Lords Sitting of 4 May 1948

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers.

MESSAGE FROM THE KING.
2.34 p.m.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT ADDISON): My Lords, I have to report to your Lordships that, in accordance with the Order of the House of Monday, April 26, the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, the noble Earl, Lord Rosebery and myself as Lord Privy Seal and Leader of your Lordships' House, waited upon His Majesty at Buckingham Palace on Thursday, and presented to him your Lordships' Address of Congratulation to Their Majesties on the twenty-fifth Anniversary of their Wedding Day. His Majesty, who was accompanied by Her Majesty the Queen, was graciously pleased to give us the following Message signed by his own hand:
"The Queen and I thank you most sincerely for your congratulation on the twenty-fifth anniversary of our wedding. On this happy occasion it is particularly pleasing to receive this further expression of the affection and loyalty which you have constantly shown towards us, and we both greatly appreciate the warmth of your Address."

ROUND OAK STEEL WORKS (LEVEL CROSSINGS) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

NATIONALISATION OF IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY.
2.36 p.m.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government the

601
question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government, whether they will publish the report made to His Majesty's Government at their request by Dr. H.J. Van der Bijl, head of the South African iron and steel industry, who at the request of His Majesty's Government visited this country two years ago with the object of investigating the iron and steel industry here and who is alleged to have advised His Majesty's Government against the nationalisation of the iron and steel industry and to have given his reason for that advice.]
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, I have been asked to reply. Dr. H.J. Van der Bijl visited the United Kingdom in the summer of 1946, in connection with an invitation by the United Kingdom Government to become the first Chairman of the Iron and Steel Board. While he was unable, owing to his interests in South Africa, to accept this invitation, the Government had the benefit of consultations with him on the arrangements for the appointment of the Board and various general questions affecting the future operation of the iron and steel industry. But the consultations were not conducted with a view to the publication of a report, and the Government regret that they do not see their way to comply with the noble Viscount's request.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I must naturally express considerable disappointment with the reply of the Government that they do not propose to publish the report. Evidently it is a useful report, and I wish to ask the Government whether they have so little faith in their own policy that, when they call to aid the advice and counsel of an expert in this subject, they are not prepared to disclose what he says for fear of the result upon the mind of the public. I wish to ask that question quite categorically.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, if the noble Viscount will look at my reply tomorrow, I think he will see that there is no justification in it for the suggestions that he has made.
LORD STRABOLGI: May I ask my noble friend whether it is not a fact that the great and successful iron and steel industry,
602
under the leadership of Dr. H.J. Van der Bijl, in South Africa is owned, as to 90 per cent. of its stock, by the South African Government?
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: In reference to the question that has just been asked, may I ask whether the Government know that, whilst what the noble Lord has said is true to a certain extent, there is no obstacle in South Africa to any—
VISCOUNT ADDISON: May I intervene on a point of order? With great respect to the noble Viscount, I must request that, in accordance with traditions and rules of the House, starred questions are not made the subject of debate, even in the form of interrogations.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: On the point of order, I wish to ask this question: Are the Government aware that there is no obstacle to any private individual setting up iron and steel works in South Africa in opposition to the present South African steel industry?
LORD HENDERSON: I do not think that arises out of the question originally put by the noble Viscount.

DEATH PENALTY IN THE COLONIES
2.39 p.m.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government the second question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether it is true, as reported in the Press, that it is proposed to apply in the British Colonies and Dependencies the same provisions in regard to the abolition of the death penalty as are contained in the Criminal Justice Bill; and further, if that is so, whether they will defer action in this matter until they have had full consultations with the Governors of these Colonies and Dependencies, and obtained their views; and in any event delay any action until the whole issue has been settled by the decision of both Houses of Parliament.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COLONIAL AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, the question whether or not to abolish the death

603
penalty in British Colonies and Dependencies would be a matter for consideration by the local Executives and Legislatures. Any proposals to that end by His Majesty's Government would, therefore, necessarily involve full consultation with the Governments of those territories. It is not contemplated that any such consultations should be initiated by His Majesty's Government before the issue has been settled in this country.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I thank the Government for that reply. I am sure that it will be received with heartfelt relief by all those who are in charge of administration, whether legal or otherwise, in the Colonies and Dependencies.

RESTRICTION ON EMIGRANTS' FUNDS.
2.40 p.m.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government the question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government with regard to recently announced restrictions on remittance of emigrants' funds, on which an estimated saving of £4,000,000 sterling may be expected in 1948:

(a)Whether this estimate refers to the actual emigrant applications submitted in 1948 for transfer in that year, or whether it embraces the total applied for, for transfer over the four year period;

(b)What was the total amount of emigrant funds transferred to Canadian dollar account in 1947, and what proportion of same in sums in excess of £1,000;

(c)What was the total amount of emigrant funds transferred to Australian sterling account in 1947.]

LORD AMMON: My Lords, the estimate relates to the amounts which it was expected would be actually transferred during the year, and not to the total amount applied for in respect of the four-year period. The total amount transferred to Canada by emigrants in 1947 was £5,500,000. The amount transferred by emigrants who were entitled under the
604
arrangements then in force to transfer amounts in excess of £1,000 is not readily available, but a rough estimate suggests that it was probably rather more than one half of the total amount. As Australia is within the scheduled territories, no limit is placed on the amounts which may be transferred through banking channels to that country, and I therefore regret that particulars of the amount transferred by emigrants are not available.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, may I make the following comment arising out of that reply? Since not more than £2,500,000 is estimated as the amount likely to be applied for in any one year, it would seem, in view of the assistance being given by Canada, that restrictions cannot be worth while. I hope the noble Lord will be good enough to make representations in the appropriate quarter that, in the light of consideration for Canada, to whom we are so deeply indebted, the existing order may be reviewed.
LORD AMMON: I will certainly promise to bring the noble Lord's comments to the right quarter.

SUPERANNUATION (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISION) BILL.
2.42 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (LORD PAKENHAM): My Lords, this Bill is a very modest measure, and I am sure your Lordships will welcome its objective, which is to remove various anomalies in the pensions codes for civil servants, local government employees and teachers. In spite of rather full discussion which took place in another place regarding this measure, I think it may be fairly called a non-controversial one, although there is one point in Clause 1 on which some differences of opinion may be found to exist. I assure your Lordships that I have not brought any weapon to bludgeon you into submission; I believe that you will desire to give the Bill a Second Reading. At any rate, there were no Divisions during any stage of the proceedings in another place, and the Bill, in essence, was welcomed from all sides.

605
The most important proposal is contained in Clause 1. This makes it possible to count for superannuation purposes any period of compulsory military service which interrupts the ordinary duties of civil servants, pensionable local authority employees and pensionable teachers. It continues in this respect the war-time practice. Clause 2 should do much to facilitate interchange of staff in suitable cases between civil servants, local government staffs, and the teaching profession, and between this employment and employment such as service with a public board. At present, one of the barriers to such interchange is the matter of the pensions of those who transfer from one service to another. This clause provides for wide powers to devise new arrangements which will both preserve all previous pension rights and simplify the administrative machinery, so that (to take a typical case) instead of two pensions being paid from two sources, a single payment will be made by the employer in whose service the individual is at the time of his retirement. This pension will be based on the total length of pensionable service throughout the individual's career and on his salary at the time of retirement, and will be calculated under the pension code of the employer at retirement.
By Clause 3 the opportunity is taken to make rules regarding the superannuation rights of approved society employees who are displaced from their present employment as a result of the National Insurance Act. These arrangements have been made in agreement with representatives of the societies and of the employees.
Clause 4 deals with some hard cases which moved the tender heart of the Treasury to compassion—there appears to be some scepticism as to whether the heart of the Treasury can be tender. In case that scepticism is widespread, perhaps I may read your Lordships a few lines of verse which I found on the Treasury file:
"When lovely woman stoops to folly,
And finds too late that men betray,
Their Lordships "—
that is, the Lords of the Treasury—
"share her melancholy,
And offer leave (but without pay).
They'd deprecate her resignation,
And probe with tact to find the cause;
Suspend with nice discrimination
The Superannuation Laws."
606
Now your Lordships know what they do at the Treasury, in the intervals of more important work!
Clause 5 remedies a hardship which would otherwise fall on certain civil pensioners of the Governments of India and Pakistan. The Government of India gave these pensioners, mostly residing in the United Kingdom, the benefit of the Pensions (Increase) Act of 1944, but neither they nor the new Dominion Governments have similarly applied the Pensions (Increase) Act of 1947. We feel that these people are indistinguishable in status and social need from United Kingdom civil servants; that they should share in the modest improvement in pension given by the 1947 Act, and that the cost should fall on the United Kingdom Exchequer.
Clause 6 provides that local government staff who lose their jobs as a result of such events as the reduction of the capital investment programme shall not be disqualified from receiving a pension when they reach retiring age simply because, as a result of this, they have not served the minimum qualifying period necessary to get a pension. Clause 7 and other clauses deal with various residual matters. There are many complicated points of detail which may be raised, possibly to-day or on the Committee stage; but I hope that from what I have said, your Lordships will feel that you can give this Bill a Second Reading. I beg to move that the Bill be read a Second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Pakenham.)
2.50 p.m.
LORD TWEEDSMUIR: My Lords, I think every member of your Lordships' House will join me in welcoming back the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham. I was fascinated by what he said at the beginning of his speech about the Treasury being tender-hearted. I have never heard it suggested before that the Treasury had a heart at all. As the noble Lord says, this is by no means an easy Bill. It can be really understood only if read in conjunction with the numerous Acts of Parliament to which it refers. It will affect the lives and careers of a substantial number of citizens, and it will remedy certain matters which have now become anomalies. Many of those who will benefit are now at the beginning of their careers, and it will be forty years before they reap their pensions. Let us hope that

607
money will buy more then than it does now.
The matter of these pensions is an important item in national life. I think that the prospect of an adequate pension is probably a greater consideration to a citizen in choosing a career than any other factor. The noble Lord extracted various exhibits from the verbal jungle of this Bill. I personally welcome Clause 2, which allows for the interchange of public servants from one employment to another without prejudice to their pension rights. I am sure all sides of the House will welcome the provision for rules to be made to supplement the pensions of those who have served His Majesty in India and Pakistan, and who are due to receive pensions chargeable upon the revenues of those countries. They are people who have served the King in difficult and onerous, and often dangerous, conditions, and who, with numberless others, past and present, whose names will not reach history books, have done so much to build and maintain the prestige of this country.
I have one or two points of criticism. I think we all agree that fairness in the calculation of pensions is vitally necessary. I am raising this particular point, and I hope the noble Lord will deal with it when he replies—otherwise, perhaps, we may return to it on Committee stage—because it is not always easy to be scrupulously fair in this matter. Many people join the public service at different ages and so reach the pension age at different times. I would draw the attention of the House to Clause 1, which deals with the reckoning of the period of National Service towards a pension for the employees of local government, civil servants and teachers. The civil servant may pass his qualifying examination before he does his period of National Service, and his period of National Service will then count towards a pension. It is possible for a local government employee to be established in his employment by the time he is eighteen, and so he, too, can count his year towards his ultimate pension.
It is virtually impossible, however, for a teacher to be registered on a contributory basis by that time. Before he can become a teacher, he must go through a teaching college or a university. He must do his year of National Service before
608
that, and therefore he goes through these three stages: his year of National Service, his career at the university and, subsequently, his career as a teacher. Only then does he pass the starting gate of pensionable time. In fact, he is not launched upon his pensionable career until his early twenties. If, however, he were found unfit for National Service, he would be able to start one year earlier. To my mind, that creates a most undesirable distinction. It means that the teacher who is fit and healthy and has to do his year of National Service, does it with a slight sense of grievance vis-à-vis those who are not fit. I labour this point because we have suffered from a grievous shortage of trained teachers, and we are likely to do so into the foreseeable future. If we are to secure the right type of teacher in adequate numbers we must be able to offer them suitable inducement.
My next point is on Clause 3, which deals with the position of those who once worked for the approved societies and are now becoming civil servants. A well-known Cabinet Minister and week-end speaker made an interesting speech last week-end, in the course of which he said that there were a great many difficulties in applying nationalisation that were not apparent in the years when nationalisation was conceived. I think everybody will agree that when a substantial number of citizens have the circumstances of their employment changed by nationalisation, their pension rights must be safeguarded, because their pension rights had a great deal to do with their original choice of career. The Coal Industry Nationalisation and the Electricity Acts provide for regulations to be made which will ensure that no one suffers as a result of the change from the old system to nationalisation, by the amendment, the revocation, the repeal or the winding-up of previous pensions schemes. However, there is no word in this Bill carrying that guarantee, and I am surprised that it is omitted. This matter was earnestly argued in another place, and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of National Insurance gave what amounted to a firm undertaking—that the people concerned would not suffer because those rights were not safeguarded by wording. I would be grateful if the noble Lord in his reply could repeat that assurance in his own words.

609
Lastly, I come to a smaller point. For those who are drafted into the work of the Civil Service and who feel themselves aggrieved, there is no alternative but expensive litigation. The Transport and the Electricity Acts made provision for the setting up of a Board of Referees to hear such cases, and to save such citizens expensive litigation. I believe there is a strong case for adding such a provision to this Bill. The fact that I am drawing attention to what I consider are its shortcomings does not detract from my warm support of the rest of the Bill. I understand from what has been said in another place that it is the precursor of a larger Bill of wider scope, some time in the future. It is a Bill which brings much-needed reforms which should not be further delayed, and it removes anomalies that should not be perpetuated. I give this Bill my warm support, and I am sure the majority of noble Lords on this side of the House will do the same.
2.57 p.m.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, I should like to express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, for what he said about my return, and also to those who were kind enough to support him in that sentiment. On behalf of the Government I would also thank him for the much more important support of the Bill which he has demonstrated to the House. And perhaps I may also be permitted to say how clearly the noble Lord indicated his views. He raised three points and no doubt other points will be raised on the Committee stage. The noble Lord will perhaps like me to look into the last point he raised, his lesser point, between now and Committee stage. Of course, I shall be glad at any time to discuss this Bill in private with him and other noble Lords.
The first point upon which he placed his finger was the one to which I had referred in my opening remarks; but it was too much to hope that the noble Lord would not raise it. Therefore, this afternoon I will merely offer one or two observations regarding that point, and we can pursue it further on the Committee stage. The whole principle of Clause 1 of the Bill is as to when a man counts his compulsory National Service for superannuation purposes—whether he can be regarded as a civil servant, a local government official or a teacher before he
610
begins to do his service. The only point of difficulty which the noble Lord has brought out concerns the question as to who is and who is not to be regarded as possessing this qualification before he starts his National Service. In another place it was argued on behalf of the teachers that someone who was intending to be a teacher, but who had not in fact completed his training before being called up, should count his compulsory service for superannuation just as though he had completed his training. One can make out his case along those lines. After careful consideration, the Government have felt bound to reject that contention; at least, they have to inform your Lordships' House that they have not been convinced by it up to the present moment.
It would be difficult to introduce for teachers a special clause which did not apply to all local government officials and civil servants. And a far-reaching scheme of the latter kind would land us in many administrative complications and problems for which, in the view of the Government, no solution has yet been offered. My right honourable friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury gave an assurance in another place on the Third Reading of the Bill that this particular point would be looked at again by the Government before the autumn, when a further Bill dealing with superannuation is in any case to be brought forward. I hope the House will feel that we are in this Bill doing all that is possible at this moment.
The noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, then raised the question of the position of those who have been working in industries which come to be nationalised. He asked whether any pension rights that they have secured will be preserved and transferred. I think that was the point he had in mind; I have not been able to study that in advance, although the noble Lord was good enough to mention it to me just now. The answer that I can give him, on my understanding of the matter—I am sure that it is correct, so far as it goes—is that such pension rights will be preserved and transferred, if the Coal Board (to take one example) agree, if the job to which the man is going is pensionable. However, the noble Lord may wish further to explore that answer with me

611
before the next stage. At any rate, I can assure him on this point: that the formula which I have given him is correct, so far as my understanding at the moment goes, and I hope that it will afford him a measure of provisional satisfaction. I am grateful to the noble Lord for indicating his general support of the Bill. I hope that he and the rest of your Lordships' House will be prepared to give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

AGRICULTURAL WAGES BILL. [H.L.]
3.2 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. As your Lordships will see, this is a measure to consolidate the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) Act, 1924, with the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) Act of 1947 and the Holidays With Pay Act, 1938, so far as that Act relates to agricultural workers in England and Wales. During the passage of the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) Act last year, His Majesty's Government recognised the need for a consolidating Bill, and the Minister expressed the hope that such a Bill could be introduced this Session. I am pleased that it has been found possible to introduce this measure, which, I might point out, does not alter the existing law. There will be a separate Bill for Scotland I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Earl on fulfilling his undertaking, and to assure him that the Bill is most welcome.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

FACTORIES BILL [H.L.]
3.4 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Henderson.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Amendments of Part II (Safety)]:
LORD HENDERSON: On behalf of my noble friend, I beg to move this drafting Amendment to Clause 11 (1) of the Bill, which is intended to cure a defect in the provisions of the Act of 1937 about landing gates. The object of the Amendment is to make it clear that the gates referred to in line 25 are landing gates, whereas the words "every gate" might be misunderstood to include other gates—for instance, lift cage gates—and that is not intended to be so. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 25, leave out ("every gate") and insert ("any such gate as aforesaid").— (Lord Henderson.)
LORD LLEWELLIN: This Amendment obviously makes the intention much clearer, and it affords me the opportunity of saying how glad we are to speed this Bill on its way.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses and Schedules agreed to.
House resumed.

VETERINARY SURGEONS BILL. [H.L.]
3.6 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Supervisory functions of Council of College]:
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: This is a drafting Amendment, and it is to indicate more clearly that the observers appointed by the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons have the right to observe only their own veterinary examinations and no other examinations at the university. I think this is an extremely sensible and obvious point, and I trust your Lordships will accept the Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 34, leave out ("held by any university") and insert ("leading to a degree").— (The Earl of Huntingdon.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: This is also a purely drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 36, leave out ("examination") and insert ("examinations").—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5:
Restriction of practice of veterinary surgery by unqualified persons.
(2) The expression "veterinary surgery" in the last foregoing subsection, shall not include—

(a)the doing of anything specified in the First Schedule to this Act;

(b)any minor treatment, test or minor operation specified by order of the Ministers under this paragraph made after consultation with the Council of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, so long as any conditions specified in the order are complied with.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, in subsection (2) (a), to omit "the First Schedule to this Act," and insert:
"Part I of the First Schedule to this Act and not excluded by Part II of that Schedule."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name, and in so doing perhaps I may have leave of the Committee to deal not only with this Amendment but also with the second and third Amendments which stand in my name in regard to the First Schedule. The last two are consequential upon the first. As the Bill stands at the present time, the operation of castration may be
614
carried out upon any animal of any age by an unqualified veterinary practitioner. I am sure that it must be a matter of grave concern to your Lordships that this painful, operation, which is always attended by the risk of infection, should be so carried out. I am certain that, from the humanitarian point of view, we would all wish for operations of this kind to be carried out by qualified veterinary surgeons, with an anæsthetic and all the other aids to veterinary surgery. There are, however, practical considerations to be borne in mind.
First, there is a great dearth of veterinary surgeons, and it would be an economic impossibility to stipulate at the present time that this particular operation must be carried out by qualified veterinary surgeons. Secondly, there is the added difficulty of determining with any great degree of accuracy the age of an animal. If your Lordships will refer to the Table contained in my proposed Amendment to the First Schedule, you will observe the periods of time which all the expert; advice agrees are the easily determinable ages of the animals concerned. Though I would prefer (especially in the case of a horse, which has always been called a noble and sensitive animal) to have a younger age than two years, I quite realise the practical difficulties and, therefore, I have agreed to move the Amendment with the ages as set out. I beg to move my Amendment to Clause 5.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 27, leave out from ("in") to end of line 28 and insert ("Part I of the First Schedule to this Act and not excluded by Part II of that Schedule.")—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: The Government are pleased to accept this Amendment. I should like to say that there is agreement between the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and the National Farmers' Union that the most suitable ages at which a line should be drawn are those stated in the Table. We have great pleasure in accepting the noble Lord's Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL DE LA WARR EARL DE LA WARR moved, in paragraph (b) of subsection (2), to omit "minor," where: hat word occurs a second time. The noble Earl said: In the absence of my noble friend Lord

615
Bledisloe I would like to move this Amendment which stands in his name. I do not think it is necessary to say much in its justification. Indeed, I think that it could almost be put forward as a drafting Amendment, for I believe that it rather expresses the views of the Government. Quite simply, by taking out the second word "minor," it makes the first word "minor" apply to test and operation, as well as to treatment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 29, leave out the second ("minor").—(Earl De La Warr.)
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: His Majesty's Government are pleased to accept this Amendment. As the noble Earl has said, it is more a drafting Amendment than anything else. We are satisfied as to its terms and are pleased to accept it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7:
Licensing of employees of animal welfare societies.
7.—(1) Where, on the representation of a society or institution which—

(a) is wholly supported by voluntary contributions or endowments or both, and

(b) provides and was immediately before the coming into operation of this Act providing, free medical or surgical treatment for animals.

the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries is satisfied that the society or institution cannot obtain the services of an adequate number of veterinary surgeons the Minister may, if he thinks fit, grant a licence under this section to any person employed or to be employed by the society or institution.
(4) If it appears to the said Minister that the society or institution has acted in contravention of the undertaking given in pursuance of the last foregoing subsection or that the person to whom the licence has been granted has failed to comply with any condition specified therein or has given any treatment or carried out any operation not authorised by subsection (2) of this section, the Minister may, after giving both the holder of the licence and the society or institution in question an opportunity of being heard, revoke the licence or suspend it for such period as the Minister thinks fit.
EARL DE LA WARR EARL DE LA WARR moved, in subsection (1), to omit "if he thinks fit" and insert:
"after consultation with the Council of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons."
The noble Earl said: This clause is designed to enable the Minister, if he thinks fit, to grant a licence to the employees of animal welfare societies who are not themselves registered veterinary surgeons. I should like to see inserted here, after the words "Minister may", the words "after consultation with the Council of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons." I tell the noble Earl frankly now that I do not intend to press this Amendment. I think it would be an improvement to the Bill, and I hope that he will be able to accept it. I think it would give some confidence to the profession if he would do so. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 3, leave out from ("may") to the end of the line and insert ("after consultation with the Council of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons").—(Earl De La Warr.)
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I am afraid that we have to resist this Amendment. The reason is that it has been found on examination to be rather impractical from the administrative point of view. If the Amendment were inserted in the Bill, we would have to consult the Council of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons on each occasion when licences had either to be granted or revoked. That would mean that there would be unceasing going and coming on each individual case. The Bill lays down that we have to consult generally, and, if it will give any satisfaction to the noble Earl, I shall be happy to give the assurance on behalf of my right honourable friend that the Minister will consult the Council of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons with regard to the supply of veterinary surgeons at any particular time. Although we are very ready to consult on general lines, I think that we have to resist this Amendment, which, as I have explained, would make consultation obligatory on every occasion.
EARL DE LA WARR: I cannot help thinking that the noble Earl has put a reasonable case against my Amendment as it stands. I am wondering whether he could not tell us that an Amendment on the lines of his assurance would be considered for insertion in the Bill in another place. I suggest insertion in another place because I do not think any of us would wish to see the passage of the Bill

617
delayed here. If the noble Earl can say that that suggestion will be considered, we shall be grateful. He will realise, I am sure that there is a great difference between a ministerial assurance—because Ministers, even the best of them, sometimes come and go—and something which is actually embodied in an Act of Parliament.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I shall be happy to give the noble Earl the assurance that this matter will be looked at before the Bill goes to another place and that it will be thoroughly examined, bearing in mind what he has said.
EARL DE LA WARR: On that assurance, I shall be happy to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: This Amendment is purely a matter of clarification. Its purpose is to make it clear that if the holder of a licence carries out any of the operations mentioned in the First Schedule he will not be liable to lose his licence. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 24, after ("by") insert ("or under subsection (2) of Section five of this Act or").—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL DE LA WARR EARL DE LA WARR had an Amendment on the Paper to insert as a new subsection after subsection (4):
"(5) At any time after the first day of January, 1959, the said Minister may make an Order terminating the operation of this section providing he is satisfied that an adequate number of veterinary surgeons exists for the care of the animal population, and that sufficient facilities exist for the treatment of animals belonging to persons unable to afford the services of a veterinary surgeon."
The noble Earl said: This, again, is an Amendment which I will ask the noble Earl if he can have considered before the Bill goes to another place. I say that because, on further consideration, I do not: think that the Amendment as drafted quite expresses my intention. This Amendment implies that the Minister should have power to revoke any licences that have been granted. That is not the purpose I have in mind. What I am afraid of is that the Minister should have this continuing power to issue licences year by year, so that it might still be going on in twenty-five or fifty years'
618
time, with the result that what we hoped to put a stop to—the creation of these unregistered practitioners—would continue. The intention which I have just explained is not really embodied in the Amendment. While not moving the Amendment, I would, however, ask the noble Earl whether he can give us an assurance that the matter will be looked at again.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I shall be happy to give the noble Ear an assurance that there will be a further examination of this matter between now and the next stage of the Bill in another place.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I must crave your Lordships' indulgence in order to make a statement. I therefore move that, for a short time, the House do now resume.
Moved, That the House do now resume.—(Viscount Addison.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and House resumed accordingly.

PARLIAMENT BILL—STATEMENT ON PARTY LEADERS' CONFER ENCE.
3.18 p.m.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, I intervene to make a brief announcement which is also being made at this time in another place. The preliminary discussions between Party leaders have low been concluded. The leaders of the Parties represented at the Conference have prepared an agreed statement on the course of these discussions and my right honourable friend the Prime Minister is presenting this on their behalf as a White Paper. Copies of the White Paper are now available in the Printed Paper Office.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I do not think it would be desirable that I should at the present stage make any comment on the statement which has been made by the noble Viscount the Leader of the House. No doubt all your Lordships would wish to read this document, and no doubt the House will have to consider in due time the course they will take with regard to the Parliament Bill now before Parliament.

VETERINARY SURGEONS BILL. [H.L.]
3.20 p.m.
House again in Committee:
Clause 8:
Use of descriptions as to professional status.
(2) If any person who is not for the time being registered in the Register of Veterinary Surgeons takes or uses the title of veterinary surgeon or any name, title, addition, or description calculated to lead to the belief that he is registered in that Register, he shall be guilty of an offence.
EARL DE LA WARR EARL DE LA WARR moved, in subsection (2), after "surgeon" to insert "veterinary practitioner." The noble Earl said: This Amendment concerns a point about which we had considerable discussion on Second Reading, and I do not think it necessary to weary your Lordships by repeating at too great length the arguments that were then used. Briefly, the purpose of the Amendment is to remove from the description of unregistered animal practitioners the word "veterinary." As the Bill is drafted, the unregistered practitioner is to be known as "veterinary practitioner." It was made clear during Second Reading that few people in the countryside get any further in their description of the man who treats their animals than the single-syllable word "vet." Whether we put "practitioner" or "surgeon" after "veterinary" does not matter at all. The noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, has pointed out that "practitioner" goes a great deal further and gives a much wider description of an unregistered man than the word "surgeon" which is to be applied to the registered man.
In view of the length of training which the registered veterinary surgeon has to undergo and of the fact that, apart from its immediate results, one of the main purposes of the Bill is to give greater certainty and status to the whole veterinary profession, I appeal to the noble Earl to reconsider this matter. I know how closely he and his Department are in touch with the profession, and I do not think it necessary to tell him what infinite reassurance such a course would give them. In the Amendment which my noble friend Lord Bledisloe had wished to move (though unfortunately he is not here to-day), he spoke about a "veterinary associate."
"Practitioner in animal medicine "or" practitioner in animal diseases"—I do not mind which term we adopt, if it saves using the word "veterinary." This is an important matter. I have spoken very briefly because I think we have already said what there is to say. Once again, I appeal to the noble Earl to treat my plea seriously and with sympathy. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 36, after ("surgeon") insert ("veterinary practitioner").—(The Earl De La Warr).
LORD O'HAGAN: I should like to support this Amendment moved by my noble friend. It is a matter of real importance, which affects a class of the community doing invaluable service to agriculture. I do not wish to cover the ground already traversed thoroughly during Second Reading, but I wish to emphasise everything that my noble friend said in moving the Amendment. It is a matter of substance, and I hope that the Government will see fit to give way on this, if not strictly according to the words put down in the Order Paper, then at least in the sense indicated by my noble friend.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I hope that my noble friend the Parliamentary Secretary will resist this Amendment. In the first place, this is only a question of nomenclature. I think the case has been given away on that ground by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, in the Amendment which was down on the Order Paper in his name but which he did not move, and which was referred to by the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr. In his Second Reading speech, the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, said that the operative word objected to was "veterinary." This is, after all, a common adjective in the English language, yet on that word he hinged the whole of his argument. In his Amendment, however, the noble Viscount conceded his case for the unqualified man by incorporating "veterinary" in the description "veterinary associate." If an unqualified veterinary practitioner can be called a veterinary associate, I see no reason why he cannot be called a veterinary practitioner.
There are other and stronger grounds for resisting the Amendment. As the

621
noble Earl has said, this has been the subject of considerable controversy, and there has been arrived at, by the give and take of everybody concerned—
EARL DE LA WARR: I hope the noble Lord is not trying to imply that there is any agreement on this point. He says "there has been, arrived at" and implies something has been arrived at, presumably in agreement. If so, I will give him the lie direct.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: If the noble Earl will allow me to conclude my remark, he will hear exactly what I am going to say. The present Bill, with all its clauses, is an agreed Bill, as the noble Earl himself said on Second Reading. The title which has been accorded to the unqualified veterinary practitioner has been the subject of agreement by all the animal societies, as my noble friend, Lord Amwell, said on Second Reading in, if he will allow me to say so, a very broadminded speech. And I am informed that as late as Thursday last the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, at their council meeting, decided that they would not oppose at the present time the title that is in the Bill. So I do not know on whose behalf the noble Earl is speaking when he says that this has not been the subject of agreement. Surely if the Council of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons have agreed, that means the agreement of the profession. I think the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons show infinite wisdom and public spirit in this. It is a gesture which does them credit and adds considerably to the fair name of an honourable profession.
As all spokesmen on behalf of the qualified veterinary surgeon have said, the veterinary service could not exist without the unqualified man. We all hope that the day will come when the only people who practise veterinary surgery will be qualified surgeons. I made that quite plain in the Amendment which I moved to Clause 5. I must confess that, as a humanitarian, I am horrified that operations on animals still have to be carried out by unqualified men, by methods which the qualified man would never adopt. But we cannot hope in this country ever to reach the ideal until the number of veterinary surgeons has been increased. Veterinary surgeons themselves
622
have to rely to a large extent upon the help and assistance of these men. Why not give them a title which is a differentiation from "veterinary surgeon," but which still gives them some standing and is a title of which they can be proud while they are so closely associated with this profession? I do not have to remind many noble Lords in this House that this battle was fought thirty years ago on the Act which regulates the profession of dental surgery. Then, the unqualified dentists, or dental practitioners, or whatever you like to call them, were not allowed to call themselves dental surgeons, but could call themselves anything other than that. It has been the accepted practice in this country for years. I would repeat that I think the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons have performed a great public service in agreeing to this, and it will enhance their prestige, certainly in the eyes of the ordinary person, who always has a great deal of sympathy for the under-dog. For those reasons I hope my noble friend on behalf of the Government will resist this Amendment
LORD AMWELL: It is quite correct, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has said, that this is an agreed measure. Upon this question of a title, I can assure noble Lords that the Society who have had as much to do with the negotiations as any-one are willing to accept the term "veterinary practitioner." I am fully aware of the fact that it is part of a compromise which was not in substance originally acceptable to the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. However, I feel that the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, is making rather too much of his assumption that the use of the word "veterinary" by technically unqualified practitioners would be a matter of injury to the profession. I see no reason for it at all. It is the correct word for one who is dealing with the treatment of animal diseases. I do not imagine hat the monopoly of such a word as "veterinary" amounts to very much, so far as the future and development of the profession itself are concerned.
The main reason why I rise is to point out that this Amendment relates to Clause 7, and not to the clause which puts upon the second register those who have been engaged in veterinary practice, apart from animal welfare societies. Therefore, since the one Society which trains its practitioners,

623
and trains them very thoroughly indeed—the People's Dispensary for Sick Animals, in which, as I said on Second Reading, I have a personal interest—spends practically as much time, and certainly as much money, in the training of trainees as the College (I will explain the point in a moment, if it is not clear), there is some justification for giving those men the prestige of this title. The trainees of the People's Dispensary for Sick Animals are paid. They are kept, and all the payments incidental to their training are undertaken by the Society. It costs about £1,000 for a veterinary surgeon to go through his course of training. It will be appreciated that it costs the Society much about the same sum when you realise that there are four-and-a-half years of training and, in addition, refresher courses afterwards, the whole of the expense of which is borne by the Society. I will not enter into the general question of the comparable values of the training courses of the College and of the Society, but the course certainly guarantees that the practitioners of the People's Dispensary for Sick Animals are, at least, very highly trained men. Whether the training satisfies the College or not is rather another matter. They are highly trained men in all respects, with the exception of training in regard to farm animals. From that point of view, I do not feel there is much point in denying them the right to the use of the word "veterinary," since the coupling of the word "practitioner" with "veterinary," to my mind, sufficiently guarantees the Society against any question of misrepresentation on the part of anyone. The Bill itself does that in the restrictions it employs in its terms. I would support the rejection of this Amendment.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: I must apologise to the Committee for not being present when this Bill was called, but I was attending another meeting concerned with the preservation of the countryside in England. Personally, I like neither the word "veterinary" nor the word "practitioner." As has already been pointed out, the only valid reason for using the word "veterinary" in this connection is that it appears to be the one word in the English language which indicates a person who deals with the ailments of animals. Until we can find
624
some other word, I admit that it must be difficult to move an Amendment which will be of a convincing character both to the profession and to the Ministry of Agriculture.
I dislike the word "practitioner" because it gives the senior title, as it were, to a person who, so far as nomenclature goes, is only a surgeon. A "practitioner" is a larger term and, on the face of it, indicates higher and wider qualifications than those of a mere surgeon. A practitioner may be held to be both an animal doctor and a surgeon. Therefore, it gives to the more humble person, admittedly without full qualifications, a more important designation than that given to the person who has achieved the highest qualifications, and who is able to call himself a member of a qualified veterinary profession. I cannot help wondering whether it may not be possible, between now and Report stage, to find some description for these more humble veterinarians, may I call them—these more humble animal doctors (I must not call them animal practitioners, apparently) which will satisfy all parties, without appearing to do any injury to the prestige and the importance of the truly qualified veterinary practitioner. For my part, I am inclined to support my noble friend Lord De La Warr, but not at the cost of wrecking the Bill.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: This question is probably the most difficult we have had to face in drawing up this Bill. The point at issue is the question of the name of the unregistered veterinarian, or whatever you may call him. First, I would like to suggest to the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, that the title "surgeon" is really more important than the title "practitioner." For example, in the dental profession a dental surgeon has become recognised as being of much higher standing than a dental practitioner. I do not know whether it is exactly the same in the medical profession, but I should imagine that there the surgeon is regarded as the expert, in a higher category than the medical practitioner. In general, with the force of precedent behind it, I should have thought that by now a surgeon was definitely established as being the higher grade. The difficulty, as the noble Viscount has pointed out very clearly, is to find an alternative word. The word "veterinary" is the

625
one word in the English language which clearly relates to animal diseases; we have no other word which does that. When we come to the suggestion in the Report, I think that "animal practitioner" is about the most lamentable name that could be devised. It conjures up the vision of a Beatrix Potter world—the spectacle of a dog going around with a black bag. It would be impossible to foist such a title upon a serious professional man. Even if we have "practising in animal diseases," one might ask, "How do you practise in animal disease?" One gets into a bog, a morass of difficulties, if one uses that name. It I would be terrible if one thought of oneself, or any farmer or breeder of animals, being called an "animal landowner" and being on an "animal register." I suggest that "animal" is not a practical word.
There are, however, more serious objections to it which I should like briefly to advance, as I realise that there is a very strong feeling indeed upon the subject. The Bill has two objects. The first is to provide more extensive and better education; the second is to provide a new status to the qualified men in the profession by preventing unqualified men starting up in the future. In doing this, we deal with the existing unqualified men who have been practising, perhaps, for many years and to whom practice is their only means of livelihood. We have said that in future there shall be no more unqualified men entering the profession; that those who are entered in the Supplementary Register must be of good character and, with certain limitations, must have been in practice for seven out of the last ten years; and, moreover, that it has to be their main means of livelihood. They will then be given a status and a name which will accurately describe their activities. We also bring them under the discipline of the Royal College. They have to accept the rules and practices of the Royal College, and pay a fee. There is a definite quid pro quo, in the fact that they are given a status and that they have to obey all the necessary rules. I think one must accept that as a reasonable compromise and solution to the problem.
The other point I should like to mention is the one brought up by my noble friend Lord Lucas—that the same problem arose in connection with the Dentists Act, 1921, when a large number of unqualified
626
men were in practice. The question was how they should be brought within the provisions of the Act, and how, in future, the profession could be restricted to fully trained and qualified men. After a great deal of discussion it was decided to restrict the title of dental surgeons to the qualified men, and to allow the others to call themselves what they liked, whether it was dental practitioner, dentist, or anything of the kind. By now that question has ceased to be a problem, and I suggest to your Lordships that after some years this present difficulty will also cease to be a problem. It is not a permanent position which we are creating. It is a temporary situation. We are dealing fairly with the men—and Parliament has always insisted upon great fairness to those who are restricted in their profession. At the same time, we are building up a fully trained and qualified service which should be of great use and a source of pride to us in the future. In those circumstances, I beg the noble Lord not to press his Amendment.
EARL DE LA WARR: I think this is rather a sham fight, because we all know that we are determine to have this Bill upon the Statute Book and to do nothing that will hold it up. Perhaps, in the interests of accuracy, I might let your Lord-ships know what in fact the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons said the other day. It was this:
"That this Council……believing also that opposition in regard to the title to be conferred on unqualified practitioners..…might indefinitely postpone the passage of the Bill into law, withdraws, with reluctance, its opposition to the title."
Whether the noble Lord likes to score that up as agreement or not, it is to my mind a clear way of stating, shall we say, a semi-truth. The National Veterinary Medical Association said on April 23:
"This Council deplores the application of the title 'veterinary practitioner' to unqualified persons, as is proposed by the Veterinary Surgeons Bill, 1948."
I say that because, whatever line we take, the House should not be induced to take it by being told that there is agreement where there is not. There is not agreement; but there is great enthusiasm for the other provisions of the Bill, and I do not propose to do anything which will hold up the passage of the Bill. I therefore beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
LORD AMWELL: The word "agreement" does not necessarily mean compulsion.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: When I was making my speech to the Committee, and I said that my information was to the effect that the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons had decided that they would not oppose the Bill as it stands at present, the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, interjected and said that if I wished to imply that that was agreement—which I do imply—he would give it the lie direct. I think that perhaps I should offer the noble Earl the opportunity of withdrawing the imputation that I was telling a lie to the Committee.
EARL DE LA WARR: I think we had better leave it to Hansard.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Term of office of members of Council and filling of casual vacancies]:
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: This is a purely drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 19, after ("the") insert ("transitional provisions and the")—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12:
Transitional provisions as to members of Council appointed by universities and colleges.
12.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, the universities of Bristol, Cambridge, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Liverpool and London may appoint persons to be members of the Council of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons notwithstanding that no order under section one of this Act has come into operation.
3.48 p.m.
LORD HARLECH LORD HARLECH moved, in subsection (1), after "London" to insert "and Wales." The noble Lord said: I put this Amendment down in order to obtain from the Minister in charge of the Bill in this House some further statement as to the present attitude of the Ministry of Agriculture towards the repeated representations from Wales in regard to the
628
application of the Bill upon its educational side to Wales, and for the representation of Wales on the body set up under the Bill. When the second Loveday Committee reported and recommended the creation of new veterinary faculties at Cambridge and Bristol, and the development of one at Glasgow in addition to Edinburgh, there was an outcry in Wales. The Association of Local Authorities, the county councils, the Welsh Farmers Union—supported in this case by the National Farmers Union—and everybody else, joined in an agitation about the matter, and I led a deputation to the Ministry to see the present Minister of Agriculture. In this we were supported by every Member of Parliament for Wales—every Member of the Welsh Parliamentary Party, Labour Liberal and Conservative.
May I warn the noble Earl that Wales is not going to rest there? We have to-day fewer "vets" in proportion both to our animal and to our human numbers than have England and Scotland. That is the first point. Secondly, we see a great urge by Parliament to set up or expand veterinary education in England and Scotland, while we in Wales have been left out. The problem is a greater one still in the more remote farming areas, for there we have the linguistic problem also. It is true that to-day there are few monoglot Welsh-speaking people, but in a great many of our animal-breeding areas in the mountains of Wales the first language of the rural population is still Welsh. We want a proportion, at any rate, of qualified "vets." who can communicate with the farmers in their first language. That, I think, is a perfectly reasonable proposition.
Then there is the university point of view. I speak as pro-Chancellor of a university and Chairman of all its bodies. In my university we have a research department in animal life, staffed by fully qualified and experienced veterinary surgeons, as well as biochemists, agricultural chemists and the like, and we have devoted some years to experiments in the improvement of pasture, and so on. We must remember that, for climatic and soil reasons alone, Wales will always be primarily an animal producing country. Moreover, with the exception of South-West Scotland, we are further ahead than

629
anywhere in England or Scotland in the eradication of some of the bovine diseases—though at this moment we are held up by a shortage of "vets." There are all too many cases of young Welshmen who entered veterinary courses in England or Scotland before the war and who cannot now get in to complete their education. We are faced with the fact that England and Scotland are urgently requiring "vets." and that they are naturally considering their own clientele and their own needs first. Can we not have persons who qualify through Welsh secondary schools? I want to know what steps the Ministry of Agriculture will take to ensure that boys of Welsh domicile and origin, and certainly some who speak Welsh, can get a veterinary education. There is strong feeling on this point in the Principality, and we had hoped that before the introduction of this Bill we should have converted the Minister of Agriculture—who has some Welsh blood in his veins—to our point of view. Our needs are genuine, real and clamant at this moment; and before this Bill leaves your Lordships' House I should like to have some reassurance that our case is not hopeless. We hope that we may before long rank with Bristol and with Cambridge, who are being brought into the veterinary field for the first time in history. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 3, after ("London") insert ("and Wales").—(Lord Harlech.)
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: I should like, as convincingly as I can, to support the argument put forward by the noble Lord, the pro-Chancellor of the University of Wales. He and I are much in the same position, because I happen to have been until recently the pro-Chancellor of Bristol University. The University of Bristol intend, without any mandatory instructions under this Bill or otherwise, to set up at the earliest possible moment a faculty of veterinary science, whatever other universities may do. I presume that at any rate South Wales will come more or less under Bristol University for this purpose. For my own part, I live on the borders of Wales; we are separated from Bristol by the Bristol Channel and by the Estuary of the Severn; and I do not think that whatever Bristol may do in the matter of veterinary training will
630
satisfy, either now or hereafter, the ambitions of Wales in connection with separate veterinary status in its own university.
The noble Lord, Lord Harlech, has particularly emphasised the progressive attitude of Welsh counties in relation to animal diseases. I am able to testify that the competition which was started only the year before last by the Royal Agricultural Society of England, with a view to encouraging the different counties to eliminate bovine tuberculosis, has for two years running, been won by a Welsh county—by Carmarthenshire to start with, and then by Cardiganshire; and in each case Pembrokeshire was a very good second. It is clear, therefore, that in that part of Wales, at any rate, there is an earnest desire to be progressive in the matter of eliminating animal diseases. Another reason why I should like to see a distinct and separate university unit for veterinary training in Wales is that Wales has distinctive types of animals, such as its cattle and sheep, its cobs and ponies. Therefore, apart from considering the important matter of language, we have to remember that there is no part of the United Kingdom in which there is a greater pride, a local pride, in the peculiar merits of the animals than there is in regard to those that are raised preponderantly in the Welsh districts. This seems to me to be a strong reason for allotting to Wales the privileges which we are now going to allot through the universities to other parts of Great Britain. I suppose there is no one in the veterinary profession who has worked harder and with greater knowledge in this connection than Professor Share Jones, F.R.C.V.S. He is an eminent member of the veterinary profession and it would be a well-deserved tribute to him if, during his lifetime, this concession were made to Wales.
4.0 p.m.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I feel some hesitation in speaking on this Amendment, with two pro-Chancellors opposing me. I think we all sympathise with Wales and with the desires which agitate the breasts of Welshmen. I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, upon his extremely brilliant and able advocacy in pleading their cause with such fire and consistency. In regard to this particular Amendment, the noble

631
Lord will have noticed that Clause 12 deals with the transitional state. It is not the permanent state with which we are concerned; it is, in fact, a transitional arrangement, and there is nothing in the Bill to prevent the wishes of the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, from being realised. There is no reason at all why, in the future, other universities, including the University of Wales, should not set up veterinary faculties and train veterinary surgeons. This is merely the beginning of the whole business. On those grounds, I suggest that this is not a necessary Amendment to the Bill.
In this clause, the reason for allowing the universities to appoint persons to be members of the Council during the transitional period is that there are now under way a good many schemes on which we shall need professional advice from the universities. Therefore, it was thought that we would need qualified people from the universities to advise on the questions which arise; and we chose those six universities because they have already gone a long way, as the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, will agree with me, in the steps which they intend to take to absorb the veterinary colleges of the present day. As those steps have been taken, these universities seemed to be the obvious bodies to send representatives during the transitional period. If we extended the present group to include Wales, or anywhere else, then there would be nothing to stop every other university pressing for some sort of representation during the transitional stage, and that would, in my view, be unwise and impracticable.
I do not want to go into the complete question of the rights of Wales. I express myself as being fully in sympathy with the views of the noble Lord, but we have been guided very much by the Love-day Report on the subject. That Committee laid down, clearly and emphatically, that in the initial stages it would be better to have Liverpool as the training ground for North Wales, and that Bristol was the university best situated to cope with the undergraduates not only from the south and south-western counties of England but also from the southern counties of Wales. After all, Bristol is the complete geographical centre. It would be just as hard for Somerset, Dorset and Cornwall to go to Cardiff—far harder than
632
for Cardiff to go to Bristol. In regard to the cattle and sheep population, I think the south-western counties of England have nearly three times as great a population as the six southern counties of Wales. On those grounds, and as an initial step, the Loveday Committee said that that was the best and optimum plan. We have adopted their Report. I should like to emphasise again that this is only a transitional period; there is nothing to stop Wales in the future from pressing her claim or to prevent an extension of veterinary education throughout the country in other universities. On those grounds, I hope that the noble Lord will be pleased to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD HARLECH: I put this Amendment down solely for the purpose of having some discussion on this point, to make it quite clear that the door is still open for representation. All we want is to ensure that, when it comes to the University Grants Committee—we do not know what the Government will give for veterinary education—we shall be treated on the same terms as Bristol and Cambridge, when that issue is fought out. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clauses 13 and 14 agreed to.
Clause 15:
Proceedings of Disciplinary Committee.
15.—(1) Before exercising the power of removing the name of a person from the Register of Veterinary Surgeons the Disciplinary Committee shall hold an inquiry and shall afford the person concerned an opportunity of being heard, either in person or by counsel or a solicitor.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON moved to add to subsection (1).
"Provided that nothing in this subsection shall require or authorise the Disciplinary Committee to investigate any facts where under the Agreement set out in the Schedule to the Veterinary Surgeons (Irish Free State Agreement) Act, 1932, a report made by the Eire Veterinary Council to the Council of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons is conclusive as to those facts."
The noble Earl said: This is a minor Amendment which merely affects the Disciplinary Committee in Eire. The present practice is that a Committee consisting of three members of the Eire Veterinary Council of (whom one has to be a member of the Council of the Royal

633
College of Veterinary Surgeons) together with two members of the Council of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, decide questions of breach of discipline by Irish or Eireann veterinary surgeons. The Eire Council may take the decisive step of striking the man off their register, and they then forward the information to the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons in England, who decide whether they, in turn, should strike the man's name off their register. In regard to the facts of the case, this clause lays down that the facts will be taken as reported by the Eire Veterinary Council. It merely avoids the necessity for re-investigating the facts of the case. I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 42, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Huntingdon.]
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 16 to 26 agreed to.
Clause 27 [Exercise of powers of Privy Council]:
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: This is purely a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 27, leave out from beginning to end of line 33, and insert:

"(1) Any power conferred on the Privy Council by this Act may be exercised by any two or more of the Privy Council.

(2) Section eighteen of the Veterinary Surgeons Act, 1881 (which contains provisions as to the exercise by order of the powers vested in the Privy Council by that Act) is hereby repealed. "—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 27, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
First Schedule [Treatment and operations which may be given or carried out by unqualified persons]:
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: On this Amendment, it is not necessary for me to add to what I said before. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 2, at end insert:
("EXEMPTIONS FROM RESTRICTIONS ON PRACTICE OF VETERINARY SURGERY
PART I")
—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH I take this opportunity of thanking my noble friend for accepting this Amendment. I hope that at some time in the not too distant future, with the increase in the number of veterinary surgeons, His Majesty's Government will see their way clear to revising the Table in this Schedule. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 22, at end insert:
(" PART II.
Exclusions from provisions of Part I.
Nothing in paragraph (a) of subsection (2) of Section five of this Act shall authorise the castration of any animal mentioned in the following Table after it has reached the age shown therein.

TABLE.

Horse, pony ass or mule

2 years

Bull

15 months

Goat

15 months

Ram

15 months

Boar

9 months

Cat

6 months

Dog

6 months').

—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
First Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Second Schedule [Exemption from restrictions on buying and selling poisons, etc.]:
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: This Amendment enables veterinary practitioners to obtain the necessary drags which they need for their profession. I think your Lordships will agree that: his is necessary if they are to carry out their work. For those reasons, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 26, leave out from ("In") to end of line 29, and insert ("the Pharmacy and Poisons Act, 1933.—

(a) in Section nineteen, in paragraph (a) of subsection (1);

(b) in Section twenty, in paragraph (3);

(c) in Section twenty-three, in subsection (1), in sub-paragraph (ii) of paragraph (b);

(d) in Section twenty-five, in subsection ten; and

(e)in Section twenty-nine, in the definition of 'dispensing,' after the words 'veterinary surgeon' there shall be inserted the words 'or veterinary practitioner' ").—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Remaining Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed.

LORD HIGH COMMISSIONER (CHURCH OF SCOTLAND) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.

CERTIFICATES FROM EXAMINERS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that no further Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bills:

MERTHYR TYDFIL CORPORATION;

ROCHDALE CORPORATION;

UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD (LANDS).

The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

BIRMINGHAM CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, with amendments.

UNION OF BENEFICES MEASURE, 1923.
Scheme for effecting the union of the benefices and parishes of St. Mary, Birkenhead, with St. Paul, Birkenhead, and authorising the taking down and the sale of the site and materials of the Church of St. Paul, Birkenhead:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Measure) and ordered to lie on the Table.