HL Deb 24 February 1966 vol 273 cc393-414

6.42 p.m.

Report of Amendments received (according to Order).

Clause 1:

The Council of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons

The Council

1.—(1) For the purpose of managing the affairs of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons there shall continue to be a Council of the College consisting (subject to any Order in Council under section 21 of this Act) of the following persons, that is to say—

  1. (a)twenty persons (hereafter in this Act referred to as elected members of the Council ") elected from among themselves by members of the College residing outside the Republic of Ireland;
  2. (b)four persons appointed by the Privy Council;
  3. (c)for each university in the United Kingdom for which a recognition order is in force, two persons appointed by that university of whom at least one shall be a member of the College.

LORD DRUMALBYN moved, in subsection 1(a), to leave out "twenty" and insert "twenty-four". The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an Amendment to substitute for the provision for twenty elected members, which at present exists and is proposed to be carried on in the Bill, twenty-four elected members to the Council of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, which manages the affairs of the profession. The College sets the standards of the profession, not only in the attainment of qualifications, but in the ethical standards in the practice of veterinary surgery. The profession feels strongly that there should be not only a bare majority but a clear majority of persons elected by the profession to its governing body. Every profession exists to serve the public in one way or another, and of course it is right that the public interest should be represented. Moreover, for most, if not all, professions there is provision for overriding control, in this case by the Privy Council.

At the same time every profession attaches importance to the self-governing character of its institutions—I might say the predominantly self-governing character of its institutions. And indeed I would say that in a responsible democratic society it is surely right that responsible professions should be governed by bodies on which there is a predominance of elected members. Of course, it is up to the members of the profession to elect whom they please from within their own numbers. They may elect persons qualified as veterinary surgeons who teach and do not practise, or who mainly teach and practise only incidentally. But the important thing is the balance between elected and non-elected members.

At present, the balance is twenty elected members from the United Kingdom, plus one Irish elected member, and sixteen appointed members plus three Irish appointed members; that is, twenty-one to nineteen. The Amendment would tip the balance further in favour of the elected members to twenty-five to nineteen; or, if one considers the United Kingdom elected members alone, twenty-four to twenty— a ratio of six to five. I am informed that the British Veterinary Association would like to see this Amendment made. Since the Committee stage steps have been taken to sound out the other members of the Council to see whether they were in favour of the increase in elected members. I am assured that the great majority stated they were in favour of an increase, and most of them favoured an increase of four. Indeed, I am told that only one member expressed doubts, and even he gave qualified agreement, on the understanding that the increase would not put the veterinary profession too far out of line with the doctors and the dentists. I do not know quite what this member had in mind.

I think I should say that, as far as I know, and I am assured this is so, no wide differences exist between the practising and the teaching sides of the profession. Indeed, it would be very unfortunate if it were otherwise. Both are equally anxious that the educational standards should be upheld. To judge by the representations received from the veterinary faculty of Bristol University, the teaching side are as anxious as the practising side that there should be a clear, as opposed to a bare, majority of elected members. I regard this as a matter of principle which affects the right of the profession to determine its own ethical standards, subject only to the overriding authority of the Privy Council.

I am aware that if this Amendment is carried it will be necessary to amend paragraph 1(2) of Schedule 1. If, as I hope, the noble Lord is able to accept this Amendment, an Amendment to the Schedule can be made on Third Reading, or better still to-night; I have a manuscript Amendment which I am told would be in order if your Lordships would agree to what would be a consequential Amendment. The point here is that, the period of office as members of the Council being four years, five of the twenty elected members are elected annually. If this Amendment is accepted, the members elected annually would have to be increased to six. I recognise that the noble Lord's right honourable friend the Minister may not have had time to consider information as regards the attitude of Council members that has been submitted to him. If the noble Lord cannot accept the Amendment to-night, as I hope he will, I should be willing not to press him to-night but give him further time to consider the matter before the next stage of the Bill. I hope I have said enough to make it clear that this is a matter to which the profession attaches considerable importance, and I hope I have deployed the reasons why they think this is important. I beg to move.

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

LORD BALERNO

My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn on this point. It is most important that the self-governing character of the veterinary profession should be made manifest, and I consider, and I am sure many other noble Lords here would consider, that the proportion of six elected to five nominated is about the very minimum you could have to make this manifest. I would further support what my noble friend has said about how the teaching side of the profession, who are the side of the profession who might have wanted more nominated members, are almost unanimously in support of this proposal to increase the number of elected members. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Champion, to consider this Amendment as favourably as he can, because I think it is a matter of fundamental importance.I regret to notice that the noble Lord is not showing his usual smile.

LORD CHAMPION

My Lords, that does not mean that I am going to be too stern about this. We have had a good deal of discussion about the number of elected members. We had it on Committee stage—it was mentioned on Second Reading—and I promised on Committee stage that I would reconsider everything that had been said, that I would reconsider the whole matter in the light of what had been said on both stages of this Bill up till now. This I have done and, up to this minute, I would have been inclined to suggest that there should be no change. The balance that is embodied in the Bill, and will be ensured in the Bill after, as I hope, the Committee have accepted Amendment No. 3 which I shall be moving, is one which, after most careful consideration, we thought was the right balance. We think that the Royal College is large enough—there are 41 members on it—for a comparatively small profession. The General Medical Council has 47 members in a profession over ten times as large, and any increase in the elected membership, we say, would throw out of balance the composition of the Council which has been agreed not only by the present Government, but by the Government of 1948, and by Conservative Administrations in the meantime.

I do not now want to go into all the arguments too deeply, although we think they are quite sound. What I am going to say is that it has come to my notice, not only through the words of the noble Lords, Lord Drumalbyn and Lord Balerno, that, despite everything that we have tried to do to allay doubts and feelings about this in the profession, there still exists a measure of objection to what is obtained in the Bill—and it is a large measure of objection. I cannot at this stage accept the Amendment which is on the Marshalled List—indeed, I am not sure that I shall be able to put it down myself or accept it at any later stage.

I have, as I think I have told the Committee before, spoken personally to my right honourable friend about this before this stage was reached. But I am now convinced by what the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has said, and by what I have heard from other sources, that the feeling is such that I ought not to-day to turn this whole thing down flatly but ought to go back to my right honourable friend, see him personally, impress upon him what has been said here to-day and what I have heard in other places, and to ask him whether he thinks that this is something to which we ought rigidly to adhere or would there be some balance of advantage if we accepted what is clearly in the minds of the noble Lords opposite. I cannot go further than that, and would not dream of doing so. I will go to the Minister; I will tell him. If he says flatly No, I shall come back on Third Reading and tell your Lordships flatly No.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, naturally I am disappointed at what the noble Lord has said, but I willingly accept his offer to take the matter back to the Minister and for him to reconsider it. While he is doing that, I wonder whether he would put this point to the Minister. I am not quite certain how the matter stands, but on the face of the 1948 Act there was a balance of 5 to 4 in favour of the elected members. Then came the Irish members, and there were 3 appointed members to I elected member. That has considerably affected the balance. What I am asking is that the position should be more or less restored, not exactly to 5 to 4 (because this would be rather an awkward number) but roughly 6 to 5. I wonder whether the noble Lord would be good enough also to put that to the Minister. With that, I would beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

6.56 p.m.

LORD CHAMPION moved to add to the clause: "( ) Where the Privy Council make an order under section 3 of this Act which will result in a change in the number of members appointed under subsection (1)(b) of this section, they may by order after consultation with the Council of the College—

  1. (a) make such alteration in the number of elected members of the Council of the College as appears to them expedient in view of the making of the order under the said section 3 for the purpose of securing that there is a majority of elected members over all other members of the Council of the College; and
  2. b) make such consequential provision with respect to the term of office of the elected members (including provision modifying Schedule 1 to this Act) as appears to them necessary or expedient in consequence of the change in the total number of elected members."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 3 which stands in my name on the Marshalled List. During the Committee stage of the Bill I said that the Government accepted the principle that there should always be a majority of elected members on the Council of the Royal College. In asking the noble Lords, Lord Drumalbyn and Lord Balerno, not to press their Amendment, I promised to put down an Amendment of my own to give effect to this. I also promised to take account of all that had been said during the debate about the number of elected members. Here perhaps I might interpose that of course I shall consider what the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, said in withdrawing his previous Amendment.

I have done both the things that I promised on the last stage, and I hope that noble Lords will agree that the Amendment standing in my name achieves the desired object. I should like to repeat that we fully accept that there should be a majority of elected members, and I should also like to explain why we have moved the Amendment that leaves this open to the discretion of the Privy Council after the necessary consultations. There is, first of all, the technical reason that it would have been almost impossible from a drafting point of view to provide for all the consequential eventualities in Schedule 1. But, more important than this, is that we think it is right that this question should be left open.

It may well be that, when the time comes, if ever, that a new university is recognised for the purposes of this Bill, we shall want to increase the number of elected members by 4 or 5 rather than by 2 or 3. It is going to be a long time before there is a new university recognised, and it would be, in the opinion of the Government, wrong to attempt now to tie the hands of the people who might have to deal with this question in twenty or thirty years' time. I can only give noble Lords the assurance that, in addition to the consultations with the Royal College itself, provided for in the Bill, it will be our intention that there should be full consultation with the British Veterinary Association.

I realise, of course, that I cannot bind my successors, that the Minister cannot bind his—indeed, that no Government can bind their successors. Thank heavens, in some ways! But here we are dealing with a completely nonpolitical point. There is no reason why views should change about this in the meantime, before, if ever, we have to ask the Privy Council to do anything about this.

During the Committee stage I undertook, before coming to a decision on the form of this Amendment, to look at the constitution of the governing bodies of other professions, taking the General Medical Council and the Dental Council as being the most appropriate. I found that the elected members are in the minority. However, I see no virtue in blindly following precedent, and I am sure that in this instance noble Lords would not wish me to do so either. So each case ought to be decided on the basis of the individual profession concerned. This is what we are doing here. I am most grateful to the noble Lords opposite for prompting the detailed consideration which the clause has received, and I hope your Lordships will now accept the Amendment which I move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 5, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Champion.)

7.0 p.m.

LORD DRUMALBYN moved, as an Amendment to the Amendment, in paragraph (a) to leave out "elected members" where those words last appear and insert members elected in accordance with this section ".

The noble Lord said: My Lords, if it will be for the convenience of the House, I will deal with Amendments Nos. 4, 5 and 6 together. These Amendments to the Amendment are extremely limited in scope and are designed simply to ensure that there is a majority of elected United Kingdom members, and that for this purpose the Irish members are not taken into account. The Amendments have no other purpose. The noble Lord was good enough to let me see the Amendment which he was proposing to put down. It may well be that his answer to my Amendments to the Amendment may be that they are unnecessary as what they seek to achieve is already being done. If that is not to be his answer I hope that he will accept the Amendments.

I should like to thank the noble Lord for the consideration he has given to the point which has been raised. As he says, this is a matter which may indeed arise and it may arise either way—either that a new faculty at a university may be recognised, or, alternatively, that recognition may be withdrawn from an existing faculty. In other words, the Amendment provides scope for adjustment either up or down in accordance with circumstances. Obviously, that is fair, although what is done in the particular circumstances in a case is left open to be judged in the light of those circumstances, and I do not think we can complain about that. Personally, I have a predilection for seeing the thing cut-and-dried in the new legislation. If one has a balance laid down in the legislation, it seems reasonable also to expect that the adjustments to be made in accordance with varying circumstances should also be laid down in the legislation. I appreciate that the noble Lord is taking steps to make certain that the majority of elected members remains, for which I thank him. I beg to move.

Amendment to the Amendment moved— Line 9, leave out (" elected members ") and insert the said new words.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)

LORD CHAMPION

My Lords, I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, likes to see everything tied up nicely in a Bill. My one big objection to the noble Lord, especially when I happen to be opposite him, is that he does his homework. He has certainly done his homework on this Bill, as well as on a Bill we shall be discussing later. We feel that the Amendment to the Amendment is unnecessary to achieve the purpose which the noble Lord has in mind. As I understand Amendments to the Amendment, Nos. 4, 5 and 6, they are drafting points intended to make it clear that the references to United Kingdom elected members do not include the Irish elected members. I believe that is what the noble Lord had in mind. The fact is that subsection 1(a) automatically excludes veterinary surgeons residing in the Irish Republic. Because of this, there appears to be no need to amend the clause in the way suggested by Lord Drumalbyn. Therefore I hope that he will feel able to withdraw his Amendment to the Amendment, No. 4, and not to move the further Amendments to the Amendment, Nos. 5 and 6.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, I should like to make it clear that this was put down merely to make certain that the point was covered. As the noble Lord assures me that the point is covered, I am delighted to withdraw Amendment to the Amendment, No. 4, and not to move Nos. 5 and 6.

Amendment to the Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD BALERNO

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Champion, used the words "if ever" at least twice, and indicated that it could not be less than thirty years before any new school or veterinary faculty is created. I think the noble Lord was entirely correct and could not be accused of any exaggeration. The most expensive student taught at any university is the veterinary student. He costs as much as the medical student, and it is therefore most unlikely that any Government would put forward sufficient funds to set up a seventh medical school in this country. Therefore I am very much inclined, this time, to give the noble Lord full support.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2:

Register of veterinary surgeons

2.—

(2) The register shall consist of four lists—

LORD DRUMALBYN moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "four" and insert "five". The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope that it will be for the convenience of the House if I deal with Amendments 7 and 8 together. As the Bill stands, a qualified veterinary surgeon is allowed to practise only so long as his name is on the register. A veterinary surgeon whose name is not on the register is permitted, under Schedule 3, to render first-aid in an emergency for the purpose of saving life or relieving pain. That, so far as I can see, is all. I would ask the noble Lord whether a qualified doctor is under any such limitations. Also, I recall that when I was in another place there was in my constituency an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, and there was a very great shortage of veterinary surgeons. It seems odd that a qualified veterinary surgeon would have to apply to have his name restored to the register before he could play his part in such circumstances.

The real reason which made me look into the matter is rather a different one. I am told that veterinary surgeons trained in the old colleges, since absorbed into universities, have no qualifications except the Diploma of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and that if they themselves remove their name from the register for reasons of retirement and so on they lose the right to use after their name the letters M.R.C.V.S. I confess that I have had little time to probe this matter, or to take advice from the College or the profession, but I understand that there is a retired list which is not a part of the register. On the face of it there seems to be no reason why those who attach importance to remaining on the register, whether to retain the letters after their name and show all the world they have a qualification or whether to enable them to be free to practise their art and science if they so wish, should not be enabled or even encouraged to do so provided that they are willing to pay whatever annual fee the Council consider appropriate. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 12, leave out (" four ") and insert (" five ).—(Lord Drumalbyn.)

LORD CHAMPION

My Lords, I assumed that the noble Lord's Amendment was to ensure that the register was so arranged that persons who refer to it can readily identify those veterinary surgeons who are no longer in regular practice. There was also the point of the man being called in to do some work in an emergency for the relief of suffering. This would be covered by Schedule 3. To my mind the Amendment, even if one accepts that such a list is necessary, is defective on two grounds. It does not define regular practice; nor is it extended to cover retired persons whose names are on the supplementary veterinary register. The main register is a register of veterinary surgeons—that is, of people who by virtue of their qualifications are eligible for registration therein. The fact that they may not be engaged regularly in the work to which they have been accustomed does not of itself detract from their right to full registration.

It would be possible—and there is nothing at all, so far as I understand it, to prevent this—for entries on the register to be made in almost any form, so that you could have an entry on the register of "John Smith (Retired)". John Smith (Retired) could be charged a much smaller fee, if the College so decided, than he had to pay when he was fully in practice. We do not in any case think that this Amendment would be worthwhile. It will be possible for the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons to do what I have said—that is, to charge a very small fee—if a man feels that he wishes to retain the qualification letters, of which he is very proud. All he has to do is to pay the small fee which I think would be charged, though about this I am not absolutely sure. He could then be entered in the register in the form I have suggested, and I think that this adequately covers the point. It rather seems to me as though we are using a sledgehammer to attempt to crack a very little nut. I hope that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw the Amendment.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, by leave of the House, may I just ask the noble Lord this? He said that there could be placed on the register some indication that John Smith had retired. May I just ask the noble Lord for an assurance that that would not prevent him from practising, the qualification for practising being that he is on the register? I assume that, even if he is described as retired, it is not a restriction placed upon him in any way, but is merely a statement of fact.

LORD CHAMPION

My Lords, this is going a little hit beyond my brief, and your Lordships know what it is like when you are speaking from a brief, as one must do in these matters. But on this point I shall write to the noble Lord, and I hope that at this stage he will be prepared to withdraw this Amendment on the undertaking that I will look at the matter and write to him on the narrow point.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord. As he knows, this has been the subect of representations, and I thought that the matter ought to be aired. I am quite satisfied with the noble Lord's explanation, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 8:

Supplementary veterinary register

8.—

(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 certain societies and institutions providing free treatment for animals) shall be entitled to be registered in the supplementary veterinary register, 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.

(3) 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.

7.14 p.m.

LORD CHAMPION moved, in subsection (2), to leave out the words after but "down to and including" veterinary surgery "and to insert: shall not be entitled to practise veterinary surgery—

  1. (a) otherwise than as an employee of any society or institution mentioned in subsection (1) of that section; or
  2. (b) ".

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, who pointed out during the Committee stage that the clause as drafted might well allow ex-licensees, who remain in the employment of their animal welfare societies, to practise veterinary surgery without restriction in their off-duty hours. I agree, therefore, that this loophole, even if a small one, should be closed. Of course, I have two Amendments down, with one, to be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, coming in between. I hope the noble Lord will think that, by the two Amendments standing in my name, the Government have done what he was pressing us to do, and I hope he will not object if I speak to both Amendments at this time.

The Amendments standing in my name are designed to ensure that the ex-licensee may practise generally only on the business of his employing society. The Amendment to subsection (2) ensures that if he wishes to practise privately in the evenings or at weekends, he will first have to obtain the permission of the Council of the Royal College, and if this is given, will have to work subject to whatever restrictions they see fit to impose upon him. The Amendment to subsection (3) is a consequential drafting point.

I should say in this connection that the P.D.S.A. have informed the Ministry that any veterinary surgeon or practitioner who is employed by them full-time undertakes as a condition of service not to engage in private practice. A similar condition will be applied to ex-licensees who may come on to the supplementary veterinary register. The next point made by the P.D.S.A. is that they normally operate mobile clinics on regular itineraries, and they are manned by registered veterinarians or licensees. By the nature of the clinics, the range of work which can be carried out in such a vehicle is, of course, very limited. Cases requiring more serious treatment are taken back to the clinic from which the vehicle operates, or are referred to local vets—and I shall say "vets" in future, as it is rather easier to pronounce than veterinarians. I think that this Amendment which I am now moving, plus the next one which stands in my name, covers all the points and gives effect to the undertakings which I gave on the Committee stage. I hope that they will be found acceptable to the House. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 23, leave out from (" but ") to ("except ") in line 26 and insert (" shall not be entitled to practise veterinary surgery—

  1. (a) otherwise than as an employee of any society or institution mentioned in subsection (1) of that section; or
  2. (b)").—(Lord Champion.)

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, and I am sure that the profession is also grateful to him, for tabling this Amendment. It may be convenient to the noble Lord if I say something about my Amendment, because unless I do so I cannot explain the difference between the two. This is one of those curiosities where a difference in the way the words are set out makes an important difference in their impact. The difference between the two Amendments is simply that mine enables the Council to impose restrictions on existing licensees, not only if they are practising with permission of the Council, but also if they are employed by an animal welfare society.

The reason for this is quite simple. The noble Lord said that in the latter case such restrictions were unnecessary because people would be working under the supervision of the P.D.S.A., which is something which they have been doing for a long time in the mobile clinics, and would be accustomed to this way of working. But it is one thing for a person to work under the control of the P.D.S.A., when he is limited in what he may do by the terms of his licence or by restrictions imposed by the Council and quite another thing if there are no such limitations or restrictions.

I am not for a moment suggesting that the P.D.S.A., and any other animal welfare societies that may be involved, will not exercise proper supervision. But what I think is inevitable is that there will be a tendency for the P.D.S.A. to allow licensees to do more—always under proper supervision—and to train them to carry out more functions than they are at present licensed to do. If the societies have these people they will train them to do more, if they are no longer subject to the restrictions that have been imposed by the Minister. This is a question of judgment, but it is something which is almost certain to happen. That was the reason for my Amendment, to ensure that it is possible for the Council to continue the restrictions imposed upon these employees of the P.D.S.A. as licensees of the Ministry of Agriculture.

It is, of course, a matter of judgment, but I think it is right to say that it is a matter on which there have been very strong feelings indeed in the profession, simply because they have feared that it is opening the door to these people gradually to make an entry into the profession. (That, I think, is probably the best way to explain it.) With respect, I do not think that the Amendment that the noble Lord has tabled has entirely closed that door, but if he is not prepared to accept my Amendment then I think the least we can do is to have, through him, a clear assurance from the P.D.S.A. that this will not be allowed to happen.

7.21 p.m.

LORD CHAMPION

My Lords, this, of course, is an important point—this business of dealing with the licensees in this way. Much of this Bill is the result of consultations between a number of authorities, including the P.D.S.A.—and, of course, they were here speaking to a large extent on behalf of the people who work for them, the licensees. As a result of these consultations, compromises were arrived at. One of the compromises was that these licensees should go on to the supplementary register.

It is understood by us, and I am sure by the P.D.S.A., that the position of these licensees in relation to the work that they do for that Society will not be changed as a result of their going on to the supplementary register. If these licensees—and the noble Lord has, I suppose, made this quite clear—who practise solely on behalf of their employing animal welfare societies, were controlled by the terms which the noble Lord would now seek to impose upon them, their position would be not a little bit better than it is at present. They would still be prevented from improving their knowledge and widening their capabilities. I do not want to do this, and neither do the Government. The P.D.S.A., on behalf of these licensees, rightly put up a plea that in the things we were doing we should give these fellows a reasonable chance, but not unless they had improved their capabilities, to do these things which they were not doing at the present time.

I accept, from all that I read and considered about this matter, that the P.D.S.A. have no reason to feel that they will embark upon anything which will widen the duties of the licensees as they at present exist. I am going to accept this, and I sincerely hope the House will.

In this Bill we have gone a tremendous way from the original compromise that was arrived at to satisfy and to allay the fears of the veterinary surgeons in this matter, and I honestly believe that we have gone as far as we ought to go. I sincerely hope that the noble Lord will not press his Amend- ment. If it were pressed, I would strongly urge the House to reject it, because I do not believe it would be right to upset the compromise that has been arrived at merely on the wording of this Amendment, although I quite understand the reasons why it is put forward. I hope the noble Lord will find it possible to withdraw the Amendment (or, rather, that he will not move it, because we have not yet arrived at that point) to which he was speaking a few minutes ago.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, in reference to my Amendment No. 10, perhaps I may be allowed to say one word. On the last Amendment, the noble Lord showed that he had gone a very long way to meet the disquiet and misgivings that are felt in this regard, and therefore I do not feel that it would be right for me, in the light of what he has said, to move my Amendment this evening. However, I should like to consider what he has said, and I might find it necessary to put this Amendment down again on Third Reading.

LORD CHAMPION

My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment formally.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 30, leave out from (" subsection ") to end of line 35 and insert (" the entry against his name in the register shall state—

  1. (a) whether he is the employee of any such society or institution as aforesaid;
  2. (b) whether he has been granted permission to practise veterinary surgery; and
  3. (c) any restrictions subject to which he may practise it.").—(Lord Champion.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 25 [Regultions, rules and orders]:

LORD CHAMPION

My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 15, line 20, after (" section ") insert (" 1(4) ").—(Lord Champion.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 27 [Interpretation]:

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, this is an Amendment to leave out the definition of "veterinary surgery". It has been felt by some members of the profession that it would be better not to have a definition at all, rather than have one that is not completely comprehensive. The Bill says: ' veterinary surgery' means the art and science of veterinary surgery and medicine …", and then, and, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, shall he taken to include this, that and the next. It is not, of course, a comprehensive definition, and I move this Amendment to give the noble Lord an opportunity to state the Government's point of view on this matter. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 16, leave out lines 17 to 28.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)

LORD CHAMPION

My Lords, the reason these words are in the definition is that we have been told by the Royal College that they have been in some difficulty at times in taking action in cases where unqualified practice had been alleged due to the nature of the only definition available—that is, the "art and science of veterinary surgery and medicine" as contained in Section 2 of the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1881. We considered, therefore, that, in spite of the difficulties of definition, an attempt should be made to lay down more precise lines of guidance, not only for the Royal College but also for the courts, the intention being to set down not so much what a veterinary surgeon or practitioner may do but what a layman may not do —and this is the point here. This is the point that I had to make to the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, when he moved his Amendment dealing with vertebrates.

Having taken the best available advice, we realised that whilst we might never achieve a perfect definition we could at least produce a workable one. This we think we have done. We are very conscious of the valuable work the veterinary profession carries out in the field of preventive medicine, and I am sure that the importance of this contribution to the agricultural economy will increase. Nevertheless, there are others whose legitimate activities are directed towards maintaining the health of farm livestock—for example, nutritionists and livestock husbandry advisers. Were preventive medicine to be included in the definition of "veterinary surgery", it could be argued that any advice given to a farmer (or, for that matter, any owner of animals) as to how he might keep his charges in good health was veterinary surgery, and therefore the exclusive province of the veterinary surgeon. I am sure the noble Lord would not agree to this. This could be an injustice and quite impracticable. Diagnosis is well recognised in the definition as being the proper function of the veterinarian; but the outcome of the condition so diagnosed may well be within the experience of many laymen. This is particularly true of some deficiency diseases, in the control of which nutritionists and biochemists will have a legitimate part to play. Vaccination or inoculation is clearly medical treatment and as such is already covered. I must make it quite clear that the definition is a general one and, indeed, is in the same general terms, "the art and science of veterinary surgery" as in the 1881 Act.

The words against the small letters (a) and (b) are only examples. They are not therefore altering the definition but only make it clear that it includes certain practices. I can understand why the noble Lord moved this Amendment: it was to get this on the record; but the fact is, as I told the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, you are merely telling people (I am referring to laymen) what they must not do; you are not setting out the limits of the veterinary surgeon's profession.

LORD BALERNO

My Lords, I am much confused. At the Committee stage I moved for the inclusion of fish and I was informed by the noble Lord, Lord Champion, that if fish were included that would mean that advice could not be given by fish scientists to fish farmers because the giving of advice would be excluded in terms of the definition of the words "veterinary profession". We now hear from the noble Lord a plea for allowing the giving of advice on reptiles, birds and quadrupeds. That is why he does not wish to enlarge the specification of "veterinary surgery" here. But what is good for one should be good for another. In view of what the noble Lord, Lord Champion, has said, I would ask him earnestly to give further consideration to having a perfectly logical Bill and to allowing fish to be included.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for what he has said; but I am bound to point out that if the purpose of this provision is to tell people what they may not do, the implication is that what is not here they may do. I am not certain that that is wholly right, and I think I am bound to ask him to look a little further at this from that point of view. So far as preventive medicine is concerned, that may be an aspect of it. Preventive medicine comes within veterinary surgery and that would not be done by outsiders. This is an aspect I would ask him to look at a little further. But, apart from that, I would thank him for the explanation he has given.

LORD CHAMPION

My Lords, I am sorry if I have added to the confusion of the noble Lord, Lord Balerno. I tried hard to clear up the confusion at both the Committee stage and at this stage. There is a difficulty about trying to define anything—the noble Lord knows this very well. To provide a precise definition covering every possible point is extremely difficult. This was embarked upon because of the difficulty experienced in the courts. It was hoped that if we could find something which would advance a little way towards clearing up the misunderstandings which no doubt do exist, it was right that we should do so: hence the words in the Bill. I am sorry that this has not been completely accepted. I think any form of words that one attempted to insert here would be found fault with by somebody. I believe that to have the words in the Bill is better than to leave it at the point left by the 1881 Act. I am hoping that we can leave the matter here. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has again challenged me on this point. I must go back to my advisers and point out to them the difficulty that he, as an experienced lawyer, pointed out.

LORD DRUMALBYN

I am not a lawyer.

LORD CHAMPION

You are better than most of them. This difficulty has been pointed out, and clearly I must think about this matter before the Third Reading, but I make no promise that anything will be done. It is clearly right that I should look into it.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord. I have pleasure in withdrawing my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 1 [Provisions as to the Council]:

7.34 p.m.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, this Amendment raises only a small point. It seems quite clear, on the face of it, that a member of the Council shall cease to hold office if he fails to attend three successive quarterly meetings. I have been told that attendance at meetings is not perfect—I do not suppose it ever is perfect in this particular body. But if one is going to preserve a majority of elected members, it is obviously important that they should attend; and since they are elected once every four years, this is perhaps even more important on the elected members' side than it is on the appointed members' side—because I take it that there are means of withdrawing appointments, but there are no ways and means of withdrawing elected members. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 19, line 29, at end insert— (" . A member of the Council shall cease to hold office as member if he fails to attend three successive quarterly meetings.")—(Lord Drumalbyn.)

LORD CHAMPION

My Lords, the noble Lord has told us more than once during the passage of this Bill that this is a profession which ought to be fully capable of governing itself. Yet he seems to think that they will elect members who are so remiss in their duties that they do not attend meetings; or he thinks that the universities will appoint members as remiss as this. I hope he does not think the Privy Council will. I hope that they will not appoint members so remiss.

LORD DRUMALBYN

May I intervene? I should have thought that people are elected for their personal qualities and that nobody then knows whether or not they are going to attend meetings.

LORD CHAMPION

What I would suggest is that nobody would re-elect them. Apparently, they do re-elect some people who fail to attend as often as they ought. But we feel that the provision is quite unnecessary and might, indeed, be harmful. It could happen that a hardworking member of the Council failed to attend three successive quarterly meetings. There are committees, two of them named in this Bill. My right honourable friend employs two members of this Council, one of whom happens to be chairman of the Finance and General Purposes Committee. It could happen that illness or, perhaps, official business meant that he could not attend three successive quarterly meetings even though he had given a great deal of work in between these meetings for the Council. We think it would be quite wrong to bar membership of the Council.

I am bound to say that I think the way to tackle this is for the Council to include tables of attendance in its Annual Report. I gather it is proposed to do this. This is done in many organisations of a similar character. The result is that before voting for a candidate at a subsequent election it is possible to look at his record of attendance. If he has failed to attend and has no reason which seems justifiable, you take care not to vote for him again. I am sure that the Privy Council will not appoint anyone who does not attend a reasonable number of meetings, having regard to all the circumstances and to any excuse he might make for his absences. And this would apply for other appointed bodies. The provision which the noble Lord seeks to include is, I think, carrying things a little too far. We ought not to lay down in an Act of Parliament a provision in quite this form. I sincerely hope that the noble Lord will find that he does not want to press this Amendment.

LORD DRUMALBYN

My Lords, I must say that I myself thought that I was taking matters a little too far in this Amendment; but I was seeking to establish the principle. I am glad to hear from the noble Lord that this principle should be implemented by the self-governing body itself. May I say, in this connection, that the interest that Parliament has shown in this Bill should be taken as a compliment to the profession, and a recognition of the important part it plays in our economy and in the welfare of animal life in this country. I certainly do not want to press this Amendment. There will be other ways of dealing with this matter. This was one way of possibly achieving what I think some members of the College wish to achieve—a better attendance at meetings. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[The Sitting was suspended at nineteen minutes before eight o'clock, and resumed at half past eight.]