CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS (ANIMALS) BILL. (Hansard, 6 July 1937)

§ LORD CAUTLEY
My Lords, I rise to move that this Bill be read a second time. The Bill has one object, and one object only—that is, to prevent cruelty to animals in the production of cinematograph films. It comes from another 51 place, and when introduced there it had two objects. The first was the one of which I have spoken and the other was to prohibit any film that depicted the sufferings of animals of any kind. When the Bill got into Committee in another place the Home Office took the view that it should be divided, that the present Bill should be limited to the first object, which is to prevent cruelty to animals in the production of films, and that if the other object was desired it should be brought about by a separate Bill. The Home Office allowed their draftsman to draft the Bill which now comes before your Lordships for consideration. It was introduced in another place by the Chairman of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and has the support of other humane societies, such as the Canine Defence League. It has also been approved by the Protection of Exhibitors Association.
Objection was taken by some members in another place that the Bill went rather too far, because as it was originally drafted, it would prevent the exhibition of instructional films, such as films given in medical schools depicting operations on animals, which were useful for tuition and training. It was said that if there were no such films it would necessitate other operations. That objection has been met in the Bill. A further objection was taken that the Bill as originally drawn would prevent the exhibition of films of actual events that take place in nature in the wilder parts of the world, such as animal contests. That again has been met and in its final form the Bill as it comes before your Lordships' House is an agreed measure. I ask your Lordships to regard it from that point of view and pass the Bill.
Now may I turn to the Bill itself? The operative part of the Bill is Clause 1, which prohibits the exhibition of any cinematograph film in the production of which any scene was organised or directed in such a way as to involve the cruel infliction of pain or terror on any animal or the cruel goading of any animal to fury. I can imagine that some of your Lordships may at once say to yourselves, why does not this Bill proceed against the producer and not against the exhibitor? There are two reasons. The first is that the producer of these films is generally a 52 foreigner and nearly always out of this country and not amenable to the process of our law. Secondly, it is true that if the producer was in this country the existing law for the protection of animals would be sufficient to hit him, provided the evidence could be got, but it is very unlikely that any servant or person who took part in the production of the film would give evidence against himself and his employer and give them both away.
So the Bill prohibits the exhibition of the film in question, and in order to make the Bill practicable and effective it is provided in subsection (2) that if, on a mere view of the film, cruelty has obviously taken place, that shall be prima facie evidence of the offence. That evidence is answerable in two ways: by evidence of the facts of the production, and by the defendant showing that he had no knowledge of any cruelty being perpetrated in the production and that he could not by any reasonable means have ascertained that any was perpetrated. Subsection (3) provides the penalty: a fine up to £100, or imprisonment for a term of three months, or both. Then, in order to meet the objection that was taken on instructional grounds, the clause only applies to the exhibition of a film in a place to which the general public are admitted, whether they pay or whether they do not. It does not apply to a limited exhibition to a few persons.
Lastly, I call special attention to subsection (4) (b): (b) the expression 'animal' has the same meaning as in the Protection of Animals Act, 1911, and the Protection of Animals (Scotland) Act, 1912 That is, it includes domestic animals and all wild animals while in a state of captivity. The result is that films depicting life in the wilds, the jungle or anywhere of that kind, or even a fox hunt in this country, are not hit by the Bill at all. On these grounds I commend the Bill to your Lordships as a humane measure, and I submit that it fills up a gap in the law, and ought to be passed.

§ THE EARL OF MUNSTER
My Lords, perhaps I might just rise to give the views of the Government on this Bill. I am advised that the existing law relating to cruelty to animals in this country, or the powers of control exercised by local 53 cinematograph licensing authorities, are adequate to deal with the evils which the promoters of this Bill wish to prevent. Although, however, we do not consider the Bill wholly necessary, I am not by any means suggesting that your Lordships should oppose it, and we are prepared to leave the Second Reading to the decision of this House.

LORD STRABOLGI
My Lords, I venture to hope that the noble Earl's advice will be followed and that the House will give this Bill a Second Reading. It is, as the noble Lord, Lord Cautley, says, an agreed measure, and it may fill a gap. I want to make two comments only on the Bill, which I understand the trade in this country accept and, indeed, welcome. There is a very valuable provision in subsection (2) about the defences. I think that covers the case of what is known as trick photography. I understand that this is now a wonderful science and that with the aid of models they can produce a film picture of a tiger or lion hunt or other spectacle of the kind without any cruelty at all. They do this by the most wonderful use of pictorial devices, small models and so on. A good deal of misapprehension has been caused because the public are naturally taken in. They think that the whole picture was taken in the natural conditions, and do not understand. I believe that provision was inserted in another place to deal with this position. The other point is that, if I understood the noble Lord aright, Clause I (4) (b) safeguards the situation where, for example, a fox hunt is filmed. Now I hold with fox-hunting!

SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS
Hear, hear.

LORD STRABOLGI
And I do not believe that there need be cruelty in it at all. Many people, however, take the opposite view and regard fox-hunting as a very cruel sport. Still more people regard deer-hunting as a cruel sport. They might start a prosecution under this Bill unless the fox and other wild animals concerned are exempted from the Bill as drafted. I believe that is what the noble Lord intended to explain, and I hope I heard him aright. Take, for example, a subject that I have never seen filmed but which I think would make a very interesting film indeed, and that is a grouse or pheasant shoot. I have never seen that on the films, and I should have thought it would be a rather useful 54 historical memento in the future when these things are given up, for they are rapidly disappearing in this and other countries. Those are wild birds, and they would not come under the provisions of the Bill. I think that is the case. I know that I am speaking for my noble friends when I say that we want to help anything that would prevent any chance of unnecessary cruelty to animals, wild or domestic, and I am sure that this Bill should be passed.

§ LORD CAUTLEY
My Lords, I have little to add. What has fallen from the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, is absolutely right. It is true that in some films that have been exhibited where people have thought there was cruelty, there was in fact none because the scene was depicted by means of dummies instead of real animals. The noble Lord's second point is equally true. I mentioned the fox because it is almost the one wild animal we have left in England, and any natural scene in which the fox occurs can be depicted as far as this Bill is concerned. I have not the least doubt that Lord Strabolgi is equally right about a pheasant shoot. Pheasants, I understand, even when they are reared by keepers, are wild birds. When they are young and under hens they are domestic birds, but as soon as they are put in the woods they become wild birds—

LORD STRABOLGI
Extremely wild, sometimes.

§ LORD CAUTLEY
—and are not affected by the Bill. I rather anticipated what the noble Earl who spoke for the Government had to say when I pointed out that it would, as a matter of fact, be practically impossible to get evidence against the producer himself of cruelty in the making of a film produced in this country. His servants would not give it, and he himself would not be likely to give himself away.