§ [The references are to Bill No. (20).]
§
Clause 1, page 1, line 23, leave out subsection (2) and insert:
("(2) No order made under this section shall make lawful during any part of the period specified in subsection (1) the killing of grey seals except—
§ LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL moved, That this House doth disagree with the Commons in the said Amendment and propose in lieu thereof the following Amendment:
§
Clause 1, page 1, line 23, leave out subsection (2) and insert:
(2) An order made under this section which renders lawful the killing of grey seals during any part of the period specified in subsection (1) shall contain regulations providing for the grant and revocation of permits by the Minister or the Secretary of State and prohibiting such killing except—
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, the necessity for the proposal to disagree with the Commons in their Amendment of subsection (2) of Clause 1 arises from the fact that when that Amendment was accepted it was not observed that the subsection in its amended form would not square with the Penalty Clause. Paragraph (c) of subsection (1) of Section 2 makes it an offence to contravene any regulation made under subsection (2) of Clause 2, the regulations in view being regulations dealing with methods of slaughter. But subsection (2) now makes no reference to regulations and also includes a new provision as to permits. It is so worded that no offence or penalty is prescribed by Clause 2 if a person kills a seal without a permit during any part of the breeding season in which killing is legalised by Order. Therefore, on behalf of the Government, I am asking your Lordships' House to substitute for the Amendment made in another place an Amendment which will get over the technical difficulty by providing regulations as to permits, the contravention of which will constitute an offence under the Penalty Clause.
127§ At the same time, to meet the point as to the revocation of permits raised in two suggested Amendments by the noble Viscount, Lord Bertie, we are proposing to add the words "and revocation" which will enable the Minister or the Secretary of State to take all necessary powers for the revocation of permits. I am advised that this will cover all, or nearly all, that the noble Viscount has in view, and the Government are obliged to him for raising this point. Apart from this question of revocation, the Amendment proposed is purely a matter of drafting and does not differ in substance from that which was passed in another place. I beg to move.
§ Moved, That this House doth disagree with the Commons in the said Amendment and propose another Amendment in lieu thereof.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
§ VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAMEMy Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord for having put down an Amendment to meet some of the points raised in the Amendments which stand in my name. As he has been good enough to do that I do not propose to move the first three paragraphs of my proposed Amendments.
§ On Question, Motion agreed to: Commons Amendment disagreed to and the new subsection agreed to accordingly.
§
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, after the new subsection (2), to insert the following:
( ) If any person with intent to deceive—
he shall be guilty of a misdemeanour and shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds or to both such imprisonment and fine.( ) If any police constable has reasonable cause to believe that any permit produced to him in pursuance of the provisions of this Act is a document in relation to which an offence under this section has been committed he may seize the document and when any document is seized under this section the person from whom it was taken
128
shall unless the document has been previously returned to him or he has previously been charged with an offence under this section be summoned before a court of summary jurisdiction to account for his possession of the said document and the court shall make such order respecting the disposal of the said document and award such costs as the justice of the case may require.
§ The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I am glad that this system of permits has been introduced, but now that it has been introduced it seems necessary that there should be a forgery clause inserted. There are many precedents for this. There is the Improvement of Live Stock (Licensing of Bulls) Act, which seems to be as analogous as any. Then there is the Road Traffic Act, and there are many others such as the Merchant Shipping Act, all of which have forgery sections in them. It was rather difficult to choose which precedent to take, but I have taken the Road Traffic Act as my precedent, with the difference that I have ventured to reduce the penalties from four months to three months and from £100 to £50. It was stated in regard to the Amendment to the Road Traffic Act in this respect that it was most necessary that the police should have power to seize any document which they thought was a forgery, otherwise no prosecution could take place. I hope in those circumstances that the noble Lord will see his way to accept the Amendment.
§
Amendment moved—
After the new subsection (2) insert the said new subsections.—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
§ LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYALMy Lords, the question of forgery to which the noble Viscount has referred is a somewhat complicated one. The forging of permits is not within the range of practical possibility. The noble Viscount has already withdrawn his first three paragraphs and he will see that we do not consider a forgery clause to be necessary in this case. The opportunities for, and inducements to, forgery will be very small indeed and if forgery does occur it can be dealt with under the existing law. The reason for the inclusion of forgery in the Improvement of Live Stock (Licensing of Bulls) Act, 1931, to which the noble Lord has referred, and the inclusion of a specific 129 provision as to forgery in the Road Traffic Act was to enable proceedings to be taken summarily instead of on indictment, as would otherwise be the case, under the Forgery Act. Under these Acts the temptations to forgery may be considerable, and it was deemed necessary to add to the forgery law provisions enabling forgery offences to be dealt with summarily. In this case there is no need to burden the Bill with such special provisions where the occasion for, and the inducement to, forgery would hardly ever exist. But if a case should occur it can be dealt with under Section 3 (3) (f) or Section 4 of the Forgery Act of 1913 in England, or under the Common Law in Scotland.
I should also like to point out to the noble Viscount that there is a close parallel in the recent Destruction of Imported Animals Act. That provides for licences to import or to keep musk rats and, no doubt for reasons similar to those adduced in regard to this Bill, it contains no provisions as to the production of licences on demand or as to forgery. The regulations under the Act provide for the production of Import Licences for the obvious reason that this might be necessary to prevent the unauthorised import of musk rats. I hope the noble Viscount will be satisfied with that explanation, and, if so, will be disposed to withdraw his Amendment.
§ VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAMEMy Lords, I do not quite understand what the noble Lord referred to in speaking about indictment, because in the Road Traffic Act indictment is mentioned and also summary conviction, so that there seems to be really no distinction.
§ LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYALThe point is one that relates to Scotland.
§ VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAMEBut this deals with England as well as Scotland.
§ LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYALIt is mostly Scotland.
§ VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAMEAs long as my noble and learned friend the Leader of the House will say it is not to be treated as a precedent in future Bills I shall be satisfied. In that case I am willing to withdraw, but otherwise I feel some diffidence about doing so.
§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM)My Lords, I hope I can satisfy my noble friend upon this. The position is that forgery is an offence at Common Law, and under the Forgery Act it can be dealt with only on indictment, which is a more formal and serious way of dealing with it. It is only with regard to a special form of document that it is desirable to provide a summary method of dealing with it, and that appears to be the case in the Road Traffic Act, under which, apparently, they give you the power to put it in either way. If there were not such a provision then you could only have dealt with it in the case of a forgery by means of indictment. In this particular case it is not thought necessary to provide a special means of dealing summarily with offences of forging permits, because it is very unlikely there will be many such offences, and, if one should arise, then there is the provision for dealing with it by indictment.
I can assure my noble friend that in any legislation which is introduced the Department concerned will in every case consider whether it is not an offence which is likely to require such frequent checking or which can be more conveniently dealt with by summary methods. In such an event the Department would provide a special clause to enable that to be done. In cases like the present, where it is not likely to happen often, then probably they will take the view, which the Department took in the present case, that in that particular instance it was not required. Therefore I hope my noble friend will realise that we are not in the least saying, because it is not in this Bill, therefore it is not desirable to have it in any other Bill. Each case should be judged on its merits, and I hope a reasonable decision will be reached in every case.
§ VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAMEMy Lords, after the undertaking given by my noble and learned friend I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.