DUTIES OF MEAT AND LIVESTOCK COMMISSION AS REGARDS CONSULTATION (Hansard, 5 May 1976)

§ Mr. Nicholas Winterton
I beg to move Amendment No. 9, in page 4, line 20 at end insert—"Qualified Veterinary Surgeons".
In Committee we had a short but useful debate on this topic. I remind the Minister of State that on Thursday 22nd January he gave various assurances to the Opposition. He said: However, I take the point made by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) that the 1967 Act is not a table of Moses coming down from the mountain. It is something which has been the basis for our consideration. However, the 1967 Act, as well as representations and consultations with the MLC and others, should be taken into account. The Veterinary Association has written to us on this matter and I assure the Committee that we will take another look at this in relation to the MLC to see whether there is adequate representation of vets". My hon. Friend the Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton) interjected and asked whether that would be done by Report. The Minister continued: Yes. There are, however, certain dangers, because one may get a whole crowd of other people saying that other categories have an interest as well as vets. I do not want to name them because it may tempt them. Once we start that, we get duplication."—[Official Report, Standing Committee C; 22nd January 1976, c. 259.] 1384 I ask the Minister of State to study the Bill as amended in Committee. I remind him that in page 3 Section 1A, headed Commission's duty to consult representative organisations", provides If it appears to the Commission that any matter arising or likely to arise out of the exercise of the Commission's functions has or is likely to have a substantial effect on the interests of one or more classes of persons mentioned in Part IIA of Schedule 1 to this Act, the Commission shall consult the relevant organisation or each of the relevant organisations about that matter". I refer the House to page 4 and to the classes of persons for the purposes of Section 1A. The first section is cattle, pig and sheep producers. I am sure that the Minister will agree that the qualified veterinary service has a considerable interest in this sphere. The second category listed are those persons employed in livestock production. Qualified veterinary surgeons have an important part to play in that sector as well.
8.0 p.m.
I could go on. There is no doubt that livestock traders have close dealings with qualified veterinary surgeons, a qualified group which provides a vital service in livestock trading.
I know from my experience of livestock auctioneering that there is always a qualified veterinary surgeon in attendance at an auction yard. Again, this professional body has a great deal to do with all the activities listed here.
Perhaps it is right to pick out Local authorities operating slaughterhouses and livestock and meat markets. The qualified veterinary surgeon has a vital part to play in those activities.
The last class of persons detailed is: Persons employed in the marketing and distribution of livestock or the production, processing, manufacture, marketing and distribution of livestock products. Again, the qualified veterinary surgeon is closely involved in all those acivities—and rightly so.
Maybe I am being a little unfair in going over some of the ground which has been covered before in Committee. I hope that the Minister will be sensitive to this amendment. There are no party politics behind it. The amendment genuinely seeks to give a group of people who are not listed here the statutory 1385 right to be consulted when their interests are involved.
I remind the Minister that the functions of the Meat and Livestock Commission include promoting breeding programmes, progeny testing, registration of herds, and so on. I am delighted to have the support of the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells). Qualified veterinary surgeons are rightly deeply involved in all these matters. Therefore, it is right that they should be listed in this part of the Bill. It is for that reason that I am promoting this straightforward amendment.
It is a shame that we are unable to have a slightly wider debate on the whole subject of consultation. A number of bodies are deeply concerned about the lack of consultation which may or may not occur. For instance, I know that the NFU is deeply concerned that there could be a reduction in the level of consultation between the MLC and the industry's organisations following the abolition of the Production and Distribution committees of the MLC. I do not propose to go over that ground again. The NFU, like other organisations—the Association of Fresh Meat Wholesalers, the Meat Manufacturers' Association, the Smithfield Market Fresh Meat Traders Association and others—is not convinced that the procedures so far indicated by the MLC will prove much better than those provided by the Agriculture Act 1967. I am not reassured by the reassertion of the MLC's independence contained in the introduction to the Commission's recently published annual report. I need not quote the extract from the report to which I have just referred.
This is a fairly straightforward amendment, but it would be wrong for me to miss the opportunity of quoting the reaction of my hon. Friend the Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge. In Committee, he said: I, for one, am disappointed with the Minister's reply. It is the classic argument for maintaining the status quo—'We have got along all right so far. We did a bit on a previous clause regarding the machinery of consultation, and there is nothing to preclude the Commission from having consultations with qualified veterinary surgeons, or whomsoever; so let us not embark on any further amendments.' 1386 That was my hon. Friend's summing up of the Minister's position in Committee. He continued: In the list of specified parties on page 4 of the Bill there is 'Persons engaged in animal by-products trades.' which I interpret to mean people who produce such articles as tripe, pig trotters or gut sausage-skins. If the Minister and those who inspire him in the Ministry can go to extremes in specifying such categories—I would think quite rightly—then why not veterinary surgeons? He has undertaken to look at this matter again, but not, I feel, with a very good heart."—[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 22nd January 1976; c. 256.] I did not agree with my hon. Friend on that occasion that the Minister did not give assurances with a good heart. I think that he did give assurances with a good heart in Committee. I hope that he will now, on Report, accept this straightforward amendment which I believe will be of considerable benefit to the Bill.
I suspect that, as in Committee, the Minister may say that veterinary surgeons are represented on the livestock and other committees of the Meat and Livestock Commission, including the Research Advisory Committee. I am trying to anticipate what he will say. However, I feel sure that the Minister will now agree, from the modest and moderate way in which the amendment has been moved—and on this occasion we have the Liberal Party with us—that we believe that it will benefit the Bill.
I am sure that I shall have wholehearted support for this amendment from my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden), whose interest in animal welfare is known throughout the country. There is no doubt that in the export of live animals the qualified veterinary surgeon at virtually every port of call of those animals, including the final port of call, the abattoir, on the other side of the English Channel or the North Sea, plays a vital part guaranteeing animal health and welfare. I speak from experience.

§ Mr. Winterton
am delighted to have the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine), whose interest in animal exports and 1387 other matters of that kind is extremely well known. I hope that he will intervene a little later. I do not believe that there would be any point in giving way to him at this stage, but, if he insists, I am happy to do so.
Qualified veterinary surgeons play a vital part in livestock matters. They should have the right to be independently consulted, irrespective of the positions which they hold on various committees within the MLC. Therefore, we put forward this amendment, which would have the effect of adding qualified veterinary surgeons to the classes of persons listed.

§ Mr. F. A. Burden (Gillingham)
I give unqualified support to this amendment. The only point I should like to make is that veterinary surgeons in their relationships with animals are comparable with the medical profession in its relationships with human beings. Running through this schedule in the categories named is an association which should not be denied the right of consultation. Therefore, the Government should accept the amendment.

§ Mr. Bishop
I recognise the importance of veterinary surgeons in the context of this debate. However, this proposal applies to other categories of people involved in the industry. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and others engaged in an extensive discussion when this matter was debated in Committee. Indeed, the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) proposed an amendment to include qualified veterinary surgeons in the classes of persons to be consulted by the MLC. The arguments for the specific reference to the veterinary profession seemed to relate to its role in breeding developments and disease prevention and cure, and its responsibility for meat inspection. I ought to emphasise that meat inspection is not, however, a function of the MLC. That is just a passing point, but it should not be overlooked. The amendment was not satisfactory in that regard. However, as the hon. Gentleman reminded the House, I assured the Committee that by Report I would consider the spirit of it further.

§ Mr. Geraint Howells
As producers, we pay a levy, do we not? I take it that that money goes to the MLC?

§ Mr. Bishop
The hon. Gentleman has a point. However, I should not like to go too deeply into the direct or indirect contributions of the industry which help to maintain the MLC. The hon. Gentleman will know as well as I do the composition of the MLC and its responsibilities.
However, I assured the Committee that I would consider the spirit of the amendment to see whether there might be more that could be done by the commission, through its own arrangements, to involve veterinary interests. The hon. Member for Macclesfield has rightly reminded us of the list in Clause 3(2), which defines "relevant organisation" as an organisation designated by Ministers as being capable of representing the interests of a class of persons mentioned in subsection (3). He has rightly drawn the attention of the House to the first three categories, apart from others. These include livestock traders, livestock auctioneers and others, and, of course, persons employed in livestock production. The classes of person set out in Clause 3(2) are designed to cover all persons who have a commercial role in meat production, marketing and distribution, and who might be affected by the exercise of the commission's functions.
They do not extend to professional bodies whose members might be consulted by those directly concerned with the production and distribution of meat and livestock. In Committee the amendment was described as a probing amendment. The arguments for a specific reference to the veterinary profession related to its role in breeding development, and disease prevention and cure. The commission already consults the veterinary profession on an ad hocbasis.
Following discussion in Committee the Ministry asked the commission to consider what more it could do through its own arrangements to involve the profession, and the commission proposes to set up a panel of representatives of the profession to advise it on veterinary matters, as part of its non-statutory consultation arrangements. The spirit of the amendment has been carefully considered. It is not possible to identify separately any function or interest of the profession that requires statutory consultation. However, 1389 I am pleased to report that the commission has considered what more it can do through its own arrangements to involve the profession, and has decided to establish a veterinary panel to advise it on veterinary matters as part of its non-statutory consultation arrangements. That is part of the consequences of the points made in the Committee.
I am satisfied that it is right to meet the Opposition's purpose in this way rather than to give one ancillary profession favoured treatment under the legislation. I assure the hon. Member for Macclesfield and his hon. Friends that we have thought this matter to be one of some importance. I hope that the assurance I have given to the House will enable him not to press the amendment.

§ Mr. Nicholas Winterton
When the Minister of State started his speech I thought that once again he would be putting up a brick wall and that the reasoned argument that we presented, as it was presented to the Committee, would go unheard. However, later in his short speech we saw a chink as he developed his argument. I believe that the information that he has provided—I speak on behalf of the main Opposition party, but I think that the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells) will take the same view as I am about to express—is highly satisfactory. I am delighted that the consultations that he has had since the Committee have produced this result, which, I believe, will be of considerable benefit to the MLC and to all companies and people involved in the meat and livestock industry. Therefore, I thank the Minister for meeting our point, not only on behalf of the Opposition but on behalf of the industry.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.