§ Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD SEMPILLMy Lords, I have had the privilege of addressing your Lordships' House on a previous occasion in regard to matters concerned with the air, but I propose now to address a few remarks for your Lordships' consideration in regard to crops, with particular reference to the prevention of damage done by rabbits, which is very expensive and very deleterious to the nation's food supply and to British farming. As your Lordships know, rabbits have enormously increased in recent years, and market statistics show a periodical fluctuation superimposed upon a very rapid overall increase in the production of rabbits. The rabbit menace has increased considerably since the War, and numerous attempts have been made to deal with it. Such attempts go as far back as the Ground Game Act of 1856, and certain regulations were promulgated during the War period of 1914–18, but the powers then given were unfortunately repealed. Attempts to deal with this matter by legislation have been made almost every year since 1923, but all the Bills produced in those years mentioned have failed to pass into law for various reasons.
Your Lordships may have heard of the Universities' Federation for Animal Welfare, which has been carrying out considerable propaganda work with a view to attracting public attention to this important matter, and it is submitted that the time is now appropriate for a fresh attempt at legislation. The urgency of this problem was entirely realised by your Lordships when a Select Committee was appointed in 1936 under the noble Viscount, Lord Mersey. Last Session I had the privilege of introducing into your Lordships' House a Bill under the title of Destructive Animals Bill, which was designed to make better provisions for the protection of agriculture and the land from the ravages of rabbits. The object in view in the preparation of that Bill was to give effect to the recommendations of the Select Committee. I realised, of course, that the Bill could not be carried through further stages during that Session, but your Lordships will, I feel sure, agree that the public notice thereby directed to 320 the rabbit question has in itself served some useful purpose.
There are ample indications of a growing public opinion in regard to this matter, particularly amongst the farming community and others broadly interested in agriculture, and I submit that an attempt should now be made to place upon the Statute Book a measure that will enable those who are concerned with home food production to take effective action to keep rabbits under control. Since the introduction of the Bill to which I have referred there has been an opportunity for me to discuss this matter very fully with representatives of the Ministry of Agriculture and others interested in the subject, and as a result I have introduced the Bill which is now before your Lordships. The present Bill does not go quite so far as the last Bill to which I have referred. With considerable regret I find it would appear to be necessary to restrict this Bill to some extent, as it was obvious that certain of the clauses would meet with considerable opposition. Therefore those clauses are not included in the present Bill.
I suggest to your Lordships' House that it is very essential that something should be done to deal with this matter. For example, it is really not possible to exaggerate the urgency of the economic problem with which this Bill deals, but before coming to the economic aspect there is another side, the humanitarian side, which I think must be carefully considered. I submit that there is no other cruelty in this country so extensive as that which arises out of the trapping of rabbits. It has been truly said that to reduce the rabbit population of the country would be a very humane act, because it would eliminate the number of rabbits that there are to be trapped, and we should, therefore, stop the cruelty which goes on in the trapping. Therefore quite apart from the specific economic aspects of the case, we have a duty, I suggest, to reduce the cruelty inflicted on these animals by reducing the number of animals themselves. Then I would like, if I may, to say a few words on the economic branch of the Bill. It is not denied in any quarter, so far as I know, that the damage done by rabbits to agriculture immeasurably exceeds their commercial value as a source of food or fur, and the evidence with regard to this 321 is very clearly exposed in the Report of the Committee presided over by the noble Viscount.
May I explain to your Lordships briefly the proposals contained in the Bill, and indicate to what extent its provisions de-part from the recommendations of the Select Committee referred to? Clause 1 gives effect to a recommendation of the Committee. It empowers a county council or county borough council to serve a notice upon occupiers of land infested with rabbits, requiring them to take steps to prevent damage being caused by the rabbits to crops, trees, pastures, fences, banks or other works on land in the occupation of other persons. The necessary action must be taken within a time specified in the notice, which must not be less than twenty-one days. An occupier who fails to comply with the requirements of a notice served upon him is, under the provisions of this clause, liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £25 and to a further fine for each day on which the failure continues. It will be observed that subsection (2) provides that a duly authorised person, on giving twenty-four hours notice, may enter on the land to ascertain whether proper action is being taken to abate the nuisance.
With regard further to Clause 1, it may be asked how it is intended to identify the offender in a case of this kind, or how it can be proved that the rabbits are coming from a particular property. I suggest to your Lordships that we have a very fair and definite criterion. If the rabbits are causing damage in a neighbourhood, the only way to get rid of them is to close the burrows after having fumigated them with cyanide gas. If, therefore, we find many open burrows in a rabbit-infested neighbourhood, we may fairly conclude that the owner of the land has not taken due steps to keep down his rabbits. Then again we have Counties, like Devonshire for example, in which the great majority of the farmers would like to get rid of their rabbits but are deterred by this particular difficulty: they know that if they incur the necessary expenditure themselves while their neighbours fail to take similar action, they will have thrown their money away, since their crops will be eaten and their pastures fouled by their neighbours' rabbits. Rarely is it possible to organise concerted action. Therefore they try to recoup 322 themselves for some part of their losses by trapping for the market, a practice which in the long run only makes matters worse.
It should be emphasized that there is no compulsory power of entry to destroy rabbits. The Bill confers no power of entry upon land except for the purpose of satisfying the council concerned that the requirements of a notice served are being complied with. In this respect this Bill differs materially from some previous Bills dealing with the rabbit question that have from time to time been before your Lordships' House and have failed to command unanimous support. It should therefore be made quite clear that no powers are being sought that would give power of free entry for the purpose of killing rabbits. In regard to the power to provide rabbit-control service, a difficulty arises. Granted that it is a duty to keep down rabbits on one's land, it may happen, particularly in the case of small farmers, either that the skilled labour for dealing with the rabbit nuisance is lacking or that there is some fear of, and prejudice against, the up-to-date methods of rabbit control. To meet this difficulty the Bill provides, in Clause 2, that the county council may provide staff and equipment for this purpose. This rabbit-control service would be available to anyone who desires to have its assistance, and the council is to be empowered to make a reasonable charge for the use of the service. It is important, I suggest to your Lordships, to note that the use of this service would be entirely voluntary on the part of the farmer. There is no question of putting into this Bill any power to go on to a man's land and kill rabbits without his consent.
The fencing of warrens is dealt with in accordance with the recommendation of the Select Committee. Clause 3 compels the adequate fencing of any rabbits kept in warrens. Then comes the question of the use of gas. In their Report, as your Lordships will remember, the Select Committee, in view of the evidence submitted to them, stated that the legal position with regard to the use of gas in the destruction of rabbits was uncertain. They recommended that the use of gas for this purpose should be placed beyond legal doubt. Effect to this recommendation is given in Clause 5 of the Bill now before your Lordships' House, which provides for the amendment of the Protection of 323 Animals Acts. Cyanide fumigation will be the method adopted under the Bill for the destruction of rabbits. That is perfectly safe when used with care and in the open air. It is humane and quite extraordinarily effective, and has the advantage of killing the rabbits in bulk instead of requiring them to be caught one by one. It is important for two reasons, I suggest to your Lordships, that cyanide fumigation should be used as extensively as possible for the control of rabbits. In the first place, it is the most humane method of killing rabbits, and it is also by far the most effective means of keeping down rabbits. I may mention that another humane method of gassing rabbits is to use carbon dioxide from the exhaust of a motor car, although unlike cyanide fumigation, this method is not always successful in very porous soils.
With regard to night shooting, the Select Committee recommended that the setting of spring traps in the open should be prohibited in all circumstances. It will be remembered by your Lordships that Section 6 of the Ground Game Act, 1880, contains this prohibition but has been held to apply only to tenant farmers. The present Bill repeals Section 6 of the Ground Game Act, and substitutes the provision that the spring trap should not be used for catching hares and rabbits, except in rabbit holes. Section 6 of the Ground Game Act also prohibits tenant farmers using firearms at night for the same purpose and this Bill contains a provision to apply this generally.
With regard to the setting of spring traps in the open, Clause 6 (1) (b) of the Bill makes the use of a spring trap for the purpose of killing rabbits illegal, except in a rabbit hole. This covers the recommendation made by the Select Committee of your Lordships' House to the effect that the setting of gin traps in the open should be prohibited. It will be noted that the term "spring trap" and not "gin trap" is used in the Bill. It has been done deliberately, in spite of the fact that the words "spring trap" include various traps which are intended to be humane in addition to the cruel gin trap. It is felt that no trap of the spring type should be set where it is liable to damage animals for which it is not intended. It may be that the majority will regret the smallness of this concession to humane 324 people, but I have to confess to your Lordships that from information received it would appear that any attempt to give this clause a wider scope would fatally prejudice the prospects of the Bill passing into law.
Your Lordships will doubtless have observed that the Bill as presented does not extend to Scotland. While I am satisfied that need for legislation on this subject is as great in Scotland as in England, it is clear from information obtained from the Secretary of State that the matter is under consideration and it may be possible to bring about adequate arrangements in Scotland that may bear a relationship to the Bill now before your Lordships. In these circumstances, therefore, the Bill has been framed to apply only to England and Wales. As there is no power under the Bill to claim compensation, I think it would be well to direct your Lordships' attention to the omission of a provision giving effect to the recommendation of the Select Committee of your Lordships' House, that occupiers of land should be empowered to claim compensation in respect of damage caused by rabbits coming from another person's land. Various witnesses strongly urged upon the Select Committee the view that such powers are most desirable and the Select Committee recommended that they should be conferred, but I suggest to your Lordships that their inclusion would be prejudicial to the passage of this Bill. In my anxiety to ensure that something should be done, however much less that would be than some of us would consider desirable, I think that such a clause should be omitted.
For the moment I am commending to your Lordships' consideration a Bill which avoids as far as possible matters likely to provoke controversy, in the hope that it may reach the Statute Book and achieve two important objects. At a time like the present we cannot afford to reduce home food production by allowing the depredations of rabbits to continue. Rabbits provide only from three to four per cent. of our home-produced food supply, and the rapid increase of the rabbit population can be judged by the sales at Smithfield which have increased from 900 tons in 1932 to over 3,000 tons in 1936 and the same quantity in 1937. Five rabbits, for which the farmer receives about threepence each, spoil or consume as much pasture as one sheep. Lambs have been selling for 35s. each recently in 325 the Midlands. The Forestry Commission have spent over £30,000 on trying to keep down rabbits, and fencing, as no doubt some of your Lordships know, costs about £80 a mile. Pasture infested by rabbits quickly loses clover and sweet grass and becomes full of moss, coarse grass and ragwort. It is essential to deal with the matter of keeping down rabbits if subsidies for the improvement of pasture with lime and basic slags are not to be money wasted. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2 a.— (Lord Sempill. )
VISCOUNT MERSEYMy Lords, I should like to say a few words in support of this Bill. It was framed largely upon the Report of the Select Committee of which I was Chairman. I may say that, with the exception of the Chairman, it was an extremely strong and well-informed Committee, and tock a great deal of trouble over hearing all the evidence on the questions from different angles. The Bill largely gives effect to the recommendations of the Committee and, with the exception of one or two very small points, as far as I can see at this moment I should like to commend it to your Lordships. It has been suggested to me by a very high legal authority indeed that the words "the warren is securely fenced," in Clause 3, are, perhaps not sufficient, and that the words "securely enough fenced to prevent the egress of rabbits" would perhaps put the magistrates in a stronger position. However, that is only a minor point, and I think what the noble Lord said about being content with half a loaf if you cannot get the whole of it is a very sound argument.
§ LORD ELTISLEYMy Lords, I beg to rise in support of the Bill, which I venture to suggest is a good and well-drafted measure; and I hope your Lordships will agree to give it a Second Reading to-day. The best method of dealing with the destruction caused by rabbits is a question which has occupied the attention of the House for many years. In fact, it might be said that the floor of your Lordships' House is literally littered with Bills which have been promoted here to deal with the question. Nine such Bills, not including the present Bill, are now already in the official waste paper-basket. Six were promoted by private members and three were Government Bills, but even these latter were not successful in 326 reaching the Statute Book. Let us hope that a Bill with such an obscure title as "Crops (Prevention of Damage) Bill," which makes no mention of rabbits or of rooks, mill be more successful and be passed into law. Hitherto an attack on rabbits has always been linked up in close conjunction with an attack on rooks. To many of us it seems impossible to see how one measure could deal effectively both with birds that fly about and with rabbits that run about. In fact, that is the chief cause of these previous Bills having failed to reach the Statute Book.
Many people—and I am one of them—like to see rabbits gambolling in our countryside. The rabbit is a pretty, happy and picturesque little animal, and it would be a great loss to all of us if there were no rabbits to be seen running about—as is the case in some other countries. Nevertheless, however much we may enjoy the spectacle of rabbits in the countryside, to farmers and market gardeners the rabbit is anathema, and may unquestionably, I think, be styled "Public Enemy No. 1." to the farmer and the market gardener. He spoils and soils grassland wherever he lives in excessive numbers. He eats everything that grows, and the more precious and valuable the crops the more he appears to relish doing so. Sometimes one wonders how it has been possible for the rabbit, so to speak, to hold his own and to go on increasing and multiplying in the way he has done during the last few years in the face of so many natural enemies—foxes, weasels, stoats and cats—supplemented by all the ingenious modern equipment invented by man for his destruction: traps, snares, guns, nets and all the rest of it. But I think at long last, perhaps with the aid of this Bill, we may be able to give him his congé. He has probably met his Waterloo in this Bill if it is effectively carried out. He will have now to face for the first time all the authority of local government. The hand of every county council is in future to be directed against him. As a member of the County Councils Association, I should like to say publicly that they welcome this Bill, which embodies nearly all the points that they have been pressing for in previous Bills.
Bills have been submitted before, but the machinery has been so complicated and so slow-acting that if any one of them had reached the Statute Book the rabbits would undoubtedly have multiplied themselves 327 many times before it could have taken any kind of effect. But I have my doubts whether, even with the quicker procedure suggested in this Bill, we shall win a great victory. I fear, somehow, that the rabbits will be able to deal with the situation even in its new form. The rabbit has always been, if I may say so, a peace-at-any-price animal, and the moment he sees any difficulty he immediately decamps. That is why perhaps he has survived. Should we ever be engaged in another war—which God forbid!—there would undoubtedly be a great increase in our rabbits unless we had effective measures to deal with the matter such as this Bill suggests. I do not wish to weary the House with figures and statistics, which can be poured out on this question. Enough has been said amply to illustrate the importance of the problem with which this Bill attempts to deal. I therefore venture with great respect to support the Bill. It is designed to promote the interests of the food producers of the country, and in doing so to provide effective control over the rabbit, which makes such severe depredations and exacts such a heavy toll from our farmers and horticulturists. I beg to support the Motion.
THE EARL OF RADNORMy Lords, I do not suppose that anyone in your Lordships' House who knows anything about land disagrees with the principle underlying this Bill. However much my noble friend Lord Eltisley may like to see the rabbit playing in the countryside, I share the view that the rabbit is one of the greatest pests with which the agriculturist has to deal. This Bill purports to deal with the question, and to enable the authorities to dispose of rabbits where they appear in numbers which are, shall I say, in excess of what is desirable. I entirely agree with the noble Lord who moved this measure, for two reasons, when he said that it was much better that there should be no rabbits: first of all, on humanitarian grounds, because all methods of killing rabbits are cruel and the only kindly method is to have no rabbits; and secondly, because no agriculturist wants rabbits.
How does this Bill deal with the question? The really operative part of the Bill is Clause 1. I am afraid I have not been able to examine all the details of the Bill, because those to whom I 328 generally look for advice in this matter have been unable to obtain a copy of the Bill. For what reason they have failed I do not know, but I strongly suspect that they asked for a Rabbits Bill and the Stationery Office, being wise men and not reading the Bills which are put under their charge, did not realise that the Crops (Prevention of Damage) Bill was nothing more nor less than a plain Rabbits Bill. I may perhaps wish, if I can be present, to move an Amendment in the Committee stage to the Title of the Bill, in order to make quite clear what it deals with.
By Clause 1, the onus of taking action is placed upon the county council—or rather, I should say upon the local authority, to cover the wider field. My noble friend behind me said that the Bill would have all the authority of local government behind it. There is an Act of Parliament which deals with certain forms of injurious weeds; that also has all the authority of local government behind it. I do not know, but perhaps my noble friend on the Front Bench will be able to tell us how many times that Act has been invoked by local authorities. Certainly those weeds have not been exterminated, and I would suggest to the noble Lord that it would be much wiser if action was taken on a complaint from a landowner, and that action, after due consideration by the local authorities of a complaint, should be compulsory on that local authority if they are certain that the complaint is justified. In those circumstances, you would have a man who was suffering from rabbits coming from his neighbour, first going to the neighbour and asking him to kill the rabbits, and if the neighbour did not do that then he could go to the local authority with the certainty that they would take action. My view of the situation would be that the local authority would not often need to take action, because the mere threat of it would compel the man who was causing the nuisance to kill his rabbits.
That is the principal point to which I would just draw your Lordships' attention. The other point is as to Clause 7, subsection (2), which contains a definition of "occupier." It
includes in relation to any land any person who, by virtue of any interest in that land, has the right to kill the rabbits thereon.That is rather a wide definition of "occupier," and I imagine that it would 329 leave the authority concerned in rather a difficulty as to whom to apply, because it seems to me it would cover not only the owner of the land but the tenant, and even the shooting tenant, all of whom have an interest in the land and have a right to kill the rabbits thereon. I think that that definition needs very careful consideration, and may be the subject of Amendments in the Committee stage.There are two other quite small points to which I would draw your Lordships attention before I sit down. In Clause 1, subsection (2),
any person authorised in writing by the council may, on giving twenty-four hours' notice to the occupier, enter on the land for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not the requirements of the notice are being complied with.I wonder whether that is really a misprint for "have been complied with." It seems to me that it would be rather difficult to find out whether the work is being done, whereas it would be quite easy subsequently to find out whether it has been done and the rabbits have been killed. Also, as to Clause 6 (1) (b), I do not know what a rabbit hole means. Is it a hole made by a rabbit, or a hole used by a rabbit, or just a hole in the ground? It seems to me it would be much better, and much more useful, if that were altered so as to read "uses a spring trap, except underground." Those words would cover any kind of hole. While I approve of the principle of the Bill, as your Lordships will realise, there are certain rather important points upon which in my opinion Amendments will be required in the Committee stage, and I hope that the noble Lord, when that stage is reached, will treat the Amendments in the spirit in which they are meant—namely, to produce a Bill which will perform the function of killing rabbits.
LORD SALTOUNMy Lords, I would like to say at once that I am very much in favour of the object of this Bill, but it seems to me that Clause 1 is too strong for the purpose. It says that "where the council of any county or county borough are satisfied" that land is being allowed to become infested with rabbits, they may serve an order on the occupier. There is in that clause no provision for any appeal by the person against whom an order is directed. Now it happens very often—I have a case in mind—that a man 330 has a small quantity of land, which is arable land, with other land on either side of it which is by no means arable land and is infested with rabbits. In such circumstances it is vain for that man to try to kill his rabbits. I know of one very small area of land on which a couple of years ago 300 rabbits were killed, and there could be killed on that land, to-day, another 100 rabbits very easily. These rabbits are rabbits which are damaging agricultural land. The county council might very well be satisfied that that was the land to blame, when all the time the poor fellow who owns that land is getting rabbits again and again from the people on either side of him. I think there should be provision for some form of appeal.
Then I should like to say that this Bill is a little illogical, because it wishes to kill rabbits, and yet it is prescribed that certain methods are not to be used as far as possible. I, like Lord Radnor, do not know what a rabbit hole is, but I would suggest another and rather different definition from his. I would suggest that as long as a spring trap is covered over it can be set anywhere, and I think the reason for that is that some parts of Great Britain enjoy a milder climate than that enjoyed by other parts. In those parts of Great Britain, some of which I know quite intimately, rabbits have taken to lying out and live lying out, and only visit a rabbit hole occasionally, as some of your Lordships may visit your clubs, and it is perfectly hopeless otherwise to try to get rid of those rabbits. The noble Lord could hardly hope to get rid of them by using cyanide or carbon monoxide. The only way is to snare them in their runs, or to trap them.
Then there is another kind of land where it is quite impossible to use gas. I do not know whether any of your Lordships know what it is like to walk up Ben Nevis. A large section of the mountainside consists of great boulders. You can look down between them from 40 to 70 feet, and when you get down there you can look down another 30 or 40 feet. In course of time those crevices get filled up with peat and other soil, and then you get various trees growing in that soil. Once you get below the surface crust of that land the whole place is open. How on earth are you going to fill up that with cyanide when your subsoil consists of these great boulders, only loosely filled 331 in with occasional soil? I do not think that the exponents of gas are really on safe ground when they say, as they do quite clearly, that you can always get rid of rabbits by gas and that gas is so humane. I think the Bill is illogical in saying that you must get rid of rabbits, and then saying "You may not do this" and "You may not do that." Many people will say, "We can only get rid of rabbits in certain ways, and we are not allowed to use them." I am very much in sympathy with the Bill, but I hope the noble Lord will go into the points I have raised, and at a later stage perhaps something may be done to meet them.
LORD MERTHYRMy Lords, my support of this Bill is confined, I am afraid, to saying that it is better than nothing. I asked myself on reading this Bill the question whether it would work, and I would like to ask some supplementary questions to-day in order to satisfy myself about that. On reading Clause 1 it occurs to me to wonder whether a conviction will ever be secured under it in a Court of Law. The offence charged, I take it, will be that the defendant has failed to abate or prevent the damage, and I do not at the moment understand how it is going to be proved affirmatively and without any reasonable doubt that he is guilty of that failure. First of all I should like to know—and my doubts are increased since hearing the speech of the noble Lord who introduced the Bill—whether the land can be inspected except by the request of the owner or occupier. I am not quite clear about that, and, unless it can I have no hesitation in saying that this Bill will not work in certain parts of the country, in particular a part from which I myself come.
Then, supposing a prosecution is brought and the defendant is accused of failing to abate this nuisance, and it is given in evidence for the prosecution that there is an abundance of rabbits, let us say on farm A, and that by reason of these rabbits (those words "by reason of" are rather important) damage has been caused to farm B. That is what the prosecution will have to prove. Supposing the defendant in answer says that the damage to farm B has been in fact caused by rabbits which came from farms C and D and E. How is that evidence to be rebutted? The noble Lord 332 did say something which touched upon the point—namely, that the holes would be inspected to see whether gas had been applied, but I do not think that that is completely satisfactory, and unless some further enlightenment is forthcoming on this Clause 1 I cannot see how the authorities, even if they are brave enough to attempt it, are ever going to get a conviction on a charge under subsection (1). The one way of escape then may be the words "or is likely to be caused" which occur in the fifth line. They may have a little more success in bringing a prosecution on those lines, but then they have to convince the court as to whether these rabbits are likely to cause damage, not to the farm on which they are, but to somebody else's farm, and it seems to me that that is not an easy thing to do. I cannot help feeling that I would prefer to be engaged for the defence in one of these cases than for the prosecution; and I can only hope, as I am very keen on preventing this damage and reducing the number of rabbits, that I may be wrong about this.
Then the Bill says that there is to be a fine for each day upon which this default continues. Who is to say upon how many days this default is continued? The penalty is £5 a day, and it is a serious matter. How is it to be proved that the damage is continuing on a definite and given number of days if there is a spirited defence and denial of that statement? I cannot visualise a successful penalty daily being imposed under this Bill, and I venture to say that if there is not to be a reasonable chance of these penalties being inflicted, they had better not be in the Bill at all, and the reduction of rabbits had better be attempted in some other way. In Clause 1 (2) the county council's representative "may … enter on the land." To whose land does that refer? It may seem a small point, but it is as well to have it clear. Does it refer to the land where the damage is being caused, or does it refer to the land where there is a suspicion that the rabbits are being harboured? I hope that that possibly may be cleared up at a later stage.
On Clause 2 (1) I want to ask a question which may appear at first sight to be a frivolous one. The question is this: After these rabbits have been caught by the county council inspector, to whom do they belong? There is more perhaps in that question than appears at first 333 sight, because I am visualising all the time in speaking on this Bill a part of the country where what I deliberately call rabbit farming is carried on to a very large extent. Supposing that the inspector goes on the land and catches, say, fifty rabbits, and all the rabbits on that farm have previously been sold by the farmer to a trapper, whose rabbits are they? We might save trouble later on by clearing up that point before the Bill is passed.
On Clause 3 I am again thirsting for information. I want to know whether the words in that clause are a proper and sufficient definition of "a warren for the purpose of breeding rabbits." We all know what the ordinary rabbit warren is, but how far does it extend? Can it possibly be said, for instance, that where a whole farm is riddled with rabbit holes, as is the case in certain parts of the country, that is a place which is carried on for the breeding of rabbits, if the rabbits on that farm are regularly year after year sold to a trapper? If it cannot be said, then in those regions this Bill is going to do no good at all. If it can, well and good, But is it clear that it can be? Is it clear on that sort of farm? I know a county council small holding, which has a fairly substantial rent for the size of it, on which the only crop on the holding is rabbits. It is right on the coast, I admit, on the cliffs, but there it is. It belongs to the county council. Is that going to be a rabbit warren under this Bill? If not, this Bill is going to be useless in that area, or anywhere near it. So then, while I think this clause is absolutely harmless as it stands, it will not stop what I consider a great evil, that is, rabbit farming, unless the interpretation is as I hope it is.
Then with regard to Clause 6, that introduces the topic of spring traps, which has been debated many times in your Lordships' House. Another question I would like to ask there is whether the police can take any action under this Bill. From reading it, it appears that they cannot, but again I say that unless they can, very little good indeed will come of the Bill. I was again alarmed to hear the noble Lord who introduced the Bill say that nothing would be done tinder this Bill unless it was asked for by the landowner. That means that in many parts of this country nothing is going to be done at all, because a man who sells his 334 rabbits for a large sum annually and does not care for the destruction which they cause is not going to invite interference from the county council. I am, I frankly admit, in a minority, but I would infinitely prefer the use of steel traps to be abolished altogether, not only because I feel that they are abominably cruel, that they are a relic of mediaeval barbarism—and they are not allowed in Germany—but because in certain parts of the country—I emphasize those words, because I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Eltisley's part of the country, for example, does not suffer in this respect—as steel traps are now used by professional trappers, I honestly and sincerely believe that their use increases the number of rabbits.
I know it is a difficult thing—perhaps an impossible thing—to prove, but that is the conclusion to which I have come, and I would like to ask, if I am wrong, how is it, as Lord Eltisley has said, that in spite of all this trapping, the rabbits go on increasing? What is the reason for that? I think I know, but it is a view in which I am in the minority. In justification I would like to say that I practise what I preach. On my own farm there has never been a trap, and I have very many fewer rabbits than most people in a county which is infested with rabbits. I have no difficulty whatsoever in keeping them down. It is true it may be difficult on Ben Nevis, as the noble Lord said, but this Bill does not apply to Scotland.
LORD SALTOUNI only introduced Ben Nevis as it showed what was underneath the soil—the land before it was made—and that there were many more accessible places of the kind.
LORD MERTHYRMay I say finally that I am not oblivious of the enormous damage done by rabbits. In a former debate it was stated by Lord Cranworth, though I do not believe anybody could possibly prove it, that the damage was £70,000,000 a year. Be that as it may, the damage certainly is very extensive indeed, and one has only got to think of the problems of the Forestry Commission carrying on an industry of national importance, to realise the seriousness of this problem. It is for that reason, in view of the seriousness of the problem and the fact that I do not honestly think this Bill is going to be very successful in certain 335 parts of the country, that I suggest that the method of supervision by county councils is not the right one. I feel certain that ultimately the only remedy is for the Ministry or some national organisation to use a corp of inspectors who will go round the country killing and reducing this pest as fast as possible. I do not believe results will be achieved by prosecution, at any rate under this Bill, or by the imposition of penalties. Nothing but independent work—reducing rabbits by the proper methods—will really meet the problem.
When I say that nothing will really do except the elimination of rabbits as far as possible, one is always up against the argument of cheap food; but I feel, and I have said it here before, that that is a complete fallacy. I do not believe this so-called cheap rabbit food is cheap at all if, which is never done, the real charges and debits are included in the farmer's accounts. The farmer thinks only of the price which he gets for the rabbits, and never debits his accounts with the damage done or the food eaten. If he did so, there would never again be heard this point of cheap food for the poor people. It is not cheap; it is merely sold for a small price. These matters are very important to a large body of people, and the taxpayers of this country may well ask why they should continue to pay subsidies to farmers who are allowed to continue what I call rabbit farming—that is, selling their rabbits every year to a professional trapper. If I thought that this Bill was going to stop that, I should be most enthusiastic in support of it. I am afraid it will not. It is really only a small effort at a very big problem, but since it will certainly do no harm I shall not vote against it.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELDMy Lords, as one engaged in a constant struggle with rabbits, I welcome this Bill, as all your Lordships have done who have taken part in the debate, but I do share with my noble friend Lord Saltoun very considerable doubts, amounting to certainties, as to whether the gas extirpation of rabbits can be successful in a great many areas. It is not merely rough and mountainous country with crevices and hollows which are involved; it affects a very large portion of our coastline, and all those parts of the country where you get a great deal of heathery ground, the 336 banks of small streams covered with broom or gorse, or where you get dense young woods. In all these areas the rabbits habitually do not use burrows, and therefore the use of gas is completely impracticable. At the same time I do not follow Lord Saltoun to the extent of suggesting that the use of the spring trap should be permitted above ground, because not only is it exceedingly cruel but it would mean that a great deal of game birds and domestic animals and the like would be injured. Unfortunately, there is no doubt we have not yet got an efficient substitute for the gin trap. It is a beastly thing. All kinds of humane traps have been tried—at the moment I am trying one myself—but unfortunately none have been found which are in any way really effective; or at least they are so cumbrous and expensive that their use is out of the question.
I do not want to deal with Committee points, but there are one or two matters to which the noble Lord who introduced the Bill might direct his attention. Certainly Clause 1 (1) is going to lead to a certain amount of trouble because it is going to be impossible to say when the nuisance is being abated. The clause says:
… the county council may serve on the occupier a notice in writing requiring him to abate or prevent the damage within such time, not being less than twenty-one days, as may be specified in the notice.Twenty-one days is not a very long period in which to put down a really bad infestation of rabbits. It may be said that the occupier ought not to have allowed the infestation to occur, but it is there, and there may be occasions and places in which it will take three months to get the rabbits reduced to reasonable numbers. It is going to be very difficult for anyone to say when the exact point has been reached on which it may be truthfully said that the pest is being reduced to reasonable numbers. I agree that it might be better if Clause 1 (2) were somewhat clearer. Under this provision any person may enter on the land with proper authority. To be effective that land must include not only the land in which the damage is being done, but also the land from which the rabbits are coming. The investigator may enter in daylight, if he is merely to see the work is being carried out, and it may be that all the work is being done by snares or 337 with the use of long nets. This subsection ought to be revised and strengthened if the Bill is to achieve the success which we all hope it will.There is just one other point on which I would like a little further elucidation. That is on the question of the use of firearms after dark or, to be precise, "between the expiration of the first hour after sunset and the commencement of the last hour before sunrise." It seems to me that this provision is going to be somewhat unworkable because, particularly on summer evenings, it is quite possible to shoot rabbits a good deal later than the time specified, and it is really not going to be workable if a farmer or keeper coming home is not to be entitled to shoot a rabbit in the dusk. I cannot see that the disqualification of anyone from using a firearm after dark is really going to be of much use. It will be difficult to enforce, and it may lead to a considerable amount of trouble. Subject to these few remarks hope your Lordships will agree to give this Bill a Second Reading, and we shall hope it will be still further improved in Committee.
LORD KINNAIRDMy Lords, I do not wish to make a speech, but I should like to make one or two suggestions to your Lordships. A good deal has been said about the killing of rabbits, and I think it has rather been taken for granted that when the rabbits have reached a mature age they have some value in the market. I think there is one difficulty that has not been mentioned which will prevent our ever killing rabbits on the lines that have been suggested, and that is this. If you start snaring or trapping rabbits and killing them in one wood, or one part of the country, you will find that they are very wide awake and will move on to the next area. Therefore it is necessary to deal promptly with the problem of killing them, and I do not think there is anything in this Bill which will enable you to do that. I think it is essential to deal with the problem in a very much bigger way than it is dealt with in this Bill.
There are two things that I would like the noble Lord, Lord Sempill, to consider. One is whether the killing of rabbits cannot be dealt with earlier in the season; whether power could not be given to deal with them in the months in which they are breeding. As your Lordships know, rabbits multiply mostly in the months of 338 May and June. They begin to breed in those months in vast numbers. I think if we could set apart the two months of May and June as a period in which to try and kill the rabbits at their breeding time, there would be a very much better prospect of doing what is desired. I suggest that it might be made compulsory that people should take steps to kill rabbits at the time when they are breeding and long before they are fit to sell. I think that might be more effective than the proposals set forth in this Bill. Moreover, I think it is essential that it should be done not in a piecemeal way, by going into one occupier's wood or on to one occupier's farm, but as far as possible over the whole country at the same time.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM)My Lords, may I at the outset express my apology to your Lordships' House, and particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Sempill, who moved the Second Reading of this Bill, for not being in my place at an earlier stage of this debate. I regret that I did not correctly estimate the time that the prior business would take. I am glad to have this opportunity to support this Bill, and also to say that His Majesty's Government will give it every facility to pass through its various stages in both Houses of Parliament. From the debate that we have had in your Lordships' House it appears that there is general agreement as to the serious damage caused by rabbits to agricultural crops, and indeed to afforestation. Certain figures have been mentioned in the debate as to the extent of this damage. I do not believe that any reliable estimate can be made, but there is no doubt whatsoever from the strictly agricultural point of view that the rabbit is a definite pest, and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kinnaird, who voiced what many of us feel when he affirmed that it would be a great advantage to agriculture if the rabbit could be entirely exterminated. But there are other considerations involved, such as the value of rabbits as a food. The noble Viscount, Lord Merthyr, mentioned this point in the debate, and I think he will agree with we that there are a number of persons who would not accept the arguments that he put forward.
The aim of this Bill, as I understand it, is to reduce the rabbit population to 339 a reasonable figure, and to keep its numbers under control in all agricultural areas. The noble Lord, Lord Sempill, and also the noble Lord, Lord Eltisley, pointed out that the Bill adheres closely to the recommendations of the Select Committee appointed by your Lordships at the end of 1936, and presided over by my noble friend Lord Mersey. Your Lordships have had the advantage of hearing a valuable contribution to this question this afternoon from the Chairman of that Select Committee. I think that this Bill, unlike its predecessors, is such that it will receive the favourable consideration not only of your Lordships' House but also of another place. There has been some reference in the course of the debate to the experiments that are being conducted by the Ministry of Agriculture to test the various types of traps for the destruction of rabbits. As the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, said, the aim is to discover, if possible, a trap that is as effective as the gin trap that is now commonly in use but more humane. I entirely agree with the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, that up to date no such trap has been invented, but the experiments under the auspices of the Ministry are proceeding, and it is to be hoped that eventually they will meet with some success.
Your Lordships will recall the history of the previous attempts to pass legislation dealing with rabbits, and you will remember that that previous history has not been very encouraging. Your Lordships will no doubt recollect that the Corn Production Act contained a provision empowering the Board of Agriculture to take action for the destruction of rabbits. Since the repeal of that Act in 1921 no fewer than nine Bills have been introduced into Parliament before this present Session. Six out of those nine Bills were introduced by private members, while three were Government Bills. Owing to pressure of Parliamentary business, and also in some cases to the strong opposition that manifested itself in your Lordships' House, not one of those Bills succeeded in reaching the Statute Book. I hope, however, in spite of some of the criticisms that have been made in the course of the debate this afternoon, which I think your Lordships will agree are essentially Committee points, that this Bill will pass into law.
340 The noble Earl, Lord Radnor, in one or two criticisms of the Bill, expressed the opinion that its provisions would not prove more satisfactory than the legislation which has been delegated to the local authorities to carry out under the provisions of the Noxious Weeds Order. It is certainly true that the application of the Noxious Weeds Order by different local authorities varies considerably. At the same time, since the question of noxious weeds was raised in your Lordships' House more than twelve months ago there has been on the part of certain local authorities a very great improvement in carrying out the provisions of that Order and, where necessary, taking action in cases where the Order has not been complied with. It may be of interest to your Lordships to know that my own area, which is covered by the North Riding of Yorkshire County Council, the County Council have recently appointed two persons to be specifically engaged in touring the district, firstly, to ascertain where noxious weeds are very prevalent, and secondly, to take action where necessary. Therefore I feel that the analogy of the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, of the working of the Noxious Weeds Order, is not so appropriate to-day as it might have been in the past.
The noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, expressed the opinion that the provisions of the Bill are illogical, for, as I understood him, he said that although the local authority are empowered to take action for the destruction of rabbits the methods which they can employ are restricted. That is not quite the case. The methods to be used by the persons employed by the local authority are exactly similar to those used in the country at large. They can employ the methods covered by gassing operations and the use of traps provided the traps are not put on top of the ground but in rabbit holes. Therefore I do not think the provisions of the Bill place any specific disability upon the county councils as opposed to the usual methods employed by the farmer for the destruction of rabbits.
The next point raised was the wording used in Clause 6 (1) (b), and it was suggested that there should be a definition of "rabbit hole." Your Lordships have benefited by the analogy which the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, gave in reference to this description. I suggest that the main intention of this paragraph is to provide 341 that a spring trap shall not be placed other than in a rabbit hole—that is, it shall not be put in any place where game or stock or ether animals could get trapped. A rabbit hole is, I believe—and I think my noble friend Lord Sempill will agree—a place where at some season of the year a rabbit will go beneath the face of the earth. I should have thought that for the purpose of this Bill and this particular clause the words "in a rabbit hole" sufficiently defined the general principle that a trap should not be placed where it would be a danger to other animals than rabbits.
Several other points have been raised with which my noble friend Lord Sempill will probably deal, but I feel confident that it will be possible for him to steer this Bill safely through the various stages in your Lordships' House, especially as he has the full support of the noble Viscount, Lord Mersey, and the members of his Select Committee. The majority of the provisions of the Bill are based upon that Committee's recommendations, and I am sure your Lordships will agree with me that if the noble Lord does succeed he will earn the gratitude of all agriculturists in the country. If agricultural production is going to be safeguarded the need for some measure such as the Bill now before your Lordships' House is in my view beyond question. Only recently I have had correspondence from farmers in many parts of the country, both in the west and the east, saying that they have over a given period been endeavouring to apply grassland improvement measures initiated by Professor Stapledon at Aberystwyth, but that those measures are rendered in some instances ineffective owing to the great damage done by the heavy population of rabbits. Therefore, although there may be members of your Lordships' House who feel that this Bill does not go far enough, I for my part—speaking, indeed, on behalf of the Ministry—feel confident that the Bill will go a long way to remove this sore which has been a constant irritation to farmers in all parts of the country and that it will be welcomed by the agricultural community at large.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD MAUGHAM)My Lords, may I in the guise of a Sussex farmer address a few remarks to your Lordships on the subject of this Bill, chiefly for the purpose of suggesting things for the consideration of the noble 342 Lord who has introduced it? Anybody who has been a farmer, even a humble one, in this country is well aware of the damage done, especially in some years, by rabbits. The first thing I want to say is this. Anybody who knows anything about matters of this sort understands how extraordinarily difficult it is to draft a measure so that it will satisfy everybody and so that there will not be many loopholes through which the rabbit may pass and because of which it may be the Bill is imperfect. We cannot help that. You will never be able in a measure like this to prevent there being left a certain number of places where rabbits will breed and to some extent exercise their evil powers, but you can go a long way, and I am sure it will be satisfactory to agriculturists if this Bill should become an Act and thereby largely reduce the number of rabbits in many parts of the country.
Your Lordships have heard a number of suggestions as to ways in which the drafting of the Bill may be improved. Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to suggest some of the ways in which I think the Bill can be improved. The first thing that occurs to me is in regard to Clause 1, under which the county council will have a right to send somebody on the land where rabbits are breeding to the damage of neighbours, after a notice has been served. It may be difficult to show what the position was before the notice was served. I would suggest that one thing which the noble Lord, Lord Sempill, might consider is whether he could accept a suggestion by one of your Lordships that the council should act upon the complaint of a man whose land is being eaten up by rabbits from his neighbour's land, and that after such a complaint the council should have a similar right to that mentioned in subsection (2) of sending somebody to examine the land and see its state with regard to rabbits and rabbit warrens. If that is done, I think it would be easier for the council to make up its mind whether some order should be made upon the occupier.
Then, I take it, it might be well if the subsection provided that the occupier should be summoned before the council, or before a committee of the council, and be told the trouble and asked to explain why he had not done anything. In that connection I would suggest to the noble Lord that there is a slight snag in 343 Clause 1 (1), because the council has to be satisfied that the occupier has allowed his land to become infested. He may be a recent purchaser who has purchased a place honeycombed with rabbit holes. It is right that he should take steps to reduce that nuisance to his neighbours' land, but on the other hand he may say: "I did not allow them to come here; I bought the land full of rabbits, and you cannot say I allowed the land to become infested." That is my suggestion on Clause 1, for the consideration of the noble Lord.
The difficulty with regard to the prosecution will not necessarily be as great as some of your Lordships suppose. The ordinary course would be for the occupier on whom a notice is served, if it is alleged that he has failed to comply with the requirements of the notice, to call evidence or give evidence himself to show what he has done. It is quite easy for the man to say, "I have employed a couple of trappers; I have used cyanide; I have used long nets; I have done everything I could to reduce the rabbits on my land." If he has done that, you may be quite sure that he has to some extent been endeavouring to comply with the notice. I do not believe that in practice that will be a matter of great difficulty. I quite agree, however, that there will be cases where it will be hard to prove that the notice has not been complied with and to fine the man. That is the sort of thing that always happens in a borderline case. On the whole, however, I think that the clause, modified, perhaps, as I suggest, will be a useful one and will bring pressure to bear on the people who take no trouble to keep the rabbits down on their land, and make them do it.
Then one of your Lordships has suggested that there is some doubt as to the meaning of "enter on the land" in subsection (2). I do not at present think there is any difficulty about that, because the authorised person may
enter on the land for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not the requirements of the notice are being complied with.He will see whether anything is being done on the warrens or other places where rabbits breed and are a source of mischief. Again, I see no reason why the meaning should not be made perfectly 344 clear by the addition of a word or two to the clause.When you come to Clause 3, which has also been complained of, I agree that the phrase "no person shall keep a warren for the purpose of breeding rabbits" might be strengthened. The person might well say, "The warren is there; I do not like it, but I employ people to trap the rabbits and sell them. I do not keep the warren for the purpose of breeding rabbits; I wish they would not breed there." Accordingly, I should have thought that it was better to modify that clause by saying that it is not confined to a person who deliberately wants the rabbits to breed there and keeps the warren for that purpose. Then on Clause 5 the point has been made that cyanide gas is not applicable everywhere. I suppose that the noble Lord who moved the Bill is quite as aware of that as anyone else. There are only certain places where cyanide is of real advantage in trapping rabbits, but in a number of places it is a magnificent destructor of rabbits. Clause 5 will enable the gas to be used for that purpose.
Then we come to Clause 6. One cannot get complete agreement on these subjects, and for my part I think that the provisions of Clause 6 (1) (b) are probably as far as it is wise to go if one wants this Bill to become law with the assistance of the people in another place. That is all I can say. I venture to add only this: that what I have said is intended only for the consideration of the noble Lord who has introduced the Bill, and I would hope that some of the matters which have been suggested by your Lordships, and perhaps which I have suggested, will be of some assistance in making this a useful measure.
LORD SEMPILLMy Lords, I do not think I need say much in reply, but I should like to express my appreciation of the consideration which your Lordships have given to the Bill, of the very illuminating remarks made by the Lord Chancellor in relation thereto, and of the observations of other noble Lords who have spoken. If I might make the suggestion, it would seem to be most appropriate, if your Lordships agree that this Bill be now read a second time, that these matters which have been raised should be taken in Committee.
§ On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.