HL Deb 20 December 1955 vol 195 cc376-86

4.43 p.m.

Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.

LORD MERTHYR

My Lords, in rising to move that this Bill be now read a second time, the first proposition I should like to put before the House is that we all ought to strive for the maximum degree of productivity on our farms and in our forests. In order to get that productivity, we spend a great deal of money. We spend vast sums on national subsidies, which I believe are now in the region of £250 million a year. Part of these is spent on reducing and destroying pests. My second proposition is that rabbits are a pest. Perhaps that hardly needs stating here, but there appear to be some people who are anxious and willing to treat rabbits as something other than a pest. I have said many times here, and I say again, that rabbits are a pest. The damage they do to crops and trees is very large. I am going to be careful to avoid putting the amount of damage into figures, because I see from the Press that there has been a great deal of argument about whose figure is right. I think I should be safe in saying that the damage is very great, and leaving it at that.

During the year 1955 there has been a substantial improvement in this respect, which I think will be admitted. The damage to crops and trees has been greatly reduced. What is not so readily admitted is the cause of that improvement. There is an argument concerning how it has come about. Some say it has come about by the weather: that the wonderful summer which we have recently enjoyed has been sufficient to bring about this noticeable improvement in the productivity of our farms. Others say that it has come about through myxomatosis. I am content to assume that there is truth in both of these statements, but what I should like to submit is that myxomatosis has brought about a very great deal of that improvement—how much it is needless to argue. If that is so, then it follows that the presence of rabbits is damaging to our crops and constitutes a pest. That seems to me proof positive of the great damage which rabbits have done and of the necessity for some action to be taken against them, and urgent action at that.

Not unnaturally, there is some dispute about the results of myxomatosis and whether those results are beneficial or not. I say that myxomatosis has cleric what nobody else and nothing else have succeeded in doing, and I include all the rabbit trappers who ever were employed. Rabbits have been substantially eliminated, and nothing else did it until myxomatosis arrived. This disease is an ugly and unpleasant one, which has caused a great deal of suffering to animals, but it has,increased production greatly and it has prevented a great deal of cruelty to animals. That may be incidental, but I believe it is true.

My third proposition is that rabbits have begun to return to the land. I think the evidence of that is incontestable and nobody would seriously controvert it. I have never been one of those who thought that any efforts of ours would ever exterminate the last rabbit. I think that that is a hopeless dream which is not attainable. On the other hand, I am certainly one of those who think that we must do everything we possibly can to reduce to the minimum the number of rabbits. As I said in your Lordships' House weeks ago, do not let us have both myxomatosis and rabbits. At the present day there is a national policy on this matter, and I am very glad of it Undoubtedly the national policy is to treat rabbits as a pest and to make every possible effort to reduce that pest. It includes the establishment of clearance areas. I can only repeat what I have already said: I hope that the Government will press home their efforts and make those clearance areas effective, but they are costly of public money. How much good will those areas do'? How much good will all the efforts of Her Majesty's Government do if private individuals are going to be allowed to spread rabbits in the country indiscriminately and lawfully? It seems to me that those two things are quite incompatible.

Now we are faced with the situation that some people want to spread rabbits throughout the country. I have beside me a file of advertisements, taken from newspapers, and most of them are signed, of those who want to buy and sell live, wild rabbits. I will not quote from them, but they are here should any noble Lord wish to see them. Quite openly and quite lawfully, people are endeavouring to spread rabbits throughout the country for their own purposes. The usual expression is for "re-stocking"—an ominous word—or for "rehabilitation." For re-stocking of what? For restocking the rabbit population which Her Majesty's Government at vast expense are engaged in trying to reduce. So we have this Gilbertian situation: that while the Ministry of Agriculture are endeavouring nobly to exterminate, individuals are at the same time endeavouring to restore the same pests. That is really an intolerable situation, and both of these actions and policies cannot be right, whatever view is taken of the merits of each.

I have asked myself who wants rabbits, and I have collected four groups at people who may want them. I have tried to think of the reasons. The first group is the fur trade. Let me say at once that that is a perfectly honourable industry, and a substantial one, too. They make our hats out of rabbit skins. The fact that one or two of us might possibly have been more ornamental if we had never worn hats is neither here nor there; and the fact that the youth of to-day seem to get on perfectly well without hats may be equally unimportant. But this trade is one that we must not despise. It is a substantial industry in this country, of an entirely honourable character, and I admit straight away that it is being hurt by the elimination of rabbits.

Next there is sport. I am not against sport—indeed, there is another kind of sport that I am extremely keen about—and I therefore sympathise with sportsmen, and especially those who quite honestly say that they are engaging in this sport because they enjoy it and because they get healthy exercise from it. But we have to face the fact that it is more than possible that the sport of rabbit shooting, and perhaps keeping dogs for rabbit shooting, may be contrary to the public interest—I think that is inescapable.

Then there are the housewives—and again this is a formidable and substantial matter. The housewives, I understand from reading the Press, are being deprived of cheap meat. But if you count up the true cost of this meat, is it really cheap? I should like to quote from a letter in the Daily Telegraph to-day, in which it is said: The loss of the rabbit has robbed country housewives of endless free meat. It may be endless; but is it free? In my view, if the cost of these rabbits were charged in a profit and loss account it would be found to be neither cheap nor free. Again, the fact is that the countryman who feeds on his rabbit does so at somebody else's expense. Then I suppose there are those who naturally like to see rabbits gambolling about in the pastures and derive pleasure therefrom. All these, and others, I submit, have their interests in conflict with the public interest; and that is the point I wish to make this afternoon. It seems to me that there is no escape from this conflict. Look around it as we will, we cannot reconcile the interests of these people, honourable though these people may be, with the public interest, simply because their actions, though lawful, are anti-social: in short, because they are carrying on their activities at other people's expense. If farming and forestry is to be taken seriously in this country—and, of course, there was a day when it was not—and to be subsidised by the taxpayers and ratepayers of the land, in my view there can be no compromise in this matter.

So I produce this Bill, and perhaps I should say a word or two about it before I sit down. The Bill deals with wild rabbits only; it does not touch domestic or tame rabbits. In Clause I it really prohibits any form of traffic in wild rabbits in any direction. It is a small Bill, and I regard it as merely a small instalment in a very large operation. It has some critics. I would conclude by quoting two of the criticisms, because I feel it is only right that your Lordships should know that this Bill is criticised. I observed to-day, again in the Daily Telegraph, that in a letter it is stated that: this Bill is an invasion of the right of the individual to do what he pleases on his own property. What an idea! that we have a right to do what we please on our own property. I am a landowner and a farmer, and I thought that that was a very outdated proposition; at any rate I have experienced quite a lot of things which lead me to suppose that the contrary is true. Finally —I think it was intended to refer to me, and I do not mind a bit—I am termed a "Parliamentary meddler with nature." I can only observe on that, that in Britain, at any rate—and, as your Lordships will see, this Bill covers Britain—rabbits are no more to do with nature than were gin traps. If nature had never been tampered with there would never have been any rabbits in Britain. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Merthyr.)

5.0 p.m.

EARL ST. ALDWYN

My Lords, this is a short Bill but a most important one. When the Pests Bill was before this House many noble Lords thought of a number of ways in which it might be improved, but I do not think that anyone at that time foresaw that so many people would be so misguided as to try to reestablish rabbits on land that had been cleared by myxomatosis or by the farmer and his workers. As your Lordships know, it is an offence under the Pests Act to harbour rabbits in clearance areas, and if rabbits are reintroduced we can have them destroyed; but it is not an offence to introduce rabbits or to provide them for that purpose. The myxomatosis Advisory Committee advised that acts of this kind should be made illegal, and when we were debating rabbit clearance generally, on the Motion of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, a short while ago, several noble Lords raised the question of making it illegal to (traffic in rabbits or to reintroduce them into areas from which they had been cleared.

I said then that we had these matters very much in mind, and that I hoped something might be done. Something has been done. My noble friend Lord Merthyr has introduced this Bill to prohibit the spreading of rabbits. I am extremely grateful to him for the promptitude with which he has done this because, in moving the Second Reading before Christmas, he has enabled me at an opportune moment to make perfectly plain the Government's attitude to this highly undesirable practice. I should like to assure my noble friend that we are entirely with him in his desire to see an end of this practice and, as my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said in another place last week, the Government hope to see early legislation on this subject and are giving immediate consideration to this Bill. My noble friend Lord Merthyr, who is a member of the Myxomatosis Advisory Committee, has a wide knowledge and experience of these matters. He has covered the ground extremely well in his opening statement, and I need not detain your Lordships any longer. I only hope that what I have said has served to make the Government's intentions in this matter perfectly clear so that there will be no misapprehensions on the part of these people who might have it in mind to spread a few rabbits about the countryside. We heartily endorse the principles of this Bill and commend it to your Lordships for a Second Reading.

5.2 p.m.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

My Lords, I am glad that the noble Earl opposite has said that this is an important Bill I think it is, and I am sure your Lordships will agree. Indeed I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, has done a really useful public service by introducing a Bill which, if it is passed, will be of real benefit to food production and to farmers generally. I am sorry that there are not more of your Lordships here to express their appreciation of the noble Lord, but I am quite certain from past experience that there are many noble Lords who, although they are not here in person, are with him in spirit.

The whole problem of keeping down rabbits can be reduced to two simple factors. There are two things which have to be done if the rabbit population is to be kept at its present low level. One is to kill off as many rabbits as possible in areas which have had myxomatosis, and the other is to see that land which has been cleared of rabbits, or where rabbits have been reduced in numbers, is not restocked by the deliberate release of wild rabbits. It is to the second of those factors to which the noble Lord's Bill is addressed. His purpose is to prevent restocking of land with rabbits, and I think he has demonstrated the need of the Bill quite clearly from the examples which he has quoted of advertisements in the Press asking for rabbits—either offering them for sale, or asking for them as objects which can be acquired by farmers and used on their land.

I was glad to note that the Minister, in reply to a Question in another place, said that he was in favour of prohibiting re-stocking of land with rabbits; and that sentiment was endorsed by the noble Earl this afternoon. I believe that it was also the advice tendered by the Myxomatosis Advisory Committee. I have no doubt that your Lordships will accept this Bill, and that it will be passed by your Lordships' House; but it is quire clear, from what we know of Parliamentary procedure. that it will not get through another place or pass into law unless the Government are prepared to give it Government time when it leaves this House. I hope it is safe to assume, from what the noble Earl said about the Government not being neutral, that the Bill will receive time, as well as the Government's blessing, when it reaches another place.

There is one other aspect of time which I should like to mention—your Lordships will agree that this time factor is all-important. The practice to which the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, drew our attention is going on at the present time, and it will not stop until it has been made illegal. It is therefore essential that this Bill should pass through Parliament with the least possible delay. I have one suggestion, which perhaps the noble Earl opposite will be good enough to consider, about expediting the passage of the Bill through your Lordships' House. Might it not be possible, in the first place, to have the Committee stage as soon as possible after the Recess and, secondly, to shorten the usual interval between the successive stages of what is an absolutely uncontroversial measure? If, for example, there were no Amendments on the Committee stage—and I think that is quite likely to be the case—the last stages of the Bill, subject, of course, to Standing Orders, might be taken closely together.

There is just one point which perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, would explain when he replies to this debate. I was not quite certain about what he meant. In the course of his remarks I think he said that his Bill dealt only with wild rabbits. May I draw his attention to subsection (1) of Clause 1 of his Bill. That subsection says: A person shall he guilty of an offence if anywhere in Great Britain he (a) releases any rabbit from captivity or confinement. I take it that "any rabbit" would mean a tame rabbit, as well as a wild rabbit. I may be quite wrong; that may be a wrong interpretation. But if it is correct, perhaps the noble Lord could say that he intends to include tame rabbits, as well as wild rabbits, within the provisions of his Bill. I say, on behalf of noble Lords on this side of the House, that we shall do everything in our power to get the Bill through our House, including curtailing our observations, with the greatest possible speed.

LORD KINNAIRD

My Lords, may I say a word on wild rabbits? In Clause 2 the reference is to "a wild rabbit." Perhaps this is a Committee point. I have not looked up the point in the dictionary, but a "wild rabbit" is surely a rabbit that is not domesticated. We want to stop the spread of wild rabbits, and it seems to me that anybody may get wild rabbits, keep them at home and breed from them for a short time, after which, I think, they became domesticated. What is the difference between a wild rabbit and a domesticated rabbit? I think it should be just "rabbits."

5.9 p.m.

LORD WISE

My Lords, before Lord Merthyr replies, may I say that there are one or two points which have occurred to me in regard to the Bill? My noble friend has mentioned the question of wild rabbits, which I think should be explained more fully. In regard to Clause 1 (a), in my opinion the word "live" should be inserted before the word "rabbit". I think that is the object of the Bill. With regard to Clause 1 (b), I am wondering whether it covers the selling of rabbits by auction. It is a practice, I believe, to send rabbits to the auctions, and the words in paragraph (b) are not clear to me.

With regard to Clause 2, I wonder whether the noble Lord could give us any idea as to the number of rabbits which are used year by year for the purposes referred to in that clause? Are we likely to have to breed thousands and thousands of rabbits, or are the numbers fairly small? I am glad that the Bill is receiving approval from both sides of the House. As a farmer and a landowner, I never was in favour of the breeding of rabbits. The fact that rabbits have been kept down to a minimum has proved of inestimable benefit to the farming industry as a whole. I hope that those whose land has been subject to rabbit pests in the past will see to it that these pests are now kept under. It is within my experience that my own county is fairly clear of rabbits. Until a few days ago I had not seen a rabbit since the last harvest—in fact, I never saw one then, but I understood that there was one rabbit in a harvest field. About a fortnight ago, however, while motoring home through Norfolk I saw a young rabbit cross the road. I was rather perturbed, and I thought at the time, "Rabbits are coming back." But, generally, rabbits have been kept down to an absolute minimum. So far as my own county is concerned, I hope we shall continue along those lines. I may be out of order, but I should like to commend to the noble Lord who has introduced this Bill the question of rats, which are equally as bad a pest as rabbits. If we can destroy the rats as we have destroyed the rabbits, either by disease or in any other way, I am certain that we in the farming industry will benefit. I hope the Bill will have a quick passage.

5.12 p.m.

LORD REA

My Lords, although I may be anticipating the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, I feel that I cannot let this point pass. The noble Lord, Lord Wise, is worried about releasing a dead rabbit from confinement. It seems to me to be rather beside the point in this Bill. It is hardly necessary to put the word "live" into paragraph (a). In respect of Lord Kinnaird's question, it seems that there is in this Bill implicit permission for anybody to keep tame rabbits as much as they like, but if they release those rabbits alive from captivity or confinement, they at once become wild to an extent which could only be legally ascertained. Therefore, this Bill caters for tame rabbits as long as the noble Lord likes to keep them. If he releases them, he becomes liable under Clause (1) (b).

LORD KINNAIRD

The question is: when does a wild rabbit become a tame rabbit?

LORD REA

When you let it out.

LORD KINNAIRD

If you let it out into captivity, it is then domesticated and you can sell it.

LORD MERTHYR

First of all, I should like to say how grateful I am to the noble Earl who spoke for Her Majesty's Government for indicating that the Government are sympathetic to this Bill. That, of course, makes a world of difference to its progress. I am also grateful to the noble Earl who spoke from the Opposition Front Bench because it is pleasing to know that this Bill receives support from Her Majesty's Opposition. One or two small but interesting points have been mentioned. With regard to the question of when a rabbit becomes a wild rabbit (if I am right in thinking that was one of the questions), I would say that we should divide rabbits into two groups only—on the one hand, tame or domestic, and, on the other, wild. This Bill seeks to deal only with wild rabbits. In my view, if a tame rabbit is released from captivity, as mentioned in Clause (1) (a), it immediately becomes a wild rabbit. I believe that is the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Kinnaird—however, I gather that the noble Lord indicate; dissent. I respect his opinion, so I will certainly look into the point to see whether he is right or otherwise; but I should have thought that that was the real answer. The wording is intentional—namely, to use the word "rabbit" alone and unqualified in Clause (1) (a), and the words "wild rabbit" in Clause (1) (b).

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

My Lords, for the purposes of further clarification of this provision, surely the important question is the release, of the rabbit from captivity, whether it is a tame or a wild rabbit. From a legal point of view, if it is released it will not matter whether it is tame or wild.

LORD MERTHYR

I entirely agree with the noble Earl. He has summed up the position entirely correctly. The noble Lord, Lord Wise, asked whether I had any information of the number of rabbits obtained for the purposes referred to in Clause 2. I regret that I have net, but I will try to find out for him how many rabbits are used for those purposes. The noble Lord mentioned one matter that puzzled me. He asked, would it be necessary to breed a lot of rabbits? I should like to point out to him that all that Clause 2 does is to maintain the status quo; it does not alter the situation any way in connection with the securing of rabbits for the purposes mentioned. Therefore, I should hardly think the question of breeding rabbits for any purpose arose. Again, however, if I am wrong I will go into the question and let the noble Lord know. As for rats, I think it will be sufficient for this Bill if we deal with one particular kind of pest, leaving to another occasion the even more troublesome pest of rats. I hope I have answered some of the points that have been raised.

On Question, Bill read 2a; and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.