§ '(1) If any person sets, or causes or procures to be set, any snare which is of such a nature and so placed as to be calculated to cause bodily injury to any wild animal coming into contact therewith, he shall inspect, or cause some competent person to inspect the snare at least once every day.
§ (2) If any person fails to comply with the provisions of this section he shall be guilty of an offence.'.—[Mr. Hardy.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerWith this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
No. 274, in clause 21, page 20, line 9 leave out 'or'.
No. 275, in clause 21, page 20, line 9 after '11', insert `or (Daily inspection snares)'.
§ Mr. HardyYou will have noticed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the spirit of good will and co-operation that has dominated our proceedings so far. It is perhaps in that spirit that I address my mind to the new clause.
The Minister will be aware that the Committee was deeply concerned about snares and that many Members would have welcomed their complete abolition. However, the clause does not demand abolition, although it recognises that there can be a great deal of cruelty in the use of snares. Indeed, in Committee the Minister referred to their potential cruelty and later he made it clear that his Department was aware of the concern about the use of snares and was carrying out studies to see whether an 858 alternative was available. However, he made it clear that he believed that snares should be inspected frequently. I believe that every hon. Member would endorse that view.
Snaring may be necessary. That is arguable. There is no doubt that those sheep farmers about whom we heard in Committee will argue strongly that it is necessary. But I think that we are entitled to say that if, in this important Bill, which has to be seen as a forward-looking measure, we are to look forward, we have to ask those who believe snaring to be necessary to accept that snares should be inspected regularly.
The potential cruelty of snares is increased enormously if they are not inspected regularly. If they are ignored and left for days on end, as sometimes they may be, the amount of cruelty inflicted is perhaps worse than in any other form of destruction.
I believe that there will be a general welcome for the new clause. I could speak about it at great length, but I do not think that the House wishes to hear long speeches and I shall avoid making them. However, I hope that the Minister will agree that this proposal is a balanced and reasonable compromise.
We are not saying in the clause that all snaring should be abolished, though urban man might welcome that. We recognise the claim for reality in our attitude to agriculture. At the same time, however, those who place snares to destroy wildlife must accept that they, too, have an obligation to the conscience of the country at large and that that conscience requires regular inspection of snares.
The Minister may use the argument that he advanced in defence of the free-running snare, that to widen the provision of prohibition would give the police too difficult a job, but I believe that he does not wish to provide a shelter for the irresponsible or the careless. There are careless and irresponsible people, and they ought to be discouraged. With that in mind, I believe that this compromise is reasonable.
There is the point that the snare could catch a protected creature. It could catch a schedule 6 animal. For that reason, it is even more important that the free-running snare should be inspected very frequently, so that any animal that it is not designed to catch may be released.
I believe that the clause will commend itself not only to Opposition Members but to some Government supporters who may not share all our attitudes towards wild life. I hope, therefore, that the compromise that underlies this amendment will commend it to the House.
§ Mr. David Ennals (Norwich, North)I support the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy). I should like to see the abolition of all snares, which can cause great suffering, and that is why my hon. Friends have put forward a compromise, which I believe is the best that we can expect to get at present.
Snares can cause pain and misery not only for the animals that they are designed to catch but for other animals that have the misfortune to fall into them. We know of examples not just of rabbits and foxes, for which they may be designed, but of badgers, deer, cats, dogs and even sheep, cattle and pigs that have become trapped in snares, and we know the hardship and the misery that can be caused.
Snares are cheap, nasty and very cruel. But, worst of all, they can be set and not inspected for days. Animals can be left to die slowly in snares that are not inspected 859 at frequent intervals. No member of the public would want that to happen, and a decision to approve my hon. Friend's clause will be welcomed.
I have before me the views of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. It says:
It is quite monstrous that in 1981 it is still permissible to set a snare and leave it unattended for a lengthy period of time, allowing an animal to die slowly and possibly in very great agony.It is with that in mind that I support my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley.
§ Mr. Ted Graham (Edmonton)My hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals) reiterated the view that most of us expressed in Committee, that we would rather snares were not used at all. However, we also recognised the force of the argument in Committee that, in certain circumstances, in the face of the attack upon the livelihood of the farmer, one has to tolerate something that is obnoxious and objectionable. The amendment therefore seeks to ameliorate the enormous damage that is done by the human race to the predator and the pest, which is nevertheless an animal that deserves some thought in our legislation.
8 pm
The Government should reflect that it is not right that the nature of the snare and its control and monitoring should be left without let or hindrance or penalty. We accept that in some circumstances the snare may be the only means of controlling pests. We have all seen obscene pictures of animals caught in snares—particularly the fox, but also the badger. The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir M. Kimball) described in Committee how he had released otters from snares on more than one occasion. We object to the indiscriminate use of the snare, perhaps by the unprofessional or the amateur who seeks to make money out of snaring. I am talking not about the legitimate defence of his stock by the farmer, but about the money that can be made from snaring.
In another place and in Committee we were given the figures that were compiled by a study in Oxford, showing that nowadays 100,000 foxes a year are caught by snare and are used for sale for commercial purposes. I have no objection to commercial purposes, but when that involves cruelty to animals such as seals—an illustration that was given by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) as part of a commercial undertaking, we as human beings must ask ourselves what we can do to circumvent it.
If the snare is the only legitimate way of protecting stock, it should be used. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) is not here. He was a diligent attender in Committee, where he said on 2 June:
It is essential that snares should be retained for pest control, for use by gamekeepers and for the protection of many farmers".—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 2 June 1981, c. 277.]He also said that the snare needed to be visited regularly. We must try to define what "regularly" means. If an animal is caught and is being hideously tortured by the means by which it is caught, we must seek to try to release it from its misery as humanely and as early as possible.We are saying that a farmer who knows where he has set his snares and is a professional should have to inspect 860 them regularly. We should like it to be done daily. In our view, any longer period would prolong an animal's agony. We are saying that failure to inspect daily is an offence. An offence is defined in the Bill, and the penalty for the offence is defined. In this instance, conviction for the offence of failure to inspect—which must mean that an animal is proved to have been caught and held for longer than for 24 hours—is a sum not exceeding £1,000.
Some people may feel that that is an enormous sum of money. We believe that the offence is an enormous affront to humanity to be part and parcel of an exercise which allows animals to suffer in this way. Therefore, we hope that the Minister will view the amendment favourably. Otherwise, we shall support my hon. Friend if he decides to press it to a Division.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) said on Second Reading that the snare was a vicious and cruel device. He also said that the catching of animals in snares was an extremely cruel practice. We are not arguing here about the practice of snaring but about how quickly and humanely it is possible to release an animal that is caught in a snare. I hope that the Minister will move towards the point of view that is held by millions of people outside the House. He will not undermine the need of large sections of the community, particularly farmers, to use a snare if that is the only device that can be used. However, we must not only think of the farmer but of the poor suffering animal, too.
§ Sir Marcus KimballI hope that when my hon. Friend replies he will draw attention to the voluntary code of conduct published by the British Field Sports Society, supported by all the shooting organisations and practised by the Forestry Commission and similar organisations, which contains recommendations that snares should be inspected at least once every 24 hours. The hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) spoke about the commercial value, but in fact that commercial value is a safeguard.
A well-grown dog fox off the hills in Scotland in December is worth about £28, and the average price of the pelts from Altnaharra last year was £14. Those pelts must be well skinned and not marked. Certainly, the animals could not be left in the snare for more than 12 hours, otherwise the pelts would be spoilt. So, although I hate to admit it, the high price of pelts is in itself a safeguard, and ensures that for sound commercial reasons people will inspect the snares frequently and regularly.
§ Mr. Andrew F. BennettI congratulate the Government on inserting in the Bill a provision to make illegal the self-locking snare. I hope that when the Minister replies to the debate he will say how he hopes to draw that matter to the attention of the people in the countryside and make sure that it is enforced. We spent some time in Committee discussing the problems of the difference between self-locking and free-running snares. I believe, as I said in Committee, that there will be considerable difficulty in drawing to people's attention that difference and enforcing it. So I hope that the Minister will be able to say how he intends to enforce the provision.
In Committee there was widespread condemnation of those who set snares unnecessarily so that they caught animals that they did not seek to catch. Particular concern was expressed about the number of pets and protected animals that were caught in snares.
The only defence of those who wanted to retain snares was that in a few instances the gamekeeper and the farmer 861 who had a specific problem continued to need to use them. We were talking particularly about infestations of rabbits and situations where foxes were a major problem. If snaring were restricted to those groups, I believe that we should have made much progress. The trouble is that there are still many who set snares where there is no major problem. They set them indiscriminately, and they catch all sorts of other creatures.
I believe that by putting the new clause into the Bill we should make it clear that the person setting a snare must be a responsible person; he must be someone who will carry out the code of practice. We are not trying to get at those who will carry out the code of practice. We are trying to get at those who have no intention of carrying out the code of practice and who are causing hardship through this indiscriminate slaughter of animals.
It may be said that there would be problems for the farmer if he set a snare and for some reason could not get around to inspecting it. If he has a problem on his land, he can set out to decide how he will snare rabbits by putting down snares only when he knows that either he or someone he employs can visit them regularly and that he can regulate the setting of the snares perfectly reasonably.
The same applies to trapping foxes. If the farmer has a problem, he can regulate his activities so that he has a good chance of being able to visit the snare regularly, or within 24 hours. There ought not to be any difficulty for the person who has a problem and is setting out to deal with it in a professional way and is trying to minimise the hardship to the animals.
I regret that one or two other amendments on the topic were not selected, or could not be tabled, because in Committee the Minister hinted that he was looking at some research that was being done to try to find alternatives to the use of the snare. I hope that he will give us an indication of what progress is being made and whether there is any possibility within the next five or six years of the Government's introducing legislation to outlaw all snares.
Much as I hope that the new clause will be put into the Bill, I suspect that as long as there is a distinction between the self-locking snare and the free-running snare there will be problems in the countryside. Whatever is said about a voluntary code, I know that many people will continue to set snares, causing a great deal of misery to animals and catching many animals that ought not to be hunted in any way.
§ Mr. MonroThis has been a useful debate. I know how strongly hon. Members feel about the question of snares. We discussed this matter in detail in Committee. It was discussed in another place as well. It originated from strong pressure from the RSPCA about the daily inspection of snares. It was right that hon. Members were highlighting the obligation to wildlife of those who set snares to see that they are inspected daily. This is the law in Scotland relative to snares set for hares and rabbits—but not those set for foxes.
It is also true, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir. M. Kimball) highlighted, that there is a code of conduct which is supported by the British Field Sports Society and other societies interested in field sports. The Agricultural Development and Advisory Service and the colleges in Scotland give the strong advice that farmers should inspect snares daily, for the very reasons that have been brought out in the debate.
862 8.15 pm
I listened carefully to hon . Members and was impressed by their comments on the new clause, of which I accept the principle. However, I should like to rehearse one or two difficulties related to it, particularly as regards inspection when weather conditions make it impossible—for instance, in a blizzard, or with deep snow on high ground in Scotland coming overnight. At such times, through no fault of himself, the gamekeeper, farm worker, or whoever is instructed to inspect the snare may find it physically impossible to do the inspection.
It is possible that someone could set a snare one clay and, because of illness, be physically incapable of inspecting it the next day, only he knowing where to look.
The new clause presents the problem in drafting terms—I have been checking on this matter—of defining a "competent person" to inspect the snare at least daily. It would need some very careful definition as to who would be competent to inspect.
However, bearing in mind the Scottish provision which already covers hares and rabbits, I should like to see whether we can come to an arrangement with another place to accept a professionally drafted amendment. I say that with no criticism of the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy). I would be glad to do my best to see that the spirit of the new clause was brought into effect.
§ Mr. Denis HowellPerhaps the Minister will help us. Obviously, what he has been saying is extremely helpful and very welcome to the Opposition. However, I must confess my procedural ignorance as to whether it will be possible in another place to amend this Bill at the stage it has reached. Are their Lordships under the same restriction to which we would be subject if the Bill were moving in the opposite direction? We could deal only with the Lords amendments to a Commons Bill; we could not put any new matter into one of our Bills at this stage. Therefore, whilst I appreciate what the Minister has been saying, perhaps he will given us an assurance—or perhaps you can advise us, Mr. Deputy Speaker—that procedurally the Government will be able in another place to do what they want to do.
§ Mr. HardyI entirely accept the Minister's suggestion that I am not a parliamentary draftsman. I have no such pretensions. I am perfectly prepared to accept that the new clause is defective. I take his points about the weather and illness. They are relevant. I suggest that the Minister should accept my new clause, with my assurance that I should not be disappointed, disturbed or angry if amendments were made in the other place to meet those points.
§ Mr. MonroHon. Members have been most helpful in coming to the solution that I was about to put to the House. Procedurally, I think that we can succeed only by making substantial changes to the drafting of new clause 44. On that understanding, I shall accept the new clause. When we have time, we shall ensure that the new clause is corrected in the other place. I hope that we shall be able to make allowance for bad weather and for the other points that have been raised. On that understanding, I shall accept new clause 44 and shall see that it is adjusted to the draftsman's satisfaction in the other place.
§ Mr. Denis HowellI am obliged to the Minister, but I am extremely confused about the procedural point—[HON. MEMBERS: "No"]. My hon. Friends may say that, 863 but they have not heard the point that I wish to put. Although I want the Minister to do what he has said, he suggested—we are happy to go along with him thus far—that the deficient new clause should be written into the Bill and that it would be straightened out in the other place.
My question is simple. If their Lordships mess about with one of our amendments in the other place—even at that stage—will not the measure have to come back here for our approval?
§ Mr. Andrew F. BennettYes.
§ Mr. HowellThere is no further stage that allows that to happen. If there is, it has escaped me in my 26 years as a Member of Parliament.
§ Mr. Andrew F. BennettAt this stage, if we carry any amendment the odds will be that we have the drafting wrong. However, if the provision is included in the Bill, the other place can disagree and put the wording right. The measure then comes back to this House and we have the choice of agreeing or disagreeing with the other place. Theoretically, but not often in practice, it is possible for the measure to go backwards and forwards between the two Houses until agreement has been reached.
§ Mr. HowellI am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing out that we shall have yet another opportunity to discuss the Bill. That point had escaped me and must be another reason for supporting the Minister in what he wishes to do. This House will not see the end of the Bill this side of the Summer Recess. Many of us thought that that would be so.
We are delighted with the Minister's approach to daily inspections and we are happy to accept his offer. We have been greatly concerned about snares and the hon. Gentleman will know that daily inspection is the minimum that can be justified, given the cruelty that snares often involve. Indeed, we discussed that at great length in Committee. Given what the Minister has said about changes being made in the other place, I ask him first to consider acting on advice that he gave in Committee. He will recall that he said that new materials were coming to hand. I think that he said that they had found their way into snares that were in use in Canada and that most people felt that the snares were far superior to those that we used, and eliminated a considerable amount of cruelty.
If it is possible to use new materials and to produce a more acceptable type of snare, will the Minister consider taking powers, when the Bill goes to the other place, which will allow the Secretary of State to proscribe—when the time is right—the use of those snares that cause great public alarm, and to prescribe the new material and the new snare when they are commercially available here. That would be sensible. Obviously, the Government would have to be satisfied that those new snares were available. However, as the Bill will last 20 or 30 years, it would commend itself to hon. Members if it contained a power—if the Government were satisfied that it was practicable—for that to be done by order. Although we are not debating that specific point, I hope that the Minister will reconsider it between now and the Bill's return to the other place.
We accept the Minister's assurance, and obviously my hon. Friends will wish to consider asking leave to 864 withdraw the new clause—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am sorry, I should have said that my hon. Friends will wish to accept the Minister's advice to include the new clause in the Bill, so that it can be amended in another place.
§ Mr. HardyI am grateful to the Minister, and I shall act on his advice, although I welcome the advice of my right hon. Friend 99.9 per cent. of the time. The Minister is right to accept my clause. I am confident, and I am sure that when he thinks about it he can be confident, that their Lordships will make a satisfactory job of it, so that it is not bouncing about for any more stages.
I trust that their Lordships will recognise that the clause has much support on both sides of the House. I also trust that we shall shortly see a more sensible approach, whereby a voluntary system is required by law. It is wrong that people can act responsibly voluntarily and watch others, whom they may know well, disregard the voluntary code and bring country life into disrepute and argument. I hope that their Lordships will accept the spirit of the amendment and that the Minister will not find too much difficulty in obtaining a sensible and practicable drafting of the new proposals.
§ Mr. Andrew F. BennettWe have not pressed the Minister on the question of the penalty, which is covered by the two other amendments. I hope that that will be included in the Government's redrafting of the new clause.
§ Mr. HardyI trust that my hon. Friend's point will be noted by the Minister and that he can find an arrangement that will satisfy us.
§ Mr. MonroI hope that hon. Members appreciate the attitude that I have taken regarding the amendments and the new clause. I have been criticised frequently left, right and centre, but by and large I think that we now have an important measure which should make some impact on a problem that we discussed in detail in committee.
We accept the new clause in the name of the hon. Member for Rother Vally (Mr. Hardy), and I shall make certain that our draftsmen examine it for reconsideration and amendment in another place.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.