HL Deb 09 March 1989 vol 504 cc1672-88

8.35 p.m.

Lord Molloy rose to ask Her Majesty' Government what action they propose to take to protect the training of veterinary practitioners in the United Kingdom and to promote British veterinary practices in Europe.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Henley, on becoming a Government Whip. I know that the responsibilities and duties of a Whip do not make him a particulary popular person. However, tonight he has wonderful opportunity to reverse that charge by seeing the sense of the proposal from this and all sides of the House in respect of one of Britain's oldest and greatest professions.

The quintessential part of my submission is the need to protect the training of veterinary practitioners in the United Kingdom and to promote British veterinary practices in Europe. Alas, the ideal is under threat because of so-called rationalisation. That is a posh word which really means "destruction".

The veterinary work of mankind is of great antiquity. The cure of animals was attempted in the oldest civilisations and the role of British vets in the British Isles since the 14th century has been highly commendable. They were then known as "marshalls". They were the most renowned in the UK and in Europe with their outstanding history which prevails today.

In 1792 the Royal Veterinary College was created. That was followed in 1823 by the Dick Vet College in Edinburgh. Both granted certificates of competence to practise the veterinary arts. Their value has been inestimable in providing preventive and curative medicine in the veterinary field in general. The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons was granted a Royal charter in 1844 and I hope that that fact will not be forgotten by the Minister.

The British National Veterinary Association was created in 1882. Its famous journal, the Veterinary Record, was published in 1920. The progress of vets has been of immense value to this country and to many parts of the world which have learnt a great deal from the British Veterinary Association and those concerned with all forms of animal life.

The tremendous record of preventive and curative medicine and surgery covers all forms of animals, including those involved in many sports but which is sometimes forgotten. It covers a vast array of ordinary pets in this animal-loving country. It is an animal-loving country, but it will not be seen as such if some of the proposals contained in the Riley Report are put into effect. It is sometimes forgotten that many of the zoos in this country depend on the British Veterinary Association. People from all over the world come to this country for guidance and help from the British Veterinary Association. In addition, it is providing safeguards for a high standard of food production. I do not believe that anyone-not even Riley-will consider that is not a good thing to do.

In research work, drugs and technical services there is a range of endeavour not wholly appreciated by many people. It should be, because it is of vital importance. British veterinaries are of an extremely high standard. The degree courses are monitored by the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons under the 1966 Act. The findings of the Royal College reports are always reported to the Privy Council and I hope that those points will be noted by the representative of our Government.

In recent years there have been cuts in government funding for higher education. That has seriously affected the education of veterinary students. There will he less building, less equipment and it will be difficult to retain skilled staff. The veterinary degree courses must meet the requirements of the EC veterinary profession directives. The excess of European students is much higher than before and can be a very serious threat to British veterinary surgeons and British veterinaries in general. I ask that all those matters be seriously considered.

There are aspects of the Riley Report and recommendations which are acceptable. At the same time, there are those which are dangerously myopic. It is almost a perfect curate's egg. However, that can have very sad and serious effects on British veterinary standards. British veterinary schools are to be reduced from six to four. I find that lamentable. I believe that thousands nay millions of ordinary people and farmers, who are furious and who know the value of the vet whether in curing animals or in playing a preventive role, find that very disturbing. No other Community country is reducing its base only the United Kingdom. The proposal only affects our country. I find that that is extremely dangerous.

The Riley Report also made some proposals which seem to improve minor subjects in the curriculum. I shall be perfectly honest. Some recommendations in the Riley Report are completely acceptable to British veterinary surgeons and veterinaries; for example, minor subjects in the curriculum should be increased. However, perhaps I may point out to the noble Lord who is to reply that the Riley Report also recommends the strengthening of clinical teaching and that there should be new residences. That will require £30 million. I hope that we shall be told this evening that that money will be forthcoming. If that point is eluded, we can only assume that it will not be.

There is great sadness and bitterness in the veterinary world, and I believe that it is spreading throughout the country, at file threat to close the Glasgow and Cambridge schools. As I said, that is an appallingly dangerous myopic attitude to adopt. Those threats must be withdrawn. As I have said, farmers are furious, ordinary people are dismayed and the veterinary profession can hardly believe that that will happen. If any noble Lord in this Chamber believes that I am exaggerating, I challenge him to come with me to Glasgow or Cambridge and talk to the students. If I am defeated I shall how down and if the Government are defeated they will see that those threats are withdrawn and the Glasgow and Cambridge schools will remain.

We also have to try to understand that many other people are involved in the future of the British veterinary service; namely, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the animal welfare trusts and the People's Dispensary for Sick Animals. That is a great charity. I can remember as a young man aiding what was then known as the Poor People's Dispensary for Sick Animals. Miners in South Wales would come up from the pits, fetch their dogs, and go to a carnival in Swansea Singleton to collect money for the Poor People's Dispensary for Sick Animals. I can remember its great blue-fronted shop which was worshipped by people who could not afford to have treatment for their pets.

Under privatisation, some miners had to look after the animals used underground because the pit owners could not have cared less. However, that was the great role of the PDSA. All that would have been useless had the PDSA been unable to recruit veterinaries. The PDSA will vanish overnight if it cannot recruit veterinaries. It is the PDSA's organisation of veterinaries and veterinary surgeons that is important.

Both the Riley Report and the UGC have made some great errors as well as providing some useful contributions. In Cambridge, the university veterinary school is a gem and is rooted in great antiquity. It houses the BVA's animal welfare foundation chair-the only one in the world. That is not bad, is it? Can your Lordships imagine anyone, unless they have a particular hatred for British veterinaries or for Cambridge, deciding that the place that has the only animal welfare foundation chair in the world should go? Glasgow stands to lose 300 of its students. There will be 300 fewer students and, what is more, there is bound to be a reduction in the specialist staff which supports the training of veterinaries and that world-renowned institution is under threat.

Both the Riley Report and the University Grants Committee make recommendations and they should be listened to. However, in the end it is not Riley or the University Grants Committee which make the final decision. It must be the British Parliament. If we cannot do that, we shall become redundant. That must be clearly understood. Therefore if, as seems to be the case, to save money we are going wantonly to destroy the Glasgow and Cambridge schools, whoever supports that proposition should be utterly ashamed of themselves because those are two proven great institutions which have provided research, scientific application and the training of veterinary surgeons and veterinaries for over 100 years.

With regard to the EC, I believe that we have much to give to Europe and I hope that the British Veterinary Association will give its knowledge and experience to Europe. Our animal health status in the UK is higher than Europe's—and this is a fact—because of veterinary preventive and caring medicine, superb training and the love of their profession by British veterinaries and veterinary surgeons. The public are aware of the excellence of the British veterinary service. Hence, I ask Her Majesty's Government to take all those points and submissions into full consideration before final judgment is made on the Riley Report and the EC.

I also ask the Government to bear this in mind. As I said, I am not hypercritical of the Riley Report. There are some very good points but there are also some dangerous myopic points. Let us throw away the bad and keep the good. Let us also not forget that folly is often more dangerous and cruel than malice can be in intent. Therefore, I hope that when the Government make decisions both on the Riley Report and on the UGC they will read the propositions on both sides very carefully. When I say both sides I mean that they should listen not only to the submissions made by the Riley Report or the UGC but also to representatives of the British Veterinary Association and the British veterinary surgeons. Those people are at the heart of the matter.

Those are the people whose profession, since the 14th century, has been renowned and acknowledged throughout the entire world. People from all over the world have come to this island to learn from our British Veterinary Association. Therefore, I believe we have something to be proud of. Europe still believes that we are the best. In so far as we have much to give to Europe and to the rest of the world, let us in this country show that we acknowledge the greatness of these professions. We must see that in no way are they harmed or degraded, that they are allowed to continue in the same magnificent way to serve this nation in a practical manner and that they remain a fine example for vets to follow not only in Great Britain but all over the world.

8.50 p.m.

Lord Stodart of Leaston

My Lords, I echo every word of the tribute paid by the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, to the profession. There is not a word or syllable with which I quarrel. Nor do I fall out with him in any way about the Riley Report.

Although the noble Lord said nothing about numbers in the profession, I feel that I should perhaps be standing in sackcloth and ashes in the light of certain shortages in the United Kingdom profession set out recently by the president of the British Veterinary Association and by my noble friend Lord Kimball. Indeed, within the past half hour I have received an envelope from Cambridge the contents of which start by stating that it is perfectly ludicrous to think in terms of turning out only 302 students every year.

The sackcloth and ashes, of course, are because I was charged with the duty of chairing the second of the five-year manpower review committees arising from the 1975 report. The forecasts of the noble Lord, Lord Swann, in 1975, and those of the 1980 committee, seemed to us in 1985 to be proving reliable. I was blessed with the most competent of committees: the chief veterinary officer in the Ministry of Agriculture, and the president and the secretary of the Royal College, together with representatives of the three agricultural departments.

The exercise was reasonably straighforward. Every veterinary surgeon on the Royal college register was written to and asked to say how many more, or fewer, veterinary surgeons were likely to be working in his practice five years later. The response was substantial, as it had been five years previously. The result of the survey was that 577 more would be required by the year 1990. The same question was put to the veterinary schools about staffing, to the state services, to firms which employed veterinary surgeons for industrial purposes, to the zoos and to the animal welfare societies. All gave their estimates.

A more hazardous exploration was then undertaken on migration in and out of the country. About 400 veterinary surgeons working at home said that they intended to emigrate between 1985 and 1995 and 320 of them thought that they would return within 10 years. To offset that, having also written to those on the Royal College register who were working overseas, 540 replied that they planned to take up veterinary work at home during the next 10 years. While there did not seem in 1985 to be much movement between European Community member states, the 1980 report had drawn attention to the possibility of the other EC countries producing about 400 veterinary surgeons surplus to their combined needs.

The Swann Committee in 1985 had guessed-admitting that it was a guess at a net outflow of 25 veterinary surgeons a year. So we reckoned on a net inflow of the same number. However, it was total speculation because no records of migration in and out are kept. If one adds to the total a figure which takes account of increased leisure and recreation; and of deaths and retirements, and then one divides the result by five, one arrives at the annual increase needed. That is a very simplified account of what went on for 13 months of very hard grind.

We now come to the supply situation. Not every student who enters the veterinary schools finally qualifies, although the pass rate has increased from 85.5 per cent. to 92 per cent. since 1975. Taking that into account, we debated at great length whether to maintain the intake at 335 a year or to cut it by 10 per cent. to 302. It was the view of the British Veterinary Association stated in its report that the 10 per cent. cut should be made. And that tipped the balance.

However, the difference between 335 and 302 is minimal. It is chickenfeed compared with what my noble friend Lord Kimball and the president of the British Veterinary Association have told us. My noble friend said that 295 graduates entered this country in 1988, and a further 91 in January and February of this year. Provided they are registered, or can register, with the Royal College there is presumably nothing to stop them doing so.

In the Glasgow Herald of 21st January this year the president of the BVA was reported as saying: We maintain that by the end of the century we will need the capability to produce 500 graduates a year". Five hundred a year, not 302 or 335. I am bound to say that I am totally perplexed. Did we all get it wrong the BVA and members of my committee-three-and-a-half years ago? Perhaps my noble friend will be able to tell me when he replies.

I have one final point. A study of the Swann Report will show that in 1975 it estimated the additional manpower needed over 10 to 15 years as being between 975 and 1,625. That is a fairly wide spread. We arc just coming up towards 15 years now. And it is interesting-I do not say it is totally significant-that the total number of veterinary surgeons registered in the United Kingdom in 1975 was 6,729. In 1985 it was 8,906. that is an increase not of 975 or 1,625 but of 2,177. I do not know what the figure is today as 1990 approaches.

9 p.m.

Baroness Robson of Kiddington

My Lords, I enter this debate with some trepidation. I do not believe there is anyone in this House who does not accept that the standard of veterinary education in this country is of the highest standard. In my view it is the best in the world. The graduates of our veterinary colleges are in demand all over the world. It is true that to gain entry to a veterinary college you need a higher standard of education than you do even to enter the medical profession.

Unfortunately, I was not here on 7th March when the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, asked a Question as regards the proposed closure of the Glasgow veterinary college. I have read with interest the exchanges that took place in this Chamber on that day. The reason I am taking part in this debate is that I was almost horrified at the government response. The response was, "It is up to the UGC". That cannot possibly be so. The Government have a responsibility in this field.

According to the Riley report the annual output of schools is going to be 335. One wonders whether that calculation has taken on board the changes that are happening as a result of EC integration. A draft regulation is in being to remove all frontier controls. Inevitably that must lead to increased demand for veterinary services in this country if we wish to maintain the kind of standards we have had in the past. I believe that that aspect has not been taken into account.

Reference has been made to the fact that this country having the highest standards of veterinary education, veterinary practitioners are poached or brain-drained to other countries and particularly into Europe. They are popular as tutors m veterinary colleges throughout Europe. At the same time we are importing veterinary practitioners from. Europe, the Commonwealth and other foreign countries. They must have the right qualifications in order to practise here. But it is still my contention that perhaps their standards of education are not quite what we have been used to in this country.

Not only are we facing a demand for more veterinary surgeons as a result of our Community involvement. We are in need of an increase in veterinary practitioners because of the public controversy over salmonella and listeria. There is no doubt about increasing demand. There is increasing demand all over Europe. The harmonisation of inspection measures will be statutory in abattoirs in this country. I do not know whether noble Lords saw the article in yesterday's Guardian. Despite the fact that we have the best veterinary education in Europe our abattoirs are in a sorry state.

Out of a total of 919 abattoirs only 74 are licensed for the export of meat to the EC. That is because we do not have, as a rule, veterinary inspection of our abattoirs, as happens in Europe. It is a crying shame that this country should have a standard of abattoir that is so low. When I was having my supper in the snack bar of your Lordships' House, I could not help feeling that if there are only 74 abattoirs that come up to the standards required for the export of meat to the EC I was obviously eating a steak pie that had come from one of the other abattoirs. When you think about it, it is a little frightening.

All these new regulations relating to the EC will inevitably require the services of more veterinary practitioners in this country. I do not believe that the Government can simply say that it is for the UGC to decide how many veterinary surgeons are trained each year. It is up to the Government to make a proper assessment of the need in this country. I hope they will take that on board.

Lord Kimball

My Lords, I feel that I should declare an interest as an honorary associate of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and as chairman of the Cambridge University Veterinary Trust. The Unstarred Question that the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, has tabled asks categorically what action the Government should take. I say to my noble friend tonight that I hope the first action we take will be to inform the University Grants Committee in its new form that it will take after 1st April, that the Riley report is based on a false premise.

With all the charm in the world, my noble friend Lord Stoddart of Leaston came to this House and admitted that he had got it wrong. I wish that Chancellors of the Exchequer would come from another place and make the same confession, but they never would. The House will appreciate that it is nearly impossible to get right manpower forecasting. After all, my noble friend had the advice of the British Veterinary Association at that time. Let us cast our minds back at a time when milk quotas had just been introduced and most of the veterinarians whom he cross-questioned were extremely depressed and doubtful regarding the future of their large animal practices. We should remember the background against which my noble friend was considering this problem of the number of veterinarians and veterinary students that we should need.

I believe that the first thing that my noble friend should do is to say to the University Grants Committee: "You take no action on numbers and the Riley Report until such time as you have a proper and further manpower count of what is likely to be needed in this country".

My noble friend Lord Molloy was extremely generous in his approach to the other recommendations of the Riley working party. What was the second point at which Riley was asked to look? He was asked to look in particular at the style of training to match future developments in the practice of veterinary medicine. I should like to look at one or two of those points. Although the noble Lord was very generous, I am not absolutely certain that the Riley working party had this point right in relation to the Cambridge Veterinary School. I do not believe that it gave due weight to the advance in biological and physical sciences added into the new technology of computing.

Biotechnology-based developments in diagnosis in animal welfare are already in the market place. It is a science in which Cambridge excels and must be expanded. I agree with the Riley working party when it pays tribute to the excellent first part of the Cambridge Veterinary School Tripos. It makes a special point of the scientific basis of the first three years of training of undergraduates in the Cambridge Veterinary School. However, where Riley got it wrong and where the report is incomplete and I hope that my noble friend will draw the attention of the University Grants Committee to this point-is where he says that pure scientific teaching is needed only in the pre-clinical teaching phase. Cambridge certainly believes that scientific education must be maintained in the clinical phase of the veterinary course as well.

The Cambridge Veterinary School is unique in its concentration on biomedical science in and around an area which is exceptionally well equipped to deal with this new and important branch of medicine. The school is alone in England in having a rural location, a farm, a veterinary investigation centre and a good catchment area. It is unique in specialising in animal welfare, nervous diseases, parasite control, immunology and skin diseases. When the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, comes to speak I think he will bear in mind the problems we still have with skin diseases in sheep, particular in Wales and Scotland. Cambridge is supreme in dealing with those problems, with navicular disease in horses and special methods of detecting damaged joints without major surgery. Those noble Lords who will watch racing on television next week may wonder how many of the horses they are looking at have reason to be grateful to the Cambridge Veterinary School-this point applies to both race horses and jumpers for the work being done on their feet and limbs.

Another important point is the amount of money we raise from industry. The Cambridge Veterinary Trust has just topped £1 million in voluntary donations for a special unit for the treatment of cancers in small mammals. We were just about to start the building. We have had the estimates and we have cut the first sod. The plans are approved. We have had to stop. This was an important development for radiotherapy and related treatment in small mammals. It was being watched by Addenbrooke's Hospital and the medical profession throughout the whole of the United Kingdom.

It was rather unique when the head of the Cambridge Veterinary School, Professor Soulsby, sent me a letter which he had received from the head of the marine biochemical research programme of the University of South Carolina. I know that many people have views about American universities but I thought that this was a particularly appropriate letter. Perhaps I may crave the indulgence of the House and quote from one paragraph: As an American academician who has spent some time in Cambridge, I not only realise but am also envious of the concentration of Biomedical brain power in and surrounding that university city. To remove veterinary medicine from Cambridge for any reason … makes no sense". We would all echo those sentiments.

The second part of the noble Lord's Unstarred Question asks what action the Government propose to promote veterinary practice. We have at the moment in this country a demand from the food industry for the biggest expansion in veterinary knowledge that we are likely to see in this country for a long time. How is that dealt with in the report of the Riley working party? There is one paragraph of seven lines. That is all it receives. We admit that Riley was out of date and did not realise that the demand would be there. The way to provide the veterinarians required by the food industry is to maintain the six schools and not to spend £20 million on redesigning them as four schools as recommended by Riley. At a stroke, Riley proposes to cut by one-third veterinary education of the United Kingdom.

9.14 p.m.

Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos

My Lords. my noble friend Lord Molloy has enabled us to debate a subject of considerable importance, for which we thank him. We also thank him for his speech. He and the other noble Lords and the noble Baroness who have spoken referred to the proposal to close the veterinary schools at the universities of Glasgow and Cambridge by the UGC working party under the chairmanship of Sir Ralph Riley. I should like to discuss the wider implications of that recommendation this evening.

Over the past nine years or so the University Grants Committee has had the difficult task, at the behest of the Government, of persuading universities to manage their affairs with progressively reduced funds. As Pro-Chancellor of the University of Wales,

I know how very painful and complicated that exercise has been. It has involved the closure of departments, with redundancies and other economies, and that has inevitably created uncertainty and insecurity on a scale not previously experienced. That fact is relevant to our debate this evening but I do not propose to pursue it further or in any detail at this time.

I should like to say this about the University Grants Committee. It is my experience that the committee has operated with understanding and sympathy, and as it comes to the end of its tenure-I think it is on 1st April-- I wish to thank the chairman, his colleagues and their predecessors for the great service which they have rendered to the universities in Britain.

Every government have an obligation to ensure that public money is spent prudently by those to whom it is allocated, and universities are not exempted from that rule. On the other hand, we have a duty to ask whether the cuts in funding are in the public interest and whether the Department of Education and Science has its priorities right. That is the point of this debate. For example, would the closure of the schools at Cambridge and Glasgow be justified?

Let us look first of all at the reputation of those schools. I shall do so briefly because noble Lords who preceded me have already paid tribute to them. However, if they were less than efficient as teaching departments, or in their research work, it would be appropriate to consider their future. But I must agree with noble Lords that the evidence I have read makes clear beyond doubt that both are centres of excellence with an international reputation.

Let us take first the school at Cambridge. The UGC in its own review in 1986 rated veterinary medicine there as outstanding and its standard of research as the highest. with Glasgow, in the United Kingdom. The noble Lord, Lord Kimball, has spoken eloquently from his own considerable personal experience about the range and quality of the work done at the school in Cambridge. Therefore I shall not go into any further detail on the matter, save to say that Cambridge is also the only school which insists on a full honours degree in science before starting training for clinical practice. That means that it is putting a different type of vet into practice, and the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons says that it highly values that fact.

The reputation of Glasgow veterinary school is also of the highest order and it is difficult to accept the argument of the Riley working party that just because there are two veterinary schools in Scotland, one of them should be closed. In research and teaching, and also in the care and treatment of animals, Glasgow is internationally known. Moreover, those in other countries who know of that reputation are expressing disbelief about the closure proposal. The UGC working party itself concluded that Glasgow's research is of outstanding quality, that some of it is world-class and that its teaching is innovative. As with Cambridge, its closure would have far-reaching effects. The Secretary of State for Education and Science, Mr. Kenneth Baker, has stressed the importance of excellence in teaching and research in our universities. I must point out to him in this debate that in Glasgow and Cambridge both arc of the highest quality.

As my noble friend has explained, there are other factors involved in our consideration of these closures. For example, as two noble Lords have said, there is acute public concern over food safety. That is something we debated fully in this House only last week. Secondly, there are the implications of the opening of the Channel Tunnel and a possible threat to disease security in this country. Finally, there are problems, also referred to by other noble Lords, to he resolved between now and 1992 when the single European market comes into existence. In all of those matters the veterinary services have an important role to play. It is here that the Government have thus far failed to produce a clear policy. In my view they are matters for the Government as a whole to consider in Cabinet, after a most careful study by the departments involved, and not, with great respect, for the University Grants Committee.

As for food safety, the consumer is properly demanding higher standards of hygiene. It seems clear that vets must have a greater part to play; for example, in meat hygiene, food hygiene and health controls from the farmer producer to the consumer's table. The consumer has a right to expect an increased veterinary input into animal welfare and the pollution of the environment. I must pay the highest tribute to the surgeons of the state veterinary service with whom I worked as Minister of Agriculture. I know that they strive to encourage high standards of animal welfare on farms, during transport, at markets, in abattoirs and, if at all possible, on export as well. I note that the BVA has made an important suggestion; namely, that a European animal welfare inspectorate should be established. I hope that Ministers will consult the BVA about that possibility.

As for the Channel Tunnel and the single market, I believe that we can claim that our animal health status is high because we are an island and because our vets have developed great expertise in the control of disease. That state of affairs could be in peril if the Government fail to anticipate and plan for the future. I have a lively awareness of the dangers because I was Minister of Agriculture during he latter part of the foot and mouth epidemic in 1968. I accepted and implemented the recommendations of the Northumberland Committee. I was also Minister during the dangerous rabies outbreak in 1969. I then set up the Waterhouse Committee to investigate that outbreak. My successor, the noble Lord, Lord Prior, implemented its recommendations. The noble Lord, Lord Stodart, who was a Minister in the Ministry of Agriculture, will recall the problems and difficulties that we then encountered.

Mercifully, there has been no outbreak of either dreadful disease since then; but they, and a number of other diseases, can invade these shores if the Government fail to organise our defences against them. We need more vets not fewer. The evidence suggests that an output of 450 to 500 veterinary students will be needed in the next century and that will he impossible to achieve if we reduce the number of schools from six to four.

Again, with the removal of frontier controls, which is virtually at hand, the health and safety of the animal population and the protection of the consumer will more and more depend upon the expertise of the veterinarian, and the increased movement of animals between countries will require more testing and examination. A comprehensive and efficient surveillance system will therefore be absolutely vital. Against that alarming background, I must ask whether this is the time to close first-class university veterinary schools in Glasgow and Cambridge. We shall need more vets not fewer. We shall need them with the professional skills which those two great universities and our other four schools can teach them. We need veterinary surgeons in practice; we need private veterinary laboratories; we need the Veterinary Investigation Service as well as a properly staffed and deployed state veterinary service. In those circumstances, to reduce our veterinary schools from six to four could be disastrous. As my noble friend has said, no other Community country is reducing its veterinary base. If the working party goes to Italy or Spain, it might find an argument for closure because Italy has 10 schools and Spain has eight schools. I do not denigrate vets from other countries but we must not be over-dependent upon vets from other countries.

I am not sure whether this point has been mentioned, but in 1988 54 veterinarians from the European Community, excluding the Republic of Ireland, registered with the RCVS to work in the United Kingdom. That is the equivalent of the output of an entire United Kingdom veterinary school. Furthermore, 165 Commonwealth graduates and 47 foreign (non-EC) graduates were admitted to the RCVS register-a total of 295.

Recent experience will, I hope, persuade the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State for Education to give this entire problem their urgent and personal attention, with the object of ensuring that the veterinary service in this country is maintained at the highest level in numbers and professional skills. The stark fact is that in all areas of veterinary practice more veterinary surgeons are urgently required to work in small animal practices, to work in large animal practices, to meet the growing demand in the field of food hygiene both in research and in salmonella, listeria, and other common food poisoning areas; and in line with the EC directive when in 1991 all abattoirs, cutting plants and cold stores must have veterinary inspectors; and lastly for work in the third world.

At present I am informed by a representative of the University of Cambridge that the United Kingdom does not produce sufficient graduates to meet any of these demands, particularly in the United Kingdom where in 1988 over 290 overseas graduates registered with the Royal College, as I have already stated. It is not the closure of veterinary departments that the Government should be concerned with at this crucial time, but the strengthening and encouragement of staff and students in all six university departments so that the people of this country may have confidence that their interests are being properly protected in an increasingly complex and changing world.

9.26 p.m.

Lord Henley

My Lords, perhaps I may start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, for his kind words on opening this Question. I must say that after the strength of feeling in everything I have heard so far, I feel somewhat like Daniel going into the lion's den without the assistance of a vet.

I am sure that we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, for asking his Question, and for stimulating a debate which has been thoughtful and penetrating. The main strands seem to have been the University Grants Committee review of veterinary education, and the veterinary manpower reviews undertaken by the agriculture departments, and I will deal with them in turn.

Let me begin with the review of veterinary education. I must emphasise that the review was not commissioned by the Government, but by the University Grants Committee. It is one of a series of some 35 subject reviews whose common objective, which the Government endorse, is to strengthen the national provision of teaching and research in our universities. As background to this present review, it should be noted that veterinary education is a particularly expensive subject, requiring a wide range of disciplines to be taught over the length of the course, and a consequent high level of staffing.

The review working party as noble Lords have mentioned, was chaired by Sir Ralph Riley FRS, a distinguished scientist and administrator. Many noble Lords will know he is a former Secretary of the Agriculture and Food Research Council. The review was published at the end of January, and is open for consultation until the end of March. Decisions on the review's recommendations will fall to the new Universities Funding Council, established under the Education Reform Act 1988, which takes over from the UGC on 1st April. Unlike the non-statutory and advisory UGC, the UFC is an executive body, as noble Lords will know. Moreover, noble Lords will recall that, in accordance with their wishes, the Act strictly limits the powers of Ministers to intervene in matters such as these which concern individuals universities.

In making its recommendations, the review took many factors into account. One was the limited number of clinical veterinary teachers in British universities, and the need to balance the requirement for a critical mass of teachers needed for yet more effective teaching and research in each discipline with acceptable staff-student ratios.

All noble Lords have expressed concern that there are inadequate student places to meet the demand for veterinary graduates, and that the recommendations of the Riley review would exacerbate the position. In fact the number of veterinary places has been determined, as has been mentioned by my noble friend Lord Stodart of Leaston, by reviews mounted by the agriculture departments.

A committee of nquiry into the veterinary profession chaired by the then Sir Michael Swann was appointed by the Government to consider and report on the future role and eduational needs of the veterinary profession in the United Kingdom. The committee report published in 1975 recommended that the manpower needs in the profession should be reviewed at intervals of approximately five years. A review took place in 1980. The last review, published in 1985, was chaired by my noble friend Lord Stodart of Leaston. The noble Lord said he felt that he should be standing in sackcloth and ashes. I hope that he will not. We all thank him for his work in chairing the review even if he feels that he may have got it wrong. With hindsight, I think that one could agree that the estimate seems too low. My noble friend's review recommended a reduction in places from 335 to 302. It was recommended that the annual intake of students by veterinary schools between 1986 and 1990 should be reduced gradually to 302. That was recognised by the review as being fine tuning of the highest order.

Both the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and the British Veterinary Association believe that circumstances have changed since the last review and that more rather than fewer veterinarians are required for our immediate and future demands. According to the five-year timetable for review of manpower requirements recommended by the Swann Committee in 1975, the next review should start this year. The Government are considering whether to conduct another review and, if so, how. I am sure that all the views expressed tonight will be taken account of by my right honourable friends when they come to consider whether to have another review.

The Riley review did not explicitly address the need for veterinary manpower, but based its work on providing efficiently for the 302 places recommended by the 1985 review. It also allowed for the possibility of some expansion up the level of 335 places.

It has been suggested that too much weight has been given to regional considerations, particularly in Scotland, and to the role that the veterinary schools play in acting as referral centres for cases which veterinary practices feel would be better handled by the schools. Others have said that the review has not adequately taken into account the academic merit of each of the veterinary schools. Noble Lords referred to both Glasgow and Cambridge.

The noble Lord, Lord Molloy, and some other noble Lords suggested that the root problem is under-funding of the universities, and that the Riley review is a cost cutting exercise. I cannot agree with that. The Government grant to the UGC was increased by 10 per cent. in cash terms in 1987-88 and by a further 8 per cent. in 1988-89, and will be raised by an extra £100 million over the next three financial years. These are substantial sums. In any case, the report's recommendations are aimed not at cost cutting but at using the present resources to yet greater effect.

Any review of that kind must weigh carefully a number of different factors in coming to its recommendations. The review in addition has to take into account the role of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, which has responsibility under the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 for setting the standards for training and examination, and the European Community's veterinary directive.

The Government fully agree with those who say that any decision about the future of veterinary schools should be soundly based, especially where there are proposals for closure, which are understandably controversial. That is why it is important to use the consultation period which closes on 31st March in order to air all the relevant facts and test the various criteria. I am confident that, in making its decisions on the Riley review, the Universities Funding Council will pay careful attention to the evidence in the report, and to the comments arising during the consultation period-not least from this debate and from the Question which my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy asked earlier this week.

Mention has been made of European Community veterinary surgeons practising in the United Kingdom. Let me make plain how this works. Since 1980, European Community directives have provided for the free movement of veterinary surgeons, and to make this possible, harmonisation of veterinary education standards and qualifications across the Community. Under these provisions British veterinarians can become established in any member state provided that they satisfy the Community requirements on qualifications. Because of the high standard of qualifications in the UK, our veterinarians are able to satisfy this requirement without difficulty.

By the same token, veterinarians from other member states can establish themselves in the UK; indeed, some already work here. In addition to complying with the directive requirements, they must also register with the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, and comply with the RCVS guide to professional conduct.

The noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, raised the matter of standards in United Kingdom abattoirs. At present each member state is visited every year by the Commission so that standards can be monitored. The results of previous inspections have indicated that standards in the UK are broadly in line with the rest of the Community.

I believe I have dealt with the questions of the noble Baroness on frontier controls. The noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, also asked about the role of the Government and the successor to the UGC, the UFC, in deciding on the Riley recommendations. The review of subjects is a matter that is well within the responsibility of the Universities Funding Council. The purpose of the legislation last year was to give proper arm's length status to the UFC. It therefore has the power to take decisions for itself. Under the Education Reform Act 1988, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science may attach conditions to the grant which he gives to the council. But these may not relate to any specified institution. The Secretary of State has the reserve power to give directions to the council; but the orders are subject to the negative resolutions procedure in both Houses of Parliament.

I am conscious that I have not done justice to all the points that have been raised in this interesting and wide-ranging debate. However, I undertake to study the record closely and draw the attention of my right honourable friends to all the issues which deserve their attention. Indeed, I am sure that a study of the report of the debate will reward all those involved in the future of veterinary education and veterinary practice.

Lord Molloy

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord very much for what he has just said. Will he be gracious enough to ask his right honourable friends to look at the BVA's official journal the Veterinary Record, which over the past 18 months has contained pages and pages of advertisements? In those advertisements people have pleaded for vets and veterinary associate people to fill positions which cannot be filled. The BVA journal shows completely that at this moment in time there is a grievous shortage of veterinary practitioners.

Lord Henley

My Lords, I shall certainly pass those remarks on to my right honourable friends.

House adjourned at twenty-one minutes before ten o'clock.