HL Deb 21 April 1926 vol 63 cc879-92

LORD LAMBOURNE asked His Majesty's Government what steps they intend to take to prevent a recurrence of the appalling sufferings caused to a cargo of beasts from Canada as reported in the Morning Post on Friday, March 19. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope that I shall not be thought by your Lordships in any way to infringe the dignity of this House if I venture for a very short time to place before you the sufferings of a cargo of animals during a voyage of the steamship "Manchester Producer" from Canada to England. The Society with which I am intimately connected, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, has invariably opposed the removal of the embargo upon Canadian cattle, because they were of opinion that inevitable suffering would be caused if the embargo were removed. Unfortunately we were not able to prevail and the embargo was removed, and what happened in this case is one of the consequences that we foresaw would happen.

The sufferings of the animals to which I refer were reported in the Morning Post of March 19, 1926. I regret that I was unavoidably compelled to put off my Question until after Easter. It was during a terrible storm on the Atlantic that these animals suffered. I believe I am correct in saying that the Atlantic Ocean is the coldest ocean in the world. It is also subject to sudden and most terrible gales, so that it is impossible for any human being to foresee what sort of a journey the cattle on these boats are going to have, especially during the winter months. This wretched ship was caught in one of these gales in some of the coldest weather that we have experienced.

Your Lordships may judge of the extent of the disaster when I remind you that out of 410 animals embarked altogether 148 apparently were lost at sea. There was not a humane killer on board. I am only too glad to be able to say at once that the Ministry have given an order that for the future a humane killer is to be carried, but I am afraid that will not be sufficient to ensure a decent journey for these unfortunate animals. It is no use for the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries to say to the Atlantic Ocean: "Peace, be still, I have a humane killer on board and I have a Canadian veterinary surgeon on board. It is true he has no instruments or medicines with him, but I consider we have done our best." That would be useless for the purpose of mitigating the sufferings of these unfortunate animals. No humane killer was carried during this voyage and the company alleged that even if it had been carried they could not have used it. In reply to that I would point out that these unfortunate animals were lassoed and caught with ropes and eventually pushed into the sea alive to suffer a most painful death by drowning. As it was possible to do that, surely it would have been possible to use a humane killer had one been on board. I will, however, drop the question of the humane killer because the Government have met us as well as they possibly could in that matter.

In the words of one of the men who shipped on board as a cattleman: We had to untie the animals, and drive them, as best we could, to the side of the ship.…Those who were not flung over by the roll were therefore hitched up to one of the winches, dragged along to the side, and lowered on to the bulwarks. Then, when a heavy roll came, the crew would cut the ropes and the animals would go overboard. There they lay, plunging and foundering in the trough of the sea; while we had to stand by and let them drown. That is not a very pleasing description and even if, as has been hinted, it was exaggerated I do not think any man with any amount of exaggeration could draw such a picture as that unless there had been a great deal of truth in it. It should be noted that in the Importation of Canadian Cattle Order no provision was made for carrying a humane killer. It was only because of Members of Parliament asking Questions that the Ministry of Agriculture issued an order for a humane killer to be carried.

As regards carrying cattle on the upper deck, according to the report which I have already referred to, the cattle were housed on the upper deck in ordinary cattle pens, boarded on one side and with a miserable tarpaulin covering the top. They were given only the flimsiest protection during this bitter winter weather. It is appalling to think of the miserable accommodation for these animals. The Order distinctly states that animals while on board a vessel shall be protected against injury or unnecessary suffering from undue exposure to the weather. I venture to say that this provision was certainly not properly carried out.

Then there is the question also of the attendants on these animals. The Order says:— The vessel shall, in addition to the ordinary crew, carry a sufficient number of qualified attendants to tend the animals properly; and every consignment of cattle shall be in charge of a responsible foreman, who shall have under him competent assistants, numbering with himself one for every twenty-five head of cattle. That is a very proper arrangement and if it was properly carried out it would have been very beneficial. But the correspondent of the Morning Post says he was engaged in Montreal as one of these attendants and was paid 10 dollars for the passage across the Atlantic. He says:— No questions were asked of my fitness or experience in handling cattle. I met my fellow cattle-men at St. Johns. They were of all trades and professions—farmers, mechanics, business men, an actor, and others. There was only one experienced cattle-man in the party. It would appear, therefore, that this excellent and humane provision in the Order was totally ignored.

With regard to lighting arrangements the section says:— Arrangements shall be made for the provision at all times of adequate light for the proper tending of the animals. Mr. Berry, in the Morning Post, is reported to have said:— I was appointed night watchman, and I was expected to see that the animals on deck were fairly comfortable during the night. But I had no electric torch or light of any sort provided for me, and it was impossible to see what was happening to the animals during the night. Here again, apparently, the provisions of the Order were not carried out. I want to ask the Government what steps they are going to take to prevent a recurrence of this most horrible tragedy, because it is a tragedy when you think of it that these unfortunate animals are sent across the seas during a gale, which nobody of course could prevent, and have to die slowly by drowning. It is no use for the Government when another of these occurrences takes place to say that they have done their best, that they put a humane killer on board and that there was a veterinary surgeon on board. According to the report, there was a veterinary surgeon on board this vessel, but he had no instrument and no medicines and was totally unable to look after the minor ills from which these poor animals were suffering.

The truth is that these store cattle ought not to be allowed to be put on the upper deck during this passage during the winter months. There is no necessity for it. The poor animals could be killed on the other side perfectly well and sent over as dead meat. I think the Government should restore the embargo, certainly during the winter months, say, from October to March, to prevent store cattle at all events—I should be in favour of all cattle—being shipped from Canada to England, because of the dangers of transit and the impossibility almost of housing them securely. It is no good when these incidents have happened to say that they have done everything they could. I am perfectly certain the noble Lord who is going to answer me is equally as humane as I am and that he is equally anxious that these animals should not suffer in this way. But how, without the embargo being replaced, is he going to ensure that animals should not be caught in a storm and be made to suffer similar terrors? I await with great interest the answer of the Government to my question as to whether they cannot see their way to put back the embargo, certainly during the winter months. I should prefer the embargo to be replaced in reference to all cattle from Canada.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

My Lords, this traffic was only commenced some two or three years ago. I forget exactly the date, but it was quite recently. Therefore I can quite believe that the Ministry of Agriculture and my noble friend Lord Bledisloe knew nothing whatever about this incident or other incidents which may have taken place. It is perfectly clear that it is very likely if you carry cattle across the Atlantic in the winter this sort of thing will ensue. I am quite prepared to admit it may not happen very often, but on the other hand your Lordships must remember that if there had not happened to be an amateur on board this vessel we probably should have heard nothing about it. Therefore it is quite possible that other events of a similar character. may have occurred.

May I read a few lines from t he statement made by this gentleman, to whom I think we owe a debt of gratitude, concerning one of the incidents that took place on board this vessel:— We dragged the poor animals one by one along the deck, tied by ropes and hawsers; they watched one another going to execution like dumb souls. Then they were hoisted into the air, perpendicular; lowered, and then the rope was cut, and they fell into the sea. They swam round us, watching us with their almost human eyes, until they were swallowed up by the waves. The most hardened sailors on board were almost in tears at the sight; some of us were physically ill. Food was becoming shorter and shorter and the water-butts were emptying. What is the reason for the occurrence of this suffering? It is because it was supposed that if cattle were shipped from Canada across the Atlantic meat would become cheaper. I was a Member of another place at the time, and it was stated there that meat would become something like 6d. per pound cheaper. As a matter of fact, meat did not become cheaper. All that has happened has been the suffering inflicted on these animals.

Supposing, as my noble friend Lord Lambourne suggests, that this traffic were prohibited, at any rate during the winter months, no result adverse to the food supply of the people could possibly follow. All that would occur would be that the animals would be slaughtered on the other side of the Atlantic and the food sent over either chilled or frozen. Accordingly the quantity of food would be exactly the same, or probably more, because there would be no cattle thrown overboard or destroyed if the passage were prohibited, at any rate during the winter months, and if the cattle were slaughtered on the other side. The only possible result would be that the butchers on this side might make a little less profit, while possibly some people on the Canadian side also would make a little less profit. I am quite certain that my noble friend Lord Bledisloe and the Ministry of Agriculture, now that these facts have been brought to their notice, have every desire to prevent further suffering if it is possible to do so.

My noble friend Lord Lambourne says that the Government are prepared to put a humane killer on board, but we have the statement—I have it here in my pocket—of the owners of the "Manchester Producer" that if there had been a humane killer on board it could not have been used. I believe that the actual number of cattle thrown over was 133, which, after all, is a fairly considerable number, and accordingly, as my noble friend says, the mere provision of a humane killer on board would not prevent the cruelty that has occurred. Everybody knows that the Atlantic is a stormy ocean, especially in winter. Personally I should like to see this traffic stopped altogether, because I do not think that you can guard against the weather even in the summer and, if you have bad weather, something of this sort is almost bound to occur. I should like to see the traffic stopped altogether, but at any rate I hope that my noble friend will exercise his influence with the Government to induce them to stop the traffic during the winter months.

As I have endeavoured to show, no hardship would be inflicted upon anybody and the only possible result would be a little less profit to the butcher, who would not be able to sell as the best English meat, for which he charged the best English prices, cattle which had been brought over from Canada. With that exception—and I do not think that anybody wishes to encourage that sort of thing—and possibly with the exception of a little loss to Canadians, no harm could result to anybody. I earnestly hope that the question brought forward by my noble friend Lord Lambourne will have the serious consideration of the Government and that steps will be taken to prevent anything of this sort occurring again.

THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD BLEDISLOE)

My Lords, my noble friends Lord Lambourne and Lord Banbury of Southam have described to you this afternoon a most distressing occurrence which took place in the Atlantic in the month of February and which, I am sure, we must all very deeply deplore. The story told by my noble friend Lord Lambourne, harassing, distressing and pitiable as it is, is not exaggerated, and I can assure the House that the Ministry, so far as it lies with them, are prepared to take all reasonable precautions that can possibly be taken to prevent the recurrence hereafter of similar disasters. There are, however, sometimes, as your Lordships are aware, very abnormal weather conditions in the Atlantic Ocean, not always confined to winter, in face of which all human effort would be powerless to prevent such accidents as occurred in this case, and all Departmental Regulations would prove futile.

It only fair to say that after very thorough investigation of all the circumstances the Ministry of Agriculture is satisfied that in this case, when the disaster actually occurred and after it occurred, the master and crew of the vessel, and the owners by wireless instructions, did all that was humanly possible to mitigate the undoubted sufferings of the animals. The storm to which reference has been made is said to have been the worst storm experienced in the Atlantic for about thirty years. It was the same storm as that which caused the shipwreck of the "Antinoe," whose survivors, as your Lordships may remember, were rescued with great gallantry by the "President Roosevelt."

Will your Lordships allow me to tell the whole story as it has been told to us and as, so far as possible, we have confirmed it The "Manchester Producer" left Halifax, Nova Scotia, on January 26, with 428 cattle. On the fourth day of the voyage very heavy weather was encountered which broke the rudder and put the vessel entirely out of control. She drifted helplessly in the Atlantic for no fewer than sixteen days before she could be taken in tow. She was then towed to the Azores, and arrived at Fayal on February 24. Of the 428 cattle, 32 were actually washed overboard and 133 were jettisoned, and of those that were jettisoned only one was thrown overboard on account of injury, all the rest being jettisoned in order to avoid the starvation of the animals owing to the serious shortage of fodder. Two were slaughtered for food for the crew, and there were nine other casualties from various causes. It should be noted, therefore, that 176 cattle were actually destroyed out of a total of 428, and that 132 of that number were jettisoned without being injured in order to avoid their sufferings through possible starvation.

LORD LAMBOURNE

They were drowned?

LORD BLEDISLOE

Yes, they were deliberately drowned, There remained 253 cattle, including a calf which was born on board, which were lauded at Manchester on March 16 in perfectly good condition. There were fourteen cattlemen employed in tending these animals, under the direction of an exceptionally experienced foreman. The captain, crew and cattlemen did their utmost to succour the animals whilst at sea. Both the noble Lords who have addressed your Lordships have, I think drawn attention to the allegation that these cattlemen, or most of them, were unqualified persons. I dwell upon it because at any rate Lord Lambourne drew attention to the account of the disaster in the Morning Post, which, I think, described the cattlemen, or most of them, as unqualified persons. There is no certain evidence about that, although I have no doubt in my own mind that the noble Lord is, in the main, accurate in suggesting that these were not highly qualified cattlemen, and to that extent the Regulation which he quoted appears to have been offended against.

When the vessel was disabled, and fodder ran short, the owners, known as the Manchester Liners, sent a wireless message to the master to broach the cargo, which consisted in part of oats, and no less than 60 tons of oats, forming part of the cargo, was actually used as cattle food. In addition 20 tons of hay was sent from Cardiff and 24 tons of hay from Lisbon. Fifty tons of dried beetroot pulp was also obtained at the Azores. Although undoubtedly short rations were fed to the animals before arriving at Fayal, adequate supplies were obtained there which enabled the animals to resume their good condition before being landed at Manchester.

The noble Lord has drawn attention to the lack of a humane killer, or other suitable instrument for destroying these cattle when in distress. Some of the cattle jettisoned were first of all stunned with a hammer, but, unfortunately, owing to the heavy seas, it was found impossible to deal accurate blows with the hammer and in the interest of humanity the remainder were put overboard and drowned, without being struck at all. The captain had a revolver, which apparently he kept for use in such emergencies, but its use was regarded as unsafe, in view of the rolling of the ship, and I think probably the noble Lord is right in quoting the opinion that even if there had been a humane killer its use would have been equally difficult, if not possibly equally ineffective. The vessel did not, in fact, carry a humane killer.

Lord Lambourne has quoted some of the Regulations and perhaps your Lordships will allow me to quote the whole of them. These Regulations, governing the carriage and treatment of animals conveyed by sea, have been in operation since 1891 and have been embodied in the Importation of Canadian Cattle Order, 1923, which followed the passage of the Act which removed the embargo to which Lord Lambourne referred, and the same Regulations appear in the Foreign 1nimals Order, 1910. These Regulations are to the following effect:— (1) Animals are not to be carried on more than three decks without a licence from the Ministry. I may mention, incidentally, that only one licence has been issued—to the Ellerman-Wilson Line, I think, about a year a go. (2) Animals whilst on board to be protected against injury and unnecessary suffering from undue exposure to the weather. May I here say that it is extremely difficult, without permanent structures upon the upper deck of very different character from the coverings usually employed and those employed on this occasion, effectively to protect animals against accident under such conditions as those which prevailed in this case.

Then there follow these Regulations:— (3) If any animal on hoard has a limb broken or is otherwise seriously injured the captain is required to cause the animal to be slaughtered, unless it can be kept alive and led away without cruelty; (4) Animals are not to be overcrowded in any part of the vessel so as to cause injury; (5) Size of pens not to exceed 11 feet by 9 feet, to prevent injury by animals being thrown against one another, and the floors of the pens to be fitted with battens or other proper footholds; (6) Ships' fittings likely to cause injury to be properly fenced off. Passage ways to be provided 1 foot 6 inches wide between each row of pens, and to be kept free of obstructions; (7) Sufficient ventilation and light to be provided. Some of the larger of these vessels, I believe I am right in saying, are provided with electric light, but it would be quite impossible to insist upon electric light being provided on the ordinary cattle boat. (8) Cattle to be tied by the head or neck in such a manner as not to cause suffering, and so as to stand athwartships; (9) Every vessel to carry a sufficient number of qualified attendants, and every consignment of cattle to be in charge of a responsible foreman.. I am bound to say that I think in this case it is open to question whether the attendants were qualified cattlemen, but the foreman in this case, as I have said, was an exceptionally experienced man. The Regulation continues:— the number of attendants to be one for every twenty-five head of cattle. The noble Lord, Lord Lambourne, has drawn attention to the fact that in this case the number was rather short of that requirement, but I may mention that this is deemed now to be an excessive requirement for most cattle ships, because they generally have water pipes running the full length of the ship, which renders it less necessary to have the same number of men. The Canadian Regulations, recognising that, require three men only for every 100 animals, and if these Regulations were to be redrafted I think that so far from increasing the number of men in charge, we should probably be inclined to conform with the Canadian Regulation, which is more suitable to modern conditions.

The noble Lord has also referred to the compulsory provision of a humane killer. The Regulations which I have read do not require the provision of a humane killer, but, as I have stated, it is said that the captain of the "Manchester Producer" carried a revolver and ammunition for use in case of necessity. As a result of this unfortunate occurrence the Minister of Agriculture on March 27 made a new Order, which requires that every vessel on which any animal is carried is to carry a proper killing instrument discharging a bullet or captive bolt, approved by the Ministry, with sufficient ammunition. The Ministry has advised shipping companies that it will probably be found most convenient to use a killer of the captive bolt type, which is suitable for animals of all classes, and that satisfactory instruments of this character can be obtained from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, or from the Temple Cox Research Company. Full particulars of these instruments have been given to the companies, and the correspondence that has taken place shows that the companies have already taken the necessary action to comply with the new Order, which will come into full operation on May 1.

Both noble Lords who have addressed you have reminded you that the R.S.P.C.A. opposed the removal of the embargo on Canadian store cattle when the matter was under discussion between Canada and ourselves some few years ago. I need hardly remind your Lordships that so did I most strenuously; in fact, I am not sure that I was not perhaps more emphatic in my opposition than even the society to which reference has been made. But we have to recognise the fact that it is now the law of the land, and I am sure your Lordships, while adopting the most humane measures that are practicable, would not wish to do anything by a side wind to destroy, or seriously to injure, this industry. The number of casualties which have actually occurred to cattle on the seas is really not great when the number of cattle so shipped is taken into account. In fact, the number of actual losses is surprisingly small. During the last fifteen years 850,000 cattle have been carried across the Atlantic to this country, with a total loss of 1,705, or about two per thousand, that is.2 per cent. The "Manchester Producer" itself has carried 8,924 cattle during the past live years, and the total loss from all causes, excluding this particular voyage, was only five.

Nevertheless, the fact that heavy losses are caused occasionally when severe storms are encountered suggests that the conditions under which cattle are brought over the ocean are not entirely satisfactory, and I should like to say, in answer to Lord Banbury and Lord Lambourne, who have particularly referred to improved accommodation for cattle on these ships, that the Minister of Agriculture is entirely in favour of some structural improvement being made in these cattle ships where cattle are carried on the upper deck, and we realise the importance of this. The Department is at the present time in communication with the persons who are mainly concerned, first of all the Dominions Office and the Board of Trade, and also very particularly those who are interested in the Canadian shipping trade. I am not in a position to say anything definite on this matter to-day. This is naturally a subject for negotiation and discussion, and the Ministry, while most anxious to ensure that cattle are carried under the most humane conditions, must avoid throwing large additional expenditure upon shipowners during a time of acute depression in the shipping industry, if it can be avoided. I hope that I shall not be further pressed on this particular point to-day. It is under diplomatic discussion, and I can only reiterate that the Ministry and I personally are in entire sympathy with the case as presented by the two noble Lords, and we shall do our utmost to remedy these admitted defects.

LORD DANESFORT

My Lords, I should like to ask my noble friend what reason there is why cattle should be carried on the upper deck at all. My noble friend has told us that it is accompanied by two very grave evils. One is that there is not, and cannot be, any adequate protection from the weather for the cattle when carried on the upper deck. The other arises from the fact that proper lighting accommodation to the pens or stalls on the upper deck cannot be given. In other words, the carrying of cattle on the upper deck involves the breach of two of the important Regulations which have been made to regulate this cattle traffic, and it is practically impossible to avoid breaking those Regulations so long as cattle are carried on the upper deck under present conditions. Is there any real reason why the carrying of cattle on the upper deck should not be prohibited altogether? It might, I suppose, cause some little extra cost, but in these matters humane considerations are, after all, exceedingly important in order to avoid the horrible suffering of which we have heard to-day, and I should have thought that the loss of a little extra profit to the shipowner ought not to be allowed to govern these matters. My noble friend referred to some structural alterations in these ships which may be imposed by the Board of Trade. I am very glad to hear that that is under consideration, but I hope that when that question is considered the question of using the upper deck at all, with all its accompanying evils and objections, will be seriously considered.

LORD OLIVIER

My Lords, I am very glad that Lord Danesfort has raised the point about proper accommodation on the upper deck, because protection from the weather is a thing which we are very seriously insisting upon in the traffic in old horses. I should like to know whether the Ministry has any means, through its representative on the other side, of inspecting the accommodation and the means of taking care of cattle before they start for this country. Have we any representative over there, as we have here for the shipment of old horses?

LORD BLEDISLOE

Perhaps, with the permission of the House, I may answer these two questions. In regard to Lord Olivier's question, it is perfectly true that we have an inspector over there, but this has so far been considered a matter of domestic character, if I may so describe it, and not one about which we should be properly entitled to interfere.

LORD OLIVIER

Are they not British registered ships?

LORD BLEDISLOE

Some of them are; but at any rate I will inquire further into the matter. Lord Danesfort asks: Why carry cattle on the upper deck at all? It is simply a question in every case of accommodation, of the number of cattle that are being shipped. There is naturally a greater temptation to carry cattle on the upper deck when an exceptionally large number have to be conveyed, and it is, in effect, meeting the objection which Lord Danesfort by implication makes when we suggest that the right thing to do is to cover in permanently that upper deck, so that, in fact, it ceases to be an upper deck. But I cannot disguise from your Lordships the fact that in order to render this trade possible from an economic standpoint it is necessary to ship as large a number of cattle, taking into account the size of the vessel, as possible; and, quite frankly, the shipment of or rather the accommodation provided for such cattle does not anticipate the very unusual occurrence—supposed to be unprecedented or unparalleled over a period of no less than thirty years—which actually happened in February last. The larger the vessel, of course, the greater the number of cattle that can be carried. This happened to be an exceptionally large vessel and in normal circumstances there would have been no serious risk to the cattle. As I have already said, the casualties taken over a long period are exceptionally and extraordinarily small. I do not know that I can carry the matter any further in reply to my noble friend's Question. We have not yet wholly explored this subject and perhaps your Lordships will forgive me if I add nothing more at the moment.

House adjourned at ten minutes past six o'clock.