HL Deb 23 November 1955 vol 194 cc755-72

3.5 p.m.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL rose to draw attention to the importance for agriculture of the immediate destruction of the surviving rabbit population; and to move that there be laid before the House Papers relating thereto. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I should like to begin my remarks on the Motion standing in my name by offering the House a few comments on the Amendment in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Hudson, which I hope startled other noble Lords out of their complacency as much as it startled me when I read it yesterday morning. I look forward, as I am sure we all do, with great interest to hearing the noble Viscount's arguments, and I hope that they will convince me that I am wrong in advising the House that this Amendment should not be accepted in its present form. I say this with great reluctance, because I am in complete agreement with the noble Viscount about the object which he has in mind.

He wants, as we all do, to eliminate the remaining rabbits in every part of the country during the winter months. He also believes that more public money will be required for this purpose. There, also, I venture to agree with him. I cannot conceive that rabbit clearance can be effectively carried out without some increase in public expenditure. This will be necessary both to help the farmers to cover the cost of clearance and to assist them in their actual operations of removing undergrowth and getting rid of the rabbits. So far, I go hand in hand with the noble Viscount. In fact, I should like to go a step further. In my view, such expenditure would be a long-term investment for the Government, which would soon be recovered in the shape of reduced payment of subsidies and the larger farm incomes resulting from increased crop yields; and, of course, there would be a permanent improvement in agricultural output.

I am afraid that at this point, however, I must part company with the noble Viscount. The effect of his Amendment, as I read it, would be to deduct this increased public expenditure from the cost of existing agricultural subsidies. I am sure that if this happened, it would be regarded by farmers as a grave breach of faith, as the amount of subsidy is agreed year by year at the Annual Price Review; and for the Government now to repudiate any part of the cost of existing subsidies, without even consulting the farmers or their representative organisations, would surely have the opposite effect to that desired by the noble Viscount. The hostility and animosity which such a decision would cause would make it much harder to get the farmers to co-operate in this fresh campaign against rabbits. Let me say that I sympathise entirely with the noble Viscount's difficulty, and I admire his ingenuity, in finding a form of words which will enable him to make his point and at the same time avoid breaking the rule that your Lordships' House does not initiate fresh expenditure. Frankly, I am afraid, that this particular form of words would defeat his purpose, a purpose which we all share.

May I now go back to the original Motion on the Order Paper? The old saying with which we are all familiar, that There is a tide in the affairs of men Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune, applies with equal force to the affairs of rabbits. For the last two years, ever since the first outbreak of myxomatosis in Kent, the fortunes of the British rabbit have been steadily on the decline. The number of rabbits at the present time is probably lower than it has been at any time in the last hundred years. But I hope there is no one so misguided as to imagine that the rabbit is down and out: he is certainly down, but he is by no means out, as many of your Lordships who live in the country have good reason to know. There are enough rabbits left in pockets here and there for a quick recovery in numbers, if we miss this chance of dealing the final blow. The whole process of shrinkage that has been going on for the last two years may quite easily be reversed. Indeed, we have now reached a turning point in the history of the rabbit. The next few months—the winter months and those of the early spring—will decide whether the few survivors are able to breed and multiply during the spring and summer. This will certainly happen unless a more intensive drive against them, while the vegetation is still low and it is easy to get at them. reduces their numbers to vanishing point, and keeps them, as we all hope they will be kept, in the future, among our rarer mammals.

I do not say this on my own authority, which would indeed be a poor authority. The Minister's Advisory Committee, of which the noble Earl opposite is chairman, foresaw that the critical time would come this winter. Perhaps I may be allowed to quote one sentence from the Committee's second Report, in which they say: The winter of 1955–56 may well be critical, for it is then likely that the number of wild rabbits will be at its lowest for over a century. The Committee go on to say, as I have been saying to your Lordships, that the numbers will soon build up again unless the drive against the, rabbits is intensified during these critical months. The Minister has said publicly that he agrees with this appreciation of the situation. I should like to quote one sentence from what he said last month, that the eventual level of rabbit population in this country will depend very largely on our efforts this winter and spring. I think the case for an all-out effort to eliminate the remaining rabbits is far stronger to-day than it has ever been, because when the disease started no-one could foresee how far it would travel, or what would be the saving to farm output. In the last two years it has spread all over the country, starting from the southeast, and has brought about what I think we may call, without exaggeration. a minor agricultural revolution in the production of corn crops and grass. We know now, for the first time, what difference it makes to farming to be almost without rabbits. I am a little suspicious (I hope my suspicions are unfounded) about figures which may be given for the total increase in this year's harvest which can be directly attributed to the absence of rabbits.

SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS

Hear, hear!

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

I am glad to hear from comments of noble Lords around me that my suspicion is not altogether without some support. My feeling is that global figures of this kind must be in the nature of guesswork. But the Minister has no such misgivings. He has estimated that the increase in cereals this year might be worth £10 to £15 million, or 2 cwt. per acre. I note that he has left a margin of f£5 million as a useful insurance against error. At the same time, I am a little surprised that he even wishes to take this measure of precaution, because no-one will ever know the answer, so that the Minister is in no danger of being caught out. However rough and approximate this guess about the total saving in corn crops may be, the figures show beyond any shadow of doubt that something very substantial has been added to our annual output.

The Minister has been much less rash about the saving in grass and has not hazarded, as yet, any figure for the total increase. But I think we all realise that rabbits do even greater damage to grassland than they do to corn, so that there must have been an even larger saving in cut or growing grass. However uncertain generalisations may be about total increases, we have had reliable reports from all over the country about increased yields of grass and corn crops on particular farms. I will rot weary your Lordships by giving examples—we are all familiar with them from personal experience, or from the Press—but it is remarkable to see how some farms, and particularly those where rabbit damage in the past has been greatest, have been able to increase the number of their livestock or, alternatively, to increase the yield of their cereals. But I think it is important to remember—and this reminds me how badly my Motion has been drafted—that agriculture has not benefited alone from the reduced rabbit population. I must apologise to your Lordships for not including in the Motion the other great rural industry of forestry. I am glad to see that the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, is going to speak later, because he speaks with much greater authority than any of us on that subject. I confess that I drafted this Motion last week in rather a hurry, and if I had thought more carefully, I should have referred in terms both to agriculture and to forestry.

I should like to make two brief comments on that point, because it is important that we should take full note of the benefit to forestry as well as to farming. There have already been some useful gains. In areas free from rabbits plantations have been laid out without wire fencing. There has already been an increase in the natural regeneration of hard woods—oak, beech and ash—and the number of seedlings, instead of being nibbled away, shows a sturdy growth. It is much too early to say (I hasten to say this in case the noble Earl says that I am far too optimistic) whether the saving in the cost of fencing will be large, and whether the increase in natural regeneration will be a big contribution to the supply of home-grown timber. But if—and it is a very big "if"—we can keep the rabbit population at a really low level, the pin to forestry will be enormous. It all depends on a permanently low level of the rabbit population; and that again depends on what is done in the next few months.

Now, looking at all this fresh evidence, we can speak from our own experience in this country, instead of having to quote from the experience of other countries, when we say that absence of rabbits substantially increases the supply of homegrown food. This is not only useful from the point of view of production of food at home, but is also a contribution to our balance of payments problem. We have a new asset in this struggle to balance our external trade because, as your Lordships are aware, every increase in food production here means a corresponding decrease in what we have to import from overseas.

There is, however, another aspect of this problem which I think we should take into consideration: there is a humanitarian as well as an economic aspect of the rabbit problem. For many years past the animal welfare societies, and those of your Lordships who speak for them or who are interested in this problem of animal welfare, have been urging the elimination of the rabbit. They argue, with irrefutable logic, that every popular method of killing rabbits inflicts some degree of pain. Some methods are more painful than others, but none is painless, like the humane killer. The gin-trap is probably the worst offender but that is on the way out and we need not worry about it at the present time. But clearly the use of snares, ferrets or shotguns is, even though to a less degree, painful to the victims. Therefore, the only way to avoid inflicting pain, the humanitarians rightly argue, is to get rid of rabbits once and for all. The need for quick action is therefore just as urgent on humanitarian as on economic grounds.

There is one rather dangerous fallacy into which some people fall. While acknowledging the full force of the case that is made for the elimination of the rabbit, we make a dangerous fallacy if we suppose that we should sit back and wait while the disease kills the rabbits for us. Experience in other countries has shown, and is showing again after two years of the epidemic here, that some rabbits escape the disease, while others recover from an attack and develop immunity. The disease does not kill them all and cannot be expected to do so, however long it goes on. Indeed, there is one new piece of evidence which shows that that is even more unlikely than we might have expected. This is the evidence that the disease becomes less of a killer as time passes. In Australia. the mortality rate is already down to 90 per cent. or less, as compared with 99 per cent. in the early 'fifties. This attenuated or weaker strain of the virus has already appeared in this country this year, in Nottinghamshire. Healthy rabbits were inoculated with material taken from these diseased rabbits, and most of them recovered. So it looks as if, in the course of time, this disease will become no more lethal to rabbits than, say, influenza to human beings.

That is the whole of my case in favour of immediate and drastic action against the remaining rabbits. But I should like to make some remarks to the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, to ask him for information about this matter; and also inquire whether he can make some statement—because I do not think it has been made either here or in another place—about the Government's policy in relation to the present stage of the disease. I hope that the Government will give a lead that will make the whole countryside aware of the urgency of a final drive during the winter against the surviving rabbits. May 1 ask the noble Earl what in fact the Minister is doing at the moment to direct the attention of every farmer and landowner to this matter? Have the local branches of the National Farmers' Union and the Agricultural Executive Committees and district committees been asked to help with publicity? May I make one further suggestion, because these things may well have already been done: would it be too much to request the Minister to make a personal appeal by letter to every farmer, landowner and smallholder throughout the country? I cannot help feeling that if it were compatible with the amount of time he has to spend on other things it would be a great strength to this campaign if people had this personal appeal from the Minister.

We all know that nothing effective can be done without the active help and participation of everyone who lives on the land. At the same time, given the utmost good will on the part of owners and occupiers, I do not think they can get far without every bit of help the Ministry can give them. It seems to me, although I may be mistaken, that the Ministry have all the powers they need under the Agriculture Act and the Pests Act to help farmers to clear the last rabbit. The really important question is how far the Minister intends to use these legal powers. I should have thought—though, of course, I speak completely as a layman—that any part of the country where rabbits are still in evidence in any substantial numbers should immediately be made a rabbit clearance area.

I should like to ask the noble Earl how much of the country is already covered by rabbit clearance areas, and whether the Minister intends to use the power in any county where the rabbit reappears. Could he explain on what principle this power to make rabbit clearance areas is used? It is essential, of course, that within clearance areas notice should be served on occupiers of land harbouring rabbits, specifying the time within which the rabbits and their habitats must be cleaned up. I should like to ask the noble Earl—because I think the time factor is all important—how much time is usually given in these notices. At the present moment, the time factor is more important than it has ever been, and if it could be cut down to, say, three or four months, there would be a great advantage in getting the rabbits cleared before the spring comes. Of course, the great majority of farmers, landowners and occupiers of every sort or kind will be more than glad to have any help the Ministry can give them in getting rid of their rabbits and cutting down vegetation in which rabbits shelter. But there are always a few cases of inability or unwillingness to co-operate, and as we all know, one small piece of rough ground giving cover for rabbits will infest the whole neighbourhood and undo the good work that is being done by many neighbouring farmers and landowners, probably over a period of years. In cases of this kind, which I am sure are rare, where an occupier refuses every form of assistance from the county committee—financial assistance and assistance with the operations involved in clearance—I hope the Minister will use his default power to go in and do the job. I should like the noble Earl to say what his intentions are in this respect and, indeed, what his practice has been in the past.

I apologise for taking up so much of your Lordships' time, but I feel that this debate may serve a useful purpose if it really stimulates awareness of the urgency of this problem among those who are not fully alive to its importance. It is a unique opportunity which may not come again in the lifetimes of any of us in this House and, indeed, in the history of our country. If this opportunity is missed, we shall, or might be, losing an immense and permanent advantage to agriculture, to forestry and, indeed, to our whole national economy. I beg to move.

Moved, That there be laid before the House Papers relating to the importance for agriculture of the immediate destruction of the surviving rabbit population.—(The Earl of Listowel.)

3.27 p.m.

VISCOUNT HUDSON had given Notice of his intention to move, as an Amendment to the Motion, to leave out all the words after "that" and insert: in the opinion of this House it would be in the national interest that some of the public money devoted to the general interests of agriculture should be devoted to measures calculated to ensure that the remaining rabbits in. these islands should be finally eradicated. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I think it would perhaps be useful if at the commencement of my speech I tried to relieve the fears of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. The reason why my Motion is drafted in this particular form is because of the Rules of this House. It is obvious that it would have been much simpler to have tried merely to stimulate the noble Earl by some words like, "to draw attention to the importance" et cetera, and "of the need for Her Majesty's Government to take steps for the immediate destruction of the surviving rabbit population." That would have been the easy way. But on consulting people who really matter, I was told that it would be out of order, and I was therefore compelled to spend a certain amount of time—indeed, a considerable amount—trying to devise a form of words which would get round the Rules of the House. That is why it has been done in this way. These words merely allow money which has been voted for the general purposes of agriculture to be spent on finishing off the rabbits, which is what we all want.

On the broader question, considering the immense amount of benefit that the nation and all farmers have derived from the destruction of rabbits, I should be perfectly prepared to defend, at a meeting of farmers and landowners, the proposition that it is well worth while the ordinary farmer making some small financial contribution towards finishing off the job. It is noticeable that farmers all over the country who have benefited include not only the arable farmers, but also the grassland farmers. Broadly, therefore, one may say that there is no farmer in the whole country who has not benefited financially, at negligible expense, from the reduction of rabbits. I should be perfectly prepared to argue that point of view, in spite of the noble Earl's fears. I put my Amendment in this way because I am reasonably certain that there are at present subsidies for which neither we nor the farmers get any adequate return.

If the noble Earl wants an individual case, I would merely quote—I do not want to be drawn into a long argument because it would be clearly out of order the existing heifer calf subsidy. I am perfectly certain that it is of no advantage whatever. It may mean that some odd farmer here and there may get a small contribution, but I am perfectly certain from the inquiries I have made that if the heifer calf subsidy were abolished it would not have any appreciable effect on the meat supplies of this country. It is costing well over £4 million a year, and if breeders of a breed with which I am closely connected chose to say, for the sake of argument, that ours was a dual purpose instead of a pure dairy breed, our members would be entitled, so I understand, to the benefit of that heifer calf subsidy and the cost might be expected to rise from £4 million to well over £9 million. There would be no advantage to the country. That is merely one of a number of subsidies which are at present being paid and by the abolition of which I do not think anyone would suffer.

I am glad that the noble Earl admits that the important thing is to abolish the rabbit. He asked my noble friend to give us some information about what was intended. I am reasonably certain that the rabbit will not be abolished or even substantially decreased, compared with the present numbers, if the whole job is left merely to the landowner or the farmer. I am perfectly certain that there will have to be a concerted drive by government—I do not care which type of government, whether it be county agricultural committees or other bodies: but it has to be done centrally. It is unfair to leave the onus of doing it on the unfortunate tenant or landowner, who often, in the nature of things, cannot carry out the duties that are imposed upon him. I was talking to a friend of mine in Essex only yesterday. He farms on a fairly considerable scale. He is a market gardener and would be delighted to see rabbits abolished. He was served last week with a notice from the local pest officer to abolish his rabbits. Last year, he spent a considerable sum of money in paying the county committee to abolish his rabbits, and they failed. Now he is told by the pest officer—and he is, not unnaturally, rather angry—to abolish his rabbits. He feels he cannot do it in existing circumstances. Therefore I think the only fair thing is for Her Majesty's Government to undertake this necessary job.

There may also be cases where people do not want rabbits killed. The obvious example that comes to one's mind is the smallholder in the West, in Cornwall, Devon and Pembroke, where many farmers felt (wrongly, I think) that the income from rabbits was the main way by which they could pay their rent. But I am told, whatever may be the case in Wales, that certainly in Devon the farmers are beginning to realise, from experience of having, no rabbits, the increase in the amount of cattle, sheep and stock that they can keep, and they are reconciled to Leaving to look elsewhere than to rabbits for help in paying their rent. That problem is solving itself. Where there are particular areas of copse and waste land, I do not honestly think rabbits can be cleared except on a big Government scale. I am reasonably certain of that.

The noble Earl mentioned the question of immunity. It is a very scientific subject on which I hesitate to talk, but I am told that there is real hope from the latest researches of the scientists. Many people seemed to think that those rabbits that survived became immune, and they jumped to the conclusion that if there were immune parents they transmitted that immunity to their progeny and, therefore, that this scourge would go on increasing. The scientists have been looking into the matter and are fairly certain that immunity is not hereditary and that, even if the parents may have become immune, it does not follow that their progeny are. We shall be grateful to learn that when it is proved.

The only other point I wish to mention—it was touched on by the noble Earl—is the need to get everyone to put his heart into this proposal. I am sorry to say that there are people who still do not believe that rabbits ought to be abolished. In some areas that the noble Earl may know of, and certainly I know of, an active propaganda i3 being undertaken to prevent the area from being declared a rabbit eradication area. I think—and I imagine that all your Lordships would agree with me—that that is a retrograde move. It is a great pity that anyone should lend himself to that process. I do not know whether it is true, but the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, said that the Government had full powers under the Agriculture Act. I hope he is right. I have not been able to trace the existence of those powers and only hope that the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, when he comes to reply, will reassure us on this point.

There are, unfortunately, still a certain number of sentimentalists in this country, and we may as well face up to the fact that one of the main reasons why we are in this mess of not having succeeded in clearing out the rabbits is the Amendment which was inserted in the Pests Act in another place. Many of us wanted to vote against that Amendment when it came to us in this House, and we were asked not to. I am certain that everyone concerned in Her Majesty's Government realises that it would have been much better if we had acted as many of us wanted to and thrown out the Amendment. I merely add that in passing. I do not think there is any ground for the noble Earl's fear if he can bring himself to accept my Amendment. The really important thing which I hope we are all agreed upon is that this scourge has to be destroyed, once and for all, and that, if we do not do it now, we shall lose the opportunity of a lifetime. I beg to move my Amendment.

Amendment moved, To leave out all the words after ("that") and insert:—

("in the opinion of this House it would be in the national interest that some of the public money devoted to the general interests of agriculture should be devoted to measures calculated to ensure that the remaining rabbits in these islands should be finally eradicated.")—(Viscount Hudson.)

3.39 p.m.

THE EARL OF DUNDEE

My Lords, I am sure that the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, who has raised this subject will agree that its importance to the country depends on one question alone; that is: what will be the effect of rabbit clearance on British food production and, consequently, on our foreign exchange position? The noble Earl began his speech by referring to the vagueness of certain figures which have lately been given by the Minister. These figures, of course, apply only to certain parts of England for a very short time. The usual estimate given by the Ministry of the amount of human food destroyed by rabbits is £50 million a year. That estimate is not entirely based on conjecture, because a few years ago the English Ministry carried out one or two experiments on wheat-growing land in Kent, East Anglia and Leicestershire, in order to see whether they could find out how much more wheat could be grown after the normal rabbit population had been removed. Although these experiments were small, they did have some value. Now, in some parts of England and Scotland, we have had one season's experience of farming without rabbits. I do not think my noble friend who is to reply could be expected to give any really comprehensive figures after such a short time, but I should be extremely interested to hear whatever he can tell us.

We in Scotland have not yet enough information to enable any official figures to be published on behalf of the Government, but a good many inquiries have been made from a number of farmers whose land has been cleared of rabbits, and the present indications seem to be that on mixed farming land of medium quality in Scotland the value of the increased yield of food after rabbit clearance will probably be something like 35s. an acre. If that figure is anything like right, and if we were to apply it to all the agricultural land in Great Britain—of course, making allowance for the less valuable land—I think we should find that the Ministry's estimate of £50 million is rather too low. I think that if it were possible to achieve total clearance over the whole of Great Britain the country would gain more than £50 million per year in production of home-grown food, which would be quite a useful help to any Chancellor of the Exchequer in modern times. It must necessarily be several years before the country can reap the benefits of rabbit clearance. For one thing our cattle and sheep cannot breed quickly enough to take advantage of the great abundance of fresh, unpolluted grass which is now growing up wherever the rabbits have disappeared. I was given one piece of information a few weeks ago, on the very good authority of the Director of the Hill Farming Research Institute, who told me that on several hill farms with which he has to deal the survival this summer of the present stock has been made possible only by the sudden disappearance of rabbits. This year we have suffered from the worst drought in living memory, but nature has compensated for that by removing the rabbits.

I think that, so far, the most remarkable result of this natural clearance has been the change of outlook on the part of the average farmer, who can now see with his own eyes the effects of the clearance on his own grass and his own crops. There always have been some farmers who have been strongly in favour of total extermination, and there have always been some farmers who have been equally strongly against it because they did not believe that a moderate number of rabbits could do any serious harm; they liked having a few rabbits to shoot or to eat, or to give to their farm workers; and, most of all, they liked getting their annual cheque from the local rabbit trapper I think it would be fair to say, that while the majority of farmers would probably prefer to have no rabbits at all, there were very few who were willing to take much trouble or to spend much money on the difficult and expensive business of cleaning them out altogether.

My Lords, it is only one year since the Pests Act became law, and it is only about six months since the first clearance areas were designated under the Act. The intention of the Act was that the first clearance areas should be small, in order that they could be properly supervised by the officials of the Ministry and some fairly universal agreement achieved among the local farmers. It is often extremely difficult to get agreement among farmers about anything, even in a small area; but in the spring of this year in Eastern Scotland the opinion of the farming community was so strongly in favour of total clearance that the Eastern Agricultural Executive Committee asked the Secretary of State to designate two entire counties, Fife and Kinross, as one clearance area. That was done in May. Now, the other agricultural executive committees are following their example.

The Border A.E.C. has now applied to have the whole of its area, amounting to 1.100,000 acres, designated as a clearance area. The application has been published under the Act; I do not think any serious objections are likely to be lodged, and I have no doubt that the Secretary of State will approve it. I am now told that most of the other Scottish A.E.Cs. are contemplating a similar operation; so that it is quite likely that in about a year most of the agricultural land in Scotland will have been designated as a clearance area. I know that my noble friend Lord St. Aldwyn cannot speak for the Scottish Department of Agriculture, but I imagine that perhaps the position may be much the same in both countries. In Scotland, each A.E.C. embraces several different counties; in England, I think each county has an A.E.C. to itself. I do not know how many of the English counties have applied to have the whole of their area, or a large part of it, designated under the Act.

The purpose of having these large areas—which, of course, are much too big to be properly supervised by the Ciovernment—is to give the majority of farmers who are anxious to do everything to prevent rabbits from reappearing, some legal protection against the minority who want to leave the survivors alone and allow them to breed again. Under the Act, an occupier of land in a clearance area who fails to exterminate his rabbits can be required to do so, and if he does not do so the Government can do it for him and charge him with the expense. But there is one slight absurdity in the law under the Pests Act. Under the law as it now stands, there is nothing to prevent an occupier of land in a clearance area from importing as many live, healthy rabbits as he likes and letting them loose on his farm. If he chooses to import a crate of 100 rabbits and lets them loose, that is perfectly legal. As soon as he does that, he is compelled, under the law, to catch them again, and to kill them if he can. It would perhaps be more simple and sensible if he were prohibited from importing them in the first place. Since I think there is an annual Miscellaneous Provisions Act under which minor changes in the law can be made from time to time without introducing new major legislation. I suggest to my noble friend that the Government might consider the possibility of removing or correcting this anomaly at the earliest opportunity.

The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and my noble friend Lord Hudson, have both referred to the difficulties of "mopping up" the surviving population, a matter which is now most important. There are two difficulties—that of labour and that of expense. Both are raised by my noble friend Lord Hudson in his Amendment. At the moment, labour, especially occasional labour, is extremely hard to get in the country, and "mopping up" rabbits is an exceedingly tedious job. If you put a couple of men on for several months to "mop up" 3,000 acres, since the surviving rabbits are not evenly distributed over the whole area the men may kill half a dozen in a day and then spend a whole fortnight without finding a single rabbit. That is extremely boring for the men and sometimes a little irritating to their employers, who may be paying £8 or £9 per week to them for looking for rabbits which are not there at all. But if this expense is regarded as an insurance premium against the return of rabbits, I think it would be found to be a quite small premium to secure a large financial gain, both to the farmer and to the country. This work needs a great deal of organisation, and I am sere the Government will ask the agricultural executive committees to do everything possible to help.

The other question is that of expense. At the present time, the Government give a 50 per cent. grant for scrub clearance, which may be necessary to exterminate rabbits. That is a very good thing: we should be grateful to Her Majesty's Government for giving this very useful grant. The Government also give a grant for wire netting, but that is not so useful because it is not much use trying to keep rabbits within an area by the use of wire netting—it is difficult enough to keep them out by those means. When snow falls they can walk over the top and at other times they can burrow beneath the netting. Under the Pests Act Her Majesty's Government have power to contribute the main item of expense involved—that is, labour—bat they have always said that they will riot do so. I understand the Treasury's point of view here and very largely support it, for if it were known that the Government were to pay, even in some cases, the expenses of exterminating rabbits, many farmers would say, "We will sit back and take no trouble and spend no money ourselves but will wait until the Government come along to do the job for us." That would be disastrous. Farmers must bear the main part of the expense, and in the case of normal land there is no reason why they should not do so.

The cost of mopping up "should not be more than 2s. or 3s. an acre on normal ground; I myself have done it for that figure. Even if the work has to be repeated two or three times, the cost should not be more than 7s. or 8s. If the value of the land is to be increased by 35s. an acre a year there is plainly no case for Her Majesty's Government to make a grant. Better organisation of labour is wanted. There are cases, however, in which certain pieces of land may be exceptionally expensive to clear of rabbits: the cost may be several pounds an acre—possibly more than the land is worth. It may be said that it is not worth spending money to clear rabbits from land which itself is not worth the money being spent. But, of course, that is not at all the object here. One is not clearing for the benefit of that particular piece of land but for the whole countryside within a radius of twenty or thirty miles; for if rabbits are allowed to continue in a centre of infection they will breed and travel, and will be a continual source of anxiety to everybody. It is in the public interest, therefore, that money should be spent on cleaning up very expensive centres of infection.

In particular cases, the cost may be more than the occupier of a particular piece of land can afford. Under the Pests Act an occupier who does not clean up his land may be compelled to do so and may be charged with the expense; but if the expense is more than he can afford enforcement of the Act will merely make him bankrupt; it will not enable the local committee to recover their money. How, then, are we to arrange that a few exceptional cases of this kind are dealt with, while at the same time the majority of farmers are not encouraged to hope for a Government grant which is not justified? I hope that Her Majesty's Government will look at this problem and consider whether it might not be possible for agricultural executive committees to say, in certain cases, that they are of opinion that a certain farmer cannot afford to pay the cost of exterminating rabbits on a particularly difficult piece of ground; that it is in the public interest that the rabbits should be exterminated, and that the committee are therefore prepared to make an exceptional grant—and I stress that it would be only in exceptional cases—towards the labour cost of extermination.

The policy of Her Majesty's Government on this subject is a good policy and its success must depend on the active and sustained support of the whole farming community. I hope that that support will be forthcoming. I particularly hope that the present Minister may have the satisfaction of seeing British agriculture derive the fullest possible benefit from an animal disease which he himself has made illegal. The Minister is in the happy position of being able now to disclaim all responsibility for an act of providence of which he is the principal beneficiary, which has often happened before. Even Moses was extremely reluctant to acquiesce in the plagues of Egypt, and he did not encourage his supporters to spread them deliberately; but he obtained a certain amount of kudos by leading the Children of Israel at least part of the way towards a land flowing with milk and honey. I hope that the present Minister will be equally successful in exploiting the wisdom of providence with only as much human aid as he may think legitimate and proper.