VETERINARY SURGEONS BILL [H.L.]

HL Deb 15 February 1966 vol 272 cc979-1024

3.10 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 Champion.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]

Clause 1 [The Council of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons]:

LORD DRUMALBYNmoved, in subsection 1(a), to leave out "twenty" and insert "twenty-four". The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in the names of my noble friend Lord Balerno and myself. The purpose of the Amendment is to substitute 24 as the number of members of the College elected by registered veterinary surgeons. As the noble Lord the Minister will know, there is strong feeling that the profession should be autonomous and that its disciplinary body should be controlled by practising veterinary surgeons, who should be in a majority. At the present time there are on the Council 20 elected members, 12 university members, 4 Privy Council members, plus 2 Irish elected members and 3 Irish appointed members—that is, 22 elected members and 19 appointed members. From my experience of Irish delegations abroad, I am bound to say that they have a habit of voting with considerable solidarity, and if the Irish members were to vote the other way from the elected members, that would tip the balance the other way.

The main trouble here is that there has been a feeling in the profession as a whole that they have not been sufficiently informed about this legislation. They tend to ascribe this, at any rate in part, to the fact that there is not at the present time a majority of practising veterinary surgeons on the Council. That is due to a variety of reasons, and though they could have elected a majority, they have not done so.

In any case, so small a majority in favour of the elected over the appointed members seems to be quite unsatisfactory. That is why I make the proposal that there should be 24 elected members. I should have thought that it was not unreasonable that there should be twice as many elected members as those appointed by the universities. In a moment we shall be dealing with another Amendment, the object of which will be to raise the number of elected members as the number of appointed members is automatically raised through the recognition of new veterinary faculties, but the present Amendment is to secure that basically there should be a majority of elected members on a body which is essentially an autonomous, self-disciplinary body. The number of elected members should be in such a definite majority that they can be expected to control the Council. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 11, leave out ("twenty") and insert ("twenty-four").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)

LORD BALERNO

I should like to support my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn. This is not just a question of status. We must realise, of course, that the veterinary profession has acquired well-recognised status in the land in recent years, and that this should be recognised, but my noble friend has put forward the democratic aspect, that matters pertaining to the profession should be looked after by the profession itself to as large an extent as possible. This is very much felt by many veterinary surgeons, and I sincerely hope that the Government will be able to accept this Amendment.

THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD CHAMPION)

I am grateful to the noble Lords who have moved and supported this Amendment for the way they have done so. I am not going to talk about what the Irish members are likely to do. We know that they have certain characteristics, as I am sure the noble and gallant Field-Marshal would tell us, if he were going to speak. Perhaps I shall have to return to the Irish members later on. The Government definitely accept that the Council of the College should always have a majority of elected members, and if your Lordships agree to reject this Amendment, I am prepared, on the subsequent Amendment on this matter to be moved by the noble Lord (I thought that perhaps the two would have been discussed together) to give an assurance that I will put down a Government Amendment giving effect to this principle.

There is a trifling point about the Amendment: it is defective, in so far as it does not deal with the second paragraph of Schedule 1, though I do not regard this as being a major objection. I must point out that the Royal College is not a trade union. It is a body incorporated by Royal Charter and entrusted by Parliament with a number of duties designed to protect the public —not the veterinary profession; and this fact must be kept in mind. The protection is for the public and not for those people who happen to constitute the profession at this or any future time.

Among the important duties of the Council is that of ensuring that veterinary education is of a standard required to provide the proper training of veterinary surgeons. In order to do this, it is not necessary to have elected members Indeed, some might think that elected members might favour less stringent examination conditions, which would not be for the benefit of the general public. Therefore, to my mind, a strong representation from the universities is essential in order to enable the Council to carry out its educational duties.

But, despite everything I have said, the Government accept the principle of having a majority of elected members. We think that in the present circumstances, and under this Bill, to have 20 elected members 12 nominated by the universities and 4 by the Privy Council gives a reasonable balance from the point of view I have stated. When it comes to the noble Lord's second Amendment, I shall give an explicit undertaking to introduce a new Amendment which will provide for a majority of elected members, because we do not think that the way that the noble Lord has suggested is quite the way to do this. Having regard to my plea, I hope that the noble Lord will be prepared to withdraw his Amendment.

LORD DRUMALBYN

I regard this as a matter of some importance. I am sorry that the 24 I propose is not divisible with 5, because that, I think, was the point the noble Lord had in mind about the second paragraph of Schedule 1. I could easily have put down 25 instead of 24. As he probably realises, I was in some doubt in my own mind in what form to put down the Amendment. I could have put it down as four elected members for every two university members; indeed, that is what was first in my mind. I should like to impress the noble Lord with the strength of feeling that has come to my attention on this matter. For example, only this morning I received from the University of Bristol a memorandum signed by one professor and 36 lecturers, readers and other teaching staff in which they strongly stressed this point. Although they belong to universities they propose that the number of university members should be cut to half—that is to say, one university appointed member—if there were any question of the Council's becoming unwieldy. I think that a mere majority of this kind is not good enough.

It is true that one of the main functions, if not the main function, of the Council is the protection of the public. But this is a self-disciplinary profession, and a responsible profession. Surely it ought to be given that protection and discipline itself through a Council on which there is a clear majority of elected members. I am doubtful whether it was envisaged at the time of the passing of the 1948 Act that the disparity between elected and non-elected members should be whittled down to the extent that it was. Twenty to 16 is a very different thing from 22 to 29. While I do not propose to press this Amendment to-day, I would ask the noble Lord to think further about this matter between now and the Report stage. We shall on the next Amendment be considering the changing relativities as more veterinary schools are developed. But I think we should start with a clear majority of elected members at least corresponding to the original proportions of 5 to 4 that existed under the 1948 Act. If the noble Lord can give me some hope that this will be reconsidered, I will gladly withdraw the Amendment.

LORD BALERNO

I should like to take up one point made by the noble Lord, Lord Champion. He said that if there were more elected members it might lead to laxer methods by which students qualify for the veterinary profession. My own impression is that the opposite would be the result, if it did have any major effect, because as a rule, the older generation like to be more stringent on those who come up. It is a natural phenomenon of man.

LORD CHAMPION

I bow to the greater knowledge of the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, in this field. He is quite right, of course: that as we get older the more we tend to frown on the younger generation and think that they are not doing half enough, or not doing it half as well as we did it at their age, and so on. I feel bound to give to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, the undertaking for which he has asked—namely, that this matter will be looked at carefully, between now and Report, in the light of the points he has made. The noble Lord has mentioned this whole business of the Council being a self-disciplining body, and I must in this connection look at the other bodies which have these powers of applying discipline to their own profession. If it is the case that in other professions which come under something similar to this the elected members are in a clear and substantial majority, such as the noble Lord rather wants in this field, then obviously we shall have to give careful thought to it. But I can only give him the undertaking that we will look at this carefully between now and the Report stage.

LORD DRUMALBYN

In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment,

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD DRUMALBYN had given Notice of an Amendment to add to subsection (1): Provided that for every two additional persons appointed under paragraph (c) above in excess of twelve the number of persons elected under paragraph (a) above shall be increased by three.".

The noble Lord said: The noble Lord, Lord Champion, has already said that he will consider the substance of this Amendment, the purpose of which is to ensure that for every university that is recognised, so far as its veterinary faculty is concerned, for the purposes of this Bill there will be three elected members. Each university brings in two new appointed members to enable three new elected members to assist in keeping the balance between the elected and non-elected members—that is to say, the appointed members. Having briefly explained this Amendment, I would add that, unless the noble Lord wants to say anything further, I do not propose to move the Amendment.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clauses 2 to 6 agreed to.

Clause 7:

Temporary Registration

7.—(1) The Council may, with a view to permitting—

1. (a) a person who satisfies them that he has attended a course of study, and has passed the examinations, leading to a degree to which a recognition order relates; and
2. (b) a person holding a Commonwealth or foreign qualification in veterinary surgery,

to practise veterinary surgery temporarily or otherwise subject to restrictions, direct that he be registered in the register subject to such restrictions as the Council may specify in the direction with respect to the period for which, the place or places at which and the conditions under which he may practise veterinary surgery; and any person with respect to whom a direction is given under this subsection shall be entitled to be registered in the register subject to the entry against his name of the restrictions so specified.

LORD DRUMALBYNmoved, in subsection (1), to leave out "temporarily" and insert "for any period not exceeding three years". The noble Lord said: In this clause we are dealing with temporary registration—that is, registration on to the temporary list of the register under Clause 2. It is my understanding that the purpose of this clause is to enable those who are in the course of training, whether in this country or coming from abroad on some kind of post-graduate training, to be allowed to practise veterinary surgery subject to restrictions to be laid down by the Council.

LORD CHAMPION

If the noble Lord will forgive me for interrupting, would he care to discuss Amendments Nos. 3 and 5 together? It seems to me that they are so closely bound up that we cannot separate them.

LORD DRUMALBYN

I apologise to the Committee. I meant to ask to be allowed to discuss this Amendment together with Amendment No. 5. It is thought that "for any period not exceeding three years" is the maximum period that could possibly be envisaged. For in the case of those who are training in this country, it is not thought that they would be allowed to practise veterinary surgery in the very early stages of their training; and, at the other end of the scale, it is not thought that it would be a good thing to allow people to go on indefinitely on a temporary basis. Therefore, it is thought that it would be a good plan to fix the maximum period firmly in the Bill.

There, Amendment No. 5 seems to me to overlook something which ought to be covered. There was no provision, so far as I can see, in the Bill as drafted to allow a temporary period to be prolonged. The purpose of the Amendment is to allow a temporary period to be prolonged up to a maximum of three years. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 5, line 32, leave out ("temporarily") and insert the said new words.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)

LORD CHAMPION

The Amendment refers only to holders of Commonwealth and foreign qualifications not recognised for registration in the United Kingdom. The final decision whether or not to grant temporary registration will rest with the Royal College. The question is not likely to arise until the person concerned has been accepted for post-graduate studies, at a university or research institute in the United Kingdom. We say that thus there is a double safeguard. No university or research institute will take a post-graduate unless he can satisfy them of his capability to absorb further training or usefully to undertake research, and the Royal College would be failing in its duty if it, too, did not take steps to check the credentials of anyone seeking registration, albeit temporary registration, for a specific purpose.

As to what is meant by "temporary registration", this must depend, to some extent, upon the circumstances. That is why we have left this question open. It is not intended to be, nor will the Royal College allow it to become, a back-door entrance to private practice in this country. I am sure that the majority of the elected members would be very watchful of this aspect of the matter, to ensure that we did not have this back-door entry into the profession of competitors in this particular field. I understand that such registration will be confined by the Royal College to one year, with a possibility of a renewal.

I hope your Lordships will agree that it might be unwise to fix arbitrary limits which might or might not accord with the requirements of training postgraduate students or employing research workers. We must remember that this provision is introduced to cover not only post-graduate students at universities, but research workers as well. It may well be desirable for the latter to be registered for longer than three years. I can well imagine a research worker saying, "Unless there is a reasonable degree of guarantee in the case of a piece of extended research, I will not undertake it." I can well imagine that that might be the case, and that the three years' limit might not be long enough for him to be given such a guarantee. The British Veterinary Association, for example, hope for an extension of research into tropical veterinary medicine in the country. Research workers from overseas may be of particular value here. Benefits can flow in both directions.

The Bill therefore allows the Council of the Royal College to set a term to each temporary registration, having regard to the merits of each case. I hope noble Lords will agree that this is something well within the competence of the body whose duty it is to protect the public against unqualified practitioners. I hope that, with this explanation, the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, will withdraw Amendment No. 3, and not move Amendment No. 5. We think we have safeguarded the position in the clause, and that the noble Lord will agree with the explanation I have now given to the Committee.

LORD CHORLEY

As one who has had a good deal of experience of university work in a post-graduate school, I wonder whether I might add a word in support of what the Minister has said. In my experience, it is unwise to try to attach a period of, say, three years. All sorts of things happen during the course of an advanced student's work at a higher degree, or of some research work, especially when he has come from overseas. There may be family trouble at home which causes him to go back, and for one reason or another I find that in my own experience in the law—and I imagine it would apply in almost every other branch of work—one has from time to time to lengthen the period to four, five or even more years, each case having to be judged on its merits. To establish a statutory restriction of three years might well create a great deal of hardship in quite a proportion of the cases.

LORD DRUMALBYN

In view of what the noble Lord has said, I do not want to press this Amendment. I think it was a proper Amendment to put down, in view of the elasticity of the clause as it is drafted at the present time. I was a little puzzled by the noble Lord's opening remarks. He said, I think, that this applied only to persons coming from overseas with a Commonwealth qualification, whereas the clause as drafted seems to apply also to a person who satisfies them that he has attended a course of study, and has passed the examinations, leading to a degree to which a recognition order relates … That seems to be definitely a university in this country. Is that not so?

LORD CHAMPION

I commenced by saying that the Amendment refers only to holders. That is how I understand it. I was not referring to the part of the Bill to which the noble Lord is now referring.

LORD DRUMALBYN

This is academic in view of the fact that I am not pressing the Amendment. I accept what the noble Lord has said. I think it is important that there should be flexibility in this matter, but I am quite prepared to accept the assurance that he has given that this will not be used in a way in which it is not intended to be used, and that it will be used in a responsible manner by the Council. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD CHAMPION

This Amendment, No. 4, is largely drafting, as is Amendment No. 6. In the context of the Royal College's powers to direct under this clause any conditions imposed must automatically be restrictions placed upon the temporarily registered person. We feel that it is better, therefore, to relate the word "restriction" to the circumstances under which the practice is permitted, and the Amendment to line 45 makes a simple reference back to the word "restrictions" in line 34. With that explanation, I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 5, line 36, leave out ("conditions under") and insert ("circumstances in").—(Lord Champion.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CHAMPION

I beg to move Amendment No. 6.

Amendment moved—

Page 5, line 45, leave out ("conditions") and insert ("restrictions").—(Lord Champion.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 8:

Supplementary veterinary register

8.—(1) There shall continue to be a register known as the supplementary veterinary register containing the names and addresses of the following persons (to be known as veterinary practitioners), that is to say—

(c) the persons entitled to be registered in that register under the next following subsection.

(2) Any person who for an aggregate of not less than seven out of the ten years immediately preceding 2nd December, 1965 held a licence under section 7 of the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1948 (licensing of employees of animal welfare societies) shall be entitled to be registered in the supplementary veterinary register.

3.37 p.m.

LORD SOMERS moved, in subsection (1), to leave out paragraph (c). The noble Lord said: I understand that I should not move Amendment No. 8 until after the noble Lord, Lord Champion, has moved Amendment No. 9. As Amendment No. 7 is dependent upon Amendment No. 8, I propose to defer the argument on the subject until then.

LORD CHAMPION

In connection with what the noble Lord has said, Clause 8 is the clause which has aroused the greatest controversy, especially within the veterinary profession itself. Amendments Nos. 7, 8, 10 and 11 are all intended to alter in some vital particular the scheme for dealing with the licensees under Section 7 of the 1948 Act. I wonder whether it would be convenient for the Committee to discuss these Amendments together before deciding what to do with them separately? Amendment No. 9 is, of course, a drafting Amendment. I rather think that some advantage would accrue to the Committee in the understanding of the whole position if in fact we followed that course. If the noble Lord, Lord Somers, while moving Amendment No. 7, would speak also to No. 8, and if the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, would speak to his Amendment, I could then try to persuade the Committee that the right thing to do would be to accept the Government's Amendment. If this course is acceptable to the Committee, I think it will help us in our proceedings upon this clause.

LORD DRUMALBYN

So far as I am concerned, I think it might save time even more if the noble Lord were to speak to his own Amendment No. 10, after the noble Lord, Lord Somers, has spoken to his.

LORD CHAMPION

I should be happy to do that.

LORD DRUMALBYN

The noble Lord's Amendment is not very different from mine.

LORD SOMERS

In that case, with your Lordships' permission, I will speak to Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 together, because they relate to each other. The whole point on Amendment No. 8 is to avoid the use of the words "veterinary practitioners" for those who, up to the present, have been known as licensees. I do not think that the veterinary profession have any objection to such persons being put on the supplementary register, but I think it is confusing for them to be known as practitioners. After all, there are already veterinary practitioners who are to all intents and purposes unqualified veterinary surgeons; but these licensees are those who have been in the service of the animal welfare societies.

I see that the noble Lord, Lord Champion, intends to alter that, and I am not in the least opposed to it, but these licensees have been in the service of the societies and chiefly they have had experience with small animals—pets, cats and dogs and so on—and have not had any experience which will qualify them to deal with the larger animals. Therefore, I think it is confusing to the public that they should be known as "veterinary practitioners", which to the perhaps less expert mind means really much the same as "veterinary surgeons". It implies a qualified person. The whole purpose of Amendment No. 8 is to retain the present wording but at the end to insert the words: and such persons shall be registered as and entitled to use the name of veterinary licensees. I beg to move Amendment No. 7.

Amendment moved—

Page 6, line 16, leave out paragraph (c).— (Lord Somers.)

LORD CHAMPION

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Somers, and to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, for agreeing to my suggestion that we might discuss this clause and the Amendments together. We discussed the question of licensees at some length in the Second Reading debate. I then explained that the Government had accepted the proposal of the Royal College following an understanding by the College with the P.D.S.A.—an understanding which was endorsed by the British Veterinary Association some four years ago. That proposal we embodied in Clause 8 of the Bill. The consultations took place four years ago; and I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, who reminded us during the Second Reading debate that there have been considerable changes in personnel since that date and some people who were members of the B.V.A. at that time did not really know what their Council had done in that connection, and they sent out the memorandum, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn—the Bristol Memorandum—from which it seemed to me that members of the B.V.A. were to some extent attempting to repudiate what their Council had done four years ago. I hope I am not saying anything harsh in that connection. I can understand that something done four years ago might well be forgotten in the interim and not known to the new members of the profession.

We have always understood the disadvantage of this clause, in that as it stands it would enable licensees to enter general practice without check, except for the disciplinary powers of the Royal College; and, as I hinted on Second Reading, I did not like it. I looked into the whole question of licensees when I was Chairman of a Committee which subsequently became known as the Champion Committee (which seemed to me to be a singularly appropriate name for it), and we subsequently submitted a very good report to the noble Lord, Lord Crathorne, who was then Minister of Agriculture. I did not like the original clause, but this was put into the Bill following an agreement which had been reached between the Royal College and the P.D.S.A.

The discussion on Second Reading of the Amendments which have been put down by the noble Lords opposite to this particular clause have caused us to give careful thought to the whole problem. I hope that, as a result of our consideration, we shall be found to have arrived at words and Amendments which will be accepted by the Committee as a reasonable compromise. What we are seeking to obtain here is a reasonable compromise between competing bodies and interests. The compromise is one, we suggest, that keeps to the essentials of the understanding between the Royal College and the P.D.S.A. and at the same time gives adequate protection to the general public. When I refer to "the general public" I refer, of course, to their animals, because it is the animals which matter in this connection. The Government Amendments provide that all existing licensees still employed by animal welfare societies should be registered on the supplementary register. These licensees would be subject not only to the disciplinary powers of the Royal College, but would continue to be, as at present, carefully supervised. This will protect the public.

The licensees who have already left, within the last three years or so (and these are the ones whom the noble Lord, Lord Somers, is worrying about), or those who subsequently leave the employment of these societies, will not be entitled to automatic registration. They must first apply to the Royal College. If the Royal College gives permission they will then be registered, and permission will be subject to such restriction as the Royal College may think fit to impose. I cannot speak for this; I must leave it to the good sense of the Royal College, but it may well be a restriction confining them to practise on those animals to which they have become used in their employment, and as licensees within these societies. Here we see the safeguard against such a licensee entering into certain aspects of general practice for which his training and experience might not have fitted him. The conditions for registration will be noted in the register, and an ex-licensee would be liable to have his name removed from that register if he did not observe the conditions. That m is the safeguard, and it is a useful one.

Turning now to the Amendments upon the Marshalled List, we think those standing in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Somers, and the noble Viscount, Lord Stonehaven, do not go far enough. In effect they would establish a separate part of the supplementary register giving licensees a different name without adding to the control that the Royal College has over them should they leave their present employment. We think that our Amendments are better because they will enable the Royal College to restrict such ex-licensees to such aspects of the practice of a veterinarian's work as they are deemed capable of.

The noble Lord, Lord Somers, stressed the change of name. I must point out that, under Amendment No. 8, on the supplementary register in future two names would apply: "veterinary practitioner" and "veterinary licensee". That is his purpose. A veterinary practitioner at present, and as the position would be under the Bill, is a person registered under Section 6 of the 1948 Act. A veterinary licensee would be a person registered under Clause 8 of this Bill, as I understand the noble Lord's Amendment. In so far as that section of the general public who are interested in veterinary matters are concerned, there are two titles known to them now, "veterinary surgeon" and "veterinary practitioner". They are aware of the fact that all veterinary surgeons are holders of a university degree, having successfully completed a university course of study in the practice of veterinary surgery, and that veterinary practitioners are men who have not obtained a degree but who during the ten years preceding the passing of the 1948 Act had been engaged in diagnosing diseases of animals and in giving them medical and surgical treatment. That is to say, the men who are entitled under the 1948 Act to use the term "veterinary practitioners" are, in many cases, men who have picked up a bit of veterinary knowledge as they went along, while many of the licensees had received quite a bit of training with their societies and were kept up to date in their work by their respective employing societies.

Those of us who are old enough will remember some of these people who were included on this supplementary register as veterinary practitioners. The amount of knowledge they had was not sufficient, in my opinion, to justify their practising on any animals of mine. Nevertheless, this had to be done in the circumstances of the passing of the 1948 Act. The words "seven out of ten" governing the admission of licensees to the supplementary register are closely allied to those of the 1948 Act. I feel that we should be gaining nothing by adding another name in this field, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Somers, will decide to withdraw his Amendment No. 7, and will not move No. 8. We think that what we are proposing to do here will truly safeguard the public against anyone being deceived into thinking that a man coming from practice within one of these societies is capable of conducting a major operation on a valuable racehorse, or anything of that sort.

The Amendments standing in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Drumalbyn and Lord Balerno, seem to us to go a little further than is necessary. They would give the College too much power in relation to those licensees who continue in their present employment, and we feel that this might undermine the understanding which has been arrived at between the Royal College and the P.D.S.A. They might also have the effect, if the restrictions did not enable the licensees to undertake further training, of prohibiting them from improving their status. This we do not want to do. However, perhaps the noble Lord will tell me here that the restrictions ought to make provision for this sort of thing.

Having said that, I must thank the noble Lords, Lord Drumalbyn and Lord Balerno, for giving us a clue as to the most suitable solution of this problem which we have embodied in our Amendments. With that just tribute to the noble Lords, I hope that the Committee will accept the Government's Amendments which embody a compromise and will, we think, be acceptable to the Royal College, to the British Veterinary Association and to the P.D.S.A. I have spoken for rather a long time on this matter, but these Amendments are of importance. Clause 8 is, as I said at the outset, the most controversial in the Bill, and I hope what we have now arrived at will find general acceptance within the Committee and certainly within the profession as a whole.

3.55 p.m.

VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD

I should like to say a few words on these Amendments. I certainly cannot agree with the Amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Somers, and the noble Viscount, Lord Stonehaven, or the Amendments of the noble Lords, Lord Drumalbyn and Lord Balerno. I should have thought that the Bill as it stands was quite adequate, because, as the noble Lord, Lord Champion, said, there have been extremely intensive discussions between the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and the British Veterinary Association and the P.D.S.A. on the drafting of this clause. As I understand it, all three bodies were quite content with the drafting of this clause.

There are, I think, only 56 of these licensees in the country, 54 of whom have been trained and are employed by the P.D.S.A. I understand that of the 54 employed by the P.D.S.A. none of them has had less than 14 years practical experience. I should have thought that we could allow those licensees to go on to the supplementary register and to be called veterinary practitioners, because no more will be appointed. It seems to me that we are rather discriminating against them unnecessarily. I should be prepared to support the Government's Amendments on this matter, but I would prefer that Clause 8 were left as drafted. I certainly cannot support the Amendments in the name of Lord Somers or those of Lord Drumalbyn. I hope that, if the Bill cannot be left as it is drafted at present, the Government's Amendments will be carried; but I cannot agree with the other Amendments.

LORD SOMERS

I am perfectly prepared to accept the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Champion. There is only one point that puzzles me slightly, and that is, who is to enforce the observation of these restrictions? Presumably the veterinary practitioners will be given some form of licence or certificate, and will be asked by the public to produce it. Is that the idea? If the noble Lord could put my mind at rest on this point, I should be perfectly happy to withdraw the Amendment.

3.58 p.m.

LORD DRUMALBYN

Before my noble friend withdraws the Amendment, perhaps I might say a word. The approach of my noble friend and myself to this clause was along these lines. Here, as I understand it, we have a limited number of licensees (I think there are 67, or something of that order) who at present are licensed to give such medical and minor surgical treatment for the relief of pain as is authorised in the licence. That is the information I have.

As it seemed to us, the position would be that if they were put on the supplementary register there would then be no controls at all over the types of work they could do, the only control being in the types of work done by the P.D.S.A. and the other animal welfare societies. If, however they were to leave the employment of these organisations, they would then be able to put up a plate marked "veterinary practitioner" and would be able, so far as I could see, to do any kind of veterinary surgery at all, without any restriction whatsoever, and the public could not be expected to make much distinction between a veterinary surgeon and a veterinary practitioner.

That was the position as I saw it. But we then made inquiries, and we found that there had been some kind of understanding. I am bound to say that I do not think that understandings can overrule the will of Parliament; I think they must be made subject to what Parliament may decide. But since there had been some understanding, my noble friend and I thought that the best thing would be not only to place restrictions on those who may leave the animal welfare services, but to place restrictions, equivalent to those under which they hold their licences at present, on those who stay in the animal welfare services.

This was the purpose of our Amendment. The noble Lord says that he thinks that goes too far. I should not have thought it goes too far. I am glad that he has seen his way to putting restrictions on those who are licensed at present; who have been licensed for seven out of the last ten years; who are working with the animal welfare societies, and who leave the employment of those societies to work outside. I certainly think that that is an absolute minimum. But I should have thought also that once the licences of those who are now working under licence are abolished, they should have imposed upon them restrictions similar to those imposed by the licence. I cannot see that that can be any breach of an understanding. It seems to me to be perfectly right and proper, and certainly much in the interests of the animals and of the profession as a whole.

I do not say that the drafting is right; but that is why I still prefer the Amendment standing in the name of my noble friend and myself. After all, there are fewer than 70 names to be dealt with on this register, and presumably it will be a diminishing number, because I think that the ages of all those concerned must be over 45. If my calculations are right, as time goes on these will be a diminishing number.

In any case, I am not entirely happy with the drafting of Amendment No. 10,which the noble Lord, Lord Champion, has put down. Is there not a loophole here? The Amendment says but if he"— that is one of these licensees— is not an employee of any society or institution mentioned in subsection (1) of that section he shall not be entitled to practise veterinary surgery except with permission granted by the Council and subject to such restrictions as the Council may impose. But a man may be a part-time employee of one of these societies. What happens then? Is he then allowed to practise without restriction at all? This seems to me to be an important point. There must be a loophole here, which I think we should close now. We could close it by omitting the word "and" and putting in the words, "a full-time employee of any society or institution." This seems to be a most necessary alteration to make, if we are even to secure what the noble Lord wants to secure. But, as I said before, I still feel—and I hope my noble friend still feels—that the Amendment in our two names is to be preferred.

I would not ask the Committee to decide on these two Amendments, and should be quite content at this stage for the noble Lord to have his Amendment in. But I hope that he will be able to say that he will look at the arguments that I have put forward, and will certainly satisfy himself before the next stage that those who are placed on the supplementary register will be subject to restrictions, so that they will be restricted to the kinds of work that they have previously been doing. I do not often disagree with my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard. He talked about their having fourteen years of practical experience. But it is practical experience within comparatively narrow limits. If I am right in my interpretation of what the noble Lord has said, these narrow limits would be removed by his Amendment. So I hope that he will say that he will pay attention to the arguments that we have put forward and, if necessary, will be prepared to amend his own Amendment at the next stage of the Bill.

4.7 p.m.

LORD CHAMPION

I am most grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, because he has supported the Bill as originally drafted. The fact that he is completely opposed to the noble Lords who have put down Amendments seems to me some justification for our attempting to find a way between the points of view that have been expressed this afternoon, which is precisely what we have done by our Amendment. I am glad that the noble Viscount spoke.

I am not going into any of the figures (I have them somewhere, but they are buried deeply in the mass of papers that I have with me) as to the actual numbers who are engaged, their ages and so on. But the fact is that, although not many people are involved, this point aroused a lot of controversy in various fields.

The noble Lord, Lord Somers, asked me about disciplinary proceedings if we allow these people to participate under a restriction. The disciplinary procedure will be under the control of the Royal College, and the restrictions will be enforced, as under Clause 7, by people who notice an offence complaining to the R.C.V.S. This sort of thing will quickly become known. It will become known that people are doing this on a restricted licence. "Restricted licence" perhaps is the right term, and people will soon get to know if something major, which is clearly not within the terms of any licence granted, is being done, and will report accordingly.

I am grateful for what the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, said. He queried our drafting after saying kindly that he was not going to move his Amendment. But perhaps he would consider it further between now and Report stage, as of course we shall have to do in the light of what has been said; and particularly his mention of a loophole in the wording, as to someone doing this job part-time. He rather challenged me to close this loophole now. I am not going to fall for that one. After all, I am not the Minister in charge of the Department; I am only in charge of the Bill. If I were to accept it at this stage, I might find myself in trouble with the Minister when I report to him what had happened this afternoon. But I can give the noble Lord an undertaking, that this is something we shall have to look at carefully.

As to the restrictions that will be imposed, I cannot hope to commit the Royal College to precise restrictions. It will be for them to consider, and. the restrictions which they will impose upon these men will depend on the circumstances of each case. The sort of restriction which occurs to me, as a layman, is that the ex-licensee might have to confine his activities to small animals—that is, domestic pets; or he might be required to work only with, and under the supervision of, a qualified veterinary surgeon. Again, he might be prohibited from performing any operation which may go into the body cavities. But, of course, it could be that the Royal College would conclude that he was competent to practise generally. That would be up to the Royal College. I am sure that they would not give him a free licence to do some of these major things until they were absolutely satisfied that he was competent to do them. I am grateful to noble Lords for having accepted the Government Amendments. I promise that we will look at everything that has been said.

LORD DRUMALBYN

I hope the noble Lord will not miss the main point. The main point undoubtedly is that those who will be transferred from being licensed to the supplementary register will be subject to no controls at all; it will not be a matter of placing restrictions upon them. Under the noble Lord's Amendment they will place restrictions only on those who are no longer employees of the societies or institutions mentioned.

LORD CHAMPION

If I said anything contrary to that, I made a mistake. The restrictions will apply to people working outside the employment where they previously worked as licensees. The licensees will still be doing the same sort of job within their particular societies as they have been doing previously, and, as I understand it, there will be no difference here.

LORD DRUMALBYN

They will be doing it in fact. They will not be doing it because they are restricted by a license. There is a great difference between the two.

LORD CHAMPION

If we go on like this, we shall be making confusion worse confounded. I do not quite understand the noble Lord, but I shall be glad to talk to him about it afterwards, and if necessary do something about it between now and Report.

LORD SOMERS

There is a great deal in what the noble Lord says. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 7.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD CHAMPION

This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 6, line 21, leave out ("animal welfare societies") and insert ("certain societies and institutions providing free treatment for animals").—(Lord Champion.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CHAMPION

I beg to move Amendment No. 10.

Amendment moved—

Page 6, line 22, at end insert (", but if he is not an employee of any society or institution mentioned in subsection (1) of that section shall not be entitled to practise veterinary surgery except with permission granted by the Council and subject to such restrictions as the Council may impose.

( ) Where a person is registered in the supplementary veterinary register under the last foregoing subsection, the fact that he is or is not the employee of any such society or institution as aforesaid and, if he is not, whether he has been granted permission to practise veterinary surgery and the restrictions subject to which he may practise it shall be entered against his name in the register.

( ) Where a person registered in the supplementary veterinary register under subsection (2) of this section fails to comply with any restrictions subject to which he is so registered, the Council may cause his name to be removed from the register.").—(Lord Champion.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CHAMPION

This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 6, line 25, leave out ("the said section 7") and insert ("section 7 of the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1948"),—(Lord Champion.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 9 [Keeping evidential effect and publication of the register]:

4.15 p.m.

LORD DRUMALBYN

The purpose of this Amendment is simply to ensure that the register shall be printed at least every three years. There has been a certain amount of discontent about this in the past, and the object of this Amendment is to put the situation right. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 6, line 37, at end insert ("and in any case not less than once every three years").— (Lord Drumalbyn.)

LORD CHAMPION

This is not a matter on which we as a Government feel very deeply, but we thought that in the interests of economy we should allow discretion to the Royal College in regard to the publication of the register. After all, this is a fairly costly job. Printing and postage costs to the Council incurred in producing their 1964 Report amounted to £2,395 19s. 2d. The sensible course for the Royal College to take here would be that, having published the register itself, it should then issue amendments to the register up to the point where it became extremely difficult to read and to understand what it was all about, and should then publish a new register. The register should not contain so many Amendments that it is practically impossible for anyone to find his way through them. We take the view that discretion should be allowed to the Council.

The Opticians Act 1958, which became law under the last Administration, accepted the principle that the General Optical Council should have complete discretion as to the frequency with which their register should be published. This also applied to the Professions Supplementary to Medicine Act 1960. Therefore, although, as I have said, we do not feel deeply about this, we feel that it might be left to the discretion of such a responsible body as the Council of the Royal College to make its decision and to ensure that the register is reasonably readable to those who need to find their way through it.

LORD DRUMALBYN

I would be prepared to make further soundings about this before the next stage. I do not press the matter at the moment. There is a great deal in what the noble Lord has said. For a register to be any use to the ordinary person as a book of reference, it must be reasonably up to date. I understand that there are some 8,000 veterinary surgeons on the register of this country, which means there will be at least 200 changes in it per year, and probably more, apart from various changes as to restrictions, and so forth. Therefore, I should have thought that any profession would wish, if it is at all possible, to publish its register annually. I should have thought that it ought at least to publish a register every three years. I do not feel that this is a matter which should be forced upon the Council by Parliament. It is really a matter for the elected members, if they think fit, to force upon the Council. I put down this Amendment because this matter was brought to my attention and it was thought to be a good idea. I imagine that now it has been put down the work has been done. Therefore, I withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 9 agreed to.

Clauses 10 to 12 agreed to.

Clause 13 [Removal of names of deceased persons and of those who have ceased to practise]:

LORD DRUMALBYN

This is a small point. If the power is to be taken to remove a name from the register after the registrar has written to a registered veterinary surgeon asking whether he has ceased to practise and no answer has been received within six months, when one remembers the far-flung areas of the world in which veterinary surgeons practise, such as the Falkland Islands or Mauritius, it would appear to be fair that his name should remain on the register until his current subscription has exhausted its validity. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 8, line 44, at end insert— ("Provided that the name shall not be removed until the expiry of any period in respect of which any such fee as is referred to in section 11(1)(b) of this Act has been paid.")— (Lord Drumalbyn.)

LORD CHAMPION

This Amendment has the advantage of apparent justice, that a registered veterinary surgeon's name is not removed from the register until the period in respect of which he has paid fees expires. But this is more apparent than real. It is highly improbable that a veterinary surgeon having paid his fees will disappear so quickly and information will get to the College so quickly that much more than the six months' grace given under this clause will remain before the end of the year for which the fees have been paid. If this should happen, possibly something is wrong. A disciplinary case is difficult if the person cannot be traced and in such an unlikely event the power given to the Council might be in the public interest.

We do not hold strong views on this, but I suggest that this is a small area of discretion that might well be left to the common sense of the Council. I do not know what the noble Lord feels about the matter. I must admit that my note tells me, "Accept if strongly pressed"— but I do not imagine that the noble Lord will strongly press me on such a small matter as this.

LORD DRUMALBYN

Obviously, one cannot feel terribly strongly about a matter of this kind. I am bound to say that if the rule stands as it is the registrar has discretion not to remove the name, and in the circumstances I have indicated I do not think he would remove the name. Therefore, I see no point in pressing the Amendment, and I beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 13 agreed to.

Clauses 14 to 16 agreed to.

Clause 17 [Appeals in disciplinary and other cases]:

4.21 p.m.

LORD DRUMALBYNmoved, in subsection (1), to leave out all words after "section may," and insert: in accordance with rules of court, appeal to the High Court. ( ) On any such appeal the Court may give such directions as they may think proper, and any order of the Court under this section shall be final. ( ) In the application of this section to Scotland for the reference to the High Court and to respondent there shall be substituted respectively a reference to the Court of Session and to defender.

The noble Lord said: This is really an exploratory Amendment. Under the legislation as it now stands, an appeal against the decision of the Council on a disciplinary case lies to the courts; that is to say, the High Court in England and Wales and the Court of Session in Scotland. The Bill as drafted transfers that appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The noble Lord said on Second Reading that this follows the pattern of the medical and dental professions, but before one makes a change of this kind one wants to have a little more substantial justification of it than that. After all, I understand that, so far as the solicitors are concerned, appeals still lie to the High Court for solicitors in England and Wales, and to the Court of Session for solicitors in Scotland. So far as Scotland is concerned, I would have expected that an appeal to the Court of Session would be preferred to an appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

I would imagine that one of the reasons which might be put forward for changing to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is that the appeal might be taken more expeditiously; there might be less delay before the hearing than there would be if it were in the High Court or the Court of Session. I do not know whether the noble Lord is in a position to give us any comparative figures of delays between these two forms of hearing. I think that on Second Reading the noble Lord also mentioned the question of Commonwealth countries. I would not have thought that this was a substantial point at all. Indeed, it may be that to some Commonwealth countries, at any rate, the Privy Council is more a sign of imperial dominance in an appeal on a matter affecting the register of Great Britain, than the normal courts of Great Britain.

I am not quite clear about the position so far as Ireland is concerned. I take it that if a man were practising in this country, but was registered in Ireland, the appeal against the Disciplinary Committee would then lie to the appropriate court there. It appears from Clause 21 that there is to be machinery for ensuring that the case of a man qualified in Ireland, but practising here and on the register here, would be considered in this country and not in Ireland. In any case, I should have thought that where we had this joint arrangement between ourselves and Ireland, it would be advisable to have the same kind of procedure in both countries. I wonder whether the noble Lord can tell us what is the procedure for appeals in Ireland.

As I said, this Amendment is exploratory. I believe that there is no very strong view held on this matter in the profession. But I should have thought there was no point in making a change unless there were very good reasons for making it. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 10, line 15, leave out from ("may") to end of line 24 and insert the said new words and subsections.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)

LORD CHAMPION

The noble Lord has made it quite clear that his Amendment is exploratory, so that I need not bother to say too much about the failure of the drafting to apply to Northern Ireland; this really does not matter. I am not in a position to give the noble Lord the comparative figures of delay. I am sure that he did not really expect me to be able to give them on a Committee stage, without previous notice. He mentioned the point about solicitors whose appeal lies to the High Court or the Court of Session, but what I have to say here is that, although the medical and veterinary professions are the same throughout the United Kingdom, different legal systems exist as between England and Scotland, as we know from legislation which passes through this House. So I do not think we can take the solicitors here—

LORD DRUMALBYN

Of course, the forensic medicine aspects are different between the two countries.

LORD CHAMPION

Well they might be. The noble Lord has caught me again. I wish he would not do that! But the simple fact is that, so far as the legal systems are concerned, solicitors who feel that they have a right of appeal go either to the High Court or to the Court of Session, because of the difference in the legal systems.

During the debate on Second Reading, I referred to the provision in the Bill for appeals from decisions of the disciplinary committee to lie once again to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, instead of to the High Court or Court of Session. One of the reasons for doing so was that in some Commonwealth countries—and the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, mentioned this—the basic qualification is still membership of the Royal College, and it was thus considered that the Privy Council would be a more appropriate tribunal. There is another and very practical reason. The Royal College exercises disciplinary power throughout the whole of the United Kingdom, and it has told us that in the past difficulties have been experienced in knowing to which court the appeal should be taken, having regard to the place of residence of the accused and the place where the disciplinary offence in question is alleged to have been committed. These places may not be in the same country, so there is a difficulty here which I am sure the noble Lord will recognise. The 1948 Act itself gives no guidance at all on this point.

In addition, there were different rules of court to be considered. It was considered, therefore, to be simpler for, and in the interests of, the Royal College and the appellant if there were only one appeal tribunal rather than three separate ones. This proposal was considered with the Lord Chancellor, and it also has the merit of bringing the three medical professions, whose disciplinary problems are often very similar, once more into line. This is a matter which has been carefully considered, and it arises to some extent out of these difficulties which the Royal College told us about. It is not merely a matter of tidying up, although there is some measure of tidying up in it because it brings the appeal procedure into line with that of the doctors, opticians and professions supplementary to medicine, all of which have an appeal to the Privy Council.

I do not think I need say more at the moment. This system of reverting to appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is, in all the circumstances, the best for the profession, and it will certainly be easier for those who have to appeal and those who have to answer the appeal—in this case, the Council of the Royal College. I therefore hope that the noble Lord will be happy to withdraw his Amendment.

LORD DRUMALBYN

I do not observe any strong feeling in the Committee on the matter. I thank the noble Lord for the explanation he has given, and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 17 agreed to.

Clause 18 agreed to.

Clause 19 [Restriction of practice of veterinary surgery by unqualified persons]:

4.30 p.m.

LORD CHAMPION

I beg to move the next Amendment which stands in my name. During the Second Reading debate the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, called my attention to this matter, and I am grateful to him for doing so. He called attention to the fact that there was no reference in the Bill to those who are licensed by the Home Office to carry out operations of a veterinary character. I agree that it is prudent to put the position of these people, many of whom will not be veterinarians, beyond doubt so far as this Bill is concerned, and I hope that noble Lords will accept the Amendment. As I say, it stems from the remark which the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, made, and I thank him very much. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 11, leave out lines 35 and 36 and insert— ("Subsection (1) of this section shall not prohibit— (a) the carrying out of any experiment duly authorised under the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876;").—(Lord Champion.)

LORD DRUMALBYN

I should like to thank the noble Lord for putting down this Amendment. It clarifies a rather difficult position.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CHAMPION

This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 11, line 40, at beginning insert ("the carrying out or performance of").—(Lord Champion.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CHAMPION

Amendments Nos. 18, 19 and 20 all have the same purpose; that is, to enable Ministers to vary by order the provisions of Part I of Schedule 3 to the Bill as well as the provisions in Part II of that Schedule. We have a number of Amendments later on which we shall have to refer to Schedule 3, but this is an Amendment which leads up to something which may eventually be done to Schedule 3. I have to remind your Lordships that, basically, this Schedule was first worked out by a Committee under the chairmanship of Lt.-Col. Sir John Chancellor which reported in 1945, and was incorporated in the Veterinary Surgeons Act in 1948. It was not, however, until over a month after this Bill had been published that any of the interested parties made any representations to the Ministry of Agriculture to the effect that, in the general context, this Schedule did not work satisfactorily. I think the Government were therefore fully entitled to consider that the right thing to do was to incorporate the old Schedule in this new Bill.

Nevertheless, it is now obvious that some interests consider that amendment is necessary, but in my opinion satisfactory Amendments cannot be worked out in a short time. The real purpose of Schedule 3 is to exempt owners, and in particular farmers, in relation to their own animals and, in some circumstances, in relation to their neighbours' animals, from the provisions of the Bill which prevent laymen practising any sort of veterinary surgery. I am not arguing at the moment whether these exemptions in the form in which they stand are desirable or undesirable. I am, however, suggesting that more time is needed to work out alternative exemptions. I can assure your Lordships that, if this Amendment is accepted, interested parties will be asked for comments on the Schedule with a view to its early revision. I should also draw your Lordships' attention to the consequent Amendment to Clause 25 subjecting any Order made under this clause to the Affirmative Resolution procedure. But this is very much a paving Amendment towards a consideration of Schedule 3, and to eventual action by the Minister by means of laying Orders after he has consulted all the interested bodies. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 11, line 45, leave out ("such").—(Lord Champion.)

LORD BALERNO

I very much welcome this and later Amendments that have been put down. They meet points that have been raised and will, I think, make the Bill much more flexible in its operation.

LORD DRUMALBYN

I should like to join my noble friend in welcoming this Amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Champion, has said, it will enable consultations to take place after the Bill becomes law and any necessary amendments to the Schedule to be made. It will also enable us to short-circuit our discussions on the Schedule, to some extent, at any rate, this evening.

LORD SOMERS

As one who has several Amendments to Schedule 3 down on the Paper, I should like to say that I, too, am perfectly satisfied with the noble Lord's Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CHAMPION

I beg to move this Amendment.

Amendment moved—

Page 12, line 1, leave out from beginning to ("by") and insert ("interests so appearing to be substantially affected").—(Lord Champion.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CHAMPION

I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 12, line 2, leave out ("Part II of").—(Lord Champion.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 20 agreed to.

Clause 21 [Power to give effect to agreements with Republic of Ireland]:

Lord CHAMPION

The purpose of the Amendment which I am now moving is to make it clear that Irish members of the Council of the Royal College represent the interests of the Republic as a whole in relation to the practice of veterinary surgery, and not simply the interests of individual registered veterinary surgeons in that country. This is a comparatively small drafting Amendment, and it is intended to reproduce the present position as shown under Section 20 of the 1948 Act and the 1954 agreement with the Republic. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 13, line 4, leave out ("veterinary surgeons of").—(Lord Champion.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord CHAMPION

This Amendment is another small, drafting Amendment made to bring this clause into line with Clause 3, which refers to "degrees" and not to "qualifications". I beg to move.

Amendment moved —

Page 13, line 8, leave out ("qualification of a class") and insert ("university veterinary degree of the Republic of Ireland").—(Lord Champion.)

LORD DRUMALBYN

May I just ask a question? Is it possible that in the future there might be a veterinary college in Ireland which would not be part of the university? Might not this wording be somewhat restrictive? Has it the agreement of the Government of Ireland?

LORD CHAMPION

This is a point which I would not care to answer off the cuff. I will think it over and answer the noble Lord by letter; or perhaps he would like to put down an Amendment on it at a later stage.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 22 to 24 agreed to.

Clause 25 [Regulations, rules and orders]:

LORD CHAMPION

Amendment No. 23 is consequential on that already accepted in Clause 19 giving the Minister power to amend Schedule 3. The same thing applies to Amendment No. 24. I beg to move.

Amendment moved —

Page 14, line 36, at end insert— ("( ) The Ministers shall not make an order under section 19(5) of this Act unless a draft of the order has been approved by both Houses of Parliament.").—(Lord Champion.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CHAMPION

I beg to move this Amendment formally.

Amendment moved —

Page 14, line 38, leave out ("or (5)").—(Lord Champion.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 25, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 26 agreed to.

Clause 27 [Interpretation]:

4.41 p.m.

LORD BALERNOmoved, in the interpretation of "animals" to delete "birds and reptiles" and insert "all vertebrates". The noble Lord said: The purpose of the Amendment standing in my name is to include fish under the operations of the veterinary profession. I find it difficult to understand why fish should be excluded. There is mention in the Bill of birds and reptiles, but not of fish. People keep tropical fish in this country and veterinarians have been called in to deal with tropical fish diseases in aquaria, both public and private.

However, it is not for that reason that I would specifically press that fish should be included in this Bill; it is that fish farming may well come to this country in a big way. Fish farming has been going on in the East, and in China especially, for centuries; and in the postwar years, in the last twenty years, it has developed into quite a large industry in Scandinavia, and in Norway especially. Much of the smoked trout, particularly, that we get nowadays comes from Scandinavia; and trout are exported from the fish farms there to North America as well as to parts of Europe. In North America the fish farms are growing up, some of them being of considerable antiquity. They have developed from the old form of hatcheries for the restocking of rivers and, because of the demand for trout especially, have become quite big business. The work which has gone to develop the proper nutrition of fish is very considerable and great strides have been made in the United States on this very interesting and subtle point.

Directly one keeps animals closely together in congested areas, even though they be fish with fresh water running through all the time, one inevitably comes up against the problem of disease. Certain of the veterinary faculties in the United States universities have developed whole departments for dealing with diseases of fish. Factory fish farming has got into its stride in certain parts of America; and more particularly in the Southern States where there are no lakes and where it is a long distance from the sea. I would hardly expect the Committee to believe me, hut in Texas I have seen factory fish farming integrated with battery hens and intensive rabbit production. Certain of the by-products of the hens go to the rabbits and certain of the by-products can then be fed to the fish. The circle is completed by the by-products of the fish coming back to the hens. I have seen this; though, as I say, I would hardly expect noble Lords to believe me when I told them about it. It is not a particularly savoury operation and I would not advise people who are squeamish to go to examine it.

The noble Lord, Lord Champion, said on Second Reading that one of the reasons that fish were not included in the Bill was that many scientific workers, not veterinarians, were working on fish and that the inclusion might somewhat inhibit them. Personally, I would doubt that. There are many scientific workers —in the past I myself was one. I held a vivisection licence and I worked with quadrupeds—who rub along very well indeed with the veterinary profession. If other scientific workers get into any difficulties with animals, the veterinarian is always called in; and there is always a veterinary surgeon within call of any place that is doing that kind of work. I would think that the fish are much more in need of veterinary attention than are reptiles. I would plead that fish should have the benefit of veterinary inspection and control.

In the drafting of this Amendment I encountered some difficulty. The animal kingdom is divided into two parts, vertebrates and invertebrates. Fish are vertebrate animals; this made it possible for me to use the phrase "all vertebrates" to allow for the inclusion of fish in the Bill. The Cruelty to Animals Act 1876, I discovered later, in fact does this much more elegantly than my proposal does. The 1876 Act says: This Act shall not apply to invertebrate animals.

The other point I have which was brought to my notice was that if we use the words "all vertebrates" this might include humans. T doubt whether this would hold good: but it is a legal point. Admittedly, scientifically, humans are animals; but legally, I believe, humans are not animals—and that is obviously the intent in the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876. There it is intended that humans are not included in "vertebrate animals". Humans are also excluded from the Protection of Animals Act 1911. There, in the definition, it says that: the expression 'animal' means any domestic or captive animal". Scientifically, the human is as a rule a domestic animal. The further statements of definition in the Act specifically include "bird, fish, or reptile". So the omission of fish in the Bill would be a break with tradition. All the animal protection Acts in the past have included fish along with birds, reptiles and, of course, quadrupeds and the higher vertebrates, including primates.

I put it to the noble Lord, Lord Champion, that it would have been better if we could have gone back to the 1876 Act and used the phrase (perhaps as a special clause): This Act shall not apply to invertebrate animals. It is more elegant. I would commend it to the noble Lord, Lord Champion, particularly as it has rather a familiar ring; for every now and again in an Act we read: This Act shall not apply to Scotland.

I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 15, line 10, leave out ("birds and reptiles") and insert ("all vertebrates").—(Lord Balerno.)

4.50 p.m.

LORD CHAMPION

I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, has to some extent cleared up this word "vertebrate". When I first read the Amendment, I thought that if we were to accept it, I was going to be in trouble with the British Medical Association, because if we accepted this word, it might preclude doctors from dealing with man—and I should really be in trouble if that happened. The noble Lord has gone much more deeply into the matter and has proposed words which would appear to get over the difficulty. I straightaway agree about the importance of fish farming. We have not reached that on any considerable scale in this country, but the time may well come when we shall be looking for additional sources of protein. This is being done in the East and it is something which will increasingly happen all over the world.

The definition of "animals" in the Bill, and the definition of "veterinary surgeon", are not primarily intended to show what veterinary surgeons may or may not do. They are intended to make quite clear what other people, however well qualified they may be in their occupation, cannot do. So I think the noble Lord's point is based on something of a misunderstanding. If fish were to be included in the definition of animals, it would mean that the various fisheries scientists of the fishery laboratories and aquaria would be unable to treat fish, diagnose disease in fish, or give advice about disease or treatment of fish, unless exempted under Schedule 3—that is, unless the fish were in their own or their employees' possession, or unless they were Crown servants, as this Bill will not bind the Crown.

It is true, of course, that courses in the veterinary colleges include fish in elementary zoology, but they do not include any specific instruction in the diseases of fish and their treatment. The vast bulk of fish in this country is, of course, wild and if disease can be diagnosed, treatment is impracticable. It is only for fish in captivity that the question can arise. Here the fisheries scientists are the experts, not the veterinarians. I am informed that frequently veterinary surgeons refer matters on fish to the Ministry of Agriculture's Freshwater Fisheries Laboratory. I expect the same is true of other freshwater fisheries biological stations in this country and in Scotland. The inclusion of fish in this definition would preclude owners, as well as veterinarians, from getting advice or treatment from the fisheries scientists. Therefore, I would strongly advise your Lordships that we should leave the definition of "animals" as it stands in the Bill, and not make veterinarians the sole custodians of a discipline in which they have received—if I may say so without offence—rather less training than a number of non-veterinarians. I hope that with this explanation the noble Lord will be prepared to withdraw his Amendment. To say "exclude" would be wrong—it should, if I may say so, rather be to "include out".

LORD BALERNO

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Champion, for his explanation. I must say that although at one time I appreciated the extent of the advice which is being given by fisheries research stations and scientific officers, I had forgotten it. I wonder if it is altogether correct to have advice on veterinary matters given sometimes by agricultural colleges, N.A.S. people and others, who are not qualified veterinarians and are not precluded from giving advice, although it seems to work out all right. This is not a matter on which I would wish to divide the Committee, and therefore I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 27 agreed to.

Clause 28 [Repeal, saving and transitional provisions]:

LORD CHAMPION

This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved —

Page 16, line 31, leave out from first ("the") to first ("of") in line 32 and insert ("commencement").—(Lord Champion.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CHAMPION

This again is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved —

Page 16, line 39, leave out ("that day") and insert ("the commencement of the said section 2").—(Lord Champion.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CHAMPION

This Amendment is a little more than drafting. It has the effect of keeping in being all existing Privy Council orders giving recognition, for the purpose of Clause 3, to universities providing courses leading to veterinary degrees. I beg to move.

Amendment moved —

Page 16, line 41, at end insert— ("( ) any order made under section 1 of the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1948 and in force immediately before the commencement of section 3 of this Act shall have effect as if it had been made under the said section 3.")—(Lord Champion.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 28, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 29 [Short title, extent and commencement]:

LORD CHAMPION

This is another drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved —

Page 17, line 43, leave out ("for different purposes") and insert "under this subsection for different purposes; and any reference in this Act to the commencement of any provision thereof shall be construed as a reference to the day appointed under this section for the coming into operation of that provision").—(Lord Champion.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 29, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 1 [Provisions as to the Council]:

LORD DRUMALBYNmoved, after paragraph 4, to insert: .An appointed member of the Council may be removed from office by the persons by whom he was appointed if in their opinion he is unable to perform his duties or is otherwise unsuited to continue his duties.

The noble Lord said: This is a relatively small point. The Amendment reproduces, in effect, Section 10(2) of the 1948 Act. That subsection says: An appointed member of the said Council may be removed from office by the persons by whom he was appointed— (a) if he is unable to perform his duties; Or (b) if he has been adjudged bankrupt or sequestration of his estate has been awarded or if he has made a composition or arrangement with his creditors"— all of these, I should have thought, would have made him unsuitable— or (c) if he is otherwise unsuited to continue to discharge his duties.

An elected member of the Council may resign, but there seems to be no way of disposing of an appointed member. The purpose of this Amendment is to make it clear that appointed members should have their appointments withdrawn if they are no longer fit to perform their duties. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 19, line 33, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)

LORD CHAMPION

The noble Lord is right in saying that he is seeking to insert in the Bill something which appeared in the 1948 Act. The Government gave careful consideration to the inclusion of a similar provision in this Bill, but decided against it. Similar provisions are not included in other legislation dealing with the professions, and it seemed to us rather invidious to suggest that persons appointed to the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons are more likely to be unstable than those appointed to other bodies. Furthermore, t is somewhat illogical to have this provision for appointed members but not for elected members, and it would be difficult to apply a provision like this to elected members. Any member, whether elected or not, can, of course, resign; that appears from Schedule 1, paragraph 3. I might add that, in any case, I could not accept the Amendment as it stands, as it requires some redrafting. But I hope that the noble Lord will not press it. It seems unnecessary to put it in, especially since, as I say, we have not included it in legislation dealing with other professions which might be regarded as being, to some extent, similar in character.

LORD DRUMALBYN

I should like to ask the noble Lord a question on this matter. Elected members are, I understand, elected for four years. It is therefore appropriate to ask for how long appointments are made. Elected members will have to be re-elected after four years, but an appointed member may go on for ever unless there is some means of withdrawing his appointment. This is the point of the Amendment. There is no slur in it. This is the effect of the difference between appointment and election.

LORD CHAMPION

I should be sorry to think of anybody appointed going on for ever, unless I happen to be appointed and feel that I never want to die. I am not sure of this point. I must admit that occasionally it is well to "come clean". I remember the late Lord Morrison of Lambeth always used to advise me on those lines. He used to say: "If you don't know, 'come clean'. Send them the answer afterwards if you can." I will certainly do that.

LORD DRUMALBYN

In anticipation of the noble Lord's answer afterwards, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Schedule 3:

EXEMPTIONS FROM RESTRICTIONS ON PRACTICE OF VETERINARY SURGERY

PART I

TREATMENT AND OPERATIONS WHICH MAY BE GIVEN OR CARRIED OUT BY UNQUALIFIED PERSONS

Anything done, otherwise than for reward, by a person engaged or employed in agriculture, as defined in the Agriculture Act 1947, to an animal owned (whether by himself or another person) for the purposes of agriculture as so defined.

The performance by any person of or over the age of eighteen of any of the following operations, that is to say—

1. (a) castration or caponising;
2. (b) the spaying of a pig not over the age of three months;
3. (c) the tailing of a lamb;
4. (d) the docking of the tail of a dog before its eyes are open;
5. (e) the amputation of the dew claws of a dog before its eyes are open.

PART II

EXCLUSIONS FROM PROVISIONS OF PART I

Nothing in section 19(3)(a) 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 DRUMALBYN

I was going to ask the noble Lord if he could give us an official explanation or definition of what is meant by the paragraph beginning "Anything done, otherwise than for reward", but as it is going to be discussed, as he says, after the Bill becomes an Act, I do not think I need trouble the Committee. Therefore, I do not propose to move my Amendment to delete the paragraph.

LORD CHAMPION

The wording here is somewhat obscure. I could have said something about it, but as the noble Lord has not moved the Amendment, I need not do so.

5.5 p.m.

LORD SOMERS moved, in Part 1, in the paragraph dealing with specified operations, after "age of eighteen" to insert "(or sixteen if under skilled supervision)". The noble Lord said: I should have said earlier that my noble friend Lord Stonehaven, whose name appears with mine on a number of the Amendments to this Schedule, discussed the Amendments with me thoroughly, and he has asked me to convey his apologies to your Lordships for his inability to be here to-day. We came to the conclusion that eighteen is rather too late an age at which to start learning how to deal with animals. We therefore thought that we should put it at sixteen, if under skilled supervision. There is no doubt that it is a great deal easier to learn how to deal with animals at the age of sixteen rather than eighteen. It is well known that boys of sixteen are much more likely to be understanding and gentle with animals than tough young lads of eighteen. I think it is much better for them to start early, and to get to know their job really well. That is the purpose of the Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved —

Page 23, line 41, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Somers.)

LORD HILTON OF UPTON

I take the opposite view from the noble Lord, Lord Somers, on this matter, and consider that sixteen years of age is too young to be engaged in this sort of activity. I well remember, when I first started to work on a farm at fourteen years of age, the crude methods used to perform some of these operations—and this was by farm workers with long experience in the job. I have seen some of the suffering caused to animals as a result of the crude methods used: just pulling a penknife out of your pocket, giving it two or three scrapes on a brick wall, and that sort of thing. I am sure many noble Lords will have seen this.

I think there may be a case for seventeen years of age: but sixteen, no. I will try to explain why I say this. We all know that quite soon the school-leaving age is to be raised to sixteen. If this Amendment is agreed to, it will mean, in effect, that a youngster will be able to leave school, go on a farm, and immediately, under supervision (I realise that the noble Lord is asking for this), carry out this type of operation. I think this is too soon. We have an agricultural apprenticeship scheme operating in agriculture, and I agree it is essential that before a youngster completes his three years' apprenticeship he should have experience in this. I should have thought it might be appropriate that for the last year of his apprenticeship, under proper supervision he could be engaged in these operations.

I should like to make this further point. When I say "under proper supervision", I think there is only one kind of supervision for youngsters, and that is the supervision of the veterinary surgeon. I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will bear in mind the suggestions I have made. I trust, also, in view of what I have said about the change in the school-leaving age to sixteen, that the noble Lord will have second thoughts and not press this Amendment.

LORD BALERNO

I should like to support the Amendment moved by my noble friend. With all due respect to the noble Lord, Lord Hilton of Upton, I do not think that sixteen is too young an age. Actually, a boy of fourteen can be trained into this by a good herdsman. You can get the manipulative action at a fairly young age. It is like being taught to sew. How much better to teach them young than to teach them old! I should think that the trouble in the days the noble Lord has described was due to people learning to castrate too old, when they were clumsy. What is needed is a neat finger. In modern livestock production, you cannot afford to be clumsy with castration. With pigs, you have a terrible run of trouble with hernias, and other things, if you do not do it properly. I would say that it is never too young to learn a job of this nature, provided that it is done under supervision.

LORD SOMERS

In reply to the noble Lord opposite, I quite agree with him that many methods were extraordinarily crude and clumsy, and I should be the last to want to see them come back. But, as my noble friend has said, that was largely due to the fact they learned too late. As the noble Lord will see, the Amendment says, "under skilled supervision", and not "under any supervision". Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will accept the Amendment.

VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD

Surely the majority of these operations are now done with rubber rings. They are certainly done in that way on my farms. I cannot see that it makes any difference whether it is done by people of eighteen or, provided it is done under skilled supervision, sixteen. I support the Amendment.

LORD CHAMPION

I am in some little difficulty about this. I do not know whether a youngster of sixteen is more sensitive to pain than one of eighteen— I really do not know. I recognise that this is something which must receive careful attention. The whole of Schedule 3 worries me a little. Like my noble friend Lord Hilton of Upton, I have castrated young pigs by the most crude methods. I recognise that this was a bad thing—it was bad for the animal, and I am not sure that it was good for me to be doing it in this way. We have reached the point where the whole of Schedule 3 is to be considered. The noble Lord, Lord Somers, recognises this. When it is considered, it will be not only in the light of anything which interested bodies might say, but also in the light of what has been said in this Chamber to-day, and what will be said in another place when this Bill goes there. All I would care to say at this stage is that the Schedule will be carefully considered.

I think it would be wrong to import into the Schedule at this stage—having regard to the fact the whole thing is in the melting pot—the words which the noble Lord wants to put in. I hope that in those circumstances he will withdraw his Amendment, on the understanding, of course, which is implicit in the undertaking that I am giving, that all the information which will come in from interested bodies, and what noble Lords have said to-day, will be considered before the Minister presents, under the appropriate clause in this Bill, an Order amending Schedule 3.

LORD SOMERS

The noble Lord has been good enough to give me this undertaking and, of course, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD DRUMALBYN

This is a drafting Amendment, and one which I thought would certainly be accepted. Now, owing to the previous Amendment, Section 19(3)(a) has become 19(4)(b). I beg to move.

Amendment moved —

Page 24, line 6, leave out ("19(3)(a)") and insert ("19(4)(b)").—(Lord Drumnalbyn.)

LORD CHAMPION

I am bound to accept what the noble Lord has said. I had something a little different. The purpose of the Amendment is to correct a printing error. There is no Clause 19(3)(a).

LORD DRUMALBYN

That is correct.

LORD CHAMPION

In those circumstances, I am happy to accept the Amendment.

LORD DRUMALBYN

The point is that the noble Lord has moved a new 19(4)(a), and therefore the paragraph in this Amendment now becomes 19(4)(b).

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

5.15 p.m.

LORD SOMERS

I move this Amendment in some doubt, because I am not myself experienced in this matter. I have heard reports in two opposite directions: one that the mule is incapable of breeding, so that castration would be unnecessary, and the opposite view that it is necessary in order to soften his character and make him more manageable. Which of those is true I am afraid I cannot say and, therefore, I must leave it to the Committee to decide. I beg to move.

Amendment moved —

Page 24, line 10, leave out ("ass or mule") and insert ("or ass").—(Lord Somers.)

VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD

As I have had mules in Jamaica, I can tell the noble Lord that if you castrate them it makes them far more amenable.

THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH

I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Champion, is going to resist this Amendment or not. If he does, I would ask him for consideration to be given to hinnies. The mule is the off-spring of a jack donkey and a mare, and for a hinny it is the other way round. I am in no way an authority upon this much respected minority of animals, but I think their case deserves consideration.

LORD CHAMPION

I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, for the information he has given to the Committee. I had some doubt about this myself. I had always regarded the mule as having no pride of ancestry or hope of posterity. But the point of hinnies would have to be included if we are to deal with this, because it is a mule in reverse—if that is the right way to describe it—or, at least, bred in reverse. This is a matter under Schedule 3 which will have to be considered before the Minister of Agriculture presents an Order.

There are certain features about this part of the Schedule which will have to be gone into rather carefully, because of certain things which appear in the Anæsthetics Act which determine the ages at which these things are done with or without an anæsthetic. I can give the noble Lord an undertaking, so far as the whole of his Amendments are concerned, that this will have to be considered before we come along with an Order.

LORD BALERNO

I think that legally a hinny is a mule, but in practice a hinny is the reverse of a mule. It is quite right that the mule should be included. I took advice on the matter from the veterinary profession, and I am assured that the inability of the mule to procreate in no way affects his natural instincts to mate.

LORD CHAMPION

What information we get here!

LORD SOMERS

In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD SOMERS

With your Lordships' permission, I should like to consider Amendments Nos. 36 to 40 inclusive together. The purpose of all these Amendments is to reduce all the ages in the Table in Part II to six months. Personally, I think that the ages given for the horse, pony, ass or mule, the bull, goat, ram and, probably, the boar, are far too high. A horse, after all, which has reached the age of two years is fully adult; and a boar, I should say, is very nearly so, if not entirely so, by fifteen months. As to the smaller animals, the cat and the dog, six months is certainly more than ample. To illustrate this, I can only say that our own cat, a female, had her operation to make her unable to have kittens at the age of four months. We were told by the veterinary surgeon who did the job that we were only just in the nick of time. Therefore, six months is ample even for the smaller animals, and I think it is certainly ample for the larger ones as well. I beg to move.

Amendment moved —

Page 24, line 10, leave out ("2 years") and insert ("6 months").—(Lord Somers.)

LORD CHAMPION

It seemed to those who advised me in this matter that there could be no immediately obvious purpose in reducing, in Part II, the ages beyond which castration of the species indicated shall not be carried out by laymen. It is thought that the Amendment may have been put down to initiate discussion, and the noble Lord did something a little more than that. He gave us some information which I admit was entirely new to me, as indeed has been a good deal of the information given this afternoon, but I do not really want to go into this subject now. The noble Lord, Lord Somers, the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, and others, have accepted the fact that this question has to be carefully discussed before the Minister presents his Order, and as I said, to some extent wrongly, on the last Amendment, this will affect the provisions of the Anæsthetics Act 1954, and at least a consideration of this must come into the matter. Therefore, I think it would be a mistake on my part to try to say very much about it this afternoon; but, rather, I would assure the Committee that this whole subject will be considered before an Order is laid under the provisions of this Bill that we have been considering this afternoon. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Somers, will withdraw this Amendment and will not move the subsequent Amendments.

LORD SOMERS

I thank the noble Lord for his reply. I am entirely reassured and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.

Remaining Schedule agreed to.

House resumed: Bill reported, with Amendments.