HL Deb 10 April 1956 vol 196 cc944-57

4.10 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.—(Lord Merthyr.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]

Clause 1:

Offences relating to rabbits

1.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a person shall be guilty of an offence under this subsection if,—

  1. (a) he—
    1. (i) sells, or offers or exposes for sale, or gives away a live wild rabbit or transfers to another person the property in a live wild rabbit (whether with or without any further consideration) for a consideration which consists of, or includes, the transfer by that other person of the property in other goods; or
    2. (ii) buys, or offers to buy, or accepts as a gift a live wild rabbit or acquires from another person the property in a live wild rabbit (whether with or without any further consideration) for a consideration which consists of, or includes, the transfer to that other person of the property in other goods;
  2. (b) he conveys, procures to be conveyed or consigns for conveyance from one place to another a live wild rabbit; or
  3. (c) he turns loose a wild rabbit.

(2) A person guilty of an offence consisting in a contravention of paragraph (a) or (b) of the foregoing subsection shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds, and a person guilty of an offence consisting in a contravention of paragraph (c) of that subsection shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds.

THE EARL OF HADDINGTON moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "consisting in a contravention of paragraph (a) or (b) of" and to insert instead "under." The noble Earl said: My Amendment is a simple one but I hope to show your Lordships that it is none the less an important one. Its object is to equalise the penalties for any of the various offences enumerated in Clause 1 of the Bill. As the Bill stands at present, the maximum penalty for selling, giving away, buying, accepting as a gift or conveying a wild live rabbit is £50, whereas the maximum penalty for turning a wild live rabbit loose is only £20. The title of this Bill is: An Act to make provision for preventing the spread of rabbits. I find it difficult to understand why the man who is spreading the rabbit and committing the act is liable to the least penalty under the Bill. If I give the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, a rabbit and he accepts it, we are both liable to a maximum penalty of £50; but if I take the rabbit and turn it loose on the ground where it will quickly multiply—which is the very thing we are trying to prevent —I am liable only to a fine of £20. To take an analogy, would a thief who goes and robs a till, if he is caught, get a lighter sentence than the man who conveys him there in his motor car? The part each plays is much the same, and I should have thought that, if anything, the penalties should be reversed. Certainly they ought to be equal.

One further point: this Bill applies not only to England but to Scotland also, and in Scotland an offence under this Act will come up before one man—not, as in England, before, I presume, a bench of magistrates. The offence will be dealt with by the sheriff-substitute, one man who might well be rather fond of rabbits and might consider this a trivial offence and impose a nominal fine of £1 or so, which would be quite inadequate to the gravity of the offence; for it is a grave offence. For anyone to turn out rabbits on his land is not only a very unneighbourly thing to do when everyone is trying to co-operate in getting rid of them; worse, it is striking a blow at the economy of the country when we are trying to improve our agricultural returns and to grow more trees. I believe that the only way to impress upon the people who try these cases that this is a serious offence is to have in the Statute Book a high maximum penalty so that they know where they are. I feel that there should be a uniform penalty for all these various offences under Clause 1 and that a maximum figure of £50 would best meet the case. I hope my Amendment will meet with sympathy from some of your Lordships. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 1, leave out from ("offence") to ("the") in line 2 and insert ("under").—(The Earl of Haddington.)

LORD TEVIOT

I should like most heartily to support the Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Haddington. It seems to be an extraordinary suggestion that one who, I should have thought, is in law an accessory after the fact, is to be let off with a lighter penalty. I should not imagine that that is the law of the land. We have to remember the frightful damage that we have escaped during this year through the elimination of rabbits all over the country, particularly when, as just lately, vast numbers of pigeons have done great harm. Had we had rabbits as well, we should have had nothing left at all. I hope that this Amendment will go through because I can see no reason at all why the person who puts a rabbit out should escape with a line of £20 while others have to pay £50. I hope Her Majesty's Government will accept this Amendment.

LORD SHERWOOD

I do not apologise for speaking again on this subject and on this Amendment, for, as your Lordships know, I heartily dislike this Bill from every point of view. I believe it is almost impossible to carry out its provisions. The Bill started in the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, as a tiny Bill. It then grew into a Government Bill and is now growing ever greater. Now the penalties are to be made even heavier. The penalties are to be increased until, as the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, said, the rabbit is eliminated. But the rabbit is coming back. We are going to have the rabbit again, and this Bill will not prevent its coming back. The noble Earl, Lord Haddington, says frankly that the reason he wants to increase these penalties is to make magistrates, and in Scotland, sheriff-substitutes, feel that this is a very serious offence. That means that these punishments are to be inflicted. On this point I would say that I cannot understand why the noble Lord Lord Merthyr, who wants to increase all these penalties, and quotes all that is done, does nothing about papers like the Evening Standard, which is even worse than the receiver condemned by the noble Lords, Lord Teviot and Lord Haddington. Those papers publish advertisements (for which they receive money) offering to supply these rabbits. The noble Lord quoted that fact in his own speech. We, in this House, all know to whom the Evening Standard belongs. There is no monetary penalty which will disturb the noble Lord, Lord Beaver-brook, and therefore the penalty must be prison.

You are not going to alter the course of the natural life of the rabbit by enormous penalties such as this. I dislike adding to the scope of this Bill, and I give notice to your Lordships that when we get to the Report stage I shall move that the word "wild" be taken out, because in this connection there is no difference between wild and tame, whatever the noble Lord may say. I shall then be able to give instances in which it is exactly the same. As regards the question of adding more and more to these laws, and offering more and more opportunity for people to give away their neighbours and bring the powers of the law upon them when really no crime has been committed, from these Benches I object.

LORD KINNAIRD

I should like to say a word or two in support of my noble friend Lord Haddington. I do not agree with the noble Lord who has just sat down that this matter is unimportant, because we support the Government's view that this is most important from the point of view of food production and tree production, both of which are national objectives. I agree with what the noble Earl, Lord Haddington, has said about the question of the penalty. It seems odd that a man who is spreading rabbits should have to pay only £20. And I agree that in Scotland the case will come before one man. I think that the noble Earl's two points are exceedingly good, and I have much pleasure in supporting his Amendment. I am going to say a further word at a later stage on the Motion with regard to the spreading of rabbits.

LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE

I should like to support the Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Haddington, particularly from the Scottish point of view. The form of the judiciary in Scotland is somewhat different from that in England. As Lord Haddington says, these cases will come in front of one man and there may not necessarily be the balance of view which you get with several persons on the Bench as would be the case in England. I cannot, for the life of me, understand the differential that is introduced in this Bill. To my mind, it seems a far more serious offence to turn a rabbit loose on land which is subject to a clearance order than to sell or to buy. Admittedly there is an argument which, although the noble Lord has not produced it, was, I think, in the mind of Lord Sherwood, that all the penalties are too high. That is one argument. I would not agree with it. But I think there can be no argument as to the merits of a differential in the penalties. Either they are all too high or they are too low. My own view is that a high penalty is the right one. I have yet to hear any argument which justifies the differential which is introduced in the Bill.

4.23 p.m.

THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL ST. ALDWYN)

As I see it, we are concerned with three actions—the acquiring, the transport and the turning loose, all of which form part of the process of restocking. I would entirely agree with what noble Lords have said up to now, to the effect that the final act of turning loose is not in itself less serious than the two preceding stages. In a case where all three actions are performed by the same person on a small scale, I would not expect that the court would impose a heavier fine if the offender were caught before he actually released the rabbits. I think that in a case of this kind, where a person obtains an odd rabbit or two with the intention of putting them down on his own land, the measure of his misdeed does not depend on the stage at which he is caught. Nor, I feel, should the fine depend on the particular offence with which he is charged. I agree that if we were concerned only with this type of case it would be logical to fix an equal maximum penalty for the three categories of the offence.

Unfortunately, this is by no means the only type of case for which we have to legislate. At an early stage of the Bill, Lord Merthyr mentioned the hawking of rabbits round Bedfordshire at £1 a head. We do not expect that rabbit-mongering will be practised so openly after the Bill has become law, but if the efforts to keep down rabbits are successful—and I am confident that they will be—healthy live wild rabbits may be at a premium, and if the penalty for trading in them is not put sufficiently high there may be a temptation to engage in black market transactions in wild rabbits. I think that in dealing with cases of this kind, where people have set themselves to provide rabbits for restocking for monetary gain, and where a number of transactions are involved, the court should be able to impose a more severe penalty than in the case of a person who buys only a few rabbits and who is concerned with only one transaction. The £20 penalty provided for is consistent with the fine relating to rabbits under the Pests Act, and is, I feel, a sufficient deterrent against that type of case. For the man who provides wild rabbits for monetary gain and is concerned in a number of transactions I consider that the higher penalty of £50 would be more appropriate. However, I appreciate that there is quite a strong feeling on this matter and I should not attempt to direct your Lordships upon it.

4.27 p.m.

LORD MERTHYR

First may I say a word or two about what fell from the lips of the noble Lord, Lord Sherwood—I expected from him enthusiastic opposition to this Amendment. The noble Lord, as he has said plainly, does not like the Bill. He has also indicated that he does not like these penalties. Therefore I should have thought that if anyone was certain to vote against this Amendment, it would be Lord Sherwood, but I did not detect in his speech any such note of enthusiasm. But I may be being unfair. Lord Sherwood said that I wanted to increase the penalties. That is really a little hard. So far I have resisted the idea of increasing this penalty. I do not think I can take any blame for increasing any penalty—certainly not this particular penalty. I have done no such thing.

The noble Lord spoke of the report in the Evening Standard which I mentioned on the last occasion, and he seemed to suggest that the Evening Standard or its proprietor should be prosecuted. Bit all that the Evening Standard did was to report, and nothing more. Is a newspaper or its proprietor to be prosecuted in a criminal court for reporting a murder case? All the Evening Standard have done in this case is to report a crime of far lesser gravity. They did not support it; they did not say anything for or against it. If the noble Lord is apprehensive about advertising in newspapers, I can set his mind at rest on that matter. Clause 1 of the Bill makes it an offence to offer for sale or to offer to buy. So that subject is covered by Clause 1. Of course, as I have said, what appeared in the Evening Standard was not an advertisement hut a mere report.

Now I come to the remarks made by the noble Earl, Lord Haddington. I really do not very much mind whether the figure is £20 or £50, but I would remind the House that this is a maximum fine, and even in these days maximum fines are rarely inflicted. The noble Lord was a little apprehensive that the sheriff-substitute would impose too small a fine. He will not have forgotten that this, being merely a maximum and there being no minimum, a sheriff-substitute who was too fond of rabbits could still impose a very small fine, even if the Amendment was passed. In fact the Amendment would make no difference, or little difference, to the decision of the sheriff-substitute. It does not seem to me to be really important whether the Amendment is passed or not. I am impressed by the argument of the noble Earl that there should be no distinction between these three separate actions—the transporting, the catching and the releasing. Therefore, if it be your Lordships' wish, I will accept the Amendment.

THE EARL OF HADD1NGTON

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords who supported me in this Amendment and the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, for accepting it.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF HADDINGTON

My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 4, leave out lines 4 to 6.—(The Earl of Haddington.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL ST. ALDWYN moved, in subsection (3), after "by" to insert: the Lord President of the Council".

The noble Earl said: Subsection (3) of Clause 1 enables the agricultural Ministers to grant licences authorising live wild rabbits to be obtained, transported, or turned loose for scientific purposes. Your Lordships will remember that during the Second Reading of this Bill the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, spoke about scientific purposes relating to the management of nature reserves. He said that control and management of rabbits within these reserves would perhaps be better dealt with by the authorities responsible for the reserves, and he mentioned that there was a precedent for this in somewhat analogous cases. We have looked into this and we feel that the noble Lord is right in what he says, and that it would be appropriate that the Lord President, as the Minister responsible for the Nature Conservancy and its studies of wild life, should also be authorised to grant licences. With your Lordships' permission, I will be dealing rather more fully with the purposes in connection with which the Nature Conservancy may need these licences when I move the new clause which is down in my name. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 9, after ("by") insert ("the Lord President of the Council").—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)

LORD MERTHYR

I have no possible objection to this Amendment and will accept it if the Committee so wishes.

LORD HURCOMB

May I say that this Amendment, together with the following Amendment, completely meets the technical point which I raised, and I am much obliged, as I know the Nature Conservancy are, to Her Majesty's Government for having so fully dealt with the point?

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

On Question, Whether Clause 1, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?

LORD KINNAIRD

With your Lordships' leave, I should like to say a further word here with regard to the spreading of rabbits. I think there is a danger and a loophole. The danger is that quite a number of people would be glad to see rabbits reintroduced, either for sporting reasons or food reasons. We have heard what the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, has said about the advertisements in the papers. It is exceedingly difficult to find rabbits now, and if they spread again I think it will be impossible to eliminate them. The rabbits seem to have changed their ways. I have made inquiries in Scotland. To-day, rabbits are not seen, but the people on many estates are killing a great many. If they are let loose again, the difficulty will be very much greater than it is at present.

The loophole is that it is a simple thing to pen up a few rabbits under captivity in an enclosure of some sort and breed from them. So far as I can make out, the progeny of those rabbits will not come under this Bill. In the first Bill which the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr introduced, Clause 1 used the word "rabbit" and not "wild rabbit," but in Clause 2 "wild rabbit" was mentioned, so that both classes were covered. Now this Bill refers to the wild rabbit only, and nothing is said, even in subsection (4), about the tame rabbit bred in captivity. It is difficult to see exactly what the subsection means, but I do not think it covers the case I have in mind. It says: In this section "wild rabbit" means a rabbit other than one which is of a type commonly kept in captivity and has been born in captivity and kept continuously in captivity since birth. It seems to me that the progeny of wild rabbits born in captivity and kept in captivity do not come under this Bill. As we know, these rabbits can profitably be sold, and I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, if he agrees with me, whether on Report stage he would consider putting down an Amendment to cover this type of rabbit.

LORD MERTHYR

The noble Lord, Lord Kinnaird, has asked me to consider this point before the next stage of the Bill. That I will most certainly do. It is an interesting point. At this stage I should like to draw his attention to the words in the definition clause which he himself pointed out. I think the important words in this connection are "which is of a type commonly kept in captivity". I will consider this point again, but I would say, offhand, that if the noble Lord construes these words his fears would not be supported as he thinks. There is one other point. If a person living in a clearance area collects a bunch of wild rabbits and keeps them, he comes under the Pests Act. He may not commit a criminal offence, but I should say that he comes under the Pests Act. Perhaps the noble Earl who represents the Ministry would confirm that statement or otherwise. I think that may be of some comfort to the noble Lord.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.

EARL ST. ALDWYN moved, after Clause 3 to insert the following new clause:

Power of Ministers to grant exemptions from s. 1 (2) of the Pests Act, 1954

("4.—(1) The appropriate Minister may, for the purpose of enabling scientific research or scientific experiments to be carried orob/ on land within an area that is a rabbit clearance area under Part I of the Pests Act, 1954, relieve, for such period and subject to compliance with such conditions (if any) as he may specify, the occupier of that land from the obligations imposed on him by subsection (2) of section one of that Act.

(2) For the purposes of this section the appropriate Minister shall, as respects land in England or Wales, he the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and, as respects land in Scotland, be the Secretary of State:

Provided that, as respects land (whether situate in England, Wales or Scotland) which is held by, or managed in accordance with agreement entered into with, the Natire Conservancy, the appropriate Minister shall be the Lord President of the Council.")

The noble Earl said: The object of this new clause is to simplify procedure under the Pests Act. Under Section 1 (2) of that Act, occupiers of land in rabbit clearance areas are required to destroy wild rabbits on their land. There is no provision for exemption from this obligation if the rabbits are to he kept for scientific purposes, and the only way in which wild rabbits can be allowed to remain alive in a rabbit clearance area is by making an order excluding the enclosure in which they are to be kept front the clearance area. That is a cumbersome and protracted procedure for what may be only a temporary arrangement. We propose, therefore, that the agricultural Ministers should have authority to relieve an occupier in a rabbit clearance area of his obligation to destroy rabbits on his land, if the rabbits are there for bona fide scientific purposes. We also propose that the Lord President should have similar authority where the land is held or managed by the Nature Conservancy.

I should like to say something about the kind of experiments we have in mind. As your Lordships will be aware, a weaker strain of myxomatosis has appeared in Nottingham and in a small area in Hampshire. It is very desirable that we should know how rabbits that have recovered from this weaker strain have been affected by it and also how their progeny are affected. We therefore want to be able to allow some of these rabbits to remain in a well protected enclosure where they can be kept under observation. We also want to know more about the way in which myxomatosis is transmitted from one rabbit to another. Obviously, the more we know about the way the disease is carried, the better equipped we shall be to advise on preventing its spread to domestic rabbits and to deal with other problems associated with the spread of the disease. We shall therefore need to study the life of the rabbit flea and other insect vectors of myxomatosis under natural conditions.

We still have much to learn about the ecology of the wild rabbit and the effect on our flora and fauna of the fall in the number of rabbits. The Nature Conservancy will no doubt he undertaking ecological studies in some of their nature reserves. Experiments will not be conducted on rabbits living in these enclosures. Indeed, so far as I am aware, wild rabbits are not used for research or experiments requiring a vivisection licence from the Home Secretary under the Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876, and this clause would certainly not enable the Ministers to authorise such work. As I have said, the purpose of this new clause is simply to enable rabbits to be kept in enclosures in rabbit clearance areas so that they can be under observation for scientific purposes. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 3, insert the said new clause.—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)

LORD SHERWOOD

Will the noble Earl say how big these enclosures will be? I have been trying the same thing on a small scale, because the rabbit has come hack where I had strong myxomatosis. I managed to obtain a myxomatosis rabbit and put it among four new rabbits. The myxomatosis rabbit died, but the four new rabbits have not been affected at all. Had it been done on a bigger scale, more results might have been obtained. In talking of research, there is another point that the noble Earl, Lord Rosebery, said that I might quote, as he is unable to be present to-day. He said that he was completely void of rabbits where he was, but that they have now come back. But he has noticed that out of every eight rabbits killed, seven are bucks. They cannot have been imported by Lord Merthyr's friends, because one always imports fillies or does, or whatever you like to call them; one certainly would not breed from a lot of bucks. How big are these enclosures going to be; and where are they to be situated?

EARL ST. ALDWYN

I cannot say what size the enclosures will be. Obviously they will vary greatly from one place to another. As regards the experience of the noble Lord in, so far as I can understand it, trying to spread myxomatosis, I must remind him that he is guilty of an offence under the Pests Act. I hope that he will not pursue this highly illegal practice in the Isle of Wight.

THE EARL OF HADDINGTON

I should like to ask the noble Earl one question. Are the Government continuing their experiments with humane traps; or, in view of the outbreak of myxomatosis in the country, have these experiments been discontinued? I think this is important, because if rabbits ever come back in large numbers, we do not want to go back to the bad old days when millions of rabbits were trapped in gins every year—and that is a subject that has been debated in your Lordships' House on more than one occasion. I wonder whether the Government are still going on with the experiments, in spite of the fact that so many rabbits have died from myxomatosis.

EARL ST. ALDWYN

With all respect, I cannot see that the research into humane traps has anything whatever to do with the Rabbits Bill but I can assure the noble Earl that these experiments are being pressed on with all vigour, and I hope that in due course we shall get a satisfactory solution.

LORD MERTHYR

This Amendment deals with the Pests Act and, as I see it, fills a loophole that would otherwise have caused some inconvenience. An example is to be found near my own home, where there is a wired-in enclosure in the grounds of a private house in which rabbits are kept for observation purposes on behalf of, and at the instance of, the Nature Conservancy. I am satisfied that that experiment, if it can properly be so called, does nothing but good. But as the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, has pointed out, under the Pests Act, directly the area in which that wired-in enclosure is situated is declared a clearance area, the continuation of the keeping of rabbits within the wired-in enclosure becomes impossible—legally, at any rate—unless this Amendment is passed. I quote that single instance as an illustration of what I agree is the desirability of this Amendment, because if it were not passed, as I have said, all these experiments which are conducted in clearance areas would have to be stopped. There are off our coasts some small and remote islands—some of them not far from my own home—in which it is thought, I believe justifiably, that it would be possible to keep and study rabbits more or less in a state of nature without doing any harm to anybody on the mainland. If that island was included in a clearance area, that sort of thing would be impossible without this Amendment.

I had one doubt about this Amendment, but I am glad to say that it has been removed by the latter part of the speech of the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn. There are some people in this country who, most understandably, are apprehensive lest, in these observations on rabbits, there may be conducted upon the rabbits undesirable experiments—to put it bluntly—vivisection. I have made several inquiries about this matter, and I am informed that now, at any rate, wild rabbits—and this Bill covers no other rabbits—are not used for vivisection purposes. And, as the noble Earl has rightly said, this Amendment does not confer a licence upon anyone for such an experiment; it would still be necessary to obtain a licence under the Act governing vivisection experiments. I was relieved to hear that, because I know that a number of people are anxious about this matter. I am satisfied that if this Amendment is passed there will be no danger on that account, and I therefore have pleasure in accepting the Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Remaining clause agreed to.

In the Title:

EARL ST. ALDWYN

This Amendment is consequential upon the acceptance of the new clause. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— At end insert ("and for the grant of exemptions from subsection (2) of section one of the Pests Act, 1954.").—(Earl St. Adlwyn.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Title, as amended, agreed to.

House resumed.