ENACTMENTS REPEALED (Hansard, 29 October 1981)

§ The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Neil Macfarlane):
I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendments proposed in lieu of Commons amendment No. 33. 1008 When the House agreed on Report to provisions requiring daily inspection of snares, it did so on the clear understanding that the amendment would need some technical redrafting in another place. That was acknowledged by both sides.
The Lords amendments give full effect to the intention of the amendment that the House accepted on Report. In addition, it provides for reasonable excuses such as illness, accidents or bad weather. The maximum penalty is set at a fine of £500.

§ Mr. Ted Graham (Edmonton):
The House knows that we are entering the final stint of the Bill, which has occupied the House and another place for most of the year.
There have been occasions in Committee and on the Floor of the House when the issue of snares has been raised and voted on. I congratulate the Under-Secretary on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box with his new responsibilities and on taking charge of the Bill. He must know that there were occasions here and in Committee when the Opposition gave serious consideration to the possibility of not making progress on the Bill. We were uncertain of the Government's intentions.
I pay tribute to the former Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), who is no longer able to take a direct involvement for the Government. I also pay tribute to the Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services for the wisdom he has shown on more than one occasion. Those Ministers recognised that the Bill was worth saving, and changes were made in it.
Before I look at the procedures involved in the amendments I feel obliged to inform the Under-Secretary that the Opposition are not satisfied that the Government's good intentions will make progress—despite what they consider to be the reality of the situation.
We shall want to look closely over the next two years at the effect of the amendments. We want to give the Government the benefit of the doubt, particularly on this amendment and others, but we shall watch closely to see whether the Government's proposal results in a satisfactory solution. If it does not, our intention as an incoming Government will be to revise the procedures we do not agree with.
We are grateful for another opportunity to consider the issue of snares. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) referred at Second Reading to the snare as a vicious and a cruel device.
Progress has been made in Committee and on Report. We are now considering something different from what we wished to achieve in Committee—not the prohibition of snares but the operation of them. The operation of snares should be discussed for good reasons. Snares are considered by a wide sector of the farming community to be essential. Snares will be legalised and operated provided that there are certain safeguards and assurances.
The Minister rightly mentioned the narrow point, which the House has conceded, that snares need daily inspection. Our concern is not the damage or pain that is inflicted at the time an animal is caught, but the length of time that it is possible for the snare to be in position. The person who sets the snare does not always catch only the desired animal. He may also catch a wide range of other animals.
Experience has shown that, when a snare has been set to catch a rabbit or fox, in addition to catching those animals it catches badgers, deer, cats and dogs. Even sheep, cattle and pigs have been caught. It is essential that 1009 snares be inspected daily. We appreciate that the previous Under-Secretary did not accept our amendments and said that they would need to be revised, but we want to ask a number of questions about the new proposal.
The RSPCA, to its credit, has served the House, as it served the Committee, faithfully and well over the many months of our consideration of the Bill. However, it says of the Lords amendment: The RSPCA does not mince words. We are bitterly disappointed by the Government's proposals and feel that the purpose of the amendment would be completely frustrated by the Government's alternative. We believe that the proposed amendment is so negative in its approach and so hedged about with qualifications that its declared purpose could not be achieved. I want to ask a number of questions. The wording sent to another place was based on provisions relating to traps mentioned in section 10 of the Protection of Animals Act 1911 and those relating to spring traps and snares contained in section 9 of the Protection of Animals (Scotland) Act 1912.
Why have the Under-Secretary and his colleagues ignored precedent, which has been lauded so often by Ministers in our discussion of the Bill? Why have they departed from language in existing legislation that has caused no problems?
For example, why are the words "reasonable excuse" introduced? Earl Ferrers said in another place that they were necessary to take account of cases of illness, accident or bad weather. The Government have more than once stressed the need for absolute clarity, yet they propose to introduce the term "reasonable", which, for hundreds of years, has given the courts field days in assessing and interpreting its precise meaning.
If a shepherd set a snare in the knowledge that the lambing season was imminent and thereafter failed to inspect the snare because of his commitment to the stock would that be a "reasonable excuse"? Why has the reference to the competence of a person inspecting a snare been removed? That is a crucial change, and both the 1911 and 1912 Acts use the expression. The Opposition do not intend to vote against the amendment, but the Government must spell out why that change has been made.
Are the Government really suggesting that a snare should be inspected by someone who is, or could be, incompetent, or incapable of taking remedial action? The purpose of inspection is to release a captured animal humanely or to destroy it humanely. If that is not done, the person who inspects the snare is guilty of an offence and must pay the penalty.
Another matter that has vexed the House on this Bill and thousands of others is that of enforcement. Whatever words we use, the problem of enforcement will be with us for a long time. It is a difficult problem and we suggest that it has been made even more difficult by the omissions and changes of emphasis that have taken place. If enforcement is virtually impossible, why should we bother to make such a drastically weakening provision?
We accept the sincerity of the hon. Member for Dumfries who assured us when he was Under-Secretary that he accepted the spirit of our amendments but could not accept the wording. But we strongly suspect that the change in the form of words pays scant attention to the wishes of the House. We want the new Minister to justify the way in which the words sent from this House were changed in another place.

§ Mr. Macfarlane:
I welcome the observations of the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) about the general principles of the legislation. I am aware, not only as the incoming Minister, but as one who has voted on the Bill from time to time in the past six to nine months, of the distinguished contribution and painstaking efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro). I pay tribute to his enormous contribution that has helped to make the Bill a possibility.
4.45 pm
Many hon. Members spoke in Committee and on Report about the matters outlined by the hon. Member for Edmonton, and there are naturally deep anxieties among animal lovers, the RSPCA and others. The hon. Member said that the RSPCA was bitterly disappointed with the Lords amendment. I am depressed to hear that, because there are safeguards in the amendment and I hope that we shall see that they are effective. Only time will tell, but the maximum penalty is £500. The hon. Member also referred to previous legislation, but that is a detailed matter for the courts to inspect.
The hon. Member for Edmonton mentioned shepherds setting snares in the lambing season. That was also raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries in Committee when he referred to the difficulties facing those in far-flung regions, especially the North. He said that snowstorms and blizzards in the Highlands would cause particular difficulties. That is the reason for including the phrase "reasonable excuse". We are looking for general competence among the individuals who will be concerned.
There are a number of question marks over any legislation. The hon. Member for Edmonton said that the Opposition would monitor the effects of this measure over the next two years. It is up to the various agencies and individuals involved to make the legislation work. The overall objectives are beyond rebuke and we now need to move on.
I believe that the Opposition should be satisfied with the amendment. I am sure that the hon. Member for Edmonton's heart is in it. He recognises that there are anxieties about how it will be implemented, but it gives full effect to the amendment that the House approved on Report. The reasonable excuses, such as illness, accident or bad weather, are effective and adequate safeguards.
I hope that the Opposition will understand that the amendment has the best interests of everyone at heart and that it will be for the courts and everyone else concerned to make sure that that is recognised.

§ Mr. Graham:
By leave of the House, may I reply to what the Minister has said? He has asked us to take on trust that he believes that the spirit of what the whole House wants—daily inspection by competent people—will be covered by the words of the amendment. We are prepared to take that on trust, because we have no alternative, but there are anxieties among people outside, and I am not talking of snoopers or those who look for trouble.
As a "townie", I was told more than once that no one who sets snares desires to do anything other than inspect them daily, because no one wishes to prolong an animal's suffering. We were told that snares would usually be inspected every day and we are happy to take on trust that problems caused by snowstorms, snares set during the lambing season and so on will be few and far between.
We have to give the Government the benefit of the doubt in a difficult situation. My hon. Friend the Member 1011 for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) will be raising that matter later. It is not possible for us to be precise and to take account of every conceivable problem. Therefore, we shall not delay the Bill's progress.