HL Deb 09 April 1959 vol 215 cc560-2

3.10 p.m.

LORD AMMON

My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

[The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is intended to take any official proceedings against persons responsible for the running of the Grand National Steeplechase on March 21 last, when one jockey was injured, two horses were killed and fifteen horses fell and were injured; and whether they are considering declaring the running of this race illegal, which, under existing conditions, provides an annual orgy of cruelty in the guise of sport.]

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, it is for the police, and not for Her Majesty's Government, to consider whether there is any evidence to justify proceedings. I am not aware that any proceedings are contemplated. The Government have no power to declare the race illegal.

LORD AMMON

My Lords, is it not possible for the Government to call the attention of the police to the apparent neglect of the law as contained in the Acts of 1911 and 1925?

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, I have nothing to add to what I have already said.

LORD WINSTER

My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether it is not the case that the records of the Grand National over a long period of years show that this is a race which is an affair of legalised cruelty run for the purpose of profit? Do not the Government feel that without the profit motive the race would not be run? Are the Government prepared to continue to see these noble creatures killed or injured for the purpose of profit? Is it really impossible for the Government to express an opinion and take action in this shocking matter?

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, I find it quite easy to accept the noble Lord's first point: that the race would probably not be run if it were not for profit. On the more serious issue, I would say that the Government's position is that the law to which the noble Lord referred, the Protection of Animals Act, 1911, covers this matter, and it is for the prosecuting authorities and those concerned in these matters to bring prosecutions if they appear to be warranted. They do not, so far, appear to have been.

LORD AMMON

My Lords, is it to go out that the Government are not in- terested in the fact that this wrong is being neglected, and that they are not going to interfere with this cruelty which is bringing such disrepute to our national name?

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, naturally the Government are concerned about cruelty to animals. That is why the law is passed by the Government. It is the function of the Government to provide a Statute for the protection of animals. It is up to the authorities concerned to put that Statute into effect.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

My Lords, I thought it was Parliament that passed laws, not the Government. Is it not the duty of any Government to see that the decisions of Parliament are properly administered? That is the reason why my noble friend is raising this question. Might I ask the noble Lord whether, in fact, the Government have at any time during the last few years, when there have been so many accidents, had any representations from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals?

LORD CHESHAM

I am not able to say at this moment whether there have been representations or not. But I feel that, even if there have been, the answer must be the same: if there is a question of cruelty it is not for the Government (I made a slip of the tongue, of course, when I referred to the Government passing laws; I should have said Parliament) to carry out the law; it is for the authorities. I must stand very strongly upon that. If there is cruelty which can be shown year after year, surely prosecutions would have been brought under the law, which is adequate for the purpose.

LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON

My Lords, would the noble Lord, on behalf of the Government, wash his hands of the whole thing if somebody organised a highly profitable bullfight?

THE EARL OF SWINTON

My Lords, before the noble Lord replies, may I ask whether it would not be absolutely improper for the Government to interfere and institute a prosecution, in this or in anything else; and is it not the function of the Government to propose legislation and not to enforce it by prosecution?

Forward to