§ LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM rose to ask His Majesty's Government the number of inspectors appointed under the Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not wish to make any accusation or any charge against the gentlemen who are inspectors under this Act. I do not know who they are and I have no reason to doubt that they are doing their duty in a proper and efficient manner, if it is within their power so to do. I put this Question dawn before Easter. I was under the impression that only two inspectors were appointed under this Act, but I was not certain, and that is why I gave notice of this Question. I find that since then, on the 29th of last month in another place, the Home Secretary has replied to a Question asking how many inspectors were in existence under this Act, and the last occasion on which an animal had been killed on the instruction of an inspector to prevent its suffering prolonged and agonising pain. The Home Secretary replied that there were two whole-time inspectors, and that the last occasion on which they had interfered in order to prevent an animal from suffering prolonged and agonising pain was on March 25, 1926.
§ I should like, therefore, to ask my noble friend Lord Desborough, who, I understand, is going to answer my Question, how he can justify the statement made by professors and doctors that there 87 is never any cruelty at all and that we may trust them to carry out the Act because they are humane people who in no circumstances whatever do anything that is contrary to the Act, whether there is an inspector present or not. I want to ask how it is that so recently as March 25 of last year one of the two inspectors was obliged to interfere to prevent an animal from suffering prolonged and agonising pain. How many places are licensed for the purpose of these operations? I gather from another answer to a Question in the House of Commons, on April 11 of this year, that 242 places have been licensed. There are only two inspectors to inspect these 242 places.
§ In 1925, which is the last date on which Returns from the Home Office have been given, there were 209,014 experiments. Of these, 9,402 were done with anæsthetics, and the balance of 199,612 were done without anæsthetics and were, I presume, injections, or experiments of that nature, and there fore not calculated, perhaps, at the moment to cause any pain. I would point out, however, that these injections may very likely, after a time, cause intense suffering if disease is inflicted as a result of the injections. I will deal with the number of experiments under anæsthetics, namely, 9,402. There are only two inspectors, so that each inspector will have to inspect 4,701 experiments in a year, in 242 different places. In University College alone, according to an answer given in the House of Commons on December 13 last, in the case of dogs alone, there were 1,147 experiments in two years. There were 574 animals experimented upon in one year, and only one class of animal was used, and yet the number of inspectors is only two.
§ During the whole of my political career I have been an apostle of economy, and I do not in any kind of way wish to cause any additional extravagance or expenditure, although I do not think the Government are altogether such great advocates of economy as I am. In a case of this sort, however, where probably the additional expense will not be more than £3,000 or £4,000 a year, at any rate, I think it is necessary, as long as these experiments are allowed, that the Act of 1876, which specially 88 insisted upon inspectors being appointed, should be carried out in a proper manner. No one can say that with the large number of experiments which are carried out, and with 242 places licensed, two men, however excellent they are—and I repeat that I make no suggestion against these particular gentlemen—and although they devote the whole of their time to the work, can possibly carry out their duties in a proper manner. I would further emphasise the fact that last year one of these inspectors had to interfere because an experiment was not being carried out in a proper way, which goes to show that it is absolutely necessary there should be an increase in the number of these gentlemen. I beg to move.
§ LORD DESBOROUGHMy Lords, on behalf of the Government I rise to reply to the Question on the Paper, which runs as follows:—"To ask His Majesty's Government the number of inspectors appointed under the Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876." I propose to confine my remarks to that very simple Question. This is not the first time that my noble friend has raised the point. When in another place, and when almost as well known as he is now, as Sir Frederick Banbury, he raised this Question in the year 1923, and so I think he has had a certain amount of information on the subject already. Perhaps, however, I may lay before the House, very shortly, the matter as it stands at the present moment. Down to 1913 there were two part-time inspectors for Great Britain, Sir George Thane and Sir James Russell, who combined the work of inspection with that of other scientific posts which they held. In 1912 a Royal Commission was appointed, and the Royal Commission suggested that there should be four whole-time inspectors. In 1913 two whole-time inspectors were added to the existing two part-time inspectors. On Sir James Russell's death the number was reduced to three. Sir George Thane was nominally a part-time inspector, but during the last two years of service he gave practically the whole of his time to the work.
When Sir George Thane retired in May, 1922, the staff was reduced to two whole-time inspectors. That was due solely to the necessity for economy in public Expenditure, which still continues 89 and still occupies on many occasions the mind of my noble friend. From the point of view of efficiency of administration a larger staff is desirable, and the Home Office agree with my noble friend on this point, but not from the same point of view as that of my noble friend. The ground for their view is that from the point of view of efficiency it would be better to have a larger staff—that if the country be divided into three districts three whole-time inspectors would not be too many and that from the point of view of efficiency four would be still better. I do not, however, think that the point of view of my noble friend, who suspects violation or evasion of the law, need be taken seriously into account. Licence holders do sometimes commit breaches of the Act, or the conditions of their licences, but it is almost invariably due merely to negligence or to failure to understand a somewhat intricate and technical piece of legislation. Wilful evasion of the Act is practically unknown. On the contrary, the experience of the Home Office for many years past has been, and still is, that licence holders as a body are willing and anxious to comply with the letter and spirit of the Act, and to assist the Home Office in its administration.
The point is this, that the Home Office are at one with my noble friend in saying that it would be better to have more inspectors, but I cannot say that they hold out any hopes, having regard to the Economy Committee, that they will be at all likely to approach the Treasury with a view to asking for more money. I think it is agreed that the inspections are carried out as well as they possibly can be in the circumstances. I saw a letter in a newspaper not long ago from a distinguished scientific man, Professor Julian Huxley. He referred to a reply made in the House of Commons by the Home Secretary, from which it appeared that in the last eighteen months the laboratories of University College were visited by an inspector thirty times without notice. University College is specially singled out because I believe there are more experiments carried out in University College than at any one place in the world—that, at least, is my information. But that seems to indicate a considerable amount of efficiency, notwithstanding that the inspectors are somewhat short-handed. 90 Of course, they have a great deal more to do than merely to inspect; they have to be highly qualified persons who are able to give advice when applied to by these men and by these schools which wish to carry out some very special piece of scientific work; and it would undoubtedly be a great benefit if the country, not only in this direction but in many others, could afford money for the purpose suggested.
§ VISCOUNT HALDANEMy Lords, I interpose for only a few moments, and for the reason that I was Chairman of the Vivisection Committee for some time, and had the superintendence of the work that was done in the Home Office in connection with the reports of the inspectors. I was sorry to hear economy put up as a plea for not appointing more inspectors; even the noble Lord, Lord Banbury, would not invoke that sacred word. But I comfort myself by this, that I do not think that an increase in the number of inspectors would make very much difference. The noble Lord opposite is mistaken in thinking that the inspectors actually supervise, for the most part of their work, the conditions under which the experiments are carried out. It is not necessary. Under the Act of 1876 you cannot perform an experiment unless you have a licence, and you do not get that licence unless the inspectors are satisfied. The great bulk of the work is paper work on the nature of the research to be made, and whether it involves pain. The inspectors may be rather overworked, and I agree that they would be none the worse for an addition to their number, but it is work they can do. It does not mean that the bulk of their work is running about. They pay occasional visits in order to see that the conditions of the law are being observed, and I bear out from such experience as I have the view that there is very little violation of the Vivisection Acts in this country. If there is any, it is always heard of by responsible people, and they stop it. The professors and persons concerned are very anxious not to have any scandal in connection with the law.
So far from thinking that the Vivisection Acts do not go far enough I am not sure that they do not go too far. It is only a few days since I saw a very distinguished young physiologist, who had come to London and came to see me. I 91 asked him: "What brought you here?" He said: "There is an experiment which has to be made, and should be made on a dog. It is not at all serious, but it cannot possibly be made under an anesthetic. It involves taking out some of the spinal substance and some of the arterial blood, and the observations must be taken without an anesthetic." He added: "There is only one way for it, and I have come up to be vivisected," and he was vivisected. For several days he was in one of the hospitals, remaining in bed during part of the process. I only mention that as showing that some of the experiments which are stopped by the Act are experiments which human beings with a desire for knowledge are ready to undergo. I do not think it is desirable that that should be extended. I think a certain amount of experiment on animals is absolutely essential, with the kind of diseases which we have to-day, requiring wholly new knowledge. How such researches as those of Dr. Banting on insulin would have been carried out without vivisection I do not know. And I am sure that some of the provisions of the Vivisection Acts go so far that, although processes are quite painless, they are hampered by the condition that anæsthetics must strictly be used, and that the animal must not be allowed to live. I have risen to say these things for the purpose on the whole of supporting the view taken on behalf of the Government. I think it would be a good thing to have another inspector of eminence, but his work would be very largely paper work. I do not think that he is necessary for the purpose of going round making actual physical inspections.
VISCOUNT KNUTSFORDMy Lords, I think everybody wants to protect animals from cruelty, and if an addition to these inspectors would satisfy those who share the sentiments of the noble Lord behind me (Lord Banbury), or would save us from the repetition of his speech every year, perhaps it might be worth the £2,000 or £3,000 a year which the Home Office tell us it, would cost. I only wish to address myself to one side of the question, and that is as to whether these inspectors can do the work. The noble Lord has told us of the vast number of experiments—as many as 209,000; but I dare say your Lordships know that the removal of a flea from one dog to another is an experiment under the Act. 92 The 209,000 experiments are not all experiments that need an inspector. It is not thought necessary that an inspector should be present at all the experiments. I expect your Lordships know that you cannot vivisect anywhere, or rather, to use a better word, you cannot make any experiment on an animal except at a licensed place. The noble Lord said there were 242 licensed places. I think the correct figure for England and Scotland is 267.
§ LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAMI was speaking of England and Wales; I did not include Scotland, because I do not know whether they have a separate inspector.
VISCOUNT KNUTSFORDI believe that in all England and Scotland there are only 267 places licensed for vivisection, and a great many of these places are in one building. There are 68 of the 267 in London alone. So that of the 267 places that the inspectors have to visit a very large number of them can be visited in a few minutes, because they are all collected together Let us not, therefore, go away with the idea that the two inspectors cannot carry out their inspections properly. We want the laboratories inspected, but two whole-time men can, in the opinion of a great number of people, do the work perfectly well. Two instances have been given of the way in which the law is broken. One lady immersed some trout in polluted water; she did not know she had to get a licence for that. That was one of the irregularities. The other was that a licensee holding a Certificate "A" made simple innoculations into cats without authority. Of course, she had no business to do that. But those were the irregularities last year. If you are going to appoint two more men at £3,000 a year it seems to be a very great waste of money, and I am glad that the Home Office does not intend to do it.
§ LORD DANESFORTMy Lords, I think this debate has been useful from one point of view. It has at any rate elicited the opinion of the Home Office that they would very much desire to see the number of inspectors increased to four; in other words their view is contrary to the opinion of my noble friend (Viscount Knutsford) who has just spoken. The number of two inspectors 93 is in the opinion of the Home Office insufficient and they would like to raise the number to four, if it were not for reasons of economy, which make it difficult. May I say that I am not an antivivisectionist? I realise that for purposes of research there are cases in which it is necessary to inflict pain upon animals, but I feel very strongly that that pain should never be inflicted except for purposes of research and under restrictions which, while they do not unduly embarrass scientific work, will have the effect of avoiding unnecessary pain to animals. We have a responsibility in this matter and I feel very strongly about it.
The same view was taken in regard to the legislation of 1876. In that Act the Government authorised experiments upon animals, but they put careful restrictions and conditions upon those experiments. My noble and learned friend the noble Viscount opposite (Viscount Haldane) thinks they are too strict. Let him, if he ventures to do so, bring in a Bill to extend the powers. For myself I should be very sorry to see the powers given by the Act of 1876 to vivisectionists extended. The legislators who were responsible for the Act of 1876 say most clearly that if you are going to give these wide powers of research, involving pain to animals, it is absolutely essential to accompany those powers by inspection. It is not to be supposed that they thought that inspection was going to be a sham. They intended it to be a reality and that there should be adequate inspectors to see that the conditions of the Act were properly carried out. What happened? We know that the Act was in operation for some time without comment to any great extent, but the Commission of 1912, having gone into the whole case with great detail and heard all the evidence on the scientific side and on all other sides, came to the conclusion that the existing inspectorship was insufficient and said that in their judgment there should be four whole-time inspectors. For some time there were four inspectors, but I am not quite sure whether they were whole-time; I think two were whole-time and two were part-time.
§ LORD DESBOROUGHYes.
§ LORD DANESFORTUnfortunately, the recommendations of that Commission 94 were not carried out to the full. So matters went on. One or two inspectors died or disappeared and now we are in this position that, notwithstanding the recommendations of that Commission, there are only two inspectors. I hardly like to insult your Lordships' common sense by suggesting that two inspectors are sufficient for the purpose of visiting 242 places in England and Wales alone—and, as my noble friend Lord Knutsford pointed out, 267 places taking Scotland into consideration—and seeing that the conditions of the Act are carried out. The Royal Commission did not think so, the Home Office do not think so, and the only views we have heard to the contrary this afternoon were, first, those of the noble and learned Viscount opposite who, for some reason which did not carry conviction to my mind, seemed to think that inspection was not of much value. In that he entirely differed from those who framed the Act of 1876 and from that very competent Commission which examined the Act. Notwithstanding the views of the noble and learned Viscount, I think your Lordships will take it that inspectorship is vital and the only question is: Are there enough inspectors?
I have given the views of the Home Office, and I have given the views of the Commission of 1912. My noble friend Lord Knutsford is under the impression that two are enough. Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, provided it is not pernicious to the public morals, but I think in this matter the weight of evidence is against my noble friend Lord Knutsford. There I leave the matter so far as he is concerned. The Home Office, I understand, would be glad to appoint more inspectors and the only reason that they do not do so is based on the ground of economy. I am for economy, but I think economy should be judiciously practised and I can assure my noble friend Lord Desborough—and I hope he will convey it to the Home Office—that in a matter involving a relatively small amount of money public opinion would be entirely in favour of increasing the very small expenditure by two or three thousand pounds a year, in order to ensure that animals were not subjected to any unnecessary pain and that the conditions of the Act of 1876 were being carried out.
95 When we talk of economy we want to limit the amount of money that is spent by millions or tens of millions of pounds and it hardly appeals to one's common sense, when there is a case which involves the carrying out of an Act of Parliament and the recommendations of a very competent Commission, to be told that those powers and those authorities are to be set on one side because of two or three thousand pounds a year. I am quite certain the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the House of Commons would gladly consent to this relatively small increase in expenditure in order to effect a great public purpose and relieve the minds of that vast number of people throughout the country who are determined that so far as in them lies no unnecessary pain shall be inflicted upon animals.
§ LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAMMy Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Knutsford, said that the two errors which were committed and to which I had alluded were that a trout was put into water without a licence and another one of a similar character—I did not quite catch what it was. I did not allude to either of those; they were quite new to me. What I did allude to was this. On April 29, five days ago, the Home Secretary was asked when was the last time that an animal had been killed on the instructions of an inspector to prevent it suffering prolonged and agonising pain and the answer was: "On March 25, 1926." That is not upon my authority it is the Home Office who say that. On that day, by order of the inspector—it was not a case of a trout put into water by a lady who did not know what she was doing and was not licensed—an animal was killed to prevent it suffering prolonged and agonising pain.
May I for a moment allude to the speech of my noble friend Lord Desborough? He has admitted that breaches of the licence do occur and says they do not occur wilfully but by ignorance. But the result to the animal concerned is just as bad whether the mistake occurs through wilfulness or through ignorance. That is one of the reasons why I think there should be more inspectors. I understand that my noble friend agrees 96 with me and that the Home Office agree with me, and even the noble Viscount, Lord Knutsford, to a certain extent agrees, though for a different motive. He hopes that if four inspectors are appointed I shall not speak any more. But the result of my speaking is that the noble Viscount himself is always here and, therefore, we have the advantage, not of my speech—that, no doubt, is a disadvantage—but of the presence of the noble Viscount, which I think we all very greatly appreciate.
I trust that the question of economy will not prevent the Home Office appointing more inspectors. Let me point out to my noble friend—I am glad to see the Earl of Balfour is here—what this is going to cost. I quite agree that they should be competent men. Would £1,000 a year each be sufficient? At any rate £1,500 would be sufficient. That would come to £3,000 a year. Does my noble friend, Lord Desborough, bear in mind what has taken place since the present Government has been in office with regard to Expenditure? I have not got figures here, but I think I am not far wrong—if I am mistaken it is only to the extent of £2,000,000 or £3,000,000—in saying that they have increased Expenditure by £43,000,000 over the Expenditure of the Labour Government. I say it is absurd to talk about the expenditure of £2,000 or £3,000 when they have increased the expenditure of the country by something like £40,000,000. If they had decreased Expenditure then there might be something to be said, though even then a small amount like this is not, I think, worth considering. But having increased Expenditure, not by thousands but by millions, I sincerely trust that they will not prevent a small amount like this being spent when they themselves consider that it is advisable to spend it. I wish to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.