HL Deb 22 March 1956 vol 196 cc765-83

4.7 p.m.

Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.

LORD MERTHYR

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The object of this Bill is to put a stop to the practice of artificially and deliberately spreading live wild rabbits. The last rime I spoke on this matter, when introducing a similar Bill which I subsequently withdrew, I quoted to your Lordships a series of newspaper advertisements showing that them was a trade going on in buying and selling live wild rabbits for the purpose of restocking land which, in many cases, at considerable expense, had been cleared of rabbits. In that connection, and with your Lordships' permission, I should now like to quote from a newspaper report which has appeared since I introduced the first Bill. I will quote just two sentences from the Evening Standard of January 24 last, in order to show your Lordships what I am aiming at and trying to stop. The article says this: Wild rabbits are being offered at £1 each to farmers in North Bedfordshire, to restock land cleared by myxomatosis. The rabbits are taken around in a van by a hawker. The hawker is not breaking the law. Then there is a second sentence: The Bedfordshire Agricultural Committee is trying to enforce the Ministry of Agriculture policy to destroy rabbits. I again say that those two sentences disclose a ludicrous and absurd situation which ought not to be allowed to continue. Here we have the Ministry of Agriculture, at considerable expense to the taxpayers—your Lordships and myself—doing their best, and in my rightly, to reduce ale rabbit population to the lowest possible level. At the same time, quite lawfully at present, other people are doing their best to raise the rabbit population, to re-stock land which has been freed from it by disease or other means. I think that in the public interest that ought not to be allowed, and so I present this Bill.

My Lords, the earlier Bill that I introduced was found to be somewhat defective in its wording, and I should like to inform the House that in drafting this Bill I have received some assistance, for which I am most grateful. With one exception the objects of the Bill are the same as before. This Bill contains a good many more words than the other one, and I am afraid, consequentially, is less easy for your Lordships to understand. At the same time, I am informed that the lawyers are now quite satisfied with this Bill. Whether there is any connection between those two facts I, of course, will not venture to say.

In Clause 1 subsection (1) prohibits four actions: the selling, buying, conveying and turning loose of wild rabbits. In some respects the old Bill dealt with all rabbits; this clause deals only with live wild rabbits. Your Lordships will notice that it has been found necessary, for obvious reasons, to introduce words to prohibit barter or exchange or transactions which are a mixture of selling and barter or buying and barter. Subsection (2) is the penalty clause. It has been represented to me that the old penalty—a maximum of £20—was inadequate to deal with modern conditions, and the penalty for re-stocking, as opposed merely to releasing rabbits, is therefore raised to £50. Opinions may differ on whether there should be a variation in the two penalties, but no doubt if they do the matter may be raised at a later stage.

Subsection (3) contains an exception for rabbits used for scientific purposes. In this connection, in order to satisfy those of your Lordships who, like myself, have in mind the humanitarian aspect of this matter, I have taken the trouble to find out that wild rabbits are not used for vivisection. That observation may satisfy anyone who has doubt as to the wisdom of the exemption. Subsection (4) is the definition clause saying exactly what we mean by a "wild rabbit," and a great deal of trouble has been taken in the drafting of this subsection. I am authorised to say—and I am happy to do so—that this provision satisfies the British Rabbit Council, a body which represents a large number of domestic rabbit-breeders in this country. I gratefully acknowledge the assistance of, or at least the absence of any hostility from, those who are interested in domestic rabbits.

To come to Clause 2: subsection (1) gives power of seizure. I think your Lordships will agree that it would be absurd to create this offence without giving a constable power to seize rabbits which are the subject of the offence and, if necessary, to kill them. Subsection (2) gives power to the court to order the forfeiture of rabbits involved in an offence of this kind, and I might usefully mention that this provision ties up with the provisions of two sections of the Magistrates Courts Act, 1952, which provide machinery for treating money which is the result of forfeiture as if it were a fine. Subsection (3) is put in to satisfy Scottish legal procedure and gives the court power to dispose of such rabbits. Your Lordships may wonder why that applies only to Scotland. The answer is that power already exists in England. Courts in the two countries will thus be brought into line.

Clause 3 is new and quite simple. It prevents the importation of wild live rabbits. It is true that it names a species, but I would point out that no other species of live wild rabbit can at present be imported. Your Lordships may possibly be surprised to hear that in 1954 you made an Order known as the "Non-Indigenous Rabbits (Prohibition of Importation and Keeping) Order" which, in effect prohibited the import of every kind of rabbit except the ordinary European rabbit, which is now prohibited under this Bill. The effect, if this Bill is passed, will be an advantage, for it will no longer be necessary to distinguish between one species and another if a rabbit arrives at a port in this country. I would point out that there is provision here for licensing imports. The reason for that is that it may be desirable to allow imports of tame rabbits. The trade in tame rabbits is now very small and I am advised that this could easily be dealt with by licence to the satisfaction of those who wish to import such rabbits. I would point out that only the provisions of Clause 3 are to extend to Northern Ireland.

That, briefly, is the Bill, and in conclusion I will say a word about opposition to it. I observe from the Order Paper that the noble Lord, Lord Sherwood, has put down a Motion to reject this Bill. The noble Lord made a speech on the last occasion when I withdrew my other Bill. I have read his speech three times and, with great respect, I am unable to connect it with the Bill. I am wondering whether the noble Lord was not really thinking that the penalties imposed by this Bill were to be applied to offences created by the Pests Act. If I am wrong about that, may I point out to the noble Lord that there is nothing in this Bill which creates any offence of having rabbits on one's land, no matter how many there may be. Nor is there anything in this Bill which penalises anyone who allows rabbits to come on to his land under their own motive power. I am really puzzled by the noble Lord's remarks on that occasion. He said that the Bill was quite impossible from a liberal point of view. Why? I can only assume that it is because (as I am so often told) the Bill takes away the freedom of the individual. I admit straight away that I am seeking to take away the freedom of the individual, and the freedom I seek to take away is the freedom of a man to cause injury, loss, expense and annoyance to his neighbour. I make my offence worse by saying that I do not apologise for that.

May I give just one example of this cost and expense which the noble Lord seeks to allow and which I seek to disallow? I have tried to work out the cost of erecting rabbit wire round one single acre of woodland. I made the figure, somewhat roughly, £23. I have since been informed that the Forestry Commission put it as high as £31 12s. 6d. Whichever figure is right, the cost is considerable, and I would ask the noble Lord whether, if he secures the defeat of this Bill, he will pay compensation to woodland owners for this expense, for it is a serious matter. If we can keep rabbits down, we do not have to pay this money. Since myxomatosis arrived a great many people have been spared this expense. I am now informed that before the outbreak of myxomatosis the cost of rabbit-wiring in State forests was £500,000 a year, and in private forests £1,500,000 a year. Since the arrival of myxomatosis, though I have not the actual figures, I am quite certain that the cost must be negligible; so there we have some £2 million a year saved through the absence of rabbits. I think I need quote no more figures to justify the passing of this Bill and, I hope, the defeat of the Amendment which is going to be moved.

I should like to say a word about the conflict I mentioned on the last occasion between sporting and farming interests in this particular matter. It is no good trying to hide the fact that there is a conflict. The noble Lord, Lord Sherwood, on the last occasion when this matter was discussed in your Lordships' House, told us about his shooting interests in the Isle of Wight. I must respectfully remind him that those who preserve rabbits in order to shoot them are doing so at the expense of other people, and, in particular, at the expense of farmers and woodland owners. I would just mention, also, the humanitarian aspect of this subject which at first sight might not appear to matter very much to your Lordships. I do plead with the House not to allow the position to become what it was in former days. In former days we had enormous numbers of rabbits increasing yearly, and they were trapped in a most cruel way. Abominable cruelty was used in trapping literally millions of rabbits every year, in what I call a process of rabbit farming. Now, happily, we have not that. The question is: Are we to return to that state of affairs? That question is very much bound up with the passing or the rejection of this Bill. There is a danger that the rabbits, if they are allowed to do so, may come back, and that we may then have rabbit-trapping and myxomatosis. Thus we should have the worst of both possible worlds. Does the noble Lord really want that to happen?

In conclusion may I claim, modestly, that this Bill has the support not only, I think, of many Members of your Lordships' House but also of the vast majority of land-owners who have passed a resolution in favour of it; certainly it has the official support of the forestry interests and of the Nature Conservancy, and also, I would claim, that of a large majority of—if not all—the farmers. I hope that I may add that it has the support of all who have the interests of agriculture and humanity at heart. I beg to move.

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

4.23 p.m.

LORD SHERWOOD rose to move, That the Bill he read a second time this day six months. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move that this Bill be read in six months' time. We have, in effect, had three debates on this Bill. The noble Lord who has just moved the Second Reading has made the same case as he made before, and in a great many instances he has made the same points as I made in my first speech on this subject. When he accused me of wanting to encourage rabbits, I should like to ask him to note what I said then about myxomatosis. I said that I believed that once we had finished with the rabbits as a result of their extermination by this disease, we should make sure that they did not return. And that is a view I have always held. I qualified what I said on that occasion by adding: Is it possible? Can that be done?

Now the noble Lord says that I take the view—which I certainly do—that this is not the way to introduce this Bill, nor is it a measure upon which Liberals can agree. It is not merely a question of the freedom of the individual. This Bill gives power to impose penalties on the individual in respect of matters for which he cannot necessarily be responsible. And the Government have not had the courage to bring in the Bill themselves. They leave it—this is the sort of thing they seem to do now—to some Back-Bencher to bring in their Bill. In the last debate this matter came up, and I definitely asked the question. It was then stated on behalf of the Government that the Bill was going to be withdrawn and that the Government were going to introduce a Bill. I interrupted the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn. I said: "My Lords, is the Government introducing a new Bill?" The noble Earl replied [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 195 (No. 62), Col. 1151]: "That is right, my Lords."

EARL ST. ALDWYN

If the noble Lord will allow me to interrupt him, I should like to ask him to look at Hansard for the day following the one to which he refers. He will then find that I corrected that statement.

LORD SHERWOOD

My Lords, I am afraid I cannot accept that as being sufficient. I understood that the policy was to have a completely new Bill in size and in form, and that it was to be a Government Bill. The Bill which we first saw was quite a short measure, and we are told that this new Bill is exactly the same. The noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, says it is exactly the same, and that he is told so by Law Officers. I presume that a fine of £50 compared with a fine of £20 is exactly the same to a Law Officer of the Crown. In the first Bill a penalty of £20 was prescribed. Now we have one of £50. It is idle to say that this is the same Bill. This Bill should have been introduced by the Government, as they first said they were going to do.

I am against this Bill merely because I think it is a curious thing, when we have the powers which we have, suddenly to produce a panic Bill relating to myxomatosis. I will admit that I was clearly in favour of a Bill of this sort when it was first mooted. The point is that when it first came up in November myxomatosis had done its work and there were no rabbits. I told your Lordships of information which had been given to me showing that there were no rabbits on my land in December. Later I quoted statements which showed that they were coming back and increasing in numbers. Now I have just heard from my keeper that in the last four weeks he has killed over 200 rabbits. So it is clear that the rabbits are coming back. That figure of 200 represents only what my keeper has killed. I am afraid that only about twenty rabbits will have been accounted for by the farmers, for the simple reason that, as a result of the operation of the Agricultural Wages Act, wages are so high—nearly £7 a week—that there is no point in having a rabbiter on an estate. You cannot sell rabbits because no one will buy them. This means that they will extend even more in the coming Spring. And who is going to be punished by this Bill?

Lord Merthyr has referred to the Evening Standard. I do not know why the Evening Standard wants to publish these things. It seems that there was something in that paper about people in Bedfordshire who will buy rabbits. I do not think that any of the rabbits which are now growing up in the Isle of Wight have been purchased in consequence of advertisements in the Evening Standard. Indeed I am quite certain of it. They have grown up and multiplied again because they have gone to the places where they formerly were—on the downs and the cliffs. At such places it is almost impossible to get rid of them unless through some disease like myxomatosis. And myxomatosis is something that certainly comes only once in a rabbit's lifetime. The rabbits we see now are clearly immune from myxomatosis and we shall not get that disease in that area again.

As I have indicated, I do not like the penalties which are provided in the Bill. There is a penalty of £20 for the turning loose of a wild rabbit. Who is going to be the culprit—not perhaps so much in places like the Midlands (where, I know, they also have a great many tame rabbits) but in areas such as the Isle of Wight? In the Isle of Wight nearly every country child gets a small wild rabbit. Every time the pen is cleaned out the rabbit is allowed to run about. And who is going to pay this enormous penalty if it gets away?—not the rabbit, not the child, but the parent, I presume, who will be fined this immense sum or perhaps sent to prison if he cannot pay. You are creating new laws, when there are already plenty to deal with this problem. Rabbits can be dealt with as a pest under the Agriculture Act. I do not like this Bill and I do not think it is going to be a wise one in any shape or form.

The noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, turned on me, in the characteristic way of everyone who thinks I want the rabbit for sport, and asked: what about growing trees? I have a good deal of growing timber and I have had to put up exactly the same wiring because, as perhaps the noble Lord may know, hares are just as destructive as rabbits—perhaps even more so to plantings. Where I have planted 800 oaks and 300 cedars as a windbreak, I have had to spend, exactly as he says, something like £30 an acre on wiring. Yet, there is not a rabbit on the place—but there are hares. If you are going to kill off everything, I can see the saving; but in quoting those figures of millions of pounds do not think that that is what you are going to save. Planting is always difficult and always will be, and in my opinion it will always be necessary to wire against pests.

I do not think it is wise for us to pass this Bill merely because we think people will put rabbits back where they have been stamped out. These clearance areas do not really exist. I live in one of the easiest areas to be cleared, because it is an island; and it was cleared. Yet rabbits are now back again. They will come back. And not only shall we have the rabbits, but we shall have Lord Merthyr's Bill to torture every child who lets loose a tame rabbit. I think it would be wrong for us to pass this sort of legislation merely because the farmers had a sudden windfall through the fact that rabbits were virtually wiped out. In my opinion, that is not the way to deal with the problem. Therefore, I think we should defer a Second Reading of this Bill for six months.

Amendment moved— That the Bill be read 2a this day six months.—(Lord Sherwood.)

4.34 p.m.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

My Lords, I must admit that I was a little surprised when I read on the Order Paper the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Sherwood, for the rejection of this Bill. I was surprised because this Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, has pointed out, is exactly the same in principle and purpose as the Bill he introduced only a few weeks ago under the title, "Rabbits (Prohibition of Spreading) Bill." That Bill received an unopposed Second Reading. The noble Lord, Lord Sherwood, did not ask your Lordships to divide against it. It was approved in principle by your Lordships and only withdrawn on Committee stage, not because it was undesirable, but because your Lordships took the view, which was submitted by the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, that the drafting of the Bill could be improved. Therefore, it is surprising to me that the noble Lord, Lord Sherwood, without adducing anything that had happened in the meantime to justify your Lordships in changing your opinions, is now asking the House to reverse a decision taken so short a time ago.

The noble Lord went on to say that he wanted to keep rabbits down. That is something we all want to do; and we all applaud that sentiment. I must point out, however, that the effect of the rejection of the Bill, which is what the noble Lord desires, would mean that people would continue to be free to release wild rabbits on land where rabbits had been cleared; and this would have exactly the opposite effect to the one which the noble Lord himself desired. He was particularly concerned about the heavy penalties in the present Bill but, of course, the fines that the Bill proposes are maximum, and not necessarily those which would be imposed by the courts. At the same time, whether we share his view or not, I think he would probably agree that this is really a Committee point and not a point that justifies rejection of the Bill.

I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, on the considerable improvement in the drafting of his Bill. He had the assistance of advisers, probably some of them provided by the Ministry of Agriculture, and nobody knows better than I do the ability of the advice which that Department provides. I should like to congratulate him not merely on the greatly improved drafting, which will make the Bill easier to administer, but also on the speed with which he has prepared his new Bill. The time factor is exceedingly important, because the rabbits do not pause in their breeding while we are considering how to legislate against them. I do not wish to say anything about the merits of the Bill, because I said far too much on the previous occasion, except to repeat that I support the Bill most warmly: I am sure that it would be extremely helpful to farmers in keeping down the rabbit population. It really is a contribution to good farming.

There are only two changes in the present Bill, as compared with the previous one, to which I would draw your Lordships' attention. One is the question of maximum fines. I think that there is something to be said for a maximum fine of £50, instead of £20, for restocking, because it gives the court a wider discretion and enables it to adjust the fine to the means of the offender. At the same time, the figure proposed is not sacrosanct, and this is a matter that can be fully discussed on Committee stage. I must say that I was a little puzzled about the maximum fine for restocking as compared with the maximum for the release of wild rabbits, which remains at £20. I hope that later on the noble Lord will explain more fully the reasons for this difference. The other change, which the noble Lord pointed out to us—and perhaps it is the most important—is the ban which the Bill proposes on the importation of the European species of wild rabbit. I am sure that this will fill a gap in existing legislation, because, as the noble Lord pointed out, all British species are already banned. I do not think anybody can take exception to that.

There is one point which I should like to put to the Government. In this House we are fortunate in having a good deal of Private Members' time, and if your Lordships approve this Bill, as you did the previous one, it will go through without any undue delay. The other place, however, is not so fortunate in this respect, and, although I am sure that we all welcome the statement made by the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, on the last occasion, that the Government intend to support the Bill, I do not think that even the support of the Government is sufficient if they are not also prepared to give it Government time when it reaches another place. I should like the noble Earl to say whether the Government will be prepared to give it time or, at any rate, to say that if your Lordships approve this Bill, the matter will be seriously considered by the Government before it goes to another place. I have nothing more to add, except to say that I sincerely hope your Lordships will give the same cordial support to this Bill as you gave to the previous Bill only a few weeks ago.

4.40 p.m.

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

My Lords, I am happy to welcome the reappearance in your Lordships' House of this Bill to prevent the spreading of wild rabbits. The Bill which my noble friend Lord Merthyr introduced in December was given very encouraging support, and I hope that the new Bill will meet with your Lordships' approval. The House had already expressed its agreement with the general object of the Bill when a Second Reading was given to my noble friend's earlier Bill. The object remains the same; all that has been changed is the method of achieving it. I certainly agree that this Bill is a considerable improvement on the earlier one. It is a workmanlike measure which should effectively achieve what it sets out to do. I think I ought to emphasise that the Bill represents no fundamental advance on our present policy for the extermination of rabbits. That policy, to which the Pests Act, 1954, gives effect, has already been endorsed by Parliament. Up and down the country farmers and foresters are engaged in an all-out effort to try and free their land of wild rabbits, and the Government stand firmly behind them. This desire to free the farming and forestry industries from the uneconomic burden of wild rabbits is neither new, nor Government inspired, but it is strongly Government supported. I regard this Bill as a useful contribution to the general aim of getting rid of rabbits.

As I have said, the Government support this Bill, but the House will realise that the legislative programme is now very full, and 'consequently, although we hope that it will be possible to find time for this Bill in another place, I am unable to give a firm undertaking to that effect at the present stage. The noble Lord, Lord Sherwood, attacked me and said that I had said that we would be introducing a Bill. I did interrupt the noble Lord to tell him that I had made a statement the day following the withdrawal of Lord Merthyr's Bill, but in spite of that interruption he still seemed to think that we had said that we would introduce a Bill.

LORD SHERWOOD

Certainly. The noble Earl did say so, quite definitely. I had no communication that he was going to alter Hansard in later editions. I said: Is the Government introducing a new Bill? and the noble Earl said: That is right, my Lords. Those are his actual words. I never heard from the noble Earl that it had been changed.

EARL ST. ALDWYN

if the noble Lord will study Hansard for the day following, he will see that, under the heading of "Rabbits (Prohibition of Spreading) Bill." I made the following statement [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 195, col. 1204]: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to rectify something which I said yesterday. During the discussion on the Rabbits (Prohibition of Spreading) Bill, my noble friend Lord Merthyr said that he would be introducing another Bill which would have Government support. At the end of the discussion, the noble Lord, Lord Sherwood, asked me a question. I thought he said, 'Are the Government supporting the new Bill? ', whereas when I looked at the OFFICIAL REPORT I find that what, in fact, he said was, My Lords, is the Government introducing a new Bill?' I gave the answer, 'That is right, my Lords.' Obviously that answer would apply only to what I thought the noble Lord had said, but not, in fact, to what he said.

LORD SHERWOOD

I certainly apologise to the noble Earl for not having seen his correction. As a matter of fact, I went away, and I did not see the Hansard of that day; nor did I hear from the noble Earl of the firm statement that he had made in correction. But quite clearly I see that he subsequently said he found that he could not carry out his word.

THE EARL OF AIRLIE

My Lords, surely it is up to a person who takes part in the debate to make himself conversant with what happens afterwards, and it is surely only courtesy to read Hansard the next day.

LORD SHERWOOD

That is what I did, and if the noble Earl looks, I think he will find those words. I cannot go on reading Hansard for weeks.

EARL ST. ALDWYN

I feel I ant entitled to assume that noble Lords read their Hansard.

The noble Lord raised another point, with which I am sure my noble friend will be dealing in more detail later but on which I should like to say a word or two; that is, the old business of the poor little child who loses a rabbit. As I read this Bill, it says under Clause 1 (1) (c): he turns loose a wild rabbit". How anybody can interpret that phrase as meaning allowing a rabbit to escape is quite beyond me. "Turning loose" must be a deliberate act. No doubt my noble friend Lord Merthyr will have more to say on that point, but to me they are two completely different things. I do not think I need detain your Lordships further, except to say, in conclusion, that I congratulate my noble friend on the excellence of his Bill, and I feel we all owe him a debt of gratitude for the trouble he has taken over it. I would urge your Lordships to reject the Amendment to the Motion.

4.47 p.m.

EARL DE LA WARR

My Lords, a great deal has been said about rabbits in your Lordships' House. This is a moderate and limited Bill, and I shall therefore content myself by being extremely brief; in fact, I have only one point to make. As I am in favour of the Bill, and as the noble Lord, Lord Sherwood, has spoken against it, it may be that I ant expected to combat some of his arguments. However, if the noble Lord will forgive rue for saying so, I was quite unable to discover a single relevant point in his speech, and so perhaps I may be released from that obligation. So far as I can see, the noble Lord wants to do away with rabbits, but he is against a Bill that stops people from spreading them. His main point against the Bill seems to be that the Government have not introduced it.

I was in some doubt whether I should sneak at all until I heard the speech of Ore noble Earl. Lord St. Aldwyn. I am sure many of your Lordships will be disappointed to hear that he is not in a position to give an assurance that the Government will find time for this useful measure. As the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, said, it is no good having Government support for the Bill, and it is no good your Lordships passing it, unless we know that time will be found for it in another place. I do not think any of us questions for a moment the harm that rabbits have done and can do in this country; nor would we question that there are considerable signs throughout the length and breadth of the country that rabbits are returning. I think the likelihood is that they are going to beat us. Do not let us indulge in the crazy folly of making the battle against rabbits impossible for ourselves by allowing them to be bred and spread about the country. The Bill deals solely with this subject, and it is a small Bill. It must be quite uncontroversial, and I would ask the noble Earl once again to approach his colleagues and bring his great persuasive powers to bear upon them to allow time for this small but useful measure.

4.50 p.m.

LORD SEMPILL

My Lords, I am grateful, as all your Lordships are, for the opening speech by the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, which explained in such clear terms exactly what the Bill intends, which I confess I had not fully understood until hearing the noble Lord's speech. But despite all that has been said, I find myself—although apparently the only one who has spoken so far to-day to take up this position—in support of the suggestion submitted by the noble Lord, Lord Sherwood. In my view, your Lordships should be very chary about agreeing to the Bill by virtue of the fact that it imposes considerable penalties. I feel, with Lord Sherwood, whilst completely agreeing with what the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, wants to do, that it can be done without the necessity for this Bill.

LORD HURCOMB

My Lords, it appears to me that the arguments for this Bill are overwhelming. If there is a policy for preventing the future pullulation of rabbits, which could so easily occur, what is the sense of deliberately leaving a gap in the fence? My object in addressing your Lordships for a moment or two this afternoon is to raise a point which will no doubt be dealt with in the Committee stage of the Bill, but which also has a larger aspect. I refer to the question of exempting from penalties action taken for scientific purposes. There is a scientific purpose which is not connected with vivisection or experimentation of any kind, but relates to the management of national or other nature reserves. The control and management of the rabbit within such areas would, in accordance with action taken in somewhat analogous cases, perhaps be better left to the authorities responsible for those reserves rather than to the Agricultural Minister. Her Majesty's Government, I know, are well alive to this point and have considered it sympathetically in a practical way in other cases, and I am sure that it will receive all the consideration it deserves, both from the Ministers concerned and from the noble Marquess, the Lord President of the Council. I ought to mention that, as a member of the Nature Conservancy, I am responsible to him, and I have confidence that a simple solution will be found.

That brings me to a rather wider point. I feel that it would be unnecessary, in the interests of agriculture or forestry, or of any other economic interests, to aim at the complete extermination of every rabbit in every part of the British Isles. There may be islands—not remote ones, not like the Isle of Wight, but islands off the coast—where the land is of no agricultural value, or of negligible agricultural value, and where it might be necessary and expedient to allow the rabbit population to continue. This disappearance of the rabbit is probably the biggest ecological change that the country has seen in the lifetime of anyone here. It is having enormous effects. We do not quite know what all those effects will be. They certainly deserve study, and it may well be advisable to have controlled experiments in suitable areas where the absence and the continuation of the rabbit may be closely compared. The point I mention is not a theoretical one; it has actually arisen. If the matter is left wholly in the hands of county pest officers, they might well, in their enthusiasm, want to extend their activities to places which have no materiality at all to the interests of agriculture or forestry but might be damaging to the interests of science. I mention that as something perhaps outside the scope of this particular Bill but as a point which I venture to think it is not improper to mention when your Lordships are reviewing the whole of public policy in this matter. I support my noble friend Lord Merthyr in the Bill.

THE EARL OF HADD1NGTON

My Lords, I also wish to support the noble Lord's Bill, because I think it is a very sound Bill in principle. There are only two points I wish to make. The first has been brought out by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. To me it has not been made sufficiently clear why it is a more heinous offence actually to trade in a rabbit, to buy or sell it, than deliberately to turn one out on the land. In the first case the maximum penalty is £50 and in the latter case, which seems to me far more likely to produce multiplication, it is only £20. It seems to me it ought to be the other way round. The other point is this. It is apparently quite lawful under the Bill deliberately to turn loose on the land a rabbit which has been bred and brought up in capitivity —all these clauses refer only to wild rabbits. I do not think a wild rabbit is so fastidious in its affections that it would devote its attention only to another wild rabbit. I know that wild, rabbits breed with tame rabbits. When tame rabbits escape, the wild rabbit breeds with them and the rabbits multiply just the same—rabbits are rather promiscuous. This point may be a possible defect in the Bill, but I think the Bill is sound in principle and therefore I intend to vote in favour of giving it a Second Reading to-day.

THE EARL OF AIRLIE

My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, winds up, I want to support the plea made by the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, to the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, to use whatever influence he can with the Government to persuade them to find time for this Bill in another place. Otherwise, what is the good of us coming here? The Government say that they are behind agriculture. If they are, let them implement what they say. I am a countryman, and I knew what good has already been done by the provision of these rabbit clearance areas. I know what a tremendous effect they hive on grass and trees. I am trying to plant 400 acres a year. We have got to do what we can with the rabbit. Unless the other place pass this Bill as quickly as possible, the time will be lost. I hope the noble Earl will use all the persuasion he can.

VISCOUNT GAGE

My Lords, I want to ask one question. I should like to know whether a conjuror taking a rabbit from one place to another for the purpose of producing it out of a hat is liable under Clause 1 (b) to severe penalty.

LORD MERTHYR

My Lords, with the permission of the House I will reply very briefly to some of the points raised in this debate. I should like to thank all those noble Lords who have taken part, on whichever side they have spoken. The noble Lord, Lord Sherwood, raised three points on which I should like to comment. He said that he objected to the penalty for an act for which a man cannot be held responsible. But why cannot the man be held responsible? If a man takes a rabbit and puts it in a container, and then puts it in a lorry and takes it from one place to another and there releases it—and that is the sort of action I am aiming at—why cannot: he be held responsible? I do not understand that.

With regard to the deliberate turning loose of the rabbit, the noble Lord, Lord Sherwood, asked: "Who is going to be the culprit? What about the young child?", and so forth. There is a point there, I concede, but I do not think it is so important a point as the noble Lord thinks. Those who have to make a decision as to whether to prosecute a child do so, I think, in the light of common sense and in the light of humanity; and those magistrates who have to make a decision on whether or not to convict a child would, I think, on the whole, act likewise. As to the parent, whilst it is true that there is an obscure provision in the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, which allows in certain cases a parent to be penalised for the action of a child, I know it is rarely used and I cannot think that in this particular case it is likely to be much used. With that exception, the answer to the noble Lord is that the parent is in no jeopardy.

I must give the noble Lord his point about hares. It is perfectly true that if there are hares the cost of the wire will not be saved by the disappearance of rabbits, because hares are not affected by myxomatosis. I can give him that point only to a limited extent, because in the area in which I live there are no hares whatsoever—a hare has never been seen. Therefore I save my money by the absence of rabbits, although the noble Lord, Lord Sherwood, does not. The noble Lord, Lord Sempill, said that all I want to do can be done without this Bill, but he did not add how it can be done. I do not know whether he is in a position to inform us how it can be done. I can only say that what I seek to make a criminal offence is not now a criminal offence. I do not know whether he can enlighten us on Committee stage, if there is a Committee stage, how it can be done.

The noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, raised an interesting point about the possibility of keeping rabbits on outlying islands and other similar places for experimental purposes. In my view, the licensing provision covers that, because the Bill says: Subsection (1) … shall not render unlawful the doing of anything for scientific purposes under … a licence. In my view—I may possibly be wrong —that will cover the experiments on outlying islands which the noble Lord has in mind. At any rate, if I am wrong, we should certainly look into that matter. The noble Earl, Lord Haddington, raised points about the difference between the two offences. I can well understand that some people will think that the figures are relatively inappropriate. That is a point of view, and the noble Earl is undoubtedly entitled to it. I can only say that, if there is a Committee stage, I shall be glad to look into the matter. On the whole, I favour the figures in the Bill, but I realise at once that some people will agree with the noble Earl and say that they might be equal, or even the other way round, though I should hesitate to say that. Finally, I must admit complete defeat on the point raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Gage.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

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