RIDING ESTABLISHMENTS BILL. (Hansard, 18 July 1939)

§ LORD DENHAM
My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time. I think there are two primary reasons why this Bill should commend itself to your Lordships in every part of the House. The first is that there are no Party politics in the Bill; it is above Party politics. The second reason is that, although the Bill is called the Riding Establishments Bill, its object is to help the conditions under which one of man's greatest friends lives—namely, the horse. Before I come to the terms of the measure itself, I should like to say a word or two to explain to your Lordships the situation which has arisen and which seems to make a Bill such as this necessary. Those who go riding have increased phenomenally in the last few years, and that is a very fine thing, but it has led to a curious paradox. It is a 289 joyous thing to see more and more people indulging in riding horses, but it is a tragedy when that should bring in its train the fact that more and more horses are being over-ridden and badly cared for in certain riding establishments.
To give your Lordships some idea of how riding has increased I understand that whereas a few years ago there were only 400 riding schools in the country that number has now increased to nearly 2,000; and that whereas in Richmond Park during a week-end not long ago it was quite a common sight to see ten or twelve people on horses or ponies, now, if the weather during the week-end is fine, you can see as many as 600. There is no doubt that that has been due in the main to the fact that there are a great number of splendid riding establishments not only around London, but around all the bigger towns in the country. In what I am now going to say about other establishments, I want to make it quite clear that I am second to none in my admiration of the way in which all the old established riding schools are run. They are run splendidly, and the horses are well cared for. But in those good riding schools a proper price is charged. If anyone wants to take out a horse and ride it for an hour he has to pay round about 5s. or 7s. 6d., and at that price a reasonable profit can be made by the proprietor of the establishment: Unfortunately, however, a mushroom growth of riding school has sprung up all round London and round the bigger towns. In order to draw clients from the better riding schools, the schools of this mushroom growth send out horses for riding at ridiculously low figures. The charge is sometimes as little as 1s. or 2s. an hour. Then finding that it is not possible to make a profit on those terms, the proprietors cut down their establishments and the horse, which they look upon almost entirely as simply a money-making machine, is always the first to suffer.
I have here a copy of a letter, which appeared in The Times newspaper for June 6 of last year, written by Sir George Cockerill, the honorary director of the International League for the Protection of Horses. That letter sets out the state of affairs better than I can. It says: It is common knowledge that in recent years rapidly increasing numbers of persons with small incomes have taken to horse-exercise. This vogue, so healthy in itself, 290 and so much to be encouraged, has had one deplorable result. Riding-schools are springing up all over the country which, in many cases, are owned by people who know little of horses and merely look upon them as money-making machines. Often these establishments are started with insufficient capital in unsuitable districts, with the result that the proprietor buys any horse he can pick up cheaply. In order to secure some sort of clientele, he is forced to reduce his charges to a point at which he can make no profit, except at the cost of the horse's sufferings. He buys inferior forage, cuts fend down to a minimum, allows shoes almost to drop over before re-shoeing, and puts up with cheap, ill-fitting saddlery and an inadequate and often incompetent staff. He is, moreover, impelled to hire his horses to people who, through inexperience or callousness, bring them back to stable exhausted and sweating, with the usual consequences of sore backs or girth-galls. Unscrupulous riding-school proprietors will continue to extract profits from the sufferings of their horses so long as they are permitted to do so unchecked. My honourable friend Commander Tufnell, who was in charge of this Bill in another place, tried a very interesting experiment. He got an expert horseman to visit 150 riding establishments, and with your Lordships' permission, I will read some extracts from his report. It was found that of the 150 riding establishments visited 43 per cent. were excellent, but 32 per cent. were indifferent and 25 per cent. were hopelessly bad. Here is a short extract from one of the reports. The visitor had been shown good horses in a moderately nice stable, hut, the report says: Further investigation showed others which were kept in a back yard normally unseen by any visitor. The condition of these horses was appalling, as most of them were covered with lice, some had running sores, and all were painfully thin …. The general condition of the whole place was awful. The horses which could not be seen by a casual visitor were left to suffer every possible discomfort; poor forage, and very little of it, and often there was not time to give them all water. The establishment being hopelessly understaffed, the horses could not be properly looked after. Another case was that of an establishment run by a man of the gypsy type, and about that the report says: I found seven horses in here in stalls. One single horse stall had two horses in it so tightly jammed together that they had no freedom at all. There was no bedding to be seen, and all the horses were very thin. They were mostly ex-Army horses and pretty hardy …. Very rough hay was the only thing fed. It may occur to some of your Lordships to ask why the present laws are not 291 sufficient to deal with cases like those. I think the answer is quite clear. In the first place, it is almost impossible, except as an expert horseman, to get access to these riding establishments. Secondly, if one does get into one of these establishments, one is shown only what the proprietor wants one to see. The real proof, however, that further legislation is necessary is to be found in the fact that in the year 1937 Our Dumb Friends League brought forward 133 cases where horses were grossly unfit but only obtained one conviction. In the last two years, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals brought forward 304 cases and only succeeded in obtaining twenty-three convictions.
In the summer of last year this thing boiled up and there was a great deal of correspondence in The Times. I have the letters here, but I will not weary your Lordships by reading them. I will only say that every one begs Parliament to deal with the matter and pass the necessary legislation. The writers were Major Faudell Phillips, Sir Archibald Weigall, Sir Percy Laurie, late assistant Commissioner of Metropolitan Police, and the late Sir Frederick Hobday, one of the best known veterinary surgeons, who unfortunately died a few weeks ago. In March last, my honourable friends Commander Tufnell and Captain Heilgers introduced a Bill in another place. It was in a much more complicated form than the measure which is now before your Lordships. When the Bill was introduced in another place, it had eight clauses and six Schedules. It provided that every riding school should be registered, and that a charge of one guinea should be made when registration took place. In Committee, with the invaluable help of the Home Office, the Bill was immensely altered. It was almost redrafted, it was very much simplified and, as I think, very much improved.
With your Lordships' permission I will go through the clauses of the Bill as it is now presented to your Lordships. Clause 1 provides in subsection (1) that: A local authority may authorise in writing any duly registered veterinary surgeon to inspect any premises which they have reason to believe are used as a riding establishment, and any duly registered veterinary surgeon so authorised shall, on producing, if so required, his authority, have the right at 292 all reasonable times to enter those premises and to inspect such parts thereof and such horses found thereon as he may consider necessary for the purpose of ascertaining whether any offence under this Act is being or has been committed on or in connection with those premises or in connection with any such horse. Subsection (2) says that a veterinary surgeon may be paid for his work by the local authority.
Clause 2 provides that: If any person—

(a) lets out any horse on hire for riding at a time when the horse is in such a condition that the riding thereof will be likely to cause suffering to the horse; or

(b) uses any horse for providing, in return for payment, instruction in riding at a time when the horse is in such a condition that its use for that purpose will be likely to cause suffering to the horse; or

(c) keeps any horse which is used for the purpose of being let out on hire for riding or for providing, in return for payment, instruction in riding, in so neglected a state or in such conditions that suffering is, or is likely to be, caused to the horse; or

(d) wilfully obstructs or delays any duly registered veterinary surgeon in the exercise of his powers of entry or inspection under this Act; or

(e) with intent to avoid such inspection conceals any horse;"

he shall be guilty of an offence and be liable to a fine of £25 or £50 for any subsequent offence.
Subsection (2), of course, is also important, because it provides that only a local authority can prosecute, and a local authority can only prosecute on direct information supplied by their own veterinary surgeon. An interesting point arose there in another place which I must mention to your Lordships. Some members of another place thought that that provision might act as a definite bar or hindrance to individuals, or bodies like the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, from bringing even the actions which they have been successful in bringing in the past. I have the OFFCIAL. REPORT of the debate here, from which I gather that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department definitely assured the House that the previous right of such societies suffers no harm at all, but that under this Bill, which sets out the new penalties and new conditions, only a local authority can prosecute, and then only upon the advice of their veterinary surgeon. Clause 3 is the interpretation and expenses clause. 293 Clause 4 deals with the short title, says that the Bill, if your Lordships are willing to allow it, shall come into operation on the first day of January, 1940, and excludes from its provisions Northern Ireland and Scotland.
That is the Bill, and I hope I have shown your Lordships that there is an actual need for it, I could have given many more cases, had that been necessary, but your Lordships will, I hope, think that I have made out a good case. In support of it I believe that there can be found ranged every lover of the horse, every well-established riding-school, every organisation in the country which has been established for the sake of horses, like the National Horse Association, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the British Show Hack and Cob Association and the International League for the Protection of Horses. I should imagine there is hardly anybody who could be found against the Bill, for this main reason: although there was a fight on the Bill in the Second Reading stage in another place, yet owing to the immense amount of work done by Captain Heilgers and Commander Tufnell, whose Bill it is, it is now an agreed measure as far as another place and those outside Parliament are concerned.
For myself I love a horse, and in the words of Whyte-Melville, I freely admit that the best of my fun I owe it to horse and to hound. There may be some of your Lordships—and I thought from a recent debate which took place in this Chamber that there are some of your Lordships—who may not like or ever indulge in the physical and mental exhilaration of riding. I am, however, perfectly certain that they would be the first to lend a hand to protect a horse against the improper conditions under which so many horses are called upon to live to-day. So, in commending this Bill to you, may I, greatly daring, suggest to your Lordships that we should "cut the cackle and come down to the horses"? I beg to move.

LORD STRABOLGI
My Lords, I just wish to say a word on behalf of my noble friends in support of this Bill, and to express our hope that it will reach the 294 Statute Book as soon as possible. We are well aware of the evils which the noble Lord has so graphically described, and I should like to congratulate him, if he will allow me to do so as an old colleague of his in another place, on the very excellent and interesting way in which he has introduced this good little Bill. He did not mention one type of horse which I have seen very overworked, and that is what we used to call the "hireling" which goes out on hunt. As a naval officer I used to move about too much to be able to keep a stable of my own, and I was very often dependent in various parts of the country on hirelings, and knew a good deal about the subject in the old days. Some of the stables rather abused their position and worked the horses too hard. We always used to insist on a horse being hunted for only three days a fortnight. I think that was the recognised rule, except where you had second horses and luxuries of that kind, and it may be possible in these days of motor horse transport to work them rather more; but that is the safe rule. I hope that rule will continue to apply, and I hope that local authorities will see also that in the hunting counties the bad eggs among the riding-masters are suitably dealt with. I beg to support the Bill.

§ VISCOUNT SAMUEL
My Lords, in supporting this Bill I may say that the noble Lord has given an admirable explanation of the Bill but did not mention one small point: a donkey is a horse for the purposes of this Bill.

§ LORD JESSEL
My Lords, I should like to say a few words on this Bill, because I once held the position in this country for over a year of Controller of Horses and Animals. I should like to join with my noble friends on the other side of the House in wishing the noble Lord success in this measure, and hoping that he may be privileged to guide this Bill through a Second Reading—a privilege which was not accorded to me in respect of the Bill which I moved, as I think there was some mistake in the collection of voices, for my friends on this side of the House were all in favour of it. One or two small points I should like to bring before your Lordships. In Clause 3, the interpretation clause, reference is made to the ass. I 295 do not see why the mule is not brought in. I do not know whether any of your Lordships has ever ridden a mule. It is not a very comfortable animal, nor is the ass a very comfortable animal, to ride. I should have thought, however, that that poor, despised, neglected animal, which was most useful in the War—I had some thousands under my care—and is useful everywhere, ought to have been mentioned, and I think it is a pity it is not included. We cannot very well amend this Bill, because that might create Parliamentary difficulties. Another thing I should like to point out is in the interpretation clause a little further on, in paragraph (ii): the phrase "as respects." I think that is a very clumsy phrase; it should be "in relation to." I think that if the noble Lord had been well advised he would have found that those words are more commonly used in modern phraseology.
It would be a pity, as I say, to spoil this Bill by moving Amendments to it. It is a very useful Bill, and I am sure that if carried into effect it would do a lot of good. On the other hand, I must make one protest, and that is against giving the local authorities such a lot to do. Time after time Bills are introduced into this House which throw more burden on local authorities. They have an awful lot to do. Nevertheless, I should think that this is such a small matter, compared with the other great matters with which they have to deal, that we should do well to give the Bill a Second Reading. I hope, however, that care will be taken to persuade the local authorities to get to work. This Bill is simply permissive, and some of the local authorities will want a good deal of moving to induce them to take action, because they have to pay the expense.
The only other question I should like to ask the noble Lord is why certain cases failed. He told us that out of a number of cases brought into court by these two well-known societies, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and Our Dumb Friends League, convictions were only secured in a few. What greater success does he anticipate from the passing of this Bill? If cases brought by those very reputable and well-known societies failed, why should we expect the courts to give judgment against 296 defendants in cases brought even on the certificate of a veterinary surgeon employed by a local authority? I should be very glad to have an answer about that. As regards what Lord Strabolgi said about the hiring out of horses for hunting, I think they are covered by the Bill. The noble Lord may know, if he has read the debate in another place—which I dare say he has—that there was a good deal of controversy over the hiring out of horses, for hunting with packs, by farmers who were not actually letting horses out for hire in the same way as some of the local establishments. That is all I have to say, and I wish the noble Lord every success.

§ VISCOUNT BRIDPORT
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Denham, who introduced the Bill, pointed out, the promoters in another place met the Secretary of State on a number of points in the Bill. His Majesty's Government hope that the Bill as it now stands will meet with your Lordships' approval, and find its way on to the Statute Book.

§ LORD DENHAM
My Lords, if I may I would like to thank your Lordships' for the very friendly way in which this Bill has been received. As regards Lord Jessel, he asked me one question which it is not very easy to answer. I think the main reason why prosecutions have been so signally unsuccessful is that prosecutions have had to take place in the main under the Protection of Animals Act, 1911, and by Section 1 (1) (a) of that Act the words which govern the cruelty are "any unnecessary suffering." That has up to now been a very great drawback to all those who are trying to prove cruelty. In this Bill the word "unnecessary" is omitted, and the expression used is "likely to cause suffering." I am instructed that that is going to be of enormous value to the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and to our Dumb Friends League. As regards the omission of the word "mule" from the interpretation clause, I am assured by the promoters that the reason is that they could not find one single case of a mule being ridden in this country at the present time. As regards local authorities, I can agree more with the noble Lord when he said that it is now up to the local authorities to take advantage of the Bill. 297 It is permissive in Clause 1, and I hope there will be sufficient momentum among all those who love and ride horses to urge them to do it. I thank your Lordships very much again for your kindly reception of this measure.