PERFORMING ANIMALS (No. 2) BILL. (Hansard, 2 April 1925)

§ LORD DANESFORT
My Lords, the object of this Bill is to prevent cruelty in the training or exhibition of performing animals. The Bill of which I now move the Second Reading has come from the House of Commons, where it was supported by members of all Parties 933 and passed through that House with unanimity. The Bill is the outcome of a Select Committee of the House of Commons which sat in 1922, being founded on the recommendations of that Committee. When it was first introduced into the House of Commons in 1922 it met with some opposition, but concessions were made which had the effect of disarming the opposition and now it is an agreed Bill. The Bill as it comes from the House of Commons is practically identical, except for some verbal alterations which were introduced to make its meaning clearer, with the Bill which passed the Second Reading in this House on April 3 last year, when the Second Heading was carried by a very large majority.
In these circumstances I do not think it would be respectful to this House, and possibly it might be a waste of time, if I were to repeat the speech that I made on the Second Reading last year; but perhaps I may be allowed to give your Lordships a summary of the Bill. There are three main points. Firstly, the Bill does not prohibit animals performing altogether; secondly, it will be found that it imposes no undue restriction upon any one who is carrying on his business in a proper and legitimate manner. In connection with that, I may say that those in the House of Commons who were interested in what may be called the theatrical or performing industry supported the Bill; indeed, the name of one of them was actually upon the Bill introduced into the House of Commons. The third point is this: The Bill imposes regulations and restrictions only when there is cruelty, which it is the object of the Bill to stop.
I venture to submit the Bill for the acceptance of your Lordships, and if any one should be anxious lest this Bill should prohibit the training, let us say, of a racehorse, or a pointer, or a setter, or some other kind of horse or animal used for military purposes, there is a clause in the Bill which removes any such apprehension. That clause is Clause 7, which says: This Act shall not apply to the training of animate for bona fide military, police, agricultural or sporting purposes, or the exhibition of any animate so trained. I beg to move.

LORD RAGLAN
My Lords, I moved the rejection of this Bill last year and I should like to say a few words upon it now. The noble Lord said that this was an agreed Bill, but he did not tell your Lordships the circumstances in which it came to be agreed. The genesis of this Bill, as I understand it, is as follows: Some four or five years ago a number of hysterical women suffragettes, being in search of an emotional appeal and having no excuse for burning down buildings or molesting the noble Earl opposite, formed themselves into bands and went round to circuses, where they howled and generally made themselves objectionable. Eventually they succeeded in getting the sympathy of the noble Lord and other members of the House of Commons and a Committee was set up. This Committee took evidence of alleged cruelty, but I venture to think that any noble Lord who reads the evidence with an unprejudiced mind will come to the conclusion that I reached—namely, that much of the evidence is very unreliable and that the whole of it is extremely unconvincing.
Nevertheless, so much countenance and publicity was given to this evidence and to these accusations by the noble Lord and his friends, that people began to believe that you could not train animals to perform the simplest tricks without a great deal of cruelty and torture. The business of trainers has suffered very much in consequence. Therefore it would seem that this Bill is required, not so much to protect the animal from the cruelty of the trainer as to protect the trainers from the cruelty of Lord Danesfort and his friends who are seeking to depive them of their means of livelihood. The noble Lord said that the Bill was almost identical with the Bill of last year. May I point out that there are two substantial amendments in it? Under the Bill as it was drafted last year any person who threw a stick into the Serpentine for a dog to fetch out would have been liable to prosecution for exhibiting a performing animal that had not been registered. An amendment has now been introduced by which there must be admission to a performance before there can be any offence. That, I think, is a great improvement. There is also an important amendment in Clause 2. As that clause was drafted in 935 the Bill of last year a court of summary jurisdiction had unlimited power to prohibit all animals from performing. Now, that power is limited to cases where there is evidence that cruelty is likely to ensue.
But the Bill still contains objectionable features. The principal one is in Clause 3, which states that any officer of a local authority, or any constable, may enter any premises whatever for the purpose of searching for performing animals. That, I think, is a great infringement of the liberty of the subject, and I hope the Government will not allow the clause to pass in that form. As regards the remainder of the Bill, it still contains the same absurdities as the one of last year. Every circus employee has to be registered, and every rabbit and pigeon has to be registered. Last, but not least, every performing fish has to be registered. Last year I tried to ascertain what was meant by the term "performing fish," and I again invite the noble Lord to tell us what it means.

§ LORD DANESFORT
My Lords, I do not know if your Lordships would desire any further explanation than I have given. I wish wholly to repudiate the noble Lord's suggestion as to the origin of this Bill. I had nothing to do with the hysterical women to whom he referred, nor have I anything to do with them now. The origin of the Bill was this. Attention was drawn to the fact that there was cruelty, and a Committee was appointed which heard an immense amount of evidence of all kinds and came to the conclusion that there was cruelty. It was on that that the Bill was founded, and, as I have told your Lordships it is accepted by all sides. Therefore I confidently ask your Lordships to give the Bill a Second Reading.

§ LORD DESBOROUGH
My Lords, may I say one word as to the attitude that the Home Office takes upon this Bill? It is quite true, as my noble friend behind me said, that this Bill was introduced into another place some years ago, and then it was a very drastic Bill There was formed a Select Committee in 1922 which went carefully into the matter, and took a great deal of evidence from all parties interested. In 1923 a Bill was introduced into another place, but there 936 was a Dissolution. The Bill was amended in 1924 and again there was a Dissolution. This Bill of 1925 is practically agreed to by all parties and has certainly the countenance of the Home Office.