HC Deb 15 July 1952 vol 503 cc1961-3
26. Mr. Rankin

asked the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been called to the mauling by a tigress of an elephant in a circus at Glasgow on 25th June; and whether, in view of the natural antipathy that exists between the species concerned, he will institute proceedings against the circus proprietors, of whose name he has been informed, for cruelty contrary to the provisions of the Protection of Animals Act, 1911.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. J. L. Clyde)

I have caused inquiry to be made into the circumstances of the incident at the circus performance in Glasgow on 25th June last. Following on the incident, the animals were examined by an inspector of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and there was no sign of injury to either. Further, within an hour, both animals were examined by a veterinary surgeon who certified that there was no sign of injury to either of them and that they were both quite settled. He further certified that he had seen the act since, both in public performance and in training, and saw no evidence that the animals' normal relationship during the performance had been in any way altered. Consequently, there is no evidence to warrant proceedings being taken for a contravention of the Protection of Animals (Scotland) Act, 1912.

Mr. Rankin

Is the Lord Advocate aware that according to the Home Office, Mr. Chipperfield, who owns the circus, was registered for the first time for the training of this act on 24th June of this year—the day before the incident took place? Does he agree that a day is sufficient time for the training of these two animals in this particular performance? Secondly, is he aware that Mr. Johnson, who is supposed to be the trainer, holds no certificate for training but only for exhibiting to the public. Thirdly, if he agrees that there is no cruelty in training these animals, has he investigated the type of weapon that is used, of which I have an example here?

Mr. Speaker

Order. This is an abuse of Question time. Other hon. Members have Questions to put.

Mr. Rankin

On a point of order. Surely it is perfectly legitimate and in order for me to put three supplementary questions which arise directly from the answer which has been supplied?

Mr. Speaker

I have to protect other hon. Members from too long supplementary questions.

Mr. Rankin

On a point of order. I have put three supplementaries to the Question which I have on the Order Paper. Surely I am entitled to an answer to those three supplementary points? I should like your Ruling on that, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker

If the hon. Member would sit down he would probably get an answer.

The Lord Advocate

I am very much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving me an opportunity to answer this Question. None of the three supplementary questions arise out of the original Question, but if the hon. Member would be good enough to supply me with the offensive weapon and with any of the allegations which are made against these people, I should certainly undertake to investigate the matter.

Sir H. Williams

On a point of order. Is it proper to bring a lethal weapon into the Chamber?

Mr. Speaker

It is not proper to bring a weapon of any sort into the Chamber. I cannot tell whether or not the object which the hon. Member has is a weapon. I have ruled on the point of order. I cannot distinguish the instrument from here.

Mr. Bence

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that quite recently at Craigend Castle Zoo, Milngavie, a boy, Henry McMurtrie, was severely mauled by a leopard and lost an arm as a consequence? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman take the necessary steps to see that sufficient means are provided at this particular zoo to protect visitors from the possible attentions of these animals?

The Lord Advocate

I have power to interfere only if there is a breach of a statute; but I shall certainly look into the case to which the hon. Member refers, and if there is any breach of the provisions of that statute of 1912 I shall certainly take up the matter.