HL Deb 18 April 1923 vol 53 cc725-31

LORD STRACHIE rose to call attention to the Order of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (Importation of Canadian Cattle) Order, 1923; and to move, That this House regrets that the Order encourages the cruelty of spaying heifers by allowing them to be imported from Canada. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Order of the Ministry of Agriculture to which I desire to call attention is dated March 9, 1923. The specific point with which I wish to deal arises on the definition given in the first Clause of the Order: Canadian store cattle' means Canadian castrated male or spayed female bovine animals which are intended for feeding purposes and not for immediate slaughter. Last July this House was asked to give its opinion, in the form of a Resolution, whether Canadian stores should be introduced into this country. Your Lordships know that up to the passing of the Act which recently became law no store cattle could be imported from anywhere abroad.

The debate in your Lordships' House to which I have referred lasted for two days, because the Resolution proposed by those who were anxious for the admission of store cattle from Canada, was not generally accepted by the House. The debate was adjourned, and a day or two afterwards Lord Long, on behalf of Lord Harris, moved an Amendment stating that in the opinion of this House steers from the Dominions might be admitted to Great Britain subject to precautions by way of quarantine being taken. Not one word was said in that debate in favour of the admission of heifers to this country. There was practically an undertaking given by the authors of that proposal that only steers should be admitted from Canada.

During that debate Lord Long—I am sorry not to see the noble Viscount in his place—said: It has been suggested outside that this Amendment"— that is, Lord Long's own Amendment, confining the Motion entirely to steers— does not carry out the promise I made at the Imperial Conference of 1917 on behalf of the Government and that it is inconsistent with the remarks that I offered to your Lordships on a previous occasion. That statement is wholly incorrect. That quotation gives me the authority of the noble Viscount to say that the intention was merely to bring in steers, not heifers. It therefore seems to me very curious that the Ministry of Agriculture should have gone out of their way to insert this paragraph in the Order admitting spayed heifers as well as steers into this country. It may be said that the Imperial Conference demanded that, but no suggestion was made at the Imperial Conference of 1917 that heifers should be brought in. But, even if it had been, I cannot see why the Ministry of Agriculture should wish to go behind the compromise made in this House that only steers should be admitted into this country and not any other animal.

I should also like to point out as regards this operation, which I am perfectly justified in saying is a, most cruel operation indeed, that it is wrong for this country to encourage the importation of spayed heifers into this country, because it is a direct incentive to the Canadian farmer to spay heifers and to sterilise them. It may be said that this is not a very serious matter. In reply I may, perhaps, be permitted to quote the opinion of a very well known veterinary surgeon, Professor Penberthy, who writes as follows:— I think it is probably fair to assume that provision for exportation to Great Britain will entail the spaying of larger numbers. It cannot be doubted that the operation is a painful one and, as far as any increase in its practice is entailed to comply with the provisions of the Importation Order, the additional suffering must be attributed to it. I ask your Lordships whether the Minister of Agriculture is justified in giving opportunity for such additional suffering for no good reason at all.

Then I would remind your Lordships that the doing of this seems to be entirely contrary to the spirit of an Act which was passed, and which the Minister of Agriculture administers. I refer to the Animals (Anæsthetics) Act of 1919, which, as I say, is administered by the Minister of Agriculture. That Act provides that the operation of ovariotomy shall not be performed "unless the animal during the whole of the operation is under the influence of some general anæsthetic of sufficient power to prevent the animal feeling pain." The feeling in your Lordships' House in regard to the enforcement of that provision was so strong that a penalty of £5 for the first offence and a penalty of £25 for subsequent offences, with the addition, if the justices thought fit, of imprisonment for three months, was inserted. How can the Minister of Agriculture say whether or not anæsthetics are going to be administered in Canada? So far as I am aware, it is not the custom in that country to administer anæsthetics when heifers are spayed. Under this Order it will not be necessary for the Canadian farmer to use anæsthetics or to have a proper veterinary operation performed. It can be carried out in the roughest way, just as used to be the practice in this country a long time ago.

But I am glad to think that we are much more humane now in this country; that for all practical purposes the spaying of heifers has been done away with; that anybody doing it would be called to account, and that if he did it it would be absolutely necessary under the Act of 1919 for him to administer a general anæsthetic. But by this Order we are going to encourage the Canadian farmer to spay heifers and to send them to this country under conditions which would not be allowed here. I say, therefore, that this Order is not a desirable one and that in order to prevent cruelty in Canada this House should accept the Motion which I am making. We ought not to encourage spaying, and I ask this House to express its regret and not to encourage in another part of the Dominions a cruel practice which has been done away with practically in this country. I beg to move.

Moved, That this House regrets that the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (Importation of Canadian Cattle) Order of 1923 encourages the cruelty of spraying heifers by allowing them to be imported from Canada.—(Lord Strachie.)

THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF ANCASTER)

My Lords, I think the answer to the noble Lord's Question will be found in the Importation of Animals Act, 1922, which was passed by your Lordships just before Christmas. If the noble Lord will refer to Section 1 of that Act he will see that subsection (8) runs as follows:— In this Act the expression 'Canadian' in relation to any animal means 'born and reared in the Dominion of Canada,' and the expression 'store cattle' means castrated male or spayed female bovine animals which are intended for feeding purposes and not for immediate slaughter. That is the wording of the Act and, if I may say so, the proper occasion for raising this point was when that Bill was in Committee in your Lordships' House last winter. The present Order which has been issued by the Minister for carrying out that Act, is strictly in accordance with the Act which was passed some six months ago, and so far as I am aware, as regards the point raised by the noble Lord it contains nothing which conflicts with the Act. The Order that has been issued contains nothing new. It simply puts into force, and gives instructions for the carrying out of, the Act.

LORD STRACHIE

You were not obliged to do it.

THE EARL OF ANCASTER

There I must differ from the noble Lord. If we had not issued it we should not have been carrying out the instructions of Parliament as embodied in the Act of Parliament.

To pass to the other Question, I should like to say that I admit, and of course it is generally admitted, that this operation is a painful one. It is an operation as to which in this country, where we hold I am pleased to say humane views on all questions affecting animals, it is provided that an anæsthetic should be given. On the other hand, there is nothing in the Act or in this Order which would lead one to suppose—and I do not think the noble Lord has produced any argument or has offered your Lordships any reason for supposing—that this operation will be performed to any greater extent in Canada now that the Act is in operation than it was before. I am informed that at the present time a considerable number of heifers in Canada are spayed, owing to the fact that it prevents them giving trouble during the rutting season, and, of course, we in this country have no power to make regulations in regard to Canada. I have no answer to give the noble Lord, except to say that in this Order we are only carrying out the Act which your Lordships passed some six months ago. There is nothing new in it and nothing which has not received your Lordships' attention at a very recent date.

LORD LAMBOURNE

My Lords, I must associate myself with the remarks which have fallen from the noble Lord, Lord Strachie. It is perfectly true, as the noble Earl said, that we have no power to enforce the use of anæsthetics by Canadian farmers, but I very much regret that we should do anything to encourage cruelty, because this operation of spaying is one of the most painful that can possibly be imagined. So far as I know, no anæsthetics are used in Canada. There is enough cruelty at home for us to combat. I am always endeavouring to keep the British public informed as to the amount of that cruelty, and I very much regret that we should do anything here—though I know that we cannot prevent it absolutely—that is likely to encourage cruelty such as that which is likely to take place in Canada. Although some of the remarks of the noble Lord opposite may not have been perfectly accurate, I confess that I am glad that he has brought this matter forward in order that the people of this country may know the danger we are in of encouraging abroad cruelty which we deprecate at home.

THE EARL OF MAYO

My Lords, I think the reply of the noble Earl on behalf of the Government is quite unanswerable. It is provided in the Act that these spayed heifers can be imported into this country. Spaying, it is true, is an excessively cruel operation; but there must have been some very good reason for inserting the provision in the Act, and I think the reason is that we do not want contagious abortion—which is a very different thing from ordinary abortion—introduced into this country. That is the most terrible scourge you could possibly introduce into your milkers. If we must have heifers as stores brought into this country we must be protected in some way from that foul disease. It has come to my knowledge that breeding heifers are going to be introduced into Great Britain and Ireland, and if that is the case I can only say that I shall do my hest to oppose

the introduction in every possible way. If that is to be done there is no reason why we should not have that dreadful disease introduced into our dairy herds. To allow these breeding cattle to come here is in my view a most dangerous thing. I hope that everybody interested in our herds in every part of England, Scotland and Wales will do his best to oppose it. In the evidence which was given before Lord Finlay's Commission it was stated that this fell disease of contagious abortion was very bad indeed. I quite agree that the operation of spaying is a cruel one. I hope that the few words that have been said to-night will find their way to the Dominions, and show that we wish to stop this cruelty as much as possible, and at the same time that we will not have contagious abortion introduced into Great Britain and Ireland.

LORD STRACHIE

My Lords, I think it would have been better if the noble Earl had read the section which says "subject to the provision of this Act, Canadian store cattle may be introduced." That means that it is entirely optional on the part of the Minister of Agriculture. If that were not so, why should the Ministry issue an Order giving in detail all the conditions under which these animals may be introduced? It is entirely optional, and it is simply because the Minister of Agriculture does not mind this cruelty being practised on heifers that he does not take some steps. As regards the other point, I am sorry the noble Earl did not at least intimate that he was not willing to assent to the cruelty, and that he was going to ask the Canadian Government to see that no heifers were spayed abroad before being sent here unless they were operated upon under the same conditions as those which would prevail were they operated upon in this country.

On Question, Whether the Motion shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 13; Not-Contents, 42.

CONTENTS.
Northumberland, D. Clwyd, L. Lambourne, L. [Teller.]
Harrowby, E. Denman, L. Leigh, L.
Hampden, V. Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.) Marthyr, L.
Clinton, L. Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.) O'Hagan, L.
Strachie, L. [Teller.]
NOT-CONTENTS.
Salisbury, M. (L. President.) Malmesbury, E. Howard of Glossop, L.
Devonshire, D. Onslow, E. Hylton, L.
Bath, M. Searbrough, E. Lamington, L.
Curzon of Kedleston, M. Churchill, V. Lawrence, L.
Shaftesbury, B. (L. Steward.) Long, V. Montagu of Beaulieu, L.
Cromer, E. (L. Chamberlain.) Peel, V. Newton, L.
Albemarle, E. Anuesley, L. (V. Valentia.) Parmoor, L.
Ancaster, E. Askwith, L. Riddell, L.
Clarendon, E. [Teller.] Blyth, L. Somerleyton, L. [Teller.]
Dartmouth, E. Cottesloe, L. Southborough, L.
Derby, E. Daryngton, L. Stafford, L.
Ilchester, E. Dynevor, L. Stuart of Wortley, L.
Leven and Melville, E. Fairfax of Cameron, L. Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)
Lindsay, E. Glenarthur, L. Wyfold.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.