PERFORMING ANIMALS BILL. [H.L.] (Hansard, 3 April 1924)

§ LORD DANESFORT

My Lords, I beg to move the Second Reading of a Bill entitled: "An Act to regulate the exhibition and training of performing animals." This is a Bill which is, or ought to be, I think, quite non-contentious. What has already happened in this regard is this. A Bill for this purpose was introduced in another place last Session. It was read a second time and sent to Grand Committee. At first it was somewhat strenuously opposed in Grand Committee by persons representing what I might call professional interests—the variety artistes and others. But after a full discussion, and after certain concessions had been made by those in charge of the Bill, it ultimately emerged from Grand Committee as an agreed measure, the opposition having been withdrawn. But for the Dissolution of Parliament, which happened shortly afterwards, I think there is very little doubt that it would have been read a third time in another place, and passed.

May I say at once that the present Bill is identical with that agreed Bill, except on two relatively small points to which I will call your Lordships' attention presently? When I speak of an agreed Bill I do not mean to suggest, of course, that your Lordships are not fully entitled to deal with it in any way you like. I merely mention it as showing that the opposition—and practically the only opposition in the other House was of a professional nature—was withdrawn in the circumstances to which I have already alluded.

May I tell your Lordships very shortly how this Bill originated? In February, 1922, a Select Committee of the House of Commons was appointed to inquire into this subject. I was a member of that Committee which took a very large amount of evidence of all sorts from those who supported, and those who opposed, any regulation of these performances. Ultimately, we made a Report in May, 1922. I need not trouble your Lordships with any lengthy extract from that Report, but may I read just two passages which I think will show how the Bill came into existence. In paragraph 8 of the 148 Report your Lordships will find this statement:— Your Committee are convinced that there have been in the past, and certainly still are, many cases of ill-treatment and wanton cruelty in the training and performances of animals, but they also realise that in the large majority of cases the best results obtained in training are effected by kind and patient treatment. On the other hand, a callous trainer will endeavour to attain his object by inspiring his pupil with fear of bodily suffering. Then, I think it is only fair, in the interests of those who train and exhibit these animals, to read the following passage from paragraph 18 of the Report:— Your Committee are impressed with the honest and genuine desire of the profession to eliminate every possibility of cruelty and ill-treatment from their exhibitions of performing animals, and with their willingness to co-operate with the societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals in restricting performances to such as will meet with general approval. And the Committee expressed their opinion that the exhibition of performing animals should not be prohibited, but that measures should be taken for the better supervision of trainers, training establishments, and animal performances, and that the penalties imposed hitherto had been found to be inadequate.

In those circumstances, a Bill founded in substance upon these recommendations was introduced in another place in February, 1923. It was supported by representatives of all Parties in that House, and in March of last year was read a second time by a very large majority; I think the numbers were 169 to 35. I am glad to say that the Home Office of that day gave it their approval, and I am disposed to think that the Home Office of the present day will do likewise. As I have told your Lordships, that Bill was sent to Grand Committee and emerged eventually as an agreed measure.

Now may I call your Lordships' attention very shortly to the general provisions of the Bill? There are those who think, I have no doubt, that the Bill might have been more drastic in character. When it was first introduced it was of a more drastic type, but owing to the concessions that were made in Committee with a view of getting an agreed Bill, certain clauses were eliminated. But it is the hope of those who are now interested in it that, even as it stands, it will operate not to prevent all performances—that is not its 149 object—but to regulate performances and to eliminate the element of cruelty.

Clause 1 of the Bill provides for the registration of exhibitors and trainers, and that such registration shall take place with the local authority. Clause 2 provides that a court of summary jurisdiction, subject to an appeal to Quarter Sessions, may deal with cases where the training or exhibition comes into those categories which ought to be prohibited. Clause 3 is important because it gives a power which is not possessed at present, and the absence of which I venture to think is very largely responsible for some of the evils which now exist. The clause gives to a constable, or any official of a local authority duly authorised in that behalf, authority to enter at all reasonable times and inspect any premises in which any performing animals are being trained, kept or exhibited. But there is a restriction upon that—namely, that no such constable or official shall be entitled under the clause to go on or behind the stage during a public performance of performing animals. That provision was put in for reasons which I need not give in detail; but it was represented that if there was an inspection behind the stage during the performance it might lead to confusion and unpleasant results.

Clause 4 imposes certain penalties for such things as failure to register, and failure to comply with an order of the Court, such as I indicated, made under Clause 2. It imposes penalties upon people who obstruct various persons from entering or inspecting a place of exhibition or training. The penalties imposed are fines not exceeding £50. In the latter part of the clause there is an alternative or additional penalty imposed upon people who violate the provisions of the Bill, which appears to me quite a reasonable one—namely, that any person who so violates the provisions of the Bill is liable to have his name removed from the register. Clause 5 merely gives power to the Secretary of State to make rules for prescribing anything which has to be prescribed under the Act. Clause 6 makes provision for applying the Bill to Scotland with the proper modifications.

One of the matters which I told your Lordships is new appears in Clause 7, because there was no clause in the agreed Bill corresponding to Clause 7 in this Bill. Clause 7 is of the nature of a definition 150 clause, showing to what character of animals the words "performing animals" are to be confined, and it reads in this way:— This Act shall not apply to the training or exhibition of any animal trained or exhibited or used for military, police, agricultural, or sporting purposes. I think this clause is necessary, though many of us were of the view that the words "performing animals" have practically got a technical meaning, and, in point of fact, all the evidence that was taken during our Inquiry bad reference only to animals which performed on a stage, or in a circus, or in that class of exhibition. But it was pointed out to us, and especially has it been pointed out to me since the Bill was before the House of Commons, that some courts, less reasonable than others, might take it into their heads that this clause is aimed against the training or exhibition of any animal which performs in public, and consequently that the Bill might affect the training of an animal for the "Grand National." We have met that very point, as I venture to think, by Clause 7.

No one imagines for a moment that when we were dealing with animals performing on the stage we were going to prohibit the training of an animal for the "Grand National," or indeed for any other race, or were going to prevent an animal from being trained as a hunter. Nor did anyone suppose that we were going to prevent a dog being trained as a setter, or pointer, or retriever. Therefore these words have been carefully chosen, as your Lordships will see if you will kindly look at them, for the purpose of preventing the Bill operating against horses being trained for military purposes, whether in war or in peace. Nor are we going to interfere with the training or exhibition of animals for police purposes, such as police dogs. Nor are we going to interfere with horses which are used for exhibition at agricultural shows, or animals used for sporting purposes, whether they be dogs or horses. I do not suppose anyone would say that the term "sporting purposes" is not wide enough to cover such things as those to which I have referred—namely, the training of horses for races, or of dogs as retrievers, pointers or setters.

Clause 7, as it stands, would prevent the operation of the Bill against any of those classes of animals, and would con- 151 fine its operation to those animals which may be strictly called performing animals—animals that perform in circuses and on the stage. It has been, indeed, suggested to me that the Bill might be held to apply to animals that are exhibited in the Zoological Gardens. I do not think that possible, but it is a matter upon which I should be willing to take advice, and if, by any conceivable possibility, the Bill could be held to apply to lions and other animals exhibited in the Zoological Gardens I should be ready, and indeed glad, to introduce words into this clause to make it quite clear that the Bill has no such application.

The only other point to which I want to refer is the second one in regard to which this Bill differs from the agreed Bill as it emerged from the Grand Committee in the other House. In the second line of the first clause the word "public" has been inserted. The Bill as it came from Grand Committee in the other House read— No person shall exhibit for purposes of entertainment any performing animal, That obviously was a mistake, because no one imagined that we "were going to prohibit by this Bill the exhibition of a pet dog in a private drawing room, and it is just conceivably possible that unless the word "public" was inserted before "entertainment" it might have been held that an animal which was exhibited for private entertainment in a drawing room would fall within the prohibition of the Bill. No one desires or intends that that should be done.

I have told your Lordships the only two respects in which this Bill, as now introduced, differs from the Bill that was agreed, and I therefore beg to ask you to give it a Second Reading. In doing so may I summarise the three points that I have tried to make I The first is that it does not prohibit performing animals altogether. Secondly, I think it will be found that it imposes no undue restrictions upon any one who is carrying out his business in a proper and legitimate matter. Thirdly, it will impose regulations and restrictions only when cruelty—which it is the object of the Bill to prevent—exists in some shape or form. I beg to move.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 2^a.—(Lord Danesfort.)

VISCOUNT KNUTSFORD

My Lords, I hope we shall pass this Bill. The objections which the noble Lord has just raised can be quite easily met when we come to the Committee stage of the Bill. Personally, I dislike very much seeing beautiful animals, cither day after day or night after night, in uncongenial and unnatural surroundings, performing tricks, and I am always struck when I see them with the much greater dignity that there is in the animals than in the man whose commands they obey. But it would be a satisfaction to me to feel that there had been no cruelty in training these animals, and I think we ensure that by this Bill. Everybody who trains animals for public performances must register and be liable to inspection. I have seen a great number of trained animals, and I do not think they could have been trained by cruelty. The one thing an animal cannot disguise is fear, and when I have seen them perform I have never seen the slightest trace of fear in any animal that is doing its tricks.

I have had some experience in training animals, and being also a conjurer by profession, I can assure the noble Lord that the gold fish are not performing when I produce them from a hidden pocket behind my coat. It is I who am performing, not the gold fish. And the same with the rabbit when I produce it out of my pocket. The rabbit is not performing. I am performing. There is no reason why your Lordships should be alarmed at the proposal that all the gold fish I produce should be registered, or that my whole family need be registered also. The animals I have trained, and which other people have trained, are not taught by cruelty. You teach animals by taking advantage of their idiosyncrasies. I have a dog that you cannot keep out of the water if lie sees anything splashing in it. I do not need to take my gaff when I am fishing. The dog will always land my fish. I have another dog which is very fond of carrying things because he likes to have them taken from him. I could give him a note for the Lord Chancellor, and he would take it to the Lord Chancellor because he knows that the Lord Chancellor would take it from him. I have a dog that will not eat cake unless you call it a Banbury cake, But there are cruelties perpetrated 155 that we ought to have registered. I actually know a ruffian now who is training his dog, and whenever he says "Knutsford" the dog sits up and begs. A man who can perpetrate a crime like that should be registered. Let me say this in conclusion. Here is a Bill; if there is no cruelty then the Bill cannot do any harm at all; if there is cruelty then the Bill may be extremely useful, and for the sake of the animals it is quite right that we should pass it.