PROTECTION OF ANIMALS (AMENDMENT) BILL. (Hansard, 19 July 1927)

§ LORD DARLING
My Lords, this is a Bill designed to extend a proviso to Section 8 of the Protection of Animals Act, 1911. To make it intelligible, perhaps I had better read the section, including the proviso, as it stands:— If any person—

(a) shall sell, or offer or expose for sale, or give away, or cause or procure any person to sell or offer or expose for sale or give away, or knowingly be a party to the sale or offering or exposing for sale or giving away of any grain or seed which has been rendered poisonous except for bonâ fide use in agriculture; or

(b) shall knowingly put or place, or cause or procure any person to put or place, or knowingly be a party to the putting or placing, in or upon any land or building any poison, or any fluid or edible matter (not being sown seed or grain) which has been rendered poisonous,

such person shall, upon summary conviction, be liable to a fine not exceeding ten pounds: 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 rats, mice, or other small vermin, and that he took all reasonable precautions to prevent access thereto of dogs, cats, fowls, or other domestic animals. I ought to say at once that none of this proposed legislation is my original idea. The Bill has passed the House of Commons, and it comes here, and I was simply asked to move that the Bill be read a second time by your Lordships.
The object, I am told, of this proviso replacing the other is to assimilate the law of England somewhat to the law of Scotland, which, as your Lordships know, is in most respects infinitely superior. The proviso as contained in the Bill states:— Provided that, in any proceedings under paragraph (b) of this section, it shall 647 be a defence that the poison was placed by the accused for the purpose of destroying"— then come new words— insects and other invertebrates"— then come the old words— rats, mice, or other small"— then a new phrase— ground vermin"— and these words are new— 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"— then come the old words— and that he took all reasonable precautions to prevent access thereto of dogs, cats, fowls or other domestic animals and wild birds. I have received some intimation that there are those who fear the Scotch et dona ferentes, and who think some harm is going to be done if this bit of Scottish law is included in an English Statute. I looked at it carefully myself and no doubt my noble friend Lord Bledisloe has done so. I do not think it will do England any particular harm. I did fear at one time that it might be possible under this legislation to poison foxes, which none of us would desire to do, but I think that as the proviso makes it necessary to protect cats and dogs from eating the poison, probably the same precautions which would prevent a dog or cat from eating it would preserve the fox; so I have no hesitation whatever in asking your Lordships to give the Bill a Second Reading.

§ THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD BLEDISLOE)
My Lords, I am asked on behalf of my Department to express approval of this Bill, to welcome it and to ask that your Lordships should pass it through this House. I am given to understand that this is merely the assimilation of Scottish law to English requirements, and the embodiment, as my noble friend Lord Darling has said, of a certain proviso in the Protection of Animals (Scotland) Act, 1912, by way of amendment to our English Protection of Animals Act, 1911. The two particu- 648 lar pests at which I understand this Bill is aimed are cutworms on the one hand and leather jackets on the other. The cutworm, which, unfortunately, has become very prevalent in recent years, is the larva of certain species of moths, particularly the turnip moth and the yellow underwing moth, and it is called a cutworm because it cuts away the stems of plants both above and below ground, including, amongst other things, wheat, and autumn sown cereals, potatoes, turnips, mangolds, and several kinds of vegetables. But an even more serious pest is undoubtedly the leather jacket. Leather jackets, as your Lordships are no doubt aware, are the larvæ of the daddy-long-legs and in recent years this pest has been very serious indeed, notably in 1921, which was a very hot droughty year, and, more recently, in 1925. In both those years, and in several other years more remote, great areas of certain crops have been lost through the ravages of the leather jacket. Carrots were perhaps the chief sufferers, but parsnips and several other vegetables and all cereals also suffered, while damage was likewise done to certain grasses which are consumed by the leather jacket.
We have no effective method now of destroying these particular pests by poison. I rather hoped that my noble and learned friend Lord Darling would have mentioned that what is actually contemplated is a very dilute arsenic compound mixed with 30 lbs. of bran or toppings and two gallons of water. It is so diluted that it cannot possibly affect any birds or animals, but will undoubtedly destroy these particular pests. One almost wishes, when thinking of leather jackets, that householders would take the trouble, in a year like 1925, to destroy the daddy-long-legs upon their windows, but, unfortunately, they do not realise the great injury which is caused by these insects at another stage of their growth. So far as farmers are concerned, very serious loss indeed is occasioned by these pests. I should like to support this Bill and express a hope that your Lordships will pass it through all its stages.

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD
My Lords, I should like to ask a question or two in regard to this Bill. Does it not go 649 further than the Scottish Act? It sounds very innocent, this slaughter of leather jackets and the dilute which Lord Bledisloe referred to sounded a very diluted dilute. If that is so why is it necessary, as a defence, to prove that the person who has put down the poison has taken all reasonable precautions to prevent access of wild birds. How will you prevent access of wild birds to a young turnip field, over which you have spread so many gallons to the acre? I do not know what is the explanation. You have also to prevent the access of dogs, cats, fowls and other domestic animals. I think that my noble friend has something more ambitious in his mind than the destruction of leather jackets, otherwise I cannot understand why the very drastic words, which exist of course in the Scottish Act but which I imagine are disregarded, are inserted in this amendment of the law.

§ LORD BLEDISLOE
My Lords, I do not know whether you would allow me to say something in reply. We are not altogether happy about the reference to wild birds as it appears in the Bill, and I understand—again I have to assume what has not been divulged—that there is in contemplation an Amendment to express somewhat differently what is intended in reference to wild birds. We quite agree with the view of the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, that the expression "access to wild birds" is too wide and that if it can be expressed so as to avoid injury to wild birds, probably that would meet the case and my noble friend would not further object to it. As regards a comparison with the Scottish Act, I understand the words originally as introduced into the House of Commons were exactly the same as in the Scottish Act, except that the words "insects and other invertebrates, rats, mice or other small" have been inserted before the words "ground vermin." The proviso that the poisoner should take all reasonable precautions appears, I understand, in the Scottish Act as it appears also in the original English Statute. I hope that will suffice by way of explanation.

§ LORD DANESFORT
My Lords, may I ask my noble friend Lord Darling, who I understand is in charge of the Bill, whether there is not the same difficulty in preventing access to dogs, cats, 650 fowls and other domestic animals as there is in regard to wild birds? If you put down a substance which may be injurious to dogs, cats, fowls and so on, how are you to take reasonable precautions to prevent dogs, cats or fowls having access to it? I could understand that if you put wire fencing round—

§ VISCOUNT PEEL
You would not stop cats.

§ LORD DANESFORT
It depends on how high the fencing is. What one would like to know is what is really the meaning of this clause. Apparently a man would not get off if accused of putting down poison, unless he proved that he took all reasonable precaution to prevent access by dogs, cats or fowls. What was really in the contemplation of the framers of the Bill? What sort of precautions are meant? You cannot expect a man to put a wire fence ten feet high round a large turnip field. What other precautions are there, unless you employ an army of keepers to keep cats and dogs off? Probably Lord Darling knows what was contemplated by the framers of the Bill, and, if so, perhaps he can frame an Amendment which would make it less seemingly impossible than at present.

§ LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM
My Lords, I have read this Bill with very great astonishment because I understand it is introduced by my noble and learned friend Lord Darling, and I always looked upon him as being one of the most practical of His Majesty's Judges. Now I find him introducing a Bill which says you may put down poison, but you may only put down poison for the destruction of insects and other invertebrates, rats, mice or other small ground vermin. What does the phrase "other small ground vermin" include? Does it include rabbits? There are a good many, or at any rate some, noble Lords, members of this House, and a good many people outside who consider rabbits to be vermin. They are small and they do go to ground. Therefore it seems to me that there should be some definition—and I do not see any definition—of what is "small ground vermin." Then we find the words "where such is found to be necessary in the interests of public health, agriculture, or the preservation of other animals, domestic or wild." 651 How do you preserve other animals, domestic or wild, by putting down poison to destroy insects or other invertebrates? I really do not understand how you are going to preserve my dog by putting down poison to destroy "insects and other invertebrates, rats, mice or other small ground vermin." If he is a good ratter he may get hold of a rat which has been poisoned, and that would not preserve him. It would have the contrary effect.

§ LORD DARLING
The poison would preserve and make a mummy of him.

§ LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM
I do not understand my noble and learned friend. I do not understand what "mummy" has got to do with it. Surely it is not intended to put down poison to destroy mummies? What is the meaning of the words "for the purpose of manuring the land?" I suppose it means putting down artificial manure which is poisonous. That is the only thing I can think of. It might possibly have some advantage, but as a farmer in a small way I do not think much of artificial manure. I prefer the old farmyard dung as being far and away better. Then the Bill refers to taking "all reasonable precautions to prevent access thereto of dogs, cats, fowls or other domestic animals and wild birds." How is a man to prevent the access of wild birds? Are you going to catch the wild birds and cut their wing feathers, or what are you going to do? I really do not think Lord Darling drafted the Bill. I think someone else must have drafted it and that out of his good nature he has agreed to bring it in. I do not know if my noble friend Lord Danesfort will vote against it. If he does I should be very glad to tell with him. I think it is a most obnoxious Bill.

§ LORD DARLING
I had explained this Bill I thought—no doubt imperfectly—before my noble and learned friend Lord Banbury came into the House.

§ LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM
Not "learned."

§ LORD DARLING
I beg my noble friend's pardon. I was going to say to him: A little learning is a dangerous thing; Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring. 652 If my noble friend had given a little time to reading the Bill before he came into the House to oppose it he would have known that this clause, with the exception of the words relating to wild birds, is already the law of Scotland. I will read the proviso in Section 7 of the Protection of Animals (Scotland) Act, 1912. It contains the same words which have so puzzled my noble friend. The proviso reads: 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 vermin, where such is found to be necessary in the interests of the 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 access thereto of dogs, cats, fowls, or other domestic animals. This Bill adds the words "and wild birds". I am not the author of this Bill. The Bill was invented by a member of the House of Commons and he is ready—

§ LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM
The House of Commons?

§ LORD DARLING
Well, my noble friend was there once. He is perfectly ready, if any noble Lord will move in Committee, to accept an Amendment to leave out "access thereto of" and insert the words "injury thereby to". There would then be no question such as Lord Danesfort raised of the height of wire to keep out creatures, nor need we consider whether cats can climb or whether they cannot climb. There will be no necessity for that. As this Amendment, if moved, would be assented to by those who are interested in the Bill, I would still ask your Lordships to read the Bill a second time.