PROTECTION OF ANIMALS BILL. (Hansard, 17 July 1911)

LORD SAYE AND SELE
My Lords, I need not weary your Lordships with a long speech in moving the Second Reading of this Bill. It is for the most part a consolidating Bill to obviate difficulties which have been experienced in administering the various Acts for the protection of animals from cruelty. The Bill has arrived from another place having met with practically no opposition there. The new provisions in the Bill which are not contained in previous Acts are as follows. The maximum penalty for cruelty is increased from £5 to £25, and the maximum imprisonment from three months to six months; power is given to a Court to order the destruction in certain circumstances of unfit animals; uniform conditions are laid down for the conduct of knacker's yards; provision is made that spring traps are to be visited at stated intervals; and there is an extension of the powers of the Board of Agriculture with respect to the making of Orders. That practically represents all the amendments that are introduced in this Bill save a few of a drafting and consequential nature. The Bill has, I understand, the full approval of the Board of Agriculture, and I may mention that it does not touch in any way either upon vivisection or upon sport. I beg to move the Second Reading.

§ LORD NEWTON
My Lords, the noble Lord has introduced a Bill containing eighteen clauses and occupying eleven pages, and he appears to think that it is a matter almost unworthy of any explanation at all. I venture to submit that the observations of the noble Lord are entirely inadequate. Personally I have not had any opportunity of considering the Bill. The noble Lord tells us that it is an amending Bill only, and that it has the approval of the Board of Agriculture. I do not see the noble Earl who represents the Board of Agriculture in his place. Unless the noble Lord is prepared to give some further explanation of this Bill, I propose to move that the debate be adjourned.

LORD HERSCHELL
My Lords, perhaps I ought to say one word on behalf of the Home Office with regard to this Bill. As the noble Lord who moved the Second Reading has stated, it is practically a consolidating Bill, with the exception of the provisions which he mentioned; and as such, of course, it will obviously be of great benefit, for it will be the means of consolidating in one Act nine, I think, existing minor Acts. The Home Office are in entire sympathy with the objects of the Bill, although, of course, they are not responsible for the drafting. At the same time in another place before the Committee stage the Home Office had some criticisms to make on certain of the new provisions in the Bill, principally those relating to arrest, and all their criticisms were met by Amendments which were made by the promoters of the Bill. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will see your way to give a Second Reading to this Bill.

§ LORD NEWTON
Perhaps the noble Lord will give us some explanation of the Bill. We have not had any from the noble Lord who moved the Second Reading.

LORD SAYE AND SELE
If the noble Lord will say what explanation he wants, I will endeavour to give it. I have stated what the amendments in the law are which the Bill proposes. As to the rest of its provisions, they simply consolidate other Acts and make the law simple. I do not know what further information the noble Lord wants.

§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE
I have no doubt the House will be in sympathy with the objects of this Bill, which are of a kind that commend themselves to all humanely-minded people; but I think the noble Lord who introduced it is hardly justified in presenting it to the House as a consolidation measure and nothing more, because by his own admission at several points it tightens up the law considerably. The scope of the Bill is immense. It deals with a great number of multifarious subjects. It touches the much vexed question of vivisection and the equally vexed question of stag-hunting. Then there are provisions for the regulation of knacker's yards, and with reference to the use of poisonous substances for destroying vermin—a matter which has given rise. I believe, to considerable attention in Ireland. There are also provisions preventing the use of dogs for the purposes of draught, provisions relating to the inspection of traps, and a whole host of other intricate provisions of one kind or another.
May I be allowed to express the hope that attention will be paid to the drafting of the Bill? It contains one or two most extraordinary provisions to which I should like to call attention for a moment. If your Lordships will look at the last subsection of Clause 10—the clause dealing with injured animals—you will see that the expression "animal" therein is to mean "any horse, mule, ass, bull, sheep, goat, or pig." But if you look a little further on you will find a fresh definition in Clause 14. This fresh definition says that the expression "animal" means "any domestic or captive animal." One would have thought that that was sufficient to cover the ground. But then comes a further paragraph explaining again that the expression "domestic animal" means "any horse, ass, mule, bull, sheep, pig, goat," and so on; and further on in the same clause one comes upon this extraordinary statement—that the expression "bull" includes "any cow, bullock, heifer, calf, steer, or ox." One is quite prepared to find that the word "horse" is to include any mare or gelding, or that the word "sheep" is to include lamb, or that the word "goat" includes a kid, or that the word "dog" includes the female of the species; one might even tolerate the statement that the word "fowl" includes peacocks, swans, and pigeons; but when 498 you come to the climax, that the word "bull" is to include a cow, calf, or bullock, that seems to me to be definition run mad. But that is, after all, perhaps rather a trivial matter. I would like the noble Lord to tell us something if he can to-night about Clause 11, which deals with the powers of constables. Clause 11 apparently gives very wide powers to constables. and I rather think from what the noble Lord said that that is not mere consolidation but something new. Am I right?

§ LORD NEWTON
He does not know.

§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE
The clause as it stands says that— A police constable may apprehend without warrant any person who he has reason to believe is guilty of an offence under this Act which is punishable by imprisonment without the option of a fine. and a constable may do this— upon his own view thereof or upon the complaint and information of any other person. Will the noble Lord tell us what is meant by the expression, "any offence under this Act which is punishable by imprisonment without the option of a fine"? for I find throughout the Bill that the punishment awarded is almost invariably a fine. It is only in the clause dealing with cruelty to injured animals that in certain. cases a person convicted is liable to a fine not exceeding £25—that we understand is new, the fine having been increased from £5 to £25—or alternatively or in addition thereto to be imprisoned with or without hard labour for any term not exceeding six months. What we should like to know is whether these very extensive powers given to constables under Clause 11 are powers which can be exercised against any person who is suspected of any offence whatever under the second clause of the Bill. I hope the noble Lord will enlighten us upon that point, and if he is not able to do so this evening I would suggest that your Lordships might allow the Bill to have its Second Reading, but we certainly should be entitled to cross-examine the noble Lord somewhat severely on some of these points when we reach the Committee stage.

§ THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (EARL CARRINGTON)
I have to apologise to the House for not being in my place when the Second Reading of this Bill was moved, but I had to change after taking part 499 in the introduction of two new Peers in your Lordships' House. I am very glad that the noble Marquess opposite has consented to the Bill being given a Second Reading. No doubt some of the clauses will require consideration. I would remind the House that this was brought in by the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and though no doubt it may be amended in some small particulars, yet the object of the Bill is so good that I venture to hope the noble Marquess's suggestion will be agreed to and that my noble friend will be allowed to obtain the Second Reading.

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE
My Lords, there is one point in this Bill to which I desire to call your Lordships' attention. It has only been brought to my notice this morning, but it is a point which is relative to this discussion. Though this Bill is recommended to us as a consolidating Bill, it applies to Ireland and makes a very great change in the law in that country. I refer to subsection (b) of Clause 6, which makes it illegal to put down poison if there is any danger of access being had to that poison by any dog, cat, fowl, or other domestic animal. Occupiers of land in Ireland have very stringent powers in regard to putting down poison after advertising and complying with certain conditions, but I understand that this Bill would take away those powers. It is absolutely necessary in a grazing country like Ireland that this power should exist, and the lot of the Irish cattle-owner and sheep-owner would be almost impossible if this Bill were passed in its present form. As I understand, when the Bill was originally introduced in another place it contained a provision safeguarding the rights which are now enjoyed in Ireland, but that provision was struck out, in the absence, I believe, of Irish Members, on the motion of hon. gentlemen representing English constituencies. I have received representations from different parts of Ireland asking that consideration may be given to this point, with a view to an Amendment being made in your Lordships' House so as to restore the Bill to its original position in this respect. I have thought it well in view of the discussion that has taken place this afternoon, to mention this point as I know that several noble Lords from Ireland will interest themselves in the matter when the Bill reaches another stage.

LORD SAYE AND SELE
The provision to which the noble Earl has just referred was not in the Bill as it was introduced in the House of Commons, but an Amendment was inserted bringing in Ireland. With regard to the noble Marquess's question about police constables, I am afraid I have not sufficient legal knowledge to turn it up at a moment's notice, but my impression is that the provision regarding police constables which the noble Marquess read is exactly as it appears in the original Act.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN
Your Lordships are well aware that the most dangerous description of a Bill is that it is a consolidation Bill unless it is very fully explained what changes the Bill proposes to make in the existing law. I did not hear very distinctly the answer which the noble Lord gave a moment ago to the noble Marquess. If I caught correctly his words, I understood him to say that the provision which is to be found in Clause 11 is to be found in the existing law. Is that so?

LORD SAYE AND SELE
I believe that is so.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN
We were also told that the Bill has the full approval of the Board of Agriculture, but the President of the Board apparently does not know very much about the contents of the Bill. All he knows of this Bill, of which he is said so thoroughly to approve, is that its object is a good one; at least that is all he told us. But he added that no doubt with regard to details the Bill will require considerable alteration. I would ask the noble Earl whether he will make himself responsible for the necessary improvements in the drafting of the Bill, or otherwise whether be will be so good as to withhold his consent at the further stages. If what is meant is merely that the noble Earl personally has no objection to the provisions in the Bill, then I think it ought not to be said that the Bill has the full approval of the Board of Agriculture.
There is another point, though I do not know that I am wise in alluding to it. It is stated that this Bill is not to apply to Scotland. It appears to have excited some commotion in Ireland, to which it is made to apply, and I suppose that Scotland 501 on this occasion ought to be very thankful for small mercies and to congratulate itself on being omitted; but I should like to ask what is the reason for the Bill being made to apply to Ireland and not to Scotland. Is it that the law in Scotland is different? I should, like to have an answer to that question.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
I rise to make a suggestion by way of saving your Lordships' time. This is one of a class of Bills, of which we have known a great many, which are partly consolidation and partly other. As a general rule Parliament does not care to reconsider what is already part of the law unless there is reason to believe that the law has not worked properly. Therefore it is a pure waste of time for us to consider provisions which are already law, but there are no means on the face of this Bill of seeing what portion of it is part of the existing law and what is not. I have before suggested that it would shorten matters considerably if there was a difference in the type or some other indication in these Bills to show what is new and what is not new. I do not know whether I might make that suggestion again to the noble Lord in charge of this Bill and to the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture.

LORD HERSCHELL
With the leave of the House, I should like to tell the noble Earl who raised the question of Scotland that Scotland has been left out of the Bill owing to the difference in Scottish legal procedure.

§ EARL CARRINGTON
This is no doubt, my Lords, a very valuable Bill. It has passed through the House of Commons, and. I shall be very pleased to do what I can to help my noble friend behind me in getting it through your Lordships' House. At the same time I should like to say, the House having been very good-natured to me personally in passing consolidation Bills, that I will pledge myself in regard to this Bill that no new matter shall be introduced. I understand that this is simply a Consolidation Bill.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN
No.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
We understand very differently; but I think it would be quite sufficient at this stage 502 if the noble Earl would be kind enough to assure the House that when the Bill comes before us in Committee there shall be an indication on the face of the Bill, either by a difference in the print or by a Memorandum or in some other way, as to what is new matter and what is purely consolidation.

§ EARL CARRINGTON
That is what I meant to assure your Lordships, but I expressed myself badly.

LORD SAYE AND SELE
May I again state, for the information of noble Lords opposite, that the new matter in this Bill is as follows. The maximum penalty for cruelty is increased from £5 to £25, and the maximum imprisonment from three months to six months; power is given to a Court to order the destruction in certain circumstances of unfit animals; uniform conditions are laid down for the conduct of knacker's yards; provision is made that spring traps are to be visited at stated intervals; and there is an extension of the powers of the Board of Agriculture with respect to the making of Orders. I believe there is nothing further in this Bill that is not in old enactments and therefore the law of the land at this moment.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN
I would point out that the power which the noble Lord says is given to destroy animals is given, not to a Court, but to a constable.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD LOREBURN)
I fully admit that Consolidation Bills containing new matter are Bills which require watching. I think it would be advisable if a Memorandum could be arranged before the Committee stage explaining clearly what is new in this Bill and what is purely consolidation.

§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE
The noble and learned Lord's suggestion would meet our views entirely. I hope the noble Lord in charge of the Bill will in particular make quite sure that Clause 11 which gives this power to constables does not contain new matter. I am under the impression that the clause was amended in the House of Commons, and that it does contain new matter.