HC Deb 23 October 1986 vol 102 cc1405-15
Mr. Wilson

I beg to move, in page 19, line 29, leave out from `(a)' to 'is' in line 30.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 19, in page 19, line 29, leave Out from 'believes;' to end of line 32.

No. 20, in page 19, line 31, leave out 'it would be reasonable for him to suspect' and insert 'he had grounds to believe'. No. 21, in page 20, leave out lines 8 and 9.

No. 30, in clause 31, page 26, line 35, leave out 'it would be reasonable for him to expect that' and insert 'has grounds to believe'.

Mr. Wilson

I should like to speak also in support of amendment No. 21. The provisions of clause 21 are totally obnoxious. I do not know from which legal code they have been dredged, but any provision in statute which starts from the assumption or presumption of guilt is abhorrent to all of us. No doubt the Minister will be able to provide some precedent, probably an earlier statute, for the wording given in clause 21 7A(1)(a). The wording reads: is in possession of salmon and believes". I have never come across a clause couched in such subjective language. How can one prove that somebody believes something without exposing that person to some kind of drug or hallucinatory interrogation to find out what they may or may not believe? It is not practicable, nor is it capable of being proved in court. Clause 21 7A(1) (a) is unnecessary and undesirable and should be removed.

That would still leave paragraph (b) relating to being in possession of salmon. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) has tabled an amendment on that point. The offence that the Government want on the statute book is, I presume, a rewording of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Protection) (Scotland) Act 1951. Certainly the offence of being in possession of salmon and believes would be a legal minefield when interpreted by the courts.

My views on the purpose of amendment No. 21 are even stronger than on amendment No. 18. I have already stated my dislike of the presumption of guilt that is a central part of the clause. We should especially consider subsection (3), which I want excised. It states: It shall be lawful to convict a person charged under this section on the evidence of one witness. That flies wholly against the evidentiary requirements of the law of Scotland, under which a person should be presumed to be innocent until proved guilty. The burden of proof lies with the Crown, and that is enforced by higher standards than apply to civil law and must be beyond all reasonable doubt.

It is worth reminding the House that in the Slater case in 1928 Lord Clyde said that the innocence requirement was fundamental to the whole system of criminal prosecution. It applies to every person charged with a criminal offence in precisely the same way and it can be overcome only by evidence relevant to prove the crime with commission of which he is charged. I suspect that a charge of being in possession of salmon would be as important to the accused person as would be the charge for someone accused of murder, robbery, rape or whatever. In other words, the same standards should be applied to each and every criminal charge.

An essential part of the criminal law of Scotland is the corroboration of evidence. I am well aware that where someone is in possession of property that has been proved to have been stolen the accused can be under an obligation to explain the circumstances by which he acquired it. The Crown does not have to prove dishonest intent. However, in all cases it is essential that the Crown proves both possession and that the goods were stolen. The onus is on the Crown to do that by corroboration.

Other than that provision, under Scottish law no one can be convicted on his own confession without corroborating evidence or evidence acceptable to the court that not only stands on its own legs but is supported by additional information. For example, there could be corroboration by two or more witnesses or by one witness who can be supported by facts and circumstances giving rise to that corroboration. In this instance we are running counter to the basic rules of justice.

I do not know why this has found its way into the legislation. It may simply be because in the past the landed interests had an exceptional amount of power, almost feudal power, and were able to impose their will. Crimes against property or thefts of large sums of money sometimes, even today in the courts, seem to be penalised more severely than cases of murder. Human life is sometimes seen to be less sacrosanct than property.

It is a minority who own salmon fisheries and they are given exceptional powers of protection under this legislation. I earlier welcomed the amendment moved by the Minister to prevent water bailiffs from being able to go into private houses. However, that still leaves us with the unfortunate situation, outlined by the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson), whereby water bailiffs, without any training, will be able to give evidence to the courts and the evidence upon which conviction can take place is that of one witness or one water bailiff.

The reason why, in the past, courts have insisted on corroboration is that it is wrong to trust human nature. Indeed, there may be a temptation for a water bailiff to tell lies or, if he bears a grudge against an alleged poacher or knows somebody has been poaching but there is no evidence, to plant a salmon. It may well be that the poacher or person dealing in salmon could be correctly dealt with under criminal law and have truly committed the offence, but it may be that an innocent person is found guilty. Even with the laws of corroboration, there are still people who have been convicted by the courts and who are subsequently pardoned because the fallibility of justice has been shown to exist. The exercise of justice is a human matter and all of us are subject to error.

In cases of the possession of salmon, I would prefer the judgment to be made by the courts in the light of the general criminal law of the country and on the laws of evidence as they apply to all other crimes, instead of giving special rights to fishery owners. In its present form this is very primitive. It is the sort of thing that may come up in legal systems that are still in the course of development but which in more civilised times would have been altered so as to provide fairness.

I do not know where the law has come from. I am not sure whether the law of corroboration is the same in England as in Scotland. However, it is generally accepted in Scotland that nobody can be convicted without evidence which is not only credible but corroborated. I suggest to the House that it would perpetuate bad law if we provided rules of evidence for the possession of salmon which we are not prepared to allow in connection with other offences, both serious and minor. It is the duty of the House to remove bad law when it comes across it; otherwise, if one goes back to some of the rules that existed, especially in England, with regard to poaching offences for game or salmon, the lopping off of hands or transportation might still be appropriate punishments. We got rid of those punishments years ago and I suggest that now is the time to remove this relic of the poaching or game laws.

We are not talking of a minor offence. The penalty on summary conviction can be three months' imprisonment or a maximum fine. I am not sure what the maximum fine is these days — it is jacked up all the time to meet inflation — but it can be three months or perhaps something in excess of £1,000 as a fine, or both. If somebody is taken on indictment, it can mean two years' imprisonment or an unlimited fine, or both. That should not be visited on any citizen of any country on the unsupported testimony of one witness.

11.30 pm
Mr. Home Robertson

Amendment No. 18 had me a little baffled, because it takes out the only justified paragraph in the clause — the one that provides that those who know that they have committed an offence can be prosecuted. I support the second amendment of the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson), amendment No. 21—he may have noticed that I put my name to it —which concerns corroboration. This issue was debated fully in Committee, and we voted against the situation in which somebody could be convicted of possessing salmon simply on the evidence of a single bailiff, when in all probability the bailiff was the employee of the water proprietor in question. As the hon. Member for Dundee, East said, it would be far too easy for somebody to plant evidence and lie to the court. It would be outrageous if somebody were to be convicted under those circumstances. It would invite the court to convict on unsafe grounds, and Parliament should not pass such sloppy and potentially dangerous legislation. It is our duty to protect the innocent, and that should never be superseded by our enthusiasm to punish the guilty.

Amendment No. 19 and amendments Nos. 28 and 30 in the name of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) are intended to restrict the scope of the prosecution under the clause to those who have knowingly committed an offence. They cover the point about the presumption of innocence being brought into this procedure rather than the abhorrent principle of the assumption of guilt, about which we should all become worried.

As drafted, the Bill will make it possible to convict people who should have known that they were committing an offence. Who should have known and who should not have known whether they were committing an offence when they were purchasing salmon? The world may be full of nasty suspicious people such as the Minister and me, who always assume that others have the worst possible motives, but just because we spend our lives in the company of politicians we should not overlook the fact that there are some honest, decent simple and straightforward people elsewhere in the country. If somebody were to come up to the Minister or to me and offer a fresh salmon at a reasonable price, we might be suspicious about where it had come from. Let us take somebody like yourself, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If I were to offer you a fresh salmon, you might accept it from me in all innocence. Under clause 71, it would be possible for you to be convicted of possessing an illegally taken salmon on the ground that you ought to have suspected that I was dealing in poached salmon.

There may be grounds for allowing courts to prosecute in such circumstances, and to crack down on some particularly heinous crime such as drug trafficking, but such a breach of an important principle of Scots law cannot be justified to convict people who did not know that they were doing anything wrong, just to protect salmon. As the hon. Member for Dundee, East said, this can lead to heavy fines, terms of imprisonment and criminal records hanging over people for the rest of their lives. It is wrong that Parliament should allow courts to convict in such circumstances, and the Minister must take these points on board.

Mr. Beith

With a Scottish solicitor and a Scottish advocate sitting beside me on the Liberal Bench, I shall concentrate my remarks on the English amendment of the two standing in my name. Amendment No. 20 is worded in almost the same way as the other two amendments. They address the terms by which someone can be convicted, namely, if it would be reasonable for him to suspect that a relevant offence has been committed. I argue that there should be grounds for a person to believe that an offence has been committed. The words that I have quoted have to be seen in conjunction with subsection (3) of clause 31 which states: It shall he immaterial for the purposes of subsection (1) above that a person's belief or the grounds for suspicion— that is, the grounds that he ought to have had— relate neither specifically to a particular offence that has been committed nor exclusively to a relevant offence or to relevant offences; The only qualification that the clause continues to offer is that it shall be a defence in proceedings … to show that no relevant offence had in fact been committed in relation to the salmon in question. If a person can prove that the salmon had not been poached he has demonstrated his innocence by disproving the assumptions of guilt which the two parts of the clause taken together impute.

In Committee we were regaled at length by the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) about the "poor wee crofter woman." She became a favoured figure on the Committee. A salmon was placed at her door and she came forthwith to the conclusion that it was a gift from God. It was indeed such a gift. Other agents may have participated in this heavenly donation but it was a gift from God. The woman was guilty because it would have been reasonable for her to suspect that the person who laid the salmon at her door would have come to the front door and knocked and charged her for it had he been a legitimate salmon trader who had obtained the salmon legally. The poor crofter woman has to be found guilty because it would have been reasonable for her to suspect that a relevant offence had been committed.

We must, however, consider other characters as well as the crofter woman. Let us suppose that the Minister had bought a raffle ticket for a worthy cause and that the first prize was a fresh salmon. Suppose the fresh salmon was presented to him as a result of his success in the raffle. However, it would have been reasonable for him to suspect that a relevant offence had been committed in relation to that salmon because it was known that poaching took place in the locality in which the raffle ticket was bought, and it was known that among the supporters of the worthy cause there were people who, at some time, had been found guilty of poaching. It could be argued that it was reasonable for the Minister, in those circumstances, to have suspected that a relevant offence had been committed.

Dr. Godman

As the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) is something of a legal expert, I hope that he can answer a question that is puzzling me. If the "wee wifey" had been presented with a salmon that had been gutted — or headed as it is called — and filleted, would she then have faced criminal charges?

Mr. Beith

Yes; it would have made no difference. She would have been presented with a salmon even though some bits were missing from it. No doubt my hon. Friends would he able to sustain a case for days, nay weeks, on the question of whether a gutted salmon was a whole salmon or whet her a half or a third of a salmon was a salmon. Let me disclaim any suggestion that I am a legal expert. Far from it. If I were, I would be as well endowed as some of my hon. Friends who have pursued the law to such lengths.

There is obviously endless scope for legal argument. However, an individual has the imputation of guilt posed against him because it would have been reasonable for him to suspect that an offence had been committed. He may have had no such suspicion in his mind. He may be an unsuspecting soul and he may not have drawn the conclusions which the court thinks that he ought to have drawn from circumstances in his area. He may not be able to disprove the prosecution case by demostrating that he had no such belief. The absence of that belief is not a defence. He must prove that it would not even have been reasonable for him to suspect.

This seems to place the onus of proof of innocence on the individual in a quite unreasonable way. It is a way of framing the law that has not been entertained in respect of far more serious offences involving far greater dangers. There are well-known difficulties about obtaining prosecutions for salmon offences, but they have not stopped a great many people from being successfully prosecuted in the courts in my constituency and in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood). There have been many prosecutions of late.

Even if there are difficulties, we must pause and think before writing into the law this presumption of guilt which has not been found necessary in relation to much more serious offences.

Mr. John MacKay

Let me first, Mr. Deputy Speaker, set your mind at rest in case the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) presents you with a salmon. I think you would have a very reasonable defence if you said that the hon. Gentleman was a large estate owner on the banks of the River Tweed. Therefore, if he does present you with a salmon you can take 1t without much fear — [Interruption.] My right hon. friend the Minister of State tells me that he thinks he will take the risk of the raffle prize.

Mr. James Wallace (Orkney and Shetland)

No doubt, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you did have knowledge. At least you have now been told that the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) is a large riparian owner. What if someone did not know that? What situation would he be in?

Mr. MacKay

I do not want to go into all the details, but I just gave Mr. Deputy Speaker the defence that he would have in these circumstances. One must look to the particular circumstance.

One of the Bill's major aims is to provide effective measures against the poaching, taking, selling and distribution of illegal salmon. A lot of pressure from all the outside bodies has been on us to strengthen the law. In fact, many people do not think that the Government have gone nearly far enough, but I fully appreciate that if I had gone that far in relation to the onus of proof, some of the points made by hon. Members would be valid. That is why I have not gone as far as many other people wished me to go.

What I have done is reasonable and precedented. In Scotland the alternative of proving suspicious circumstances is contained in section 7 of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Protection) (Scotland) Act 1951. For example, a court may convict for an offence under section 15 or sections 18 to 24 of the Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act 1868 on the evidence of one witness. The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) wanted precedents, and I would have thought that those were good ones. The position is maintained in clause 29. There is also section 7 of the 1951 Act and section 25 of the Deer (Scotland) Act 1959.

In all those areas, as in this one, the nature of the offences creates difficulties for enforcement officers and in my mind justifies the relaxation of the requirement for corroborative evidence. That was part and parcel of a long discussion that we had in Committee, when hon. Members put their points, and in each case their points were defeated when pressed to a Division.

Mr. Wilson

The precedents that the Minister has given come from salmon and game laws. What other precedents can he find in the general criminal law? Why should we relax these provisions for poachers and those in possession of salmon when we are not prepared to do so in cases of murder, rape and so on?

Mr. MacKay

The hon. Gentleman should talk to some of the people who are interested in the conservation of salmon and the prevention of poaching. He will then realise that many of the offences take place at the back of beyond, at night and in circumstances where life is not easy for the bailiffs and police.

11.45 pm

The prosecutor must show that the accused believed that the salmon in his possession had been taken illegally, by an admission of guilt by the accused. It has been argued that that will be knocked out by one of the amendments. Alternatively, the prosecutor may need evidence to show that the circumstances in which the accused had salmon in his possession were such that he ought to have suspected that the salmon had been illegally taken.

I am merely trying to explain what the words mean. We had long debates in Committee on this matter and, frankly, I believe that enforcement is a genuine problem. Opposition Members have said how keen they are to conserve salmon, and how keen they are to eliminate poaching, yet when it comes to doing something about it they wish to leave the law as powerless as it is at present.

Mr. Home Robertson

rose—

Mr. MacKay

We believe that enforcement is a great problem.

Mr. Home Robertson

The Minister is right in saying that attempting to prosecute people is difficult in these circumstances. Surely he will acknowledge that there is an even greater problem in prosecuting serious crimes, such as drug trafficking. Do the Government intend to introduce similar draconian measures for other offences?

Mr. MacKay

The hon. Gentleman should stick to what we are discussing—salmon and the associated problems.

All the amendments under discussion would weaken the clause. They would weaken the stand that we are taking against poachers and other illegal fishermen. I believe that the courts will look sensibly at the evidence —after all, that is their job—and judge. The clause will improve and strengthen the law. Those who wish to water it down and who offer no alternatives for reforming the law are hypocritical about salmon conservation and protection. I hope that they will have the decency to keep their mouths shut when it comes to preventing poaching and preserving salmon.

Mr. Wallace

I have listened with interest and care to the Minister's point that the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) is known—to Members of this House—to be a riparian land owner. I am in no way casting blame in his direction because of that fact.

If the hon. Member for East Lothian presented me with a salmon there would be no reasonable grounds to suppose that it was an illegal salmon. On the other hand, if an innocent member of the public were presented with a free salmon from a Labour Member he would never dream for one moment that that hon. Member was a large landowner on the banks of the Tweed. In such circumstances it may be said that he had reasonable grounds to suspect that the salmon was illegal.

My hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) gave the example of a prize-winning raffle ticket. The Minister dismissed that suggestion, but a court might decide that such a prize fell within the ambit of this clause. It is all very well for us to know what we do not mean by legislation but unless that is stated on the statute book the court will pay no regard to it.

The courts would not be aware that the raffle ticket scenario was laughed out of the House. The wording of the statute may allow the courts to put any construction on a case. When we create offences, it is incumbent on the House to make sure that they are defined strictly to ensure that wider interpretation is not possible. It is one of the cardinal principles of criminal law that the citizen accused should know, with some precision, what does and does not constitute an offence. As it stands, the clause is too wide. The amendment limits it and makes it more precise.

Corroboration is a very important part of the law of Scotland. It is an important evidential requirement—not on every point but on the cardinal points that constitute the crime. The Minister has given some precedents. However, the law of corroboration has been built up over many centuries and is a fundamental part of Scottish law.

It is all very well for the Minister to say that today we are discussing salmon, not drugs, but it is not unfair to make that comparison. He said that one must remember the difficulties that have to be faced when trying to prove a crime and obtain a conviction. However, the smuggling of drugs does not take place in the open. Those who are trying to put an end to the smuggling of drugs are faced with problems when trying to obtain proof. Scottish policemen travel around in twos, so why should bailiffs not go around in twos if that is a corroboration requirement of Scottish law?

When precedents are set we are treading on dangerous ground. The Minister is a great person for precedents. Those hon. Members who have sat on other Committees with him know that when a clause is challenged as a novel departure he will reel off precedents. Tonight we are providing yet another precedent. If he wants to use it in connection with other parts of the law of Scotland to erode the evidential law of corroboration that has been built up over many years, he will cite it as a precedent. By that means, bit by bit, eventually we shall find that the bulwarks of Scottish law that are there for a very good reason have been slowly eroded away.

The Minister has not provided us with a convincing reason why offences relating to salmon should be treated in a different way from more serious crimes, and if the mover of the amendment thinks fit to press it to a Division I shall be prepared to support him.

Mr. Wilson

I have heard some weak arguments from the Dispatch Box over the years, but this is one of the weakest. But it is not the weakness of the argument to which I object; it is its sheer immorality.

To return to the absence of precedent, the Minister was unable to find any precedent outside the game and fishing laws of the 19th century. He had the utter gall to bring that to our attention, as though that were a justification in itself. I have already said that this is had law and that it is completely at variance with the rest of the law of Scotland, in terms of evidential requirements.

The Minister would fit more happily into the role of a prosecutor than into the role of ensuring that justice is done in Scottish courts. It is axiomatic that 10 guilty men should go unpunished rather than that one innocent man should be wrongfully convicted. If the Minister had kept that as his objective, he would not have strayed from the path.

The attitude adopted by the Minister and the Government is horrifying. However, the Conservative party has always been the party of landed interests. When it comes to the rights of the citizen and the estate landlord, we know on whose side it will come down. I wish, therefore, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to put amendment No. 21 to the vote.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The debate has taken place on amendment No. 18. If the hon. Gentleman would prefer there to be a vote on amendment No. 21, that would be in order. In that case, does he wish to withdraw amendment No. 18?

Mr. Wilson

I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment No. 18.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, No. 21, in page 20, leave out lines 8 and 9.—[Mr. Wilson.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes, 12, Noes 70.

Division No. 295] [11.55 pm
AYES
Beith, A. J. Randall, Stuart
Canavan, Dennis Rowlands, Ted
Evans, John (St. Helens N) Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)
Home Robertson, John Wallace, James
Kirkwood, Archy
Livsey, Richard Tellers for the Ayes:
McWilliam, John Mr. Gordon Wilson and
Pike, Peter Dr. Norman A. Godman.
NOES
Amess, David Coombs, Simon
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N) Cope, John
Blackburn, John Couchman, James
Boscawen, Hon Robert Currie, Mrs Edwina
Bottomley, Peter Dover, Den
Brinton, Tim Durant, Tony
Burt, Alistair Gummer, Rt Hon John S
Butterfill, John Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Carttiss, Michael Hargreaves, Kenneth
Cash, William Hayes, J.
Chope, Christopher Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford) Jones, Robert (Herts W)
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe) King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Knight, Greg (Derby N) Raffan, Keith
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh) Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Lester, Jim Roe, Mrs Marion
Lightbown, David Sackville, Hon Thomas
Lilley, Peter Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham) Sayeed, Jonathan
Lord, Michael Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute) Spencer, Derek
Maclean, David John Stern, Michael
Maude, Hon Francis Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Merchant, Piers Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)
Mills, Iain (Meriden) Townend, John (Bridlington)
Monro, Sir Hector Tracey, Richard
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes) Twinn, Dr Ian
Moynihan, Hon C. Waller, Gary
Neubert, Michael Watts, John
Nicholls, Patrick Wilkinson, John
Norris, Steven Wolfson, Mark
Onslow, Cranley
Osborn, Sir John Tellers for the Noes:
Page, Richard (Herts SW) Mr. Gerald Malone and
Portillo, Michael Mr. Richard Ryder.
Powley, John

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Mr. Home Robertson

I beg to move amendment NO. 22, in page 21, line 5, leave out paragraph (b).

Mr. Deputy Speaker

It will be convenient to discuss at the same time Government amendment No. 23.

Mr. Home Robertson

When considering amendment No. 16 we debated the question of the power to enter and search private dwellings in relation to dealer licensing. We now come to the same point in relation to powers of search and entry without a warrant to secure evidence of possession of poached salmon.

Parliament should think carefully before allowing bailiffs or constables to gain entry to people's property without a warrant. There is concern about the possible shortcomings of bailiffs—an issue that we have already discussed. I am not the only one to suggest that there should be better provision governing the quality, vetting and training of bailiffs. Many hon. Members have received representations from the superintendent of the Forth District Salmon Fishery Board. Serious misgivings have been expressed, by people experienced in these matters, about the qualifications of bailiffs.

There may be a case for this type of infringement of civil liberties — letting bailiffs or constables enter people's dwelling houses—to make it easier to deal with serious crime, but I have grave doubts whether that can be justified in the quest for evidence of salmon poaching.

It has been said that an Englishman's home is his castle. I suggest that Scots also have rights in their own homes, including the right to protection against over-zealous bailiffs kicking people's doors down to search for contraband salmon. I therefore welcome the Government's concession in amendment No. 23, which will at least exclude people's dwelling houses and gardens from this right to enter and search without a warrant. The Minister should be ashamed of himself for ever having suggested that such powers should be included in the Bill in the first place. But we are grateful to him for listening for once to our arguments in Committee.

Mr. John MacKay

The point that the hon. Member makes was discussed at length in Committee. Having given careful thought to the matter, I have tabled amendment No. 23. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment and that the House will accept mine.

Mr. Home Robertson

I had intended to make that clear. In view of the terms of the Minister's amendment, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: No. 23, in page 21, line 11, after `premises', insert `(other than a dwelling house or any yard, garden, outhouses and pertinents belonging thereto or usually enjoyed therewith)'.—[Mr. John MacKay.]

Forward to