HC Deb 17 November 1925 vol 188 cc331-42

Whereupon Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the Order of the House of 16th November, proposed the Question. "That this House do now adjourn."

Captain GEE

I desire to make it clear that I am not raising this question against certain sections who are known as humane societies in any spirit of vindictiveness but rather with the intention that, by letting the public know the truth in its reality, we shall take the first step towards getting the societies in question to rid themselves of the undesirable element, and so get back to the lofty ideals and noble conceptions they had when they first came into being. I desire to draw attention to the Report of the Departmental Committee appointed by the Minister of Agriculture to inquire into the export trade in horses from Great Britain to the Continent. This House will have learnt with great satisfaction that the Committee, after investigating every charge that was brought both against those engaged in and others who were supervising the traffic, have arrived at this considered judgment. We are satisfied that the officials of the Ministry and shipping companies are doing their utmost for the comfort and well-being of horses on sea journeys, and that the horses are fed on board ship. That is very satisfactory, but that statement does not add very much to the knowledge of this House, because as far back as January, 1922, the then Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries made this statement: I do not hesitate to say that not only have the cruelties been eliminated as far as transport goes, but that the foreign countries are concerned in seeing that no avoidable suffering is inflicted upon animals on arrival and in transit to the slaughterhouse. 11.0 P.M.

The feature of the Report to which I wish to draw attention is the revelation that has been made by this Committee of the persistent mendacity of what are called humane societies, that is in deliberately circulating false information in order to obtain money from the general public. They have insisted upon doing this in spite of the repeated warnings that have been issued by successive Ministers of Agriculture and in spite of many invitations to bring forward any evidence of contravention of the very stringent conditions that the Department has laid down. In spite of those invitations, for the past four years the directors of these companies have carried out a campaign, marked by, one might almost say, the most reckless disregard of any symptom of truth whatever, particularly one society, the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, which has gone so far as to speak of "England's shame." As the result of this campaign of calumny against shipowners and civil servants, the Government instituted in March last a representative tribunal to inquire into the real facts of this trade of the export of horses from Great Britain to the Continent. The Report now presented reveals for the first time that for four years these professional collectors of money—I have no hesitation in calling them by their proper name— have been exploiting the public through speeches and pamphlets which the Committee of Inquiry have described in the following terms: Hypocritical… Evidence obviously untrue… Vague charges which no one is able to substantiate… Charges without foundation… Most discreditable pamphlets. These, I would remind the House, are not my terms. They are terms in the Report of this Committee of Inquiry.

My charge against these societies does not stay there. I would particularly call the attention of the House to the discovery made by this Committee of Inquiry that the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals have been using a faked film in order to obtain money from the public. Evidence of this is easily obtained, in the form of sworn affidavits, that Belgian butchers have been coerced and bribed into committing acts of cruelty in order that this society could be able to give to the public in this country pictorial representations of facts which really do not exist. If I were to leave that statement just as it is, it would still remain a statement of fact, but as we have the evidence—I am sorry the excessive price puts it beyond the reach of the public—if the House will bear with me, I will read the affidavits.

Mr. ROBERT MORRISON

Can the hon. and gallant Member say whether the Committee actually saw the affidavit, or only a copy of it?

Captain GEE

I am reading from the evidence. The affidavit can be obtained here. If my hon. Friend doubts my word, I am prepared to make my statement in any hall in the land.

Mr. MORRISON

I am not doubting the hon. and gallant Member's word. I am only asking whether the Committee saw the affidavit, or only a copy of it?

Captain GEE

They were quite satisfied, and so am I, and so must be any impartial, unbiassed person. This affidavit can be produced in evidence in any Court of Justice in the land. It is a sworn affidavit, and it is at the Ministry of Agriculture to-day. It is to the following effect: I, the undersigned Frans Cools, of Willebroek, butcher, declare that I was given twenty-five francs to slaughter a horse for the purpose of making cinematographic films. Here is a further statement: We, the undersigned, Louis Dierckz, butcher, and Pierre Caloy, slaughterer. declare to have each received the sum of five francs to slaughter horses on the public road and in view of the cinema. I think that is all the evidence that I need read out from the affidavit to convince and to assure the House that that society has been guilty of a gross act of cruelty in order to fleece the public of money.

Now I come to the real point. This House is entitled to know whether it is the intention of the Government to bring to the bar of justice those persons who by fraudulent practice and mendacious representations in speeches, posters, pamphlets and pictures, have been enriching themselves for a good many years at the expense of the kind-hearted and credulous people of this country. I notice that the financial cost of this inquiry—to say nothing of the amount of time that has been given to it by the Committee for an extended period, and the fact that civil servants have been taken from their duties—exceeds £400. We hear cries for economy from all parts of the House. What is the benefit which the country will get from this expenditure of time and money unless it is that the culprits are going to be brought to justice? It is useless for the Ministry to say that the Ministry is now fully aware of the facts. It was aware of the facts in 1922, when the Minister publicly announced that cruelties had been eliminated, and because the facts have been published there will be a check placed upon these societies. That is not the case, because in 1921 the then Minister of Agriculture drew public attention through the "Times" to the deliberate exploiting of the natural indignation of the public by means of allegations which cannot be sustained. I may refer to one or two definite expressions that have been used by the Committee. The particular part of the report to which I am referring is called, evidence by certain humanitarian societies. We find this. We desire to place on record our considered judgment that the charges made by Mr. Smith are without foundation in fact, and further, that the whole of Mr. Smith's evidence is unreliable. They then quote several examples of evidence given and sifted, and they' arrive at this conclusion: The above are examples of evidence given by Mr. Smith, which are obviously untrue, and we are of opinion that no part of his evidence can be relied on.

Mr. DENNIS HERBERT

Will the hon. and gallant Member say who Mr. Smith was?

Captain GEE

The Report can be obtained from the Vote Office. He was one of the officials mentioned of societies living by charitable contributions.

Mr. R. MORRISON

Could the hon. and gallant Member say on whose behalf Mr. Smith was giving evidence?

Captain GEE

Very likely I could, but I suggest that if the hon. Member is as interested in this matter as the is supposed to be, he is quite as capable of reading the Report as I am, especially as it is to be obtained gratis from the Vote Office. Mrs. Matthew is another paid official of one of the humanitarian societies. They say: Mrs. Matthew proved herself a most difficult witness, inasmuch as she made vague charges, not only against the port veterinary inspectors, but also against the Ministry itself, which she was in no way able to substantiate. It goes on to refer to another pamphlet issued by another defence society which used these words: Blinded and shattered pit ponies, cast Army horses and those too painfully diseased to be seen in England are being roughly shipped to the Continent, and they say, Not only is this statement untrue, but it is the reverse of truth. … We regard it as most discreditable that pamphlets of this character should be issued to the public … Such pamphlets as the one referred to cause needless pain and anxiety to humane people who have not the time and opportunity themselves to investigate the conditions of the trade. I may give one more quotation, and I only wish that all the Members of this House could read all the report and the evidence: We desire to add that the campaign which has been conducted in recent years by the humanitarian societies in connection with the traffic in the export of horses to the Continent has been based very largely on a state of things which has ceased to exist. It is our proud boast in this country that our law is no respecter of persons.

Day by day in our criminal courts we see the poor and needy, who are in dire distress and need, prosecuted for obtaining donations by false pretences, and they are sent to prison. I would like to ask the hon. Member who is to reply for the Government if it is intended that our law is to deal thus with the poor and needy, while those who beg from palatial offices, and who can secure high salaries for themselves, are to go scot free. If so, that is not my idea of British law and justice. There is a very salutary practice in our civil courts whereby, when His Majesty's judges are investigating any commercial transaction, and they have found evidence of fraud, the papers are impounded and forwarded to the Public Prosecutor. Such an example as this is sufficient precedent for the Minister of Agriculture to send the information and papers which he possesses to the Public Prosecutor, with a view to getting a thorough inquiry into the working and finances of these self-styled humanitarian organisations; and, by doing this, I believe that we shall take the first step towards putting a check upon these societies, which do nothing more nor less than traffic in human beings.

Mr. HAYDAY

I am rather sorry that Parliamentary business will not permit of more time being given, since this very important subject, if left in its present state, might be misrepresented to the British public. There is only one alternative, and that is, if any special arrangement can be made to place the minutes of the evidence before that Committee within the reach of every citizen. If that could be done, not at the price of 30s., but for something like a half-a-crown, I am certain that the minutes of evidence themselves would be ample justification for the very definite nature of the Report. I am not in any sense going to discredit the general usefulness of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, but I am going to suggest that there is such a thing as being over-zealous and prejudicially blind to facts as they presented themselves to that Committee, which sat for so long a time.

I am sure that no one will accuse any member of that Committee of Inquiry of having any desire other than to probe to the bottom the export trade in horses. As a member of that Committee, in common with others, I can say that our determination, when we originally met, was not to be satisfied after merely taking evidence, but to see things for ourselves, as far as we could. In company with various members of the Committee at different times we went to the docks and saw the horses brought there. It had been declared that the horses had no adequate shelter and were never watered. We saw the permanent arrangements—not temporary arrangements—for the horses resting under cover, for drink being made available. We witnessed the examination, saw the horses put aboard the ship for conveyance, travelled with them on the same boat, visited the horses during the passage of the boat across the North Sea, saw them unloaded, saw them placed in charge of the authorities on the other side, saw them taken to the stabling near the abattoirs, and traced the thing right through on more than one occasion.

In some pamphlets it is alleged that these visits were known, that everything was prepared, and that we only saw those things that it was deemed advisable we should see. I question that. I think we were all men of ordinary sense, and our visits were not blazoned forth. I made up my mind on the Friday night to go at eight o'clock on the Saturday morning, and another member of the Committee accompanied me. I have been in one of these places with another member of the Committee, and I have seen the slaughtering taking place without a permit when we were actually trespassers. We returned after we had got a permit and saw the same method pursued. I cannot but regret that the societies could not accept the Report of the Committee with a large amount of pleasure and congratulation to think that the traffic in horses is so wonderfully improved. I will venture to say on the Floor of the House that horses are rejected at the ports as unfit for work or travel without unnecessary pain, and horses can be returned and are returned to work in our own streets here in such condition that they are declared not fit for the export trade. No blind horses had ever been passed for transhipment abroad in connection with this trade. It is true that a considerable amount of the evidence submitted to us was gathered from sources where the desire rather surmounted the practicability of definite inquiry being made. I have no hesitation in saying that the film depicts a state of affairs not common to the traffic at all, and does not in any sense represent the general conditions. There can be no more sorry sight than a society claiming to exist for the prevention of cruelty condemning a custom, and then agreeing that Pathé Frères should be engaged to take a film—that men should be paid to kill a horse, in a fashion that was said to be the common practice, in such circumstances that women and children were able to witness the agony of the horse while the film operator was taking the film.

I have no desire to prolong discussion. All I need say is that I am very sorry the Department fixed the price of the Minutes of Evidence at 30s. That is, no doubt, justified on the ordinary scale of charges for such volumes, but, since pamphlets have been issued which only deal with the Report, and give excerpts from the Minutes, it would be better for the peace of mind of the general public that the full volume should be brought within their purchasing power. If they could see the evidence, I am sure the public would feel more confidence that the result of the inquiry gave them the assurance that, whatever might have been said of the export trade in horses prior to 1921 or 1922, it could not be said of the traffic now, and that the traffic is conducted now under as humane conditions as it is possible for one to conceive a traffic of that kind being carried on.

Major Sir HARRY BARNSTON (Controller of the Household)

I commence the very few remarks I am going to make by expressing my regret that there is no one to reply who is directly connected with the Ministry of Agriculture. I should like also to say, as I said in answer to a question, that my right hon. Friend has had no time at all to consider this Report and make up his mind what he should do or what he ought to do as regards the action the humanitarian societies take. I think the House will agree that it is perfectly scandalous that the feelings of humane people who love animals should be misled by pamphlets and statements which have no foundation at all and which, in most cases, have been proved to be absolutely untrue. I was going to read what the Committee said as regards that, but my hon. and gallant Friend has already done so, and it will suffice for me to say that the Committee reported that they considered these pamphlets and statements were most discreditable to the societies concerned. My hon. and gallant Friend suggested that legal proceedings should be taken against these societies. I should, in the first place, like the House thoroughly to grasp what was the nature of this Departmental Committee. There was nothing of party about it. My hon. Friend the Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday) was on the Committee for the party opposite; the hon. and learned Member for South Shields (Mr. Harney) represented the party that sits below the Gangway opposite, and the hon. Member for Newark (Marquess of Titchfield) represented, I presume, the party to which I have the honour to belong. They had the advantage of the presence of Lady Emmott, the Earl of Haddington, and a very well-known veterinary surgeon. That Committee was presided over by Major J. W. Hills. Many of us had the privilege for many years of being in this House with Major Hills, and anyone who served here and know him here, no matter to what party he belongs, realises that he was one of the most humane and kind-hearted of men and one of the best fellows that any man ever knew. That being so, I cannot help thinking it is impossible to imagine that anyone would be so foolish as to be taken in after reading the report issued by the Committee to whom, I think, the whole country ought to be grateful for the trouble which they took.

Let me for one moment speak of the work of the Committee. The export of horses is governed by two Acts of Parliament, and the effect of the provisions of these Acts is that no horse may be shipped to Europe unless it is certified by a veterinary inspector of the Ministry as "fit to be conveyed and disembarked without cruelty and also fit to work without suffering." The Committee came to the definite conclusion that it was incorrect to say that unfit horses had been allowed to be exported, and that, generally speaking, the standard demanded for an export horse was greater than that demanded for a working horse in this country. Then the Committee proceeded from that to say that these horses travelled by sea under conditions which were all right. I have not time to go on, at this late hour, into what they say in the Report, which everyone can read for themselves, but may I mention this? Shipping companies are required to report on casualties which occur on the voyage, and, during the four years 1921–24, 105,773 horses were carried, and the total casualties were only 135.

Then the Committee also went very carefully into the question of the abattoirs and the way the horses were destroyed. One point has been mentioned several times to-night, namely, the price at which the evidence can be bought, 30s. My hon. Friend said he was sorry that price had been fixed. That, of course, has nothing to do with the Ministry of Agriculture. The net cost of printing alone was £357, and on the general principle in operation in the Stationery Office the selling price of the Minutes of Evidence should have been 45s. The price was specially reduced to 30s. a copy, that is, by one-third. In view of the nature of the publication, I understand that the Government—and that, of course, means the Treasury—cannot agree to any further reduction; but I am bound to point out that the Report of the Committee is on sale, that it is very interesting to read, and can be bought at the price of one shilling. I do not want to detain the House, but I think I am justified in saying that we hope these societies in future will be more careful about their statements and about their facts.

These untrue stunts do not do anybody, least of all the poor animals, the least good. I am sure every man in this House is as anxious as he can be that all animals, and especially horses, should be treated with that kindness which their noble nature demands from us all, and I think the House is grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend for having raised this discussion, which I trust will permeate the country, and dispose of false statements and false facts.

Sir ROBERT SANDERS

I desire to thank the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Bosworth (Captain Gee) for having brought this matter forward. I hope it will not be left where it is, A very serious accusation has been made against a society which has done good work in the past. That society has, in so many words, been accused of having published statements known to be false for the purpose of collecting subscriptions from people on whose feelings it worked by the strongest possible means. I hope some way may be found by which that society will be given the opportunity of explaining to the public, to whom, I think, it owes that explanation, the reasons why it acted in this particular way, leaving the public to judge whether that explanation is or is not sufficient.

Captain BOWYER

May I ask my hon. and gallant Friend one question? I speak as one upon whom all this has come as a great shock. Reference has been made to humanitarian societies. Would it not be fairer to say whether those humanitarian societies mainly consist of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals? Are there other societies, and, if so, what are they called? I cannot gather, in the time I have had to look at the Report, whether the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals were involved, or other societies of which I can see two mentioned, and I really think, in justice to the societies themselves, the Minister might say whether all are equally involved, or whether some are more to blame.

Sir H. BARNSTON

In answer to that, if my hon. and gallant Friend will look at page 27 of the Report he will see, I think, that the worst pamphlet was issued by the National Equine Defence League, but other societies are also mentioned.

It being Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Order of the House of 16th November.

Adjourned at Half after Eleven o'Clock.