HL Deb 26 July 1927 vol 68 cc924-30

Amendment reported (according to Order).

Clause 1:

Poisoned grain and flesh, &c.

1. For the proviso of Section eight of the Protection of Animals Act, 1911, there shall be substituted the following proviso, that is to say:— Provided that, in any proceedings under paragraph (b) of this section, it shall be a defence that the poison was placed by the accused for the purpose of destroying insects and other invertebrates, rats, mice, or other small ground vermin, where such is found to be necessary in the interests of public health, agriculture, or the preservation of other animals, domestic or wild, or for the purpose of manuring the land, and that he took all reasonable precautions to prevent injury thereby to dogs, cats, fowls, or other domestic, animals and wild birds.

LORD STRACHIE moved to leave out "and wild birds. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the effect of this Amendment would be to bring the Bill into conformity with what is now the law of Scotland. I was tempted to put down this Amendment by what was said by my noble friend Lord Bledisloe in a former discussion on this Bill. The noble Lord then said:— I am bound to say I think it may be open to grave question whether these words 'and wild birds' ought ever to have been inserted in the Bill, but if they are accepted I am bound to say the alternative words are, in our opinion, an improvement. I think the probability is that the noble Lord will, on reflection, think there can be no reason why the law of this country should be different from the law in Scotland. I have spoken to more than one noble Lord who represents Scotland in this House and they have all told me that the working of this Bill in Scotland is quite satisfactory.

It is of interest that the House should know what happened when this Bill was before the House of Commons. It was introduced by an agricultural Member and supported by agricultural Members, and on the Second Reading the only gentleman who objected to it was Dr. Shiels. He moved its rejection, but evidently the position was regarded as so unfavourable that he could not get a seconder to his Motion for the rejection of the Bill. The Bill was then read a second time with the general approval of the House, the one exception being Dr. Shiels. The Bill next went into Committee and there these words "and wild birds" were inserted. I took the trouble to look up a recent report and I found that Dr. Shiels was enabled to get this Amendment simply because he moved it at five minutes to four and had any objection been taken the Bill would have been lost. On looking up the report of the debate I saw exactly what happened. Not a word was said by the member in charge of the Bill or the Minister.

I have been told that we ought not to pass this Amendment because if you leave out wild birds there will be great danger that thousands of partridges will be poisoned. I have been talking to one or two great landowners in Scotland. I have asked them whether pheasants and partridges have been destroyed in consequence of the words "and wild birds" not being included in the Scotch Act, and they inform me that nothing of the kind has occurred. If I thought there was any danger of such a thing happening, I should be the last person to propose any Amendment that would bring partridges or pheasants within the risk of being destroyed. Dr. Shiels is a Labour member and has no sympathy with landowners or game, and it is not likely that he would wish to protect pheasants and partridges. I hope my noble friend Lord Darling, who is in charge of this Bill, will agree that it is desirable that the law of this country should be assimilated to that in Scotland. I ask any practical man how would it be possible for any one to prevent wild birds getting on to a particular piece of land which, whether in the interests of agriculture or public health, has been laid with poison? I therefore beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 20, leave out ("and wild birds").—(Lord Strachie.)

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

My Lords, I hope your Lordships will not accept the Amendment. The Bill provides for the first, time that poison may be placed in any amount on any land for the purpose of destroying insects and other invertebrates. That is quite new. In the old Acts poison was limited to the destruction of rats, mice or other small ground vermin; now it will be open to anyone who says that he thinks he has some insects on his ground to put down poison all over the ground for the purpose of destroying these insects and other invertebrates. There will be no protection whatever if this poison destroys partridges or other birds. We have lately passed an Act which says that plovers' eggs must not be taken; now you are going to allow people to put down poison which will destroy, or which may destroy, amongst other birds, plovers. Why are we going to do that? Because the noble Lord, Lord Strachie, says that in Scotland a similar Act is in force. But it does not at all follow that because there is a law in Scotland we are bound to have it here. On the contrary, I think it very often happens that the laws of Scotland are not applicable to this country. It certainly is not advisable to apply them here. What about drink in Scotland? You cannot have a drink if you want to, and I do not think the noble Lord would say that we must have a Local Option Bill here because they have it in Scotland.

As this Bill originally stood it said, as in the Act of 1911, that there should be an exemption if the person who put down the poison took care that dogs, cats and other domestic animals, include- ing wild birds, did not have access to the land. That seemed to me to be such an unreasonable proposal that I moved yesterday to leave out "access thereto of" and to insert "injury thereby to." Those words being in there is no reason whatever why wild birds should be left out. There was a reason, I think, before those words were in, but now those other words are out it seems to me that there is no reason whatever, especially after the recent legislation passed by both Houses of Parliament protecting plovers and all sorts of other wild birds, that you should give a power of this sort, which is quite unnecessary and prevents the safety of those birds in the future. Let me point out to the noble Lord that this opens the door to blackmail. I am glad the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, is not here because he thinks all human nature is good. I do not; I think it is generally bad. There is nothing whatever, if this became law, to prevent a man going to his neighbour, who has some woods in which there are birds, and saying: "I am going to put poison down because there are insects on my land, but if you like to give me £20 I will not do it." In those circumstances I hope that, having introduced an Amendment which makes the Bill workable, my noble and learned friend will not accept this Amendment. My noble friend Lord Bledisloe said only yesterday that, wild birds being in the Bill and the Amendment to which I alluded having been made, it was not wise to take wild birds out.

LORD DARLING

My Lords, as the Bill stood originally, there was considerable objection to wild birds being mentioned as they are, because it was then provided that a person putting down poison must prevent the access of wild birds thereto. The poison being put in the open fields, that was absolutely impossible. The clause has now been altèred and the person putting down the poison has to take all reasonable precautions to prevent injury thereby to wild birds, among other things. The noble Lord opposite said that this would do no harm whatever because in Scotland it has been found that the number of pheasants and partridges has not been diminished with this method of poisoning, and he said that there is no affirmative evidence that it diminishes the number of other birds. I am not the author of this Bill at all. I received it from the House of Commons and said I would do my best to put it through your Lordships' House, and I do not think I am at liberty to accord with his suggestion.

THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD BLEDISLOE)

My Lords, I notice that my noble friend Lord Strachie based himself to some extent upon an observation which I made yesterday, when another Amendment was moved, that it would have been better if wild birds had never been added. The reason why I said that was obvious, because nearly all the arguments directed to this particular form of the Bill were based on the difference between this Bill and the Scottish Act upon which it was founded. Immediately the House of Commons had decided that the words "and wild birds" should be added, many of us took exception to the inapplicability of the words "access thereto" and asked that an alteration should be made of the kind that now appears in the Bill. That alteration having been made, no one can reasonably take exception to the words "and wild birds" being added. The reasonable course for my noble friend would be, if he wished to assimilate his Bill to the Scottish Act, to omit "injury thereby to" and substitute "access thereto of" and then omit "and wild birds" It seems to me that, apart from those birds to which reference has been made—partridges, pheasants and plovers—there is a possibility of wild birds of great beauty and possible rarity being destroyed in consequence of the omission of these words from the Bill. I hope the noble Lord will not press his Amendment. If he does, I must disagree with him.

THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (THE EARL OF ONSLOW)

My Lords, I speak on this matter not as a member of His Majesty's Government but as the President of a society for the preservation of the fauna of the Empire. May I support what was said by my noble friends Lord Bledisloe and Lord Darling? Many wild birds are eaters of insects and, whilst the marauding tomcat, of which we heard yesterday, may not be damaged by this poison, birds accustomed to eat insects may be. At the beginning of this Session great stress was laid upon a Bill brought in by my noble friend Lord Buckmaster for the protection of plovers. I would, therefore, in the interests of the protection of wild birds, appeal to the noble Lord to withdraw his Amendment.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

My Lords, the appeal which has just been made would have been more forcible, if the noble Earl had explained to us how he proposed that these wild birds could be prevented from having access to these fields where poison has been laid down. The noble Lord, Lord Bledisloe, asked your Lordships to reject the Amendment on the ground that an Amendment had already been made in Committee stage. I do not think that that Amendment went nearly far enough. That is why I hope that my noble friend will insist on his Amendment being carried. How do you prevent wild birds having access to the land? Is it not really a bit ridiculous that we should pass a Bill on the plea that this is the last day before the adjournment? As the proviso stands, it says that all reasonable precautions should be taken to prevent wild birds, etc. How do you propose to prevent these wild birds coming into a field? Of course a six-foot-high wire netting would prevent dogs, cats and fowls getting on to the land, but not wild birds. After all, we have to remember that all the noble Lord suggests is that the law of the land in this country should be brought into line with that in Scotland. Surely,

THE LORD SPEAKER

My Lords, I have received the figures of the Division. It appears that there are fewer than thirty Peers present. Therefore under Standing Order No. XXXIII I declare the Question not decided, and the debate thereon adjourned to the next sitting of the House.

the Lord President of the Council will sympathise with our desire that this benighted land of England should in this respect have the advantage of falling into line with Scotland. There is that reason and also the fact that it is not possible to prevent wild birds having access. I hope my noble friend will insist upon it.

LORD DARLING

The noble Earl is under some misapprehension because he has said several times that it was a question of preventing access by the birds. That was in the Bill when it reached this House, but those words are no longer there. It is no question now of preventing the wild bird from having access, which, as I have said, would be impossible, but it is a question of preventing injury to the bird which does get access to this stuff, and the way in which it is proposed to prevent injury is that the poison put down must be so diluted that it will not hurt the bird which may take it. Therefore there is no question of the height of fence or anything of that kind. The precaution to be taken is not in keeping the bird off the land but in not, putting down poison which will injure the bird if he gets it.

On Question, Whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the clause?

Their Lordships divided; Contents, 17; Not-contents, 6.

CONTENTS.
Balfour, E. (L. President.) Lucan, E. Banbury of Southam, L. [Teller.]
Morton, E.
Salisbury, M. (L. Privy Seal.) Onslow, E. Bledisloe, L.
Plymouth, E. Darling, L. [Teller.]
Stanhope, E. Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.)
Cranbrook, E. Gage, L. (V. Gage.)
De La Warr, E. Cecil of Chelwood, V. Templemore, L.
Thomson, L.
NOT-CONTENTS.
Beauchamp, E. Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.) Clwyd, L.
Stanmore, L.
Allendale, V. [Teller.] Strachie, L. [Teller.]