DEER (SCOTLAND) [MONEY] (Hansard, 3 February 1959)

§ Mr. William Ross (Kilmarnock)
I wonder whether the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is in his place to give us any details of what is involved here. We have agreed in principle, on Second Reading of the Bill, that certain things should be done, and I do not think any of us will dispute that, but it will be remembered that we were concerned about the expenditure of money by the State to carry out functions which previously were the responsibility of private landlords. Having heard the speech of the noble Lord, we are entitled to have some explanation of what exactly is involved in this Money Resolution. It is public money. I am not the guardian of the public purse, but I am very much concerned to learn from the Government just what is involved.
It has been astounding to listen to the absentee Tory landowners pleading the case for the conservation and control of deer when we appreciate that what is happening is that the State is now taking over responsibilities, and spending money in relation to responsibilities that were formerly the landowners'. We can understand their enthusiasm for this Measure, but surely they have a certain amount of concern for the general taxpayer, who has to foot the bill.
The Money Resolution reads: … for the purposes of any Act of the present Session"— that will be the Measure to which we have just given a Second Reading: 336 to further the conservation and control of red deer in Scotland and for purposes connected therewith … The Bill with which we have just dealt was in two parts. It dealt not only with the conservation and control of red deer but with matters relating to poaching. The words used here are very limiting indeed: … to further the conservation and control of red deer … and for purposes connected therewith … I should like to know whether any expenses in relation to the other part of the Bill are covered by this Money Resolution, and, if they are not covered by it, where they are covered. The Resolution goes on: the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of expenses of the Secretary of State incurred under the said Act. I am sure that the Secretary of State will be able to tell us just what those expenses will be. I do not think that we should pass this Money Resolution unless we have the assurance that they will be reasonable; and an indication of how they are likely to be incurred.
The Money Resolution continues: the payment into the Exchequer of sums received under the said Act by the Secretary of State. We can all appreciate that. They will sell the carcases, the skins and the rest of it and make a lot of money—or so they think. Perhaps the Financial Secretary is now ready to answer me—or, perhaps, the Secretary of State is. He seems to be bursting with speech, which is really surprising in view of his experience in the past. He has now found a Bill that is really after his own heart. He has now found a Bill that he can understand. I will be delighted if he can give me the explanation for which I ask.

§ The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay)
The information for which the hon. Member has asked is in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum. I know the care with which he studies these Bills, and I suspect that he has already seen that the sum of £14,000 annually is the essence of the whole problem. I do not know what more information he wants, but I will give him a bit more—

§ Mr. Ross
I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman knows what information I wanted, and it would be far better if 337 he were to listen to me. I want to know just how he is to spend the £14,000, which is to be the annual cost to the country of carrying out what were formerly the functions of the landlords of Scotland. I want to know just exactly how he is to spend this money, and exactly how it will be broken down into the various items of expenditure.
I also want to know what the initial outlay will be. The Explanatory and Financial Memorandum says that there is to be an outlay of £4,000 initially. I want to know how it is arrived at. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot be persuaded to give an explanation, we shall have to vote against the Money Resolution.

§ Mr. Maclay
I realise more clearly the information which the hon. Member wants and I think that I can give him most of it.
The financial effect of the Bill relates entirely to Part I. The provisions for close seasons and the prevention of illegal taking and killing of deer will be enforced by the existing police and court system and will not give rise to additional expenditure. The annual expenditure will arise largely from the cost of the Red Deer Commission, which will include the salaries of the part-time chairman and staff and the travelling and other expenses of the chairman, members and staff. The hon. Member will realise that I cannot give precisely the detail of the travelling expenses at this time.
There will be additional expenses. There will also be incidental expenses, for example, on ammunition. The remainder of the estimated annual expenditure is attributable to the additional expenses that may be incurred by the Secretary of State, for example, in holding public inquiries into control schemes, and by the Nature Conservancy, which will provide the Commission with scientific advice and with stalking assistance in the field.
In arriving at the estimate of the Commission's annual expenditure— 338 [Interruption.] As I am anxious to give the fullest possible explanation, I was hoping that I would be listened to.
In arriving at the estimate of the Commission's annual expenditure, account has been taken of the fact that the Commission will receive money, first, from the sale of carcases of deer killed under its authority, that is, in cases where the Commission's servants kill marauding deer or undertake default work in a central scheme; and, secondly, from owners and occupiers who obtain assistance from the Commission by agreements under Clause 12.
Comment has been made that I am reading. It would be very surprising if one ventured to describe a Money Resolution without having the facts at one's disposal. I think I have covered the points raised by the hon. Member in a very full description of the Money Resolution, which itself is drafted in very clear terms, and I hope that the House will now agree to the Resolution.

§ Mr. Ross
We have been told that no additional expenditure will be involved in relation to enforcement. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that during the discussion the difficulties in which the police have been in relation to this matter were pointed out. Have we an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that he does not intend to spend any more money on the police in certain areas because of this Bill? That is implicit in what he has said.

§ Mr. Maclay
I said that no additional expenditure arises under this Resolution because any work done by the police is covered by the existing police and court system and will not give rise to additional expenditure. I do not see that any additional expenditure arises in that way under this Resolution.