Lords Sitting of 4 November 1936

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The EARL OF ONSLOW on the Woolsack.
LORD DUNALLEY.
Petition of Henry Cornelius O'Callaghan Prittie, Baron Dunalley in the Peerage of Ireland, claiming a right to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland; read, and referred to the Lord Chancellor to consider and report thereupon to the House.
VISCOUNT ASHBROOK.
Petition of Desmond Llowarch Edward, Viscount Ashbrook and Baron of Castle Durrow in the Peerage of Ireland, claiming a right to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland; read, and referred to the Lord Chancellor to consider and report thereupon to the House.

VOLUNTARY EUTHANASIA (LEGALISATION) BILL. [H.L.]
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBUEDE: My Lords, I beg leave to present a bill to legalise under certain conditions the administration of euthanasia to persons desiring it who are suffering from illness of a fatal and incurable character involving severe pain; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

AGRICULTURE (DAMAGE BY RABBITS).
LORD MERTHYR LORD MERTHYR rose to move, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider whether any measures, and if so what, ought to be taken for better protection of agriculture and the land against the ravages of rabbits, and to what extent, if any, the prohibition of the use of gin traps would affect the attainment of the object aforesaid. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in mov-
42
ing the Resolution which stands in my name, I do not think I need detain the House for more than a few moments. The reason for that is that a Resolution in identical terms was passed without a Division in the month of May last. It was subsequently found, however, that there would not be time for the Select Committee to complete its duties before the end of last. Session, and therefore it was decided to postpone its work until the present Session. That being so, it is necessary for me formally to move once more that this Select Committee be appointed. I think I am right in saying that upon the last occasion His Majesty's Government were good enough to say that they welcomed the appointment of this Select Committee. I do not think that the problem which it will have to face has in any way lessened in the interval. The interest in the subject seems to be just as great as it was then, and I think that it is now expedient for an inquiry to be made upon the lines suggested in my Motion. I beg to move.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider whether any measures, and if so what, ought to be taken for better protection of agriculture and the land against the ravages of rabbits, and to what extent, if any, the prohibition of the use of gin traps would affect the attainment of the object aforesaid.—(Lord Merthyr.)
THE EARL OF RADNOR: My Lords, I do not want to detain the House very long upon this subject because it was discussed very fully not long ago; but I must say that I did not realise that the Motion that was agreed to on that occasion was in identical terms to this. Even so, a point arises now which had not occurred to me on that occasion, and that is that these being, as I understand it, the terms of reference to the proposed Committee, the Motion really deals with two questions. It deals with measures against rabbits for the better protection of agriculture, which in itself is one subject, and, under the guise of the protection of agriculture, also brings in the question of gin traps—presumably the question of the humanity or otherwise of gin traps, which is an entirely different question from the protection of agriculture. And not only that, but if you confined the discussion of gin traps to

43
their use in connection with rabbits you would limit the proper discussion of that particular subject, because gin traps are not used only in connection with rabbits. They are used also for such things as rats and other vermin. But there are people who have the belief that gin traps are, first of all, inhumane, and, secondly, unnecessary. I think their plea is that they need not be used against any animal, but they have fastened on the rabbit because the rabbit has a rather more popular appeal than the rat.
I do not know whether it is possible at this stage for the noble Lord to agree, but I suggest to him that the Motion should be amended so as to leave out everything after "rabbits." That does not preclude him or anybody who is interested in gin traps from bringing up the question of the use or otherwise of gin traps against rabbits, but it does prevent the Select Committee from being limited in their consideration of the use of gin traps generally, because, as this Motion is drawn, if the Committee is set up the consideration of gin traps is limited purely to their use against rabbits. I should like to hear the views of His Majesty's Government on that point, and also of the noble Lord who has moved the Motion as to whether he would not consider amending the Motion to that effect.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: My Lords, I should like to take this opportunity of congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, on his zeal in a very good cause. I only regret that I personally was unable to support him on the occasion when he brought this matter before your Lordships during the summer, because I feel that it is a matter which ought to be very seriously taken up by the Government, and, so far as I know, with the goodwill of landowners—at any rate all progressive and enlightened landowners—in this country, as well as the more efficient farmers. I for my part fail to see what the value of the last part of the Motion is. Indeed I am not quite sure that I fully understand what it means. The first part of the Motion of course is perfectly clear. It suggests that a Select Committee should be appointed to consider what measures, if any, ought to be taken for the better protection of agriculture and the land
44
against the ravages of rabbits. But it goes on to say:
"and to what extent, if any, the prohibition of the use of gin traps would affect the attainment of the object aforesaid."
I presume that what the noble Lord means is, what alternative to the use of gin traps would be effective in attaining the same object. In any case I agree with the noble Earl who has just spoken that the last part of the Motion seems to be hardly relevant to the more important question before the House, and may possibly raise a certain amount of unnecessary criticism in regard to what most people nowadays feel is a very important matter which ought to be taken in hand.
In ease there should be any suggestion that the agricultural landowners of this country favour the prevalence of rabbits on the land, I think it is only right that I should inform your Lordships that at a recent very well attended meeting of the Council of the Central Landowners' Association a unanimous resolution was passed to the effect that this is a matter which ought to be taken in hand by the Government, and that they, the Central Landowners' Association, would afford the Government the fullest support in the event of their taking up the matter. May I in conclusion be allowed to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Feversham—who, I think I am right in saying, is to-day speaking for his Department for the first time in this House—on the post which he now occupies, a post which I myself had the honour of occupying some years ago?
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY or AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF FEVERSHAD): My Lords, I would, wish in the first instance to thank the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, for the congratulations he has been good enough to offer me on my appearance here in a new capacity as the Government's representative in your Lordships' House of the great industry of agriculture. It is very gratifying that a noble Lord with such great experience in the administration of agriculture should have extended me such a warm welcome, which I know he himself received when he was serving in a similar capacity. I do not think it is necessary for me to delay your Lordships' consideration of the Motion of my noble friend very long, for I have just referred

45
to the Motion that was moved in May last and I see that it was in exactly the same terms as the Motion to-day. Perhaps your Lordships will recall that my noble friend the Leader of the House replied to the noble Lord on that occasion to the effect that the Government were fully aware of the great damage that was being done, and especially in the last few years, by, rabbits to agriculture and the land generally, and he at the time fully supported the proposal to appoint a Select Committee to consider this matter. I can only add that the Department that I represent are fully aware of the need for an inquiry to be made into this problem.
With reference to the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, and the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, with regard to the latter part of the Motion, your Lordships will recall that there was a debate in your Lordships' House on a Private Member's Bill, the Gin Traps (Prohibition) Bill, and that there was a Motion for a Select Committee to inquire into the question of the prohibition or limitation of gin traps, the Motion being defeated by a very small majority. I think the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, who has now moved this Motion, has in
46
mind the debate that took place specifically on the gin traps question, and that he believes it would be of benefit if that particular aspect were included in the terms of reference in the case of the present Motion. We are all agreed that, whether or not the noble Lord decides it should be included in the terms of the Motion as at present stated, that aspect of gin traps should be carefully considered by the Committee that is to be appointed. I have no further statement to add except to say that the Ministry of Agriculture will watch with interest the developments that take place when the Select Committee is appointed.
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE EARL of LUCAN: My Lords, as there is no business on the Paper for to-morrow it is proposed that the House should now adjourn, except for judicial business, until Tuesday next at a quarter past four o'clock.
House adjourned at thirteen minutes past four o'clock.