| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
Urban Development
- That the Thurrock Development Corporation (Area and Constitution) Order 2003, dated 23rd June 2003, a copy of which was laid before this House on 2nd July, be approved.—[Margaret Moran.]
DELEGATED LEGISLATION
- That the following Statutory Instrument be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation: the Housing Benefit (General) (Local Housing Allowance) Amendment Regulations 2003 (S.I., 2003, No. 2399).—[Margaret Moran.]
DRAFT GAMBLING BILL (JOINT COMMITTEE)
(POWER TO TRAVEL OUTSIDE THE UNITED KINGDOM)
- That the Order of the House of 10th July 2003 appointing a Select Committee to join with a Committee of the Lords to consider and report on any Clauses of a draft Gambling Bill
- presented to both Houses by a Minister of the Crown be amended by leaving out the words "within the United Kingdom".—[Margaret Moran.]
COMMITTEES
Environmental Audit
- That Ian Lucas be discharged from the Environmental Audit Committee and Paul Flynn be added.
Joint Committee on Human Rights
- That Vera Baird be discharged from the Joint Committee on Human Rights and Mr Paul Stinchcombe be added.—[Margaret Moran.]
COMMITTEES
Accommodation and Works
- That Syd Rapson be discharged from the Accommodation and Works Committee and Mr Stephen Hepburn be added.
Defence
- That Patrick Mercer, Jim Knight and Syd Rapson be discharged from the Defence Committee and Mr Peter Viggers, Mike Gapes and Mr Dai Havard be added.
Education and Skills
- That Ms Meg Munn be discharged from the Education and Skills Committee and Helen Jones be added.
Health
- That Andy Burnham and Julia Drown be discharged from the Health Committee and Mr Keith Bradley and Mr Jon Owen Jones be added.
Northern Ireland Affairs
- That Mr Stephen McCabe be discharged from the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and Mr Iain Luke be added.
Scottish Affairs
- That Eric Joyce be discharged from the Scottish Affairs Committee and Mr John MacDougall be added.
Trade and Industry
- That Dr Ashok Kumar and Mrs Jackie Lawrence be discharged from the Trade and Industry Committee and Mr Michael Clapham and Judy Mallaber be added.
Treasury
- That Dr Nick Palmer be discharged from the Treasury Committee and John Mann be added.—[Mr. Heppell.]
PETITION
Crown Immunity
10.3 pm
Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore): I wish to present the petition of Katrina Wynne and 1,500 petitioners of Ogmore in south Wales.
- Declares that there have been numerous incidents throughout the UK on government property such as Hospitals, Military Grounds, and the Royal Mint at Llantrisant; Many of these incidents have claimed the lives of loved ones through neglect of Health and Safety regulations; Due to Crown Immunity laws even if the employers are found guilty of non-compliance with Health and Safety regulations it is not possible to take legal action against them; This petition has been risen in memory of John Wynne, who was killed while working at the Royal Mint, due to various breaches of statutory Health and Safety laws.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons remove the doctrine of Crown Immunity from prosecution under statutory Health and Safety law.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
Veterinary Prescriptions
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Vernon Coaker.]
10.4 pm
Mr. Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland): I should first put on record a declarable interest: my wife is a practising veterinary surgeon and a partner in the firm of Flett and Carmichael veterinary surgeons in Kirkwall.
I am pleased to see the Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality. I had thought that a Minister from the Department for Trade and Industry might reply, it being the Department that is driving the Competition Commission's proposals. I should be interested to learn how this Minister's Department deals with the potential conflict that I see between the introduction of competition proposals that pose a real threat to vets in farm practices particularly, and the Government's stated animal health and welfare policy, which envisages the role of vets in large animal practices as being central. Along with many people outside the House, I shall be interested to see how the Minister squares the circle.
There are three main worries about the Competition Commission's proposals. It is feared that, first, they will lead to increased consultation charges as vets not unreasonably seek to cover the shortfall in income that they currently receive from dispensing medicines in another way; secondly, there is a risk of inequitable and superficial price comparison, which I believe would damage the much-valued trust that currently exists between vets and clients; and thirdly, there will be a negative impact on the profitability of what is already a low-margin profession.
Many vets in country areas cannot charge more than they do now, simply because the farming clients on whom they rely cannot afford to pay them. Nowadays many animals cannot be treated, and are disposed of rather than being given the veterinary attention that they need.
Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome): I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing a debate for which I too applied. He is right: particularly in dairy farming areas such as mine, there is a limit to the amount that farmers can pay. Only a few weeks ago, when I visited the Delaware practice in my constituency, I was told the same thing—that farm animal practices will be in real trouble if the proposals are adopted.
Mr. Carmichael: That is true. When my wife began practising in 1987, many farmers would call her out to perform a Caesarean section. Often in the middle of the night, she would have to travel from mainland Orkney to one of the remote outer islands such as Westray. Those calls no longer come. The inevitable conclusion is that cows are being shot when they get into difficulties calving. Although the farming community should not be blamed for that, it is regrettable.
Ideally, I should like the Government to accept that the commission's proposals are flawed and damaging and to abandon them, but I have been here long enough to know that, inexorably and inevitably, they will probably be introduced in some form. I want to focus on
some of the main issues drawn to my attention by farmers and vets in my constituency, and their suggestions for making what are essentially bad proposals workable.As the Minister knows, the history of this began with the Government's paper and "action plan for farming", which led to the Marsh inquiry and report and subsequently to the announcement by the Office of Fair Trading in October 2001 that the Competition Commission would conduct a further inquiry into the supply of prescription-only medicines in the United Kingdom.
The Competition Commission produced its final report in April this year. It included two sets of recommendations, the first of which suggested remedies under the Fair Trading Act 1973. In the course of recent correspondence with the DTI, I was told that it will hold a 13-week public consultation on the form of the order that gives effect to the recommendations. The draft order was expected in the autumn. As I notice that the leaves are beginning to fall from the trees, I hope that the Minister will tell us when we can expect to see it—although I should say in passing that I would rather see it right than see it quick. The second set of recommendations relate to the system of regulating veterinary medicines. The Government gave their view on those in a written statement on 9 July.
If veterinary surgeons are not to be the sole people who dispense animal medicine, some sort of prescription form system will require to be introduced. The Competition Commission appears to think that that should be done for no fee, which suggests to me that it has a basic lack of understanding of the profession with which it is dealing. I am inclined to suspect that it sees the process as being akin to a doctor sitting in his surgery scrawling a short note for a generic antibiotic to be taken twice a day for a week. For vets, the reality will be rather different. A vet who is called upon to prescribe for, say, a flock of turkeys or a herd of pigs will need to spend some considerable time deciding on the appropriate dosage and the way in which the drugs should be administered—for example, animals are often medicated through food or water. Those prescriptions will be complex documents that must be completed in some detail—a time-consuming business over and above the initial consultation period. I am told that when representatives from the British Small Animal Veterinary Association brought that up with civil servants at the DTI, the response was: "Can't you just include these costs in your consultation fee?" Although that may not be an unattractive idea, it would make it very difficult for vets to set a single consultation fee; and I gently suggest to the Minister that it rather defeats the Government's stated aim of trying to achieve transparency in pricing practice. To my mind, it illustrates the fact that the proposals are rather less than well thought out.
The Competition Commission proposed that under the Fair Trading Act 1973, the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons should encourage vets to provide prescriptions in a form that allows the identification and dispensing of alternative medicines, which could include its drawing up of lists of comparable medicines. I do not understand exactly why the RCVS should be charged
with doing that. As a regulatory body, it is not its job to make judgments on effective clinical alternatives. Again, that will be exceptionally time-consuming and add further costs that must eventually be passed on to the owner of the animal. It is not clear whether some of those lists of alternatives might be expected to include generic medicines. That area is fraught with difficulty for vets, because they have to prescribe in accordance with the so-called cascade system, whereby they must use only drugs that are licensed for animals—if such a drug exists. The withdrawal times for meat entering the food chain can differ widely. That does not matter in terms of medicating people, because we have not yet reached the stage of eating dead people, but dealing with animals is a very different matter. Unfortunately, that subtlety has not struck home with the Competition Commission.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |