HL Deb 29 April 1952 vol 176 cc425-50

4.12 p.m.

House again in Committee (according to Order):

[The LORD TERRINGTON in the Chair]

Debate resumed on the Amendment moved on April 8 by Lord Morrison to insert after Clause 1 the following new Clause:

Close season for deer

" .The Secretary of State shall within three months after the passing of this Act, make Regulations establishing an annual close season during which the killing of deer except for humane purposes shall be an offence under this Act; and such regulations shall be laid before Parliament and shall not come into force until they have been approved by both Houses of Parliament."

THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES

Your Lordships will remember that when this Bill was last in Committee, before the adjournment your Lordships agreed that the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, inserting a new Clause after Clause 1, remain on the Order Paper for further discussion to take place. Perhaps it would be convenient if the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, now stated his views.

LORD MORRISON

For some reason that the public will have some difficulty in understanding, your Lordships' House are making very heavy weather of this Bill. Perhaps at the outset I may explain why I think we are making heavy weather of it and why it may be difficult for anyone outside this House to understand this. We have had two long discussions on this question and it seems to me that we are in danger of making ourselves look somewhat ridiculous in the eves of the public. In our Second Reading discussion, and again in the Committee stage discussion, of which this is an adjournment, your Lordships were unanimous and the Government were sympathetic towards what speakers in all parts of the House were asking for—namely, a close season. We said that the Bill would not be of any great importance unless a close season clause were inserted. The Minister in charge of the Bill, the noble Earl, Lord Home, whom we are glad to see here again this afternoon, said the Government were sympathetic with that point of view and that without a close season the Bill would be of little value.

THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (THE EARL OF HOME)

May I correct the noble Lord? I must not be quoted as saying that. What I said was that if we had to insert in the Bill provision for a close season, that would improve the Bill, but we attach great value to it as an anti-poaching, Bill.

LORD MORRISON

We will let it go at that for the moment. The question that immediately comes to mind is: why do we not provide in the Bill for a close, season clause? Everybody is in favour of it and the Government are sympathetic. Why is it not in? What powerful interests stand in the way? I have heard of only two explanations and I should like to say a word on both, especially in view of the explanation which was given by the noble Earl, Lord Home, who said on Second Reading (OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 175, col. 744): On the question of the close season, as I said at the beginning I agree that if we could include such a provision it would add to the value of the Bill. It is desirable, both from the point of view of eliminating cruelty and also, as one or two noble Lords have pointed out, because there are owners of deer forests, as is well known, who do shoot the deer all the year round and market the meat, often for the use of the greyhound racing tracks. That is one explanation that has been given about why, in spite of the unanimous opinion of your Lordships' House and the support of the Government, we have no provision for a close season in the Bill.

The second explanation, which was given by the noble Duke, the Duke of Buccleuch, dealt with another point which seems to me to be important. The noble Duke said (OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 176, col. 101): The lack of progress is most unfortunate, especially if it is correct that the problem could be settled amicably in the majority of the Highlands, and that the trouble exists only in a small part of one county I do not know what the public will think of this House when they read these statements and when they read in the Press this morning the speech of the Minister of Food yesterday in which he said he had little hope of improvement in our meat supply in the near future. What would they think if they saw in the Press such headlines as "Priority Venison for Dogs"?

THE EARL OF HOME

It would not be fit for human consumption in winter, in the close season.

LORD MORRISON

That was exactly the case made by the noble Lord, Lord Brocket: that the deer were being shot and sold to greyhound racing tracks for feeding dogs at a time when their flesh ought not to be eaten by dogs, and certainly not by human beings. That is exactly the point. I say it would be humiliating to read a headline which showed that the House of Lords were helpless and apparently unable to do anything about it. Although your Lordships' House are unanimously in favour of a close season, apparently it cannot be achieved because, according to the noble Duke, a few people in one part of one county in Scotland will not co-operate. Without being disrespectful, it seems to me that this strong Government of all the talents is unable to proceed, although agreement has been apparently reached almost throughout Scotland, because in one part of one county there are people who refuse to co-operate, and although the public would be highly indignant if they were aware of the traffic which is going on and which, as the noble Earl has said, is a means of making quick money. These people are killing deer at a time when they ought not to be destroyed, in order to sell venison to the greyhound racing tracks. If I may repeat the words used by the noble Lord, Lord Brocket, during our previous debate, it seems to me to be reducing legislation to a farce. At the end of the proceedings on the last occasion the noble Earl, Lord Home, who I know has been trying hard to get agreement, promised that he would try again immediately. Therefore, the Committee stage was adjourned, and we have now reopened it in the hope that we shall have a report from the noble Earl on the further negotiations that have taken place. In case the noble Earl has a difficult reply to make to your Lordships, I should like to thank him for his persistent efforts to meet the obvious wish of many members of the Committee.

I should like to say, in regard to my Amendment which is before the Committee at the moment and is being considered in conjunction with similar Amendments by other noble Lords, that I am not in any way tied to the actual words of the Amendment. We are all anxious to be as accommodating as possible, and even at this stage, if the Government would agree to establish a close season, I should be willing to change the wording of my Amendment to extend the time for the close season to come into effect, in order that an opportunity may be given to those who are not in agreement still further to consider their position. I should also be willing (I do not think I can give any more concessions without giving up my Amendment altogether) to insert words making the close season applicable to such counties or areas as the Secretary of State may decide. If the statement made by the noble Duke the Duke of Buccleuch is correct (and I have no reason to doubt it), that the greater part of the country would accept a close season, and that the difficulty is confined to a comparatively small area, that would enable the Minister to impose a close season for the rest of the country, leaving the others to attempt to hammer out amongst themselves some amicable agreement.

I do not wish to trespass on your Lordships' patience any further, because I am sure other noble Lords wish to take part in this discussion. My final word is this. Nothing that I have said in connection with this matter—and this is the third occasion upon which I have taken part in such discussions during this Session—has been said in any Party sense whatever. There is no question of this being a Party measure, but I should like it to be clearly understood that in anything I have said I have not committed my Party in any way. I say that because, after your Lordships dispose of this Bill—assuming that we do dispose of it at some time—it will go to the other place, and I do not wish any Member to be misled into thinking that I have been laying down a Party political policy in regard to this matter. In all that I have said I have been giving my own views, in my own way, and nobody else is committed to them.

4.24 p.m.

THE EARL OF HOME

I am sure we all realise that the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, in what he has said—and many of us have said a great many things on this comparatively short Bill—has been expressing his own view, and that there is no Party issue involved here. Perhaps I may be allowed to recall the origin of this Bill. It was brought forward as a non-contentious measure (as we hoped) to stop a real evil—namely, gang poaching of deer. That evil, I am sure your Lordships will agree, must be stopped. Therefore, whether there is a close season or not, I hope that your Lordships will allow this Bill to go forward so that it may operate next season when these gang poachers are likely to get busy. So far as the close season is concerned, on the Second Reading of the Bill, in response to the unanimous wish of those of your Lordships who spoke on that occasion, I agreed—although it would be a difficult thing to do: it would mean altering the title of the Bill, and involve a good many other technical difficulties—that I would examine the possibility of including a close season in the Bill. I also agreed to see the National Farmers' Union, the Black-faced Sheep Breeders Association, the various land owners and all the people interested in this matter. A number of discussions then took place. The noble Lord, Lord Brocket, suggested at one time that if we could not go ahead with the close season it might be said that the country was being governed by the Black-faced Sheep Breeders Association. Of course, that is not so. Any Government have a responsibility in this matter to see that the right thing is done when large interests are affected.

The Government would be quite willing to include a close season in this Bill if we could be satisfied about two things. The first of those is that we could protect the agricultural interests. Noble Lords must realise that if there is a close season the number of deer will increase, and the problems of farmers will, if anything, get worse, at a time when the Minister of Food, the Minister of Agriculture, the Government and everybody else are exhorting the farmers to increase their supplies of beef and mutton. I believe that it would be wrong for the Government to impose a close season for deer unless they could be certain that the agricultural interests were protected—I think there will probably be general agreement on that point. We can see a possible way to protect the agricultural interests, but only by a widespread system of licensing of tenants to shoot deer. If you have to license hundreds and thousands of tenant farmers to shoot deer—and it is not a question only of one county; five or six counties are affected by these marauding deer—then you come to the point where the cruelty aspect, which is the motive largely behind your Lordships in seeking a close season, will be just as bad as if you did not have one. Nobody can contemplate with equanimity hundreds of tenants, using all sorts of weapons, firing indiscriminately at marauding deer. Therefore, the reason why I cannot advise your Lordships to try to insert a close season clause into this Bill is that the Government have not found a way in which they think it can be equitably lone. They have been unable to find proper means of protecting agriculture without opening the door wide to just those abuses which we are trying to stop.

I have had further conversations with the interests concerned, but unfortunately they revealed no fundamental agreement. As the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, has quoted the Duke of Buccleuch, perhaps I may be allowed to say (I have not been able to ask his permission, because he is not here) that I had a letter from him privately yesterday saying that, having had further time to consider the matter, he is now convinced that a close season could not at present be imposed by legislation. I am satisfied that the Government would not be justified at this stage, without further examination of the problems involved, in proceeding with the institution of a close season. It is an unfortunate result, but I am quite certain that the fundamentals of agreement are not there. I remember the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, saying on the Committee stage, or at the end of the Second Reading, that to impose a close season on a lot of unwilling people, in the Highlands of all places, would lead to considerable trouble. Therefore, I am going to ask your Lordships—of course, the matter will be threshed out in the other place, and it is open to them to insert a close season and return the Bill to your Lordships—to be satisfied with the immediate appointment of an impartial Committee to investigate this matter and to make a report. At the moment, as we see it, the Committee would be under the guidance of a chairman specially chosen for his judicial qualifications. While the members chosen would not, I think, be chosen as members of the interested bodies, we should seek to get people who understand this business, who are fair-minded and impartial persons, to hear the case and to report. The particular difficulty about accepting the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, and fixing any date, is that so far as we can see at present the most likely line of approach would involve an Amendment of the Agriculture (Scotland) Act, 1948, and it is difficult to say exactly when that would be undertaken. I would ask your holidays, if you will, to support the suggestion made this afternoon.

LORD MORRISON

Would the noble Earl answer one question? Is it proposed that the Committee about which he speaks should be set up before the present Bill has run its time in another place?

THE EARL OF HOME

I should like to consider that matter with the Secretary of State. In any case, the Committee would be useful, because there is a good deal for them to investigate. First, they should probably establish, roughly at any rate, the numbers of deer in Scotland and the areas in which they operate most materially to the disadvantage of the farmers. There would be great advantage, too, in having the Committee recommend the dates within which the close season should be defined. At any rate, there is a case for setting up a Committee, even before the Bill goes to another place, but I have no doubt that the Secretary of State will consult with the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, or with anybody else on that aspect of the question, and we should take what people felt was the most convenient and proper line. I ask noble Lords who have Amendments on this matter to consider this question of a Committee. I think it would be the best way of solving what is a very vexed and difficult problem and, in those circumstances, I hope that noble Lords will withdraw their Amend- ments in order that the matter may be threshed out again in another place and that a Committee of investigation, composed of impartial persons under a judicial chairman, may recommend to us steps which will, in the end, lead to an agreed close season.

LORD BROCKET

As I have an Amendment standing in my name on the Paper, I do not know quite what I should do. The Amendment we are now discussing is Lord Morrison's Amendment and, so far as I am concerned, if he likes to press it or withdraw it, I will support his views. I cannot speak on my Amendment at the moment.

THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES

The noble Lord, Lord Brocket, will remember that your Lordships agreed that a general debate should take place on Lord Morrison's Amendment, and that the question should be decided on that Amendment. In those circumstances, Lord Brocket would be quite in order if he spoke on this Amendment.

LORD BROCKET

I accept the Deputy Chairman's ruling. With regard to the general Amendments, I cannot help feeling that this is a very unsatisfactory position. On the Second Reading debate, and in Committee, your Lordships, as the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, said, were unanimous on the need for a close season. We know that the noble Earl, Lord Home, has done his best to get the various interests affected to agree on details. We also know that in different counties of Scotland there are different conditions, and that in the district of West Inverness-shire, which I know best, the question of marauding deer does not arise, because there is very little arable land. But in such counties as Perthshire, Angus, Aberdeen and Moray and Nairn, the circumstances are different and deer may come down and maraud the crops. None of us would say that it was a good thing for food production for crops to be spoilt by deer, because deer can do a very great deal of harm. I know that on my own farm, where occasionally they may get through a fence, one stag can do a great deal of harm to a field of oats. I cannot help feeling that it is very unsatisfactory for legislation or the wishes of this House or another place to be held up because various bodies cannot agree. If the Amendments on the close season are withdrawn, I think it would be the duty of the Secretary of State in the Scottish Office to find a way to impose a close season, seeing that it is certainly the wish of this House.

In the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, a period is mentioned of three months after the passing of the Act, and it is hoped that the Secretary of State will, within those three months, make regulations. Judging by the speed of the negotiations, the period of three months would have to be extended fairly liberally. In my Amendment I was not so optimistic as the noble Lord, and I suggested that your Lordships should lay down that there shall be an annual close season on such terms and conditions as the Secretary of State may decide, and that it shall come into operation before December 31, 1953. I put that Amendment down because I realised that the noble Earl, Lord Home, would probably announce that a Committee would be set up by the Secretary of State. I thought that that would give them quite enough time to produce their Report and that it would give Her Majesty's Government enough time to produce legislation, if need be, or regulations if legislation were not necessary, to establish a close season on reasonable and sensible lines. My reason for suggesting December 31, 1953, was that any close season in any year would be bound to start somewhere about the middle of January or on February 1, and would extend until probably some time towards the end of June or the middle of July. If legislation or regulations were brought in before December 31 in any one year, the close season would be operative during the next calendar year—namely, starting in January or February and going on to June or July.

If in due course this Bill goes to another place without provision for a close season in it, it will be up to another place to take a decision on the matter, and I feel that that would be a very great pity. On the last occasion when this Bill was considered in Committee, I mentioned that the value of the meat produced from deer might be in the neighbourhood of £200,000 a year. I believe that that is a fairly reasonable estimate, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, has said, when stags are shot in the middle of the winter they probably go to greyhounds, because they are not fit for human consumption. I know of an instance where thirty-five stags were shot in February, all of them unfit for human consumption. Assuming that a stag in that part of the world is worth round about £20, there is £700 of meat which could be well utilised in this country, which is so short of meat, being diverted to greyhounds or even packs of foxhounds. That meat is not going to be consumed by human beings. Such a state of affairs is extremely reprehensible. The stags to which I referred were actually shot by somebody legally entitled to shoot them. He had the shooting of that particular place himself. It is not a question of poaching—it is a question of somebody legally entitled shooting deer during what should be a close season. The close season, therefore, applies just as much to owners of deer forests or owners of farms as it does to poachers, and I cannot help feeling that it will be a great pity if this Bill goes forward without provision for a close season in it.

On the other hand, it would be a pity if the Bill did not go forward, and no doubt your Lordships will weigh up whether it is better to delay the Bill a good deal further by insisting on a close season or whether it ought to go forward as it is on the assurance of the noble Earl that this Committee will be set up. I must admit that I have not a great deal of faith in Committees. Committees are very often set up to delay matters. They are not in this case: I am sure that at least this Committee is not being set up to delay matters. There is nothing to say that the National Farmers' Union of Scotland, the Black-faced Sheepbreeders' Association and, as I said jokingly on a recent occasion, the Black Market Poachers' Association, will approve the rules and regulations for a close season any more if the recommendations of this Committee are accepted by the Secretary of State for Scotland. Therefore, I feel that it will be a great pity if we allow our views to be entirely over-ruled. But, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, if the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, considers that at this stage it is better not to press his Amendment with regard to a close season, I am quite willing to fall in with what he says about his Amendment; and perhaps he will be willing to fall in with what I do about my Amendment. But I thought that my Amendment, if I may say so, was a reasonable one, because it says in effect that the Government do not have to make up their minds until December 31, 1953—I suppose they would have to make up their minds before the Christmas Recess of that year.

LORD MORRISON

I will support the noble Lord's Amendment or any other Amendment for a close season which is on the Order Paper. My point is that I do not wish to make a Party matter of this question, with the putting on of Whips and so forth. It is not a matter of Party differences at all.

LORD BROCKET

I entirely agree with the noble Lord. The fact that the noble Lord and myself are both fighting for a close season shows that it is not a Party matter. This Bill has never, so far as I know, been regarded as a Party matter. Certainly I personally have never regarded it as a Party matter or as a Landlords' Protection Bill or any other kind of Protection Bill. But I do regard it as a matter of considerable importance from the point of view of the meat production of this country. Before the end of the debate on this subject of a close season, I think it may be of use if the noble Earl, Lord Home, will say what he thinks about my Amendment, which postpones the decision until the Committee which he is going to set up has had time to report.

4.43 p.m.

THE DUKE OF MONTROSE

Like my noble friend who has just spoken, I happen to be the owner of deer forests, and all such owners will support strongly the terms of a Bill such as we have before us to-day, which has for its object the stopping of cruelty and of the poaching of deer. I am not quite clear at present whether roedeer are included in the terms of the Bill, and I should be grateful if the noble Earl would say a word about that matter. Another point to which I wish to draw attention is that concerning the powers of the constables. Large powers are given to constables to do this, that and the other, to search people and so forth. But the constables in parts of the country such as those in which we live work under very great dif- ficulties. They are very far apart—in some instances forty miles. By the time you have got a second constable—

THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES

May I remind the noble Duke that there is on the Paper an Amendment to Clause 7, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, which deals with that point and which will be called in due course?

THE DUKE OF MONTROSE

I thank the noble Lord. I would add, on this subject of constables, that there ought to be special constables, enjoying the same powers of search and of dealing with poachers as the ordinary constables have. I was not quite clear about the punishment for offences. I gather that the punishments are all based on particular offences—so much for the first offence, so much for the second, and so much for the third and so on. But, just as there are lies and lies, so there are offences and offences. Maybe a poacher will go out on one night, have good luck, and get away with a stag. On another night he may be caught and fined up to £20. On yet another night he may go out and bring in three deer. According to the Bill, so far as I can understand it, he would be punished for the first offence by a fine of up to £20. Is his punishment for the next offence, in which he may have got away with three deer, to be the same as that for getting away with one? I feel that the gravity of the offence, as well as the offence itself, should be taken into consideration.

LORD TEVIOT

I must thank the noble Duke who has just sat down for having talked quite a good deal about the later Amendment standing in my name. I am sure that what he has said will help us to arrive at a conclusion. I wish to ask the noble Earl, Lord Home, about this proposed Committee. Supposing that the Committee is set up, shall we get its Report, and shall we be able to debate it? I ask this because, if this Bill goes to another place and comes back here more or less unaltered, can we in this House deal with any recommendations made in the Report with which we may want to deal? I should be glad of guidance in that respect.

I know that my noble friend has done everything that he could to try to get this Bill into a more or less lucid condition. I agree with all who have spoken in favour of a close season, and I think the Amendments standing in my name might almost be said to be consequential. Certainly there should be a close season of some kind. This is developing into a general debate on the Bill, and perhaps I might be allowed to ask my noble friend this question. It was suggested at one time, I think, that there had been an enormous increase in the last few years in the number of deer in Scotland. I wonder whether that is really so. I have asked many of my friends who have deer forests and they say: "Certainly not in mine." If there is, in fact, not this enormous increase which has been suggested, then I consider we should think of the preservation of deer. There is no doubt that deer-stalking—the sporting side—is of immense value to Scotland. People come from all parts of the world for it. If we deplete the deer population too much these people will not come.

My noble friend referred to the probblems of the black-faced-sheep farmers. From what I hear, I am not at all sure that those problems have not been very considerably exaggerated. Farmers in this House know that the best kind of pasture anywhere is mixed grazing. We have already had it from the noble Lord, Lord Loyal, that since he has had large quantities of cattle on his deer forests they have never been better. And certainly there appears to be no doubt that the pasture, if one can call it so—that is, heather and so on—has improved in quality and has not proved detrimental to breeding. We know that the worst neighbour for a sheep is another sheep. They all get this terrible worm condition and the more sparsely sheep are scattered about the better. It does help that there are other beasts in the area—as I have said, mixed grazing. I am really saying some of these things because I want the Committee which it is proposed to set up to consider these matters. Then there comes this question of the shooting of deer. I see no difficulty in making it obligatory that notification should be given when deer are shot, and that a heavy penalty should be imposed on anybody who does not notify the authority which will be no doubt set up to deal with that matter—either the police or some local body, who can easily be contacted and to whom one can say: "To-day, we had five deer off the hill." and so on. I think that that would in itself deter the poacher and also the buyer of fresh deer meat, because I suggest that on the notification certificate which would be received there should be a slip which could be torn off and handed to the butcher with the meat if it were taken to be sold.

I do hope that, if this Committee is set up—and I believe that my noble friend would not have referred to the fact unless he had in mind that it would be set up—it will consist of people, as he says, who are impartial and without prejudice. Also, I should like to see a time limit as to when the Report should be made, because this is a question which ought to be dealt with as quickly as possible. I have several Amendments down on the Order Paper. No doubt they will he called and I shall have an opportunity to deal with them. There is one standing in my name that I particularly want to discuss.

VISCOUNT ELIBANK

I want to say only a very few words. The noble Lord, Lord Brocket, said that it would he regrettable if this Bill, which had the support of the House the last time it was debated, did not go forward. The support that I gave to the Bill when I spoke on the last occasion in regard to a close season was tempered by the hope that the noble Earl, Lord Home, would be able to report some agreement between the various parties interested. It was on that condition that I supported the suggestion of a close season. We are all most grateful to the noble Earl for the efforts he has made to arrive at an agreement between the interested parties, but so far he has been unsuccessful. He has give us to-day a number of reasons which prevented the various parties interested from coming to an agreement. Very well. Now we are at a stage where he asks the Committee to allow the Bill to go forward, subject to the setting up of a Committee to inquire into all the vexed problems that surround the Bill.

For my part, I most willingly accept the proposition put forward by the noble Earl. I do not think that a time limit, as has been suggested by certain noble Lords, and the proposal to set up this Committee, go hand in hand. I think that if the Committee is to be set up it must have a free hand. I hope it will pursue its activities with all due speed, but it must have a free hand and must not be hampered by the fact that a Sword of Damocles, in the form of a time limit, is hanging over its head. I have had some experience in another place of attempting to get a Private Bill upon the Statute Book. A Bill which I introduced into another place was a Bill to mitigate the cruelty to which worn-out horses on the Continent were subjected during their voyages abroad. I accepted Amendments to that Bill which, far from being strengthening Amendments, were very much the reverse—but I did get the Bill on the Statute Book. Thereafter, another Bill came along. In this case, too, I hope that we can get this Bill on to the Statute Book, even if it is not all that we want—indeed, in many respects, it is very far from what we want—and that the time will come in the not too distant future when we shall get a close season upon which all interests are agreed.

THE MARQUESS OF WILLINGDON

The noble Earl, Lord Home, will, I am sure, again explain to us why the appointment of a Committee could not go hand in hand with Lord Brocket's Amendment. But, if that is quite impossible, may I suggest that at least one member of this Committee should be someone who has had experience of game laws in many parts of the Empire? There are many such people available, some of them living in Scotland, who have solved similar difficulties in Tanganyika, Uganda, Kenya and elsewhere.

LORD SEMPILL

With those of your Lordships who have spoken, I pay tribute to all that the noble Earl has done to try to bring about agreement. He has done his best. It is most unfortunate that he has not been successful. In order that I might bring myself right up to date with these matters which have been so intensively before your Lordships, I have just come back from spending a day or so at Inverlochy, in the Great Glen, and I am more certain than ever of the vital need for introducing a close season. As my noble friend Lord Elibank, who has just sat down, says, let us proceed with the suggestion which the Minister has put to your Lordships, bearing in mind the fact that we are all anxious that at the earliest date a close season should be introduced. In the meantime, I feel that we should accept this suggestion subject to the expansion of the plan that the noble Earl has in his mind, which has already been asked for by the noble Lord, Lord Brocket.

In connection with this matter, may I suggest that, so far as penalties are concerned, the powers of ghillies to be bailiffs should be analogous to those already existing so far as salmon are concerned, and that to mitigate the cruelty question the weapons used against deer should be restricted to rifles of the normal calibre, and making illegal the use of the 22 or any repeating rifle and shotguns. I think if that was done it would at least mitigate the cruelties of the present situation which, when you come right into the forests and hear what is actually transpiring there, present a terrible and horrific picture. But as these measures will require a greater measure of control, I suggest to the noble Earl that, when he considers the application of that control, it should be exercised by people who have nothing at all to do with the marketing of the products of deer stalking.

THE EARL OF HOME

As a matter of courtesy, may I say a word in answer to some of the questions that have been raised? As Lord Morrison and other noble Lords have recognised, had it been possible, it was the object of the Government and the Secretary of State to put such a provision into the Bill. I have been under instructions from the Secretary of State to try and get agreement upon this matter among the various interests concerned, and when this Bill goes to another place the Members there will have full knowledge of our discussions. If they are successful in finding a way of putting in an Amendment in regard to a close season, nobody will be happier than I, because I have really striven as far as I possibly can to get agreement in this matter. I turn now to Lord Bracket's Amendment, which gives a specific date. I think the Government could not be tied to a particular date, for this reason: so far as we can see now, we think that any close season would involve the amendment of the 1948 Act, and no Government, certainly not this Government, could guarantee at this stage that the 1948 Act could be amended by a certain date. That is the real difficulty which we are up against.

My noble friend Lord Teviot, asked certain questions, one of which dealt with the estimated number of deer—whether they had increased or otherwise. The figures given to me by the Nature Conservancy—there has been dispute about this—say that there are now 100,000 to 150,000 deer in Scotland, and that the number should be in the region of 60,000. About that the noble Lord, Lord Brocket, would probably not agree. There are differences of opinion upon the matter. But probably one of the reasons justifying the setting up of a Committee is that we may establish more nearly the facts of the situation. I can give the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, the assurance that if there is agreement among the various parties, the Secretary of State will set up the Committee as a matter of urgency and ask them to report as a matter of urgency. I do not think that we should give them a date by which to report—that would undoubtedly hamper them—but we should ask them to report as a matter of urgency. If we get agreement, I think the time will have been well spent. Therefore, once again, I hope that the Committee will agree to the withdrawing of these Amendments. We are willing to set up this Committee as quickly as possible after consultation with the noble Lord. Lord Morrison, and other persons interested, as to whether it should be done before or after the discussion in another place.

LORD SEMPILL

May I ask the noble Earl whether he will consider promoting deer from vermin to game, as has been done in other countries?

THE EARL OF HOME

I, personally, am not in a position to consider anything more about deer at present, but I hope that at the appropriate time it may be possible to do that.

LORD MORRISON

On behalf of all noble Lords who are interested, may I again thank the noble Earl for the great trouble he has taken to try and get an amicable solution to this difficult problem? I ask permission to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

5.7 p.m.

LORD BROCKET moved, after Clause 1, to insert the following new clause:

close season for red deer

". There shall be an annual close season during which it shall be an offence under this Act to kill red deer on such dates and under such conditions as the Secretary of State may decide, and such enactment or regulation to carry this into effect shall come into operation before the 31st December, 1953."

The noble Lord said: I have to decide whether later to withdraw my Amendment. In view of what Lord Morrison has said, and what Lord Home has said, that he would ask the Secretary of State for Scotland to treat the setting up of this Committee as a matter of urgency, I should like to ask the noble Earl, it being now the end of April, whether, if this Committee is set up, there is any chance of its delivering to the Secretary of State its views on a close season in time for there to be either a short Bill enabling a close season to be given effect to or, if that is not necessary, a regulation enabling a close season to be given effect to, so that if possible that close season may start in the early part of next year. I do not know whether the noble Earl can tell me if he thinks there is any chance of the Committee reporting in time for legislation to be brought in (of course, subject to the programme of the Government), in the autumn, bringing about a close season for 1952. Perhaps I ought first, formally to move my Amendment

Amendment moved— After Clause 1, insert the said new clause. —(Lord Brocket.)

THE EARL OF HOME

I think there is no doubt that if the Committee reports, and it is a Report in favour of a close season, we shall have to introduce a separate Bill for the purpose. That might involve the amendment of the 1948 Act, which would probably be undertaken some time in the not too distant future. But I am afraid I cannot give a categorical answer.

LORD BROCKET

I quite understand that the noble Earl cannot give a categorical answer; but the noble Earl knows the opinion of this Committee, at any rate on the question of a close season, and he will be able to convey that opinion to the Secretary of State for Scotland, who, I hope, will move expeditiously. Therefore, as Lord Morrison has withdrawn his Amendment, if the Committee agree, I am willing to withdraw mine. But I hope that the noble Earl will realise the unanimity of the Committee on this subject.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2:

Killing of deer.

2.—(1) If any person—

  1. (a) between the expiration of the first hour after sunset and the commencement of the last hour before sunrise, takes or wilfully kills deer; or
  2. (b) takes or wilfully kills deer otherwise than by shooting;
he shall be guilty of an offence against this Act and shall be liable—
  1. (a) on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds, and in the case of a second or subsequent conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or to both such fine and imprisonment; and

LORD BROCKET

I beg leave to move the second Amendment standing in my name. The Committee will remember that on the earlier occasion, when this Bill was in Committee, I moved an Amendment to Clause 1, to make the fine £30 instead of £20 for a first offence. This Amendment is not really consequential upon the Amendment to Clause 1 which I withdrew, because the crime is slightly different. Without detaining the Committee too long, I should like to repeat my argument that, when a carcase of a stag may be worth £20 or £25, I consider that a fine of only £20 is too little. As I said in my Amendment to Clause 1, if the poacher has already disposed of the carcase of his stag he will make a profit even though he pays a fine. We are always told that Scotsmen like to make profits rather than losses, but I think in these circumstances it is a rather unfortunate profit. Therefore, I should like the noble Earl to consider whether the fine under this clause should not be raised to £30. On the Report stage or on Third Reading, whichever it may be, I shall move that the fine under Clause 1 shall also be increased to £30, to bring it into line with the fine under Clause 2. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 1, leave out ("twenty") and insert ("thirty").—(Lord Brocket.)

THE EARL OF HOME

This afternoon, of course, we can deal only with the Amendment as it applies to Clause 2, because we disposed of the Amendment as it applied to Clause 1 the other day. The Government feel that the fines which we have set out in the Bill for inflicting on the individual poacher are rather high, on the whole, in comparison with the penalties for comparable offences under the Salmon Poaching Act and the Game Laws. This Bill is primarily aimed at poaching by gangs. No one, I think, wants to be too hard on the man who may occasionally go out to get "something for the pot," though he must suffer a just penalty for his breach of the law. We have thought about this matter a good deal, and we consider that a fine of £20 is the right fine to impose on one individual who kills a deer and is convicted. But the noble Lord, Lord Brocket, will notice that in the case of Clause 2 it is rather different. An offender under Clause 2 will be liable under Clause 9 to forfeit not only the deer but also his firearms and ammunition as well. I am sure that bad cases of poaching under Clause 2 will in most instances be taken on indictment, and may also involve a charge under Clause 3. If I may refer to Clause 1, I should like to say that we felt that £20 is the right fine in the very limited case in which it might be applied, and that in Clause 2 £20 is the proper fine also.

LORD BROCKET

The noble Earl is very determined not to accept any Amendments. In view of his determination and of the fact that he persuaded me to withdraw my Amendment on Clause 1 when the Bill was previously in Committee, I will withdraw this also; but I reserve the right to move both Amendments again on the next stage of the Bill because, to a certain extent, they go hand in hand. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clauses 3 to 5 agreed to.

5.14 p.m.

LORD TEVIOT had given notice that he would move an Amendment, after Clause 5 to insert the following new Clause:

Close seasons for red deer

".—(1) If any person shall kill or take—

  1. (a) any stag during the season specified in the Schedule to this Act as the close season for stags; or
  2. (b) any hind during the season specified in the Schedule to this Act as the close season for hinds;
he shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds for every stag or hind so killed.

(2) The Secretary of State may if it appears to him necessary or expedient so to do direct that the Schedule to this Act shall have effect as respects such lands as may be specified in the direction as if for the respective close seasons specified in the said Schedule there were substituted such close seasons as he may deem proper. Any such direction may he given as respects all lands in Scotland or as respects the lands in any county or any part of a county or as respects any particular lands or classes of lands.

(3) For the purposes of this section the words "stag" and "hind" mean respectively the male and female of the species cervus elaphus.")

The noble Lord said: As the Amendments which I have put down on the Marshalled List to follow Clause:5 are all consequential on there being a close season, with the leave of the House I shall not move them, but I should like to take the opportunity of asking the noble Earl something. We are doing all this with the idea that perhaps at a later stage, if the Bill comes back—

THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES

The noble Lord will have to move his Amendment if he wishes to speak.

LORD TEVIOT

can move it and then withdraw it later?

THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES

Yes.

LORD TEVIOT

Then I beg to move the Amendment. What I want to know is this. I imagine that in view of the fact that a Committee is to be set up, and of what will happen in another place, the Bill will come back to us. Can the noble Earl tell me whether we shall then have an opportunity—I suppose we shall—to make Amendments in connection with this matter? Can the noble Earl give me some information with regard to that? I beg to move my Amendment.

Amendment moved— After Clause 5, insert the said new clause. —(Lord Teviot.)

VISCOUNT SWINTON

I think the position would be this—though I speak subject to correction. The Bill will go from here, and if another place makes no Amendment we shall not be further concerned with it. On the other hand, if another place makes an Amendment then that Amendment will come back to us. It will then be for us either to accept or reject that Amendment, or, as is always possible, we can put forward a further Amendment "in lieu." But if there were an Amendment made in another place dealing with penalties (to take that as an example) which came to this House, it would not then be in order for the noble Lord to move as an Amendment to that Amendment an Amendment dealing with a close season for deer.

LORD TEVIOT

I thank the noble Viscount for the instruction which he has given me. It seems very complicated to me, but perhaps that is my fault. I now beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 6 agreed to.

Clause 7:

Powers of search and seizure.

(2) A sheriff or any justice of the peace, if satisfied by information on oath that there is reasonable ground to suspect any offence against section three of this Act to have been committed and that evidence of the commission of the offence is to be found on any premises or in any vehicle or boat, may grant a warrant authorising any constable at any time or times within one week from the date of such warrant to enter, if necessary by force, the said premises and every part thereof or of the said vehicle or boat for the purpose of detecting the offence.

LORD TEVIOT moved, in subsection (2), after "constable" to insert: or person appointed by the Secretary of State in pursuance of this Part of this Act

The noble Lord said: I feel I must move this Amendment, because this question of constables is one which I consider to be of great importance. Noble Lords who have been to my country know that you might go for many a day and see no constable, and if you wanted one in a hurry you might well be in a great difficulty. You might find that he was anything from forty-five to a hundred miles away—particularly in certain parts of the country. Therefore, to restrict this power of search to "any constable," as is done in this clause, seems to me to be wrong. I suggest that the Secretary of State should have power to appoint, shall we say, special constables, perhaps for this purpose alone. We have plenty of precedents for that. Many of us know a good deal about special constables—no doubt some of your Lordships have acted in that capacity yourselves. I was one on one occasion. I feel that if my Amendment were accepted it would enable the Bill to function better. It would be an advantage, I suggest, to have people readily available, particularly in the wild parts of Scotland. I should be guided in this matter entirely by the Secretary of State as to whether he thought it necessary to have power to appoint special constables, other than fully qualified constables, to deal with questions relating to deer. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 31, after ("constable") insert the said words.—(Lord Teviot.)

LORD SANDHURST

Before the noble Earl replies, may I draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that a special constable on duty has all the powers of a constable? Therefore the word "constable" covers "special constable." If it is desired to have people appointed who are not constables at all, that is one thing, but if all that is wanted is merely to have special constables, then there is no need to put extra words into the clause.

VISCOUNT ELIBANK

It is as the noble Lord has just said. But "constable" does not cover a "person."

LORD SANDHURST

That is what I said. If you want power to appoint another person you must put it in the Bill, but if you want only a special constable there is no need for any further words.

VISCOUNT ELIBANK

We want to give the Secretary of State for Scotland only permissive powers, and he is not compelled to appoint any person if he does not want to do so. I cannot see any objection to this. As my noble friend Lord Teviot has pointed out, in these widespread areas one does not see a constable for days, and often he may be away at the other end of the county. In a previous debate the noble Earl, Lord Home, raised certain objections to giving these powers to any person other than a constable, but the power in the Bill is only permissive and appointments would be made in consultation with the chief constables of the areas concerned. I hope that the noble Earl will accept my noble friend's Amendment.

LORD BROCKET

I rise to support my noble friend Lord Teviot in his Amendment. Speaking with experience of the West Coast of Scotland, I should say that this is a most important Amendment if we are to make this Bill workable. In my opinion, it is impossible to work this Bill satisfactorily if only constables have these powers. Take Loch Hourn. The head of Loch Hourn is twenty or thirty miles from Mallaig. The Mallaig constable cannot get there by road and has to go by boat, which may not do more than seven or eight knots, and it may well take the best part of three hours for him to get to the head of Loch Hourn to arrest a poacher. Then, if a keeper catches a poacher on Loch Hourn, he has a three hours' walk to the nearest telephone. Altogether, there may be six or eight hours delay, and one cannot imagine any normal poacher waiting for the constable to come round from Mallaig in his boat. In the outlying parts of Scotland, particularly on the coast, unless other persons are authorised by the Secretary of State, I think poaching will go on just as much as it does now. I should like to support this Amendment as strongly as I can.

THE EARL OF HOME

All I can do this afternoon is to promise my noble friend Lord Teviot that I will consult the Lord Advocate again on this matter. There are some real difficulties, as the noble Lord will see in a moment. In theory, the police, armed with wireless telephones and motor patrols, ought to be able to deal with this problem in the Highland areas, where roads are few, and I think we should give them a chance to see how they can work it. The noble Lord, Lord Teviot, speaks of special constables, and the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, suggested that if we wanted to use special constables there was no need for any Amendment in the Bill. I understand that special constables can be used only in cases of national emergency, to tackle riots or tumult. That is the advice we have at the moment from the Law Officers of the Crown.

LORD SANDHURST

I have been out on duty in London, I should say, 300 or 400 times in the course of the last two years. There are special constables on duty every night of the week, and so far as I know there has been no special emergency.

THE EARL OF HOME

May I ask the noble Lord what he was supposed to be doing?

LORD SANDHURST

I was doing the full duties of an ordinary police constable, including the arrest of bag thieves, car thieves and others.

THE EARL OF HOME

This precedent may be very valuable, but I should like to bring the matter to the attention of the Lord Advocate and ask him to consider it once more. If we leave the special constable out of the question, I think the only people the Secretary of State could appoint would be gamekeepers. I here are serious objections, when both sides are going to be armed, as they would normally be in this case, to asking the Secretary of State to permit gamekeepers to perform these police duties. When both sides are armed, there is obviously a real risk of trouble.

VISCOUNT ELIBANK

Does the noble Earl limit this to gamekeepers? Would it not be possible to appoint other responsible persons, in consultation with the chief constable?

THE EARL OF HOME

It is difficult to see who else would be on the spot, apart from stalkers, gamekeepers and river watchers. There is not the same objection if these persons are the servants of a public body, though there was a good deal of 2ontention about that matter in another place on the Salmon Protection Bill, as the noble Viscount will remember. In this case, these men would be employees of private persons. I should think that 90 per cent. of them would be gamekeepers, and there would he a real risk, since both gamekeepers and poachers are normally armed. If my noble friend Lord Teviot is content, I will have another conversation about this matter with the Lord Advocate and ask him about the possibility of having something inserted in the Bill in another place.

LORD TEVIOT

I thank my noble friend for the assurance that the Lord Advocate will look into this again. That satisfies me for the time being, but I hope to have another opportunity of raising this matter.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 7 agreed to.

Remaining, clauses and Schedule agreed to.

House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.