HC Deb 01 June 1962 vol 660 cc1820-4

Considered in Committee: reported, without Amendment.

3.23 p.m.

Mr. Eric Johnson (Manchester, Blackley)

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

As hon. Members will be aware, the Bill has already been through another place, but as the House has been kind enough to accept it so far without any discussion I feel that it would be only courteous if I were to say a few words about it when expressing the hope that it will be given a Third Reading.

Its underlying principle is one with which we would all agree, namely, that unnecessary cruelty to animals should be restricted. The general law with regard to the protection of and cruelty to animals is laid down in the Protection of Animals Act, 1911. Under that Act it is an offence to cause unnecessary suffering to any animal, and it is also provided that a poisonous drug or substance may not be administered to any animal wilfully or without reasonable cause or excuse.

The 1911 Act defines the word "animal" as a domestic or captive animal; wild animals are not protected. Under Section 8 of that Act, as amended, a person may not put down poison on any land or in any building, but a proviso is added to that Section which says that it shall be a defence if the poison is placed 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. Apart from the certificates which are required to obtain certain poisons under the Pharmacy and Poisons Act, 1933, there is no restriction on the kind of poison which may be used and some of the poisons Which are obtainable are extremely cruel. I do not think that I need go into any detail about such poisons. There is, of course, Red Squill, which is a particularly cruel poison. An animal which has taken the poison may take up to five days to die. It is still obtainable under other names. For example, it can be bought as Blue Rodine or Ratoids. There is no power to prevent its use, although there is a very adequate substitute for it, namely, Warfarin, which causes very much less suffering.

Perhaps I should also mention another extremely cruel poison, namely, strychnine. That can be obtained on a certificate from an agricultural Department and it is unfortunately the case that no effective substitute for it has yet been found for the killing of moles.

The purpose of the Bill is to implement a recommendation made by a Home Office Committee, the Scott-Henderson Committee on Cruelty to Wild Animals. That Committee reported in 1951. One of the practices which it investigated was the laying down of poison, and it recommended that steps should be taken to confer upon an appropriate Minister or Ministers power to make regulations authorising or prohibiting the use of particular poisons for killing wild animals. The Bill will give the Home Secretary the power to designate certain poisons as "cruel poisons," if he is satisfied that they are cruel in operation and if he is also satisfied that alternative methods of destruction are not available, and any person who uses such a poison with intent to kill or injure an animal would commit an offence. Consequently, the proviso to which I have just referred in Section 8 of the 1911 Act will no longer be a defence if the poison used is one prohibited by the Home Secretary under the powers given to him by Clause 2 of the Bill.

I have mentioned that it is unfortunately true that strychnine still has to be used as an effective method for killing moles, but many new poisons are being discovered and coming on to the market which are much more humane. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will have available to him the services of experts. These experts are available to advise him and other Ministers. For example, there is the Infestation Department of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. That Department is constantly working to devise new methods for pest destruction.

Then there are the animal welfare societies such as the Universities Federation on Animal Welfare, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and others which are very keenly interested in the Bill and which will, no doubt, seek the opportunity to make valuable suggestions to my right hon. Friend.

The Universities Federation for Animal Welfare, in particular, was most helpful to the noble Lord, Lord Cranbrook, who piloted the Bill through another place and who deserves all the credit for it. I have no doubt that as soon as a more humane poison can be discovered to supersede cruel poisons such as strychnine the Home Secretary will make use of the power given him by the Act to outlaw such a poison as strychnine for use on the mole, for which it can still be used until a substitute is found.

This is quite a small Bill, but I believe that it will contribute a great deal to a cause which all of us have at heart, the prevention of unnecessary suffering by animals. As such I commend it to the House.

Mr. Anthony Kershaw (Stroud)

I intended to intervene during the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. E. Johnson), but I was a little too late. I wish to ask whether the provisions of the Bill could be extended to take into their ambit the damage and suffering inflicted on wild birds when poisons are spread on crops. It is not obviously within the purpose of the Bill, but could advantage be taken of it for that purpose?

Mr. Johnson

I understand that the Protection of Birds Act, 1954, protects birds. This Bill does not go further than the prevention of laying down of certain cruel poisons.

3.31 p.m.

Dr. Alan Glyn (Clapham)

While welcoming the Bill, I wish to ask the Minister of State, Home Office, to use all his powers to call on research people to make sure that the last loophole, the use of strychnine and other cruel poisons, should be investigated with the possibility of finding some alternative to those very cruel forms of poisoning.

3.32 p.m.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Renton)

The Government have certainly no objection to the Bill. Indeed, it is Government policy as far as practicable to replace poisons which cause unnecessary suffering. This is a Bill which we feel it right to leave to the decision of the House. It was carefully considered and rather drastically amended in another place. Its form and drafting appear to me to leave nothing to be desired.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) asked if the Bill could be used to protect wild birds which suffer from poisoning by agricultural chemicals. I must point out that it is quite clear from the drafting of the Bill that it does not have that purpose. Clause 1 reads: Where the use of any poison for the purpose of destroying any animal has been prohibited or restricted by regulations…. If my hon. Friend will turn to Clause 3, he will find that "'animal' means any mammal", and if he turns to a dictionary I think that he will find that a mammal is a warm-blooded vertebrate that suckles its young. The Bill therefore has its limited purpose. That does not mean that it is not a very worthy purpose, nor one which should not be the subject of this legislation.

My hon. Friend the Member for Clapham (Dr. Alan Glyn) asked about strychnine. Strychnine is now used mainly against moles and, since the early 1930s, it has been used in Scotland against seals. When used against moles it is added to worms which are inserted in the moles' runs. When dogs or cats and some other domestic animals consume this poison they show obvious signs of pain. Yet strangely enough, when it has been used against moles they have not seemed to show the same symptoms of pain.

It is doubtful, therefore, whether the poison can be regarded as a cruel one if the basis of the classification were the reaction of the male, but it would be classified as a cruel poison in its relation to other animals. There are strict limits to the ways in which strychnine can be obtained for pest destruction, and so on, and there is, in effect a very strict control over its use. Obviously, we do not wish to see strychnine used more than it has been.

Under the powers that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is given by this Bill, he would, of course, consult the Poisons Board and the Ministry of Agriculture, and would endeavour to ensure that the use of cruel poisons in the destruction of animals, whether wild animals, or domestic animals which had to be destroyed, was eliminated as far as possible.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.