I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

This and all the following Amendments hang together. They were introduced in another place to fulfil undertakings given by the promoters of the Bill, with the very great assistance of my hon. and right hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench, when it was discovered before Second Reading that the Title of the Bill as originally drafted dealt only with half the cases. The question was debated at length on Second Reading. I believe that the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) raised it, and it was to comply with the rules of order that these things were dealt with in another place.

This, I believe, is the final stage of the Bill, and I should like particularly to thank my hon. Friends for the great assistance they have given to the promoters. Most particularly, I should like to thank my noble Friends the Lord Chancellor and Lord Merthyr for the great help that they have given.

I beg to second the Motion.

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

I should like to take this opportunity of expressing the satisfaction of the Government that they have been able to meet the wishes of the House by these Amendments made in another place, and I should like to congratulate my hon. Friends on making this useful addition to the law.

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

It may be convenient to deal with the substance of all the Amendments to page 2 together. Their purpose is to require that, in addition to the other information on the draw tickets, there shall be specified the date on which the draw or event is to take place. I wish to express the regret of my hon. Friend the promoter of the Bill, the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies), at his inability to be present today, owing to absence abroad on a Parliamentary delegation.

I beg to second the Motion.

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

The purpose is to extend the restriction on the sale of tickets to persons under 16 years of age so that now they will neither be able to sell or to buy tickets.

I beg to second the Motion.

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

The purpose is to clarify the wording of the Bill and to remove doubt as to what the word "reasonable" may mean.

I beg to second the Motion.

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

The purpose of the Amendment, together with the next one, is to improve the wording of an Amendment that this House agreed to on Report. As the House knows, the Clause permits a prize of £20 for a whist drive. The purpose of the Amendment is to provide that for a whist tournament the prize can be £100. The intention is to put in rather better words now what we intended to say on Report.

I beg to second the Motion.

Perhaps I may recall to the memory of the House that the debate on this Question began two months ago, on Friday, 13th April, at 3.43 p.m. The mover and seconder, my hon. Friends the Members for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington) and Wimbledon (Mr. Black) purposely kept their speeches very short in order to give me a minute or two in which to reply on behalf of the Government. I rose to reply at 3.55 p.m., and after speaking for five minutes I was necessarily interrupted at 4 p.m. in the middle of a sentence.

If it were the wish of the House that I should do so I would continue my speech now, but I have received certain indications that it would be more for the convenience of the House if I were to say nothing further at this stage but were to listen to the debate. Hon. Members on both sides of the House may wish to make further contributions as this is the first opportunity to debate the Bill, except under extreme pressure of time. Then, Mr. Speaker, if I have your permission and that of the House, I should like to wind up the debate and to answer any points which have been made.

I am sure Mr. Speaker, that, subject to anything that you may say, it would meet the convenience of the House if the Financial Secretary did not continue his speech at this stage but spoke again at the end of the debate. I do not know that many hon. Members wish to take part in the discussion but, in view of the shortness of the time we devoted to it two months ago, it would be useful if we further debated the Bill, although nothing much may come of it at this stage.

It is a very short Measure. It has only two Clauses, and its object is a very simple one which ought to have received attention a long while ago. The purpose of the Bill which was introduced by the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington) two months ago is to allow trustees to invest trust funds in what are called equities and in building society deposits. At present trustees are bound by the trustee list which is embodied in Section 1 of the Act of 1925, passed, as one can see from a simple arithmetical calculation, over thirty years ago. Much has happened since then, and it is common ground that something ought to be done to widen the range of investment open to trusees under Section 1. The only question is "What?"

When the Financial Secretary spoke on the previous occasion when the Bill was before us, he said enough in five minutes to indicate that the Government were opposed to Clause 1, the Clause dealing with equities. I think that his attitude can be summarised in this way; that while the Government thought that something should be done, and were willing to do something, they were not prepared to accept the Bill as it stood. As I understood the right hon. Gentleman, he thought that the suggestions of the hon. Member for Aldershot were much too sweeping.

The right hon. Gentleman referred us to the statement which he made on 27th July, 1955, when he announced the Government's policy on this matter. The occasion for that announcement, just about a year ago, was the publication of the Nathan Committee's Report on the Law and Practice relating to Charitable Trusts. The Nathan Committee made some fairly drastic suggestions, some of which—the more important, perhaps—have been embodied in the Bill by the hon. Member for Aldershot.

The Nathan Committee was definitely of the opinion, certainly so far as charitable trusts were concerned—it even went so far as to suggest that the same changes should be made for all kinds of trusts—that with certain safeguards the trustee list should be considerably widened. It suggested, in fact, that it should include debentures and stocks and shares of financial, industrial and commercial companies quoted on the Stock Exchange. Nothing could be wider than that. That was the Nathan Committee's considered view, and whilst quite a number of people might not be prepared to go so far, I think most of us would be willing to see some of these various investments included.

In his short speech two months ago, the Financial Secretary took the view that to accept the findings of the Nathan Committee, and certainly to accept the Bill as it stood, would give cause for grave objection. According to him, it might lead to substantial losses of trust funds and thus frustrate the object of the trustee list, which is to safeguard funds and to see that trustees do not fritter them away in speculative investments.

It is, I realise, open to a settlor himself, with his eyes open, to widen the powers given under a trust, but settlors may die and circumstances change. What might appear to a settlor today to be a reasonable provision and limitation to make might not necessarily be a fit and proper limitation to make thirty or forty years thereafter.

It is unfortunate for many trust funds that they have been so limited in some cases to gilt-edged securities. As the right hon. Gentleman knows only too well, no securities have gone down more than many of our gilt-edged securities and stocks. Therefore, bearing in mind the principal reason given by the right hon. Gentleman that to alter the list would open the door wide to substantial losses, I am afraid that at present that safeguard to which he referred does not exist, and losses have been incurred by a large number of trusts.

From what he said in the short speech that he was able to make, I think that the right hon. Gentleman is willing to make changes to the trustee list. He indicated that the Government were willing to allow for the purchase of certain local authority securities and those of the Bank of Reconstruction and Development, and that they were also willing to simplify the procedure to enable such trusts to widen their powers of investment. I think, too, that there was some reference to allowing trustees to buy investments at a premium under certain circumstances.

The question I should like to ask the Financial Secretary on this point is whether that is still the furthest that the Government are prepared to go. If so, is it still their policy to confine even these small concessions to charitable trusts only or are they willing to extend them to trusts of all kinds?

Unfortunately, when the Financial Secretary spoke two months ago, he did not have time to deal with the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Aldershot in Clause 2 of the Bill to allow trust funds to be invested in building society deposits. I hope, therefore, that before the debate ends the right hon. Gentleman will be able to let us have the Government's view on this proposal.

The right hon. Gentleman will, 1 think, agree that the main argument which he used about his inability to accept Clause 1 does not apply to building society deposits. So far as capital is concerned, there can be no possibility of loss where moneys are invested in building societies—I am talking, of course, of reputable building societies—and I think the House will agree that moneys deposited with them are about as safe as they can be. They cannot depreciate, the capital remains intact and it is today one of the most conservative forms of investment, which I think should appeal strongly to the right hon. Gentleman and to hon. Members opposite.

Most of the building societies which have been established in this country are models to the world, and the funds which they advance are advanced on the best of all security—namely, property, which normally goes up in value rather than depreciates. I have been looking at the figures, and I see that the combined assets of all building societies at the end of 1955 exceeded £2,000 million. At that time also, in addition to the mortgages on various kinds of property, well secured, they held nearly £300 million in liquid assets, cash and investments, mostly short-term, in trustee securities. That is worth remembering when discussing the proposal which is made in Clause 2 of the Bill.

In the light of the Government's attitude, as indicated by the right hon. Gentleman two months ago, and in view of the late stage of the Session at which this Bill is being introduced, I think it likely that it may not get very far. The Government have, however, promised to introduce legislation of their own, and I should like the Financial Secretary, when he replies to the debate, to give an indication as to when we may expect that legislation.

I would urge upon the right hon. Gentleman, however, that when that legislation does appear, although he may not be able to include all the suggestions made by the hon. Member for Aldershot, he should seriously consider including at long last the building societies in the trustee list. If he does so, I think it would be a mistake if he prescribed a limit as to the total assets which a building society must have before it can be included in such a list.

The hon. Member for Aldershot has suggested that no building society should be included in the list unless it has assets to the value of £5 million or more. There are, however, quite a number of building societies whose assets do not reach that figure. Of the 364 societies which are members of the Building Societies Association, only about 62 have assets of that amount and more, and yet it can be said, I think, without challenge that all the societies at present in the Building Societies Association are reputable and well founded.

I am sure that the House will agree with me when I say that no building society should be included in the list unless it has sound assets and complete solvency and is of a kind which will ensure security to those who invest their money in it. I should therefore like the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether it would not be possible for the Registrar to stipulate the conditions which should be laid down to permit a building society to be included in the list. The value of money changes and conditions alter, and rather than have a fixed sum in any Act which the Government might introduce, which might lead later to difficulties, it seems to me and to some of my hon. Friends that it would be better, when the Government include building society deposits in the list—and I hope they will —to leave to the Registrar the fixing of the conditions under which they should qualify.

It is possible that this Bill is still-born, but if it is I hope that our discussion upon it has been well worth while. I trust that it will stimulate the Government to action, and imaginative action at that, and that we may see at no distant date—if possible before the end of the present Session—the Bill which the right hon. Gentleman has promised.

I was sorry that in his statement on 27th July my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary poured so much cold water on the objectives of the Bill. One of the reasons he advanced for the Government's objection to such a change as is contemplated here was that trustees would thereby be allowed to incur risks which were not thought proper in the Government's eyes.

It is quite evident from the way in which things have worked out that it is no longer a valid argument to assume that to invest money in gilt-edged securities does not incur risks which are to be found elsewhere. We all know that in fact the situation is entirely different. The objection in the statement to which I have referred seems to be based on facts and considerations which may have been valid 20 or 30 years ago but which, as a result of the inflationary trends in recent years, are completely out of date.

The restrictions which are placed upon trustees with the object of ensuring that they shall provide security for the capital of which they are trustees have precisely the opposite effect in a great many cases to that which the regulations were originally designed to produce. The absence of power to safeguard the funds against inflation involves them in these losses which it was the purpose of the regulations to prevent.

I hope we need not dwell at any length on the nature of the safeguards against opening the door too wide which are inherent in the Bill, because it seems to me much more important to take a view whether it is justified to make a major change than to consider the detailed safeguards against going too far which have been provisionally devised.

I have heard it suggested that were the right given to trustees to invest in ordinary shares, however complex and manifold the safeguards, the public might be led on that account to believe that there was some form of official underwriting or guarantee of the stock concerned which is not the case today. It seems to me that that conception is founded on circumstances which are quite out of date. At the moment the public tend to regard gilt-edged securities, on account of their trustee status, as quite safe for investors and trustees. We well know that that is far from being the case. It will not do to say that objection could be taken to the enlargement of the range of trustee securities on account of the official blessing which would thereby follow, because the argument is not valid.

I have also heard it suggested that the inflationary situation which we are now examining is a result of two world wars and that if we take a long view the situation is in fact much more static from the point of view of the subject we are discussing today than it has been in the last 20 or 30 years. In other words, so the argument runs, there is no need to open the door to changes in respect of trustees because further changes in the situation are not contemplated. It is argued that many of the circumstances which we observe today spring from changes consequent upon two wars in a comparatively short time.

I think it would be very dangerous to assume that major changes of this kind arise solely from wars. Much as we may believe and hope that no other war will occur in our lifetime, I do not think it is sound to believe that there will be no major changes affecting the status of and need for trustee stocks. We know the immense changes which spring from the applications of scientific invention. Who knows what the impact of nuclear inventions will be on all sorts of economic situations and on the future of various companies?

Personally, I take the view that, bearing in mind the responsibilities which trustees are given, it is only right to give them a certain freedom of manoeuvre so that they may be able to discharge the responsibilities which the original founder of the trust gave them. Incidentally, when the trust was set up the founder could not possibly have foreseen the changes which would follow in the decades lying ahead.

The conception that trustees must be protected from their own folly is entirely out of date, because it rests on the assumption that, broadly speaking, the conditions in which they will operate are static and the only fluid element in the situation is the judgment of the trustees. We know quite well that that is not so. Once it can be established, as I believe it can, that conditions are no longer as static as to warrant protection against trustees' folly, it seems to me to follow automatically that freedom to manoeuvre is indispensable to a responsible trustee if he is to carry out the responsibilities originally placed upon him.

We are indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington), who has introduced the Bill. I again express regret that the Government has not taken more kindly to it and I hope that in the course of time, with the contributions which my hon. Friends will make, we may induce them to see the validity of some of the arguments which we are advancing.

I must first apologise that I was a little late in arriving and, therefore, did not hear all that the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) had to say, but I must say that everything I did hear I fully agreed with. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Summers), I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington) has, if I may say so, performed a valuable public service in bringing forward this Private Member's Bill, and, like other hon. Members, I should like to support the principle which it incorporates.

I must say that, in view of the present inflationary trend in the economy, which has persisted now for many years, I fully agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury that there is real danger that the restrictions on trustee investment, originally intended as a safety measure for trusts, have become no longer a safety measure but a real source of additional danger to those trusts. Trustees today should have the power to invest not only in so-called gilt-edged securities but also in equities and good building society shares.

There are a great many examples of much better and safer trustee investments than such undated Government stocks as 21½ per cent. Treasury stock, Consols, and 31½ per cent. War Loan—as many of us have learned to our cost. It is important that any trustee portfolio today should have a very wide spread of investments. It should, of course, include some Government securities—naturally—but it should also include some "blue-chip" equities and some good building society shares as well. Perhaps not more than 50 per cent. would be an appropriate proportion for equity holdings by trustee portfolios.

May I say something about Clause 2 of the Bill, which deals with building societies? This Clause limits trustee investments to those building societies which conform to certain conditions which are to be laid down by the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies. That is the sort of condition which I think all of us would agree is most reasonable, but it also limits trustee investment to those societies which have total assets of more than £5 million. The Building Societies Association, while strongly supporting the principle of the Clause, does not support the proposed minimum of £5 million. Nor, from what I heard, does the right hon. Member for Colne Valley. And nor do I.

Perhaps at this point I ought to declare an interest, not only as a director of a building society but also as a director of a building society with assets of less than £5 million. I should equally say that this society would conform to every other conceivable condition that could be laid down by the Chief Registrar as to what is a safe and proper trustee investment.

As at 31st December, 1955, there were 783 building societies in Great Britain and, as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, only 62 of them had total assets of more than £5 million at that date. If, under this Clause, those societies with over £5 million in assets are almost automatically to be given trustee status and if societies with assets of under that figure are given no such status, I see one very real danger to the smaller, but nevertheless very reputable and safe societies. That danger is that not only trustees but the ordinary potential investor in building societies might well draw the inference that those smaller societies were less safe than the larger ones because they were not earmarked as suitable trustee investments.

The effect of Clause 2 as it stands. therefore, might well be prejudicial to the smaller societies in regard to the raising of money for their mortgage business, however safe and reputable those smaller societies, in fact, really are. I would go so far as to say that there are many smaller societies which would make much safer and more suitable trustee investments than some of the bigger ones. My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Black) who is not present today, but who was on the last occasion and who is himself a director of one of the best of the large societies, would, I am sure, agree with me on that point.

To my mind, liquidity and a high ratio of reserves to assets is a far more important factor in assessing the suitability of societies as trustee investments than is the test of the amount of total assets. If I am correct in that premise, it is perhaps not without significance that some of the largest of our societies have, in fact, the lowest ratio of reserves. I notice that in the Report of the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies for the year 1955 the top group of societies there listed—those with assets of £10 million or more—have the lowest average liquidity of any group shown.

It would, of course, be quite wrong in the trustee context to include the very small societies or, indeed, the private societies, but I do think that the £5 million limit is too high and is also too arbitrary. I hope that in Committee, if we reach that stage, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot would be prepared to consider some modifications of Clause 2 which would take into account the sort of points that I have tried to make, and which were also made by the right hon. Member for Colne Valley.

I agree very largely with what the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) has just said. I am sure that there is a case both for the inclusion of building societies in the Bill and for reconsideration of the £5 million limit. I would not go so far as to suggest that all building societies are suitable for trustee investment, but that is a matter which could very properly be discussed in Committee.

I should like to congratulate the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington) both on his good fortune in the Ballot and on bringing forward this Bill. I recollect that he had a rather similar experience last year. He was the promoter of a Bill which did not, in that Session, succeed in getting its Second Reading, but I also recall that the same Bill, in substance, has this morning passed all the Parliamentary stages and is awaiting the Royal Assent. I venture to predict, or at least to hope, that the hon. Member will next Session have the fortune of seeing his present intention put into legislative form in similar manner. But, perhaps, we should not be too optimistic until we have heard what the Financial Secretary has to say.

I should also like to pay a tribute to the Nathan Committee on the Law and Practices relating to Charitable Trusts, set up in 1950. That was a very distinguished body of people, and my regret is that although the Committee reported more than three years ago we have had nothing but a short statement of the Government's intentions in regard to that valuable Report. I think that the position has now been reached when the Government will find it very difficult to get people to give up their time to serve on these Committees if the only consequenec is that their reports are pigeonholed.

No one would suggest, of course, that any Government are bound, having set up a Committee, to implement its recommendations in toto, but this House should have the opportunity of considering and debating the recommendations of distinguished committees of this sort. It may well be that the present Government did not like the fact that the Charitable Trusts Committee had been set up by their predecessors and that if the Government had not changed the Report might have been given legislative effect before now. However, I do not want, on this very quiet Friday, to introduce matters of political controversy into our discussion.

Beyond any doubt, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) said, the Trustee Act, which was passed over 30 years ago, is in need of revision, not only with regard to this particular matter of the range of trustee investments, but with regard to other matters also which, as the Government themselves have indicated, need new legislation. It may be that I have missed the Government's statement which was predicted in the White Paper on Government Policy on Charitable Trusts in England and Wales, Command Paper 9538 of 1955, when they said:

" The Government propose to deal with the wider question of amending the Trustee Act, 1925, and the position of non-charitable trusts, in a statement which will be made separately."

It may well be that I have missed that statement, or, equally—no doubt the Financial Secretary will tell us—it may be that no such statement has yet been made.

While it is a very valuable privilege that private Members should have an opportunity to try and implement such reforms as this, I think it would be the common opinion that to tackle the whole question of trusts and the Trustee Act, as it needs to be tackled, is rather beyond the range of a Private Member's Bill. I hope that we shall have from the Financial Secretary some firm assurance that there will be legislation on this matter before long.

The case for the simple but effective suggestions contained in this Bill has already been presented very cogently by right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken. Whether or not it is the fault of anyone in particular, there is no argument but that inflation is, and has been, operating to the very serious disadvantage of all persons who hold trustee securities: and, as far as one can foresee, that tendency is likely to continue. It seems, therefore, quite reasonable that some modest extension in the range should now be possible. The Government, of course, if we get to the root of the matter, are concerned less about the bits and pieces of what might be extended than they are about the possibility that there will be a switch over from Government securities to non-Government securities. I think that is really the reason why the Treasury is so unenthusiastic for this sort of reform.

It is true, of course, that the Government and Members of the House of Commons must be concerned for the safety of trust funds. No one would for a moment suggest that the principle of a trustee list should be abandoned. It is obvious that all securities in that list must be such that no unreasonable risk is taken if moneys in trust funds are there invested. But does anyone really suggest that the proposals of this Bill would involve the inclusion of any securities of an exceedingly risky character? In fact, the hon. Member for Aldershot has gone beyond the recommendations of the Nathan Committee both as regards the paid-up capital of companies and as regards the amount of interest that they must have paid over the preceding ten years. The only safety measure which he has not included is the percentage of a trust fund which can be invested in these equities or building society funds. If that is the Government's only objection, I would suggest that that is a defect which could very easily be remedied in Committee.

I do not take serious objection to the Government talking out a Bill; I suppose it is just as reasonable, or unreasonable, for Governments to talk out Bills as it is for private Members to do so; but I do regret that a Bill of this sort was not given an opportunity in April of proceeding to the Committee stage, when we could have gone more fully into the possibilities of giving legislative effect to these proposals. Since it was largely in the hands of hon. Members opposite, who, we are told, are very amenable to the wishes of the Government—at least, that is the public face they like to show —I am sure that if, after the Committee stage, the Government had been dissatisfied, they would have had no difficulty in then killing the Bill. By that time we should all have been the wiser as a result of those detailed discussions.

I would suggest to the Financial Secretary that we need to be concerned not only with the well-being of Treasury and Government funds but with the total volume of investment. Of course, a change of this sort would probably not have any harmful effects in that sense. I fail to understand the reference the right hon. Gentleman made in his statement of the 27th July last, I think it was, that somehow or other this proposal might tend to favour the life tenant against the remainderman. My experience over the last few years has been that the investment of funds in Government securities proved disadvantageous to both the life tenant and the remainderman. Whether it be a good or bad thing—I have views on that which I will not inflict on the House today—there is no doubt that the kind of equities which are covered by this Bill are those where substantial capital appreciation can be predicted and expected; so that, in that sense, the life tenant will enjoy a larger income and the remainder-man will have the expectation of a larger capital sum. In my view, therefore, the Financial Secretary's suggestion was a rather weak get-out on his part.

Of course, we all know that in trust matters there are occasional cases of incompetence and dishonesty. Such things may occur just as readily in the existing range of trustee investment as they would if the range were extended as suggested by the Bill.

It is true, of course, that in certain circumstances trustees may apply to the court for an extension of their investment powers. I believe that, in a number of trusts, such application has been made under Section 57 of the Trustee Act, and the court has widened the trustees' powers of investment far beyond the particular proposals of this Bill. That, of course, is a wise and proper safeguard. But it is an expensive matter to go to the courts. In small trusts, particularly will trusts where there is a widow or children to be provided for, the legal expenses of such an application may very well offset any financial advantage by way of income which could be expected as a result of such a change.

I may well be speaking against my own interests in this matter, since I seek to practise in the Chancery Division. Of course, this Bill would limit, rather than extend, the amount of litigation of this character. Nevertheless, I believe it is something of which the Government ought to be more aware than it would seem to be, that going to the courts is an expensive and worrying business, not lightly undertaken either by trustees or their advisers. I hope the Financial Secretary will not rely too much on that argument today.

The other argument which I am sure he will deploy is that it is probably wrong for this House to set aside the wishes of the settlor or testator. In many cases, of course, there is some force in that argument; but a great number of these trusts were settled many years ago, in quite different circumstances, when conditions were very different from what they are today. Moreover, many testators, as the courts know only too well, are not extremely well advised when they make their wills, either as to the law or as to the possibilities of investment.

Lawyers make the worst wills in the world.

As my right hon. Friend says, sometimes, when wills are drafted by lawyers, they give rise to even more litigation than home-made wills. For my part, I certainly would be the last to regret these testamentary ambiguities, because they do provide opportunities for litigation from time to time; but it is stretching matters to say that every settlor or testator knows exactly how he would like his money to be invested twenty-five or fifty years ahead.

If the Financial Secretary relies on that get-out, he cannot also rely upon the get-out of going to court, because that would certainly be reversing the wishes of a testator or settlor in extending the range of investment. In my view, there is a very strong case for the formulation of some Government policy in this matter. Some amendment of the Trustee Act is required, even if it is not necessarily achieved in the detailed way set out in the Bill.

Clause 2, which relates to building society investment, raises a matter which may well be of some urgency. It may be true that the Government do not face the prospect of a switch from Government funds with enthusiasm, but if they really believe in their housing policy they should be equally concerned about the lack of funds available to building societies for lending to prospective house purchasers. This is not a subject upon which I have as much knowledge as the hon. Member for Surbiton, but I am informed that in many cases building societies are already pledged up to September, and in some cases up to twelve months ahead, and they have no funds to lend to someone who wishes to buy a house.

This is a very serious matter for those who are forced, not always from choice, but often through force of circumstances, to buy or sell houses at this time. It is a very great hardship for a person to go to a building society and find that his security is accepted only to be told by the building society, "We would very much like to lend you the money, but all our funds are committed till next December, or next March." This presents a very great difficulty to persons who have to change their jobs suddenly.

I do not pretend that building societies are able to tackle the problem of working-class houses, and it is not our policy to rely as much as the Government do upon the question of individual house purchase. We recognise that some people wish to buy their own houses. Not only do we believe in their doing so, but we think that the Government's policy in this respect and in the matter of the rate of interest has been detrimental to individual house purchase, although on public platforms they often make a song and dance about their ideas of a property-owning democracy.

The Financial Secretary must know that the credit squeeze is having very adverse affects in this connection, and I put this point to him at some length now because I feel the furthering of the Government's housing policy under Clause 2 would offset their concern about the loss of some Government investments under Clause 1. At any rate. I am firmly of the opinion that this matter should have gone to Committee for discussion in April. I still hope that the Financial Secretary will allow it to go to Committee today.

I do not hold out any great hopes of a Bill of this sort going through all its stages in both Houses before the end of the present Session, but if it could be discussed in Committee and examined in detail, it may be—as happened in the case of the hon. Member for Aldershot's previous Bill—that if the Government will not take it up another private Member will bring it forward with greater success next year. I hope that we shall have a reasonable reply from the Financial Secretary and also—considering the state of the "betting"—that if he has to talk the Bill out again he will not have to go on without pause until four o'clock.

I apologise for being late in arriving and not hearing the earlier part of the debate. What I have heard, however, I have entirely agreed with. Although the Financial Secretary was in the middle of his address when this matter was discussed in April, I understand that we are going to hear from him again today, and I will therefore deal with some of the matters to which he referred in April. In the meantime, it would be ungrateful of me if I did not say how glad we are to see the Financial Secretary here after his very strenuous week on the Committee stage of the Finance Bill, during which he was able to make a number of concessions. Those who are supporting this Bill hope that he will be in an equally happy a frame of mind towards it.

I also want to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington) for all the trouble he has taken over the Bill. Owing to the shortness of time when he was proposing it, he did not have the opportunity of saying as much as he would have liked, and I hope that he will be allowed another opportunity of speaking during the course of this debate.

A great deal has been said about the position of trustees and investments. As far as I understand it, however, not very much has been said about the tasks of the trustees of a settlement. They are really twofold. First, the trustees have to protect and increase, if possible, the income and, secondly, they have to preserve the capital for the remainderman. In fact, they have a definite duty to two classes of people.

One of the most difficult tasks which trustees have to face today is the maintenance of a fair balance between the life tenant and the remainderman. Their task has been made much more difficult in recent years owing to the high rate of taxation because, in the case of big trusts, there is sometimes no object in increasing the income to any degree. Trustees have a very real task and a duty to ensure that the capital is increased as far as possible.

I am surprised that the Treasury does not take more interest in this matter; perhaps the Financial Secretary will have something to say about it. If trustees increase the capital of a trust they are also largely assisting the revenue, because a very large part of that increase will probably go to Estate Duty when the life tenant dies. Therefore, the question of giving trustees more scope for investment is a matter of interest both for the Treasury and the remainderman.

Owing to the shortness of time available when this matter was last discussed in April, it was not possible for my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot or my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Black) to draw the attention of the House to some anomalies which exist under Part I of the Trustee Act, 1925, which deal with trustee investments. I do not propose to read out the whole of Section I because it would take too long, but I want to draw the attention of the House to one or two anomalies which it causes. Section I says:

"A trustee may invest any trust funds in his hands, whether at the time in a state of investment or not, in manner following, that is to say: (a) In any of the parliamentary stocks or public funds or Government securities of the United Kingdom "—

and no one quarrels with that—

"(b) On real or heritable securities in the United Kingdom, including the security of a charge on freehold land by way of legal mortgage and a charge under section thirty-three of the Finance Act, 1896…"

I do not know what that is, but it is something to do with mortgages, and I do not think that anyone would quarrel with it. In a great number of cases, mortgages are extremely good investments for trustees. They protect capital, and give a reasonably high yield for the life tenant.

I now come to the paragraph which I want specially to draw to the attention of the House. Paragraph (c) says that a trustee may invest any trust funds in his hands:

"In the stock of the Bank of England or the Bank of Ireland."

It has always been beyond my understanding why it should be said that a trustee may invest in the stock of the Bank of Ireland. I am not criticising that Bank or its stability in the slightest degree; it has very large assets. But it is a completely anomalous situation when trust funds can be invested in the Bank of Ireland and not in the Bank of Scotland.

Then we come to Section 1 (1, d), which is hopelessly out of date as trustees are authorised to invest—

"In India Seven, Five and a half, Four and a half, Three and a half, Three and Two and a half per cent. stock, or in any other capital stock which may at any time be issued by the Secretary of State in Council of India under the authority of any Act of Parliament, and charged on the revenues of India, or any other securities the interest in sterling whereon is payable out of and charged on the revenues of India:".

That may have been an attractive investment to a number of trustees in 1925, but the House will appreciate that that opportunity does not now exist and that the Section would not cover present investments in India, if trustees wanted to invest in that country.

The next paragraph is perfectly all right. It is:

"In any securities the interest of which is for the time being guaranteed by Parliament;"

Then we have paragraph (f):

"In consolidated stock created by the Metropolitan Board of Works, or by the London County Council, or in debenture stock created by the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District, or in metropolitan water stock;"

That is largely out of date. Under pararaph (g) trustees may invest:

"In the debenture or rentcharge, or guaranteed or preference, stock of any railway company in the United Kingdom incorporated by special Act of Parliament, and having during each of the ten years last past before the date of investment paid a dividend at the rate of not less than three per centum on its ordinary stock;"

In view of events since the war, that is hopelessly out of date. Paragraph (h) reads:

"In the stock of any railway or canal company in the United Kingdom whose undertaking is leased in perpetuity or for a term of not less than two hundred years at a fixed rental to any such railway company as is mentioned in paragraph (g) of this subsection, either alone or jointly with any other railway company;"

That is hopelessly out of date, as is paragraph (i), which reads:

"In the debenture stock of any company owning or operating a railway in India the interest in sterling on which is paid or guaranteed by the Secretary of State in Council of India;"

I do not think that any of those stocks exists today. Under paragraph (j), which is also hopelessly out of date, trustees are authorised to invest:

"In the 'B' annuities of the Eastern Bengal, the East Indian, the Scinde Punjaub and Delhi, Great Indian Peninsula and Madras Railways, or in any securities substitute therefor, and any like annuities which may at any time after the commencement of this Act be created on the purchase of any other railway by the Secretary of State in Council of India, and charged on the revenues of India…"

I do not want to continue to read the remaining paragraphs of Section 1 of the Trustee Act, 1925, because I hope that it will be said that I have read out enough to show that there are several grounds for revision, because those stocks are either not available or would not be selected by trustees at the present time.

Another point which we must remem- ber is that the Trustee Act, 1925, although no doubt perfectly satisfactory for trustees in those days, was passed more than 30 years ago. It is my view and, I believe, the view of most people who consider questions of investment by trustees, that such provisions should be periodically reviewed, every 25 or 30 years, and brought up to date with modern conditions.

That being so, it is interesting to refer to some figures which were given to us by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot when this matter was discussed in April. He gave us figures showing the difference which has arisen between gilt-edged and equity shares since 1919. He said:

"It is very easy to talk in terms of millions, but one of the financial papers has worked out that between 1st January, 1919, and 1st January, 1955, a period of thirty-six years, if £1 million had been invested in 1919, in equities, it would, with the addition of bonuses and various interest payments, have become £25 million. If however, the same figure of £1 million had been invested for the same period in Government securities, instead of becoming £25 million it would have become only £4 million. That indicates the immensity of the figures."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th April, 1956; Vol. 551, c. 636.]

That indicates the immense change in the value of equity shares which has taken place since 1919.

I have sought to work out comparable figures and I have taken two trusts created in 1934, one with an investment clause limiting investments to strict trustee investments. The trustees in each case are similar people with considerable knowledge and skill in managing investments. If we take the trust limited to strict trustee investments, where the investment is solely in gilt-edged securities, we find that today that stands at approximately 90, so there has been about a 10 per cent. fall, although it must be remembered that if the comparison had been made a short time before I calculated these figures—about a fortnight ago—there would have been a slight rise to more than 100.

In the trust where equities were allowed, with some limitations, but where only a proportion has been invested in equities, never more than 50 per cent., the figure is about 140, so that there has been a 40 per cent. rise since 1934 in that trust compared with a 10 per cent. fall in the other. Those figures form a strong support for the Bill. The Bill is purposely drawn in a simple form and in a form which does not in its entirety follow the recommendations of the Nathan Committee. It is drawn to follow a very common form of investment clause which is used today by many practitioners who deal in these matters as one of the most attractive forms of investment clauses for trusts where one wants the trustees to be given the opportunity of investing in equities.

I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) in what he said about building societies. It is probably a fair criticism of the Bill to say that the limit of total assets of £5 million is too high and it may well be that that limit should be reduced to, say £2 million. I should have thought that that was a matter which could be discussed in Committee. For my part, while keeping an open mind on the subject, I think that £5 million is a trifle high.

We had the opportunity of hearing some part of the Financial Secretary's criticism when he spoke for a short time on 13th April, and I should like to deal with some of the points he made. The right hon. Gentleman said:

"The Bill would appear at first sight to be founded upon the recommendations of the Nathan Committee on the Law and Practice relating to Charitable Trusts, which in Chapter 8 recommended that the range of investment allowed by the Trustee Act, 1925, should be widely extended and should go even so far as to include the equity shares of industrial, financial and commercial companies quoted on the Stock Exchange, subject to certain conditions, one of which was that no less than 4 per cent. should have been paid on the equities for the previous ten years."

That is perfectly correct, but we deliberately did not follow the recommendations of the Nathan Committee. Although we appreciated the enormous amount of work done by the Committee, we thought that its recommendations in some respects did not go far enough. What we wanted was a simple provision which would have extended this particular provision so far as the restriction of interest paid during the previous years was concerned.

The right hon. Gentleman also said:

" In the case of new trusts, it is entirely within the power of the testator or the settler to give what investment power he likes."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 13th April, 1956; Vol. 551, c. 639.]

That, of course, is perfectly correct, but what I think the right hon. Gentleman has overlooked is that he will find, if he goes through the records—and I suppose he can get them from the Stamp Department at Somerset House, where copies of settlements are kept—that in practically every trust today, indeed, I would almost say practically every trust created since the war, it is very rare to find these limited trusts. In fact, in practically all cases, not only is there an extended investment clause, and that is the reason why my hon. Friend has drawn this Bill so widely, but, even more common, they are given power of investment in equities. At least, that is certainly my experience in practice as a solicitor.

Therefore, what I want the Financial Secretary to take into account is not so much what they can do today, because that is their concern, and most prudent trustees are perfectly capable of seeing that they get a proper investment clause, but the kind of settlement, whether by will or deed, which was created 20 years ago, and in some cases longer than that, which was created under financial conditions quite different to those existing today. That is the problem that we have to face. The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly correct in saying that, if he liked, the testator could limit the settlement to the fixed investments referred to in Section (1) of the 1925 Act, and that that is entirely his concern.

I would be loth to suggest that this House should change the powers to settle in that way, but I feel that it is the duty of the Government now, when conditions have entirely changed and when it is fairly evident, when a settlement has been created, that it can be created in financial conditions relating to an entirely different form of investment clause. Therefore, I think the Treasury and the Government have a duty to give very careful consideration to this matter, particularly after receiving such a strong recommendation that something should be done at an early date from the Nathan Committee.

I feel that it is possible, in fact probable, that criticism will be levelled at this Bill, but I think it is a good steppingstone from which to start off, and that we ought to get the Bill into the Committee stage. Since the Bill was introduced, I have had a great number of representations made to me, and I have talked with a large number of people, including managers of investment trusts, trustee departments and people concerned with individual trustees who manage trusts.

There are a number of alternatives which could be considered to this present clause. It is strongly advocated in many quarters that there should be a percentage limit in any trust on the amount which the trustees may invest in equities. I think there is a very sound argument for that, and I would not object to that proposal being put forward. Another proposal is that not more than 2½ per cent. or 5 per cent. of the funds should be invested in any particular investment, and there again I have an open mind and would not personally object very strongly to that.

But I am not at all sure that, when we come to look at this great number of restrictions, we shall not find ourselves at the end more tied down, as far as the trustees are concerned, than if they had a wide clause, such as that drawn by my hon. Friend. It is of interest to consider for a moment what has been done in this matter in America. There was the New York State Act of 1950, which was the American equivalent of the form of the Trustee Act in this country, which gave investing trustees very wide powers indeed. It invented a thing which is called the "prudent investor rule." which runs as follows:

" A fiduciary holding funds for investment may invest the same in the kinds and classes of securities described in the succeeding paragraphs of this subdivision, provided that investment is made only in such securities as would be acquired by prudent men of discretion and intelligence in such matters who are seeking a reasonable income and the preservation of their capital."

Then it goes on to set out a list of all companies in which trustees are authorised to invest.

Personally, I have no objection to an investment clause such as that, which I should have thought under our law existed anyway, but I do not think that we should follow a proposal to have a set list of investments, because it would be very difficult to compile such a list. It would mean that, if we made such a list, it would automatically force up the price of those shares, because it would create a big demand for them. I therefore hope that if the Bill goes to Committee that proposal will not be adopted.

In my judgment, this Bill, with certain alterations to be made in Committee, would be perfectly welcome, and I hope very much that it will be given a Second Reading, although we know the present position in regard to the Bill. What is more important, I also hope that we shall have a welcome for it from the right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary, and some statement that, if he is not prepared to accept the Bill in its present form, he will give us an undertaking and an assurance that something will be done in the fairly near future to assist the great number of trustees in the predicament in which they now find themselves, owing to the fact that Section (1) of the Trustee Investment Act is now hopelessly out of date.

I should like to say a word or two in particular on the subject of entailed estates. Entails were originally made so that the capital could come down to the head of the house in order that he could do public work and look after his family. Now that taxation is so high and Estate Duty is still heavy, it seems only reasonable that a bigger return should be available.

I hope that I shall not be out of order in suggesting that it would be more in keeping with the original intention of entail clauses if such trusts were now broken up and divided up amongst the relatives in proportions to be approved by a High Court judge. I should like to commend that suggestion to my right hon. Friend.

I want to address the House mainly on what I think is the real point on which any rational difference of opinion can arise, namely, on the question of equity investments. I do not think that any sane person on either side of the House, or anyone else, needs to be convinced that the original trustee list is completely out of date. The need for some amendment of it may be taken for granted.

The real point to which we have to address our minds is this question of equity investment by trustees, charitable or otherwise, whose trusts were drawn up before it became quite obvious that nobody who did not see that he had a wide investment clause was fit to be a trustee. I do not want to weary the House with a lot of figures, though I could give them, from the very many trusts, charitable and otherwise, which I have managed, because I can put the point quite simply in this way.

In the case of a bank or insurance company, the game is played in pounds, and it does not matter to the bank or insurance company what the money will buy. An insurance company has a contract to pay a certain sum of money at a future date, and it does not matter to the company whether the money buys anything or nothing.

If one is a trustee, whether of a charitable trust or otherwise, dealing with real things, it is a different matter. If one has to keep up a house, for instance a charitable alms house, or to pay staff, it is quite useless to say, after twenty years, "I have still got my capital intact," in the sense that a bank or an insurance company would say that. One is concerned with what the capital will buy.

One of the instances which I have given is a most common form in which the burden becomes crippling to trustees, whether of a charitable trust or otherwise—houses. If, today, one has intact in the bank the capital fund of a trust, at the figure it was even before the last war, one has lost three-quarters of one's money. That is the plain fact with which trustees are faced.

I remember many years ago Maynard Keynes telling me a story about Lord Bradbury when he was head of the Treasury—he was not Lord Bradbury then, of course. It was in the early days, when they met outside the old Treasury offices in Whitehall, the offices which they abandoned because they could not stand the mute reproach of its walls, which had seen much more austere and cautious management of our affairs. This was when the first Bradburys were printed. Maynard Keynes said to Bradbury, showing him his signature, "Now you are famous, Bradbury." Bradbury's answer was, "My dear Keynes, I shall live to see the day when one of my notes will not buy a box of matches." He was not far wrong, except in his timing.

That is the situation which we all face, and there is, of course, only one way out for the prudent investor—to invest such portion of his money as he thinks wise in such equities as are suitable, so that he has some hedge against inflation, and some share in the increase in the wealth of the community. It means that if he has a share in I.C.I. or Shell he has something to set against the depreciation of the currency which has been going on steadily all through our lifetime, and longer.

It is particularly interesting to point out that we trustees of all these various trusts are pressing this matter very strongly at a time when it might appear that for the first time in living memory a prudent trustee could invest in gilt-edged securities without deserving to go to Brixton. It is now clear that the next move in the Bank Rate, when it comes—and presumably it will not be soon—will be down and not up; and therefore one could buy gilt-edged securities as a prudent investment for capital appreciation, probably for the first time in our lifetime.

But let us examine the deduction to be made from that. The deduction to be made is that no prudent trustee can any longer invest, if he has any freedom of action, in gilt-edged securities, unless he treats them as a market to job in; he has to job in gilt-edged, if he is to be a prudent investor, just as the speculator would job in second-rate rubber shares. That is what the gilt-edged and trustee list has been reduced to in the last fifty years of the administration of the finances of this country.

It is to some of us quite intolerable that we should be told over and over again that as trustees we need protection from the Government. Here are these people running a bucket-shop on widows' and orphans' savings. They juggle with one account and another, they rig the market before every Government issue, and they perform in a way which would have made Hatry cheer and Bottomley blush; and they have the cheek to say, the State having performed as it has done in the last thirty years, that the State has to protect the beneficiaries of trusts. It is not in a fit position to give anybody lectures on financial morals or to pose as the protector of anybody.

Of course, it is perfectly true that if we can get power to invest in equities, that is not an easy and certain way out. Of course it will be difficult. It has not been easy since the days when Timothy Forsyte invested all his money at 3 per cent. in Consols and watched it appreciate while the cost of living fell, in old-fashioned, less progressive Victorian times. We live in more progressive and expensive days, and the suggested change will not be an easy way out, but it will be at least a chance of a way out. If we have these powers we may still lose, but we are certain to lose if we are tied to gilt-edged securities.

Of course, there are Committee points which can be considered—whether we can in any way reduce the proportion and so on. But the one point which I think the House should have in mind in deciding this issue is whether, considering the treatment of the currency of this country and of other countries which we have grown to accept ever since before 1914, any prudent manager of other people's money can afford to have it all in fixed interest securities?

In my submission, that is, briefly, the point which has to be borne in mind, and put in that way it seems to me that there can be only one answer. By all means let us find ways, if it is possible to find them, of protecting ourselves and the beneficiaries of our various trusts, but the one certain thing which has brought charity after charity and private trust after private trust to the position where it cannot carry on, and the one certain risk which the trustees are running, is that if trusts are in fixed-interest securities they are bound to lose. As the years go by the trustees cannot carry out their trusts, because whether they are looking after property or paying salaries, or meeting educational expenses, on a fixed income they lose.

I very much hope that, whatever the Financial Secretary has to say to the House from the point of view of minor modifications, he will not try to ride off on a promise of amending the list which still leaves it as a list of fixed-interest securities, because that does not touch the main issue. Secondly, I hope that he will not try to cover up the damage which has been done to these funds by the ceaseless inflation by trying to suggest that trustees cannot at least be given some opportunity to escape certain death, even if there is a chance that they may be run over in crossing the road.

If I may have the leave of the House to speak again, I will assure the hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) that I do not rise with the intention of talking out the Bill. At the same time, let me point out that 31½ hours would be nothing to me in this connection, because I started my first speech on 13th April and have continued it over nine weeks.

Now that I am not under quite such a pressure of time as on the first occasion. when I had only five minutes, I should like to be a little more expansive and to deal at any rate with some of the important and substantial points which have been raised from both sides of the House. I want to give evidence to the House that I myself have no narrow personal prejudices in this matter, for I am one who for the past 25 years, in my private capacity, has never in normal circumstances agreed to become a trustee of a trust unless the trustees were to have wide investment powers. Having thus proved that I do not lie within the class of people described by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Sir I. Horobin) as unfit to be a trustee, I add that I do not take the view which some hon. Members have perhaps ascribed to the Government of assuming that all trustees are liable to be incompetent.

Let us keep a balanced mind in this. The trustees of many trusts are highly efficient and competent people who give a great deal of constant thought to their duties. I am sure that, equally, it will be recognised that among the mass of existing trusts there are a good many where the trustees are not of that quality. They are inclined to go to sleep on the job, and, indeed, if they were to wake up and try to operate with vigour in the stock markets, the results might not, owing to their own ignorance, be particularly successful.

Again, if I may, I will try to fortify my own personal position in this matter by another reminiscence. Many years ago three private citizens were appointed trustees of a charitable trust. One of them was myself. I have since come under the baneful influence of the Treasury and, of course, I am only too well aware of the notoriously lavish, speculative and irresponsible attitude towards the laying out of public money that one meets when one becomes resident in the Treasury. Fortunately, my feelings in that respect are tempered and offset by the fact that of my two co-trustees one has risen to a very high position in the Bank of England and the other, with great distinction and to the pleasure of all of us, holds the most honourable position of Clerk of the House of Commons. That personal experience of mine is surely proof that, however unworthy one trustee may be, there are bodes of trustees which can be rightly entrusted with the widest investment powers.

I wish, first, to consider Clause 2 of the Bill, which really deals with a somewhat separate issue, the right of trustees to invest in the deposits of building societies. This is a question well worth consideration by the House. It is quite true that the deposits of building societies were not included in the additional securities which, in my statement, of July, 1955. I indicated that the Government were disposed to include in future trustee lists, but I would certainly not say that they should be ruled out of consideration altogether.

I should like the House to bear one or two points in mind. There has not, so far as I am aware, been any general or strong demand from trustees themselves for the trustee list to be extended in this direction. Furthermore, if one were to include building society deposits, one would, I think, have to consider the claim of bank deposits, or, indeed, the fully-paid shares of banks, discount houses and insurance companies, and others would come along and claim that at any rate certain of the securities of some investment trusts had as strong an entitlement as building society deposits to be in the list.

Might I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the analogy between building society deposits and bank and insurance company shares is not quite as complete as he appears to make it? The one set of securities goes up and down and the other does not. Building society deposits are invested almost completely in property. The capital is secure and can never be altered up or down.

Bank deposits may go up or down, but they do not go up or down in the sense that the right hon. Gentleman means, any more than do building society deposits.

The only point I was making was that it is not easy to draw a fresh line and say that unquestionably building society deposits should be in and all these others should be out. If one is going beyond the field of the present list, then there are a great many other directions of investment besides building society deposits which one should consider. I must say that I have a good deal of sympathy with the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) and other hon. Members that if building societies were to be included one need not necessarily confine attention to those with assets of more than £5 million. There are certainly first-rate building societies of a smaller size than that. Without arguing about the figure, I would say that the inclusion of building society deposits was a matter of principle, but that, if it were decided that way, there should be no sanctity about so high a figure as £5 million.

I now return to the main issue of the debate, which is whether investment in equities should be permitted to trustees. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot quoted a calculation of the way in which a sum of money invested in equities in 1919 would have expanded in value by now. Of course, it is important that the money should not in 1919 have been invested in the wrong equities, and that we have to bear in mind. Not even average figures here can prove his case.

Investment in gilt-edged may, as has just been suggested, be something of a gamble in certain circumstances, but successful investment in equities certainly requires a high degree of knowledge, experience and judgment, and constant attention. I must emphasise that the purpose of having a trustee list at all is not to encourage the exercise of skill. but, rather, to lessen the possibility of imprudence. The fact that imprudence has to be guarded against was, I think, acknowledged by several hon. Members when they criticised the provision in Clause 1 to allow up to 100 per cent. investment in equities. Indeed. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot, to whom we are so much indebted for bringing this subject before the House, indicated nine weeks ago that he thought his own Bill ought probably to be amended so that the percentage which could be invested in equities should be lowered.

It must be borne in mind that investment in equities demands more skill and attention than I would say most trustees of small trusts can be expected to have or to procure. I hope that before coming to the case against Clause 1 I have made it sufficiently clear to the House that I fully appreciate the force of the argument which has been put before the House that during a period of inflation a trust which is confined to fixed interest securities may suffer very seriously. I am not questioning that for a moment.

It happens that we are discussing the subject after a long stretch of inflationary conditions and at a time when equities stand high. Had one been discussing it at other periods since the end of the first war, one might not have drawn quite the same conclusion as hon. Members are drawing at this time. We have to bear in mind all the different contingencies of the economic situation and the state of the stock market. I am not in any way seeking to minimise the force of what has been said by hon. Members. This is not an easy problem to which we have to find a solution, and I fully grant that the Government have to seek and find a solution for it.

It is suggested in Clause I that the test for a suitable equity of investment is that the company should have paid over the last ten years a dividend at the rate of not less than 5 per cent. There again, even dividend records are not necessarily a reliable guide. That test would exclude numbers of thoroughly bad investments, but even the securities of what I might call good companies can fall substantially in value, as hon. Members who have taken part in this debate may have discovered to their own cost in their private affairs at some stage in their lives.

When a company like that goes wrong, it may happen that it is unable to pay a dividend at all on its equity stock for a time. The suggestion was made that equity investment was much better and safer than undated Government stocks—I think that it was my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton who said that—but, of course, for these fixed interest securities on the trustee list, I must say in their favour that they may depreciate but the interest on them does not fall and, of course, the life tenant is very interested, and rightly so, in the interest.

I think that doubt was cast by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Summers), in his interesting speech, as to whether there really would be any danger of equities, if they were included in the trustee list, tending to be regarded by the general public as enjoying some kind of Government assurance that funds might safely be invested in them.

I should have thought that that aspect was something to which all of us needed to give some consideration because, of course, it could lead to considerable complications in certain circumstances when something exceptional was happening to a company if it had, owing to the action of Parliament, come to be a fact that the equity stock of that company was widely held by trustees who thought that it had some kind of Government approval.

I think it was the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield, Park, who questioned whether I had been right in the first part of my first speech in calling attention to the value of having the present trustee list so as to protect the remainder man against the rapacious desires of the life tenant. One has to consider that also from the trustee's point of view. The trustee list is designed not only to protect beneficiaries against any dishonesty or incompetence on the part of trustees, but it also serves to protect trustees against claims by beneficiaries with interests which are different from, or inconsistent with, one another, and the outstanding case there would be, I should say, the importunities of life tenants whose interest may be to secure the highest possible income for a few years without proper regard for the security of the capital ultimately passing to the remainder man.

I agree that the trustee has a responsibility and that he must exercise it so as to secure a balance between the conflicting interests of the life tenant and the remainder man. The point which I tried to make was that the present trustee list has the effect of being disadvantageous both to the interests of the life tenant as to income and the remainder man as to capital, and I was not suggesting that there should not be a balance or that there should be no trustee list at all.

I do not wish to cross swords with the hon. Member on that point, but merely to point out to him that I do not think that he has demolished the argument that I used many weeks ago that the trustee list does have this value of protecting trustees in certain circumstances from the pressure by the tenants for life whose sole interest may be to extract as high an income as they possibly can for a period without regard to the ultimate security of the capital.

I want to say to the hon. and gallant Member for Cheltenham (Major Hicks Beach) that the Government is well-aware that the trustee list is, in certain circumstances, out of date. Some of the stocks in it have a rather curious look nowadays, and some of them have in fact disappeared. Others, of course, have come into being. The trustee list as a whole has grown rather than shrunk. The stocks of nationalised industries are trustee investments, there are more Commonwealth stocks than there used to be and the range of Government stocks has widely increased with the growth of the National Debt.

I think that what all this really amounts to is that there exists a strong case, as has been cogently put in the House today, for taking stock afresh of the position in the light of the difficulties caused to trustees as a whole, even the most competent, responsible and wise trustees by the present rigid limitations of the list. I hope that hon. Members will also, following this debate, give thought to the argument that I have addressed to the House that there is a substantial case also against general and automatic extension of the powers of all trustees, and we have to try to find a solution which will help to avoid both of the dangers which are in our minds.

It is already accepted that in a number of cases there may be sound arguments on the merits for extending the powers of investment. For public trusts this can be done by the authority of the courts or for chartered bodies, in appropriate cases, by the Privy Council, or for bodies incorporated by Private Acts it can be done by Parliament itself. I grant at once that the powers of the courts are much more circumscribed in the case of private trusts. At the same time, it is right to remember that where all the beneficiaries of the trust are in existence, so to speak, of full age and sound mind, the powers of investment can be widened with their agreement without application to the courts.

I was asked one or two questions about the statement which I made in July, 1955. The right hon. Gentleman the member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) asked whether the limited extension I then foreshadowed would extend to charitable trusts only or to all trusts. We had in mind that they should extend to all trusts, but I am not arguing for a moment that that limited extension would meet all the arguments which have been adduced today for a much wider extension. Certainly the Government will need to legislate on this matter. It will be within the knowledge of the House that at a date in June I cannot possibly give any forecast when it will be practicable to legislate, but it is the firm intention of the Government to legislate.

I want to assure the House that we have been considering possible methods of enabling trustees of private trusts to be allowed wider powers in approved cases. So far, we have not been able to devise a procedure that is both feasible and likely to avoid the real dangers of a general and widespread relaxation of powers without any distinction. Certainly, the search for a solution will continue vigorously.

I should like to try to set at rest one fear. I have had it said to me on various occasions, though I think not today, that the Treasury pays only lip-service to the extension of the trustee list because its real and private desire is to protect the gilt-edged market. The allegation is that if the trustee list were to be extended, the effect of that on the market in trustee securities, and particularly on the gilt-edged market, would be very serious and therefore the Treasury would fight tooth and nail against any such extension being made.

I assure the House that that is a great exaggeration. The fact is that it has always been open to any settler to lay down what investment provisions he thinks fit. As my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Cheltenham perfectly correctly said, a high proportion of existing trusts, particularly those formed in recent years, have been provided with wide investment powers. As he and the House will know, the biggest investors in the gilt-edged market are, without doubt, in no way confined to that market by the requirements of the Trustee Act.

I have looked into this matter and I can say that we are satisfied that the effect on the gilt-edged market of an extension of the trustee list would be quite marginal. By saying that, I hope that I have convinced the House that the Treasury is not approaching this matter in any narrow or prejudiced way. We are anxious to hammer out the right solution. I am afraid that, on behalf of the Government, I cannot offer any facilities in this Session for the later stages of the Bill, and I indicated in my first speech that I did not see how the Bill could be amended in Committee so as to make it acceptable to the Government. If, therefore, we were to go into Committee on the Bill we should occupy a good deal of time without any possibility of Legislative result in this Session.

Naturally, the matter is entirely in the hands of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot, who has given us the opportunity of this extremely informative and valuable debate, but he may possibly consider that, instead of going to Committee and discussing the details of the Bill there without hope of passing it into law, it might be well in the general interest if the Government were to take the matter back. He may think that it might be well if the Government looked at it again in the light of all that has been said in this debate and in the debate on 13th April and see whether, despite all the difficulties—for I cannot hold out any hope that general unlimited extension could be granted—we could find a solution that would meet the arguments which have been adduced against the continuation of the present situation while not opening the door too wide to the dangers that I have indicated.

I can speak only by leave of the House, but in view of the fact that I cut my remarks somewhat short in my speech in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, I should be glad if leave were granted. [HON. MEMBERS "Hear, hear."] The right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) said that the Bill was stillborn. I do not think that it is a very lusty infant, but I hope that the House will think that our discussion has been of value. Emerging from the discussion is the fact that possibly the Government have not fully realised the very rapid changes that have taken place in connection with trusts.

I was concerned with a trust which was provided by a testator in 1937. Roughly, it was to provide, for deserving and able young people who could not otherwise afford to go to university, funds to enable them to go. That fund has no application today because deserving and able young men and women can go to the universities. That was only twenty years ago. Therefore, when we have a Trustee Act which is dated 1925, that is, thirty-one years ago, it is not surprising that there are now the differences and anomalies, to which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Major Hicks Beach) has called attention.

Certain figures covering nearly forty years seem to indicate that throughout that period the yield on equities, taking into account capital appreciation or depreciation, in every period of ten years between 1919 and 1929, 1929 and 1939, etc., exceeded the yield on gilt-edged securities, with one exception. That was the period 1929–39 when the yield on equities was 4.4 per cent. and the yield on gilt-edged securities, plus capital appreciation, amounted to 5.9 per cent. Therefore, during that considerable period of forty' years, with the slight relapse between 1929 and 1939, the yield on equities far exceeded the yield on gilt-edged securities.

I am troubled, in connection with the Bill, by the position of the people who are concerned with small trusts. It is a rather difficult situation, because they are the people who most need the benefits of any improvement that can be made in trustee legislation, and yet they are the people who least of all are able to get the best advice. They are also very often unable to spread the investments in the estate when the estate is small. It is no answer to say that they could go to the court, because in relation to the small estate the cost of going to the court, apart from the trouble caused, is very substantial.

If the Government intend to give consideration to these matters I wonder if it would be possible to consider whether some protection might be given to certain small estates by a requirement to obtain advice and a certificate of advice from a competent stockbroker. That sort of thing occurs in the valuation of property. One engages a surveyor, who gives full consideration to the matter from his professional knowledge.

There is no reason why that sort of procedure should not be applied to stocks and shares in order to meet the very grave need of people who are concerned with small trusts. Of course, the large trusts are in a very much stronger position, but, in view of the difficulties of the small trusts and their inability—to use the expression of my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Summers)—to get freedom of manoeuvre, their position does require special consideration.

I should like to pay tribute to the care and the co-operation that my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary has given in this obviously most important question of principle. I am pleased to hear that legislation is intended over part of the field. I hope, however, that my right hon. Friend will continue to use his good offices to consider further whether the Government can do something to solve these admittedly important problems for quite an important section of the community.

I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend that in the circumstances it would not help anybody for me to press for the Bill to be given a Second Reading. Relying on the fact that we have had a full debate, even though it was spread over two days, I hope that the Government will eventually be able to do something in the matter. It only remains for me to ask leave to withdraw the Bill—

Before the hon. Gentleman does that, may I say that we on this side of the House think that the hon. Member has taken a wise decision? We all appreciate that, in view of the situation it would be better, in the light of what the Financial Secretary has said, if the matter were left to the Government for them to do something about

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion and also the Bill.

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

This simple and brief Bill is the fruit of the perseverance and work of my noble Friend Lord Merthyr over a considerable period of time. He has, it is true, encountered some criticism in his efforts but, if one takes the trouble to examine this criticism closely, it is more often than not apparent that those who are loudest in their criticism have not read the Bill, and, if they have read the Bill, they have not understood it.

What the Bill does is to prohibit certain definite acts concerning live wild rabbits. It is not concerned with tame or domestic rabbits. The offences are detailed in Clause I which prohibits four distinct actions—the selling of wild live rabbits, the buying of them, the conveying of them from place to place and, lastly, the letting loose of live wild rabbits. Subsection (1) of the Clause details the penalties for these offences and subsection (3) provides for exception in cases where wild rabbits are used for scientific purposes. Let me say in parenthesis that we have investigated the possible use of these animals and there is no question of the use of live wild rabbits for vivisection. Subsection (4) defines what is a wild rabbit. This definition satisfies the British Rabbit Council which is the body with which domestic breeders and fanciers are concerned and which represents such people.

Clause 2 gives certain powers to the police and to the courts. Also, it brings the powers of the Scottish courts into line with those of the English courts. Clause 3 prohibits importation of European rabbits. This was one of the exceptions of an Order passed by Parliament in 1954—the Non-Indigenous Rabbits (Prohibition of Importation and Keeping) Order. The Clause closes a gap and prohibits the importation of European rabbits.

Clause 4 authorises certain exceptions and simplifies procedure, under Section 1 of the Pests Act, where rabbits are required to be kept for scientific research in a rabbit clearance area or where the Nature Conservancy wishes to release rabbits in nature reserves to study their habits and their effect on vegetation and other matters connected therewith.

Certain criticisms have been made about the Bill. Usually the first one is that it will entail a lot of unnecessary extra work for the rural police. Of course any legislation of this nature is bound to give further work for the police to do. One cannot possibly evade that, but the criticism generally reveals ignorance of police methods. One would imagine when one hears some of these critics that the village policeman sets out on certain days of the week with the sole intent of looking for people trafficking in, bartering, selling, releasing or conveying live wild rabbits. Of course, that is utter nonsense. The village policeman goes out on his patrol in order to apprehend felons of all sorts and to see that things are as they should be in the countryside either by day or by night. If he should come across those who are conveying live wild rabbits, releasing them, putting them up for sale or endeavouring to buy these creatures, naturally he would apprehend them.

The second criticism is that the Bill is bound to lead to further official snoopers and give rein to mischief makers generally. If that were a valid criticism. I should be one of the first to voice it myself, but I think I can prove that it is far from valid. There are no officials required by the Bill. It does not in any way give further work to pest control officers. Mischief makers and tale bearers are always present in limited numbers and almost any legislation gives them further scope.

The Bill cannot create ill will, except only in those who wish to profit by and exploit traffic in a helpless small animal which, if it is allowed to spread and get out of control, becomes a menace and pest to food and timber growers and reduces the quality of our pastures. The question of cost to the taxpayer, another of the criticisms which is brought forward, is equally absurd. The Bill involves no additional expenditure other than in the apprehension and conviction of those who break the law if this Bill becomes law.

Another criticism that is made is that the Bill will extend the powers of Government pest services. As I have already said, it does not in any way involve the service of pest officers and will, if it is allowed to go through, prove instrumental in reducing the pest control services. If traffic in rabbits is not allowed, there is unlikely to be artificial spreading of rabbits and eventually there will be no need for rabbit clearance orders and there will be less for the pest officers to do, which in consequence will lead to a reduction in this Government service.

The last criticism is that it is impossible to secure conviction since wild rabbits can cross any barriers on their own. Those who make this criticism are getting the Bill mixed up with the Pests Act, 1954. There is nothing in the Bill to prohibit anyone having live wild rabbits on his own property. It only makes illegal certain very definite acts, in all of which the onus of proof is simple. I have already listed the four principal acts which are to be made illegal, and in connection with buying and selling I should say that Clause 1 covers barter and exchange also.

It is also said that the Bill will detract from the liberty of the subject. In a way that is true, but no more so than in preventing people from uttering forged currency. preventing public nuisance by had smells, prohibiting people from allowing dirty effluent to run into our rivers and, taking an even more recent instance of legislation, prohibiting people from letting thick smoke get into the clean air.

The prevention of spreading and the prevention of any aids to propagation of this pest are very desirable. I look upon the wild rabbit as dangerous a pest in this country as is the colorado beetle, the only difference being that the colorado beetle is a comparatively rare visitor and is stamped out before it gets a grasp, whereas the rabbit has been with us for roughly 2,000 years.

People argue that this is an animal which is good for food, produces tolerably good fur which can be used in manufacture, and produces a skin which can be used to make gloves. There is nothing in the Bill which prohibits the existence of rabbits. Admittedly, we have in mind in the background that these animals are a pest and it will be much better for the country generally when they are exterminated, but if people want to produce rabbits for meat, for fur and for their skins, why not keep the domestic animals and have them killed in a proper hygienic and humane manner?

The domestic rabbit produces a tolerably good white meat—some people say it is not unlike chicken—and it is far superior as a food. Each domestic rabbit carries a far greater weight of meat than the wild rabbit and produces a food which is far better to eat.

The aims of the Bill are practical and humane. They do not allow sentiment or emotion to blur our vision. Some people like to say that the rabbit is a pretty little animal with a kind expression and a cotton tail. It was painted on our cots and imitated in our woolly toys, and it adorned our mugs and plates when we were children. Hence sentiment creeps in. If the rabbit were ugly and repulsive, or found to be the carrier of a fearful human disease or frightened old ladies by night, there would be no second thoughts in this matter.

The rabbit is a foreigner. Although J. G. Millais wrote his great work "The Mammals of Great Britain and Ireland" in 1906, it is still very up to date. On page 41, he says:

" Some authorities distinctly state that we owe the introduction of the rabbit to the Romans. but there is no proof of this, or any evidence of its arrival in this country. Its remains are not found in the peat, and the fact that there is no word for the rabbit in any of the ancient Celtic languages must point to a comparatively recent introduction of the animal."

Therefore, when people say that the eventual extermination of the rabbit would upset the balance of Nature, what they are really saying is that the balance of Nature has already been upset for 2,000 years and they would not like a restoration to the status quo before this pest was introduced in these islands.

A lot of people think that since the advent of myxomatosis, rabbits have virtually been exterminated. There is no doubt that there is a great difference in their numbers, and in some areas they are not easily found, but it is significant that between 1st March and 30th April this year a scheme was put in hand by the National Farmers' Union in Hampshire which offered 2s. for a pair of rabbit ears. Just under 15,000 rabbits were killed and their ears produced in evidence in those 60 days. It was estimated that one rabbit was in existence for every ten acres in the county.

Among the other evidence is the extraordinary way in which these animals propagate and spread from other countries. Bulletin No. 284 of the New Zealand Department of Agriculture, issued in 1947, contains some interesting evidence. Its authors work on the assumption that each female rabbit in New Zealand can have eight litters of six small rabbits in a year, and they assume that all these rabbit children are divided equally as to sex, half male and half female. They also assume that female rabbits start to breed at fifteen weeks of age. These assumptions can be proved scientifically and are correct.

The total increase, therefore, from one pair of rabbits in one year is 534. Allowing for half of these as casualties before the start of the second year, the second year would begin with 268 rabbits, half of which were does, from each of which, producing offspring which in turn produced further offspring, there would be a total of 534 in the year. At the end of the second year the total is 71,000. If we allow a 50 per cent. loss, we start the third year with just under 36,000. Half of these are does. Allowing the same rate of production and the same loss of 50 per cent. during the year from natural causes, the total at the end of the third year will he 9,606,460 rabbits.

Our climatic conditions in this country are very different from those in New Zealand. If we allow, on a conservative estimate, a quarter of the rate of the increase in New Zealand, and still allow the same 50 per cent. casualty rate, it is equivalent to dividing the New Zealand total of over 9½ million by 64—a quarter of a quarter of a quarter—for the three ensuing years. On that basis, one pair of rabbits can have produced, after three years, 150,101 descendants.

It is the odd one we are worried about.

On those grounds alone, it is apparent that this small animal can be an appalling pest to our agriculture, our forestry and our general well-being in the countryside. I therefore commend the Bill, which will prevent the spreading of and the traffic in this pest.

I beg to second the Motion.

I am glad that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wells (Lieut.-Commander Maydon) has agreed to sponsor this simple yet most important Bill which has come to us from another place. The Bill is designed simply to help us in the general effort to prevent the rabbit from again becoming a major pest.

Everyone in this country has known for a long time, more or less, how much damage the rabbit has done to agriculture and to forestry, but I think it has been a revelation to most of us to see the great improvement in crops and grass after myxomatosis has passed through an area and decimated the rabbit population. In the County of Cumberland, where I live, we have suffered from an enormous number of rabbits in the last few years, and the difference in the crops last year, after myxomatosis, was astonishing.

The benefits to forestry resulting from the disappearance of the rabbit will be slower to see but in the end, I am sure, will be much greater even than the benefits to agriculture. In this country we are so short of raw materials that the improvement and expansion of our forestry is important to us, since timber is almost the only important raw material of which we can increase our stock. It may even be possible to double our timber stocks in this country in thirty or forty years, but that will certainly not happen if the country is over-run with rabbits, even if all those concerned are prepared to lay out the large additional sums necessary on rabbit fencing.

Few people are prepared to admit that they want to see the same number of rabbits in this country again, but a good many people, understandably sentimental people, would like to see a few rabbits about. I want to suggest that we cannot have a few rabbits about. My hon. and gallant Friend has explained the breeding potential of the rabbit under optimum conditions, and also, I presume, under the conditions in his county of Somerset but whichever way we look at the matter, we must come to the conclusion that we cannot have a few rabbits. We either have no rabbits or too many rabbits, and those who stand to suffer from damage by rabbits would rather see none.

This year we have in this country the chance of a century to be sure that the rabbit does not again increase in numbers. The recent legislation on pests has given the Minister of Agriculture increased powers, but there are still gaps in the defences, and this small Bill attempts to fill those gaps—nothing more than that.

It deals with the buying and selling of wild rabbits and the turning of a few of them loose. Turning a few of them loose may sound trivial enough, and there are bound to be a few selfish people who are prepared to do that; but a few rabbits turned loose, even breeding under far from optimum conditions, can soon undo the work of hundreds of people in that area and cost those people thousands of pounds. Taking the whole country, it can cost millions of pounds.

The argument will no doubt be advanced that we shall do damage to the industry which makes use of the rabbit skins, and that we shall also lose meat. The argument that we shall lose meat is absurd, because the rabbit makes extremely uneconomical use of the grass which it consumes. It is much better that we should have beef and mutton instead of rabbit meat. Admittedly, there will be something on the debit side of the account when we consider the loss of the rabbit skins, but that will not compare with the advantages on the credit side, particularly those to agriculture.

The suggestion that more power will be given to officials is really a very small point. We shall probably hear it made before the debate concludes, and we shall probably be told that the House is once again creating new offences which are unnecessary and a breach of which it will be difficult to prove. If we succeed in clearing the rabbit out of this country, we shall have no more need not only of invoking the law in relation to the offences which we are creating under the Bill but also in relation to a whole number of offences under previous pests legislation.

I have said that we have the chance of a century. The responsible thing for us to do is to take advantage of that chance; and I am sure that the great majority of country dwellers will support us in that action.

1.38 p.m.

Although we have many Orders of importance before us, I hope the House will forgive me if I spend a few moments in having a look at the Bill and in adding to what the hon. and gallant Member for Wells (Lieut.-Commander Maydon) and the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane) have said about it.

I have some doubts about the Bill, but I am encouraged by the fact that the hon. and gallant Member for Wells said it was reprehensible to oppose the Bill only if one had not read it. I hope to give some evidence of the fact that I have read it, and I therefore take it that I have title from him to say a few words querying its provisions.

The hon. and gallant Member spoke at length and with the vehemence and passion which seem always to characterise the utterances of some hon. Members opposite and some of their noble Friends in another place whenever they get round to the subject of rabbits. I listened very carefully to what he said, and as far as I could make it out he opposed the existence of the rabbit, not on agricultural or economic grounds, but on nationalist grounds against a foreigner. He said that the rabbit was a foreigner. I take it that on those grounds he will shortly be introducing Private Bills to allow for the extermination of, or at least to prohibit the traffic in and setting loose of, other foreigners like Pomeranians, Pekingese, Siamese cats and ice hockey players. If those are the only grounds on which we are to act, I suggest that they are pretty thin. The only other point which I could adduce from his argument was that he was advocating, I thought, that rabbits should be co-opted to membership of the British Productivity Council and that he was putting forward some figures in support of this argument.

I hope that if I say something in criticism of the phraseology of the Bill it will not be thought that I am aspersing upon the noble lords who inhabit another place. There have been a number of times in my political life when I have had some doubts whether that place adds to the efficiency of Parliament, and I am bound to say that I found those doubts increased when I read the Bill. In some ways, this is the most ridiculous and laughable piece of legislation I have ever had in my hand since 1 have been a Member of this House. I am not an expert on agriculture or on forestry, and certainly not an expert on rabbits, but I think that I am just about as expert as most other men on the subject of common sense. I really cannot believe that any ordinary person could read this Measure and think that it was motivated by any common sense. Let us look, not at the argument, but at what the thing says. I invite the hon. and gallant Member for Wells to go into his local "pub" this evening and just start reading this Bill to a few of the ordinary chaps he finds there, and then to listen to what they think about it.

Clause 1 reads:

" Subject to the provisions of this section, a person shall be guilty of an offence under this subsection if,—

(a) he—

(i) sells, or offers or exposes for sale, or gives away a live wild rabbit or transfers to another person the property in a live wild rabbit (whether with or without any further consideration) for a consideration which consists of, or includes, the transfer by that other person of the property in other goods."

In the last hour or two, an hon. Gentleman opposite told me that even though he is a lawyer he could not make head or tail of what that was trying to say. I said that to me as a layman this business about transferring:

"…the property in a live wild rabbit (whether with or without any further consideration) for a consideration which consists of, or includes, the transfer by that other person of the property and other goods."

suggested that there are people running around the countryside swapping their homes or furniture or motor cars—or wives—for wild rabbits. I should have thought that this was not a proposition that would commend itself to those people.

I admit that the wording in the later half of this subsection is a little complicated, but that is for a very good reason. Perhaps I may say, to start with, that I think that the intelligence of these frequenting the "pubs" in my part of the world must be rather higher than that of those whom the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo) has met in his. I am quite sure that if I went into a "local" near my home and suggested that it would be prohibited in future to sell, offer, or expose for sale, or give away a live wild rabbit, or transfer it to another person, I would be completely understood. After that, when we come to this business of the property in a live rabbit—

Is the hon. Member making a second speech?

No, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I am merely seeking to answer what has been said by—

The hon. Member can speak a second time only by leave of the House.

The hon. and gallant Member had better not asperse on the intelligence of those in my "local", because I live in the constituency of his hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield), and if he is casting aspersions on the citizens of Marylebone he may be suggesting that they did not use their "loaf" when they elected his hon. Friend to Parliament, and I am sure that his hon. Friend would not like that.

I invite the hon. and gallant Gentleman to take this one to the "pub." It is Clause 2 (1), which says

" A constable may seize a rabbit—"

He says, after that, that he does not believe that there will be a lot of extra work imposed on the rural police should this Bill become law. Let us not forget that one of the offences under Clause 1 (1) is the turning loose of a wild rabbit. Therefore, a wild rabbit which has been turned loose is the subject of an offence under that subsection and is one of the rabbits which the constable may seize. This raises a wonderful picture in my mind of the village "bobby" haring round the countryside trying to seize a wild rabbit which has been turned loose.

To return to Clause 2 (1):

"A constable may seize a rabbit … may, if it is alive, kill it or cause it to be killed and may sell or otherwise dispose of the dead body thereof."

I can see this being the commencement of a lively trade. The hon. and gallant Gentlemen who moved the Bill has not told us, as he should have done, what happens to the "boodle." What happens to the money that is obtained by a constable who has seized a wild rabbit and disposed of "the dead body thereof "? Is a wild rabbit treated for this purpose like a prize vessel, when those who board the vessel and "cop" it collect the money, or does it become, by virtue of having been seized under an Act introduced in their Lordship's House, the property of the Crown, so that the constable will have to write out a cheque to his chief constable for the value of the rabbit? I am really worried about this. What happens to the money obtained for the dead rabbit?

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. Has he given thought to the intervening words of the subsection, which seem to imply that before seizing the rabbit the constable will have to tell the rabbit that

"… he has reasonable ground for believing that an offence under subsection (1) of the foregoing section is being, or has been committed. …"?

Will this not rather add further delay to the process of seizing the rabbit?

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend; I might otherwise have overlooked that point.

rose—

Order. The House is not in Committee.

It seems a little strange that we should be introducing a Bill which treats a wild rabbit almost like a felon, when there are so many people going around the countryside at the moment doing serious damage to the nation's interest by spending a lot of tax-free income to cause further inflation, and by avoiding the payment of taxation. They are not made into felons, but the poor little live wild rabbit is, and any constable may seize it immediately he sets eyes on it—that is, of course, if he can catch the darned thing.

Not only do we cause all this work to the village constabulary, but what about the poor overloaded courts? Every now and again some hon. and learned Member tells us about the work which is overloading the courts. Is not this ridiculous? Subsection (2) of Clause 2 states:

" The court by or before which a person is convicted of an offence under subsection (1) of the foregoing section with respect to a rabbit which has been seized under the foregoing subsection may, if the body of the rabbit has been sold, order the forfeiture of the proceeds of the sale, and, if not, order the forfeiture of the rabbit."

Can hon. Gentlemen really see the majesty, the panoply, the dignity of the British legal system, which we have established over all these centuries and of which we are so proud, the bewigged and berobed judges drawing upon the enormous fund of their experience and learning in order to pronounce pontifically on whether a live wild rabbit should be forfeited? But even their lot is light compared with that of their colleagues in Scotland. Clause 2 (3) gives much more power to their Scottish colleaues to exercise freedom in this matter, and they will, therefore, have to give much longer thought to the question. That subsection reads:

" Any rabbit, or proceeds of the sale of a rabbit, forfeited by virtue of an order made under the last foregoing subsection by a court in Scotland shall be disposed of in such manner as the court may direct."

Judges in Scotland will, presumably, have to have a recess, or a withdrawal or whatever it is, seriously to debate this point.

I have so far spoken about this a little lightly, perhaps, but I really believe that this is a little Measure that could cause a lot of unnecessary trouble. The noble Lord who introduced it in another place told his colleagues—I know that I am not allowed to quote what he said so I will speak only in the third person—that he had earlier introduced another Bill; that he had withdrawn that one and had the assistance of the Government, and that the Bill he was presenting, which is this Bill, was a longer one. Then he said that their Lordships might find it a little more difficult to understand—which I thought was a somewhat uncharitable observation for him to make. He went on to console them for any difficulty of understanding which they might have by saying that, although the Bill is longer and more difficult to understand, the lawyers are satisfied with it. I bet they are. I can see some of them buying their wives mink coats, not rabbit coats, with the money they will make out of all these complicated words.

I can imagine the fun lawyers will have, arguing about whether a given rabbit which has been seized by a given constable is a rabbit which has been turned loose or a rabbit which was a pet of some child, even though wild, which escaped through inadvertence. I am quite sure there are many learned Gentlemen who could debate this subject for a very long time. Nor do I share the view of the hon. and gallant Member for Wells that the definition of "wild rabbit" in the Bill is so clear as to brook no argument or cases before the Courts. It says:

" In this section wild rabbit' means a rabbit other than one which is of a type commonly kept in captivity and has been born in captivity and kept continuously in captivity since birth."

To a layman like me that reads like what Mr. Punch used to call a glimpse of the obvious. However, I have no doubt that this definition is much too simple. What it says, in fact. is that a wild rabbit is any rabbit which is not a tame rabbit. It is so simple that I am quite sure we cannot expect any lawyers to accept it without a great deal of argument and piling up a great deal of costs.

It is, in a way, symptomatic of the attitude of some people that their Lordships' House has, over the last year, spent more time debating rabbits than it has spent debating old-age pensioners. It has spent more time debating rabbits than it has spent debating war pensioners. It has spent more time debating rabbits than it has spent debating children. In their Lordships' House much more interest is shown in rabbits than in children. 1 do not believe that that is a view, or balance of interests, which should be shared by hon. Members of this House.

This Measure, we understand, has Government support. Although it is a Private Member's Measure, the Government cannot, therefore, altogether escape some responsibility here. The contents of this Bill, as it seems to me, exhibit a gross lack of a sense of proportion on the part of right hon. Gentlemen opposite. Here we are, in this country, facing at the moment some very grave problems. There is more division amongst the people of our country about where we are going, where we ought to go, and on really fundamental issues both domestic and foreign, than there has been for a very long time. There are many people being hit very hard by rising prices competing against fixed incomes. There are many people worried and saddened about what is happening in some of our possessions in other parts of the world.

What do the Government produce, or what do they support?—a Measure which entitles a constable to seize a rabbit. If this results in right hon. Gentlemen opposite and some of their supporters becoming a laughing-stock in the country to an even greater extent than they are now in most of the country, including Tonbridge, they will jolly well deserve it.

I cannot entirely follow the hon. Gentleman the Member for Reading (Mr.Mikardo) when he says that this Bill and the question of rabbits is entirely unimportant. The great damage which rabbits do is certainly likely to be reflected in the agricultural prosperity of the country, and certainly ought to be a matter for public concern. I had a letter from a constituent of mine the other day; he asked me why the House of Commons spent any time except debating economic affairs. I cannot imagine that that will happen, but if hon. and right hon. Gentlemen did spend all of every day discussing economic affairs, it would be only the logical extension of what the hon. Member for Reading was suggesting.

On the question of whether Clause 1 will be understood by gentlemen in the "pubs" of Marylebone, I am bound to stress that I think it would be understood, although difficulty might arise later in the evening when the hon. Member for Reading came to try and reiterate the phrase "live wild rabbit". I myself find some difficulty in getting my tongue round it.

Although I disagree to that extent with the observations which fell from the hon. Member for Reading, I am bound to say that I am not entirely entranced by this Bill, and I do not, in general, support its provisions. It will not, in my view, contribute towards the object which the movers of the Bill have in mind, with which I greatly sympathise; furthermore. I think it will be unenforceable at law and will, therefore, tend to bring the law and lawyers into even greater contempt.

I will hasten to say at once that I am unalterably opposed to rabbits. It is pretty well fatal to one's reputation at this time to be in favour of rabbits, and I should like to make clear that I am against them. In the same way as it has from time to time been said that to be too friendly with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) is dangerous for one's political future, so at the moment it is rather dangerous to be actively in favour of rabbits.

I have received a great deal of correspondence about rabbits. I had a postcard this morning from a body called The Universities Federation for Animal Welfare, which wishes to support the Bill on the grounds that it will reduce the amount of cruelty and will reduce damage to plots.

I very much doubt whether the Bill will do that. Rabbits have not been exterminated by myxomatosis in this country. At one time we thought they had been, but we hear increasing reports from all over the country that rabbits have not been exterminated and are starting to come back. That situation seems to be quite general. The very striking figures given by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wells (Lieut.-Commander Maydon) about the numbers of rabbits caught in Hampshire recently, a county which suffered very badly from myxomatosis, illustrate that, quite apart from any question of whether a few people go about with one or two rabbits in a bag, letting them out in fields, this is a problem which is very much with us at the present time.

If rabbits bred as fast as my hon. and gallant Friend told us, as I believe they do, under favourable conditions, a few rabbits transported from place to place will not make very much difference to the passage of rabbits across the country, so long as they are still there in important quantities in almost every county. In debate in another place it was said that the problem of rabbits in the Isle of Wight, where they were said at one time to have entirely disappeared, is now becoming serious again; and there is no suggestion that rabbits have been taken there or released in the manner that this Bill is supposed to prevent.

In the second place, I believe that this law will prove to be unenforceable. It will be impossible to know who is going to release a rabbit, or how he is going to be caught. It will be impossible for the local police constable to know what is in the poacher's bag on his back, and unless the constable is actually present at the time when the rabbit is released, it will be quite impossible to bring any offender to book.

I know that hon. and learned Gentlemen tell us that the courts are overloaded with work. I do not think this Bill will add to their work, because nobody will be caught for an offence under this Bill or be brought before any court.

Clause 1 makes clear that the Bill concerns wild rabbits only. So far as I can see, there is nothing to stop a man who likes rabbits from restocking his land with tame breeds of rabbits. Such rabbits are much bigger and better to eat, and I should have thought that it would have been perfectly possible to restock one's land with rabbits of tame breeds, the Belgian hare, or something of that sort. Anybody who lives in the country knows that wild rabbits of different colour, the result of crossing with tame rabbits, are quite frequently seen. I am certain that such a thing as I suggest could quite easily be done, with the result that damage could be inflicted and yet not be caught by the provisions of the Bill.

In Clause 2, as the hon. Member for Reading pointed out, we have the phrase, which I am sure will go down very well in all the "pubs" in England.

" A constable may seize a rabbit …"

If his experience is like mine in getting the children's rabbits off the tennis court and back into the hutch every Sunday night before coming to this House, he will find it a virtually impossible task.

I am intrigued by the wording of Clause 2 (3). It applies apparently to Scotland. I wonder why the court in Scotland cannot go through the clear, if elaborate, sequence of events described in subsection 1 (2). I do not know very much about Scotland. I do not know whether this has anything to do with religion on anything like that, but it seems peculiar way of differentiating Between procedures in England and Scotland.

I believe that the objects of the Bill, with which I am entirely in sympathy if they are to keep rabbits out of the country, can better be attained under the existing law. The Pests Act, 1954, gives the Minister power to make clearance areas and provides that offences shall be committed if landowners do not clear their land, and if they do not clear it, they can have it cleared for them. Surely that is the essence of the matter. That is the way to get rid of rabbits. I do not think that we can stop rabbits spreading naturally, and this little Bill, which seeks to stop them being spread artifically, will be unenforceable and will not contribute to the diminution of rabbits in the country.

I intervene in the debate, which is a little off my usual line of country, because my constituency is the centre of the felt hat industry. The industry is very worried about what will happen to it if its raw material is wiped out by the Government's policy or by myxomatosis or a combination of both.

The hon. and gallant Member for Wells (Lieut.-Commander Maydon) argued, somewhat speciously I thought, that, after all, there was nothing in the Bill to prohibit the existence of rabbits, and that people could breed domestic rabbits. He said that the flesh of domestic rabbits was superior to that of wild rabbits. I noticed that he said nothing about their fur, however. For felt batting, the fur of the wild rabbit is far superior to that of the domestic rabbit. The fur of the wild rabbit is the raw material of the felt hatting industry. It cannot use the domestic rabbit unless it turns out a very low-quality hat.

The industry sees the Government bent on exterminating the wild rabbit. As I understand the Government's view, it is, first, that the damage caused by rabbits far exceeds the value of their flesh and fur; and, second, that, as myxomatosis has almost wiped out rabbits, we might as well finish the job. The Bill is supposed to give the authorities the tools to finish the job.

I wonder whether the calculations are correct. The estimates of the value of rabbits as against the damage they cause seem to be fluctuating and to be extremely vague. Myxomatosis itself does not seem to have done as much damage to rabbits in this country as was expected, for they are coming back. I believe that even in Australia the rabbits are begin- ning to return because myxomatosis has spent its virulence, which often happens in respect of an epidemic if it runs long enough. I believe that there is some suggestion that a fresh, more virulent strain has to be introduced.

Are we not seeing the breeding of a generation of more or less myxomatosis-resistant rabbits, and will it really be possible, by the means proposed in the Bill and by the legal powers which it confers, to finish the job? What will be the effect on the balance of nature? What will be the effect on foxes and stoats deprived of rabbits? Are they not turning to poultry, game, etc.? It seems to me that there are many elements in the calculations which are extremely questionable.

I am much more concerned—it is my chief concern—about what is to happen to the fine old felt hatting industry. The industry takes the view, not unnaturally, that, whereas its job is to produce hats out of rabbits, the Government expect it to subsist by producing rabbits out of a hat. What is the industry to do if its raw material disappears? Some members of the industry are pinning their faith on Brer Rabbit's power to increase and multiply in defiance of myxomatosis and the Ministry of Agriculture. Their view might be summed up in the story about the fox which chased a rabbit into its burrow and mounted guard outside, upon which the rabbit said to his wife, "The only thing to do, my dear, is to stay down below until we outnumber the enemy." Maybe that calculation might turn out to be correct.

Meantime, what is the industry to do, because for some time it will suffer from an acute shortage of raw material? I would ask the Government to face their responsibility in the matter. If by their own act they wipe out the native wild rabbit and make it impossible for the industry to subsist, what will they do to produce alternative sources of supply?

I wrote to the Board of Trade to inquire about alternative sources of supply. The Board of Trade was very helpful, informative and courteous, but, as I rather expected, it was thinking solely in terms of available sources of supply in Western Europe. In Western Europe there has, of course, also been myxomatosis, particularly in France, and there is severe competition from the Belgian, Austrian and Italian felt hatting industries for the diminished number of rabbits.

I got in touch with the East-West Trade Council, the body presided over by Lord Boyd-Orr, and it dug up some East European sources which looked useful. I passed that information on to my constituents. But that is not really a job for a back bench Member of Parliament. It is a job for the Government. I would ask the Government to include in their purview of the subject their responsibility for the future of the felt hat industry. If they wipe out the native wild rabbit as a source of supply for the industry, they should, in their trade arrangements with other countries, try to cater for the needs of the industry and encourage the supply, without tariffs and at the lowest possible rates, of wild rabbit and hare pelts.

2.8 p.m.

I am very glad that the hon. Member for Gorton (Mr. Zilliacus) has raised the question of the felt and fur side of the problem, because I think we are apt to assume that the only feature that really matters is food production. We all agree that we want to produce as much food as possible, and I am sure that we all agree with the first line of the long title of the Bill:

" An Act to make provision for preventing the spread of rabbits …".

I am sure that we all agree with that objective, but we need to keep a balanced point of view about the matter.

My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wells (Lieut.-Commander Maydon) referred to the rabbit as a foreigner. The hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo) made some play with that, and suggested that various types of pet dogs ought also to be ruled out on the basis that they were alien to this land. One could carry the argument further, though it might be a little dangerous for those who are, presumably, descendants of people who invaded these islands from time to time, and say that because something entered this country somewhere around Roman times, although it may not be possible to establish that it was in Roman times, it is no longer welcome in these islands. It might be a little dangerous for us to talk too much about that.

My feeling is that we want to make very clear that we do not interpret the word "rabbit" as meaning what it sometimes means. For instance, I discovered —this may interest my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Horncastle (Commander Maitland)—that in north Lincolnshire at the end of the last century, according to Edward Peacock's glossary of words used in the Wapentakes of Manley and Corringham "Rabbit= (M.P.)." Whether that referred to the sitting M.P. for the time I do not know, but we would all agree that we are dealing with the descendants of the coney.

The word used in Clause 3 is cuniculus. I do not know what the origin of the word "rabbit" is. It was suggested by Dr. Johnson that it came from the Latin rapidus, meaning "swift". Nobody who has compiled a dictionary since then has agreed with him. Wherever it comes from, the rabbit has been in this country for a very long time, and we know from Strabo in 50 B.C. that it was then on the Western Atlantic seaboard in Europe and so has been near us, if not actually with us, for many centuries.

The first thing we must consider is what has made this animal a pest. The sponsors of the Bill may or may not have a vested interest in the preservation of game birds. I do not know. I am convinced that what caused rabbits to begin to be a menace was the preservation of game, because the moment one starts to upset the balance of nature, trouble starts. A good gamekeeper keeps down all the vermin which would otherwise be feeding on rabbits, and that is one of the difficulties. That practice did not really start to its full extent until the last century. So far as I know, there is no historical record anywhere to show that the rabbit was a menace until comparatively recent years. Presumably their numbers were kept down.

We have not had shotguns for very long, and now that we have upset the balance of nature we are having considerable trouble, and the menace of the rabbit has developed. I enjoy a day's shooting. I always remember that one of the first things I started to shoot was rabbits, and I found it very difficult when I first handled a gun. I hope that the hon. Member for Reading will not think that this is too frivolous. Apart from anything else, if we abolish rabbits altogether in this country, we shall either create a generation of the most dangerous shots that this country has ever known, or experience a decimation of wild birds by young fellows learning to shoot for the first time. They have to shoot at something.

It might be said that they could shoot at pigeons, but pigeons are not an easy target when one first begins to shoot. The numbers of pigeons are increasing for exactly the same reason that has caused the increase in rabbits—an attempt by man to upset the balance of nature. It is extraordinary what we have tried to do. We have tried to exterminate the grey squirrel which fed on pigeons' eggs. We have considerably reduced the numbers of grey squirrels and at the same time the number of pigeons has tended to increase.

We now have animals, such as foxes, feeding on animals about which they have never worried hitherto. For all we know, they might be feeding on animals which would have eaten pigeons' eggs. In Norfolk and other counties pigeons are becoming an absolute menace. Whenever man tries to upset the balance of nature, he brings about more troubles than he solves.

That being the case, what are we to do about the rabbit problem? Are we to introduce a more virulent form of myxomatosis? I have seen enough of myxomatosis to find it very difficult to agree with those people who say that the rabbit cannot possibly be suffering because it is still nibbling food. I was on Stanford battle range in Norfolk in the heyday of myxomatosis, and there was more mercy killing on that day than game being shot. It is one of the most revolting sights one could ever see. I am not unduly squeamish about these things, and I am not always in sympathy with those people who believe that man should never kill any animal, but I must confess that all of us who saw myxomatosis in full swing were utterly horrified by it.

Any disease of the blood, which is what myxomatosis is—it is a venereal disease—is automatically revolting, and for that reason we should think very carefully about whether we want to start introducing a more virulent form. Supposing we say that we have had enough of myxomatosis—although it may have done some good for British agriculture —how are we to keep rabbits down, and will the Bill help to do that?

Clause 1 (1, c) makes one wonder how the Bill will be operated. It means that anybody is guilty of an offence if he turns loose a wild rabbit. It is not an offence only if he does something else as well: It is an offence by itself. How on earth is that provision to be enforced? How is it to be established in the first place, and who is to establish it? I was delighted to hear my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wells say that it was not his intention to build up a large swarm of new officials. If that is not his intention, upon whom will he rely to enforce the Bill? The answer is given in the Bill in Clause 2—the police constable. Is that not placing a very heavy burden indeed on the police?

I am not being frivolous, but is it really fair that the police should have to distinguish between a holding on which a rabbit has appeared through some cause unknown to the occupier and a holding on which has appeared a rabbit which has been let loose by the occupier or somebody else? Even supposing that he is able to distinguish between those two situations, will the police constable be in the position to know whether or not it is fair to "run in" the occupier, or to "run in" someone else, or will he leave the matter alone and hope that nobody notices?

I am sure that in this House we have all had sufficient experience of legislation to feel that the worst thing of all is to start introducing legislation which is badly drafted and difficult, if not impossible, to enforce. From that aspect alone there is sufficient ground to say that the Bill should not go forward. We must avoid overburdening police constables, especially in villages, and bringing them, and with them the law, into disrepute.

I was saying when we were interrupted that we were very anxious, therefore, not to give the police constable an impossible task, or to bring him, and with him the law. into disrepute in the village. I think we might take this opportunity of paying a tribute to the village police constable. It is very easy, as the hon. Member for Reading did, to make fun of him because of the way in which he would have to behave under this Bill. Certainly, I think that the last thing which we want him to do is to ride his bicycle to the danger of the public in trying to course a rabbit down a road or in any way, as a result of operating this Bill, to become a figure of fun. Certainly, the drafting of this Bill tends to run that risk; It must do.

The idea of a police constable chasing a rabbit offers much scope for great amusement, but I would say that those who have lived in villages for as long as I have done know perfectly well that, of all the respected people in the village, there is none who comes higher than the average British police constable. He does a wonderful job, and the last thing we ever want him to do is to be everlastingly on the prowl, looking for trouble.

My hon. and gallant Friend, who moved the Second Reading of the Bill, rather indicated that the object of the police was to be looking for people to apprehend. I would say that the mere presence of the village constable going his rounds is about as good a guarantee as we can get that there will be no offences for which he ought to apprehend anybody. I feel that perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend meant the same thing, but that he put it a little unfortunately, so as to make it appear as though the police constable ought to be forever on the lookout for somebody doing something wrong. On the contrary, my belief is that. by the police constable being there, in the village, getting to know everybody and going round the place from time to time, it is not a question of him being perpetually on the look-out for trouble, but that his mere presence is the greatest deterrent against that sort of trouble arising that there could be.

My hon. and gallant Friend says that that is exactly the role which he wants the constable to play in this matter. Very well; that may be so, but the trouble here is that we are dealing with a trade which could quite easily become a rather crafty one. This is a case where I believe it would be so very easy to evade the vigilance of the police. It is perfectly possible, so far as I understand it, that this Bill would have the effect of making people more determined to do the sort of things which the Bill is to try to prevent them from doing. The number of cases that could possibly be detected by the average village constable in the course of his duties would be infinitesimal.

My belief is that, although the spread of rabbits is something which it is desirable to stop, it is probably unstoppable by this Bill, and that is the point at issue. I assure my hon. Friends who support the Bill that I do not distrust their motives for one moment, because I am with them in their desire to keep rabbits under control, but this Bill will not do it, no matter how much they try to make it effective. If they try to do it without setting up a horde of officials, they will only create more trouble.

This is a very interesting argument, but would it not be sensible first to make illegal the turning out of rabbits on land on which at present there are none? It is not as difficult as all that to get the constable to try to enforce the law.

This is developing into an argument.

I think that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Horncastle was making a valid point, which I want to try to answer. I agree absolutely—

I must remind hon. Members that this discussion should be carried on by debate, and that we are not now in Committee.

I quite appreciate that, but I think it is very important that what should be established, before deciding whether or not the Bill ought to be given a Second Reading, is whether or not the Bill is enforceable, and it is on that point that I think that the observations of my hon. and gallant Friend are extremely relevant.

I would reply to my hon. and gallant Friend by saying "Very well; make something illegal, but what is the point of making illegal something which you know perfectly well you cannot possibly enforce?" Certainly, without the setting up of an enormous bureaucracy to run it, it cannot be done, and if we leave the Bill without a body to enforce it, it is absolutely beyond the power of the police to enforce it. That is the point that I am trying to make, and that is one reason why I am opposed to the Bill.

Would my hon, and gallant Friend agree that to prevent people robbing their neighbours' chicken coops is equally unenforceable?

No, I would not agree at all. There is a world of difference between dealing with domesticated fowls and dealing with the acreage of the average farms of this country where, may be, the occupier of a farm lives in the village, though his land is spread over a very considerable area. How can we enforce the provisions of this Bill in such circumstances? To begin with, who will know that rabbits reappearing on the land have been produced in this way? How can we establish whether the occupiers of the farms have turned them loose. whether they have been turned loose by somebody else, or whether it happened through natural causes? That is why I think Clause 1 is extremely unsound.

Again, I assure my hon. and gallant Friends that I am not disputing their motives at all in this matter. Indeed, I am with them in their desire to prevent the further spreading of rabbits. I want to prevent it, but I do not believe that this is the best way in which to do it. I think that the best way to prevent the spreading of rabbits is to allow the population of weasels, stoats and other animals to increase. That proposal may not be very popular with the people who preserve game. I say that the best way is to let nature take its course, because nature usually provides a better remedy for this sort of thing than can be provided in any other way. Therefore, I certainly feel that this Bill cannot possibly succeed.

To come back to the point made by the hon. Member for Gorton, I should like to ask my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary if he can tell us what was the outcome of the deputation from the industries interested in the use of rabbit fur to the President of the Board of Trade last January. I understand that, however accurate may be the figure of £15½ million as the estimated cost of the damage which is caused by rabbits, that is completely of set by the food produced and the fur and skins provided by rabbits which are used by these industries to which I have referred, and also by the export of rabbit skins.

In fact, the figure which I have been given of the meat value of the rabbit is between £7 million and £8 million a year before myxomatosis. The figure for fur felt hats and hoods, including the value of the fur, is £7,250,000; the value of the fur exports of fur hatters is £324,000; the value of the by-products of fur cutting, including pelt for glue, tails for clipping, hair for spinning, ears, legs, etc., for nitrogenous fertilisers, is £50,000; and rabbit skin exports £900,000; making a total in all of £15,524,000. 1 should like to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary whether he thinks these figures are correct. Certainly, I think that they are probably far more accurate than those that have been given of the cost of the damage by rabbits to British agriculture.

I do not dispute the fact that the damage is enormous, but have we sufficient facts to show that it amounts to the suggested figure? Even if that figure is accurate, is it not offset by the other factors? Hon. Members are very keen to set up monopoly commissions to prevent monopolies. Here is an industry which is breaking the monopoly of the National Farmers' Union. The rabbit has been the staple diet in many humble homes for many years, both in towns and villages, and if rabbits are done away with something else will have to be imported. We are trying to cut down our food imports, but we are deliberately stamping out a valuable source of food by means of myxomatosis.

Is my hon. and gallant Friend in favour of spreading rabbits? A few moments ago he said that he had a great deal of sympathy with the aim of stamping out rabbits, although he did not like the Bill.

That is a perfectly fair point to make. What I am doing is to question the accuracy of the figure given by the farming industry in respect of the damage done by rabbits, and I have pointed out that, however big it is, it has probably been offset by the other factors. I am not necessarily recommending that we should increase the rabbit population to the point at which it stood before the introduction of myxomatosis.

If my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. R. Bell) has heard and digested my earlier remarks he will appreciate that the whole burden of my argument is that nature will provide steps to remedy the situation, and that if we had not virtually exterminated those animals which feed upon rabbits, we should not have had such a great pre-myxomatosis rabbit population. I do not want to see the rabbit population increase to what it was before that disease was introduced, nor do I want to see rabbits exterminated.

There are many Departmental rabbits which I want to see exterminated before our ordinary rabbits. I hope none of those Departmental officials will take my remarks too personally, but there are other more important jobs for Ministers to do than to start worrying about the abolition of a species.

My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture said that he was in favour of the total extermination of rabbits, and I know that other hon. Members share his view. They are perfectly entitled to do so, but I should regret the passing of the rabbit. It has a food value, and a manufacturing and an export value. Whether that export value will set off the value of the increased imports of foodstuffs which will be necessary in order to provide our people with enough food if the rabbit is exterminated is another matter. It is probably a matter of opinion, anyway.

My view is that the Bill is not practicable. It will not do what we want it to do. I am not certain that if we are going to rely upon the police to enforce it we ought to make the Minister of Agriculture the appropriate Minister. I believe it is normal for the Home Secretary to deal with matters concerning the police. It has been openly stated that the police are the authorities to be relied upon to enforce the provisions of the Bill. If so, what has the Minister of Agriculture to do with it?

Where does the Bill refer to the Minister of Agriculture enforcing its provisions?

Clause 4 (1) says:

" The appropriate Minister may, for the purpose of enabling scientific research …"

Yes—I appreciate the hon. Member's point, now. But I think I am right in saying that if there is a Ministerial responsibility for enforcement it will be that of the Minister of Agriculture, as he is represented here. No other Ministry representative is here, so it is to be presumed that the Ministry of Agriculture will be the responsible Department.

I appreciate that the appropriate Minister in respect of agricultural research is the Minister of Agriculture, but I am not sure that he is the appropriate Minister for seeing that the police properly enforce the provisions of the Bill. I should have thought that it would have been the Home Secretary. If that is so, why does the Bill not say so?

I think that I have made most of the points that I wanted to make. This is one of the most well-intentioned and ill-conceived Bills ever presented to Parliament. Its motive is indisputable; none of us would quarrel with it. But the method by which its end is to be achieved seems to me to be the worst possible one. Furthermore, I believe that that method is completely unenforceable. For that reason I ask the House to reject the Bill.

I am quite unable to share the passionate faith which the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) expressed in those moving words, "After all, one has to shoot something." I appreciate that that philosophy has brought into this Chamber to oppose the Bill a number of people to whom it really means a lot. There is no doubt that a continuity in that way of life reaches back to the days of my youth, when the same type of person as the hon. Members to whom I have referred were hauling little boys before benches of magistrates and having them committed to prison, if possible, on the ground that they had sought to capture rabbits. Rabbits were referred to by the hon. and gallant Gentleman as being part of the staple diet of the working class. The spice of danger in the hunt was the challenge not to the wits of the rabbit but to the local constable.

The Bill is an attempt to apply one kind of remedy to one aspect of the problem which agriculture is facing, or is having a chance to solve, at this moment, after the spread of myxomatosis and the change in the balance of wild life in the countryside. It is fairly easy to make fun of the Bill. The noble Lord who introduced it in another place had to have two shots before he could arrive at an acceptable form of words.

The Bill is negative in its provisions. It deals with the responsibilities of private individuals; lists a series of penalties and creates new offences, from which Ministers are exempted. In the only part of the Bill which does not concern private individuals there are specific provisions that the Minister of Agriculture, the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Lord President of the Council are exempted.

Before we allow the Bill to pass this stage, we should hear from the Ministry what it is doing about another aspect of the same problem. How is it carrying out its own responsibilities in relation to the control of the rabbit population, by its own methods? The public has heard with some disquiet reports of the means adopted by the Ministry to check the spread of rabbits after the end of the epidemic. We should be given some positive information this afternoon to counterbalance the request embodied in legislation imposing upon private individuals quite a heavy responsibility and setting up legal machinery to enforce it.

We have had much fun today envisaging the local constable chasing a rabbit; Issuing a warning to it that he has reason to believe that an offence is about to be committed, taking the rabbit in his charge and disposing of it as the court may direct. In practice, that is not what happens to these unforutnate rabbits. It is all very well to be funny about the constable and his truncheon, but I want an explanation from the Minister about some not very nice stories of bulldozers being used on Danbury Common, in Essex. Perhaps the Minister will take this opportunity of speaking at somewhat greater length than is possible at Question Time, or upon an Adjournment debate, about the Ministry's own contribution to this problem.

After all, any private individual who buried a dog alive would be pilloried by the Press and pursued in the courts and awarded the severest penalty. In regard to the various aspects of the long struggle against unnecessary cruelty there have been various cruel sports which, after all, in their origin at least, involved danger to the hunter. There is the difficulty of people living in squalor and the temptation before them to exploit animals was unnecessary cruelty. But stupid, mechanised bureaucratic cruelty is something which ought to be stopped and something which, if allowed to go on, is very shocking to the public—very demoralising—and which does a great deal of harm to the cause of animal welfare very dear to the heart of many hon. Members on both sides of the House.

The Ministry ought not to expect private individuals to make a somewhat difficult contribution to the problem without itself undertaking a review of its own procedure. When the public learns that the Ministry has wilfuly, rather hastily one thinks, set fire to gorse bushes with paraffin torches thus slowly destroying the bird and animal life of an area in order to kill a few suspected rabbits, and about bull-dozing which may bury animals alive, it tends to be a little shocked.

I do not want to develop the sentimental side of this matter. A number of stories have been told of what goes on in these organised operations, but I think that the principle should now be taken Ministerially that, in carrying out a policy of this kind, the Ministry ought to accept the same kind of ethics in its relationship to animals and the same sort of standards as are expected of private individuals.

It is with those feelings in my mind that I ask the Minister to state in his reply what progress and improvements the Ministry is prepared to introduce into its own methods before it apparently throws the whole weight of responsibility on to individuals by a Bill of this kind.

May we come back for a few moments to the Bill? I support the Bill for what it is. It is a small Measure but one, I think, which may prove useful. As I see it, the position in the country today is that in the course of the last two years myxomatosis has cut down the rabbit numbers by about 95 per cent. A few rabbits are now appearing again in many districts.

As my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wells (Lieut.-Commander Maydon) reminded us, the rabbit is a very prolific creature and its numbers will increase fast. Most of us who are engaged in farming or forestry welcome the disappearance of the rabbit. He is never going to disappear altogether, try as hard as we may to exterminate him. There will always be rabbits and we must go on trying to exterminate him. Otherwise, he will once again do great damage to our farming and forestry industries.

As I say, most of those engaged in farming and forestry welcome the almost complete disappearance of the rabbit. There are some who do not, and this Bill is aimed at them. The Bill makes it an offence for men coming from Birmingham, Wolverhampton, Manchester, or where one will, who have an interest in shooting —perhaps a syndicate who rent some rough shooting—and enjoy having rabbits to shoot at. Such people are today encouraging the trade in wild rabbits. They are buying wild rabbits and having them transported about the country and put down in scrub woodland and other rather poor country in order to give them their sport.

That is all very well, but, unhappily, the rabbit knows no farm boundaries. If my neighbour were ill-advised enough to put down rabbits on his ground it would not be many months before they were on my ground. I am one of those who has for a great many years spent a good deal of time and effort in keeping down the number of rabbits on my land. I certainly would not want others to be the cause of my land being overrun with rabbits once again.

My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) questioned the accuracy of the estimate made of the saving through not having so many rabbits. I think that the best reckoning that my right hon. Friend the Minister could give was that the extra grain crops in last year's harvest were worth £15 million. That may or may not be an accurate figure. To that, of course, must be added the extra herbage which the rabbits did not eat and which cattle and sheep can eat. I would say that the total saving was at least £50 million, and that saving will, of course, be made again this year. Indeed, it may very well be more.

I am sorry for the rabbit skin trade and for the fur hat makers. It is distress- ing for them to find that their raw material from British sources has so largely disappeared. But when we are trying to match up the gain to the nation through not having rabbits and the loss to one industry through not having wild rabbits we must compare like figures.

As I understand it, the value of the raw aterial—actual rabbits—of these industries is about £2 million a year. It is when the skins are made up into fur hats or are exported as skins and when they are processed as meat that they may be worth £15 million. If we take account of this £15 million we should also take account of what is the final processed value of the extra grain and grass grown on our farms and of the extra trees grown owing to not having the rabbits. I think that the balance is overwhelmingly in favour of not having the rabbits.

As I have said, we shall always have rabbits, and therefore we must use every means—and this Bill provides a small one—of keeping down rabbit numbers and of stopping foolish people from trying deliberately to introduce rabbits. I would go a good deal further in the Bill. I have some knowledge of Australia and of another weapon in the armoury which is being used there against the rabbit. It is myxomatosis.

I support the opinion of the Scottish National Farmers' Union which is urging the Government to allow the creation of a myxomatosis bank to supply virus of the deadly kind which brings about quick death, not the lingering death which in some cases we have been seeing lately in the attenuated strains. This could be used under proper supervision to kill off the rabbits where they are found to be multiplying. That, in my view, is a much more humane way of dealing with the problem than having to go back again to the gin trap and all the other devices which we do not like. I put that forward as a suggestion which, as I say, has already been made by the Scottish National Farmers' Union.

I know that many people, including the Forestry Commission, where surprised and worried when a new Clause was introduced into the Pests Bill of 1954 making the spreading of myxomatosis an offence. I think that it was a mistake to have that Clause in that Bill. Whether we can get that decision reversed, I do not know. I myself think that we have to use every weapon in our armoury to keep down the number of rabbits. We shall never exterminate rabbits. There will always be some for the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely to "pot" at.

We want to use whatever means we can to keep down the number of rabbits, and this will be a useful Bill. Some say that it is unenforceable. But is it likely to be any more unenforceable than the laws against poaching? They do good, and I think that this Bill may also do good. What hon. Members seem to agree about, whatever their arguments, is that we should join together in our determination to keep down the number of rabbits in this country. That is why I support the Bill.

I do not think one has to go so far as the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd) in order to support this Bill. I think that this should be made clear because there is a misunderstanding by hon. Members who have not studied the point. My feelings about the introduction of myxomatosis as a means of eliminating the rabbit are entirely different from his. On the other hand, I do agree with nearly everything the hon. Member said in answering the sweeping criticisms of his hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) as to the value of food and the opportunity of getting food which was destroyed by rabbits up to two or three years ago.

The hon. Member quoted the figure of £50 million. That may well be right. Some idea of the measure of the effects of myxomatosis can be seen from the report which came to the Nature Conservancy from the Isle of Anglesey. Within four months of the arrival of myxomatosis in Anglesey, it was possible to pasture 1,500 sheep on land which had never carried in living memory anything but rabbits.

The point was made by the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane), and it is borne out by the attitude of the Forestry Commission, that great damage has been done to forestry. The Nature Conservancy, which has studied this and which is concerned with the point made by the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely about the balance of nature, is convinced of the enormous amount of damage which is done. The hon. and gallant Member referred to this Bill as upsetting the balance of nature, but the rabbit problem, as he himself pointed out in another part of his speech, has been caused because over the last 100 years we have upset the balance of nature. The balance of nature has been drastically upset, resulting in the increase in the number of rabbits. The research done on myxomatosis by the Nature Conservancy has been considerable. Very early in the field was Dr. R. M. Lockley, who studied myxomatosis and its spread.

In any discussions on this subject, we must admit that the existence of rabbits has certain advantages, but I believe it to be very much outweighed by the disadvantages. One of these was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Gorton (Mr. Zilliacus) in speaking of the problem in his constituency of the fur hat industry. I hope that we can get some indication—and I know that it is a matter more for the Board of Trade—of what the Government intend to do about this. I do not know if it was a firm in my hon. Friend's constituency which wrote to the Hampshire County Branch of the National Farmer's Union.

The hon. and gallant Member for Wells (Lieut.-Commander Maydon), who moved the Second Reading of this Bill, referred to the Hampshire Branch of the N.F.U. scheme for giving 2s. for a pair of rabbit's ears. The branch received a letter which is quoted in the British Farmer, which some hon. Members may have seen, from a firm of manufacturers which uses rabbits' fur. Let it be remembered that the offer was 2s. per pair of rabbit's ears. The letter stated:

"We have read that the Hampshire Executive of the N.F.U. will pay 2s. for every pair of rabbit's ear brought in by 30th April. Seeing that at the present time we are selling ears at the price of £19 10s. a ton, we accept your kind offer and propose to send you our next consignment of about 12 tons so that it reaches you not later than 1st April. Would you also be interested in some other appendages of rabbits? If so, we can offer you: Large erect tails from happy rabbits at Is. Id. each. Small drooping tails from dismal rabbits at 9½d. each."

That letter, I understand, caused the Hampshire Branch to revise its scheme somewhat in order to reserve the reward for wild rabbits caught in the fields. There are always problems like that which arise when we try to exterminate rabbits.

The effect of fewer rabbits, according to the Nature Conservancy, has been longer grasses, wider ranges of species and an increase flowering of grass and shrubs. The hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely referred to the effect upon predators. We know only about Scotland so far, where they are foxes, stoats, weasels, wild cats and buzzards. The only survey has been on the buzzard. It has been found that there is no evidence whatsoever of any extensive switch by the buzzard from eating rabbits to eating any other animal. What has happened is that the buzzards have laid fewer eggs during the next year, and so adjusted their own population to the amount of food available. That is the result of the nature survey research which has come in so far on the effect of the elimination of the food of these animals.

An example of ornithological birth control.

My right hon. Friend talks about this as being an example of ornithological birth control. Perhaps if we could cross buzzards with the rabbit we should solve the problem of their over reproduction.

We do not have to go so far as the hon. Member for Newbury suggested but, whatever we do, surely the first step—and this is the point about the Bill—is to make it illegal to reintroduce the wild rabbit? Even if this legislation goes through, we know from the figures quoted by the hon. and gallant Member for Wells that there will be millions—or thousands anyway—more rabbits than when we started discussing this Bill; they are not waiting on us. I welcome the Bill and hope that it will be given a Second Reading.

The chief argument against the Bill is that it will be almost impossible to enforce. About a year ago we passed a Bill making it a crime to spread myxomatosis. Despite this, there was a black market in infected rabbits, as much as £5 each was paid for them, and people motored as far as a hundred miles to get them. I do not know that a single prosecution was instituted for breaking the law in that respect. There was a maximum penalty at the time of £20 for the first offence and £50 for the second, and yet we have never heard of one prosecution. To make a law that is bad is in every sense wrong, because it brings the law into contempt, and it places an almost impossible burden on the police.

I suggest that a far better plan would be to say that where a person turns down wild rabbits in a prescribed area, as for instance on good agricultural land or in the vicinity of plantations or forestry areas, he is to be made responsible for the damage. This could probably be done under the present law. If a man, for example, brought a van load of wild rabbits and turned them down near agricultural land or a plantation of growing corn he could be sued not only for the cost of killing the rabbits but the damage done to the corn or the trees, and the wire netting which it would subsequently be necessary to erect to keep rabbits out. This surely would be far more effective than a mere fine.

Under the provisions of the Bill a child who picked up a baby rabbit and took it home would be liable to a fine of £50, and a gamekeeper who took home two or three rabbits when he was ferreting and turned them loose in a patch of gorse in a safe area, so that he could have somewhere to train his dogs to catch other rabbits elsewhere, could be fined £50. That is a very different kettle of fish from turning down rabbits where they do harm.

People should be allowed to turn rabbits down under licence for some approved purpose and under specific safeguards. It is the opinion of many people that rabbit warrens might well be established in certain areas of poor land, properly wired in with double—and I emphasise "double"—wire netting. It is not merely the food value of the rabbit but the value of their skins for furs and the hat trade that matters. Italy and Spain have placed an embargo on the sale of rabbit skins in order to capture the hat trade which is one of our export trades to the United States.

Rabbits can easily become a pest, but except in sandy or chalky districts they are easy to keep down if a little trouble is taken. I make an exception of areas where there are thick clumps of rhododendrons or ill-kept coverts, but a rabbit will always live near its food, and it likes the sun. There was a well-known North Country landowner who was determined to get rid of his rabbits. He called his keepers together and told them his plans. The keepers said that it was going to be very difficult. They doubted whether it could be done but he said, "either the rabbits go or you go". The result was that the rabbits went. Once the rabbits are out, the most important thing to do is to block up the holes and, if necessary, dig them out and destroy them. That is seldom done, and rabbits naturally come back to places where there are holes already there for them.

In New Zealand, once an area has been more or less cleared, the whole neighbourhood is made responsible for keeping the rabbits down. The method is, or was recently, to send men with packs of dogs —" long dogs "to catch the rabbits and any sort of dog that will work the scrub or coverts. Everything above ground is shot or caught. The burrows are then stopped, gassed and destroyed. As the farmers in the area are responsible for the cost of the proceedings, they see to it that their neighbours keep their rabbits down or they do it for them. Payment is not made for rabbit skins because it was found that that led to paying for the same skins twice.

Before I deal with Danbury Common, already mentioned by the hon. Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin), I must declare an interest in that I breed dogs for sport as well as for other things. I am often asked by agricultural committees and their pest officers to help them to clear woods of rabbits, and from places which they cannot deal with otherwise. One such place was Danbury Common. Where it had been bulldozed there were no rabbits—only scrub and no food and no light. I covered the whole of that area with thirty couple of terriers and beagles, and we found only two rabbits on the edge of the site. I asked whether there was any place which the sun reached and where there was grass. They pointed to open common and gorse. There nine rabbits were found and shot, and four more ferreted where the dogs had marked the ground. It means that getting rid of a lot of scrub is often unnecessary and quite useless. All the same, it can be very useful in some places.

Since it is illegal to spread myxomatosis and the gin trap is to be abolished, there remain four methods—shooting, gassing, netting and snaring. Snaring is dangerous to cats and dogs, and game and grazing cattle are apt to catch their tongues or their feet in the snares. Gassing rabbits if a burrow is in the open is easy, but if there is covert one must have dogs to chase them to ground and to mark or point the holes.

I suggest that the best thing that a landowner or farmer can do to clear ground of rabbits is to get hold of a couple of sporting boys. They do not need a gun. The best thing is to let them have a well-trained dog or two and a couple of ferrets, and set them to work, giving them half a crown per rabbit they catch and making them fill up the holes afterwards. I guarantee that if they are any good at all they will clear a place of rabbits in next to no time, but they must have a good dog because a good dog will mark a hole and show whether there is a rabbit in it or not, and so will a bluebottle in season. If one finds a bluebottle in the mouth of a rabbit hole one can be sure that there is a rabbit inside.

There are many areas of poor land on which a few rabbits are of great benefit to the farmer and a boon to the sportsman. I still maintain that in such cases the rabbit is the mainstay of the rough shoot for which the farmer gets a rent. In turn that helps to pay his rent, and the rabbit also provides the farm labourer's Sunday dinner, quite apart from its sporting value.

I have received a number of letters on the subject. I do not want to bore the House by reading too many, but I have one here from the editor of a Yorkshire paper. We know that in Yorkshire everyone is very clever and sensible, above all the editors of Yorkshire papers. He writes:

" Just a line to let you know there are other people in the country who regret the passing of the rabbit. The Pennine range of mountains, extending from Derbyshire through Yorkshire, to Westmorland and Cumberland are not first-class agricultural land, but there also the rabbits have been wiped out. As you say, nearly every rough shoot in the country has been ruined. On these mountains there is not much else. Pheasants, woodcocks, partridges, and ducks are thinly distributed. … I bought a farm of 500 acres at Starbotton in Upper Wharfedale. I was delighted with the abundance of rabbits "—

that is odd, for a farmer—

"and the farmers made a lot of money out of them in the winter. The Government do not seem to realise that the extermination of rabbits is a national disaster of the first magnitude. It is also most unfair to landowners, and especially to owners of sporting rights.… And there is another way of looking at it. We all work hard in order to get some pleasure. If there is no pleasure to work for we shall get discouraged. Thousands of working men get their pleasure hunting rabbits, and to the wives of working men a rabbit now and again is a cheap article of food."

I have a number of other letters including one from a working man who wrote:

"Dear Sir,

I see you are making a stand against the destruction of rabbits. I agree that it is very wrong to have them destroyed, as they do not do half the damage they say they do on a farm. It has been the custom to give the labourer a rabbit or two when you wanted them to stop a little late to get a job done. They would stop to do it if the boss was good to them and gave them a rabbit for their dinner. … I was talking to a head keeper and he said it would make a lot of difference to him as he could not give money out of his own pocket …"

and he adds that in the past when he wanted people to do overtime they would always be pleased to accept a rabbit.

I have another letter from a Worcestershire farmer, who said:

"Farmers in Worcestershire are now being asked to accept a proposal to designate the whole country as a compulsory control area though it is admitted that the existing voluntary control plan which applies to this district and adjacent areas is working very well. If designation is accepted where a farmer does nothing about rabbits, the county committee can send people. … There are farms with rich corn, fruit and vegetable lands where rabbits have done much damage and their return would be unwelcome. On the other hand there are plenty of places, as I am sure you are aware, where one can have rabbit warrens on poor grass land or woodland and have ones bit of shooting, … some of the sterile headlands round our coasts used to be full of rabbits. Now they have nothing. The Minister of Agriculture has said that myxomatosis has destroyed 40million rabbits …"

and he does not believe that figure—

"The Ministry's propaganda against rabbits stands discredited because it is unbalanced. Guesswork statistics are given about rabbit damage …"

My feeling is that if owners of woodlands near agricultural land will not keep their rabbits down, people should be allowed to come in earlier than now. Many owners of big shoots will not allow anybody to come in and catch their rabbits until the shooting season has finished on 1st February. That is rather late, for the damage has been done. There may be only a few people with trained dogs who are prepared to do the job, and if they are asked to go everywhere at the same time it is impossible for them to do it.

The Bill, as it stands, seems to me to be neither practical, enforceable nor really necessary. On the other hand, I want the same result to be achieved by any other means that we can get it.

I want to say a few words in support of the Bill. Although so far as I know I have not a single wild rabbit in my constituency, I am by birth a countryman and know a good deal of the damage that is done on farms by wild rabbits. I am told on good authority that for each pound of meat produced, a rabbit eats five times as much food as a sheep; and a rabbit also is very selective in its food, and eats only of the best.

I want to deal with a few of the arguments which have been used against the Bill. First, there is the question of myxomatosis. I have seen a good many sick people in my time, but I do not think I have ever seen such a depressing sight as a series of rabbits sick from myxomatosis. It has been suggested that some virulent form of the disease might be used to kill off rabbits where they were most troublesome. Apart from any question of cruelty, the difficulty is that if virulent myxomatosis is like all the other virulent diseases that I know, it is very difficult indeed to control, and it spreads, not only where it is wanted, but elsewhere also.

If that policy is applied, a wild rabbit must first be caught and then released, against the provisions of the Bill. It must be deliberately released with the disease in order to spread it.

I am in favour of the Bill, and under the Bill that would be illegal.

One of the arguments raised concerns felt hats. I think we could all do without felt hats. A year or so ago, when I went into the question, I was told that excellent felt hats were made without any rabbit fur at all, and I was told where I could get them at two or three places in London. I made inquiries and found they were rather too expensive for me, so I did not get a felt hat made from other than rabbit skin.

Another of the arguments is the interference with the balance of nature. Surely, ever since we started to become civilised in any sense, we have been interfering with the balance of nature. All domestic animals which we grow for food are an interference with the balance of nature. Everything that we cultivate in our gardens and in our fields is interfering with the balance of nature. All the chemicals, fertilisers, etc., that we use are interfering with it. What we must do if we want our own species to survive is constantly to interfere with other species of animals and plants so that we may get the best food possible from the soil.

The last argument with which I want to deal is the suggestion that it would be impossible fully to enforce the law. But what law is fully enforced? We have strong laws against murder, but unfortunately a certain number of murders take place every year, as we know, and there are probably many others about which we do not know. The fact that there is a law against a practice tends at any rate partly to prevent it.

When my children were young and travelled with me in the car, they maintained that whenever I saw a policeman I automatically slowed down the car. I did not notice it, but they told me that it always was so. The fact that there was a law and a possibility of it being enforced caused my action.

I do not want to detain the House, but I want to say that on grounds of food supply. of getting rid of a noxious disease —myxomatosis—and of kindness to animals, I am in favour of this short Bill.

I think that the whole House is in support of the purposes of the Bill. Indeed, the objective of trying to prevent the recrudescence of the rabbit population is entirely laudable. But I want to say something about the Bill itself, because the more I look at it the more inexplic- able it becomes to me, I must confess. Without any disrespect to another place, I think that this is a very silly Bill.

I gather that there have been two attempts at it and, as the Bill has passed through all its stages in another place, I presume that some thought must have been given to the wording. May I make some comments on the wording of the Bill? If hon. Members look at it, they will see that for the purposes of Clause 1 (1, a) (i) and (ii) and Clause 1 (1, b), the animal is "a live wild rabbit." For the purposes of Clause 1 (1, c) it becomes "a wild rabbit." For the purposes of Clause 2 it becomes "a rabbit." I am trying to grasp the purpose of the change in phraseology.

I can quite understand that in the case of Clause 1 (1, a) (i) and (ii) and Clause 1 (1, b), the reference to buying or selling "a live wild rabbit" is reasonable. Similarly, in paragraph (b) the reference is to conveying, procuring or consigning "a live wild rabbit". In paragraph (c), however, it becomes an offence to turn loose "a wild rabbit". I can only presume, therefore, that it becomes an offence to turn loose a wild rabbit which is dead, and I cannot see why that should be an offence in connection with the spread of myxomatosis.

We get a little glimmer of understanding when we turn to Clause 2, because it would take the pen of Charles Dickens to describe a village constable rushing about apprehending live wild rabbits, whereas it would be quite easy for him to apprehend a dead wild rabbit which had been turned loose and which constituted an offence under Clause 1 (1, c). Frankly, I do not understand it—except as something about which Charles Dickens might have written.

Let me return to Clause 2 (1)—

" A constable may seize a rabbit.…"

I can understand that it would look ridiculous to print in the Bill that a constable may seize a live wild rabbit. If he seizes this dead wild rabbit, the release of which has been an offence under Clause 1 (1, c), he may sell it. That a constable who has seized property which is the subject of an offence may then sell it for gain seems to me to create an entirely new principle and really to be putting temptation in the way of the police.

It is even worse than that, because by Clause 2 (2), if the body of a rabbit has been sold, the court may direct forfeiture of the sum for which it has been sold. Just imagine the village constable. He seizes this dead wild rabbit. He thinks "Why not? The Bill says so. I can collect an honest shilling or two by selling this dead wild rabbit". Further temptation is put in his way. Obviously, if he sees this dead wild rabbit and knows who put it there it is his duty to apprehend that person, but he thinks again. and says, "If I do nothing about it I shall keep the few shillings that I have got for this dead wild rabbit, but if I bring the court into it the court may order that I forfeit the money I have received". There is, therefore, a great temptation put in his way not to carry out this duty.

There are other points in the Bill which make it appear to me to be an extremely silly Bill. It is a great pity that we should allow a Measure of this sort, which can really be made such nonsense of, to go forward in the good cause that we want to foster, which is to maintain the elimination of the rabbit population. Personally, I should like to see something done on the lines advocated by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd) to keep down the rabbit population by other means, but not by introducing such a Bill as this, through which a coach-and-four can be driven, and which, as I say, makes nonsense of the law of the country.

My hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Sir R. Grimston) puts most of this Bill in perspective, but I must say that this whole Measure has arisen really out of an Alice-in-Wonderland attitude towards the problem of the rabbit. I am all in favour of keeping down the rabbit population, but I do rather feel that farmers and others who are opposed to the rabbit—and particularly the farmers—have used the rabbit as a means of covering any shortcomings there may have been in their farming—for shortages of crops.

Immediately myxomatosis has taken its great toll, they at once say that the only possible reason for the increase in crops is the death of the rabbit. There is no mention of the achievements that have been made in farming methods, no mention of the difference between the summer last year and that of the previous year. Any gains, any greater productivity on the farms, has been laid by the farmers at the door of myxomatosis, because it has almost exterminated the rabbit population.

I think that most hon. Members were quite horrified at the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd) for the artificial spreading of myxomatosis, and about that I should like to say a word or two later.

I was very interested in some of the suggestions that were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Sir J. Lucas). I know that he has a very handy weapon for clearing areas of rabbits. His pack of Sealyhams is well known all around the Home Counties, and whenever its services have been called upon I know that he has been extremely willing and, indeed, has shown anxiety to co-operate with farmers and other persons who desire to have their grounds cleared.

I know that my hon. Friend's Sealyhams, after being taken in vans to the place where they are required, literally sweep through a coppice or small wood, clearing all the rabbits before them. In addition, the careful marking of spots where rabbits have gone to ground, and the experience of my hon. Friend, have been found to be of extreme value. Not only that, but it has given a great deal of pleasure and sport to many people in the surrounding area. I would suggest that it might well be one of the possibilities which the Minister might look at, to set up, or encourage the setting up, of such small packs in an area where he is using his powers under the Act.

We are all fairly alive to the fact that the rabbit has caused a great deal of damage to crops. No one would deny it, and I do not think anyone wishes to deny it. On the other hand, the amount of damage which rabbits cause has been very largely exaggerated. If I may say so, if there is one group of people which is able to play its hand with excessive strength, or is inclined to overplay its hand quite frequently, that is, the farming community.

My hon. Friend should try it.

My hon. Friend says I should try a bit of it. Does he mean try a bit of overplaying my hand or try a bit of farming?

Although it appears to be such an arduous and unremunerative occupation, I have seen a great many wealthy farmers. If farmers are not doing well at this time, when they are protected by Government and in other ways, I would suggest they would do far better to support a Bill to improve their lot generally rather than a Bill to remove the odd rabbit which may appear here and there. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary would be far better employed this afternoon in bringing in some other proposal. I do not know what it would be; probably the farmers would like the subsidies increased. Despite their air of trouble, farmers appear to be a fairly comfortable and well-off community nowadays. Indeed, one cannot help remembering that there is an hon. Gentleman opposite who constantly says that farmers are featherbedded. Of course, I would not agree to that at all. Nevertheless, I believe he held Ministerial rank and had a good deal of experience of dealing with farmers before he expressed that view.

This Bill is to stop the artificial spread of rabbits. I have noted some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury. I think anyone reading this Bill must be amazed at the terms of Clause 2 (1):

" A constable may seize a rabbit with respect to which he has reasonable ground for believing that an offence under subsection (1) of the foregoing section is being, or has been, committed, and may, if it is alive "—

and so the Clause goes on. Really, hon. Gentlemen are not drawing too widely on their imaginations in suggesting that they can foresee a very amusing situation arising as a result of an unfortunate police constable endeavouring to carry out his duties.

I wonder whether as the result of the Bill village constables may not soon be making application for Land Rovers so that they can ride around the country at night, blind a rabbit with their headlights and then dash out to put a bag over its head. However, before they can do that, apparently, they must be reasonably sure that in some way an offence has been committed and that someone has put the rabbit there by artificial means. Presum- ably it does not apply if the rabbit has found its way there on its own.

In view of Clause 1 (4), has not the constable also to be satisfied that the rabbit is not one:

— of a type commonly kept in captivity and has been born in captivity and kept continuously in captivity since birth —"

which is out for a short run? If it is one of that class, will the constable not commit an offence in killing someone's domestic rabbit?

It seems that the constable's equipment must even exceed a Land Rover. He will obviously have to be given very extensive instruction about the types of rabbit that may escape from captivity. It will be no good sending a police constable born in London to a country division and expecting him to go straight out and effectively perform his duties under the Bill. An extensive training system will have to be set up to instruct constables about types of rabbits.

My hon. Friend has mentioned a very important point, special training for police constables in catching rabbits. Could he amplify his remarks a little? Has he any idea of the extra cost involved in the training?

I do not know that, but I know that the Olympic Games will be taking place this year, and it may be that there will be an effort to recruit as constables some of the sprinters taking part, because they will doubtless stand much more chance of catching rabbits than many of the police officers whom we see on the beat at the moment.

Apart from all this, the Government have very considerable powers under the Pests Act, 1954, to set up clearance areas. I cannot help feeling that, if the Government cannot keep down to an absolute minimum or exterminate the rabbit population with the powers that they already have, they will not do so with the additional small powers given under the Bill, which is reminiscent of "Alice Through the Looking Glass."

Reference has been made to the value of the flesh of the rabbit. Although I may not have farmed, I have always been very interested in the country, have moved about a lot in the country, and lived in the country for many years. I do not think that any hon. Member will deny that the flesh of the rabbit has played a very important and, to many people, a delectable part in the diet of people in the country.

If the hon. Member thinks that the flesh of the rabbit is so good and that the fur of the rabbit is so wonderful, why does he not take some of the poor land about which we have been talking, put a fence around it, and there breed rabbits for a living?

In some areas that might be a much more practical suggestion than that contained in the Bill.

Surely that would be an offence under the Bill, if it became law.

That is another difficulty. I must also refer to the extreme difficulty created in a number of trades in this country as a result of myxomatosis. It is all very well for members of the farming community to ride it off and say that it does not matter, but a considerable loss of money has been sustained and there has been a great deal of suffering by people, some of whom have been engaged in these industries for a great many years.

The hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Hastings) said that he had been told that he could still buy a fur hat, but that when he went to buy it he found that it was more expensive than he could afford. The reason for that is that the fur and felt from rabbits used for the making of hats is no longer available and that therefore substitutes of other animal fibres are used and they are more costly than those previously supplied by the rabbit.

Whatever view one may take of the Bill, whatever decision we may reach, the time has now arrived when the Joint Parliamentary Secretary should give some indication—perhaps after consultation with his colleagues in the Board of Trade —about what will be done to try to assist those who are engaged in this trade to procure the raw materials which are essential if they are to carry on the business in which many of them have been engaged for generations and which in the past has brought a considerable amount of export trade.

A few days ago I was discussing this matter with an important hat manufacturer, who said that he had been having great difficulty in obtaining raw materials and making men's fur felt hats—and to a lesser extent women's fur felt hats—which we make better than does anyone else in the world, and of which the Canadian market in particular has been extremely fond in the past. We are not in the position where we can gloss over any industry which earns us foreign currency, particularly when it is hard currency. I lend my voice to those which have asked the Minister this afternoon to give some indication about what proposal the Government have to assist the industry in carrying on its business.

We had a discussion about the upset in the balance of nature. Here again, I think those hon. Gentlemen who rode this off did so rather lightly. I have the utmost respect for the hon. Member for Barking, but I feel that he rather overplayed his hand when he said, in fact, that we were upsetting the balance of nature. When we grow our crops in the fields or our vegetables in our gardens and use fertilisers on the land, when we have cattle in our fields and so on, of course the position is that those commodities and the cattle to which the hon. Gentleman referred are domesticated. The cattle are born in captivity, fed and brought up in captivity and tended by human beings to ensure their well-being during the whole of their lives. The same applies to the crops.

Here, we are talking about upsetting the balance of wild nature, and that is an entirely different problem. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that, when he applies the argument to the purely domesticated animals and the crops which are grown and tended under the supervision of human beings, he is drawing an entirely false parallel in comparing those circumstances with the circumstances that will be created by upsetting the balance of wild nature. After all, if a domestic animal needs food, we feed it, but if a wild animal loses that sort of food on which it has in the past lived entirely or almost entirely, it has somehow or other to find some other source of food supply.

I remember very vividly that, soon after there had been an outbreak of myxomatosis. I was in Faversham, which is very near to my constituency. I was in a hostelry there when a couple of farmers were talking about the disease and saying what a blessing it was that it would wipe out the rabbit population. I was in the same hostelry six weeks later, when I went in to have a drink, and I talked to the girl behind the bar. I said, "How do the farmers feel about myxomatosis now?" She replied, "You remember one of those farmers talking to you? He does not like it any longer, because he had 50 of his chickens killed by foxes a fortnight ago."

There is an indication of what happens. If wild animals which have been used to eating rabbits lose that source of food, certainly they are going to turn to other sources of food. There is no doubt about that. The pangs of hunger in wild animals will urge them to take the most amazing chances in order to satisfy that hunger.

The real difficulty is that the fox is itself a protected animal.

I assure the hon. Gentleman that he is not on very sound ground there. I assume, of course, and I am quite prepared to give way if my assumption is incorrect, that the hon. Gentleman is implying that the fox is hunted only by those who go after it on horseback surrounded by a pack of hounds. Is that the hon. Gentleman's assumption—that it is protected from being attacked by any other means? I assure the hon. Gentleman that that is not the case at all. I have no doubt that some of my hon. Friends, and many other farmers, if they find foxes on their land, will go out after them with a gun.

I am a hunting man. I like to see some foxes about, and I shall always preserve them.

Although he might not go after the fox with a gun, I think he would agree that many other farmers would. Here we have a peculiar set of circumstances. My hon. Friend is out to destroy the rabbit who might nibble some of his crops, but, having pointed out that, since the advent of myxomatosis, a fox raided a hen run belonging to a farmer and killed 50 chickens, when I asked my hon. Friend if he would have gone after the fox with a gun if he had been the victim, he said, "Oh no, I am a hunting man." My hon. Friend supports a Bill to exterminate the rabbit because of the damage it does to farms, but he says that the only way we must attack the fox is by hunting it.

What about the pike in the river which takes the fish my hon. Friend is so fond of?

I am not arguing about that. This is a question of rabbits and foxes. If my hon. Friend and others are really concerned about the effect upon the community of preserving the food of the country, when the fox turns to the destruction of hens because of the dearth of rabbits, and thereby destroys our food, I submit that it should be killed by every possible means, and that every farmer should support my view. But my hon. Friend says, "No, I like to hunt the fox." I suggest that the balance of nature is upset when circumstances such as this occur.

Then there is the question of enforcement. It is quite obvious to anybody who has read the Bill that it cannot be enforced without making the police constable look the most stupid individual that has ever come across the scene.

My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Sir J. Lucas) has pointed out that in spite of the fact that the artificial spreading of myxomatosis has been banned by law, and that severe penalties have been introduced, the farming community has endeavoured to recreate the disease by such artificial spreading. Those who have endeavoured to spread the disease again are upset because its virulence has largely subsided, and the rabbits which are inoculated or given the disease recover from it. There has not been a single prosecution, so far as I am aware—

Has my hon. Friend looked?

I said, "So far as I am aware." The Minister will have an opportunity of indicating whether there have been any prosecutions—if he gets the chance. If he does not have an opportunity of replying, I have no doubt that hon. Members will put down Questions upon the subject and he will then have an opportunity of answering them, so we shall eventually get the information, even if it is not given this afternoon. In view of the fact that we all know —1 expect the knowledge has already come to the Minister—that efforts have been made to spread the disease once more by artificial means, it would be interesting to know if there have been any prosecutions.

In my view, it is really a most revolting suggestion that there should be legalised spreading of this foul disease. Last August I had the unfortunate experience of coming through the Yorkshire dales when the disease was at its worst. My daughter was with me and it made an impact upon her which I have no doubt will stay with her for the rest of her life.

Anyone, no matter whom he may be, who can talk easily about recreating the virulence of this foul disease has, I think, something slightly inhuman about him. It is a terrible disease in every way. On that journey I was getting out of my car every few yards and putting these poor unfortunate creatures out of their misery by knocking them on the head. It almost made me vomit.

Time runs on and I know that we should like to hear a few words from the Minister. However, there are one or two minor points that come to my mind. One is that if the Bill goes through, where do we go from there?

To a lunatic asylum.

My hon. Friend says "To a lunatic asylum." I begin to think there is a lot in that when I read the Bill and hear a farmer who supports the Bill so strongly say, "Ah, so far as the fox is concerned, although he may kill 50 chickens and do far more damage in one night than a rabbit does in his whole life, I would never have him shot because I am a huntsman and I believe in the hunt." To my mind that does not make sense. I am not opposed to the hunt —I am fully in favour of it—but I think that we are getting out of perspective. I believe that practically every farmer whose chicken run was raided by a hungry fox would certainly take steps to dispose of the fox if the hunt could not do so.

Would not my hon. Friend agree that there are large areas in the country, particularly in the Welsh mountains, where hunting is out of the question and where shooting, poisoning or trapping are the only methods of getting rid of foxes? The Government pay fox clubs and individuals for killing foxes. Therefore, there is no need for my hunting friends to be too susceptible about this, because there are large areas in England and Scotland where local conditions make it impracticable to hunt foxes.

I agree with my hon. Friend, and perhaps his intervention was rather unfortunate because it only emphasised the point.

The whole question is whether or not this Bill is going to assist in exterminating the rabbit population. The more I look at the Bill and the more I think it over the more convinced I become that it is in no way going completely to destroy the rabbit population. In fact, of course, the main point about it is that it just is not enforceable. It is all very well to talk about a constable being responsible for ensuring that the artificial spread of rabbits is not carried on, but I suggest that if hon. Members who have supported this Bill looked at the vast areas that a great many constables have to control, they would agree with me that it would be necessary for the constables to have Land Rovers in order to carry on their job.

I want to know whether my hon. Friend's remarks are confined entirely to the oryctolagus cuniculus in Clause 3 or to other rabbits.

I am afraid that I am just an ordinary layman and that those are legal niceties. I would suggest that if the police constable is to be made responsible for effectively ensuring that the provisions of this Bill are carried out, then it will not be merely necessary to provide him with a Land Rover to enable him to patrol the fields at night, but that in a great many areas in this country, if a constable is to be properly responsible for enforcing the provisions of the Bill in his area, he would need a helicopter or some other means of getting about the area.

I submit that this is a Bill which simply cannot be enforced. and if, indeed, my hon. Friend and the Government require this legislation to go through, it would be far better if they looked at it again and brought in a Government Bill which would be enforceable and not have these loopholes which hon. Members have so ably pointed out. I believe that all Bills such as this set an impossible task on police constables and are inclined to bring the law into disrepute.

rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put; but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent and declined then to put that Question.

This is a Bill which, in my view, could never be enforced. Therefore, I hope the House will not give a Second Reading to this particular Measure. I have no doubt that there is a great deaf of merit in many of the points which have been put forward on this Bill, but I think that any hon. Member who has been here during the whole of the discussion would agree that this is not the form in which Measures such as this should be put upon the Statute Book. I hope that if the Government wish to go ahead with a Measure of this nature they will look at the matter themselves and bring in a Government Bill.

I am quite sure that many of the pitfalls that are in this Bill and many of the criticisms which hon. Members have raised today could very easily be removed by a Government Bill. I think that most of the hon. Members who have opposed this Bill this afternoon would find themselves, as we all are, broadly in sympathy with the designs of the Bill or what is required of it…

But not in favour of my Racial Discrimination Bill that follows.

rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put; but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent and declined then to put that Question.

It being Four o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

I desire to call attention to the need for a close examination of the arrangements which have been made to resettle those Africans who have been dispossessed by the Kariba Hydro-Electric Scheme. I should like to emphasise that on this side of the House there is no objection to the scheme as such and, so far as I can understand African opinion, there is no opposition on the part of Africans either to the scheme. But there is deep-felt objection to the treatment which has been meted out to the Africans. Responsibility for that must be clearly placed on the shoulders of the Secretary of State for the Colonies. His responsibility covers those who live on the northern side of the Zambesi shore. It is due to him, and to him alone, that these people are losing their lands.

The people concerned in this migration are "British protected persons", and nothing can be done against them by the Governor of Northern Rhodesia without the consent of the Secretary of State.

Certain lands are held

"in perpetuity for the sole and exclusive use and occupation of the natives of Northern Rhodesia."

If more than a hundred acres of those lands are to be set aside for public purpose's, or any alteration is to be made to the boundaries of a native reserve, the approval of the Secretary of State must be obtained.

In the case of native trust lands which are vested in the Secretary of State by an Order in Council of 1947, and set apart by definition

" for the sole use and benefit, direct and indirect, of the natives of Northern Rhodesia … "

the Governor must first receive the general or special directions of the Secretary of State before he acquires native trust land for public purposes. The responsibility of the right hon. Gentleman in these matters is clear. It is comprehensive, too; for it protects the African's interests, not only where they are directly, but also where they are indirectly affeted.

All the land within 200 miles upstream of the Kariba Gorge on the Northern Rhodesian bank of the Zambesi is either native reserve or native trust land. Article 33 of the Constitution of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland clearly lays down that African land shall not be acquired by the Federal Government otherwise than in accordance with the Orders in Council. Therefore, the responsibility of the Secretary of State continues after the establishment of the Central African Federation. Whether or not the Kariba scheme was the proper way of generating power which might have been derived with less upset from nuclear energy is now an argument without point.

The hard, cruel fact is that the Secretary of State for the Colonies has decided that 30,000 Africans out of a total of 47,000—and that is an enormous proportion—have to be flooded from lares et penates to make room for this great new project. So, with their sheep; their goats and their cattle; their household chattels; their young; their aged, their sick and infirm; their shrines and totems; their hopes and fears; aided by the wheel, yet with long, arduous journeys and many a weary wait they will set out for their new lands.

What prospect awaits them? Will it be a fertile valley, or perhaps a plateau of instability which could be a much harsher reality? What about compensation for the mischiefs which will accompany this mass upheaval? I am told that £50 is the derisory sum that is offered to one chief for the loss of his shrines. It seems almost as if we were getting back to the good old days when Swaziland could be had for a case of gin. How different was the treatment meted out by the United States Government in a similar case to the Indian tribes who were dispossessed when one of their great hydro-electric projects was under way. As much as 600,000 dollars was given in compensation to one single tribe. We are offering £50 to one chief and denying the others.

Would it be too much to ask that a year's wages at more than normal rates, say £3 per month plus rations and shelter, or £3 10s.—a total of £42—should be paid to each taxpayer who is to move? If we take it that the taxpayers number one in five of the 30,000 who are to be shifted, the total amount involved would be £250,000. In considering that, we should remember that the men of the tribes will not be able to leave their homes in the first year to go to work. The sum which I suggest is a small part of the £120 million which this vast scheme will cost.

Moreover, it is, exceedingly important to establish the precedent, similar to that which is accepted among the white races, that compensation for uprooting Africans from their homes should be given. Remember that we sold Federation to them on the ground that it would bring social, political and economic equality with the white. Here is a simple precedent that we might establish that would guarantee our good faith when we were establishing federal Government.

I put some direct questions to the Minister of State. Is the land to which the people are to be moved of equal value with that which they are leaving? Is the soil good enough to support the people and their stock? Can we be assured that they will not be put on land so that overcrowding will be caused among people already living there, and, most important perhaps of all, will the tribal pattern be preserved in the new areas?

Do homes await these people in the areas to which they are being dispatched? Will voracious pests infect their cattle, or leopard and cheetah destroy them? Do baboon, monkey, wart hog and bush pig wait to menace their crops and perhaps imperil their food supplies? Here again, the answer depends upon the view which the Secretary of State takes of his responsibility. Can we be told without ambiguity by what methods these protected peoples will be guarded against the hazards which they are being compelled to face? It is no voluntary act of theirs.

Can we be told today what the height of the dam is to be? That is a most important question. We must be assured that the land which is being given to those who are being evicted is above flood level after the construction of the dam. We can have no such assurance until we know what height the waters will reach.

If we, on this side of the House, have doubts in our minds, they arise directly from the easy-osy manner in which this problem of resettlement is being treated. From current information, it seems that the lake will not be full until 1963 or 1964. In a letter to the former Secretary of State for the Colonies my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones), from which I suppose I may quote, the Secretary of State says:

" This extra period will be invaluable for planning and arranging the moves."

That is to say, there will be a totally unexpected grace of three or four years. We are now informed that these years are essential for planning, and we are told that at the very moment when 2,000 people are moving, not into the new villages, for no villages yet exist, but into the new areas.

What if the dam rises more quickly than anticipated? We have no control over the weather. Will planning be tuned to meet such an event? Will the transfer of these African villagers still proceed in an orderly fashion, or will the rising waters be used as a means of speeding the departure of the tribes?

Says the Secretary of State,

"Once suitable areas have been located by study of the aerial photographs, then the ground parties can move in."

If migration had to start in the middle of this month, the aerial surveys should have been completed long ago.

"In the last six months—"

says the Secretary of State proudly—

"223 baboons, 20 monkeys and 9 pigs have been destroyed."

Compare this with the Gambia Protectorate, an area of the same order of size as the portion of the Zambesi Valley which we are considering, where in the last five and a half years, under a Government pest-extermination campaign, 141,000 baboons 76,000 monkeys and 39,000 wild pig have been destroyed. How grotesque is the Rhodesian effort in comparison.

The scheme for the eradication of tsetse will take five years to complete, during which period cattle will be continuously moving in to feed the fly which we are seeking to destroy. That certainly does not look like taking the bull by the horns or time by the forelock.

We often wonder whether history repeats itself. This twentieth century Exodus would seem to say that it does.

" Rise up, and get you forth … and take also your flocks and your herds … And the people took their dough before it was leavened, their kneading-troughs being bound up in the clothes upon their shoulders."

Such was the command to Israel when she was held in Egypt's house of bondage.

From a much lesser deity goes a similar edict to the tribes of Africa. But Canaan does not lie at the end of their trail. And whereas Pharaoh loaded the Israelites with gold and silver and precious stones, the Secretary of State for the Colonies offers fifty depreciated British pounds to one alone among the sons of Ham for the loss of his venerated shrines.

In that respect, history seems to fail to repeat itself. Nevertheless, it provides its parallels. The cotton growers of the new world needed slaves, and Africa provided them. The Makars of the old world need cheap electricity. Africa provides it. The tribal lands of her people vanish in the flood waters of the Zambesi. And the earth's greatest hydro-electric power station rises to take their place.

I appeal to the Secretary of State to see to it that our industrial advance is not once more at the expense of those too weak to help themselves, and to remember that the African of Northern Rhodesia is a British-protected Person and, above all, a human being.

If the Minister will allow me two minutes of his valuable time, I want to put a question to him which I think has some substance. Perhaps he will cast his mind back to the debate a fortnight ago, and I should like to thank him now for telling us on that occasion that he or the Secretary of State intend to go out to this part of the world within a few months. I am sure that after he has listened to the moving and most eloquent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin), he will go better equipped and in a more sympathetic frame of mind to look at and listen to the Africans' case.

In our debates on Federation some three years ago, Lord Chandos, as he now is, assured us time and time again that he or his successors would stand for the Africans in this House and speak on their behalf against this leviathan, the Federal authority, which we suspected —and now we see it taking place—would take more and more land North of the Zambesi.

I have here a Government Notice No. 27 of 1956—Northern Rhodesia (Native Reserves) (Amendment) Order in Council 1955, which read

"The following Order by Her Majesty in Council is published for information."

The object of the Order is to extend the definition of the words "public purposes" to include the purposes of a corporation controlled by the Federal Government.

We understood in the 1953 debates upon federation that we should have to see some land north of the Zambesi taken for hospitals, post offices, perhaps roads and laying of cables, and services of a specific nature, for instance, for communications. I feel that this Order goes far beyond that. I should like the Minister to look at it and to give an answer very soon, if not now.

Those of us in the House, and certainly the Africans in the Territory, who look at the speeches made in the debates on Federation some years ago are now most apprehensive that we are about to see the public corporations of the Federal Authority taking land. Once they are doing that and once the Order is introduced, no longer will hon. Members sitting on these benches be able to act on behalf of and speak in defence of African interests. These questions would be out of this House, out of our hands, and in the hands of people sitting in Salisbury.

I think this is the first step to erode away, eat away, and cut away the responsibility of this House to defend the interest of these Africans. I hope the Minister will look at this matter most carefully and give us some assurances as soon as he can.

I will certainly do as the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) has suggested, and will look at the points which he has just raised. I am glad that he has mentioned the fact that either my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State or myself will be able to look both at the matters which we discussed a fortnight ago and at the points raised by the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Rankin) in the very eloquent speech to which we have just listened.

I was somewhat surprised to hear that in some of the newspapers of the Federation there was an indication that this visit was agreed to as a result of an invitation issued by the hon. Member for Rugby who opened the debate at that time. That, of course, is not true. We had made the decision two weeks before, and I thought it polite to tell the hon. Gentleman that the visit was intended. I was glad that he welcomed the news.

Perhaps I may now turn to the many important points raised by the hon. Member for Govan in the very short time which was at his disposal. I would like to start by thanking him for the very considerable courtesy which he showed me in intimating to me a number of the points which he would raise. That has very much helped me in providing what I hope will be a useful answer.

Perhaps I could say that there is a clear distinction between the definition of responsibility in the matter of the scheme between my right hon. Friend and the Federal Government. The Kariba scheme, as a technical project, is the responsibility of the Federal Government, as is also the health of the workers employed on the project. I must emphasise that there are two aspects of the scheme—the wages of African workers and their working conditions—which are, in a sense, a joint responsibility of the Northern Rhodesian Government and the Federal Government because, as the hon. Member pointed out, this scheme is being carried out in the two areas divided by the Zambesi. The remainder of the points which he raised are the responsibility of the Northern Rhodesian Government, and, therefore, of my right hon. Friend. I should like to try to deal with those as thoroughly as I can in the time available to me, although I may not do so in the exact order in which they have been put to me.

The height of the dam is, according to present estimates, likely to be between 1,570 feet and 1,590 feet above sea level. The factors affecting the height are physical and financial. The hon. Member will realise that the height of the dam as eventually determined will influence the size of the lake created and hence the amount of land available for resettlement. With regard to the amount of land available. I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance there is no anxiety that insufficient land will be available even if the lake turns out to be a good deal larger than is at present expected. It is hoped that this land will be fertile land —that is what the Government are looking for—and there should be no question of any of the people who are being resettled being moved out of the valley up to the plateau.

So far as we can see, the planning of the resettlement will fit in with the phased development of the scheme itself. I should hate to accuse the hon. Member for Govan of being Irish, but there was a little inconsistency in what he said. He said that he approved of the scheme but he also deplored the fact that as a result of the scheme so many people have to be resettled. Having approved the scheme, one inevitable result is that large-scale resettlement is required.

Perhaps I expressed myself somewhat inadequately. I pointed out that there was no opposition, either on this side of the House or, so far as I knew, amongst the Africans, to the scheme in its technical aspects and the necessity for it, but that to the consequential treatment of the Africans in carrying out the scheme there was rooted objection. That is a different matter.

We cannot have the scheme without the results of the scheme. I am happy to be able to tell the hon. Gentleman that there is no African objection to the resettlement scheme.

So far as Northern Rhodesia alone is concerned. the present estimated expenditure for this resettlement scheme is approximately f2–1- million. It is very difficult to give a precise figure, but as planning progresses a more exact figure will certainly emerge.

The hon. Gentleman asked me about compensation. I would point out that anything which he, his hon. Friends, or hon. Members on this side of the House may say will certainly be taken into consideration by my right hon. Friend. The position in regard to compensation is that Africans in the area have been told that money, or some other form of compensa- tion, will be available in cases of proved need arising out of the resettlement. I would like to assure the hon. Gentleman that, as far as my right hon. Friend and myself are concerned, we shall ask the Northern Rhodesian Government to examine individual cases with great sympathy.

Is there not agreement to the principle of compensation?

Does that mean that compensation is not to be given as of right, but is to be given under a means test, if need can be proved?

It means that each individual case will be examined according to the particular need or hardship which has arisen.

The hon. Gentleman the Member for Govan (Mr. Rankin) spoke very eloquently about the ravages of animals and disease. As to the eradication of tsetse, the Department of Game and Tsetse have put into operation a scheme to eradicate tsetse from the two infested areas, and pickets have been set up to prevent the carriage of fly from those areas into the cattle lands. The Department is confident that in the five years assigned to the scheme it will be completely successful in its object of ridding these areas of tsetse. As regards the ravages of the baboon, steps have already been taken to establish a game warden, with assistants, who are in action and who will be strengthened as the need arises.

On one or two other matters, with which I should like to deal, such as winter crops and modern clearing techniques, perhaps I might write to the hon. Gentleman.

During the last nine months, the Northern Rhodesian Government have given the very highest priority to their responsibilities under the scheme. They regard it as a test for the far-sighted efficiency of their administration. I am quite certain that they will be able to provide the additional staff which will be needed to cope with the full details of the scheme, and they have that one hundred per cent, in mind.

The hon. Gentleman spoke about the first moves which were being made. As he probably knows, only one group of people is being moved in the immediate future, and it has not been necessary to choose more than one site, As to any difficulties in allocating land, each village will be assigned its land with due regard to the amount of grazing and agricultural land required. This was, I think, a point about which the hon. Gentleman felt very keenly. Allocations will be made in accordance with local custom, and with the assistance of the chiefs and their advisers.

The hon. Gentleman wished to know about the numbers of cattle and other livestock involved. I am told that, according to present estimates, 9,000 head of cattle and 15,000 of small stock will be moved out of the area. As far as water is concerned, extensive surveys have been made to determine the water potential of the ground.

I would end, as I started, by thanking the hon. Gentleman for the very sincere and eloquent way in which he raised this whole matter. I have endeavoured to cover most of the points he raised. However, I am sure he knows me well enough not to hesitate to get in touch with me if there are any other matters on which he needs further information.

While we are grateful for the reply which has been given, so far as it goes, we must, nevertheless, pursue this important matter in whatever other ways we possibly can.

Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm his statement that there is no African opposition to this resettlement scheme? Is it not a fact that Mr. Nkumbula and the African National Congress have attempted to hold meetings at Gwembe and elsewhere and have been denied access to this area, which will in future be flooded?

There is no African opposition from those affected. There may be opposition from politicians, but that is a very different matter.