HC Deb 29 April 1959 vol 604 cc1396-7

Amendment made: In page 9, line 35, at beginning insert: Subject to section thirty-three of this Act".—[Mr. Maclay.]

Mr. D. Johnston

I beg to move, in page 9, line 38, to leave out "twenty" and to insert "ten".

Clause 22 is meant to deal with the traditional poacher. We have all been agreed, in Committee at least, that there is a tradition of poaching in the Highlands, and that, whether it be right or wrong in law. it is not morally wrong. Indeed, it is acceptable. The House might like to recollect that the last and best book on poaching was written by a Member of the Government side, the late John Buchan's John Macnab.

It perhaps adds a little to the gaiety of poaching if there is a penalty and a chance of being caught. I suggest that the penalty suggested to be imposed by Clause 22 of £20 and the forfeiture of the deer illegally killed is somewhat heavy. It is more than a decent sporting poacher should be asked to bear. Therefore, I suggest that we should delete "twenty" and insert "ten", as on the Notice Paper.

The Lord Advocate

I must ask the House not to accept the Amendment. I agree that there is very little between £10 and £20. The hon. and learned Member for Paisley (Mr. D. Johnston) says that a penalty makes poaching all the gayer. A higher penalty will make it gayer still. I should hate to think that the poacher would be deprived of some gaiety by having to avoid only a small fine like £10. I quite agree that £20 will practically never he imposed, but one must remember that the carcase of a deer is a fairly valuable thing today, worth about £10, I understand. Without wishing to be hard-hearted, I must ask the House to reject the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

The Lord Advocate

I beg to move, in page 10, to leave out lines 1 to 3.

This is an extremely sad moment for me, because I made an impassioned speech in Committee and almost satisfied myself that these words were absolutely essential. Front the benches opposite, the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser), followed, in a strong constitutional approach, by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Fast (Mr. Willis) said that we were prostituting the law of Scotland. That argument has evidently fallen on the ears of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. and the result is that we have decided to take out these words.

Mr. D. Johnston

I thank the Lord Advocate for what has been done. I think that his second thoughts, or the second thoughts of the Secretary of State—it matters not which of them—have been much better than their first. It would have been deplorable if we had, as this subsection sought to do, cast the onus of proving innocence upon the accused person rather than leaving it to the prosecutor to prove guilt. We are much obliged to the Government for that.

Amendment agreed to.