§ THE EARL OF KINNOULL rose to ask whether His Majesty's Government's attention has been drawn to recent prosecutions for cruelty to dogs, and whether action can be taken to ensure that a dog licence shall not be issued to any person who has been convicted of cruelty to dogs or other animals and punished by fine or imprisonment. The noble Earl said: My Lords, at this late hour I shall not detain you more than two or three minutes in raising this question, although I am sure that it is a subject which will appeal to many of your Lordships on all sides of the House, as many, indeed most, of your Lordships own dogs yourselves. No doubt your Lordships' attention has been called to a recent prosecution reported in the Press of an individual named Kay who was sentenced to six weeks imprisonment for cruelty to a dog. This man, who had professed all his life to be a good Christian, and having just come from church one Sunday morning, most foully beat to death his dog with a hatchet because he said the dog was dangerous.
§ The facts, I understand, were that the dog ran to greet his master and jumped up, causing the man to stumble—so his implication, I suppose, was that because the dog in the exuberance of life and pleasure at seeing his master jumped up and caused him to stumble, it had grown so dangerous that it merited the appalling death that was meted out to it. It was tied up so that it could not get away and beaten over the head with a hatchet. Its struggles were so violent that it did 725 succeed in breaking away. This man, this human devil, called the poor animal back and the animal, not understanding and trusting its master, came back and was again tied up and beaten until it died. Every bone in that dog's head was found to be smashed. This man, who in my opinion is nothing less than an inhuman monster, admitted treating seven other dogs in a similar way. When he is released from prison what is there to stop him from buying another dog, taking out a dog licence and then treating that dog in the same disgustingly brutal manner?
§ I want to ask His Majesty's Government if nothing can be done to prevent a man like this from obtaining another licence and owning another dog. I have other recent cases of cruelty about which I should like to speak, but as it is so late I will not trouble your Lordships with them now. The noble Lord, Lord Banbury, has introduced two Bills into your Lordships' House with the object of refusing dog licences to people convicted of cruelty to dogs. The noble Lord's first Bill reached the Third Reading stage in your Lordships' House before it was rejected. In 1929 the noble Lord, Lord Banbury, introduced a second Bill and the late Earl Russell, speaking for the Home Office, stated that their objection was that the Bill would be ineffective since any person so convicted could get his wife or daughter or maid or some other member of his household to hold the licence and thus would obtain custody of the dog. The late Lord Brentford stated that he took full responsibility for the attitude of the Home Office.when he was Home Secretary, as any regulations such as these would inflict too much of a burden on the police, and also that any person convicted of cruelty could quite easily go to another part of the country and take out a dog licence without any one being the wiser. If it is still the view of the Home Office that the difficulties would be too great for the police and that other members of the person's household would hold the licence, and thus any such regulation would be ineffective, then I would urge the Government to pass some legislation whereby no person convicted of cruelty, or any member of that person's family, could have control or custody of a dog. I hope the noble Earl who replies for the Government will give me 726 some assurance that something will be done. I think public opinion demands it.
§
LORD DANESFORT had given Notice to move to resolve, That this House expresses the hope that the Government will, as soon as may be, introduce legislation authorising courts to cancel any licence to keep dogs issued to persons convicted of gross cruelty to dogs, and to forbid the further issue to such persons of any licence to keep dogs. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I desire to support as strongly as I can the appeal mace by the noble Earl, and in order to give the House an opportunity of expressing their opinion in a definite form I have put down a Motion which your Lordships will find on the Paper expressing in substance the hope—
that the Government will, as soon as may be, introduce legislation authorising courts to cancel any licence to keep dogs issued to persons convicted of gross cruelty"—
I should be content to leave out the word "gross"—
to dogs, and to forbid the further issue to such persons of any licence to keep dogs.
The case to which the noble Earl referred was one of the most brutal instances of cruelty to a dog that ever came before the courts, but I am sorry to say there are many horrible cases of cruelty to dogs and the penalties for them are often totally inadequate.
§ It is horrible to think that a man who has tortured a dog to death—it may be a dog long in his household, almost a pet dog—can as soon as he gets out of prison, if he goes there, which he ought to do, immediately apply for and obtain as many licences as he desires and there is nothing to prevent him, if his nature is such, from torturing those dogs as well. This is a matter which has been widely reported in the Press and I think it has deeply stirred the feelings of humanity which exist in this country regarding cruelty to dogs and other animals. I hope most heartily and earnestly that die Government will accept my Motion, which merely expresses the hope on the part of your Lordships that the Government will initiate this legislation which is so earnestly needed. It is really a scandal that as the law stands a man who has behaved in this cruel way should be able to get licences.
§ When this matter was raised in another place by a Question, the Home Office 727 simply said in reply: "We do not propose to introduce legislation." When pressed for the reason why, they said there were insuperable difficulties, and on being pressed as to what the insuperable difficulties were they did not give an answer beyond stating that it was impossible to say more. I do not believe for one moment that there are any difficulties which cannot be fairly easily surmounted. When the police see a dog in town or country they often make it their business to find out whose dog it is and whether the man bas a licence, and it would throw no undue work on them to find out whether a man had been told he must not have a licence. If that man keeps a dog in violation of such an order any legislation passed would apply an appropriate penalty. I believe the Home Office contains many capable and ingenious persons, and I refuse to believe that they could not get over what relatively small initial difficulties there would be in the way of making such an order effective. I therefore appeal to my noble friend who will answer for the Home Office to allow this expression of opinion of the House to pass without a Division so that the Home Office will then be able to devise means of making it effective. I beg to move.
§ Moved to resolve, That this House expresses the hope that the Government will, as soon as may be, introduce legislation authorising courts to cancel any licence to keep dogs issued to persons convicted of gross cruelty to dogs, and to forbid the further issue to such persons of any licence to keep dogs.—(Lord Danesfort.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOWMy Lords, I hope that His Majesty's Government will accede to the request made by the two noble Lords. The excuse—I do not wish to be rude—or reason that this proposal is impossible because a man might transfer a licence to his daughter, his mother, his grandmother or somebody else, does not seem to be very cogent. If a man brutally maltreats a dog and is fined, or I hope imprisoned, and is then refused a licence, that at any rate will bring home to him and everybody else the fact that he is a person who is not considered suitable to keep a dog, and if a dog is kept in his house by some relative and is maltreated it is surely a presumption that the person who has maltreated it is the one who has been refused the licence and 728 punished for maltreating another dog. I dare say it will be possible to introduce a dog into a house and maltreat it, but the fact that there will be no licence will, I think, be a deterrent. It is said that a man might go to another part of the country, buy another dog and get a licence; perhaps he might. It is said that it would be a trouble to the police to rind it out; perhaps it might. But the man who does that will be committing an offence and if found out he will be punished. Even at present it is not every offence that the police are able to find out. If they catch a man who misbehaves in this way it will be to the advantage of all and I cannot see that the proposal is one which is not feasible. I hope we shall have a satisfactory answer from the noble Earl.
§ LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAMMy.Lords, as I was responsible for introducing the Bill two years ago, may I point out that, as has been said, it would be quite easy if the Government introduced another Bill on the same lines to insert in it that magistrates should have the power of ordering that a person convicted of cruelty to a dog should not be allowed to hold a licence, or any member of his family. If that is the insuperable objection it would be easy to overcome. It was also objected that this would cause trouble to the police, but all who are magistrates must know that the police are continually bringing up men or women for keeping dogs without a licence. The police know who are the people who have not got a licence, and it would be perfectly easy for them to find out whether a man who has been convicted and is living in a particular locality has or has not a dog and has or has not taken out a licence. True, the man might go to a distant part of the country, but that would give him a considerable amount of expense and trouble and it is not a good argument against bringing in a law which in many cases can be enforced to say that it is possible i n certain circumstances it may be evaded. You might as well say that because there are many cases where people breaking into houses are not caught it is putting trouble on the police to make house-breaking an offence, and that it would be better not to do so.
From my recollection of the whole thing it is really some fad of the Home 729 Office and from the very beginning it was some official in the Home Office who objected. I remember the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, saying it was for your Lordships' House to consider what ought or ought not to be done, not an official of the Home Office. In view of the great cruelty which has taken place in the last few years, in view of the fact that the general opinion of the country is in favour of some sort of regulation, and in view also of the fact that legislation could be passed through this House in a couple of days or less, I trust that the Government will exercise their great talents upon bringing in a workable measure.
§ LORD DARYNGTONMy Lords, I should like to emphasise the fact that this Motion is simply to move to resolve that this House expresses the hope that the Government will, as soon as may be, introduce legislation authorising courts to cancel the licence. I hope the Government will recognise that the House is really united to a great extent in regard to this subject and will see their way to pass the Motion. I am certain that if you consider the view of the average man in this country you will realise that he does not wish that any man capable of cruelty of this kind should have the power of holding a licence.
§ THE EARL OF LUCANMy Lords, I can answer the two noble Lords at one time, and I will begin by assuring them that the Government are just as sympathetic towards the desire to prevent these cases of cruelty to dogs as either of my noble friends. It is not, therefore, any want of sympathy that compels me to state that the Government do not see their way to bring in the legislation which is asked for. First of all there are administrative difficulties, which it will be understood are considerable. You do not get a dog licence like you do a motor car licence. You simply go to the nearest Money Order Office, of which there are 12,000 in the United Kingdom, and into which any person can walk, pay 7s. 6d., and get a dog licence. There is no check upon that, and it would be impossible almost to trace these people—
§ LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAMMay I interrupt for one moment? It is quite true that that would happen, but then the Government would receive some 730 money, and they want money very much at the present moment. The applicant would get his licence, and then when the police found that the man ought not to have a licence the Government would get the 7s. 6d. and the man would get the penalties.
§ THE EARL OF LUCANMy noble friend is very ingenious, and I will submit what he says to the Home Office. It is true that it would be easy to evade this regulation. It has been suggested that that difficulty might be got over; but there is this difficulty with which the police would be faced, that any member of a man's family could get a licence. I understand that Lord Onslow is of opinion that that does not matter, because if it were found that a dog in the same household had been illtreated proceedings could be taken against the man. I should have said there was a very much better way of proceeding in cases of cruelty to dogs—a way which would probably be far more a deterrent than the stopping of licences, which it is not at all certain would be effective. I think the greatest deterrent would be the enforcement of the Protection of Animals Act, 1911, under which a person guilty of cruelty is liable to a heavy fine or three months imprisonment.
§ THE EARL OF LUCANI can only repeat that the Home Office see great difficulties in the proposal which is made, which would also necessitate the setting up of a very large staff. I know my noble friend would not lightly incur additional expense.
§ LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAMI am not against incurring expense for a good object.
§ THE EARL OF LUCANI am afraid that my noble friend would not get the return that he wants, in the way of stopping cruelty to dogs. As I have stated, the proposal would entail enlarging the administration and would be very difficult to enforce. The Government also do not admit that there is any very great necessity for the change, because public notice has been called very extensively to the case of cruelty mentioned by Lord Kinnoull, and these cases are not very numerous, according to the Government's information. Another difficulty, 731 of course, is that certain dogs are exempt from licence, such as animals under six months old, sheep dogs, and dogs belonging to blind persons. I can only repeat that while they feel the greatest sympathy the Government are advised that the difficulties of administration would be very great, and they are not prepared to undertake the legislation which is proposed.
§ LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDEMy Lords, I cannot help being rather disappointed at the speech of the noble Earl, because, although there is difficulty, I cannot believe that it is insuperable, and, as the noble Earl has admitted, the matter really does not refer to a very large number of cases. I want to submit, as a suggestion, that the licence of anybody who behaved in this way should be endorsed; that nobody should get a dog licence without producing his former licence; that if a person moves to a new district, and comes forward as asking for a licence for the first time—I doubt if that would be a very frequent occurrence—his name should be known. There should be a black list. I do not suppose you would have more than a score of names on the black list, which could easily be issued to those who sell the licences up and down the country. I think it would be worth while doing this, because really the case quoted by my noble friend is something that ought not to be allowed to pass without public indignation taking a practical form. I wish the Government would take this matter into their consideration, and let us think it out among ourselves in order to see whether some means cannot be taken to put an end to these brutes acting as they do.
§ LORD DANESFORTI think the noble Lord's suggestion as to endorsing licences is an admirable one, and would get over many of the difficulties suggested by the Home Office. The truth is that the difficulties can be got over, and ought to be got over, and I hope that my noble friend, when he hears the result of the Division that is going to take place, will inform the Home Office of our views. The fact that a guilty person may get off, and escape penalties that are imposed, is no reason why the law should not be put upon the Statute Book.