HL Deb 25 July 1927 vol 68 cc857-63

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Darling.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly:

[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]

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 access thereto of dogs, cats, fowls, or other domestic animals and wild birds.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved to leave out "reasonable" and insert "necessary." The noble Lord said: I am aware that in the Act of 1911, which this Bill amends, the word "reasonable" is used, but this particular Bill does extend the power to put down poison. It extends it in order to put down poison to destroy insects and other invertebrates. I think, if there is to be more poison put about, that it is wise to see that necessary precautions are taken to prevent animals being destroyed by the laying of the poison. "Reasonable" is not a very clearly defined word and I think "necessary" is. I hope my noble and learned friend will accept this Amendment. I hope he will not say that he cannot accept it because "reasonable" is in the old Act. He has already altered the old Act, and if you may alter it once you may certainly alter it twice. I beg to move.

Amendment Moved— Page 1, line 18, leave out ("reasonable") and insert ("necessary").—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)

LORD DARLING

If there is anything reasonable in any Bill it seems to me a pity to leave it out. As to this word, if you put in the word "necessary" and a person has taken every kind of reasonable means to prevent a dog from getting hold of poison, if a dog went mad—if my noble friend's own dog went mad—and got the poison, that person would be told: "You did not do all that was necessary or the dog could not have got the poison." On the simple ground that the law does not compel people to do what is impossible, I hope that this word "reasonable" will be allowed to stand and the word "necessary" not substituted for it.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

I do not quite see why a dog that is mad should go and take up poison any more than any other dog which is not mad, or any cat, fowl or other domestic animal. I do not see where the madness comes in, but I am always willing to meet my noble and learned friend and, as he has promised to accept my next Amendment, I do not press this.

EARL RUSSELL

Before this Amendment is withdrawn, may I say that I was made a little nervous by the discussion on the Second Reading of this Bill as to the protection for domestic animals. I should intensely dislike to have any of my cats poisoned by poison put down carelessly. I hope that this really does mean that proper precautions will be taken. If, under the mere excuse of protecting agriculture, farmers were to put down poison in a reckless way, all our pets might be destroyed. I do not quite understand from the Bill whether a person whose pet is destroyed, where reasonable precautions have not been taken, will have a civil remedy—not that that would be any satisfaction to him.

LORD DARLING

I do not say that he would not have a civil remedy, but, as the noble Earl says, it will be no consolation to him and I do not see that it would be any harm to say he had not.

EARL RUSSELL

It might not be a consolation for the loss of a cat or a dog to recover a few pounds, but it might act as a deterrent and save further loss.

LORD DARLING

There is already a penalty for doing wrong.

LORD BLEDISLOE

I do not want to intervene between the two noble Lords behind me, but I came into the House quite prepared on behalf of my Department to accept this Amendment. We want to ensure that no undue harm is done by poison to these animals for which it is not intended. I do not know what the feeling of the House is, but I think "necessary" is the proper word.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

I was rather afraid of the Government as they did not say anything. Now I find they are behind me, I shall certainly press the Amendment.

LORD PARMOOR

Perhaps the noble Lord in charge of the Bill, having regard to what was said by the representative of the Government, would not object to the word "necessary" I do not think much harm would be done by either word, but you get a greater protection by the word "necessary."

EARL BEAUCHAMP

There is another point of view. Supposing a dog does pick up this poison and die from it, it is quite obvious that the necessary amount of trouble has not been taken to prevent it getting hold of it. Surely therefore "reasonable" is better. If a dog dies the necessary amount of trouble has not been taken, however much may have been done.

EARL RUSSELL

That is why I should like to see the word "necessary" because, if poison is put down, steps should be taken as far as is reasonably possible to prevent it being picked up in this way.

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

This is a Bill for the destruction of insects and other pests, for the destruction of lepidoptera, not cats. It is brought in in the interests of the farming community. It is unreasonable to suggest that because poison is put down in a young turnip field it has got to be fenced off so as to prevent Earl Russell's favourite cat getting into it.

EARL RUSSELL

But from what was said on the Second Reading of this Bill we understood that it was a solution of arsenic so weak that it would not do any harm to domestic animals.

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

Then in that case I do not object to it.

LORD SANDHURST

As my noble friend here has said, it will follow from the death of an animal that the necessary precautions were not taken, although everything that was reasonably possible might have been done to prevent mishap. I really think it would be putting an intolerable burden on anybody who uses poison to insert this word.

On Question, Whether the word "reasonable" shall stand part of the clause;

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 45: Not-Contents, 6.

CONTENTS.
Cave, V. (L. Chancellor.) Churchill, V. Hampton, L.
Elibank, V. Hanworth, L.
Sutherland, D. Falmouth, V. Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)
Wellington, D. Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.) Howard of Glossop, L.
Kilmaine, L.
Lincolnshire, M. (L. Great Chamberlain.) Peel, V. Leigh, L.
Lovat, L.
Ampthill, L. Montagu of Beaulieu, L.
Beauchamp, E. Askwith, L. Oriel, L. (V. Massereene.)
Bradford, E. Carew, L. Queenborough, L.
Lucan, E. Cawley, L. Sandhurst, L.
Morton, E. Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.) Stanmore, L.
Onslow, E. Strachie, L. [Teller.]
Plymouth, E. Darling, L. [Teller.] Templemore, L.
Stanhope, E. Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.) Teynham, L.
Stradbroke, E. Desborough, L. Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)
Fairfax of Cameron, L. Wyfold, L.
Bertie of Thame, V. Gage, L. (V. Gage.)
NOT-CONTENTS.
Russell, E. [Teller.] Banbury of Southam, L. [Teller.] Olivier, L.
Parmoor, L.
Gisborough, L. Thomson, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved to leave out "access thereto of" and insert "injury thereby to." The noble Lord said: I understand that my noble and learned friend Lord Darling will accept this Amendment. Therefore I will not take up your Lordships' time by speaking on it.

Amendment moved— Page 1, lines 18 and 19, leave out ("access thereto of") and insert ("injury thereby to").—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)

LORD DARLING

I think this will be an improvement to the Bill and therefore I accept the Amendment.

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

Even so I think we should have some explanation of this proposal. This introduces words which are not in the Scottish Act. The Bill, as introduced, says that steps must be taken to prevent access to the land on which this poison is placed. How, I ask, is that possible without fencing out the land upon which this poison is placed, by nets of sufficiently small mesh to prevent any birds getting through? Lord Banbury and Lord Darling, instead of taking out the words "prevent access thereto" of wild birds propose to insert the words "prevent injury thereby" to wild birds. The two cases are identical. Injury cannot be caused to wild birds by the poison unless the wild birds have access to the poisoned land. The Amendment seems to leave the Bill as ridiculous as it was in its pristine form. I really think Lord Darling ought to explain to us what he means by these words. How are you going to prevent wild birds getting on to a big field infested with leather jackets? It really seems rather ridiculous solemnly to pass into law an injunction which we know cannot be put into force. The House ought to have an explanation. There may be a recondite explanation, but I cannot think of one.

LORD DARLING

I am not an expert in the poisoning of rats and birds, but I am told that the improvement in the words will result in this: If you put in words providing that the person who puts down poison is to prevent access thereto of cats and wild birds it makes it very difficult, and indeed practically impossible, for a person to do the thing because it is hard to conceive of any kind of fence which a wild bird or cat could not get over. If the words "injury thereby to cats and wild birds" are used I am told the result will be that a person who puts down poison must contemplate that wild birds may swallow it, but he will have to dilute the poison. He will put it down in such a form that it will not hurt the cat or the wild bird, but it will kill the particular sort of pest of which the farmer wants to get rid. I am not a farmer but Lord Bledisloe, I think, will explain exactly what are the things and how it will operate.

LORD BLEDISLOE

After what happened on the occasion of the last Amendment I tremble at the thought of giving an exact explanation of this Bill or its Amendments, but I think the difficulty is due to the addition—I think in another place—of the words "and wild birds" to the original draft of the Bill. I think I am right in saying that those words are not in the Scottish Act. Therefore we feel that these words "access thereto of" are not sufficient but that the alternative "injury thereby to" would render it possible to retain the words "and wild birds" without any great danger. 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.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

Remaining clause agreed to.