 1931 Act—in other words, whether on examination it proved to be of sound conformation, free of defects and healthy.
In Committee, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East was very concerned that the number of veterinary surgeons accredited to carry out bull licensing inspections should not be too restricted. I am glad to be able to say that the criteria which the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and the British Veterinary Association have laid down for their panel will mean that about 1,000 veterinary practices will be eligible. I understand that the veterinary profession 1058 has in mind a standard charge for a bull licensing inspection, and this will probably be £7 per bull.
§ Mr. StrangThe hon. Gentleman says that 1,000 will be eligible. Will he state the total number of practices, so that we have some idea of the proportion of veterinary surgeons involved?
§ Mr. Buchanan-SmithI cannot give the figure off hand, but I hope that by the end of the debate I shall be able to answer that question.
Continuing with the question of the cost of the licences, the profession has in mind a standard charge of £7. Additionally, the agriculture Departments will need to charge a licence application fee of about £1, possibly somewhat more, to cover their administrative and enforcement costs. The combined cost of a veterinary inspection and licence will be about £8. That is appreciably more than the present fee of £2.75, but, as we have made clear to the House in the past, the present fee is nowhere near in line with present costs. It would, indeed, have to be raised probably to significantly more than £8 if present bull licensing arrangements were to be continued.
In our consultations with the veterinary profession and the industry, they made it very clear to us that they were concerned—the hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) was particularly involved with this point—lest a bull which had been turned down as unsuitable for licence by one veterinary practice might be submitted to another practice which was unaware of the fact that the bull had already been inspected for licensing purposes. To avoid such an abuse the last part of the Schedule provides that a veterinary surgeon who inspects a bull for licensing purposes must mark the bull to show that he has inspected it. Ministers are given power to refuse to grant a licence if the bull has not been so marked or if it has been inspected or marked by a different veterinary surgeon on a previous occasion. These are additional matters on which the veterinary surgeon will have to certify over and above the suitability of the bull for licence.
The House would not expect me to go into greater detail on these matters at 1059 this stage. However, the form of the application and veterinary certificate, the design of the mark and the manner of marking will be prescribed and set out in regulations which will be subject to scrutiny in Parliament.
I turn to the question of appeals, another matter which concerned certain hon. Members in Committee. At present a bull owner aggrieved by the rejection of a bull for licence has a right of appeal to an independent referee selected from a panel which consists, in the words of the 1931 Act,
of persons appointed by the Minister on the recommendation of such agricultural associations and cattle-breeding societies as the Minister thinks it expedient to consult.I know from what was said in Committee and elsewhere that the House will want appeal provisions to continue. As initial licensing inspections are to be carried out by veterinary surgeons, it would be appropriate for referees to be appointed in future on the recommendation of the veterinary profession. Paragraph 2 of the Schedule makes that possible.The third paragraph of the Schedule gives the Minister and the Secretary of State, acting separately or jointly, the power to suspend bull licensing. I must emphasise that these are reserve powers and that the Government do not contemplate using them without good reason. However, the House would obviously like to know the kind of circumstances in which they might be deployed. The time may well come when the cattle industry reaches the position that the pig industry has already attained, in which scientific data and methods are generally available for the selection of sires. But I do not think the time has yet come. That was the whole burden of my argument in Committee, when I even called in aid the right hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart), who counselled us not to be too hasty.
8.30 p.m.
Meanwhile, the new licensing regime represents in effect a voluntary agreement between the Government, the industry and the veterinary profession. My colleagues and I are very anxious to see the new arrangements given a fair wind. However, in the event that at a later stage either the industry or the profession 1060 finds reason to seek their discontinuance, we would not feel it right to hold them to them. In such a situation we could not be expected, nor would we be prepared, to re-erect our own licensing system. It is primarily with that sort of situation in mind that we have thought it right and necessary to take the reserve power to put licensing in suspense.
With my knowledge of the industry and of many of the scientific arguments rightly advanced by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East, I commend the Amendments to the House and hope that they will be accepted. They embody proposals which have been worked out after considerable trouble in consultation with the industry and the veterinary profession, to whom they are broadly acceptable. They will permit a large measure of Government disengagement from bull licensing whilst they still allow statutory licensing control to continue.
I hope that with those few words the House will approve the Amendment.
§ Mr. StrangI thank the Minister for the very helpful way in which he moved the Amendment. All of us who took part in the Committee debates appreciate the way in which he has genuinely tried to respond to the points put to him by a number of hon. Members on both sides.
The hon. Gentleman started by expressing the main reason why the Government believe that it is right to retain bull licensing. He repeated his argument that it was right because the cattle industry was not so far advanced in performance testing and other scientific methods. He is aware that I totally reject that argument, and am opposed to bull licensing.
I am a little disappointed that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is not here himself, because I am sure that most people believe that he, too, would like to have scrapped bull licensing along with boar licensing. The Under-Secretary is shaking his head, which provokes me into telling the House that it has been suggested to me that that well-known agricultural expert, the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) played an important rôle in the retention of bull licensing. But that is enough of that.
1061 I want to deal seriously with some of the detailed points that the Minister has put to us in such a friendly manner. I should like a little more information on precisely how the certification system will operate. The Minister said that the certificate would contain information which corresponded to Section 2 of the 1931 Act, and he gave three criteria listed in that Act. But I should be interested to know whether, for example, the word "conformation" will appear on the certificate. Presumably it will. Will the veterinary surgeon have to give a score for conformation, or will it be a pass or a fail? Will that be the way in which all these criteria will be decided? Will the certificate be in a form in which the veterinary surgeon will say that the bull is not defective or inferior, and not apparently affected with a contagious or infectious disease which renders it unsuitable for breeding purposes? Or will the veterinary surgeon simply give some assessment and conclude with whether he recommends that it be licensed? It is not clear whether the veterinary surgeon has to come down one way or the other, although I assume that is what is intended, and that the certificate, when it is received by the Ministry, will simply state whether the veterinary surgeon recommends that the bull receives a licence.
It seems that the Ministry will not be obliged to accept the veterinary surgeon's verdict on the certificate. I am not suggesting that the Minister is likely not to accept the certificates on a large scale. Obviously the Minister's officials will not have time to look at the bulls. The whole point is that it should be done by veterinary surgeons. However, am I right in thinking that the Minister has the power not to accept the verdict on the certificate? It is a legal point, but it is worth placing on the record. If that is the situation, then I welcome it, although I should not expect the power to be used very often. The Minister is more likely to pass a bull which has been turned down than to turn one down which has been passed by a veterinary surgeon. Perhaps that is optimistic, but I hope that things are changing in Ministry circles.
I now turn to the number of veterinary surgeons who will be eligible to inspect bulls with a view to giving licences. The Minister said that 1,000 veterinary sur- 1062 geons would be so licensed. I should be grateful if he could give the House an indication of the proportion of veterinary practices which will be able to operate under the system. The Minister is obviously under the impression that 1,000 is a large number. However, I should have been disappointed if the number had been any less. When one splits up that figure there will be 100 or 200 in Scotland and the others will be distributed on a county basis. It will not be such a large number of veterinary practices.
Will the local veterinary practice be able to inspect the bulls within the practice? Will the veterinary surgeon who goes regularly to a farm for a variety of reasons be able to inspect that farmer's bull? I hope that he would be able to do so. I know that it is not always desirable to have such inspections. However, when I used to inspect potatoes as a student, it was always desirable to inspect locally. I hope that the system will be sufficiently flexible so that a farmer can have his bull inspected by his own veterinary surgeon.
I come now to the question of appeal. The hon. Gentleman said that he felt that because veterinary surgeons were doing the inspections it was right that the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons should nominate the members on the appeal panel. Our sub-Amendment (a) is to the effect that the British Society of Animal Production should be required to nominate referees along with the Royal College and the cattle breeding societies. As I said in Committee, there is a good case for arguing that on the appeal committee there should be an animal geneticist. I am sure that many geneticists will agree that veterinary surgeons are not really geared to deal with this kind of geneticism, with the questions it raises of the genetic improvement of livestock populations. I hope that it will be possible to have some members other than veterinary surgeons on the appeal committee. For example, supposing there is a bull with a very high performance which nevetherless does not conform with the inspection requirements. An agricultural scientist would probably point out to the committee that the bull's very high performance should be taken into account and that it should be prepared to take a little less account of conformation.
1063 In the new Schedule, the Minister takes power to suspend the operation of the 1931 Act. I was quite encouraged by the careful manner in which he chose his words. It seems to me that he is acknowledging that it may not be very long before he feels it appropriate to end bull licensing. I am not asking him to agree with that now but the tone of his remarks was that we have bull licensing in the meantime for the reasons he has given but that when the Meat and Livestock Commission and the other organisations are successful in having more tests and when more farmers are aware of the importance of rearing and using progeny-tested animals he will look carefully at the possibility of suspending the operation of the licensing system.
There are additional points that one can make on this matter but I recognise that it is a specialised subject and that other hon. Members want to discuss other parts of the Bill, so I will conclude with the hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to answer the points I have put.
§ Mr. Alfred MorrisThe Under-Secretary of State was much less brash and combative in moving the Amendment. The quiet rational approach suits him much better than the noise and rancour of his earlier speech. He was refreshingly reasonable and even constructive. As he said, there was very good debate when we discussed licensing in Committee. Many of us feel that the Committee was at its best in dealing with this part of the Bill. Fortunately, our debates in Committee have had a positive result. I argued in Committee that the Government's proposals were not satisfactory from the viewpoint of some important interests. My principal concern was to ensure full consultation with the veterinary profession and other interested bodies.
I serve on the Council of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons as representative of the Privy Council. I serve also on the Royal College's Parliamentary Committee. This gives me a deep personal interest in the administration of the Government's proposals. I warmly acknowledge that the right hon. Gentleman has now consulted the Royal College, the British Veterinary Association, the National Cattle Breeders' Association as well as the National Farmers' Union 1064 and the Milk Marketing Board since last July.
8.45 p.m.
Perhaps the House will forgive me if I quote the way I put the matter in Committee:
Where the industry and the veterinary profession appear to find the Ministry as yet unable to meet their viewpoint is in regard to the proposal that, whenever a veterinary surgeon enters a farm to inspect a bull, he should mark it in such a way as to indicate that an inspection has taken place … the marking of bulls to show that they have been inspected would make it difficult for the farmer, after the bull had failed at such an inspection, either to move it on to another farm in another area with a view to trying his luck with a second veterinary surgeon, or simply to unload it on to the market in the hope that it will be bought by some unsuspecting farmer who would not know that it had failed an inspection".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee H. 14th March, 1972; c. 582–3.]I am glad that the hon. Gentleman addressed himself to this point in his opening speech.At one time, my right hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) sought to improve the advisory services available to the Minister by creating an independent advisory service under the late Professor Fraser. The body set up by my right hon. Friend has now been disbanded, yet the wisdom of his initiative is widely acknowleged throughout the industry.
While thanking the hon. Gentleman for his constructive response to the points which he made in Committee, I ask him again to reflect on the decision to disband the advisory service instituted by my right hon. Friend. At this point, however, on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends I welcome the Minister's Amendment.
§ Mr. Buchanan-SmithI am grateful to the hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) for the way in which he has welcomed the Amendment. I think that we have reached a sensible arrangement which meets the practicalities of the problems which were raised in Committee, and raised also by farmers, by the cattle breeders and by the veterinary profession.
I am grateful, also, to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) for his remarks and the constructive approach of his speech. He asked about the form of certificate and, in effect, wanted to know 1065 what matters would be taken into account. The British Veterinary Association and the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons have produced a joint memorandum which will be used as a guide for the veterinary examination of bulls for licensing. I shall be happy to let the hon. Gentleman have a copy of that guide. Rather than weary the House at this stage by going into it, I think it more appropriate to let the hon. Gentleman see the sort of factors which will be in the mind of the veterinary surgeons concerned.
Next, the hon. Gentleman asked about the number of eligible practices. So far as my information goes, the 1,000 eligible practices to which I referred represent about one-quarter of all veterinary practices, though the House will have in mind that when one speaks of all practices that includes small animal practices which deal only with cats, dogs, canaries and the like. I am sorry that I cannot be more definite at the moment than that. Perhaps the more realistic way of answering the hon. Gentleman's question is to say that all practices with not less than five years' experience on cattle work will be eligible.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether the Minister would have power to override the veterinary certificate. Legally, he would, but we do not envisage any general use of that power, though it would be available if it had to be used in an exceptional circumstance.
Could a farmer use his own veterinary practice? Yes, if it is an eligible practice, and he chooses to apply, he could use his own veterinary practice.
I turn to the point of substance in the hon. Gentleman's remarks; namely, sub-Amendment (a) to the Government's Amendment No. 27, which concerns the appointment of refrees. If a bull owner is aggrieved by the refusal to grant a licence, he may ask for a referee's inspection, and the referee can either uphold the decision not to grant a licence or decide that the bull is of licensable standard. Either way his decision is binding on both the Minister and the appellant. Referees will be appointed from a panel maintained by the Minister. The Amendment which the House has just approved will enable persons to be appointed to this panel after consultation with the veterinary profession.
1066 Sub-Amendment (a) would enable referees to be appointed on the recommendation of the British Society of Animal Production. The hon. Member has made it clear that its main purpose is to secure the inclusion of animal geneticists on the panel. I cannot advise the House to accept the Amendment because there are important and genuine objections to it. First, if the scheme is to work we must assure consistency of treatment between one case and another. This would not be secured if some appeals were heard by veterinary surgeons and others by geneticists. If that happened, differing standards would be in force and this could only lead to doubt and confusion. Secondly, there should be consistency of treatment between the initial inspection and the appeal. This would not be secured if the initial inspection were carried out—as it will be in all cases—by a veterinary surgeon but the appeal inspection were carried out by a geneticist. This again would create uncertainty for bull owners.
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has in mind a compromise—for example, that appeals might be decided by a veterinary surgeon and a geneticist acting jointly. I will not go into what would happen if they were to disagree; there might be an appeal from an appeal, which would be awkward. There is a more conclusive objection; namely, cost. The fees we charge must cover the full cost of the work, and if appeals were to be heard by more than one referee there would be a risk of owners being deterred by the cost from invoking the appeal procedure. This is a risk which we should not incur.
The criteria against which bulls will have to be considered for licence are concerned with conformation or with health. I have mentioned the technical guidelines which will assist veterinary surgeons in making evaluations of bulls. These have been worked out by the British Veterinary Association and the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. Insofar as some knowledge of genetics will be required, this is a science in which all veterinary surgeons have received training, and, what is perhaps just as important, their day-to-day experience gives them a very thorough understanding and grasp of the subject. That is certainly my experience of working with the veterinary profession.
1067 The veterinary surgeons to be appointed to the panel of referees will all be men of considerable experience and high standing in their profession. I have every confidence that they will be able to deal both knowledgeably and impartially with the cases referred to them, not only on the general standards of conformation and health but when genetic considerations must be taken into account.
I respect the hon. Gentleman's motives, but I hope that his fears will be allayed by the standard of the veterinary surgeons who will be acting as referees. I ask the hon. Gentleman not to press his sub-Amendment.
There is one final point. The hon Member for Edinburgh, East, slightly teasingly, asked when we shall exercise these reserve powers, and he more or less implied "the sooner, the better." I have made no secret of my own position. I believe that when proper scientific standards are established and when they can be applied generally, as they are already in the pig industry, that is an indication of the stage at which we can consider reviewing the situation. We have not yet reached that stage.
I approach this matter in a realistic and practical manner. The scope for the development of performance testing is almost unlimited in the cattle industry. The more that the cattle industry takes this up, the sooner that the practical difficulties can be overcome and the sooner a system of proper scientific testing can be adopted. Many individual breeders have taken it up. I recognise that there are obstacles and difficultes. But I am convinced that it can only be to the benefit of our cattle industry and its improvement. It is because we have not reached that stage that we put forward these proposals.
§ Amendment agreed to.