ANIMALS (ANÆSTHETICS) BILL. (Hansard, 7 July 1919)

§ EARL STANHOPE

My Lords, by the Cruelty to Animals Act no operation which is likely to cause pain may be performed on an animal for the purposes of experiment or research unless an anæsthetic is used, but in regard to operations which are not in the normal course of events for experiment or research it is not necessary to use an anesthetic at all. This Bill proposes to make good that omission.

It is said that this Bill is not necessary. A resolution has been passed against it in various parts of the country, in which the Bill is described as injurious and as being detrimental to the interests of stockholders. But if the Bill were not necessary it is quite obvious that resolutions of that character would not be passed. It would be absurd to say that any Bill making anésthetics compulsory for an operation on a human being was injurious to that human being, or detrimental to the interests of those concerned. Therefore it seems to me that it is absurd to say that this Bill is unnecessary when these phrases are used in regard to animals.

The Bill is quite a simple one. It preposes in Clause 1 subsection (2) that a horse, cat, dog, or bovine should not have the operations performed which are indicated in Schedules 1, 2, and 3, unless those animals are put under a general anésthetic, and that these animals should not be sub- 259 jected to the operations mentioned in Schedules 4,5, and 6 unless under a general or local anésthetic. Clause 1, subsection (2) (b) provides that horses two years old and over shall not be subjected to the operation of castration without a general anæsthetic. That is a clause with which I do not agree. I have had the opportunity of talking with veterinary surgeons and other practitioners who constantly do this operation, and it is very much in dispute as to whether that operation is not better performed standing up without an anæsthetic than when an animal is down.

In Clause 1 subsection (2) (e) it is laid down that no person shall administer an anésthetic, either general or local, who is not a veterinary surgeon or veterinary practitioner registered under the Acts of 1881 and 1900. That sub-clause would cut out some very valuable practitioners who, although very highly qualified, are not actually registered veterinary surgeons. Not only would it take away from them the means of livelihood but (what is of still more importance) they would be prevented from carrying out these operations—very difficult operations many of them—if this clause were passed. Many of these practitioners, although they are not registered, have been doing these operations for many years, and in some cases are among the most skilled operators that we have in the country. If your Lordships' give a Second Reading to this Bill I should propose to drop that sub-clause.

Clause 2 enacts that any person who is guilty of an offence under the Bill shall be liable on summary conviction in respect of the first offence to a sum not exceeding £5 and in respect of any second or subsequent offence to a sum not exceeding £25 and possibly a term of imprisonment not exceeding three months either in substitution or in addition to the £25. Clause 3 would enable the Board of Agriculture to add other domestic animals to those mentioned in the Bill upon whom operations could not be carried out without an anésthetic, and would also enable them to add further operations if they so desired. It also lays on the Board of Agriculture the duty of saying what particular drugs are to be considered as local or general anæsthetics. The draft of any such order would be published for two months before it could come into operation, and a copy of it would be laid on the Table of both Houses of Parliament, and would only come 260 into effect if neither House objected to it after it had lain on the Table of both Houses for a period of not less than thirty days during which the House was sitting. Clause 4 contains merely definitions of no great importance, and Clause 6 applies the Bill to the whole of the United Kingdom. Then we come to the Schedules, to which I have already referred.

I see that my noble friend Lord Strachie has a Motion on the Paper to refer the Bill to a Select Committee. Personally I have no objection to that course, except for one reason. Private Members' Bills in another place very often have little chance of getting through, and if the Select Committee were to hang up this Bill for a considerable period it would only return to another place late in the session, when, I am afraid, the Bill might be lost; and, as this Bill has passed through the whole of its stages in another place already, that would be a great misfortune, as it is a Bill which, I am sure all your Lordships would wish, at any rate in principle, to see carried out at the earliest possible moment. I understand that His Majesty's Government are inclined to favour the appointment of a Select Committee, and I hope that if the House agrees to take that course the Government will ensure that time is given in another place and facilities afforded in order that this valuable Bill may be passed into law. Otherwise I am bound to say I hope your Lordships will feel that the Bill should go through in the ordinary way, and that we should amend it as I have suggested in Committee, and if your Lordships consider that other Amendments are also necessary I should be only too glad to consider them.

Although there have been a certain number of resolutions passed against this Bill, particularly perhaps one by the Royal Agricultural Society, I think they passed that resolution without full knowledge of the Bill; in fact, it is quite clear from the Report of the Council, which I have beside me. I understand now that they are in favour of a Bill of this character being passed, particularly if the Amendments which I have already mentioned are made in the Bill. I therefore hope that your Lordships will be prepared to give the Bill a Second Reading, and that it will be pushed through during this session of Parliament so that it may become law as soon as possible.

§ THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD ERNLE)

My Lords, I am sure this is a Bill with the object of which the whole House will be in the fullest sympathy. It will alleviate no doubt a great deal of suffering which is caused to some animals who are essential to the preservation of human life, and to others which add so much to our pleasure and enjoyment and which give us in the fullest measure their love and their confidence. Therefore I hope that the House will read this Bill a second time.

We must take care, however, that the provisions in the Bill are really practicable, an I that we can bring the Bill into effect. If we do not take care on that point the Bill will probably defeat its own object. You will have operations which might alleviate and possibly remove the misery of the animal put off, and the animal left to linger in misery if you make them impracticable or too expensive. That is the only difficulty which the Government feel about this Bill; that as the Bill stands to-day we do not think that it could be carried out in considerable parts of Ireland and of Scotland, and even in some parts of England and Wales. As the noble Earl who moved the Second Reading has suggested, no doubt a particular clause might be dropped out; but I can assure him that even to do that, now that the question has once been raised, would be a matter of some difficulty; and it is with a view of seeing that the Bill is made practically workable that we desire to see it referred to a Select Committee.

At the same time I should like to say that we most emphatically wish the Committee to report as speedily as possible and to secure the immediate passage of the Bill. If I may put it to the House, there are some special circumstances about this Bill which rather make that course necessary. The Bill was introduced a good many years ago in a form that was approved by agricultural societies as well as by veterinary surgeons. This Bill as introduced into the House, of Commons and read a second time was in effect that Bill which had been so approved; but when it went to the Standing Committee it was very largely amended. This particular provision which has already been referred to was inserted, the scope of the Bill was enlarged, the number of operations was extended, and it was a somewhat different Bill which emerged from the Standing Committee. Yet when it came again before the House the 262 Memorandum describing the Bill remained unaltered, and was precisely the same as that which hall prefaced the Bill originally introduced. I cannot help thinking that this may have explained the fact that the Third Reading of the -Bill as amended by the Standing Conintittee—this Bill which had been so substantially altered—passed through sub silentio. Therefore I think that we should be in a better position to discuss this Bill satisfactorily if we had a Report upon it from a Select Committee. I would. remind your Lordships that the scope of the Inquiry is very narrow, that it would not take long to get such a Report, and that I see no reason why the Report should not be furnished and the Bill passed in the present Session. I support the Second Reading of the Bill.