PROTECTION OF ANIMALS (No. 3).

HC Deb 13 July 1938 vol 338 cc1335-8

Sir Robert Gower

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make it unlawful to have possession of any animal trained or prepared for use in fighting or baiting or of any instrument or appliance designed or adapted for use in connection with the fighting or baiting of any animal. In doing so I shall be brief, but it is necessary for me to give an explanation to the House. The Bill is promoted by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in order to tighten up the law against cock-fighting and to remove from existing legislation a defect which in practice has been found to be of real substance. Cock-fighting is cruel; it is very cruel. It involves intense pain and suffering to the unfortunate birds employed in it, and I suggest that it is degrading to those who witness it. Notwithstanding the fact that they are unlawful I regret to say that cock-fighting mains are not infrequently held in this country, but unfortunately they take place under conditions of such great secrecy that it is impossible in most cases to obtain any evidence upon which a prosecution can be based.

A few days ago I introduced a Bill dealing with the subject-matter of the present one. That Bill obtained a Second Reading and was referred to a Committee of the Whole House. It was subsequently represented to me by the Department of

my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Home Affairs that that Bill went too far, and that if it passed into law it might place innocent persons in jeopardy of conviction. I therefore withdrew it. The present Bill embodies Amendments framed by my right hon. Friend's Department with a view to making the Measure a practical and workable one. It provides that: If any person has in his possession (a) any animal trained or prepared for use in fighting or baiting; or (b) any instrument or appliance designed or adapted for use in connection with the fighting or baiting of any animal; he shall I desire specially to call the attention of the House to the following words: unless he satisfies the Court that it was not in his possession for the purpose of being used or permitted to be used as aforesaid, be guilty of an offence under this Section, and shall be liable, on summary conviction, to the penalties provided for in the Bill, they being the same as are provided for offences under the Protection of Animals Acts. There is, of course, a right of appeal. I wish to make it plain that if the Bill passes into law, once it has been established before a court that a person has in his possession any animal—which includes birds—trained or prepared for use in fighting or baiting, or any instrument or appliance designed or adapted for fighting or baiting, the onus of proof of unlawful purpose is removed from the prosecution and the onus is thrown upon the defendant to prove the contrary. I suggest that the circumstances in these cases are such as to make this provision reasonable. It is unnecessary for me to say that no prosecution would be brought against any individual unless there were very strong grounds for believing that the bird or the animal or the implement was in his possession for an unlawful purpose. Moreover, the Bill contains a provision framed for the purpose of protecting what, for want of a better expression, I term the legitimate poultry breeder. It is as follows: For the purpose of this Section a bird shall not be deemed to be trained or prepared for use in fighting or baiting by reason only that its comb or wattle has been removed. I understand that this provision has been inserted at the suggestion of the Department over which my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture presides. I do not think it is necessary for me to detain the House longer. I ask the House to give me leave to introduce the Bill and to facilitate its passing into law at an early stage, so that our hands may be strengthened in putting an end to an extremely cruel and degenerate so-called sport, which I am sure offends the conscience of every decent-minded individual.

Sir Arnold Wilson

I rise to oppose the Motion with no lack of appreciation of the great work done by my hon. Friend and by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. The House should be careful before it gives leave to introduce a Bill to replace one which was introduced only a week or so ago, which when examined was found to be liable to bring about the conviction of innocent parties. There has been very little cockfighting in England in recent years. The last prosecution of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals of men attending cock-fighting a few months ago was, in the opinion of the ordinary man in the street, a disgraceful and discreditable piece of work. There was an agent provocateur.

Sir R. Gower

That prosecution was not brought by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.

Sir A. Wilson

I beg the hon. Member's pardon and regret that I should have made the statement. The ground for the last prosecution was prepared at great expense by an agent provocateur who, having spent I think two years in getting into the confidence of cock-fighters, having himself kept, bought and sold cocks for fighting, was in a position to obtain sufficient inside knowledge to secure a conviction. I cannot believe that this is a Bill which ought to be allowed to pass or even to be presented, for the details of it, complicated as they are, suggest that there is at least equal liability of bringing innocent parties within its scope, and, moreover, it is vexatious. There are large numbers of game cocks kept for other purposes which could be used and which require little or no training to fight. This Bill contains possibilities of vexatious prosecutions, and the status and repute of those persons who undertook the last prosecution is not such, in my submission, as to justify this House making ordinary decent men liable to vexatious prosecutions for an offence which is now rare in any part of England. We have, Heaven knows, enough legislation to pass without being asked to waste our time upon a trifling matter of this sort, and without the smallest evidence being given that there is any appreciable amount of cock-fighting, or any need for the Bill. I trust that the House will refuse leave to bring in the Bill.

Question, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make it unlawful to have possession of any animal trained or prepared for use in fighting or baiting or of any instrument or appliance designed or adopted for use in connection with the fighting or baiting of any animal, put, and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir Robert Gower, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore, Sir George Jones, Mr. Rhys Davies, Mr. Mathers, Mr. Arthur Henderson, Sir Henry Haydn Jones, Mr. Lewis Jones, Mr. Groves, Sir Robert Bird, and Major Procter.

PROTECTION OF ANIMALS (No. 3) BILL, to make it unlawful to have possession of any animal trained or prepared for use in fighting or baiting or of any instrument or appliance designed or adapted for use in connection with the fighting or baiting of any animal," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, and to be printed.[Bill 216]