Lords Sitting of 30 January 1962

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Durham
The Earl Haig—Took the Oath.

VEHICLES' EXHAUST FUMES
2.35 p.m.
LORD GRENFELL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government—

(1) If it is a fact that cars for export to the U.S.A. are being fitted with a device to cut down the dangerous pollution caused by exhaust fumes;

(2) If research has shown that the device is effective both for petrol and for diesel;

(3) If so, whether Her Majesty's Government will consider making this a required fitting to vehicles for the home market.]

THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM): My Lords, as the answer to parts (1) and (2) of the noble Lord's Question is in the negative, the answer to part (3) must necessarily be the same.
LORD GRENFELL: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for his Answer, I would say that it must be that the papers which described this device were wrong. It was stated in the daily papers that cars were being exported with this device fitted to them.
LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, I do not wish to appear in any way discourteous to my noble friend. I would suggest either that the papers to which he refers were wrong, or else that there has perhaps been, if I may suggest it, some slight technical confusion between the elimination of exhaust fumes and fumes of other types which are not covered by the Question we are discussing.

SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH AND DISARMAMENT
2.37 p.m.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many scientists of Scientific Officer Class (or equivalent) are employed on research for disarmament, and whether this number is comparable with the 1,937 similar scientists who appear, from Appendix IV of the Report of the Committee on the Management and Control of Research and Development, to be employed on research for rearmament.]
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, scientific research into problems connected with defence cannot be classified into research for disarmament and research for rearmament. If necessary, the whole scientific resources of the country are available for these purposes, and a varying number of defence scientists is, in fact, employed at different times on questions relating to disarmament. For the reasons given above, I could not accept the total of 1,937 scientists referred to in the noble Lord's Question as being employed for rearmament. A very great deal of the research into defence problems is of value equally to disarmament and to military defence.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, can the Government give the House any rough indication, in terms of man-hours or man-days, of the amount of time spent on research in developing weapons systems and on research into the technical difficulties of alternative forms of defence which I will call disarmament?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I would agree with the noble Lord that disarmament is just as much a policy for national security, if it can be effectively achieved, as is the development of a weapons system; but, for the reasons I gave in my original answer, I do not think it would be in any way possible to turn into man-hours the kind of question which the noble Lord has

997
asked. My own knowledge of defence problems is to some extent limited, I must confess, but almost all defence research, even when it is directly concerned with the evolution of a new weapons system, is also concerned with the detection of the weapons system in the hands of another Power, and that is almost directly related to questions of disarmament.

N.A.T.O.: THE CONVENTION OF DISTINGUISHED CITIZENS
2.40 p.m.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have received the Report and Recommendations of the Convention of Distinguished Citizens from the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Nations which met at Paris from the 8th to the 20th January 1962, and, if so, whether they will publish the Report and Recommendations as a White Paper.]
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, the Report was received last week and it is now being studied. While Her Majesty's Government have great sympathy with the aims of the Convention, they are of course not bound by its recommendations. Since the Report and Recommendations are unofficial, I think that it would be inappropriate to publish them as a White Paper. I have, however, arranged for copies to be placed in the Printed Paper Office of your Lordships' House.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Earl for his reply. But can he tell me whether the Government propose to take any steps at all to get the recommendations of this Report made more public other than merely providing copies in the Printed Paper Office?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I shall be making a speech on the subject in the debate tomorrow, and I hope the noble Lord will listen to it in due course.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS BOROUGH: My Lords, would it not be interesting for Parliament to know exactly what method is used in selecting distinguished citizens for this purpose, and what their particular qualifications are for the job they are supposed to be doing?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I think their qualifications generally are that they are very distinguished.

COMMON MARKET AND AGRICULTURAL POLICY
2.42 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS BOROUGH: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government when a statement will be made giving the heads of the agreement on a common agricultural policy between Common Market countries.]
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, the agreements on a common agricultural policy reached by the members of the European Economic Community have not yet been published. We are informed that the provisional texts are to be examined by a special Committee composed of jurists and linguists from the member countries, with a view to the simultaneous issue of definitive texts in the four Community languages, and that these texts are unlikely to be available for some little time. As soon as the texts are published copies in French will be placed in the Library of the House, and as soon as a translation into English can be prepared copies of this also will be placed in the Printed Paper Office of the House. Because these texts were not available it was decided that the next ministerial meeting in our negotiations would not be held until February 22, to give us time to study the texts and to allow the Six to have consultations among themselves.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS BOROUGH: My Lords, does it not appear from that that it may well be the case that, before these publications are available in English, the Government will have practically concluded their negotiations upon the matters covered by the agreement arrived at by the Six countries?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I should hope not. I should hope that the translation will be available to the House in a reasonable time. As I have said, the meeting which was to be held earlier has been postponed until February 22, in order that we may have consultations among ourselves upon the text as it finally emerges from the translators. I hope that that will give time for Her Majesty's Government to consider the position and for Parliament to be acquainted with the full text.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS BOROUGH: My Lords, I gather that the Lord Privy Seal is to resume these negotiations on February 22, just over three weeks ahead. Am I to understand that he will do so, before having consulted in detail either the National Farmers' Union or the National Union of Agricultural Workers on the matters which he is going to negotiate upon? Do these bodies already know the terms? Have they been informed, or are they being informed; and if so, in what detail?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, the Question on the Order Paper that I am answering relates to "the heads of the agreement on a common agricultural policy," and asks when they will be made available. The answer I have given is that we want to be certain that we have the right text. Therefore we are waiting for the authoritative translation of these arrangements which have been arrived at between the Six. I hope that it will be available in a comparatively short time. If the noble Viscount will allow me, I should like to consult my right honourable friend the Lord Privy Seal as to what consultations he will be having before he goes to his meeting on February 22, and perhaps if the noble Viscount likes to put down another Question after I have had these consultations, I shall be in a better position to answer him.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS BOROUGH: My Lords, I will repeat the Question for Thursday. But I wish to ask the indulgence of the House to point out to the Foreign Secretary that the constituents on both the farmers' side and the workers' side are exceedingly anxious about this matter. If we could be told that they are now in possession of the full details of the agreement, however they have got them, and will be consulted by the Minister representing the Government in the negotiations before he goes, it may give them a little more confidence. In any case, I think the present position is very unsatisfactory.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, what I think is absolutely essential is to have the authoritative text and the authoritative translation, so that we all know exactly what we are talking about. When we have that, no doubt my right honourable friend the Lord Privy Seal will decide whether it is right and proper for him, and whether it is desirable for him, to consult various organisations. I should like to have a word with him about that before I answer any further questions.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I should like to inform the House that my noble friend Lord Mills will be making a statement about the possible merger of I.C.I. and Courtaulds at about half-past three o'clock.

ANIMALS (CRUEL POISONS) BILL [H.L.]
2.46 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: My Lords, I am not certain that I should not start by apologising for asking your Lordships to give a Second Reading to a Bill that would add a number of regulations to an already overcrowded list of laws and regulations which have to be obeyed, and one more Committee, one more cog in an administrative machine which is already overburdened. On the other hand, I think that we

1001
should all wish to prevent unnecessary cruelty being inflicted on man or beast, and what this Bill does is to provide that some unnecessary cruelty should not be perpetuated.
It is a curious thing about the British nation that few things arouse more anger and more disgust than cruelty to animals. Indeed, we seem to be more exercised about cruelty to animals than we are about cruelty to men. I have one or two rather sophisticated friends who are foreigners and who are only too apt to point out to me that the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals 'was founded in 1824, but it was not until 1884, 60 years later, that the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children was founded. I suppose that there are few of us who at one time or another have not lost our tempers and made a scene when we have seen some deliberate cruelty being inflicted upon a dog or horse. It is part and parcel of our life in this country that unnecessary cruelty to animals should be resisted.
As its Title indicates, this Bill deals with poisons. Few people who poison animals are deliberately inflicting cruelty. The animal which takes poison dies out of sight and out of mind, and its sufferings are not seen; but they are none the less sufferings, for all that. The general law relating to cruelty to animals, as your Lordships will know, protects only domestic animals and animals which are captive—that is to say, animals which have been tamed sufficiently to be of use to man, or animals which are in captivity or otherwise under restraint. It is already an offence, under the appropriate Act, to cause suffering to such animals, and the administering of poison is one of the things which is certain to cause suffering to animals, although the killing of domestic animals by veterinary surgeons, say, by poison, is excluded as being for a reasonable cause.
Wild animals, on the other hand, are not protected by the Cruelty to Animals Act, although it is an offence to lay down poison except for rats, mice and other small vermin. The position, therefore, is that domestic or captive animals may be deliberately killed by poison, if that is thought the most efficacious method, but it is illegal to lay down poison for any other wild animal than rats, mice and small vermin.
1002
Your Lordships may remember that some ten years ago, following discussions in another place on the ethics of fox-hunting and stag-hunting a Committee was set up to inquire into practices or activities which might involve cruelty to wild animals. Among the practices which that Committee had to investigate was the laying down of poison. The Committee came to the conclusion that in many cases the practice of laying down a poison for wild animals caused considerable unnecessary cruelty, and in their Report, published in 1951, included among their recommendations the following:
"Steps should be taken to confer upon an appropriate Minister, or Ministers, power to make regulations authorising or prohibiting the use of particular poisons for killing wild animals."
Another recommendation was:
"Before this power is exercised the use of particular poisons and the degree of suffering involved should be carefully examined by a committee of experts."
All this Bill does is to implement those recommendations of that Committee, eleven years after the Report was published. Clause 2 sets up the appropriate committee. Clause 3 gives the Secretary of State the power to make regulations, and the penalty for infringement is set out in Clause 1.
Some of the poisons in general use are exceedingly cruel, and I do not desire to harrow your Lordships with descriptions of their effect, because they make unpleasant reading. However, your Lordships might like the scientific opinion on some of them. One of the commonest poisons used for the destruction of rats and the like is red squill. Although to-day there are less cruel and more effective poisons available, it is still used. The Bureau of Animal Population of the University of Oxford, most of whose staff were engaged on pest destruction during the recent war, lately published a booklet on rats and mice in which they say that red squill is a very cruel poison. It states:
"Red squill is a very cruel poison—death only supervenes after several days."
Some of your Lordships may read Shopper's Guide: it is not a very scientific publication, on the face of it, but the producers do consult scientists of

1003
repute. A recent issue dealing with poisons for rats and mice says:
Red squill is perhaps the cruellest of poisons. A rat may be in agony continuously for up to five days."
That is a poison which I think anybody knowing anything about it will admit need no longer be used, and yet there is at present no way of preventing its use. That is another of my arguments. There is a poison known to cause much suffering, and one for which there are adequate alternatives, inflicting much less suffering; yet it is still used because no machinery exists to prevent its use. The alternatives themselves are comparatively recent discoveries, and they, too, inflict a certain amount of suffering on the animals which take them. Other new poisons are constantly being discovered or invented. I contend that there should be some machinery to keep all these things constantly under review.
It is a curious commentary on the state of the law, my Lords, that a research worker wishing to use red squill to kill laboratory animals would have to get a licence from the Home Office, and that licence would be refused, because too much suffering would be caused by doing it. Yet any one of us can buy this poison over the counter in any town in England and use it widespread to kill rats, mice and other small vermin.
Another poison, strychnine, is used to kill moles and seals among wild animals; and it is used, to a certain extent, to kill such creatures as dogs and cats which have to be destroyed because they are sick or old. The Committee on Cruelty to Wild Animals made particular reference to strychnine, which causes a great deal of suffering, and one of their recommendations was that the advisory committee which they urged should be set up should make an investigation into this particular poison and decide whether its continued use should be allowed. As long ago as 1937 a committee was appointed by the British Veterinary Association to investigate the whole problem of the euthanasia of small domestic animals. They reported that strychnine poisoning was known to cause excrutiating pain in men; that it appeared to have the same effect upon animals, and they strongly deprecated its use. One could quote scientific and
1004
other opinion on the extreme cruelty involved on the extensive use of strychnine as a killer.
Bills similar to this one have been introduced before in another place, and they included clauses providing that strychnine should no longer be used. I am not myself satisfied that for some purposes there is a suitable alternative to strychnine. In any case, I feel that it is not proper to forbid its use in an Act of Parliament, but that one should follow the recommendations of the Committee on Cruelty to Wild Animals and appoint a committee to investigate this particular poison and see whether a suitable alternative could be found. I say that having seen the results of its use. Some time ago I had to have an old dog destroyed, and I allowed strychnine to be used because I was told it caused instantaneous death and no pain. That most certainly was not true. Again I do not wish to harrow your Lordships with a description of what happened, because I prefer to forget it.
My Lords, there is not one of us who is not moved by the suffering of a dog, a horse or some animal of that nature; but the reactions of most of us to animal suffering are, I think, full of inconsistencies, and certainly the Committee on Cruelty to Wild Animals afforded abundant proof of that. They had a mass of evidence about cruelty to animals, such as deer, foxes and rabbits, which are beautiful and attractive creatures. They had practically no evidence about rats, which fill most people with a feeling of disgust, although, as they put it, rats are intelligent animals and probably suffer a good deal more pain than some of the other animals which attract more sentimental interest.
I must confess that I am as inconsistent as any man in my outlook of what are called usually the lower animals. I shoot; I fish, and I have been a master of hounds. I know that vermin must be destroyed if agriculture and forestry are to prosper, and, indeed, for public health reasons as well. I suppose that thousands or tens of thousands of rats, mice and other small vermin have been shot, trapped, poisoned or otherwise killed on my land. I do not think it is ethically wrong for man to kill animals for food, to protect his craps, or even for sport. But I do think it is wrong

1005
that he should cause unnecessary suffering in so doing, and this Bill is designed to prevent some unnecessary suffering. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Cranbrook.)
3.2 p.m.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, I should like to support the noble Earl who has presented this Bill to the House in a speech which I think was extremely moderate and well-balanced. It is now more than ten years ago since the Committee which investigated this question reported, and it seems to me to be time that something was done upon its recommendations, which were unanimous, and which I think took account of all the factors involved. I do not want to argue whether there is a difference of kind or degree in the infliction of suffering upon animals as compared with man, but I think that most people in this country regard the wanton and unnecessary infliction of cruelty upon animals as repugnant and unethical. That is not to say that it may not be economically necessary to destroy wild animals, or other animals for that matter. But I am sure that none of us would like to see unnecessary suffering caused in the process.
So far as I am concerned, I am not going to assert that there are many cases in which suffering is want only and deliberately inflicted; but in many cases I have no doubt that it is done quite unwittingly. Poisons which have these distressing results are sold freely and recommended for the purpose of destroying certain kinds of animals. They are no doubt bought in good faith by many people who do not appreciate what is involved. All this Bill proposes to do is to set up machinery for a proper scientific investigation of the effect of poisons which may be used for these purposes, and to eliminate those which cause unnecessary suffering. That is the recommendation which the Committee made in 1951, and I cannot imagine that there is any sound objection against putting that recommendation upon our Statute Book.
I understand that this Bill is supported by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, which is a body of the highest standing and most sensible
1006
in its outlook upon these questions. I believe that a question has been raised about making express provision in the constitution of the Advisory Committee for the representation of people who are interested in agriculture and forestry. That is a matter which no doubt the House can, if necessary, consider in Committee. But I sincerely hope that the House will agree to give a Second Reading to the Bill which the noble Earl has so excellently proposed.
3.7 p.m.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I am sorry to strike a note of caution in this debate. I do so for this reason. Some time ago I was brought into real connection with rats. It is one thing to have a few rats in your house and to try this, that and the other method of getting rid of them. That is difficult enough, as most of us know. But at one time in my life I was living next to a neighbour who had a large number of pigs. I have seen rats moving in thousands every night, and I do not think anybody who has not seen that can have any conception of what it means. It was impossible to leave any foodstuffs about, and one's corn in one's stacks was greatly consumed. It is very difficult to get rid of rats. After all, the country has recognised that, because it has appointed a ratcatcher—I think he is called a "rodent officer"—tor every county. But he is not penalised if there are rats found in the county; he merely comes along and gives advice, and it does not much matter to him whether it is successful or not.
When you are making war upon rats, there is one thing which you learn by experience, and that is that whatever means you employ for getting rid of rats, in a very short time they are wise to them and you have to shift your ground and try another means. I am bound to say that I have found strychnine to be far the best at first attempt. But I think it would be a very unwise thing to prevent men from preserving themselves from rats by any means by which they could do it, because, as my noble friend Lord Cranbrook said, the rat is a wise animal and highly intelligent, and there may come a time—and I should not be in the least surprised if it did—when it will be a question of whether man or

1007
rats shall survive. I think that if rats multiply to that extent it might become a very difficult problem. As it is, they cause an enormous amount of damage every year, and I should be very sorry to see your Lordships adopt a Bill which might set difficulties in the way of men whose business and whose existence depend upon their keeping down the rat population.
3.10 p.m.
LORD BURDEN: My Lords, I think it would be a mistake to assume that those of us who are supporting this Bill have any desire that the rat population should be increased, or that we are in any way opposed to the proper extermination of the rat population. All this Bill is trying to do, as was emphasised by the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, and by my noble friend Lord Douglas of Barloch, is to avoid unnecessary suffering, so far as the extermination of rats is concerned, though as we are not likely to get the Pied Piper of Hamelin to deal with the rat problem, the killing by some kind of poison must go on.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord, as he is answering me? Will he perhaps, in the course of his speech, mention any single poison that is always, and continuously, effective against the rat population, because I have never found such a poison?
LORD BURDEN: I wanted only to make quite clear that this Bill is based upon recommendations made some ten or eleven years ago by a very powerful Committee which studied this problem in all its aspects and I should like, if the House will permit me, to read just a short extract from their Report. It says:
"We think it is very desirable that some authority should be responsible for the controlling of poisons for the destruction of wild animals and that as new poisons are continually being invented the competent authority should have the power to make regulations authorising and prohibiting the use and control of poisons. This would enable the list of approved poisons to be kept under review so that some which had previously been authorised could be prohibited and the use of more suitable new poisons authorised instead. In this way the use of poisons which are not effective with the minimum amount of suffering could be prevented."
1008
The Report went on:
"It will obviously be desirable for who ever exercises these powers to be advised by a panel of experts."
May I just conclude by saying that that extract and the Bill itself show no sentimental desire to maintain or increase the rat population but only to assist the necessary work of reducing, if not minimising, the menace in the best possible manner without undue suffering.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, one question? How does he reconcile his humane speech with fox hunting?
VISCOUNT STONEHAVENMy Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, asked for the name of a rat poison which is continuously effective. I can tell him one which, so far as I know, has been continuously effective for ten years if properly used. It must be applied properly by somebody who knows what he is doing and must be continually applied. The answer, although I will not give the trade name, is warfarin, which is the basis of all that type of rat bait.
3.15 p.m.
LORD DOWDING: My Lords, I want to go on record as supporting this Bill and shall vote for it if it comes to a Division. But I want to invite attention to another aspect of the subject which has not hither to been mentioned in this debate; that is to say, the esoteric side. It is the question: why Should animals be poisoned at all? Is there no alternative?
A few years ago I read a book published in America entitled Kinship with All Life. It was a very interesting book. It dealt with a number of different aspects of animal life and the contacts which the author had made with them. I am going to mention only one of those contacts at present, and the story went as follows. This man had gone out to work in the morning and when he came back to lunch he found a stream of ants pouring into his house. When he got inside he found that they were swarming all over his larder and had made all the food there quite uneatable. He had to go out again to get some lunch and came back seething with indignation against these ants. Then he thought to himself, why should he be angry with

1009
these creatures. They were only following their own natural instincts, and he tried to clear his mind of anger against the ants. He talked to them and said how much he admired their industry, their communal spirit, the way they carried out their work and so on. He wished they would see his side of the case, that they had ruined his lunch and that he had had to go out and get food elsewhere, and so on. He asked them if they would leave his house alone in future. Nothing happened that day; they were swarming all over the house just the same. The next day there was not an ant in the place and for months afterwards, for as long as he inhabited that house, there was never an ant in the house although the houses in the neighbourhood suffered as before when there was a plague of ants.
That was a very interesting story but it was in an American book and, of course, not everything which appears in American books is necessarily true. I did not pay much attention to it as there did not seem to be any affirmatory evidence of this very extraordinary story. But then I began to collect some very significant affirmatory evidence, some of which was personal. My wife's mother used to keep chickens in her garden and she suffered in various houses to which she moved from the depredations of rats in the fowl-run. She had a very great dislike, amounting to fear, of rats and mice, and it was not easy for her to clear her mind of anger and prejudice. However, after watching them for some weeks and actually getting to know different individuals her outlook changed and eventually she spoke to the rats in the same sort of terms as this American had spoken to the ants. The effect was immediate. And that occurred in three separate houses at different times. She cleared her fowl-run of rats altogether. There is some affirinatory evidence, but I will add to that and say that we ourselves have cleared our house of mice and of silver fish by similar methods.
To turn to more general confirmatory evidence, in India it is possible to have one's garden cleared of snakes by giving a few rupees to a snake charmer, and in the same way one can secure protection for fruit and vegetables against raids by monkeys and wild pigs. If any of your Lordships can obtain this book. Kinship with All Life, I am sure you will
1010
find it extremely interesting even if you do not derive any other benefit from it. It struck me in this connection that possibly some of your Lordships would care to try these experiments on your own property. At any rate, it costs nothing.
3.20 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (EARL BATHURST): My Lords, my noble friend Lord Cranbrook has introduced into your Lordships' House this Bill, which perhaps could be called modest. On the other hand, there is no doubt that, if your Lordships see fit, it will go a considerable way in alleviating the suffering which undoubtedly is caused to animals when they are poisoned. The noble Earl has inspired a debate this afternoon which, as always in your Lordships' House, has produced a host of experts in their particular lines. The noble Earl has given what I think may be called the reasonable man's view; and may I say that it is a very informed view that he has put forward in your Lordship's House. I think this was also echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Burden, when he supported the noble Earl.
My noble friend Lord Cranbrook has ventured into a very difficult technical and scientific field. In such a field there are always experts, and it is my small experience that no two experts ever agree—indeed, we have the noble Earl on one side and the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, from Scotland on another side. So far as the experts are concerned, I cannot understand how an expert came to advise my noble friend to have his dog put down by strychnine; and, if he did, how he could have been advised not to use a sufficient quantity. It is problems of that sort with which we get involved when entering upon this field.
As the noble Earl said, there have been previous Bills with the same aim and object as this Bill. Those Bills have foundered because they mentioned strychnine. My noble friend's Bill does not mention strychnine, and I fancy that it is nearer to receiving the acclamation of both Houses and the countryside as a result of that omission. My noble friend Lord Stone haven mentioned (as I have said, there is always, in every field, an expert

1011
in your Lordships' House and he is certainly one in the chemical field) the new range of poison substances known as warfarin. It may be that in certain cases those poisons will be able to supersede strychnine, but that will be something for the experts to decide.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Dowding, as always, gave us a most interesting and original idea; I appreciate all that he says, and I am one who firmly believes that there is something in these extraordinary powers which some people do possess both over animals and in the human field. Nevertheless, I must ask the noble and gallant Lord this question: if we all set about acquiring the powers which he mentions shall we not merely push all our rats and other tire some vermin and rodents upon some other unfortunate individual who has not these powers?
LORD DOWDING: A very pertinent observation, if I may say so. I did not say that, on the last occasion, after my wife's mother had cleared her fowl-run of rats, a neighbour said to her next day, "I can't think what has happened. My garden is suddenly swarming with rats".
EARL BATHURST: I rather see the noble Lord's point of view. There are occasions, I imagine, when it might be most useful to have a friend with the powers of the noble Lord's friend, and perhaps I shall have occasion to get in touch with him some day. I think it is true to say that where a genuine need for a measure of protection has been shown, and where a practicable scheme for implementing it could be devised a measure has reached the Statute Book. My noble friend mentioned some measures, but there are many others.
The Bill has been most ably and persuasively explained by my noble friend, and I do not intend to go again through all its details, as he has already done so. The object is to give my right honourable friend the Home Secretary power to designate certain poisons as cruel poisons if he is satisfied that they are cruel in operation and that suitable alternative methods of destruction are available. The result of such designation would be that any person who used a Poison with intent to kill or injure any animal would commit an offence.
1012
The Bill makes no distinction between wild and domestic animals. It is intended to implement some of the recommendations made by the Committee on Cruelty to Wild Animals, which the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, mentioned, whose Report was presented to Parliament in 1951. Those recommendations were that steps should be taken to confer upon the appropriate Ministers power to make regulations authorising or prohibiting the use of particular poisons for killing wild animals, and in particular that consideration should be given to the need to use strychnine for poisoning seals and moles.
With regard to wild animals, and the poisoning of wild animals, the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, made an intervention to which it is not really my place to reply, and I have no doubt that my noble friend who introduced the Bill will reply to her. But should the noble Baroness be in any doubt I can assure her that if she came out one day, and I was lucky enough to show her a fox being killed—what a pity she was not out a little while ago, and I could have guaranteed it!—and we were then to go on to break the law and poison a fox by strychnine—or a dog; it comes to the same thing—there would be no doubt, at any rate in my mind, where cruelty lies. But that is digressing. It illustrates a major difficulty over this Report which has been referred to. So I shall deal only with the effect of this Bill in protecting wild animals. The underlying idea is that there should be machinery for ensuring the replacement, as and when adequate alternatives become available, of poisons which cause unnecessary suffering. The noble Viscount, Lord Stone haven, has suggested one. Let me say straight away that this aim is completely in accordance with the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
I will turn now to the existing legislation. First of all, there is the Protection of Animals Act, 1911, which makes it an offence to lay any poison except to kill rats, mice and other small ground vermin. My noble friend has already mentioned this. In practice, in England and Wales the only small ground vermin which are poisoned are rats, mice and moles, and, to a very limited extent, stoats, weasels and voles. Similar provisions exist in the Protection of

1013
Animals (Scotland) Act, 1912. The exception is somewhat wider in that it refers to "vermin and not to" small ground vermin". Under this wider exception it is also the practice in Scotland to poison seals and foxes. Secondly, the Protection of Birds Act, 1954, prohibits the use of poison for killing wild birds except under the licence of the competent Ministers, and I do not think that any such licences have been issued. Thirdly, the Prevention of Damage by Pests Act, 1949, enables the agricultural Ministers to prohibit methods that may be used by persons carrying on business as pest destroyers. The Ministers have not, however, had occasion to use this power in this limited field.
In addition to this restriction on the use of poisons some restriction on the supply of poisons can be applied under the Pharmacy and Poisons Act, 1933—for example, strychnine and sodium fluoracetate (to which I shall refer later as "1080") are subject to these severe restrictions. Apart from limited sale for medicinal and scientific purposes, the retail sale of strychnine is prohibited except to a person producing a certificate from the agricultural departments for the purpose of killing moles or, in Scotland, seals. Similarly, the retail sale of "1080" is prohibited except to a person producing a similar certificate. It is most commonly used for destroying rats in sewers and in ships. That is a difference between the two materials.
Briefly, then, the animals which may require the further protection are the rats, mice, moles, voles and, in Scotland, seals. The poison mainly used to-day against rats and mice is warfarin, to which I have already referred. This is regarded as relatively humane. The red squill, which my noble friend Lord Cranbrook mentioned, is a poison that is now relatively little used, although it was used widely for the reason that it was comparatively inoffensive to humans and to other animals at the time of the Committee's Report. However, warfarin is not effective against rats in certain circumstances, in particular in the sewers and in ships. In these cases "1080" has to be used. Warfarin is also not effective against moles or seals, so that the supply of strychnine is authorised for these purposes. Incidentally, I am told that rats and mice begin to be immune to war-
1014
farin, but I think that that is only in certain cases. That is one of the problems which Her Majesty's Government must remember when bearing in mind the point mentioned by my noble friend Lord Saltoun. On the other substances which the Committee on Cruelty to Wild Animals considered to cause unnecessary suffering, I understand that red squill is now practically never used.
As I have already told your Lordships, Her Majesty's Government's policy is, so far as is practicable, to replace poisons which cause unnecessary suffering. This involves two problems: first, whether aparticular poison does cause suffering—this is a question on which in relation to some substances there is disagreement among the experts; and, secondly, a search for satisfactory alternatives. Once a decision is reached that a particular substance causes suffering and it can be replaced, considerable powers exist to promote the use of the new substance. For example, should satisfactory alternatives to strychnine for the killing of moles become available the Ministry of Agriculture could cease to issue permits for the purchase of strychnine. The real difficulty at present appears to be not so much a lack of powers but a lack of satisfactory alternatives to certain poisons. Indeed, quite apart from the possibility of legal restrictions, it is difficult to believe that anyone would choose to kill animals with a substance which according to authoritative advice was likely to cause suffering, in preference to a more humane method. Human nature being what it is, my noble friend has brought forward his Bill.
It is for your Lordships to decide whether, having regard to the policy being pursued by the Government and to the powers which are already available, additional regulatory powers are really justified—as my noble friend said, another cog in the administrative machine. If your Lordships decide to give this Bill a Second Reading, there are a number of points of detail which will have to be considered in Committee. The two most important are these. First, Clause 2 provides for the appointment of the Animal Poisons Committee to recommend to the Home Secretary what poisons should be designated. This was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord

1015
Douglas of Barloch. On this recommendation of the Committee on Cruelty to Wild Animals, my right honourable friends already have, either in their Departments or through the existing advisory committees and services, access to technical advice on this subject, and we believe that the establishment of a new advisory body with such a narrow range of duties is hardly necessary. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, that in fact already on the Poisons Board all the interests are represented, including those of my right honourable friends at the Home Office and, in Scotland, at the Ministries of Health and of Agriculture, and all the medical and other professions concerned. As the noble Lord said, this is a Committee point and we will certainly look at that if it is raised by the noble Lord on Committee.
Secondly, it might add to the usefulness of this Bill to be able to designate a poison subject to certain exceptions. If a satisfactory alternative to strychnine could be found for killing moles yet was not effective against seals, under the Bill as it stands strychnine could not be designated by my right honourable friend; it would be necessary to wait until an alternative had been found for seals as well. This would seem to be bad luck for the moles. As the result of a suitable Amendment it might be desirable to introduce a partial prohibition as soon as the alternative method for the moles had become known. I hope that if this Bill receives a Second Reading the noble Earl will be prepared to consider this point which I have raised and others which may be necessary for his Bill to be workable.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, can he tell us whether or not the Government think that this Bill is unnecessary?
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, I think I have indicated quite clearly that it is up to your Lordships and to another place.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, should we not be entitled to a view from the Home Office, which at least will have to administer the Bill, whether they think it is a Bill which is or is not necessary?
3.40 p.m.
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, I think I can go no further than what I have already said. Quite obviously, if we are interested in the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Burden, my right honourable friend and your Lordships will draw a conclusion. If your Lordships are not interested in that, quite obviously my right honourable friend and others may draw a different conclusion. I hope I have put the case clearly.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS BOROUGH: My Lords, if we are going to have one or two more questions, could we now have the statement that was promised us from the other place?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, if that is convenient, my noble friend can make it now.

IMPERIAL CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES AND COURTAULDS
3.41 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD MILLS): With your Lordships' permission, I should like to read to you a statement which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend, the President of the Board of Trade. The statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the merger which I.C.I. have proposed with Courtaulds.
"Each of the companies concerned, in respect of the production of man made fibres, already has a sufficient share of the market to bring it with in the terms of the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices (Inquiry and Control) Act, 1948. Their merger, however achieved, would bring about a combination of exceptional size by the standards of this country. There have been no grounds hitherto for contemplating a reference to the Monopolies Commission of any sector of the production of man-made fibres, and the merits or demerits of a monopoly cannot in the view of Her Majesty's Government be fairly judged on grounds of size alone.
"It has been the policy of successive Governments in this country to judge monopolies, using

1017
the word in the sense of the 1948 Act, by their actual effects in practice, and not to attempt to reach conclusions on the possible effects of any particular monopoly before it has come into existence and there has been experience of its working. The 1948 Act is based on this policy.
"Her Majesty's Government have on consideration come to the conclusion that the circumstances of the offer which I.C.I. have announced their intention of making to the shareholders of Courtaulds, are not such as to justify them in departing from this well-established policy. They are satisfied that the advantages or disadvantages of a merger of the two companies, however it is achieved, can only be judged by results; and that there are no grounds for concluding in advance that the effects would be such as to require them to intervene on grounds of injury to the national interests. In reaching this conclusion they have had in mind the great and increasing competitive power of other countries in this field, and in addition the fact that there will be competition from units in this country which, though small in themselves, are subsidiaries of very large foreign countries.
"They have also had in mind the rights of users, either of primary materials or of finished products, to apply at any time for reductions in the level of the tariff.
"If the merger takes place, and if it operates in such a way that it appears to me to be acting against the public interest, then I would immediately make a reference to the Monopolies Commission.
If, after considering the report of the Monopolies Commission, the Government were to decide that it was necessary for them to intervene, they would ask Parliament for any additional powers that were required.
"The Government recognise the importance of the problems which surround the general subject of mergers, monopolies and restrictive practices. Certain aspects of this are already being considered by the Committee on Company Law which, I understand, will shortly be submitting its report. I am not going to anticipate
1018
the conclusions of Lord Jenkins and his colleagues.
"On the wider issues I had already put in hand a general review of policy in the light of experience gained in the five years since Parliament passed the Restrictive Trade Practices Act in 1956. This is a very large and complex subject and the review will clearly take some time. It will naturally have to cover the growth in recent years in the number of mergers and the implications of this development for the future health of the economy."
That, my Lords, is the statement.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS BOROUGH: My Lords, I am sure the House is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mills, for that statement, though it hardly seems to rate to deal effectively with the public anxieties which have been expressed in many parts of the community by all classes and in all types of trades and business. The desire of the Opposition, in this House—and in the other place too, I am sure—is that an Inquiry should be held into this matter. I think most of the statements made to us in this House this afternoon are undoubtedly true, but there are aspects of it which surely give rise to very big national considerations.
As I understand it, for example, this particular integration is commented upon by Messrs. Courtaulds in these words:
"The I.C.I. have said that complete control of the United Kingdom man-made fibres is necessary to avoid over-capacity and duplication. But by the same argument the I.C.I. could attempt to gain complete control of all other United Kingdom industries in which it is a supplier of chemical raw materials, paint and fertilisers being two examples."
This is the sort of thing that is being discussed by all classes of the population, as I have discovered on my journeys round the country. I do not want to take the line that we ought to do our best at once to defeat this proposal. What I do want is to have the facts thoroughly got at by an Inquiry. Whilst it is true that some steps are being taken to amend Company Law with regard to the general problem of take-over bids, I do not think that is going to meet this type of thing in relation to mergers.
I do not understand one part of the statement which refers to the size of

1019
the undertaking. One would think, from the way it was put, that the man made fibres industry is in itself a monopoly, or virtually a monopoly. But, in fact, Courtaulds are producing 83 per cent. of the man-made fibres of this country, and as to the remaining 17 per cent. only 13 per cent. is made by I.C.I., with 4 per cent. being made by other people. This shows a very different situation, and the kind of approach that is expected to be made in future by take over bidders who want to become the dominant factor in an industry in which their own interest is something like 13 per cent. of the total production in this country, seems to raise very great issues indeed. I feel that the Government ought to grapple with this problem before it begins to operate in a particular case, and should set up an Inquiry into the whole of the circumstances. I wish I had time to say more, but I think I have put enough of my view to the noble Lord, Lord Mills, for him to see what I want.
LORD MILLS: My Lords, I always listen with the greatest respect to what the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition has to say, and I have no doubt that he is convinced there should be an Inquiry into this matter. The Government carefully considered whether there would be any advantage in having an Inquiry. Their reason for rejecting the proposal was that they were satisfied that it would not serve a useful purpose, because, in their view, the matters which could, or might, cause disquiet lie in the future and not in the present. I think it would be an impossible task, whatever experts we gathered together, to expect them to reach firm and agreed conclusions on matters which have not yet taken place.
The noble Viscount referred to what is said in the statement about size. The statement said merely that size itself is no ground for submitting a case to the Monopolies Commission; what matters is how a monopoly acts. Of course, great changes are taking place in industry. Great movements have been taking place since the last century, and they have been very much accentuated since the war. I think many noble Lords would agree with me that, while there are cases of take-overs which we should
1020
be better without, others have undoubtedly strengthened the efficiency and the power of this country to compete.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord, the Minister, one or two questions. They are directed not so much as to whether this ought to be referred to the Monopolies Commission—because I agree that probably the Monopolies Commission can decide or report only on whether something that is already in existence and operating is doing harm or good—but as to whether, as a most important piece of planning and industrial policy, it is in the national interest that this amalgamation should take place.
The noble Lord referred to users. May I ask him these specific questions? First of all, have the Government considered, and if so what is the answer, whether this amalgamation would be in the national interest, in the sense of making this industry more efficient and more able to compete in the markets of the world? Secondly, these two great companies, whether operating together or separately, produce fibres which are used by an enormous range of industry, doing some of the most important export trade which this country possesses. Have the Government had discussions with the textile industry which uses these fibres, to ascertain whether, in the opinion of those in the industry, such an amalgamation is in the interest of the textile industry and the export trade of this country? Those are the questions that I should like to put to my noble friend.
LORD MILLS: My Lords, in reply to the noble Earl, and answering his first question, I would say that the Government have listened to the reasons put forward by the chairmen of these companies as to whether the merger is or is not desirable. As the noble Earl will know, while there are some differences of opinion as to whether the merger should take place on the terms proposed, there has been general agreement that there are advantages, in the interests of the companies and in the national interest, in their coming together both in production and in research.
Then the noble Earl asked me whether there had been consultations with the textile industry in relation to this proposed merger. I would remind the noble

1021
Earl that these two companies themselves constitute the greater part of the man-made fibre industry. But apart from the fact that the Board of Trade are constantly in touch with the textile industry, there has been no direct discussion with them on this particular question.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, could I put this point plainly to the noble Lord? I did not ask about the makers of the fibres; I asked about those branches of the textile industry which use the fibres which Courtaulds and the I.C.I. make.
LORD MILLS: My Lords, the reply to the noble Earl is that, apart, as I say, from the contacts which the Board of Trade regularly have with these industries, there has been no direct contact on this particular merger.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I hope that in view of the statements and replies which have been given, my noble friend will press for a day on which this whole matter can be debated. I think that it is of so great a national importance that the Government ought not to rush this through before we, have had a full opportunity of discussing it in this House, and possibly, of course, in another place.
I want to ask the noble Lord whether it is not a fact that, once the merger has taken place—that is, once the share holders of Courtaulds have disposed of their shares in some form or another to the I.C.1—it would be too late to "unscramble" the thing. The noble Lord says that he will see how it goes, and whether it is against the national interest. But even if it is, will it not then be too late to do anything? The noble Lord, Lord Mills, indicated that it may be necessary to pass legislation, which seems to show that at the present moment there is no power to do anything, even should it turn out, as a result of experience, that this merger was against the public interest. Is it not much wiser, therefore, to consider this merger before it is permitted, rather than to allow it to take place?
LORD MILLS: My Lords, my noble friend the Leader of the House will answer as to the question of a debate. In the statement which I repeated to your Lordships, my right honourable friend the President of the Board of
1022
Trade said that if it appeared to be in the public interest that something should be done about this, such as unscrambling" it, he would see that it was done; and, obviously, if it were necessary to take powers to carry that out, that would be done, too.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, would the noble Lord say whether the users of the man-made fibres have been consulted as to the consequences of this proposed merger?
LORD MILLS: My Lords, I have already been asked that question and I have answered it. I am sorry that the noble Lord did not hear it, but I do not think he will expect me to reply again.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, it is a fact that a monopoly position has arisen in the man-made fibre industry. is it not a fact that this has arisen through both of these companies in the course of years absorbing other companies in that industry? A monopoly position has been created. Both of these industries are groups. On one side there are the man-made fibres; on the other side there is paint, there is paper and there are plastics. A monopoly position exists in man-made fibre. After the statement which has been made by the Minister, would it not appear that I.C.I., when this merger has gone through, may go a head and absorb the paint industry, as it has done the man-made fibre industry? As we know, the Monopoly Commission are to-day unable to cope with this problem. Is it not obvious that an inquiry by the Government is urgently needed, not only into the position of I.C.I. but into the whole trend of developing monopoly, which is spreading right through production and the distributing trades of this country? The shoe industry and the bicycle industry are now becoming closed shops. Is it not time, in the interests not only of the consumer but of industry generally, that the Government had a full inquiry, so that a general policy, fair to consumer and fair to shareholder, can be adopted?
LORD MILLS: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, disagrees with the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and wants to debate this matter now. I think it would be better if it were debated at a later date. I

1023
have in front of me here a speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, on December 20, when he really covered this ground. I think it better, if we are going to debate it, to wait until we debate it on a Motion.
LORD SHEPHERD: My only fear is that the statement which has been made may make it appear to the I.C.I. that they could go on and on, absorbing more and more of the different sides of their industry.
LORD MILLS: Perhaps I had better say that I think the statement and any remarks of mine have not been calculated to encourage amalgamations of this sort, or to dissuade people from going into them.
LORD SILKIN: Could we have a reply to the point that the Government should make representations to I.C.I. that this matter should not be proceeded with pending discussion in this House, and possibly in another place?
LORD MILLS: No, my Lords, I cannot give that undertaking.
LORD SILKIN: Then what would be the purpose of a discussion at all?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: That is for the noble Lord to decide. His noble Leader has asked for a debate, and, of course, if the request is pursued through the usual channels I shall be happy to meet him in that respect. But I should be the last to think that a Parliamentary debate is of no purpose. We have the power of legislation in this Parliament, and Parliamentary discussions can elucidate whether or not we should legislate. I can see no reason to suppose that Parliamentary debate in this country is useless.
LORD SILKIN: Would the noble Viscount at least ask the I.C.I. to postpone any further operation until after the debate?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: No, my Lords.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord who stated that the Government were going to embark upon a review of policy on this matter what form that
1024
review is going to take, whether it will be published and will set out all the considerations, on one side or the other, and also how soon the review will be carried out?
LORD MILLS: My Lords, the Government are always reviewing policy in this and other matters, but they have no intention at present of setting up a Committee of Inquiry into this or related subjects other than the review that is already in progress.

ANIMALS (CRUEL POISONS) BILL [H.L.]
4.5 p.m.
Debate continued.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: My Lords, I cannot help first treading on the coat trailed by the noble Lady opposite —I almost said "rising to the fly she cast," but I have a feeling that she might object to the thought of casting a fly over anything at all. I do not live in a fox-hunting county, and in my part of the world we shoot them. However, we are only too apt to shoot them at a range which is too long for the weapon used, and I am quite convinced that a great deal more cruelty is inflicted on the foxes in my part of the world, where a large number go away wounded, than is inflicted in a fox-hunting county, where they do not suffer that fate. Indeed, if the noble Lady will look at the Report of the Committee to which reference has been made—and I presume she has it —she willsee that the Corn-mince said:
Fox-hunting makes a very important contribution to the control of foxes and involves less cruelty than other methods …".
and so on. I admitted that I was inconsistent. I hesitate to accuse the noble Lady of being inconsistent, but I have a feeling that, in opposing fox-hunting, she is being in consistent, and is suggesting the more cruel alternative that I see in my own part of the world.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl—I am quite sure he is very sincere in this matter—this point?
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: I have seen many foxes shot at.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: I was impressed by his sincerity, but, in view of the fact that he emphasised that the whole purpose of this Bill was to find the least painful mode of death, would he say that he thinks the least painful mode of death for a fox is for it to be chased and then torn to bits?
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: We are getting rather of the subject in this debate, but I will reply to that point once more. I entirely agree with the noble Lady that the least painful mode of death for a fox, or for her, or me, or anybody else, is to have a bullet through our head and to die on the spot; but that very seldom happens to a fox which is shot at. That is the trouble.
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, and to the other noble Lords who have supported me, and to the noble Lord who answered the point made by my noble friend Lord Saltoun. He, I think, ought to be thankful that what he has said in this House is privileged, because I am not quite certain what the law is in Scotland, but in England, at any rate, he could get strychnine, which is one of the poisons set out in the first Part of the Pharmacy and Poisons Act, only by saying that he required it for either moles or seals; and if he used it on rats, I am not sure he is not transgressing the law.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, may I say to the noble Earl that I was talking about the days before that Act was passed?
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: I suspected that that might be the case, because the noble Lord was obviously not using the more modern poisons.
The noble Earl who replied for the Government did not exactly damn with faint praise, and I think he accepted the necessity for this Bill, but, like every other noble Lord, or any other spokesman replying for the Government, he rather objected to that for which I did apologise—an additional Committee and additional regulations. He suggested that the Committee set up under the Pharmacy and Poisons Act might be a suitable Committee to use. I think that perhaps, on consideration, he might think that that was not an appropriate Committee. The Pharmacy and Poisons
1026
Act is the direct descendant of the Arsenic Act, 1851, which was passed not to protect wild animals but because there was a considerable use of arsenic just before that time for poisoning unwanted wives and husbands, and strict regulations were made for the sale of poisons. That is the type of poison with which the Pharmacy and Poisons Act deals. The Committee which advises the Home Secretary has to put those poisons into two categories.
I must apologise for dealing with what is really a Committee stage point here, but I think the noble Lord virtually made it a Second Reading point. The poisons are divided into two classes. Part of them are sold only by chemists, and the like, and the other part are sold by other people. The latter category is expressly provided for in the Pharmacy and Poisons Act, Section 17 (3), which says that these items are to be
"articles which are in common use, or likely to come into commonuse, for purposes other than the treatment of human ailments…."
Rat poisons, and the like, would come into that category.
The regulations which the Minister can make prohibit the sale only of poisons Which Dome into the other category, which comprises the strychnines, arsenics, and so on, which are extremely dangerous to human beings as well as animals, and the sale of which has to be controlled. So I do not think that the existing machinery would meet the case which I have made. Additional powers would have to be taken to prevent the sale of these poisons which are not so seriously poisonous that their use must be prescribed, and I think additional powers would have to be taken to prescribe them for the use of poisoning animals only, because some of them are used "for other purposes". That is a point which we can discuss at a later stage, but I think some compromise between what the noble Earl said and what is in the Bill would have to be made.
In addition, I do not think that the sort of advice which he suggested as sufficient would, in fact, be sufficient. I know the sort of country people who use these things. They tend to stick to the things which their fathers used, just because they have always seen them used. Admittedly these cruel poisons are effec-

1027
tive, but I do not believe that that sort of man is likely to be moved away from an article which is effective, although cruel, if he does not see this cruelty, to some thing which he does not know will be so effective and when he will not be able to see whether or not it is lets cruel. However, they are Committee points. I hope your Lordships may feel that I have made my case. I feel that this will prevent suffering to animals, suffering which few people like and which few people see. I think it is worth trying to prevent all suffering, and I hope your Lordships will give this Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
The LORD CHANCELLORacquainted the House that Her Majesty had (by Commission) revoked certain Letters Patent and had appointed the Chairman of Committees for the time being, the Lord Merthyr, the Earl of Listowel, the Lord Blackford, the Earl of Buckinghamshire, the Lard Rea, the Viscount Kilmuir, the Earl of Lucan, the Lord Ailwyn, theLord Amulree, the Earl St. Aldwyn, the Lord Crook, the Lord Newton, the Lord Airedale, the Lord Jessel, the Lord Archibald, the Lord Douglas of Barloch, and the Lord Strang, Speakers of the House in the absence of the Lord Chancellor: the said Commission was read.
House adjourned at a quarter past four o'clock.