HL Deb 20 December 1938 vol 111 cc631-58

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

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

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly:

[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]

Clause 1:

Power of local authorities to require prevention of damage by rabbits.

1.—(1) Where the council of any county or county borough are satisfied that by reason of an occupier of land within the county or borough having allowed that land to become infested with rabbits, substantial damage is being caused or is likely to be caused to crops, trees, pasturage, fences, banks or works on land in the occupation of any other person, 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; and if an occupier upon whom such a notice is served fails to comply with the requirements thereof, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty-five pounds, and to a further fine not exceeding five pounds for each day on which the failure continues.

(2) Where a notice is served by a council under this section, 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; and any person who, after having had produced to him the written authority of any person so authorised, obstructs him in the exercise of his powers under this subsection, shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding ten pounds.

LORD MIDDLETON moved, in subsection (1), after "satisfied," to insert "after due inquiry by them". The noble Lord said: In moving this Amendment I should like to assure the noble Lord in charge of the Bill that this Amendment and the others standing in my name will not be moved in any spirit of hostility, but in the hope that if accepted they may do something to improve the Bill and remove possible causes of injustice. I am speaking on behalf of the British Field Sports Society, which has a very large membership of men and women, most of whom are well qualified to give a sound opinion on a Bill of this nature. The Bill has been very carefully considered by the appropriate committee and, as I say, the Amendments are put forward in the hope that they may be accepted and may improve the Bill. In regard to the first Amendment, I should say that the House of Lords Committee which studied the problem of rabbits made recommendations which were largely, I believe, in accordance with the recommendations made by the Central Landowners' Association and the British Field Sports Society, and they did underline very strongly the necessity for having due in- quiry made before any action was taken to deal with claims for damage to crops. In this Bill very drastic powers are given to county councils and other local authorities and very heavy penalties may be imposed upon delinquents. It is desired, therefore, to ensure that there shall be very full inquiry into any complaints.

It may be said that the words proposed in the Amendment are superfluous and that the word "satisfied" in the Bill is sufficient. But while most, and probably all, county councils have on their staff very competent land agents to advise them, yet other local authorities are not so well staffed and may not be well advised. It does seem necessary to insert these words, to remind them of their duty of making a full inquiry into any complaints that are put forward. I know it is bad in principle to insert any words in a Bill which may be superfluous, but I hope that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill will accept the Amendment and regard it as a useful one. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 9, after ("satisfied") insert ("after due inquiry by them").—(Lord Middleton.)

THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM)

Perhaps I may be allowed to stress the view held by the Department which I represent. I appreciate the importance of the points that the noble Lord has stressed, that the provisions of the Bill in Clause 1 should be taken into account only after a fair and impartial inquiry has been made. The noble Lord will recollect that in the Report of the Select Committee which was presided over by the noble Viscount, Lord Mersey, it was specifically stated that such a provision would be necessary. I think, however, that the noble Lord's Amendment is unnecessary, for the clause provides that the county council are to be satisfied, and it is obviously impossible for them to be satisfied unless they make due inquiry. Under the clause as it is at present framed, it would obviously be necessary for the county council or the agricultural committee concerned to make the proper inquiry before they took any steps at all. Presumably they will do this after their attention has been drawn by some means to the fact that damage is being caused.

If the words suggested by the noble Lord were inserted, several points would arise. First of all, there would be the questions what sort of inquiry was to be held, where that inquiry would take place, and how it would be conducted. Therefore the intention and principle underlying the noble Lord's Amendment are already incorporated in the Bill, and the words he proposes to insert are redundant. Further, similar provisions to those which are included in this clause appear in the Corn Production Acts (Repeal) Act, 1921, which your Lordships might call legislation dealing with injurious weeds; and a similar provision is contained in the Rats and Mice (Destruction) Act, 1919. The clause as at present framed is therefore in accordance with previous precedents, and I hope that with this explanation the noble Lord may be prepared to accept the wording in its present form.

LORD MIDDLETON

I am by no means satisfied with the noble Earl's explanation, though he seems to have done his best to explain the Amendment away. Still, as I do not seem to be getting any support, I would beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

Your Lordships will see that the remaining three Amendments on this page and two or three over the page refer to the same matter, and you will probably wish to take the discussion on the first Amendment. I think that is the usual practice of your Lordships.

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "an occupier of." The noble Earl said: As the Lord Chairman has pointed out, the Amendment that stands in my name has been put down by me to meet criticisms which were raised during the Second Reading. It is preparatory to other Amendments standing in my name on this clause which are framed to meet the points raised by my noble friend Lord Merthyr. These Amendments, together with the Amendment of my noble friend the Earl of Radnor in line 16, have been framed to meet the points on this clause that were raised in the debate on the Second Reading; and, unless your Lordships desire it, I will not raise further discussion on this preliminary Amendment at this stage.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 9, leave out ("an occupier of").—(The Earl of Feversham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF POWIS moved, in subsection (1), in place of "an occupier of," to insert "the presence of rabbits on any." The noble Earl said: I have put down this Amendment because I feel that the word "infested" is rather too strong, and that if your Lordships would adopt my wording, which is not quite so strong, you would improve the clause. The point is to change from the words "infested with rabbits" to "the presence of rabbits," which appear in a later Amendment of mine. I looked up the word "infested" in the dictionary, and found that it means "swarming." A great deal of damage can be done on land where there are crops, market gardens, or young plantations long before it is swarming with rabbits. I should ask your Lordships to consider the condition of, say, a 20-acre field in which in the month of February there are perhaps a dozen doe rabbits. Your Lordships all know very well that a pair of rabbits can produce 250 little rabbits in a year. If that field adjoins land where there is a crop of wheat, for instance, what would be the position in August? The probability would be that those twelve doe rabbits would have produced a thousand rabbits by that time, and the land might then well be said to be infested and swarming.

I can, however, quite believe that a lawyer defending a client would argue that with ten or twelve rabbits in a field of that size the land was not "infested," and he might even quote the famous saying of Sir William Harcourt, in moving the Ground Game Act, that if people would only be reasonable, and be content with a hare or two to the acre, nobody could possibly complain. I only suggest that it would need a great deal less than a rabbit or two to the acre. Even if you had half a rabbit to the acre, and if the man who had those rabbits on his land, when appealed to by his neighbour and asked to destroy the rabbits in the month of February, declined, when the other owner went to the county council, the county council ought to have no difficulty in agreeing that land on which are present, say, a dozen doe rabbits in February was in a dangerous condition. If your Lordships would accept the wording of my Amendment the clause would then read something like this: Where the council of any county or county borough are satisfied that by reason of the presence of rabbits on any land within the county or borough, substantial damage is being caused, or is likely to be caused, to crops, trees, and so on, then the county council "may" serve a notice to abate or prevent the damage, and I shall certainly support Lord Radnor when he moves his Amendment to alter the word "may" into "shall." I would also like to say that the man who preserves rabbits, say, twelve rabbits, in the month of February, would be amply protected, because I think the Bill as it will leave this House will make it clear that the county council must realise that the complaint is bona fide. Perhaps I ought to say that this Amendment and that which follows, in line 10, are really to the same effect. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 9, after ("of") insert ("the presence of rabbits on any").—(The Earl of Powis.)

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM

The Ministry of Agriculture quite recognise that this Bill is primarily intended to control the excessive number of rabbits that are causing damage to land occupied either by a tenant farmer or by a landowner, and there must necessarily, as Lord Powis has pointed out, be some doubt as to the exact definition of the word "infested"; but for the purposes of this clause, reading it in its general context, I think it would be correct to say that it does not mean, as in the case of insect life, a swarm, but rather an excessive number, and that excessive number would be for the court to judge. The only objection which the Government have to accepting the Amendment of the noble Earl is that if these words "the presence of rabbits" were included, the clause would go too far, because it would then, under the provisions of this Bill, be possible for a neighbouring owner or occupier to make application to the local authority, the county council, regarding damage by rabbits, when it may be the view of the county council that the number was not in excess of the normal. If the noble Earl's words were included, there would be very great danger at the present moment, where rabbits admittedly are doing grave harm, in many parts of the country, that the provisions of this Bill would work for the extermination or eradication of rabbits.

From an agricultural point of view, I fully agree that great value would accrue to the industry of agriculture if that were the statutory position, but your Lordships will recollect that there have been before your Lordships' House on previous occasions nine Bills dealing with the problem, and none of those Bills reached the Statute Book, owing to the fact that there are interests which have been represented in this House and in another place, claiming in strong terms that the preservation of a proportion of the rabbit population, both from the point of view of cheap food and from the point of view of cheap fur, is desirable. Therefore if this Bill is to follow the recommendations of the Select Committee, it would be wise to allow the present wording, "infested with rabbits," to remain. It is a common form used both in the Act of 1919, Section 1, in connection with the destruction of rats and mice, and also in the Bill which I previously quoted, dealing with the control of injurious weeds. If the provisions of this Bill are found to be unworkable, or indeed if the time arrives when greater or more stringent measures for the control of rabbits are found necessary, that will be for future legislation. But taking the past history of legislation on this subject, it would be, I think, a mistake to insert words in the Bill of such a wide character that they would include normal supplies of rabbits rather than excessive numbers.

LORD DARCY (DE KNAYTH)

I cannot help feeling that the reply to which we have just listened gives us a rather incongruous interpretation of the purport of this Bill. Is there any point in passing a Bill if it is to be wholly inoperative? It seems to me that this is a Bill for the prevention of damage to crops by rabbits, and I cannot see how anybody can be in any way damnified who is in fact merely restrained from causing substantial damage to his neighbours. That is the purport of this Bill, and nothing else. It is not as though the rabbit population was a static one. If you have sufficient rabbits now to cause grave damage, you are going to be "infested" almost immediately, and you have got to take steps to prevent that. The only question is, what steps? In the circumstances, I think the reply of the Government is very unsatisfactory, and I hope that the noble Earl will press this Amendment.

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM

I hope the noble Lord will read my reply, and he will then see that there is no difference in substance between what I have said and what he has said.

LORD DARCY (DE KNAYTH)

I quite agree. I had hoped the noble Earl would say that. If the position is that we should be no worse off whether these words were in or out of the Bill, then I hope the Amendment will be agreed to. It seems to me that the noble Earl and his Department wish to shut the rabbit hutch after the rabbits have arrived, whereas if they were exterminated in February they would not become an infestation in the summer.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM

The next is a purely drafting Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 10, leave out ("having allowed that land to become") and insert ("in the occupation of any person being").—(The Earl of Faversham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF POWIS

had an Amendment on the Paper in subsection (1), to leave out "having allowed that land to become infested with rabbits." The noble Earl said: This Amendment was consequential. In the circumstances I think I will not move it. I do not wish to see any loopholes left for the rabbits to escape.

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM

The next is a drafting Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 14, leave out ("county").—(The Earl of Feversham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM

The next is another drafting Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 15, after ("occupier") insert ("of the first mentioned land").—(The Earl of Feversham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MIDDLETON moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "to abate or prevent the damage." The noble Lord said: This Amendment really hangs together with the next Amendment standing in my name, and it may be convenient if I deal with both Amendments together. I notice that the noble Earl, Lord Feversham, has an Amendment down very much in the same terms as my second Amendment, and perhaps he may be able to withdraw his Amendment in favour of mine when I have spoken. I think it stands to reason that any legislation which seeks to enjoin on a person to do something which is impossible is bad legislation, and it would seem that if the Bill is left as it stands at present it may well be that the occupier of land may be instructed to abate a nuisance and to get rid of rabbits within a time in which it is impossible for him to do so. Those with whom I am associated quite agree that it should be necessary for an occupier to begin to take steps within a period of, say, three weeks, but it may be quite impossible for him to get rid of the nuisance within that time.

This Bill may be administered by urban-minded people, who have no real knowledge of the problems of farmers. A notice may be served on an occupier in the middle of harvest or when he is putting in his corn, and it may be quite impossible for him to do more than put up some rabbit netting or do something of a temporary nature of that kind. We are very anxious to have it stated in the notice that he receives what is considered a reasonable time within which he shall abate the nuisance. That will lead to a proper study of the situation, it will show the extent of the work that has to be done, and I think will avoid a possible cause of injustice.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 15, leave out from ("him") to ("within") in line 16.—(Lord Middleton.)

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM

As the noble Lord says, I have an Amendment which I trust will meet the noble Lord, although from what he has said I fear he is not prepared to accept it, but I hope the noble Lord will not press this Amendment. The two Amendments which the noble Lord has dealt with together would oblige the occupier where damage had been caused "within such reasonable period as may be specified in the notice to abate or prevent the damage." Where rabbits have damaged somebody's crop what is required is that steps should be taken to prevent future damage, and surely not to abate the actual damage which has already been done. The words of my proposed Amendment in line 15 are, I think, an improvement on the words in the Bill and are more appropriate for insertion. Perhaps it would be of assistance if I read the Bill as it would be if your Lordships agreed to my Amendments: … the council may serve on the occupier of the first mentioned land a notice in writing requiring him to take such steps as may be reasonably practicable for the destruction of the rabbits within such time. … The noble Earl, Lord Radnor, has an Amendment to insert "within such reasonable time." I think that that really covers the point which the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, has raised better than the phraseology that he has used, because the main point is to prevent rabbits in future doing the damage, and it is not so important to take action so as to abate the actual damage which has been done.

LORD PHILLIMORE

In the absence of my noble friend Lord Radnor, I rise to say that his Amendment clearly covers the same point as the one we are now discussing, and in his view the addition of the word "reasonable," making it "within such reasonable time," would cover the ground adequately without any further alteration in the Bill. I would slightly demur to the reason put forward by the noble Earl for his own Amendment. I should have thought that there were many cases where rabbits had begun to damage a crop at an earlier stage where infestation could be proved on neighbouring land, and where steps could be taken with a view to saving at any rate some portion of that crop. If the noble Earl's Amendment precludes in practice such early steps being taken, then I rather hope that he will withdraw his Amendment, in favour either of that of my noble friend Lord Radnor or that of the noble Lord, Lord Middleton. Perhaps he would tell us whether in his opinion the words he suggests would enable a growing crop to have its remnants at any rate saved from rabbits.

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM

I should like to assure noble Lords that the wording that I have been advised to move as an Amendment does not preclude the case he has put forward of damage being done, say, of small dimensions, to a cereal crop, growing in close proximity to a covert, and an order to "take such steps as may be reasonably practicable for the destruction of the rabbits" would not only abate the damage that has been commenced, but would also prevent damage being done at some future date. For my part, if the noble Lord, Lord Sempill, who is in charge of this Bill, agrees, I would on behalf of the Ministry readily accept the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, to which Lord Phillimore has referred.

LORD MIDDLETON

I am quite sure that the noble Earl and I have the same object in view. None of us wants to entrench the inveterate rabbit farmer. The wording I have suggested does make it more definite when the rabbit farmer has to get on with his job. If the word "reasonable" is inserted, it will enable him to delay, and I consider that the wording I have suggested is more suitable. It will brisker him up a bit and get him working sooner. That is one object I have in view, and I hope the noble Lord in charge of the Bill will be prepared to accept the Amendment.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

In order to save Lord Feversham's Amendment, I will put the Question, That the word "to" after "him" stand part of the clause.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "abate or prevent the damage" and insert "take such steps as may be reasonably practicable for the destruction of the rabbits." The noble Earl said: I have spoken on this Amendment, and I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 15, leave out ("abate or prevent the damage") and insert the said new words.—(The Earl of Feversham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD PHILLIMORE moved, in subsection (1), after "such" ["within such time"] to insert "reasonable." The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Radnor, I beg to move the Amendment standing in his name.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 16, after ("such") insert ("reasonable").—(Lord Phillimore.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD PHILLIMORE moved to insert at the end of subsection (1): Provided that where a notice has been served by a council under this subsection in respect of any land upon a person who is an occupier of that land within the meaning of that expression under this Act the council shall not serve a further notice thereunder in respect of the same land upon any other person who is also an occupier of that land within such meaning until the requirements al the said first-mentioned notice shall have been complied with or until any proceedings instituted in respect of failure to comply with such requirements shall have been completed or until such notice shall have been withdrawn whichever of the said events shall first happen.

The noble Lord said: I am in somewhat of a difficulty, not having expected to have to move this Amendment; but I suspect my noble friend of having been delayed by the snowstorm. In his absence I beg to move the Amendment. The explanation is, as I understand it, that there is no adequate definition of the word "occupier" either in this Bill or in other Bills. If I am wrong, I hope I shall be corrected, but I understand that there can be at least three simultaneous occupiers—the owner where the shooting rights have been reserved to the landlord, the tenant by virtue of the Ground Game Act, any person who may have had prior to the passing of the Act of 1880, and therefore still has, a special right of killing or taking ground game, and, fourthly, a shooting tenant where the shooting rights have been reserved to the landlord and let by him to a shooting tenant. I understand that of these four categories there can be in existence at the same time three separate occupiers. The object of the Amendment, therefore, is to avoid having to define the word "occupier"—a thing which is apparently very difficult to do and has never yet been properly achieved—and at the same time to guard against the confusion and injustice which would result if there were three separate occupiers, all of whom could receive notice to abate a nuisance at the same time. I hope I have made the point sufficiently clear and I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 22, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Phillimore.)

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM

As the noble Lord said, my noble friend's object is to obviate the difficulties which technically might arise in the case of land that is owned by one person, secondly let by lease or tenancy to another person, and, thirdly, in respect of which another person has the shooting rights over it. Under the Bill in its present form it would be possible to serve a notice requiring all three parties to take steps to destroy rabbits at the same time. This is clearly not the intention of the Bill, and I believe, even as the Bill stands, it is extremely unlikely that a county council would be so foolish as to endeavour to take such action. I should like to say on behalf of my Department that no harm whatsoever can be done by making this matter quite clear, and there is an Amendment in my name dealing with this point. I hope that Lord Phillimore will agree with me that perhaps my Amendment is shorter and covers the point in five lines instead of the greater number contained in Lord Radnor's Amendment. I have just received a communication from Lord Radnor saying he would be prepared to accept my Amendment; so, if it is agreeable to Lord Phillimore, I trust my noble friend Lord Sempill will also agree to its inclusion in the Bill.

THE EARL OF POWIS

May I ask whether that would obviate the peculiar case of Clause 7, subsection (2), in which it says that the occupier includes any person who by virtue of any interest in the land has the right to kill rabbits? Under that clause there are two occupiers—the owner and the tenant.

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM

The point Lord Powis has raised relates to Clause 7 (2). That subsection defining "occupier" would remain as it is, in spite of my Amendment. Under the Ground Game Act, 1880, the tenant farmer was given the statutory right to shoot rabbits, which ran concurrently with the previous right of the landowner over rabbits and over game. There is, as Lord Phillimore said, a third person who can be designated as occupier in the case where a landowner has delegated his sporting rights by lease to a shooting tenant. The point of this Amendment is only to provide that the county council which serves the notices should not serve notice simultaneously on the owner, on the tenant and on the shooting tenant, but should first serve it on the occupier according to the circumstances of the case. If the occupier originally served with the notice did not conform and the period expired, then the county council could serve the notice next on the landowner.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

In that case, would it not always happen that the first person to receive the notice would do nothing but leave it to the second?

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM

As the noble Viscount will see, there are severe penalties attached to this Bill, and if the person served with the notice does not conform to the provisions of the order he then will be prosecuted and will attend before the court.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

Under subsection (2) of Clause 7, can the county council arbitrarily choose which party they will proceed against because in some parts of the country it may be against the landlord and in others against the tenant? It will leave the matter lather in doubt as to which party should be proceeded against. Perhaps the noble Earl will consider that before the Report stage.

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM

I understand it would be according to the circumstances of the particular case and the custom of the county.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM moved to insert at the end of subsection (1): Provided that, where a notice has been served under this subsection in relation to any land, no further notice shall be so served in relation to that land until the time specified in the first mentioned notice has expired, or the notice has been withdrawn, whichever event first occurs. The noble Earl said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 22, at end insert the said proviso.—(The Earl of Feversham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MIDDLETON moved, at the end of subsection (1), to insert: Provided that if any person upon whom a notice has been served under the provisions of this section is aggrieved by any of the requirements thereof he may within seven days after the receipt of the notice send his objection in writing stating the grounds thereof addressed to the clerk of the county or borough council as the case may be and if the said council do not within seven days after the objection has been sent to them withdraw the notice he may within twenty-one days after the notice was served upon him make application to the County Court for an order that the notice be withdrawn or be modified and upon any such application the Court shall have power after giving the parties opportunity of being heard to order that the notice shall be withdrawn or that it stall have effect subject to such modifications if any as the Court may direct and the determination of any matter by the County Court under this section shall be final and conclusive.

The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment to which I do attach very great importance. It seems to many to be monstrously unjust that those who are affected by the provisions of this Bill should be in a worse position than any other of His Majesty's subjects. If, for instance, the noble Earl, Lord Feversham, was convicted of driving a car and was fined, and he felt that an injustice had been done to him, he could appeal, but if, under the provisions of this Bill, a notice was served upon the noble Earl and he felt it to be an injustice, he would have no appeal. It seems to me that a most appropriate Court for an appeal would be a County Court, where there might be less prejudice than one might find on a petty sessional bench. At present the only course that an aggrieved person can adopt is to make himself a criminal. He could refuse to obey the order given against him. His case would then be heard in court and he would be liable to a fine of £5 per diem from the time of the service upon him of the notice till the judgment, if the case went against him. We suggest that there should be an appeal from a notice that is given if the occupier who receives it feels that it has been given under a misapprehension, or if the evidence which has led to it is incorrect. I hope the noble Lord in charge of the Bill and the noble Earl opposite will accept this Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 22, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Middleton.)

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM

I recognise that the noble Lord who has moved this Amendment considers it to be the most important of those standing in his name. The noble Lord, in moving this Amendment, began by saying that the persons convicted under the provisions of this Bill would be in a different category and position from the normal status of citizens of the country, and in support of that argument the noble Lord quoted the case of a man convicted of a traffic offence, who would have, in the ordinary course of law, a statutory right of appeal. Exactly the same provision applies here. In the case of a traffic offence, one is tried in a court of summary jurisdiction, and, if dissatisfied with the judgment of that court, one has a right of appeal to Quarter Sessions. The noble Lord has suggested that provision should be made here for appeal to the County Court. I would suggest that that in itself is a departure from legislation of this character. In two previous cases, which are analagous to the control of rabbits—namely, under the Repeal of the Corn Production Act, 1921, and the Destruction of Rats and Mice Act, 1919, the prosecution is before a court of summary jurisdiction, and I would suggest to your Lordships that that is the appropriate court where a breach of the conditions of these provisions should in the first place be taken.

A country bench of magistrates would seem to be a very suitable court to determine whether a notice served by a county council is, in all the circumstances, reasonable or unreasonable. The bench of magistrates generally know the individual concerned, and they probably know the land, but even if they do not know the land they can very easily go and look at it. If the owner of the land is convicted and does not agree with the judgment of the court, then he can appeal to Quarter Sessions, and again, at Quarter Sessions, the case can be dealt with by local people who in the main are well versed in matters relating to the countryside. In those circumstances, it would seem to be unwise to introduce a new element in the shape of the County Court, which, I understand, is not really a suitable tribunal for determining matters of this kind. As I have said, there is no new precedent in this respect in the Bill, because under the legislation dealing with injurious weeds, and also with rats and mice, the courts of summary jurisdiction are the courts selected for dealing with matters of that kind. I hope, therefore, the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.

LORD MIDDLETON

I know that legal advisers very often differ in their opinions, but I have been advised by those familiar with the law that the County Court would be a far more appropriate Court because it is accustomed to deal with matters of damages. Furthermore, it might be better to remove the case from local magistrates, who might possibly be prejudiced in some parts of the country. In any case I hope the noble Earl will inform me if the occupier who is concerned in the case would be liable to pay £5 per diem extra pending the time when the case is heard.

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM

I apologise for not referring to the point raised by the noble Lord. I am not an authority on legal matters, and my noble friend the Lord Chancellor would be able to advise the Committee, but I am given to understand that until a decision is reached and judgment given both in the case of the court of summary jurisdiction and in the case of an appeal to Quarter Sessions this fine per diem would not apply. Therefore it does not commence until after judgment is given.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM

The next Amendment is drafting. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 2, leave out ("this section") and insert ("the preceding subsection").(The Earl of Feversham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD PHILLIMORE moved, in subsection (2), after "occupier," to insert "upon whom the notice has been served, and also (if the occupier is not the owner of the land) upon such owner." The noble Lord said: As I understand this Amendment, the words "upon whom the notice has been served" refer to the same point which I was discussing when I rose before. It is the simultaneous occupier-ship which might exist. The notice to the owner as well as to the occupier is no doubt a wise precaution which will enable the owner to be in a position to know that the county council are taking the steps it is proposed that they should take, but I rather fancy my noble friend below me (the Earl of Feversham) has an Amendment which covers the ground, and unless he tells me to the contrary I do not propose to press this Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 4, after ("occupier") insert the said words.—(Lord Phillimore.)

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM

As the noble Lord, Lord Phillimore, has just mentioned, there is an Amendment in my name to meet the point raised in the Amendment in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, which has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Phillimore. The Department I represent quite agree that in the case of a tenant-occupier notice sent to him should be sent in duplicate to the landowner in question.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM moved, in subsection (2), after "occupier," to insert "on whom the notice under the said subsection was served, and (if the land to which the notice relates is the subject of a tenancy, and the name and address of the landlord within the meaning of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1923, are known to the council) to the landlord." The noble Earl said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 4, after ("occupier") insert the said words.—(The Earl of Feversham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD PHILLIMORE moved, in subsection (2), after "being," to insert "or have been." The noble Lord said: It is quite obvious that the only meaning of this Amendment is to cover the case where in fact steps have been taken and that the county council may not know that those steps have been taken. I do not know whether the noble Earl will accept it.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 6, after ("being") insert ("or have been").—(Lord Phillimore.)

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM

I am very glad to accept this Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2:

Power of local authorities to assist occupiers of land to destroy rabbits.

2.—(1) The council of any county or county borough may, for the purpose of assisting occupiers of land within the county or borough to take any necessary steps to reduce the number of rabbits on land in their occupation, employ such persons and provide such equipment, appliances and other material as appear to the council to be requisite for that purpose.

(2) A council may make such reasonable charge, if any, as they think fit in respect of services rendered by persons employed by the council under the foregoing subsection, and the use of such equipment, appliances and other material as aforesaid, and may recover the amount of the charge summarily as a civil debt from the occupier of the land.

LORD PHILLIMORE moved, in sub-section (1), after "borough," to insert "at their request." The noble Lord said: This is a very small Amendment, and I expect the noble Earl will accept it.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 14, after ("borough") insert ("at their request").—(Lord Phillimore.)

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM

I am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment, for the simple reason that although it is small it is quite unnecessary. The intention of it is already embodied in the Bill. I understand that the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, who put down the Amendment, was under the impression that this clause as at present drafted might enable a county council to do work on somebody's land on their own initiative without first having had representations made to them that damage was being caused. That is not the case. The object of subsection (1) of this clause is to give a statutory power, which county councils at the present time do not possess, to enable a county council to make provision for the supply of both persons and equipment for the purpose of the destruction of rabbits if they are requested to destroy rabbits. If this provision were not in the Bill the county council might be surcharged the cost. I think that will satisfy the noble Lord that the subsection is only inserted to give statutory powers to the county council to act where and when they are requested to do so.

LORD PHILLIMORE

I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD SEMPILL moved, at the end of subsection (1), to insert "but it shall not be lawful for the council to provide, or for any person employed under this subsection to use, any spring trap for the said purpose." The noble Lord said: Your Lordships may remember that a similar provision to the one contained in this Amendment has been passed twice in another place without a Division and with very little opposition, as a perusal of Clause 7 (1) of the Rabbits Bill. 1928, and the similar Bill of 1930 will show. At that time the opinion was firmly expressed that any attempt to pass a Bill without including such a provision would be bound to meet with failure. Since then the case has been immeasurably strengthened by the introduction of cyanide fumigation.

I suggest to your Lordships that a county council's duty is to deal with the bulk of the rabbits, and nobody denies that fumigation is the most efficient means of dealing with them. If county councils are to be permitted to trap rabbits, the possibility of selling the rabbits might tempt them to do so to the neglect of the more humane and efficient method of fumigation. The result would be that the trappers would simply chase rabbits from one farm to another, leaving a heavy breeding stock, as at present occurs. The county council's job, I suggest, is to kill down the excess of rabbits and not to trap for market, to kill in bulk and not to catch one by one in traps. I think your Lordships will agree to this Amendment as there are, after all, several methods of dealing with this nuisance by shooting, ferreting, netting and various methods of fumigation.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 18, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Sempill.)

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM

I am sorry that on behalf of the Government I have to oppose this Amendment which the noble Lord has moved to his own Bill. This matter was brought to the attention of Viscount Mersey's Select Committee and one can see by an examination of the Report of that Committee that this Bill is essentially based upon the Committee's recommendations. In their Report the Committee stated that they had considered various methods of killing rabbits and they did not feel able to make a recommendation that the use of the gin trap should be entirely abolished. Moreover the Committee did not recommend that the men provided by county councils should not use spring traps. I do not think that is surprising because as the Select Committee were obviously of the opinion that an effective alternative to the spring trap was not at present available, they doubtless felt—the noble Viscount, Lord Mersey, will correct me if I am wrong—that it would be unreasonable to reduce the efficiency of measures to be taken by county councils for the destruction of rabbits if requested by an occupier of land to do so.

The county council, in common with everybody else, will employ persons to set spring traps in various places where gassing methods are proved to be ineffective. I do not think that there is any logical reason at the present time for a differentiation between persons publicly or privately employed in the destruction of rabbits. If in time Parliament decides that the gin trap is to be abolished when some other method of trapping has been invented and is proved effective, then that should apply as a general prohibition relating both to public and private persons. It seems to react unduly hard upon the local authority that when they are requested to assist in the destruction of rabbits they should not be allowed to employ a means that has hitherto been considered the most effective means which private persons are allowed to use. Therefore I am afraid that at this stage I have no alternative but to ask your Lordships not to accept the Amendment of the noble Lord in charge of this Bill if he feels that he must press it.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

May I ask whose property rabbits will be if they are killed by the county council?

CONTENTS.
Bertie of Thame, V. Blythswood, L. Sempill, L. [Teller.]
Digby, L. Snell, L.
Balfour of Burleigh, L. [Teller.] Holden, L. Strabolgi, L.
Marley, L.
NOT-CONTENTS.
Maugham, L. (L. Chancellor.) Powis, E. Greville, L.
Rothes, E. Hawke, L.
Runciman of Doxford, V. (L. President.) Stanhope, E. Hutchison of Montrose, L.
Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.) Illingworth, L.
Wicklow, E. Jessel, L.
Northumberland, D. Mancroft, L.
Middleton, L.
Astor, V. Monkswell, L.
Crewe, M. Bridgeman, V. Oriel, L. (V. Massereene.)
Dufferin and Ava, M. FitzAlan of Derwent, V. Phillimore, L.
Zetland, M. Mersey, V. Portsea, L.
Ullswater, V. Rankeillour, L.
Bessborough, E. Rennell, L.
Birkenhead, E. Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.) Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)
De La Warr, E. Stanmore, L.
Feversham, E. Clwyd, L. Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.
Fortescue, E. Cromwell, L.
Iddesleigh, E. De Saumarez, L. Templemore, L.
Lucan, E. [Teller.] Fermanagh, L. (E. Erne.) Teynham, L.
Munster, E. Gage, L. (V. Gage.) [Teller.] Wyfold, L.

Resolved in the negative and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

[The vote of Lord Middleton who had voted by mistake with the Contents

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM

I understand that that is a matter to be arranged between the occupier of the land and the local authority concerned.

On Question, Whether the said words shall be there inserted?

Their Lordships divided.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

There have voted:—Contents, 10; Not-Contents, 48.

VISCOUNT GAGE

My Lords, I have, with leave of the Committee, to announce that the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, having voted in the wrong Lobby, asks leave to vote Not-Content.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

My Lords, I understand that, according to Order, I have to ask your Lordships whether it is your wish that the noble Lord be given leave to vote; and if so to ask him whether he desires to vote "Content" or "Not-Content." The Question is, that the noble Lord be given leave to vote.

On Question, leave given accordingly.

LORD MIDDLETON

I am Not-Content.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

According to the amended result of the Division, there have voted:—Contents, 9; Not-Contents, 49.

although he intended to vote with the Not-Contents, has been recorded accordingly with the Not-Contents.]

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3:

Duty of rabbit breeders to fence warrens.

3. No person shall keep a warren for the purpose of breeding rabbits unless the warren is securely fenced; and if any person contravenes this section, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty-five pounds.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

I have been handed a manuscript Amendment by the noble Viscount, Lord Bertie of Thame.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, at the end of the clause, to add "and to a further fine not exceeding five pounds for each day on which such contravention continues after conviction therefor." The noble Viscount said: If your Lordships will look at Clause 1 you will see that an occupier of land infested by rabbits is liable to a fine not exceeding £25 and to a further fine not exceeding £5 for each day on which the failure continues. Under this clause there is no such provision. This offence amounts almost to the same as that under the clause which I have quoted. Perhaps it is a little worse, because the unfortunate neighbour of the man who does not properly fence his rabbit warren will be expected to exterminate the rabbits. If the owner of the warren is simply liable to a fine of £25 for bad fencing, the matter will end there. As I think the Lord Chancellor will agree, he cannot be convicted again for the same offence, and he will have no object in making his fencing good once he has been convicted of not doing so.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 30, at end, insert ("and to a further fine not exceeding five pounds for each day on which such contravention continues after conviction therefor").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM

The noble Viscount, Lord Bertie, has moved this as a manuscript Amendment, and therefore I have not been able, on behalf of the Ministry of Agriculture, to look very closely into the penalties imposed under Clause 3 in relation to those penalties inflicted under Clause 1; but I would suggest to the noble Viscount that in the case of Clause 3 the penalty is for a single offence. If the fence enclosing a warren is not so sufficiently secure as to prevent rabbits from going out into the exterior world, then you have a penalty which is heavy in its character: it is as much as £25. The per diem penalty in the other clause relates to an occupier having failed to take steps for the control of the rabbits under an order of the local authority. The distinction is, I think, apparent, and I suggest to the Committee that if the noble Viscount's Amendment were to be accepted, and a further fine of £5 inflicted for each day that the offence continues, it would make the penalty generally too heavy; and if such a penalty, which at the moment I cannot see to be necessary, were to be included in the Bill it would certainly be necessary to decrease the penalty of £25 for the main default in failing to erect a sufficiently sound fence by which to safeguard rabbits from going out to the exterior world. If the noble Viscount still wishes to press his Amendment I am prepared on behalf of the Government to inquire further into the point, and if necessary the matter can be raised again on the Report stage.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME

I would point out that the defective fencing might be in one place only, and once the man is convicted of that, he cannot be convicted again. Further, there is no obligation on him to make his fencing good, but a good deal of pressure would be brought upon him if there was a further penalty. I am prepared to withdraw my Amendment if the noble Earl will consider the matter between now and the Report stage, and perhaps he himself will put down an Amendment.

VISCOUNT MERSEY

May I ask if the draftsmen are satisfied that the wording of the clause means that the fencing must be sufficiently secure?

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM

That point has been specifically raised, and I understand that the word "securely" in the context of this clause must mean sufficiently secure to prevent the egress of rabbits from the enclosure.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Clause 4 agreed to.

Clause 5:

Amendment of 1 & 2 Geo. 5. c. 27. s. 8.

5. Section eight of the Protection of Animals Act, 1911 (which prohibits the selling or placing on land of poisonous matter) as amended by Section one of the Protection of Animals Act, 1927, shall have effect as if, in the proviso to that section, after the words "or other small ground vermin" there were inserted the words "or rabbits".

LORD SEMPILL moved to leave out all words after "if" and insert "in paragraph (b) of that section, after the words 'any poison' there were inserted the words other than a fumigant approved by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries.'" The noble Lord said: Your Lordships will be well aware that the present wording of the clause permits the use of edible poisons for rabbits, whereas the Committee presided over by the noble Viscount, Lord Mersey, only recommended the legalisation of gas. If edible poisons are used, dogs, foxes, etc., may eat the poisoned rabbits. Moreover, edible poisons are more inhumane. With regard to fumigation, "fumigant" is defined in Hackh's Chemical dictionary as "Gaseous insecticide. Any substance that produces disinfecting vapours that are used to destroy insects." Cyanide is one of these, and is used for rabbit killing. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, leave out lines 40 to 42 and insert the said new words.—(Lord Sempill.)

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM

The object of this Amendment is to clear up a certain element of doubt which exists, and make it clear that it is not an offence under Section 8 of the Protection of Animals Act, 1911, to use gas for the purpose of destroying rabbits. The clause in the Bill was intended to achieve this object, but on reflection it would seem that the clause as it stands is open to the objection that gas or poison which generates gas could be placed in the open, a practice which might be dangerous both to animals and to human beings, and consequently is not desirable. The Amendment moved by the noble Lord is open to certain objections, chiefly on the ground of expense, and also of inspection. If the noble Lord's Amendment were to be accepted it would place the onus on the Ministry of Agriculture which would necessitate a staff of inspectors, and also increased expenses. Therefore I have drafted in my own name another Amendment which I think the noble Lord will agree entirely meets the point, and which perhaps your Lordships will see fit to accept in place of the noble Lord's Amendment.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM moved to leave out Clause 5 and insert the following new clause: . A person shall not be guilty of an offence under Section eight of the Protection of Animals Act, 1911, by reason only that he uses poisonous gas in a rabbit hole, or places in a rabbit hole a substance which, by evaporation or in contact with moisture, generates poisonous gas. The noble Earl said: As I have stated, this Amendment is in the place of the Amendment moved by Lord Sempill.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 36, leave out Clause 5 and insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Feversham.)

Clause 6:

Prohibition of night shooting and use of spring traps above ground.

6.—(1) If any person—

  1. (a) between the expiration of the first hour after sunset and the commencement of the last hour before sunrise, uses a firearm for the purpose of killing hares or rabbits; or
  2. (b) uses a spring trap for that purpose except in a rabbit hole;
he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds or, in the case of a person convicted of a second or subsequent offence under this section to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds.

LORD SEMPILL moved, in subsection (1) (b), after "uses," to insert "or permits the use of". The noble Lord said: As the Bill stands, convictions might be difficult to obtain because you have to see the traps being set in order to prove who it was that set them. The Amendment brings the Bill into alignment with the Spring Guns and Man Traps Act of 1827, which contained a similar provision. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 6, after ("uses") insert ("or permits the use of").—(Lord Sempill.)

LORD PHILLIMORE

It is not quite clear to me what these words "or permits the use of" will cover. Would it be assumed that if a gamekeeper, for instance, were to set a gin, he did so with the landlord's consent? I am not aware what the law would be on this point, but it seems to me that there might be some assumptions of that character which would be unjust and dangerous. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Sempill, has gone into that question carefully, but these words are a very considerable widening of the risk, and I hesitate to say whether the Committee should pass them without further consideration.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD MAUGHAM)

It might be appropriate, if your Lordships thought proper and if the noble Lord on the Cross Benches (Lord Sempill) assents, to insert in the Amendment the word "knowingly".

THE EARL OF POWIS

What would be the position of a man who set a trap for a stoat in a box above ground, even if he had a sod of earth over it? The Bill says it is illegal to set a trap except in a rabbit hole.

LORD SEMPILL

I beg to accept the proposed alteration of the Amendment which the Lord Chancellor has suggested, which seems to answer the point made by Lord Phillimore.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 6, after ("uses") insert ("or knowingly permits the use of").—(Lord Sempill.)

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM

Perhaps I may be allowed to answer the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Powis. Under the present framing of paragraph (b) of Clause 6 the setting of a spring trap in the open for the purposes of catching a stoat or weazel would seem to be in contravention of the words used.

THE EARL OF POWIS

It seems to me that we are creating a new offence if a man may not set a trap for a stoat.

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM

I gather that the Amendment has already been dealt with, but I should like to assure the noble Earl that I will inquire into this question and report to the noble Earl on the Report stage.

Cluause 6, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 7:

Short title, interpretation and extent.

7.—(1) This Act may be cited as the Crops (Prevention of Damage) Act, 1938.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

I have a manuscript Amendment to subsection (1) in the name of Lord Phillimore, page 3, line 16, to leave out "Crops."

LORD PHILLIMORE

I beg to move this Amendment. It is drafted in view of my noble friend Lord Radnor's following Amendment, under which rabbits were to come out as it were into the open. If the word "rabbits" is inserted, then the whole Title becomes clumsy and somewhat misleading if it includes also the word "Crops." I am assuming that the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, will succeed in his Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 16, leave out ("Crops").—(Lord Phillimore.)

THE EARL OF RADNOR moved, in subsection (1), after "Damage" to insert "by Rabbits." The noble Earl said: In moving the only Amendment standing in my name that I have been able to move myself, I must first of all apologise to your Lordships for my absence when most of those Amendments were taken by your Lordships. The reason was that I entirely omitted to note that the House was sitting at three o'clock—a habit which I deprecate very strongly indeed. Had I realised that the House met at three o'clock I would have taken steps to inform somebody that I could not be present. With regard to my Amendment, as Lord Phillimore says, this Amendment brings the rabbits into the Bill and into the picture.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 17, after ("Damage") insert ("by Rabbits").—(The Earl of Radnor.)

Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.