PESTS BILL [H.L.]

HL Deb 25 February 1954 vol 185 cc1139-92

4.4 p.m.

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

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly:

[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]

Clause 1:

Rabbit clearance areas

(2) The occupier of any land in a rabbit clearance area shall take such steps as may from time to time be necessary for the killing or taking of wild rabbits living on or resorting to the land and, where it is not reasonably practicable to destroy the wild rabbits living on any part of the land, for the prevention of damage by those rabbits, and shall in particular comply with any directions contained in the rabbit clearance order as to the steps to be so taken or as to the time for taking them.

(4) The Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries may, on the application of the occupier of any land in a rabbit clearance area, sanction the authorisation by the occupier of such number of persons as the Minister thinks reasonable to kill rabbits on the land with firearms, in addition to any person so authorised in pursuance of section one of the Ground Game Act, 1880, if the Minister is satisfied that the occupier has attempted to obtain the sanction of the persons having, apart from the said Act, the right to kill and take rabbits on the land, and that their sanction has been unreasonably withheld; and the provisions of section one of the said Act with regard to the production by persons authorised by the occupier of the documents by which they are so authorised shall apply to any person authorised in pursuance of any such sanction as aforesaid as they apply to persons authorised in pursuance of that section.

(7) Section one hundred and subsections (2) to (7) of section one hundred and six of the Agriculture Act, 1947 (which contain supplementary provisions relating to section ninety-eight of that Act and to the exercise of powers of entry conferred by that Act, shall apply in relation to the foregoing provisions of this section as they would apply if those provisions were contained in the said section ninety-eight; and a rabbit clearance order may, as respects rabbits, include any such directions as are authorised by subsection (3) of the said section one hundred (which relates to the keeping or disposal of animals killed or taken under the said section ninety-eight).

(8) Any order under this section shall be published in such manner as the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries thinks fit, and he shall take such steps as he thinks reasonable for the purpose of bringing the purport of it to the notice of persons likely to be affected by it and of enabling them to purchase copies of it.

(9) Before making an order which designates any new area as a rabbit clearance area, or extends any rabbit clearance area to include a new area, the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries—

1. (a) shall consult such persons as appear to him to be representative of the interests in the new area of farmers, owners of agricultural land and workers employed in agriculture; and
2. (b) shall publish notice of the proposal to make the order in such manner as he thinks reasonable for the purpose of informing the persons interested in any land in the new area;

and any such notice shall specify a time (not being less than fourteen days) within which persons interested in any such land and objecting to its inclusion in the order may make representations in writing to the Minister:

Provided that compliance with the requirements of this subsection shall not be necessary in so far as the Minister is satisfied that it would be unreasonable having regard to the smallness of the new area and to the other circumstances of the case.

EARL ST. ALDWYN moved, in subsection (2) at the beginning of the subsection to insert: Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1) (b) of section one of the Ground Game Act, 1880,".

The noble Earl said: Clause 1 (2) imposes a duty on the occupier, and clearly envisages in its exercise the authorisation of any number of persons to kill rabbits on the land. It seems to me only right, therefore, that for the purposes of that subsection the occupier's rights vis-à-visthe Ground Game Act, 1880, should be more clearly expressed. Subsections (3) and (4) of Clause 1 make clear that the occupier's rights to kill rabbits with firearms are not in any way altered—that is to say, that the occupier himself and only one other person, duly authorised in writing by him, may shoot rabbits. This Amendment will act as a reminder that the duty and the extension of the existing provisions of the Ground Game Act apply only to rabbit clearance areas—that is, the land affected by a rabbit clearance order made by the. Minister.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 13, at beginning insert the said words.—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY

In supporting this Amendment, I hope it is clear that the responsibility, the duty and the opportunity of landowners, to kill rabbits is not in any way reduced.

THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (EARL DE LA WARR)

I think that the point raised in the last question is satisfactorily dealt with in a later part of the Bill. I must confess that at first sight I thought the noble Earl had an important point here, but I think that in moving his Amendment he is under a slight misapprehension. As I see it, the Ground Game Act does not come into the matter at all. That Act gives the tenant rights to destroy ground game even if he is restricted under his tenancy agreement: hut, as the Bill sets aside restrictions under tenancy agreements, this question does not arise. I know the noble Earl is worried about the specific question of firearms. However, he has an Amendment on that matter down for consideration later, and I shall be able to deal with the question then, I think in a manner that will remove his fears. I therefore ask him not to press this Amendment.

EARL ST. ALDWYN

I am not entirely satisfied with the noble Earl's reply, but I am not prepared to press the Amendment to a Division. I therefore beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

EARL ST. ALDWYN moved in subsection (2), after "steps" (where that word first occurs) to insert: not inconsistent with the rules of good estate management and good husbandry.

The noble Earl said: This Amendment seeks to safeguard, as far as is reasonably possible, the landlord's property—in other words, his trees, his fixed equipment and his hedges—from an overzealous occupier and his friends. It is possible that an occupier may set fire to an overgrown hedge. The sort of case I have in mind is that of a lazy tenant who has allowed his hedge to overgrow, as is sometimes the case, up to a width of twenty or thirty feet. He is then pestered by the pest officer to destroy the rabbits living in that hedge and, should he default, is threatened with severe penalties. He may say "The only way to deal with this problem is to burn the hedge down, and then we can get at the rabbits." That is much more drastic than cutting the hedge back, and then dealing with the rabbits. It is largely to protect the landlord's property against that sort of thing that I am moving this Amendment. I appreciate that the landlord may have a remedy at Common Law, by an action for damages or under his contract of tenancy. But what we do not want to see is the sort of thing that is happening in Russia, where young airmen are being decorated for accurate; bombing of wolves on the outskirts of Leningrad. I should hate to see the Minister of Agriculture awarding gold medals for over-zealous destruction of rabbits. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 14, after ("steps") insert the said words.—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)

EARL DE LA WARR

I think the fear behind this Amendment is quite clear—namely, as the noble. Earl said, that an over-zealous tenant will take steps to do away with a particular hedge, thereby depriving the landlord of that hedge. But the landlord not only has a remedy at Common Law; he has also the right to insist, not on the replacement of that hedge, because it has gone, but on the provision of a proper wire fence, which will entail considerable expense. I certainly cannot help feeling some sympathy in regard to the fears expressed by the noble Earl. On the other hand, we have to make up our minds whether we want this Bill to work. There is no doubt that some degrees of protection that might at first sight appear attractive would make it possible for occupiers who want to cast some doubts on the orders that are laid, and who are determined enough about it, to impose delay and obstruction. In other cases I think it will be possible to insert certain safeguards, but in this case I suggest to the noble Earl that it would be better to rely on the landlord's right under Common Law, and also on the power of enforcing replacement. I therefore hope that the noble Earl will not press this Amendment.

EARL ST. ALDWYN

In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY moved to add to subsection (2): Provided that any occupier of land in a rabbit clearance area who is aggrieved by any such directions may make representations to the Minister who shall afford such occupier the opportunity of appearing before and being heard by a person appointed for the purpose by the Minister and shall consider the report of that person.

The noble Duke said: This Amendment, and the next, both of which stand in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Stonehaven, and myself, are concerned mainly with the procedure followed in making clearance orders and their effect. This particular Amendment is moved because it is considered possible that some occupiers of land may be called upon to bear very considerable expenditure to comply with directions made under subsection (2) of the clause—for example. for the fencing of areas where it is impracticable to kill off all the rabbits, or in cases where extermination costs are heavy. At present there is no provision for any appeal procedure against directions to enforce rabbit clearance orders. Under the Agriculture (Scotland) Act, 1948, there is a right of appeal to the Land Court against the direction if it involves an expenditure of more than one year's rent of the land. It is not suggested that such a cumbersome procedure should be adopted in this case, but it is felt that the Bill should make it clear that occupiers have the right to make representations to the Minister, and for some form of inquiry to be held where that is appropriate. I do not wish by these Amendments and suggestions to do anything which will make the Bill more complicated or will cause any delay. But it is considered that it is only fair to provide some opportunity for representations by a person who may not have seen much of the Bill or know much about directions. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 20, at end insert the said proviso.—(The Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN

I support this Amendment because I feel that it is most important not to hinder the operation of the Bill when it becomes an Act by unnecessary appeals before any detail has been gone into. As the Bill stands, there appears to be no form of redress open to an aggrieved occupier unless he objects before a rabbit clearance area has been declared. Therefore, I think the normal reaction of many of the somewhat belligerent people who live in my part of the world will be automatically to protest. In the unusual circumstances, I think it would be better if matters were so arranged that the appeal could be made later on.

I should like to cite to the Committee, to illustrate what I mean, the sort of thing which could happen as the Bill stands. I will, with the Committee's permission, quote my own case. I have an area of rough grazing hill land some 1,500 acres in extent. This land is surrounded by arable farms of the more or less marginal type half of them belong to me, and the farmers are tenants, while the other half belong to other owners. On this hill of 1,500 acres I run a flock of breeding ewes, and I take a flock of about 450 lambs a year. At the same time, I run and out-winter some cattle, and breed some 40 hill calves. As the Bill stands, I could be directed to fence this hill which has a perimeter of some fourteen miles. To do that fencing work at current rates would cost about £4,200. I could not keep one more beast on that ground because it is now run entirely by one shepherd—which is the economical way of running it. If I put another couple of dozen animals on the hill I should have to employ two men. I could not economically do anything other than double the stock on that hill to justify the employment of two men, and that is impracticable because that area of land—even if it had no rabbits on it at all—could not carry such an amount of stock. Under the Bill, I am in the position that I have no right of appeal whatever against a direction of the sort that I have mentioned. I should have to give up what I am now doing there. The result would be that the country would lose some 400 lambs a year, and 30 to 40 calves a year. I should not lose quite so much, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer would lose approximately 0,040. For those reasons, I support the Amendment which the noble Duke has moved.

EARL DE LA WARR

I think most of your Lordships will agree that a case has been made out here which the Government should try to meet. If the noble Duke and the noble Viscount are prepared to withdraw this Amendment in the form in which ft stands, I will undertake to discuss the matter with my right honourable friend the Minister, and I think I can say that we will put down an Amendment which will meet the point of view which has been expressed. The Minister would. I know, like to consider the drafting in relation to one or two points which have been mentioned.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY

In that case I should like to thank the Minister, and to beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

4.16 p.m.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY moved, in subsection (4), after" satisfied," to insert: that such additional use of firearms on the land is the most efficient and practicable meals of destroying the rabbits on the land and.

The noble Duke said: The reason for this Amendment is that it is felt that the provision in the Bill here is rather too wide in its scope. We think it should operate only where the additional use of firearms is the most efficient and practical means of destroying rabbits. Though shooting is one of the methods of destruction commonly used, there are other methods, such as snaring, ferreting and gassing, which are often better and more appropriate. It is not desirable to encourage shooting parties which would wish to leave breeding stock for the following year, thereby perpetuating the rabbits. The object in view is, of course, to destroy as many rabbits as possible and as quickly as possible. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 11, after "satisfied" insert the said words.—(The Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

EARL DE LA WARR

I do not wish to deprive the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, of the chance of making a speech on this Amendment, but perhaps the noble Duke will be prepared to withdraw the Amendment when he hears what I have to say. I am prepared, on behalf of the Minister, to accept the next Amendment on the Marshalled List, which stands in the name of the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, and deals with the same subject. The two Amendments affect the same point, but they are a little different in their drafting, and the Minister prefer:; the drafting of Lord St. Aldwyn's Amendment.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY

in that case I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

EARL ST. ALDWYN moved, in subsection (4), after "satisfied" to insert: that the circumstances of the case make necessary a greater use of firearms than the occupier has the right to authorise,

The noble Earl said: I should like to say just one or two words about this Amendment and the next, although in view of what the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr said just now, I do not feel that I need say very much. These Amendments arise out of some remarks which were made during the Second Reading debate. I was somewhat concerned lest there might be misconstruction about the rights of the tenant to offer his friends shooting more or less at will. I think the Amendment makes the position quite clear. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 11, after ("satisfied") insert the said words.—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)

EARL DE LA WARR

I accept the Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL ST. ALDWYN

I beg to move the next Amendment.

Amendment: moved—

Page 2, line 19, end insert— (5) For the purposes of the last foregoing subsection, persons having the right to kill or take rabbits on any land shall not be treated as having unreasonably withheld the sanction referred to, if, in so far as the use of firearms is required, they are themselves taking or proposing to take adequate steps for the destructions of the wild rabbits on the land."—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)

EARL DE LA WARR

I accept this Amendment also.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL DE LA WARR

This Amendment is for the purpose of clarification. A clearance order under Clause 1 will place a statutory duty on an occupier of land to kill rabbits, and he will then be entitled, notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary, to kill rabbits in any lawful way. It is not so clear that a person authorised by such an occupier to kill rabbits may not be held to be infringing the laws for the protection of game, and the Amendment makes the point clear. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 2, line 28, at end insert— (6) A person who is duly authorised by the occupier of land in a rabbit clearance area to kill or take rabbits on the land for the purpose of complying with any requirement imposed on the occupier under or by virtue of this section, and who acts in accordance with that authorisation, shall not thereby commit an offence under any enactment relating to the unlawful destruction or pursuit of game."—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL ST. ALDWYNmoved to add to subsection (7): Provided always that in the application of section one hundred and six of the Agriculture Act, 1947, to this section notice of intention to enter upon the land shall, in addition to being given to the occupier of the said land as provided by the said section one hundred and six, also be given to the owner thereof in all cases where such occupier is not also the owner, and the said section one hundred and six shall be construed accordingly in relation to this Act.

The noble Earl said: This Amendment arises from another point I raised on Second Reading and about which I feel strongly. People from whatever Ministry it may be should exercise the normal courtesy to an owner of any property, whether it be a house or agricultural land. Why should someone come on to agricultural property without any "By your leave" or indication of his coming, any more than he should wander into a person's house? If anyone comes into your house without permission, you are justified in prosecuting, but if you do so with regard to somebody entering upon agricultural land you meet with singularly little success. I know that objections are likely to be raised to this proposal on the ground that it is not always easy to find out who the landlord is. There are bound to be exceptional cases. That I fully appreciate. Building plots may have been sold off in innumerable small lots and then, because planning consent has been refused, have gone back into agricultural use; but they may still be owned by perhaps 400 different persons. Such circumstances will arise: but is that any reason why under normal conditions an owner should not have notification that people are coming on to his land? Under Section 106 of the Agriculture Act various means are provided of trying to notify an owner, and it seems to me that if those were applied here they would more than meet the difficulties in which the Minister may find himself. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 46, at end insert the said proviso.—(Eart St. Aldwyn.)

LORD SALTOUN

I should like to support this Amendment, because I think it would be good to get something like this in the Bill. Nobody who has not suffered knows the kind of thing that can be done by Departments when they are in a hurry. During the war my neighbour, a respectable farmer, had his farm invaded, buildings erected upon it, all his drainage system cut and the drains of the camp turned into his cattle feeding troughs. When we went and protested, they said, "We have nothing to do with you. We have been to the agricultural executive committee and they know all the details of the drainage of this farm. We have their sanction and it matters not a bit to you. We have not even seen the farmer." We went on to point out that they had laid out a dwelling site in the middle of the gathering ground for the water supply of the village, and that that ground could not be used for that purpose, but only for water storage. They promised to put that matter right; but in three weeks that land was a very well occupied dwelling site. That may be an extreme case, but when such a thing can happen without redress, it is time a stop was put to it and some sense was inculcated into the way land is dealt with for some official purposes.

THE EARL OF ROSEBERY

I should like to support this Amendment as strongly as I can. Noble Lords may have noticed in the papers to-day that a gas-meter man had broken the window al a house, gone into it and emptied the gas meter of all the money that was in it. That has created considerable interest, and I understand that it is proposed to amend the law to prevent an official such as a gas-meter man from entering a house without permission, which at the present time he is legally entitled to do. If we do not accept this Amendment, we shall be allowing people to come on to a man's land in exactly the same way as the gas-meter man went into this house. In any case, it may conceivably be that a landlord has planned to take steps to reduce the rabbits next day; yet some action may be instituted and some party may go on to his land. I see no harm in this Amendment and I think that without it a certain amount of ill-feeling is bound to arise in country districts.

VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN

I should like to support this Amendment on the ground that over a great deal of Scotland and for a long time now practically all rabbit control—and there has been rabbit control—has been carried out by keepers and rabbit trappers employed by landlords, and the tenants have had the entire benefit. That is quite right. Surely collaboration between tenant and landlord is a far more effective way of controlling rabbits than having people arbitrarily coming in, so that the right hand does not know what the left hand is doing. I think it would be desirable to have an Amendment such as this, to preserve the happy relations that have existed in the past. I should like to draw attention to the difference between commercial rabbit trapping by trappers and the killing of rabbits to the landlord's instructions or under his direction and the selling of the produce. These are totally different things. One is legitimate, the other possibly not.

EARL DE LA WARR

I think your Lordships will be not only in sympathy, but in complete agreement, with the principle laid down by the speakers on this Amendment, but I cannot help thinking that they were speaking under some misapprehension. I am not going to make much of the point that this subsection was drafted in complete consonance with a similar provision in the Agriculture Act, 1947, which your Lordships accepted. I agree that two wrongs do not make a right, and that if what we did then is considered wrong, we should change it. The Amendment proposes that the landlord should be notified. Noble Lords have spoken as though inspectors were to be allowed to go on to a farmer's land, and even break into his house and empty the meter, without notice. The inspector will have to give twenty-four hours notice to the occupier of the land. The question is whether he should always give notice to the landowner. In almost every case it is the occupier who will be the person affected. As I see it, the inspector will be going on to the land, first, for a purpose which will be the concern of the occupier—namely, to ensure that the occupier is carrying out the provisions of a clearance order. That does not affect the landowner at all. There are, of course, cases in which the landowner may be affected, one being when the inspector goes on the land in order to report whether or not a clearance order should be made.

I would refer your Lordships to Clause 1 (9) where it is laid down that: Before making an order which designates any new area as a rabbit clearance area… the, Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries shall consult the interested parties, such as the Country Landowners' Association, the National Farmers' Union and the representatives of workers—in fact, all parties concerned. Then paragraph (b) of subsection (9) says that he shall publish notice a the proposal to make the order in such manner as he thinks reasonable, and so on. Some of your Lordships, I know, think that that wording does not go far enough, and we shall be discussing an Amendment on that point later. I submit that in the limited number of cases where it might affect the landowner machinery is provided under the Bill to deal with it. In the vast majority of cases, the inspector will be going on to land to see whether a particular occupier is carrying out the provisions of the order, and in those cases, it is right for the occupier to have the notice. On this side of the House, we feel that it is desirable, so far as possible, not to build up a vast bureaucracy, either in central or local administration. I can assure your Lordships that if we insist too much on notifications, and the finding out of whom to notify, then it can be done only at a colossal cost, and, as I submit to your Lordships, a cost which is unnecessary. I hope that your Lordships will agree with me, in view of the facts which I have laid before you.

LORD SALTOUN

Before we leave this Amendment, I should like to urge the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, to consider separately the case of Scotland. In Scotland, not only is a proprietor often much more actively concerned in keeping down the rabbits than the occupier, but every proprietor's name and address is put in the Valuation Roll, which is a public document immediately accessible to any official. It is only a question of sending a postcard to the proprietor, informing him that you propose to be on the land on a certain date to carry out an examination, and asking him to meet you. These postcards are stamped officially—your Lordships carry them, probably—free of charge. I do ask the noble Earl to examine separately the case of Scotland.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY

I feel that there may be some difficulty and confusion here. I know that over wide areas and large acreages, by agreement with the occupier, rabbits are killed by men employed by the owner. I hope that nothing in this Bill will prevent this operation from being carried out as hitherto.

EARL DE LA WARR

I will certainly undertake to put to the Minister of State the points that have been raised in regard to Scotland, and no doubt he will discuss them with his colleague in another place.

EARL ST. ALDWYN

I am afraid that I do not find the answer of the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr entirely satisfactory. In these days, when the agricultural committees have been in existence for a number of years, there have been made farm surveys which I believe have covered at least 98 per cent. of the agricultural land; and that, after all, is the land with which we are most concerned. This business of finding out who is the owner is not such a monumental task as the noble Earl would have us believe. He says that I am virtually asking for an increase in bureaucracy. I cannot accept that. All I am asking for is ordinary common courtesy to an owner. I ask your Lordships' leave to withdraw the Amendment to-day, but I strongly urge the noble Earl to reconsider this matter between now and the Report stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY

If this part of the Bill is confined to rabbit clearance orders, I am not quite clear what different forms of order, if any, may be contemplated, or what reason there might be for them. Therefore, I suggest the alternative wording in this Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 1, leave out ("Any order under this section") and insert ("A rabbit clearance order").—(The Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

EARL DE LA WARR

I am in a slight difficulty in regard to this Amendment, because I am not sure what the noble Duke intends. So far as I can see, this is a drafting Amendment, and I am advised that it would not improve the Bill. There are in the clause a good many other references to an order, and I do not think it would make for clarity to change the words in the Bill, as suggested by the noble Duke, to "A rabbit clearance order," which is, in fact, implied throughout the Bill. I hope he will not press this matter.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY

I did not intend to spring any trap on the noble Earl unexpectedly. I am pleased to accept his explanation, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

4.39 p.m.

LORD CHESHAM moved to omit subsection (8). The noble Lord said: In view of the complete interdependence of this Amendment and the next, I should like to speak on both of them together, and in so doing, I shall also make reference to Amendment No. 18. I should like to make it clear that the purpose of this Amendment, which I admit is fairly drastic, is to improve the efficiency with which the purpose of the Bill may be carried out. I feel that that purpose will not be easy to achieve, and the more any doubts held by those who will be affected are removed, and the more clearly they understand what they have to do, the easier it will be to make this Bill work. I feel that subsection (8) is not satisfactory; it leaves too much room for doubt and misunderstanding on the part of the people who are to carry out the work. However, my proposals for what should take its place are written into the next Amendment, and I will say a little more about that when I reach it.

Turning to subsection (9) of the Bill, I do not understand why what might be called the preamble should be quite so complicated. There is a reference to "a new area," for instance, but the whole point, surely, is guided by Clause 1 (1), which deals with the procedure under which the Minister will make rabbit clearance orders. My Amendment is intended to clarify that point. My next suggestion deals with the addition of forestry land to the land dealt with by subsection 9 (a). It seems to me obvious that the extensive interests of forestry, together with those of agriculture, should be consulted, as they must in many cases form an important part of the area from which it is desired to clear the rabbits.

Coming to paragraph (b) of subsection (9), I think this matter may well present some difficulty. It is clearly essential that any proposal to make an order must be specifically brought to the notice of anyone likely to be affected by it. There are more reasons than one. An order, if made, could impose a considerable financial burden on an occupier, and he might even, as is later hinted at in the Bill, incur the risk of penalty. I have already referred to the increased efficiency required, and if the proposal to make an order is not to be specifically given to an individual, it rather suggests to me that perhaps the Minister will consider it reasonable to put a notice in the local paper or tack a copy on the church door and leave it at that. That might well be reasonable, but I doubt whether it would in all cases reach all the people for whom it was intended. I am afraid that I, too, have brought the rather contentious owners into this paragraph, and I do not think any argument I could put forward would be any more effective than those put forward by noble Lords who have already spoken on the subject. I should, however, like to add this—and this is where I refer to Amendment No. 18. I hope that it will be possible to regard the nuisance of finding owners as not quite so great if the relevant section—which is Section 107 of the Act of 1947—is held to apply. It lays down clearly what the Minister must do in cases where the owner is not easily to be found. I trust that that may make some difference and will make possible the inclusion of owners.

We are talking of the clearance of rabbits, and I feel that owners have a valuable part to play, in conjunction with their tenants. It is mostly the owners who employ trappers or keepers, and I should hate to think that the existing rabbit-destroying machinery, as it were, should go out of existence simply because the onus to destroy them is transferred to the occupier only. I do not think there is anything much to add on paragraph (c) in my Amendment, and in view of the sympathetic attitude of the noble Earl do not think I need say any more about it. Paragraph (d) is served by the same remarks which I made about paragraph (b), and refers merely to the service of the order once it is made. In general reference to my Amendments, I realise that a certain amount of extra trouble will be entailed, although I do not feel that any large bureaucracy will have to be set up to deal with it. I feel sure that such trouble will be more than off-set by the greater degree of efficiency which will be achieved. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 1, leave out subsection (8).—(Lord Chesham.)

LORD SALTOUN

Without necessarily going the whole way with my noble friend in his Amendment, I am a little unhappy about subsection (9), and I should like to put this point to Her Majesty's Government. Paragraph (a) says: shall consult such persons as appear to him to be representative of the interests in the new area of farmers, owners of agricultural land, and workers… In the rather shocking case which I mentioned to your Lordships just now, I found in the official mind a complete conviction that the agricultural executive committee were possessed of the drainage plan of every individual farm. That is not the case; indeed, it is ridiculous.

There are a whole lot of details regarding farms and land about which what one might call the official representatives often do not know. I should feel much happier about this subsection if it read something like this, shall consult the farmers, owners and workers employed in the area. That would really get down to proper consultation. I ask my noble friend if he will examine this point before the next stage of the Bill, because I am quite sure it would make the Bill a much more useful measure.

EARL DE LA WARR

The purpose of these Amendments is quite clear: it is to ensure that all owners and all occupiers have notice of the order before it is made. I wonder whether the noble Lord appreciates what that means. These schemes are likely to cover many thousands of acres of land, and we hope that eventually they will cover the whole country. I think we are all agreed that the rabbit is a pest, and that we must attack it on large-scale lines. There is no doubt that clearance orders will affect not only occupiers, but owners also to a considerable extent, and I think it is agreed that before the orders are put into operation the fullest possible practicable steps should be taken to inform them of what is going to happen. It is all very well in certain areas, where estates are very large and where considerable areas of land are in the ownership of one landowner or a smallish number of landowners; but when it comes to other areas—I myself happen to live in one, in the Home Counties—where there are hundreds of owners of small pieces of land, in some cases owning only a few acres—perhaps a field attached to a villa—or small areas of woodland, it is a different matter. I know of one very small wood where it has taken me a year to discover the three or four owners.

Frankly, if we are going to impose this obligation on the authorities, there will be certain areas where I think we can take it for granted that this Bill will be 'virtually a dead letter: we have got to face that fact. I should have thought that the Bill itself, in subsections (8) and (9), makes a real attempt to see that there is full consultation with the interests concerned and that proper publication is made. The noble Lord, Lord Chesham, said that the Minister might put a small notice in the local paper, and a notice on the church door. British Ministers do not behave like that. When an obligation is imposed on them to publish a notice of e proposal I think we should be prepared 'to assume that they will make proper publication. Publication of the proposal is not the only requirement of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Chesham, referred 'to subsection (9) (b) but omitted reference to subsection (9) (a)—the requirement to which the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun referred—which is to the effect that the Minister shall also have full consultations r with representatives of the farmers, owners and workers concerned in the particular land. I suggest that, if we are really determined to deal with this problem, that is a reasonable and proper 'method of dealing with it. If we put greater obligations on the authorities we shall make their work virtually impossible. I hope therefore, although I know that some noble Lords feel strongly on this matter, that they will not press this Amendment.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY

I was not quite sure that the same procedure of notification and consultation would be followed where rabbit clearance areas were being designated or being extended. I understand from what the Minister has said that any occupier will be enabled to make representations, both in the original areas and also when new areas are being added.

EARL DE LA WARR

The noble Duke knows, of course, that this proviso is to be discussed later; and perhaps it would not be out of order if I informed the noble Duke that we are prepared to try to meet him on that point. Subject to that, the noble Duke is quite right.

LORD SALTOUN

My point is that notice should be given to the persons themselves, and not to their representatives. Often there are local details which render a scheme futile unless the people who occupy or own the land are consulted. I hope that the noble Earl will consider that point before the next stage.

EARL DE LA WARR

I have considered it; and my answer was, and is, that if this were done it would make the scheme quite unworkable, particularly in these Home Counties areas, where very small owners are concerned.

THE EARL OF ROSEBERY

Is the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, going to consult with the Secretary of State for Scotland as to whether Scotland should be differentiated in these cases? As Lord Saltoun has pointed out, it is possible to ascertain the owner of any land in Scotland within five minutes.

EARL DE LA WARR

I cannot speak for that, I am afraid. This Bill comes before your Lordships as a Bill introduced by Her Majesty's Government, for which several Ministers are responsible. I am prepared, however, without making any commitments, to say that, as the noble Earl has asked me to bring this matter to the notice of the Secretary of State, I will do so.

THE EARL OF ROSEBERY

I am grateful to the noble Earl for that reply. I realise the difficulty in which he is placed, since the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, went sick only yesterday, but we feel this matter very strongly.

EARL DE LA WARR

Even the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, would not try to run Scotland!

LORD SILKIN

May I ask whether subsection (8) does not meet the case as it stands? It says the Minister …shall take such steps as he thinks reasonable for the purpose of bringing the purport of it to the notice of persons likely to be affected…. In certain cases he might think it reasonable to give individual notice, but in others, such as have been mentioned, he might think it unreasonable. But there is nothing here which prevents him from giving individual notice if it is practicable. Therefore I think the clause as it stands is quite adequate.

EARL DE LA WARR

I am inclined to agree with the noble Lord, and I think the drafting of subsection (8) might well meet also the point raised by the noble Earl. Lord Rosebery.

LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH

May I point out to the noble Earl in charge of the Bill that subsections (8) and (9) deal with different stages in this procedure? Curiously enough, subsection (8) deals with what happens after the order is made, but the point that arises on subsection (9) is what happens before the order is made. As I understand it, the object of the Amendment which has been moved, whether we agree with its terms or not, is to ensure that, before the order is made, reasonable steps are taken to bring it to the notice of the persons likely to be affected by it. If it is possible to do that after the order has been made, why is it not possible to do it before?

LORD CHESHAM

Before I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment, I should like to say one thin; and to ask two questions. I hope that the economy of administration which the noble Earl desires—which I gather is one reason why he will not include owners here, or provide for clearer methods of notifying occupiers—will not be offset by an army of people who have to go round to see that the occupiers are complying with orders that have been made but of which they may never have heard. I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he will consider the inclusion, at a later stage, of the forestry interests which I mentioned earlier. Also, I ask for a further assurance on the subject of the consideration, before an order is made, of objections and representations.

EARL DE LA WARR

Forestry is already included in the definition.

LORD CHESHAM

I thank the noble Earl for his answer, and beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY

I think that the subject of the next three Amendments, Nos. 12, 13 and 14, has been covered by the discussion under the last two Amendments, that all the points in these Amendments have been brought to the attention of the Minister and that he has replied to them. There is therefore no need for me to move the Amendments.

EARL ST. ALDWYN

This Amendment is self-explanatory. It is really to ensure that forestry interests are properly consulted before an order is made. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 13, after ("agriculture") insert ("and of the forestry interests, if any, in the new areas; ").—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL DE LA WARR

The next Amendment, No. 16, comes under an undertaking that I gave on Amendment No. 3.

VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN

In that event, I shall not move the Amendment.

5.5 p.m.

VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN moved to delete the proviso to subsection (9). The noble Viscount said: The only thing I should like to say on this Amendment is that I cannot see that the smallness of an area is reasonable ground for not informing an individual of the proposal to make an order. The great difficulty of doing so has been pointed out, but it has also equally well been pointed out that that is not the case in Scotland. On the point of bureaucracy and costs, I ask the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, why he could not follow the good old practice of having an S.O.S. announced on the wireless. All he has to do is to have announced on the nine o'clock news: "Bill Jones, you are in this order." That is all he need do, and I do not see why he cannot do it. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 22, leave out from beginning to end of line 26.—(Viscount Stonehaven.)

EARL DE LA WARR

I am sure there is something in the "Bill Jones" method of dealing with this problem. The reason for the proviso is simply that there might be a fairly large area of perhaps forty to fifty acres, technically outside a particular parish, but which, by being included, would make a better boundary by virtue of there being a river or a stream. We do not think it right to employ the cumbersome, heavy machinery of Clause 1 (9) to deal with that particular forty or fifty acres. I agree with the noble Viscount that, even if the area is a small piece of land, the owner should have the right of proper representation of his case. If the noble Viscount will withdraw his Amendment, I will undertake, on behalf of the 'Minister, to put down an Amendment on Report stage which will meet his point.

VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN

After the assurance I have had, which is very nice, I shall withdraw the Amendment. Before doing so, I should like to say that I should be happy to see the whole of the British Isles declared a rabbit clearance area to-morrow, without all this palaver at the beginning of the Bill. We could then get on with the details at the end of it. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2:

Extension of power to require or assist in preventive measures

2.—(1) At the end of section ninety-eight of the Agriculture Act, 1947, there shall be added a new subsection (7), as follows:— (7) Where it appears to the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries expedient for the purpose of preventing damage by rabbits to crops, pasture, trees, hedges, banks or any works on land, he may by notice in writing served on the occupier of any land (or, in the case of unoccupied land, the person entitled to occupy it) require him to take on the land, within the time specified in the notice, such steps as may be so specified to destroy or reduce the breeding places or cover for rabbits or to exclude rabbits there from, or to prevent the rabbits living in any place on the land from spreading to or doing damage in any other place"; and at the end of section thirty-nine of the Agriculture (Scotland) Act, 1948, there shall be added a new subsection (5) in the same terms, except that for the reference to the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries there shall be substituted a reference to the Secretary of State.

EARL ST. ALDWYN moved, in subsection (1), in the proposed new subsection (7), after "such" to insert "reasonable." The noble Earl said: This Amendment deals with the wide powers which the Minister has under Clause 2 to compel owners and/or occupiers to fence in large areas or to fence rabbits out of large areas. As the Bill stands, I can see no reason why the Minister should not compel an owner, once he has cleared the rabbits out of a wood, to fence it round and so prevent the rabbits from getting back. From the Minister's point of view, that may be sound policy—the wood may have been a large breeding ground—but we must also consider the occupier and the owner, and relate the whole question of expense to good husbandry and good estate management. If the expense far outweighs any possible return that could come, either to the occupier or to the owner, surely it is not reasonable to expect them to bear the cost of this outlay. I agree that neither our present Minister nor, I hope, any Minister in future would ever be entirely unreasonable in these matters, but it is possible that some of his subordinates, acting with rather more zeal than forethought, might embarrass occupiers considerably. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 10, after ("such") insert ("reasonable").—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)

EARL DE LA WARIZ

It is always an unpleasant task for a Minister to persuade a House not to insert the word "reasonable"—it seems so unreasonable of us not to do so. Yet I think one of the first lessons one learns in taking up responsibility for legislation is that the one word that one must not submit for a judge in the courts to pronounce upon is the word "reasonable." It is an utterly meaningless and hopeless word to take to a law court for decision. One has to assume—after all, the Government of this country would very soon break down if one could not make this assumption.—that Her Majesty's Ministers are, in fact, reasonable people. As I say, the word really means nothing. If a judge has to assume that it has a meaning, then he has to give it a meaning that is possibly not reasonable. I hope the noble Earl will not press me to insert this Amendment. If I may do so without being out of order, I will tell him that I hope in the next Amendment to be able to say something that will, perhaps indirectly, help him in the direction he wants.

LORD SALTOUN

In view of what the noble Earl has said, may I ask him how he construes Clause 1 (9) (b)?

EARL DE LA WARR

I think the noble Lord will find it is not hard to meet that point. That paragraph means "as the Minister thinks reasonable." It is one thing to leave it to the Minister to say whether something is reasonable or not in his view: but if you put it subsequently in other parts of the Bill, where it means that it has to go to the courts for decision, that is another matter. Nobody knows that better than the noble Lord.

EARL ST. ALDWYN

I suppose, on the same basis, it is reasonable that, under the proviso to subsection (9), the Minister should be satisfied that something is unreasonable having regard to the smallness of the new area and to other circumstances.

EARL DE LA WARR

Ministers are always reasonable.

EARL ST. ALDWYN

I am sorry the noble Earl cannot meet me on this point beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN moved, in subsection (l) to add to the proposed new subsection (7): and any such notice shall specify a time (not being less than fourteen days) in which the occupier of such land (or, in the case of unoccupied land, the person entitled to occupy it) may make representations in writing to the Minister;

The noble Viscount said: I was not going to move this Amendment, but the noble Earl has been so reasonable in saying that he would say something that would help my noble friend Lord St. Aldwyn, that, although he has covered all my points, I will move my Amendment in order to give him his opportunity.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 14, after ("place") insert the said words.(Viscount Stonehaven.)

EARL DE LA WARR

The purpose of this Amendment is to give the occupier a chance of making representations to the Minister if he objects to the steps that he is required to take in an individual notice under this clause. I am afraid the Minister cannot quite accept the drafting of this Amendment. He would like to see I. drafted differently. Subject to that point, however, I will undertake to put down a suitable Amendment on the Report stage.

VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN

I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3:

Extension of power to contribute to cost of destruction or preventive measures

3.—(I) The Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries may with the approval of the Treasury make contributions towards the expenses incurred or to be incurred by any person in killing, taking or destroying animals or birds to which section ninety-eight of the Agriculture Act, 1947, applies or the eggs of such birds, in destroying or reducing breeding places or cover for rabbits or in excluding rabbits therefrom, or in preventing the rabbits living in any place from spreading to or doing damage in any other place.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY moved, in subsection (1) after "Treasury" to insert "pay or." The noble Duke said: This Amendment is short and simple. The extermination of rabbits in particularly difficult country can be very costly indeed, but if those rabbits are left they can be a menace to a campaign for the destruction of rabbits on adjoining land. The purpose of this Amendment, therefore, is to widen the clause so as to permit the Minister to pay the whole of the expenses where the burden on an occupier is excessive. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 31, after ("Treasury") insert ("pay or").—(The Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

EARL DE LA WARR

I am advised that these words are unnecessary because, as the clause is drafted, the power to pay contributions would in fact cover the payment of the whole cost. But I am grateful to the noble Duke for raising this point, because it gives me an opportunity of informing the Committee that it is the intention of the Government to continue the present grant of 50 per cent. towards the cost of scrub clearance, and actually to extend the grant to the bulldozing of warrens and banks and the erection of rabbit-proof fencing. I repeat, the words proposed in the Amendment are unnecessary, and therefore I hope that the noble Duke will not press the Amendment.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY

I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Clauses 4 to 7 agreed to.

Clause 8:

Restriction on type of trap in England and Wales

8.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a person shall be guilty of an offence under this subsection if, after such date not earlier than the end of July, nineteen hundred and fifty-eight, as may be appointed by order of the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, either—

1. (a) for the purpose of killing or taking animals, he uses, or knowingly permits the use of, any spring trap other than an approved trap, or uses, or knowingly permits the use of, an approved trap for animals or in circumstances for which it is not approved; or
1164
2. (b) he sells, or exposes or offers for sale, any spring trap other than an approved trap with a view to its being used for the purpose of killing or taking animals; or
3. (c) he has any spring trap in his possession for a purpose which is unlawful under this subsection.

(5) Subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to traps of any description specified by order of the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries as being adapted solely for the destruction of rats, mice or other small ground vermin.

5.15 p.m.

LORD ELTON had given notice of several Amendments to subsection (1), dealing with the date after which it should be an offence to use a spring trap, other than one approved by the Minister. The noble Lord said: The three Amendments Nos. 22, 23 and 25, standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Merthyr and myself, are all concerned with the same point, of which the pith and marrow is contained in Amendment No. 23, which seeks to substitute for the words "not earlier than the end of July, 1958" the words "not later than the end of July, 1958," on the ground that as long as we have the words "not earlier than" 1958—or 1956, as proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, or any other year—we are saying that nothing shall be done to abolish the gin-trap until the named year; and nothing need be done afterwards, because there is no provision in the Bill to compel the Minister, even after 1958, to abolish the gin.

The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, to whom I am sure we all send our good wishes, when moving the Second Reading of this Bill, positively spoke as though Clause 8 was an attempt on the part of Her Majesty's Government to implement the recommendation of the Scott Henderson Committee. Let us be clear at the outset that, whatever else this clause is, it is certainly not, by any stretch of the imagination, an attempt to implement the recommendation of the Scott Henderson Committee. The Scott Henderson Committee said in 1951—the words cannot be too often repeated— The gin-trap is a diabolical instrument which causes an incalculable amount of suffering. Its sale and use in this country should be banned by law within a short period of time. That was three years ago. The Bill proposes that nothing can be done about gins for another four and a half years, and then the Minister may, if he pleases (he is under no obligation), take some action. Surely, by no legitimate stretch, even of official language, can that be described as implementing the urgent recommendation made by a Government Committee in 1951. I am afraid that, in the last resort, this clause is one of those familiar evasive gestures which enable the Government to persuade themselves, and therefore indirectly others, that they are taking some action; whereas, so far as gin-traps go, they are in fact taking no action whatever.

I need not weary the Committee at this stage with the argument that the gin-trap is cruel. The Scott Henderson Committee was a body of responsible persons capable of weighing their words. They did not say that it was undesirable, they did not even say that it was cruel; they said that it was diabolical, and I think the rest of us are probably agreed that that word was justified in its fullest and furthest sense. I think it should again go on record that the gin mutilates and condemns to hours, and sometimes days, of suffering, millions (I use that word deliberately) of living creatures every year—not only rabbits, but cats and dogs, foxhounds, foxes, badgers, and many other types of quadrupeds, and birds of every size and type. The golden eagle and the blue tit have both been found in gin-traps. Therefore, if we leave the clause in its present form, we shall in effect be legislating for an indefinite extension of life, of not less than another four and a half years, for an instrument which has been described officially as "diabolical."

Fortunately, public opinion in this country is at last beginning to concern itself with the gin-trap. The facts are beginning to seep through. It has been nobody's interest to publicise them, but the public conscience is beginning to be aroused. The Lord Mayor of Birmingham circulated in the Midlands a petition against the gin-trap to which he obtained well over 300,000 signatures within a comparatively short time. I myself seldom pass a day without receiving letters from members of the public unknown to me. Only yesterday I had a letter from the wife of a clergyman who said that for many years, while her husband worked in a town, it had been her dream to get out and live in the country and at last she had got out into the country. Unfortunately, her husband's parish was in gin-trap country, and now she says that it is her dream, owing to the shocking experiences that she has had with the gin-trap, to get hack into the town. Meanwhile, this gallant lady has circulated a petition of her own against the gin-trap, to which she has obtained the signature of residents from ail over her own small parish. She has obtained 100 signatures, including those of landowners, farmers and farm workers, as well as if ordinary housewives. So, if we legislate for an extension of life for this diabolical instrument—for which the Government's own Committee have recommended a speedy death—we shall be, up to a point, flying in the face of the conscience of a large number of very respectable citizens.

Those who resist the abolition of the gin do it on the express ground that, although they deplore its indiscriminate cruelty, they want to clear rabbits, and that there is, as yet, no 100 per cent. effective humane substitute. Therefore, they say, they need the gin-trap in the meanwhile. From the point of view of the abolitionists, the short answer to that contention is that we say that for rabbit clearance, as distinct from rabbit farming, for the man who wishes to get rid of his rabbits and not merely to take an annual crop from them, no trap is necessary, either gin or humane. It is very difficult to get that point across: it is always muffled and mutilated. I am told that after the debate in your Lordships' House on the Second Reading of this Bill the B.B.C. report To-day in Parliament, described me as having pleaded passionately for the use of the humane trap. That is not what I am pleading for. Of course, I prefer the humane trap to the gin-trap. But what I am saying now is that for rabbit clearance neither trap is necessary. Therefore, it is not, in full logic, arguable that we must wait to abolish the gin-trap until we have a 100 per cent. efficient humane trap ready.

I cannot, of course, go into details as to all the other ways of clearing rabbits, in which so many of your Lordships have much more practical experience than r have. But I should like to refer to the: pamphlet which I mentioned before, Instructions for Dealing with Rabbits, published by the Universities Federation for Animal Welfare. And, more interestingly, I want to remind your Lordships, and in particular the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, that in last year's volume of the Journal published by the Ministry of Agriculture, the Department printed an article by Dr. F. B. Smith called "Farming Against Rabbits," the whole burden of which was that traps of any kind, humane or gin, were not only unnecessary but positively an obstruction. The article begins with the words: I began my campaign against rabbits in the wrong way—I trapped them. Later, the writer sums up his thesis by saying that trapping—not gin-trapping but trapping— has no useful place in a scheme for rabbit clearance. The Ministry (I do not know whether the Minister himself was responsible, or whether it was some of his officials) not only published this article, saying that a trap of any kind has no useful place in a rabbit-clearance scheme, but republished it in pamphlet form and issued it to the public. If the Minister, from his brief, is going to tell us to-day that he cannot abolish the gin until a humane trap is fully ready, I want to ask why his Department not only published this article but reprinted it as a pamphlet and distributed it.

I repeat, in our contention no trap is necessary for rabbit clearance. Of course, it is necessary for the commercial trapper who treats the rabbit not as a pest to be got rid of but as an article of commerce to be exploited, and who has surely no place in this Bill which is—professedly at any rate—an anti-pests Bill. I might say, in passing, that the Minister of Agriculture himself, last December, got as far as saying that there are other, and usually more effective, ways of protecting crops from rabbits—more effective, that is, than any form of trapping. It is only to the commercial trapper that the trap is indispensable—the man who treats the rabbit not as a pest but as an article of commerce, and thanks to whose activities large areas of this country, particularly in the South West of England, and in West Wales, have seen a catastrophic increase in the number of rabbits. The commercial trapper, in the first place, ceases to work when he can no longer obtain a satisfactory profit from trapping. Scientific tests with the Lincoln Index have shown that that point is reached, on an average, when he has trapped one-third of the rabbits on the land, after which he moves on. Of course, for rabbit clearance, operations have to be prolonged through those stages where they have long ceased to yield a commercial profit.

Secondly, the commercial trapper visits a farm only once or twice in the winter, for two or three weeks at a time, whereas a genuine rabbit clearance scheme has to be carried on continuously. Finally, the commercial trapper illegally sets his traps in the open, thereby not only mutilating a great many other animals besides rabbits but incidentally catching a great many more buck rabbits than doe rabbits and thereby disturbing the balance of nature. There we have one of the reasons why the operations of the commercial trapper do, in fact, result, over a term of years, in a startling increase in the number of rabbits. I admit that the commercial trapper needs the gin-trap, because he needs his victim fresh. He cannot afford to let it lie waiting dead, perhaps for a day or two, before he finds it. But if this Bill is a pest Bill, surely no argument founded on the supposed interests of the commercial trapper should be relevant to our considerations. A landowner who wants to clear his land of rabbits does not need to trap. I have had scores of letters from landowners and farmers who now have no rabbits but who have never had a trap on their land; and quite a number mention that in their neighbourhood there is land, occupied by farmers who make a practice of using gin-traps, which is still swarming with rabbits. My noble friend Lord Merthyr, whose name also appears in support of this Amendment, belongs to the honourable company of landowners who have never used a gin-trap, or a trap of any kind, and who have kept rabbits off their land. So there is something in this mysterious article which the Ministry of Agriculture have so mysteriously distributed.

The Amendment to which I am speaking particularly is the central Amendment of these three—number 23 on the Marshalled List. It seeks to substitute the word "later" for "earlier," and if it commends itself, then the Minister will be compelled, at some time within the next four and a half years, to outlaw the gin-trap. I want to make this point to those of your Lordships who still believe—as I can see that a number of you do—that you must have some sort of a trap and, therefore, that if the gin is to be outlawed you must have a humane trap. I suggest that by far the brightest hope of obtaining an effective humane trap is to set a definite date for outlawing the gin, for it may not be common knowledge among your Lordships that the attempt to produce a humane trap has already been going on for well over fifty years. In his Annual Report for 1905 the Comptroller of Patents rather smugly congratulates himself on the prospect of soon discovering an effective humane rabbit trap, for which a prize had then just been offered. That was fifty years ago. We shall all remember that during the war, when an invention was urgently needed, nine times out of ten it was forthcoming in a matter of months, and sometimes even weeks. As the Field newspaper pointed out not long ago, so far as it is true that a substitute for the gin is necessary, the reason why we have not so far had it is that we have never had to have it. I would wager a large sum of money that if we outlaw the gin we shall very soon get a humane trap.

If this Amendment should commend itself to the Government or to your Lordships, then at a later stage I propose to move Amendment No. 27, the effect of which is that, if the gin is outlawed, the Minister will have power, after the abolition of the gin, to licence its use where he considers it necessary for genuine rabbit clearance schemes, though I should hope that he would not consider it necessary. I would seek to move that Amendment later, if the present Amendment be accepted, simply to make it easier for those of your Lordships who have doubts about accepting the present Amendment, because I think the two together would make possible a gradual abolition of the gin; and this, I hope, would allay some of the doubts of noble Lords who, cannot see the gin go without grave misgivings about what is to take its place. I sincerely hope that, with the knowledge of these further powers, the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, whom I know to be a kind-hearted man, will find it possible to accept an Amendment which seeks to implement the urgent recommendation of a Government Committee and to allay the anxiety of a large and growing number of respectable citizens.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 37, leave out ("such") and insert ("a")—(Lord Elton.)

5.34 p.m.

LORD MERTHYR

As the faithful lieutenant of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, I should like to underline one or two of the things he has said in presenting his case this afternoon. He has done it so comprehensively and fully that only one or two points need to be repeated. I hope that my noble friend will persist in his campaign against the gin-trap. No matter how much opposition he may come up against, he should be encouraged by the fact that the day is bound to come when he will succeed. I am fortified in saying that by reflecting upon what has happened to many other Bills concerning animal welfare. The bitterness and opposition that some of them encountered are hardly credible now that these Bills are the law of the land. I am thinking particularly of two examples. The amount of opposition to the Bill for humane slaughter was very great, but it is now accepted everywhere as being right, and many of the people who most strongly opposed its introduction now admit, to their lasting credit, that they were wrong and that the legislation is right. Again, before the war I introduced in your Lordships' House a Bill concerned with the docking of horses' tails. It was violently opposed by your Lordships, but after the war the same Bill went through the House without a Division, and with no opposition whatsoever. So we see that, in a question like this, time alone is the factor that decides. As the noble Earl the, Postmaster General himself said, it is not a question of whether the gin-trap is to be abolished but when.

In considering this Amendment, there are two distinct points that we have to bear in mined—the agricultural aspect and the humanitarian. In my submission, the first aspect does not come into it at all. If a completely efficient humane trap were invented and put on the market, and were sold in the same numbers as the gin-trap, then the agricultural position would remain entirely unaffected. I think that will be conceded by all, including the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr. So it is the second point that we are considering to-day. This is simply a question of cruelty to animals. I often wonder why this matter is not dealt with, not by the Ministry of Agriculture but by the Home Office. The question here is of the substitution of one kind of trap for another. If no rabbit trap of any kind had ever been invented, then the number of rabbits in this country would be less by millions. The reason for that my noble friend Lord Elton has already explained. There are people who do not want humane traps, and it is a matter of some importance to them. Some of the people who do not want humane traps are the people who want to catch rabbits alive, fresh for the market. They do not want humane traps because the humane trap kills the rabbit.

Some people do not want humane traps because those so far invented are not so light as the gin-trap, are not so cheap, on the whole, and possibly not so efficient—there is no use concealing that. In spite of the fact that a little more skill is needed to use the humane trap, I submit that the gin-trap should be prohibited, because it is cruel—unnecessarily cruel. Even if the humane traps are not so efficient, which is a matter of opinion, they should be made compulsory. I submit that for two reasons: first, because no trap is necessary—that is a strong statement but I make it without the slightest hesitation—and secondly, because a little more skill and trouble are required to set a humane trap.

These humane traps are not so inefficient and difficult as is made out. It may interest noble Lords to know that the number of Sawyer traps—quite apart from the Imbra trap, which is a development of the Sawyer—so far sold on the market in the ordinary way, is about 52,000. I admit that that is not many; and I admit, also, that it is over a fairly lengthy period. But they are gradually getting established in the country. That leads me to repeat that it is only a question of time before this prejudice—because it is nothing less—gradually and slowly disappears and the time comes when people will say, as they have said so often before, "Why was this reform not made years ago?" The noble Lord, Lord Elton, said truly that necessity is the mother of invention. The one way to get an efficient humane trap is to make it necessary by abolishing the gin-trap. Until a definite date is fixed for the abolition of the gin-trap, the incentive to invent a really perfect humane trap will not be there—the noble Lord, Lord Elton, was entirely right in emphasising that point this afternoon.

The noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, may say that he is making a great concession in putting Clause 8 in the Bill. But let us look at it, and see whether he is making a concession. Under Clause 8, Her Majesty's Government take power to do something four years hence. Everybody knows that Her Majesty's Government could do that same thing to-day if they introduced the necessary legislation. Surely it is not much of a concession to say (if the noble Earl does say) that this clause enables the Minister to do something four years hence. Even if the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel—which I cordially support—were passed, what should we have then? We should still have only a power to do something four years or forty years hence; there would still be no definite date. Whether the date is 1956 or 1958, it is only a power; and in the opinion of many of us, and I believe in the opinion of millions of people in the country, a power is simply not enough. I urge your Lordships to support this Amendment which has been so eloquently moved by the noble Lord, Lord Elton. I say once more that it is only a question of time before this happens. If the gin-trap were to be abolished at a definite fixed and known date, then, and then only, would a suitable and efficient substitute for it be found.

5.44 p.m.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

As this is the first opportunity I have had of commenting on this stage of the Bill, perhaps I may be allowed to say how much those of us on these Benches regret the illness of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and how much we hope that he will soon be well again and back on the Bench opposite. At the same time, we are delighted that the noble Earl. Lord De La Warr, with his great knowledge of agriculture, has stepped in at such short notice, especially when he is in such a giving mood, as he appears to be this afternoon. There is a strong temptation to make a Second Reading speech in Committee, but I will try to avoid falling into that temptation and to be as brief and unrepetitive as possible. I feel that the Amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, raise the basic principle in the second Part Of the Bill—namely, whether a date should be fixed for the prohibition of the gin-trap, or whether the date should be left open, as is the case in the Bill as drafted. We on this side of the House believe that until a date for the prohibition of the gin-trap is fixed by Act of Parliament, its use will continue for the catching of rabbits. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that this would be quite contrary to the recommendations of the Scott Henderson Committee, an impartial body, not in favour of farmers or in favour of humanitarians. Their unanimous recommendation was that the gin-trap should be prohibited within a short period of time. There is a large element of humanitarian opinion represented by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, which is in favour of prohibition, and I know, from speaking to some of my friends in another place, that they get letters from their constituents: noble Lords here do not get such letters, of course, because we have no constituents; nevertheless, I am sure we are conscious of the movement of opinion.

What will happen if no definite date is fixed? I believe that, so long as the date remains open, farmers will not replace their present traps, when they are worn out and a new supply is required, by humane traps—or, indeed, adopt other methods of dealing with their rabbits. Moreover, retail dealers, when their stocks run out, will not give orders for a new type of trap, but will give orders for the old type, which is only natural sc long as the retailers expect the farmers to want to use this type of trap. Further, at the other end of the cycle, manufacturers will have no incentive to put other types of trap into production on any great scale so long as they think the demand will be for the gin-trap. It is obvious, however, that the gin-trap cannot be abolished immediately. Time is needed before a sufficient supply of efficient humane traps can be made available for farmers at a reasonable price. I believe that there are several million gin-traps in use at the moment, and it would be preposterous to abandon them within a short period of time. I am not sure that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, will agree with me on that, because I believe he contends that the gin-trap is, in fact, an ineffective method of catching rabbis, and that more would be caught if it were not used, even if another trap were not supplied in its place.

I agree in principle with the two noble Lords who have just spoken, but I believe that our method of dealing with this matter is rather different. What I propose in my two Amendments is that a date rather nearer should be fixed—that is to say, 1956 instead of 1958, with a complete escape provision. What the noble Lord proposes is a rather more distant date—namely, 1958, with an incomplete escape provision. As I, and my noble friends on this side of the Committee—this is a rare case where I can speak for all of my colleagues—agree as a matter of principle with the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, we shall support them if they decide to go to a Division.

LORD AMULREE

I should like to join the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, in expressing our sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, in his present position. Briefly, I should like to say how cordially I support the Amendment put down by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr. My interest in the question of the abolition of the gin-trap goes back to the debate on Scottish agriculture, about six years ago, when I was given an encouraging reply, and I expected that some action would be taken. The same thing occurred in 1951, in the debate on the spring trap. Then, again, we were promised that it would not be long before the gin-trap would go; in fact, I believe the noble Earl who replied for the Government said that it would probably have disappeared by January 1, 1954. However, that date has come and gone, and we are now told that we must wait until possibly 1958; that it cannot be before then, but that it may be much later. On behalf of noble Lords on these Benches I should like to support the Amendment, and we trust that Her Majesty's Government will accept it.

5.50 p.m.

LORD DOWDING

My interest in this Bill is centred principally in trying to secure the early, and complete abolition of the gin-trap. A good deal of what had to say has already been said by the movers of the Amendment, and said probably a good deal better than I could say it. I shall endeavour to avoid unnecessary repetition. I wish to emphasise the point that this Bill deals with rabbits only as pests, and with their elimination from the agricultural land of this country. The two most effective means of rabbit clearance are probably gassing and long netting. I shall not attempt to go into any details about those. There are other means of rabbit clearance, but the spring trap is not one of them. The spring trap is the weapon of the rabbit farmer, whose interest it is to maintain a good stock of marketable rabbits on his land. There is no place for the rabbit farmer in the scheme with which the Bill deals. It is a Bill for the elimination of the rabbit and not for the farming of the rabbit.

It has been said by several people, and I think truly said, that the spring trap is not a means of keeping down the rabbit population. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, who moved the Amendment, quoted some recent action on the part of the Ministry of Agriculture which indicated that they perhaps shared that view. I should like to go back a little further to the Board of Agriculture in 1918. In that year they published Miscellaneous Publication No. 22, and their conclusion was that the spring trap was the best means of maintaining a plentiful stock on the ground. It is quite true that that publication was shortly thereafter suppressed, but not before the cat was well and truly out of the bag. If it be a fact that the spring trap is so ineffective a method of rabbit clearance, it becomes difficult to understand why there is so much objection to the elimination of the gin-trap. But, surely, if the spring trap is to be used at all, it is still more difficult to understand the objection to using the humane trap in place of the gin-trap. As has already been pointed out in different words, the quickest and perhaps the only way of ensuring the production of a humane type of trap is to prohibit the gin absolutely and so close the door to the present interminable procrastination. The killing trap will probably never be as cheap as the catching trap. But, surely, rabbit owners should be ashamed to save their pockets at the expense of their humanity. I think it is true to say—and it needs saying in no uncertain terms—that this is not a question of expediency or a question of agricultural finance; it is a question of right and wrong.

One hundred years ago there was practically no legislation to protect animals against cruelty. Gradually the situation is improving, but I am afraid there is still a long way to go. Can we not to-day take the process one step further, so that we may settle a date when the gin-trap shall be outlawed for ever? If the movers of this Amendment will not take it amiss, I should like to ask them not to withdraw it, even if it fails to secure the support of the Government. I think myself that complete defeat on a moral question of this kind would be preferable to compromise. If it is taken to a Division, there will at least be a record of those noble Lords who are prepared to back by action their professed destestation of that devilish device, the gin-trap.

THE EARL OF HADDINGTON

I will not detain your Lordships for more than one or two moments, but I wish to say that if Clause 8 (1) is really intended at some time to abolish the gin-trap, I can only say that it is couched in the most extraordinary phraseology I have ever seen. "A date not earlier than 1958" might be anything. It might be A.D. 2000. "A date as may be appointed by the Minister" is so indefinite as to leave one very doubtful whether anything will ever be done at all. Candidly, to me the clause means nothing, and therefore I intend to support this Amendment if the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, is not prepared to accept it. I hope my noble friends will press it, and I will certainly support it. We had a good motto put before us on the Second Reading, Necessity is the mother of invention. May I add one other, and say, Where there's a will there's a way.

LORD SALTOUN

I hope Her Majesty's Government will not accept this Amendment. Either we want to get rid of rabbits or we do not. If we want to get rid of rabbits, the most merciful thing to do is to get rid of them as quickly as possible, and by every possible means. That is the best way to mitigate any cruelty. Incidentally, before I start upon what I have to say, I should like to remind my noble friend Lord Merthyr that people no longer drive about the country in phaetons, tandems, and other horse vehicles; and that is why the Bill against the docking of horses' tails went through so easily. Had that mode of transport still been universal, had it not been for the motor car, nobody would have risked his wife and children in a carriage which might become unmanageable because the horse's tail got over the reins. That is why that Bill went through. I am glad that it did. But if we were to go back into the ways of Victorian times, the docking Bill would certainly be repealed.

Now, let us get down to our rabbits. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, asks us to accept this Amendment on the ground of cruelty. I admit that the gin-trap is a painful way of getting rid of rabbits, but any trapper who leaves his traps unvisited for twelve hours ought to be shot. Moreover, it is not good for his business that traps should be left so long. The second thing is the snare. Anyone who knows the snare knows it to be a diabolical instrument which causes incalculable suffering and takes a very long time to ensure the death of its victim. If the gin-trap were to be abolished to-morrow, the country would be covered with snares. Again, a gun, in an inexpert hand, is a diabolical instrument which may cause incalculable and prolonged suffering. There must be many noble Lords here who have had gunshot wounds, and 'who know that these instruments of destruction can be, and indeed are, cruel and extremely painful. I am not sure that a badly-used gun is not the worst of the whole lot. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, opposed the girl-trap on the ground, I gathered, that the commercial trapper eliminates only about one-third of the rabbits. That may be true; but I have known of 11,000 acres cleared of every rabbit within less than two years by the use of the gin-trap. That was a complete clearance—in fact, it proved such a shock to the farmers who had asked for it that they began putting down rabbits again themselves.

Either this Bill is a Bill to abolish the rabbit, or it is a gesture which is not meant to be effective. If this Bill is meant to be effective, I hope the Government will give an indication to that effect by refusing this Amendment. Lord Elton talked about other means, and I presume that he was referring to gas. Very well, let us imagine a piece of coun- try that I am going to describe to your Lordships. It is a great hill, made up of boulders, great and small, some the size of a man, some the size of his head only, and some the size of his fist. Over that great heap of boulders is scattered soil, which penetrates between the boulders. Any of your Lordships who has ever ascended Ben Nevis from Inverlochy Castle will have seen that the scenery is all on a grandiose scale. That is a kind of country which, in various parts of Scotland, happens to be quite well known to me. The rabbits go into, this high ground, and go right through, to make their lairs below the surface. How in the world are they to be gassed there? You might well fill the whole of Scotland with gas before you killed a single rabbit. I have introduced that particular kind of condition because it is a local one which I know. I hope that Lord De La Warr will consider it when he comes back to the consideration of Clause 1 (9). If we want to get rid of rabbits, let us make it a universal effort. Let us not be put off our object of killing rabbits merely because some people who use traps for commercial purposes do not use them effectively. It is within my knowledge that 1he traps have very often, and in many places, been used with complete effect. And when it conies to cruelty, as I have said, anyone who thinks in terms of suffering will realise that probably a badly used gun is the most cruel of all instruments; and I should put the gin-trap and the snare pretty well on the same level. I hope that the Government will stick to their guns.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY

As one of many who are doing what they can to encourage the growth of trees, and also food production, by the elimination of the rabbit, I should like to say a few words on this particular subject. Lard Saltoun has just described to us other forms of cruelty, as well as snares and gin-traps. I am sure that all occupiers of land who are responsible for the killing of rabbits will welcome the use of a more humane trap or of more humane methods. I should like to know from the movers of this Amendment whether they have a solution that they can offer, and, if so, whether they can give an indication that it will be soon available. I listened carefully and tried to ascertain by what other methods we could destroy rabbits without the use of these or any other traps, but I was disappointed. Shooting should also be barred, for that is as cruel, or more so; and as for ferreting and gassing they have been tried in many places and found not to be effective. I urge, therefore, that no precipitate action be taken about this matter. I am sorry to find myself in opposition on this matter of traps to two noble Lords who are so tremendously sincere, but our objective is to kill the rabbits; and the sooner that is completed, the less need there will be for any form of trap or any form of cruelty which can be avoided.

LORD MERTHYR

Since we have been asked to put forward other methods, I should like to be allowed to say a few more words before the noble Earl replies. The speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, and the noble Duke, have produced, if I may say so, rather disrespectfully, the old red herring. The red herring is an old Parliamentary game. It means, in effect, "You must not pass this Amendment, you must not say gin-traps are cruel, because there are many other things that are cruel; therefore you must not stop one of them."

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY

Is it not unwise to mislead the public by saying that there are other methods, until those methods are produced?

LORD MERTHYR

I would not' intentionally mislead anyone. But it really is a red herring to say that you must not prevent one form of cruelty because there is another method that is more cruel. It is a game which we all know well. If I were to introduce a Bill prohibiting snares the noble Duke, backed by the noble Lord, would get up and say, "You must not prohibit the snare, because the gin-trap is more cruel." One noble Lord has said that you cannot gas every rabbit. Of course not: nobody has said you can. Nobody has said that gas is universally effective. There are dozens of methods of killing rabbits. I agree that you are never going to get rid of rabbits until you employ all these methods, though not necessarily the gin trap. Lord Saltoun said just now that he knew of 11,000 acres that were cleared by gin-traps. I do not dispute it for a moment, but what the noble Lord did not do was to tell us whether or not the same number of acres of land could have been cleared with humane traps. I think they could have been, even if it caused a little more trouble and expense. It could be done without the slightest doubt. The noble Duke challenged us to produce other traps.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY

I wanted the noble Lord to tell us how to do it.

LORD MERTHYR

There are many other methods. They have been mentioned so often in this House, that we spared your Lordships by not giving them all again to-day. There are many other methods—shooting, gassing, ferreting, long nets, and so on. I should say that incomparably the most cruel of those methods is the gin-trap.

LORD SALTOUN

Since the noble Lord is asking me a question, I will tell him straight away that I know of no other method. I am quite certain that the 11,000 acres to which I referred could not have been cleared except by the use of the gin-trap. I know of a great many other methods of catching rabbits; I learned many of them when I was a boy. I could tell your Lordships some very useful ways; but I do not think there is any method of making a large-scale clearance of rabbits that is so useful and effective as the gin-trap.

LORD MERTHYR

Will the noble Lord tell the noble Duke some of these methods?

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY

I have used them already.

6.13 p.m.

EARL DE LA WARR

I hesitate to intervene in this matter. I do not want to take the place of anyone else who wishes to speak, but I say straight away that I regret very much that I cannot accept, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, any of these Amendments. No one enjoys speaking in favour of the gin-trap—certainly I do not—but there is only one main question before us: that is, do we or do we not feel ourselves in a position to be able to do away with the gin-trap before there is an effective substitute? There are times in life when one has to face certain hard facts. What are the facts of the situation? First of all, there is the fact on which I believe every noble Lord in the House is agreed: that the rabbit is a pest, and a very definite and dangerous pest. By the word "dangerous," I mean that it is dangerous to something extremely important to the country at the present moment—namely, food production.

The noble Lord, Lord Elton, suggests that we should abolish the trap in the hope that a new trap will appear. I will say that the Government, with their responsibility to-day for food production, cannot afford to gamble in that way, I hope that I shall not be misunderstood if I say that I am not deeply impressed by some things which have been said to-day by some noble Lords who inevitably look at this matter purely from an urban point of view. They would be the first to cry out if food were short in this country, just as many of them are the first to-day to criticise farmers for their inefficiency. I cannot think of any one unnecessary charge on food production greater than the loss and damage to farming land caused by this pest of rabbits. That is the first fact that we have to face. The next is that trapping is one way of dealing with rabbits, and surely we all feel to-day that we cannot afford to dispense with any one method. No one in his senses will contend for a moment that trapping by use of the gin is the only method of catching rabbits—it is far from being the only method. But it is undoubtedly one way; and a very important way. We cannot dispense with any one method at the moment. I want in a moment to deal with the merits of that point.

But consider another point, too. Consider the psychological effect on farmers, upon whom we rely a great deal for carrying out the mainly agreed terms of this Bill for the destruction of rabbits. On the other hand, we say to them, "We are placing these very considerable powers over you. There will be these rabbit clearance orders to compel you to do this and that, and to compel you to get rid of rabbits." Yet, in the very same Bill, we say to them: "You have to dispense with the methods which you, the farmers, rightly or wrongly, have used." They are farmers, countrymen who have been dealing with this subject for some time and who happen very deeply to believe in it. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, said that trapping—not only the gin-trap but trapping generally—is unnecessary. None of us knows everything, and it may be that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, is right. I am not going to deny that he is supported by the noble Earl, Lord Haddington, and by the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, who know a great deal about affairs of the countryside. But the fact of the matter is that it is not the view of the great mass of the people living in the countryside who have to deal with this problem. It is quite possibly true in some areas on some types of terrain, and that is one of the reasons why there is so much disagreement.

The noble Lord, Lord Elton, referred to an article in the Ministry of AgricultureJournal. I read that article—and a very interesting one it was. Actually, the Ministry of Agriculture do not take the responsibility for everything that is published in that journal: that is one of the reasons why it is such an extremely interesting and worth-while journal. But it is true that they also distributed a leaflet. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, raises that against them. I will come to it. It shows how open-minded they are. This article put forward, in an interesting way, many other methods of destroying the rabbit than by the gin. Do we not all want that? The more propaganda we can get, and the more we are able to get other methods used, the better.

The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, will forgive me if I remind him of what he said a little while ago. He said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 174, col. 574]: Large numbers of landowners, farmers and workers, use these traps; there are over three million traps of this kind in use at present in the farms and cottages of our countryside. To deprive these people of these traps before we can provide them with an effective substitute would undoubtedly lead to an increase in the rabbit population and to a corresponding decrease in food production.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

If the noble Earl is suggesting that I have changed my views, may I say that I stand by every word that I said on that earlier occasion. I have a subsequent Amendment on the Paper which provides an escape provision to enable the Minister, with the consent of Parliament, to postpone the date upon which the gin-trap would be prohibited. I entirely agree with the noble Earl that we must have an effective substitute trap. There is no difference between us on that.

EARL DE LA WARR

The noble Earl's Amendment would allow the Minister to postpone abolition for one year, which would take it, I think, to 1957.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

And presumably it could be postponed for further years, if that one year were not sufficient.

EARL DE LA WARR

Well, if it is an indefinite postponement of that character, that is exactly what the Minister is intent on doing in this clause. It becomes exactly the same. The noble Earl cannot have the best of both worlds. I want to put this to the noble Earl. He must be convinced that there is now an effective substitute, otherwise he would not have put down his Amendment.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

I hesitate to interrupt the noble Earl, but he has asked me a direct question and I answer it in this way. I think we are very near to an effective substitute, but I do not think that we shall get it until we have a fixed date for the prohibition of the gin.

EARL DE LA WARR

I am glad that the noble Earl thinks we are near to an effective substitute, but it cannot be put into general use by the time he suggests. Many of us were impressed by the Sawyer and the Imbra tests some lime ago. I venture to think that those of us who have tried them have been extremely disappointed up to date. I was taken to a room upstairs and I saw this machine. I thought that I should try it, and I bought one. I gather from the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that 50,000 Sawyers have been sold. I should like to ask where they are now. Are they still in use?

LORD MERTHYR

Yes.

EARL DE LA WARR

Mine is not. Mine is on the scrapheap—and for a very simple reason. Within a short time, after forcing it on my keeper, he came to me, held out his hand and showed it to me, saying, "You see what has happened from using this trap." Are they, therefore, so much better from the point of view of dogs? It seems to me that a small dog can go down into a hole and get into a Sawyer or Imbra trap and, instead of getting his leg broken, will get killed outright. I am talking at the moment of present disadvantages; I do not say that the traps cannot be improved. Of course these traps are too big. The consequence is that you have to dig around the hole to make space for the trap; and once you start digging round a hole, almost invariably the rabbits cease to use that exit. We must face the fact that, on the most optimistic forecast, an improved trap might be in operation by the spring of 1955; but I think that is being extremely optimistic. After all, we are dealing with human materials in this matter, and there are 3 million gin-traps in use all over the country at the moment. We have got to convince and persuade the countrymen that they would get effective results by using other means. I do not think it is unreasonable for the Minister to say that the honest figure to put in the Bill as the earliest date by which the gin-trap can be abolished is 1958. That is giving three years for these traps to be improved and for them to be put over to the country. They have got to be manufactured and put into general use before the gin can be replaced.

I agree with a great deal that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has said. Gins are horrible instruments. The Scott Henderson Report described them as "diabolical," and I do not think many of your Lordships will disagree strongly with that. But so is war diabolical. There are occasions, as I have said before, when we have to face certain hard facts in life. The fact that we have to face to-day is that, in the view of most countrymen, the gin is one of the most effective instruments to deal with this problem, the one essential weapon by which we can deal with this pest or plague of rabbits; and, to use the words of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, we must not take steps to abolish its use before we can provide an effective substitute. Speaking with such responsibility as I can, on behalf of the Ministry of Agriculture, I say that there is no possible hope of any effective substitute being ready and in general use before the period set out in this Bill.

One noble Lord (I think it was the noble Lord. Lord Elton) referred to certain optimistic remarks of mine in a former debate, and implied, I think, that I was now likely, speaking on behalf of the Government, to go back on what was then a promise. In the last debate on this subject the Government promised legislation when there was an effective substitute. In fact, Her Majesty's Government are proving better than their word, because they are giving the House legislation before any substitute is in existence. We feel, and to some extent agree with the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, that it is useful to set a target which will be of great value in obtaining results, rather than a target that is based on what I feel (I hope the noble Lord will not take is in any wrong spirit) is akin to wishful thinking.

LORD ELTON

The Committee will not expect me to say otherwise than that

6.37 p.m.

THE EARL or LISTOWEL moved, in subsection (1) to leave out "fifty-eight" and insert "fifty-six." The noble Earl said: I should like to move this Amendment to give myself the opportunity of putting my arguments on this and the subsequent Amendment standing in my name that at page 7, line 27 and of asking the noble Earl for a reply. I reed

I am most disappointed with the noble Earl's reply, and with its comparative lack of substance. In my view, he has based his entire refusal on the quite unproven doctrine that the gin-trap is indispensable. He has not explained why his own Department distributed officially a pamphlet in which it was stated that the trap has no useful purpose in a rabbit clearance scheme. But I think the time for argument has passed for those of us who feel strongly on this subject, and that we should record our votes against the gin-trap, even if we are only in the minority. I certainly shall not withdraw this Amendment.

On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 22; Not-Contents, 42.

CONTENTS
Haddington, E.	Bingham, L. (E. Lucan.)	Mathers, L.
	Douglas of Barloch, L.	Mendip, L. (V. Clifden.)
Alexander of Hillsborough, V.	Dowding, L.	Merthyr, L. [Teller.]
Devonport, V.	Elton, L. [Teller.]	Moyne, L.
FitzAlan of Derwent, V.	Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)	Pethick-Lawrence, L.
	Howard of Glossop, L	Rea, L.
Ammon, L.	Kenswood, L.	Somers, L.
Amulree, L.	Lawson, L.	Terrington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS
Simonds, L. (L. Chancellor.)	Lindsay, E.	De L'Isle and Dudley, L.
	Lansdale, E.	Douglas, L. (E. Home.)
Salisbury, M. (L. President.)	Onslow, E. [Teller.]	Fairfax of Cameron, L.
	St. Aldwya, E.	Fraser of North Cape, L.
Wellington, D.	Selkirk, E.	Gifford, L.
		Hawke, L.
Cholmondeley, M.	Goschen, V.	Jeffreys, L.
Exeter, M.	Long, V.	Ker, L. (M. Lothian.)
	Swinton, V.	Lloyd, L.
Albemarle, E.	Woolton, V.	Mancroft, L.
Birkenhead, E.		Rochdale, L.
Clarendon, E.	Amherst of Hackney, L.	St. Just, L.
De La Warr, E.	Ashton of Hyde, L.	Saltoun, L.
Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)	Balfour of Inchrye, L.	Stratheden and Campbell, L.
	Blackford, L.	Teynham, L.
Fortescue, E. [Teller]	Chesham, L.	Waleran, L.
Ilchester, E.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

hardly say that as the question relating to the fixing of a date has been decided by the Committee, I shall not press this Amendment. What struck me, while listening to the arguments of the noble Earl on the previous Amendment, was that he seemed to think there was some conflict between the requirements of our food supply and humanitarian feeling: that one could not say that one wanted to do nothing that would discourage food production, and, at the same time, say that one wanted to do away speedily with what everyone regards as an inhumane way of killing rabbits. Indeed, his principal argument against abolishing the gin-trap by law was to the effect that we cannot afford to do this before we have an effective substitute. I entirely agree with that argument.

What I was proposing was to fix a date for making the gin-trap illegal. I was proposing that it should be two years hence, and further, that if, when that date came, the Minister found that there was no effective substitute, if he found that the improved trap was not so effective, or was much more expensive, or was more difficult to handle, then he could come to Parliament and ask for permission to postpone the date on which the trap would be illegal. It seems to me that if this procedure were adopted there would be no interference with our food supplies. Farmers would be able to go on catching rabbits as they have done in the past, and, at the same time, the gin-trap would become illegal at the earliest possible moment.

I think the noble Earl will agree that we are very near to getting a humane trap which will be, to all intents and purposes, the equivalent of the gin-trap. Experiments went on when I was at the Ministry of Agriculture, and I must confess that the impression I had—which may be rather different from the view taken by the noble Earl—was that so far as efficiency goes we have something practically equivalent to the gin-trap. But there was then still some difficulty about cost and about the actual handling of the trap. An any rate, we shall soon have the design of an improved trap which will be an adequate substitute for the gin-trap. The noble Earl said we may expect to have such a trap in design by the spring of next year. If that is the case, surely there is strong reason for fixing a date when the gin-trap will be illegal in order to encourage manufacturers to produce the new type of trap and enable farmers to prepare for the time when they will be using the improved trap. I simply move the Amendment in order to hear the noble Earl's reply to these observations. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 38, leave out ("fifty-eight") and insert ("fifty-six ").—(The Earl of Listowel.)

EARL DE LA WARR

I think we have discussed this subject so fully that your Lordships will not want me to detain you long on this point. I should not like to suggest that we can get any new trap by 1956. I am sure that 1958 is the earliest year, and I think it would be right to leave it to the discretion of the Minister to set a time for finally doing away with the gin-trap.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

May I ask two questions? Does the noble Earl mean we cannot have the trap in sufficient quantities before 1958? I think that he will agree that the design is there and even if we could have it in sufficient quantities by 1958, does he believe that the manufacturers will produce it from the design if they are sure that farmers prefer to use the gin trap?

EARL DE LA WARR

In the state of our present knowledge these questions are so completely hypothetical that I do not feel in a position to give a responsible answer.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

EARL DE LA WARR

This Amendment is little more than drafting. Its purpose is to bring the provision for England and Wales into line with that for Scotland. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 7, line 3, leave out from ("for") to second ("or"), and insert ("a purpose which is unlawful under the foregoing paragraph;").—(Earl De La Warr.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

6.43 p.m.

LORD ELTON moved to omit subsetion (5). The noble Lord said: I should like to ask the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, a question or two about this subsection. Perhaps I misunderstand it, but it seems to me to be largely irrelevant and, where it is relevant, rather unnecessary and cruel. It appears to exclude from the operation of the clause traps specified as being adapted solely for the destruction of rats, mice, and other small ground vermin. As regard mice, no gins are ever used for them. The general public almost always use breakback traps, and the unfortunately-named rodent officers always use the breakback trap, which is in the nature of a third cousin of the Imbra trap. As regards stoats and weasels, they are always caught by the ordinary four-inch gin which is used for rabbits, so that the Minister could not specify the trap which is used for them as being adapted solely for their destruction.

Finally, as regards rats, they are usually exterminated by poison. When traps are used, the humane breakback trap and a special three-inch gin are used in equal proportions. That seems to me to be the only point where the subsection is relevant, because here is a special trap which could be specified as being adapted solely for the destruction of rats; but as the greatest number of rats are killed by poison and there is a perfectly efficient alternative to the three-inch gin, not only ready but on the market and in pretty general use, I do not think the argument about waiting for a humane trap is relevant here. I do not understand this subsection. It is either irrelevant or superfluous, or at one point has the result of prolonging the use of the special three inch gin, which does not seem to be necessary, even on the arguments which the noble Earl used in respect of rabbits. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 7, line 24, leave out subsection (5).—(Lord Elton.)

EARL DE LA WARR

This Amendment is probably based on a misunderstanding of the purpose of subsection (5). The purpose of this subsection, which the Amendment seeks to delete, is simply to make it possible for the Minister, by order, to make it unnecessary to give formal approval of traps to which there is no objection, such as breakback traps for catching rats and mice. The provision is simply designed to save unnecessary work, within and outside the Department. I think the ultimate effect would be the same if the subsection were deleted, but in the meantime all individual types of such traps, instead of being exempted as a class, would have to be approved. It was not the Minister's intention to seek the authority of the House to enable him to approve the use, for instance, of domestic mousetraps. Therefore, I hope the noble Lord will not feel he need press this Amendment.

LORD MERTHYR

I am not entirely clear as a result of the noble Earl's explanation. I should like to ask a question, in order to get clarification. Suppose that subsection (1) has been put into force by order of the Minister after 1958, that would mean that for catching rabbits gin-traps would be illegal. Would it be legal to use a gin-trap for catching rats?

EARL DE LA WARR

I should like to look further at that point before replying to the noble Lord, but perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor may be able to help.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD SIMONDS)

I venture to think that the answer is that if the trap was adapted for the destruction of rabbits, then it could not be described as "adapted solely for the destruction of rats." Whether there is such a trap I do not know.

LORD MERTHYR

I am much obliged to the noble and learned Lord. I now see daylight.

EARL DE LA WARR

The noble Lord is not so grateful as I am.

LORD ELTON

I cannot follow this a great deal better. I could not understand the noble Earl's explanation. It may be my fault, and, rather than waste more time, I will withdraw the Amendment at this point. If I still have not understood the explanation later, possibly I can return to the matter on the Report stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 9 agreed to.

Clause 10 [Amendment of Agriculture (Scotland) Act, 1948, as to spring traps]:

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBER.RY moved, in the proviso to subsection (4), after "quantities" to insert: and at prices reasonably comparable to the prices at which spring traps lawfully in use at the commencement of the Pests Act, 1954, were available.

The noble Duke said: The object of this Amendment is to ensure that the Secretary of State shall not make an order abolishing the use of gin-traps until a suitable alternative is available at a reasonable, comparable price, as well as in sufficient quantities. The question of cost is important, and it would be unfortunate if the agricultural community were forced to use a highly expensive trap. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 32, after ("quantities") insert the said words.—(The Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (THE EARL OF HOME)

It is true that, as the Bill is drafted, the only consideration the Secretary of State would have to take into account would be the question of quantity. We feel that price is an element which should be considered, and there are one or two other considerations which might be taken into account. It is always awkward if in legislation you make provision that you can refer back to some particular year, and we should not wish to refer back to prices ruling in the year 1954.

However, if my noble friend will allow me to look at the wording, and to meet his intention with different wording, I can do that on the Report stage.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY

I agree that the wording can be improved. I thank the noble Earl for his assurance, and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 10 agreed to.

Remaining clauses and Schedule agreed to.

House resumed.