Lords Sitting of 4 December 1958

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

MINISTERS' COMMENTS ON AGRICULTURAL PRICES
3.7 p.m.
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether recent public exhortations by Ministers against buying certain agricultural products on the ground that their prices are too high are to be regarded as a new form of official price regulation; and whether there is any reason why the Chancellor of the Exchequer should single out such products for his attention; and whether he consulted his successor at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food before urging what amounts to a temporary boycott of meat and potatoes by the public; and further, whether, if the Chancellor feels it necessary to bring his influence to bear in this way, he will consider whether the high prices of some products bought by farmers do not equally warrant his attention.]
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, I assume the noble Lord refers to some remarks by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer last Saturday as reported in some newspapers. My right honourable friend tells me that he did not in fact say, as reported, that the price of potatoes is higher than it ought to be; but, rather, that it was higher than he would like to see it. He also made it clear that this was due to the weather. I think the noble Lord reads too much into a light-hearted aside at an informal gathering.
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Viscount for his reply, may I say that his right honourable friend cannot have received all his press cuttings.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord must ask a question.
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Viscount whether he is aware that his Answer indicates that his right honourable friend cannot have received all his Press cuttings? And further, whether he will invite him to take the logic of his position and, if he is prepared to urge housewives to stand off when prices are too high, as he certainly has been reported as saying, urge housewives to offer a higher price in the shops when farmers' products are priced too low, as they very frequently are?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I think it would be a very great pity if Members of Parliament were denied the exercise of an occasional lighthearted sense of humour towards their constituents.
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, may I say to the noble Viscount, with great respect, that this is not a case of a Member of Parliament speaking "off the cuff", but of a responsible Minister—a Cabinet Minister—whose words are bound to carry great weight, have far-reaching effect and create a good deal of dissatisfaction, as this particular statement has done?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I must say that I think that those who know my right honourable friend—and they represent the larger number of the people in this country, especially the farming community, since he was previously the Minister of Agriculture—both like his sense of humour and would beg him to retain it.
LORD AMWELL: My Lords, is it not about time that the consumer realised that there was a law of supply and demand?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: That was exactly what my right honourable friend was intending, in an informal and happy way, to convey.
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, may I put one brief question to the noble Viscount? Will he suggest to his right honourable friend that, before making an excursion into the affairs of another departmental Minister, he should consult with that departmental Minister?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: No, my Lords, I will not. I think my right honourable friend made a very happy speech to his constituents, and nobody, except the noble Lord, misunderstood it in any way.

DEER (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
3.12 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Forbes.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Constitution and general functions of Red Deer Commission
1.1—(1) There shall be constituted a commission to be called "the Red Deer Commission" (hereinafter in this Act referred to as "the Commission") which shall have the general functions of furthering the conservation and control of red deer and of keeping under review all matters relating to red deer, and such other functions as are conferred on them by or under this Act.
(2) The Commission shall carry out their functions in accordance with such directions of a general character as may be given by the Secretary of State.
(3) The Commission shall consist of a chairman and tea other members appointed by the Secretary of State, and the provisions of the next following subsection shall apply to the appointment of these members other than the chairman.
(4) The members of the Commission so appointed shall be appointed as follows—
VISCOUNT ASTOR VISCOUNT ASTOR moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "of a general character ". The noble Viscount said: In introducing a rather formidable list of Amendments, I must declare my interest, which is that of the occupier of a deer forest, a farmer on a fairly large scale of land adjacent to a deer forest, and co-proprietor of three crofting townships adjacent to that deer forest. Therefore, I think I may say that I have seen the problem which faces the Committee in this Bill from all three angles. I should like just to congratulate most heartily the Government on having for the first time secured the agreement of all interests on this very difficult problem of deer control. I hope they will realise
1146
that the Amendments I put down are not meant in any way to upset the balance of the agreement, but are merely to see that the agreements are carried out with the maximum of efficiency and good will.
During the war those of us who are connected with deer forests had to deal with these problems. We had experience of war agriculture committees, which were given vast and extensive powers to deal with deer control. Sometimes they acted wisely; sometimes they acted unwisely; sometimes judiciously, and sometimes arbitrarily. I do not want to open old grievances, old sores, old stories, by relating some of the things that occurred. All I want to do is to ensure that none of the mistakes which took place in that war-time deer control recurs. I think that the faults, when they came, were not due in any way to any particular malignancy or "bloody-mindedness" on the part of any of the individuals concerned. Many of them were due to the fact that there was a lack of co-operation and a lack of correct procedures. We do not want to have in the future any "Ben Crichells" in the Highlands of Scotland. We do not want any cases which may cause us to bring in the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, whom we congratulate on his appointment as Chairman of the Council on Tribunals, to investigate the workings of these tribunals. We want them to work in a judicious, fair way, hearing both sides, with a regular procedure, reaching correct conclusions and with the co-operation of all sides.
The purpose of my first Amendment is to ensure that in the case of conflict the ultimate responsibility will rest with the Secretary of State, who is democratically responsible to Parliament. We do not want any Commission or control-panel to feel, as many war agriculture committees felt in the war, that they are wholly independent of the Secretary of State. I had a case myself as to which the Secretary of State at the time said: "My dear old boy, I entirely agree with you that these fellows are doing things very badly; but we have appointed them and they have complete independence, and we do not want to touch them." We do not want that to occur again. This Amendment is not meant to deal with ordinary cases, but when a case does arise where there is severe conflict the Secretary of State, who is democratically elected,

1147
should be the ultimate authority. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 14, leave out ("of a general character").—(Viscount Astor.)
LORD SALTOUN: My attitude to this Amendment is based on the history of the whole question. I want to pay tribute to the Government of the noble Lords opposite, who many years ago were willing to bring in a Bill to deal with this horrible cruelty that was then going on. As I understood from the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, at the time, the only reason such a Bill was not brought in was that there was no agreement between the parties, and the Bill therefore failed. Since then, noble Lords—and particularly the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, himself, whose great work in the past when he sat on these Back Benches I am very glad to recognise—have been pressing the Government to introduce a Bill to deal with this evil. We obtained, if not a promise from the Government, a promise from the Minister that he himself would do his level best to expedite a Bill on this subject, and we are grateful to him for his good offices.
Your Lordships now have a Bill before you which is based upon agreement between the parties concerned, and the Government bring it forward with that assurance and in that confidence. Your Lordships know very well that if we amend this Bill seriously before it goes to another place the chances of getting it through are very greatly diminished—anybody with any Parliamentary experience knows that. Your Lordships can therefore imagine my horror when, having got this Bill at last, I saw that there were 72 Amendments down for discussion by your Lordships this afternoon. I beg your Lordships to send this Bill down to another place in the form in which the Government is prepared to defend it. If we do that, then the responsibility is squarely on the Government. If we do not, we shall have a part in wrecking the very Bill which we have all been praying for. I do not like the responsibility which would lie upon me and upon everybody if this Bill were to fail and if what is now going on in Scotland were to continue. I therefore hope that your Lordships will not press the 72 Amendments but will do your best to
1148
expedite the Bill through the House this afternoon.
LORD SILKIN: I had not intended taking part in the debate on this question, which I regard as purely a domestic affair, but surely the doctrine laid down by the noble Lord who has just spoken is a shocking doctrine. He is asking Parliament to abrogate its functions—not to consider any Amendments and not to consider any ways of improving the Bill—merely in order that this Bill shall go forward as an agreed measure. How it can be an agreed measure when 72 Amendments have been put down, I do not understand. I hope that the Committee will do its job and will go through this Bill very carefully—not obstructively—and will try to make a better job of the Bill than it presents as it now stands.
3.19 p.m.
LORD WINSTER: I wish very strongly indeed to support the Amendment proposed by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor. The words "of a general character" seem to me to be completely redundant. If one has to comply with the directions of a body, whether they are in the nature of general directions or not, the one term covers the other. If one is told that one must comply with directions of a general character, then an argument is opened up about whether the directions comply with that character. Surely the words are superfluous and the clause will have its full implications as it stands, in saying
"The Commission shall carry out their functions in accordance with such directions as may be given by the Secretary of State."
I feel that the noble Lord, if I may say so with respect, has to explain how these words "of a general character" alter the general mandatory instructions of the clause.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: I find myself in the rather unusual position of agreeing wholeheartedly with the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. I think that it would be an entirely undesirable precedent if any Bill were to be introduced here or in another place on the understanding that it could not be criticised, Jet alone have what the authors would hope to be constructive Amendments put forward. After all, the authority of Parliament must be supreme, and no bargains and arrangements entered into outside can be regarded as binding until Parliament has

1149
approved them. If Amendments are made in your Lordships' House which are not liked in another place, they can be deleted, and no question of risk to the Bill could arise unless, at a later date, your Lordships rejected the Amendments separately made by another place.
I should like to see this Amendment rejected because I feel that it is important that the new Commission shall not be hampered in their power. If we are going to set up a Commission at all, surely we have to choose the members in such a way that we can expect them to carry out their duties in a responsible fashion. In view of the proposed composition of the Commission, whether it be altered or not in accordance with the views put forward in subsequent Amendments, I do not think that there is any reason to suppose that there will be unfairness of the nature hinted at by the noble Viscount. I think that it would be a great mistake to tie their hands in any way. At the same time, I must inform your Lordships, without wishing to give any offence to the noble Viscount, that the large series of Amendments he has on the Order Paper are entirely his responsibility. The majority of them are not approved by the Scottish Landowners' Federation, which is wholeheartedly behind this Bill.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD FORBES): In reply to what the noble Viscount has said, I would only say that there seems to be little point in setting up what is supposed to be a representative Commission if it is to be possible for all their actions to be directed by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. We do not want this Commission to be regarded as a Government Department. The need to give the Commission a large measure of independence in carrying out their important functions was stressed in the agreement reached between the conflicting interests which has made this Bill possible. In spite of what has been said on both sides of the House, I should like to stress that this agreement is something which is very valuable and which we have to preserve. Disagreement between the interested parties has delayed legislation on deer for longer than I like to remember, and we do not want it to occur again.
I know that it is Parliament which makes the laws, and that your Lord-
1150
ships' House may amend this Bill in any way your Lordships like. Yet if the Bill receives the Royal Assent in a form which cannot commend it readily to the co-operation of farmers, landowners and other interests concerned, it will not work. This is a Bill which will take a number of years to achieve its full effect; and during that time, and even after, it is essential that it should be accepted as a reasonable and workable compromise between the very different viewpoints that have been expressed. If we amend this Bill too much, there is a great danger that it will not be so accepted. I only hope that your Lordships on all sides of the House are as anxious as I am to see this Bill passed through all its stages.
Turning to the noble Viscount's Amendment, I submit that it would entirely alter the character of the Commission and completely undermine the Commission's position as an impartial body. I hope that the noble Viscount will be prepared to withdraw it. The power of general direction which is normal for statutory bodies of this kind is provided so that the Secretary of State can give an instruction to the Commission on some general point of policy. This type of power of direction has been seldom used in the past, but it is necessary to include it because of the Secretary of State's responsibility to Parliament for the Commission.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: I am prepared to withdraw my Amendment and not press it to a Division.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.28 p.m.
LORD MATHERS LORD MATHERS had given Notice of three Amendments dealing with the Red Deer Commission, the first being in subsection (3), to leave out "ten" and insert "sixteen". The noble Lord said: I have no interest to declare except a desire to see this Bill become law in the best form possible at the earliest possible moment. If your Lordships will look at Amendments Numbers 2, 3 and 4 and take them together, the purport of what I am proposing will be clearly demonstrated. The Crofters Commission, the Forestry Commission and the individual crofters are vitally interested in the control of red deer. Therefore, I claim that it is proper that they should be represented on the Commission. The Amendments would

1151
achieve that purpose. I do not think that anything that has been said with regard to the proposed Commission, the setting up of which is the principal object of the Bill, in any way disqualifies the proposition I am making. I beg to move the first Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 16, leave out ("ten") and insert ("sixteen").—(Lord Mathers.)
LORD GREENHILL: This is the first Amendment in the names of my noble friend Lord Mathers and myself and I should like to begin by saying that, like my noble friend, I think that on the whole this Bill is a good one, and I hope that nothing noble Lords do will have the effect of spoiling it or making it difficult to pass into law. On the Amendment moved by my noble friend, I think this should be said, because it has a bearing on what was said on the previous Amendment by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor. He is probably aware that under the Agriculture (Scotland) Act the Secretary of State had the power to require the destruction of injurious animals, but it is doubtful whether that power was ever exercised. I understand that that power was delegated to the eleven agricultural executive committees, but even there I doubt whether there is a general feeling that it was exercised. It is agreed, however, that some kind of control and conservation should now be undertaken; and as has already been said, in spite of the fact that there has been a Majority and a Minority Report by the Maconachie Committee, the Nature Conservancy were able to arrange for an agreed measure to be submitted to your Lordships. And to-day we are faced with this agreed measure.
I am sure that neither my noble friend nor I wish to do anything to obstruct the passage of the Bill, but we feel that the proposed Commission is not sufficiently representative of the interests concerned. There are two representatives from the Nature Conservancy, two of the landowners', two of sporting interests, two of farmer organisation interests and two of hill sheep farmer interests; but there is none from the forestry interests, and none from the crofting interests. Both my noble friend and I feel that those are two interests which are closely concerned with the conservation and control
1152
of red deer, and we feel that they are in a position both to advise and to assist in any measure for the purpose of controlling or conserving red deer. For those reasons, I would ask the Government to add to the list in the Bill the organisations mentioned in our Amendment.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: It may well be that these Amendments have been put on the Paper by noble Lords more for reasons of sentiment than for practical considerations, because we well know that throughout Scotland generally there is a soft spot in the hearts of all Scotsmen for the crofter interests. What would be the effect of this Amendment? It would mean, in the first place, that the membership of the Commission would be increased from ten to sixteen. It has been my experience—and it is probably shared by many of your Lordships—that when a body of this nature becomes large in number its discussions go on over a much longer period than is really required and its decisions are that much more prolonged. I have always found that the best number to deal with matters of this sort is something between eight and ten. That is my first objection to the proposal in the Amendment.
If we look at the Long Title of the Bill we see that it is
"to further the conservation and control of red deer in Scotland …"
I do not know that the crofting interests would claim to have any particular knowledge about the conservation of red deer; nor do I believe they have any great contribution to make in regard to the illegal stalking or killing of a whole species of deer in Scotland. Further than that, the Amendment would mean that 25 per cent. of this Commission would be representative of crofting interests, and that seems to me to be quite out of proportion to the contribution they can make to the work of the Commission. Moreover, the crofter's chief interest is to see that his crops are protected against the ravages of marauding or other deer. I should have thought that that was well provided for by the fact that, as the noble Lord has said, the farming interests are represented by two of their nominees, as also are the interests of hill sheep farmers. That would seem to me amply to protect the interests of the crofter in that regard. So far as the

1153
Forestry Commission are concerned, their chief interest is exactly the same as that of the crofter. We already have on the Commission the landowners' representatives, and I should have thought it was quite possible for them to look after the interests of the Forestry Commission as well.
There is one other point that I should like to bring to the attention of your Lordships—namely, that the Crofters' Commission have a great programme in front of them; they are heavily concerned in a number of matters calling for urgent attention, and to take two of their members away to serve on the Deer Commission would, it seems to me, be placing too great a burden on the Crofters' Commission. For those reasons, I hope that your Lordships will not accept the Amendment.
LORD SALTOUN: I have only one thing to say. I have been schooled by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and I am not in the least repentant. Although I recognise the right and duty of your Lordships to scrutinise every Bill that comes before you, nevertheless, after twenty years Parliamentary experience, in which I have known a great many Bills lost by over-much amendment, I feel that it is sometimes more important to get a Bill on the Statute Book than to get a perfect Bill.
LORD WINSTER: I am never very fond of committees, but if one has to have a committee I think the smaller the number on it the better and the more likely will it be that the committee will achieve results. However, I am rather surprised to find that the forestry interest has been omitted in the list of those who are to be represented on this Red Deer Commission, and I hope that the Minister in charge of the Bill will give some explanation, of why that has been done.
LORD FORBES: These Amendments, I am afraid, are unacceptable, on the grounds that the present representation on the Deer Commission is an essential and intrinsic part of this agreement that has been made and any alteration to the composition of the Commission would be liable to affect the whole of its activities. So far as the crofters are concerned, I think we can say that their interest is really identical with that of
1154
other tenants. Their interest is, of course, the protection of their holdings against damage by deer, and the Bill already confers powers on the Red Deer Commission to deal with any damage to agriculture. The addition of separate representatives of forestry interests is open to the same general objections. However, I should like to tell your Lordships that the Scottish Landowners' Federation have already indicated a willingness to include in their nominees persons with experience of forestry. I hope that this arrangement will suit your Lordships, and I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Mathers, to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD MATHERS: I am not withdrawing the Amendment. I am sorry to hear the statement which the Minister has made. The crofters, as such, have not been properly consulted, and there is a great deal of indignation among them at the failure to recognise fully how their interests may be prejudiced by the Bill, as it stands. These Amendments are put down with the intention of covering the interests properly. When the numbers on the Commission are talked about and criticised as being too many, I would point out that only yesterday we in this House heard about a Council on Tribunals which numbered fifteen members. There is not much difference between fifteen and sixteen in order to get interests represented. I think the Amendments that appear on the Marshalled List in order to get fair representation for the different interests which are involved should be accepted by the Government.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: If it is not an impertinence for an Englishman to intervene on this Scottish Bill, I should like to say one word. I have no interest to declare, in the sense that I do not own an acre in Scotland and I am now too old to stalk. But I rise only on a point which seems to me a point of general importance to the whole House. The noble Lord the Minister of State has said, as I follow him, that he cannot accept this Amendment, or, indeed, consider any variation of the personnel of this proposed Commission, because there has been some agreement made between various interests in Scotland. It is always wise, before you introduce a Bill, to take into consultation every sort and kind of interest to see that you get, if possible,

1155
an agreed Bill, and certainly that you are completely informed. What I think the House would certainly accept is this: that when, after all that consultation, a public Bill is introduced for the consideration of Parliament—it is not a Private Bill going before a Committee upstairs—then surely it is incumbent upon this House to make it the best Bill it can. I express no opinion on the merits, but I should have thought, unless it is quite clear that the hill sheep farmers and the crofters are the same—and I should not have thought they were necessarily the same—
A NOBLE LORD: They are not.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: I should have thought the crofter had a particular interest in this matter and, it may be, the Forestry Commission, too. I do not want to express any opinion on that aspect, but what I should like to impress upon the House is that we should decide on what we consider the merits of the case as disclosed in debate, and not feel ourselves estopped because there has been some agreement made before the Bill was introduced.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I entirely agree with what the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, has said. Either this House is going to conduct itself as an adjunct to the Legislature, or it is not. As the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, remembers, we had the same case in Lady Tweedsmuir's Protection of Birds Bill, when we were invited to make no Amendments, because, we were told, if we did so the Bill would go down to another place with the Amendments and the Government would not give time for it. Very properly, the House in Committee rejected that and made some excellent Amendments, which both the noble Earl, Lord Haddington, and the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, will remember, and the Bill was passed. I was sorry to hear the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, say that an agreement about this Bill had been made outside the House, and that if the Bill received the Royal Assent with the Amendments—I suppose he meant substantial Amendments—it would not be assented to. By whom? By the body of the public? The body of the public must obey the law. To hear from the Front Bench the argument that, because there are introduced into the Bill Amendments which may or may not have
1156
been agreed between parties outside, those parties outside are not going to act according to law (assuming that the Bill is passed by Parliament) is, I think, most unsatisfactory. I heartily agree with what the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, and the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, had said.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: I should like, as a thoroughly compromised Scotsman, to say a word on this subject. First of all, I should like to say that I agree with the last two speakers from the procedural, prestige and rights point of view. I think my noble friend Lord Forbes made an unfortunate remark. At any rate, whether it was a slip or not, I should like to leave that for a moment and try to argue this point from the merits of the case. As a thoroughly compromised Scotsman I am interested in all directions. I pay my union dues to the Scottish Farmers' Union—and very expensive they are, too, but I think it is worth while. I consider that they represent my farming interests very well indeed, and they also represent the hill farmers and crofters. If the hill farmers and the crofters have not paid their union dues, noble Lords opposite will have the same ideas about that as I have. That is one side.
With regard to the other side, I am also a member of the Scottish Landowners' Federation, because I also own land. They represent very well indeed my forestry interests and forestry views. I do not always agree with them, but I know I am wrong. We want this Bill to work, in spite of what we have said about it. I think I am right in saying that your Lordships have only one real desire, and that is to get a workable Bill. I quite agree that we make the laws and other people can jolly well get on with them. But if you have a law which people enjoy obeying, it is much easier to enforce that law than if you make a law by which people, rightly or wrongly, think you have jeopardised all the hard work and agreement they have put into the matter beforehand. That may be entirely irregular and beside the point, but that is the practical point of view.
We have desired this Deer Bill for many years. We have had the devil of a time getting agreement, and perhaps we should not have got agreement. Perhaps we should have gone at it and said, "Do something". I have always cursed the

1157
Government for not doing something, but the answer has always come back, "How can we do anything about it if you do not agree among yourselves?" However clumsily put by my noble friend Lord Forbes—and I know he will forgive me for that remark—I think that that is what he meant. I hope your Lordships will treat this Amendment entirely on its merits. I think we all agree that a small committee is easier to manipulate; it gets through much more work than a large committee. I do not like disagreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Mathers, but I honestly think that his interests are covered, and I hope that he will consider this matter again.
LORD GREENHILL: I want to be helpful, and not obstructive, and in view of what the noble Lord has said I am inclined to suggest a compromise. It is that instead of having two members representing the owners there should be one, and one from the crofters. If the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, is not prepared immediately to accept that suggestion, perhaps he will assure us that he will give serious consideration to it. I think my noble friend Lord Mathers will be willing to accept that for the time being.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I hope the noble Lord will accept that suggestion. So far all that has been said is that the Landowners' Federation will be bound to send one member experienced in forestry. That does not go quite far enough for those of us who would like to see the Forestry Commission represented. So I hope that the noble Lord will be able to accept the suggested Amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY: I am not aware that any request has been made from forestry interests for effective representation, or for any representation other than that which has been agreed to already by all the people who have, with very great care, tried to find the best organisation that they can. Is it not justifiable to suppose that the land interests of the crofters will be represented just as ably by the representatives of the Farmers' Union as forestry will by the representatives of the Landowners' Federation?
THE EARL OF SWINTON: May I make a suggestion, as I intervened on the
1158
general point? I myself should be in great difficulty in voting either way on this Amendment, because I am not satisfied that we ought to add all these people. I think the general feeling is that there ought to be some further consideration of what is the best workable Commission to have. Would not the practical way of dealing with it be for the noble Lord to withdraw the Amendment which he has moved, on condition that the Minister of State agrees to consult with him and with all those who are interested, and to go into the whole question to see what emerges? It may be that it would then be felt that the plan which has been put forward in the Bill is the best plan. On the other hand, the Scottish Ministers may be convinced that some Amendment would be desirable. We in this House do things in a rather informal way behind the scenes—that is one of the great advantages of this place. Between now and the Report stage there might be discussions. If that were done we might get complete agreement on the Report stage.
LORD FORBES: I think there has been a certain amount of confused thinking over this matter. In the first place, we are not really going into the question of whether or not the crofters have been consulted; what we are trying to settle now is the composition of the Commission. Regarding the composition of the Commission, we are absolutely happy and convinced that the composition as we have got it now is the best. The crofters are protected by the agricultural representation on this Commission as it stands. I would ask the two noble Lords opposite to withdraw their Amendment.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No.
LORD MATHERS: I am greatly disappointed to hear the last intervention of the Minister, in the light of the olive branches that have been held out to him. The crofters, as such, have not been consulted, and they are indignant about the way in which their interests have been treated. The Amendments are put down in that sense. Can the Minister not give an undertaking that before the Report stage he will have this question further considered, with a view to meeting the point of view that I, together with my noble friend Lord Greenhill, have endeavoured to represent?
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: I would appeal to the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, to agree to the suggestion that has been made. The Amendment goes much too far, because, as the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, has said, it would give a totally disproportionate representation to the crofters on the Commission. I do not think we ought to regard the numbers on the Commission as being fixed by the laws of the Medes and Persians—something which has been inflicted upon us from outside and which, if adhered to, would turn this place into something like Goering's Reichstag. I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, to reconsider this question and to be willing to consider a possible enlargement of the Commission which would not be in any way deleterious to any of the interests already represented thereon. Otherwise he is putting many of his own supporters, and firm supporters of the Bill, into a most difficult position.
THE EARL OF HALIFAX: I should like to add my word of appeal to the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, to think again in regard to the suggestion put forward by my noble friend Lord Swinton, which does not ask him to commit himself as far as my noble friend who has just spoken does, because Lord Swinton merely says that the noble Lord should take the opportunity of consultation, to see whether he can convince the other people that the Commission as it stands is the best, or whether they can convince him that some amendment is necessary. I do not see that the noble Lord would lose anything by taking that course, and I am sure that he would make it much easier for many of his friends in all parts of the House to go along with him on the other clauses of the Bill.
LORD FORBES: I will certainly give the undertaking to look into this matter before the Report stage. I think I should say that this is the first we have heard of any complaint by the crofting community.
LORD MATHERS: In the light of the undertaking given, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment. I will not move the other two Amendments that are associated with it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
Appointment of panels
(2) The Commission may delegate to a panel appointed under the last foregoing subsection the functions of the Commission under section six of this Act so far as relating to the locality of that panel, and the panel in the exercise of the functions so delegated to them shall comply with any directions given by the Commission.
3.56 p.m.
VISCOUNT ASTOR VISCOUNT ASTOR moved, after subsection (1) to insert:
"(2) The appointment of members of any panel set up under the provisions of the last foregoing subsection shall be subject to the approval of the Secretary of State and before approving the appointment of a member of any panel the Secretary of State shall satisfy himself that the interests referred to in paragraph (b) to (e) of subsection (4) of the foregoing section are fairly represented on that panel."
The noble Viscount said: This is a simple Amendment which I hope the Government will accept. It is to ensure that on the local panels, which will in fact be the effective executive bodies, there should be the same balance of representation as there is on the general Commission. It is as simple as that. I am sure that that is the intention of the Government. This is merely putting it in definite words. I hope that the Government will accept this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 20, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Viscount Astor.)
LORD FORBES: As the clause stands at present, the selection of members is entirely in the hands of the Commission, subject to the minimum membership of three. This minimum ensures that the Commission can in every case appoint a balanced panel. The balanced representation of interests—
VISCOUNT ASTOR: Where is that laid down in the Bill?
LORD FORBES: In Clause 2. The balanced representation of interests on the Commission itself would ensure that, wherever possible, the panel members appointed will be representative. I hope that this will go far enough to meet the noble Viscount's request, and that he will see his way clear to withdraw his Amendment.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: I really do not see why the Government refuse to accept this Amendment. They say they want the panels to be balanced. During the war we had many problems with the local war agriculture committees, when the subcommittee did not have the same balance as existed in the county committee. It was of little consolation for those of us in a remote county to realise that there was a perfectly balanced body in Edinburgh, but that our local body was very unbalanced indeed. I hope the noble Lord will think this matter over before the Report stage, in order to see whether he cannot give some undertaking in regard to this matter of balance. If he can give that undertaking I shall be glad to withdraw this Amendment.
LORD FORBES: I will look into this matter again, but, as I have said, we consider that the Commission itself would appoint a balanced panel. However, I will give the undertaking to look into the matter again.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: The wording of this Amendment is based on Section 68 of the Agriculture (Scotland) Act, 1948, covering the delegation by agricultural executive committees of certain of their functions to sub-committees. Broadly, the purpose is to ensure that both the Commission and the local panel should proceed with the proper procedure—that there should be regular rules; that there should be a quorum before decisions are made; that proper Minutes should be kept and circulated, and generally that the proper rules of procedure should be followed. The Franks Committee have shown the grave danger of extending arbitrary powers to small bodies, especially when there may be a strong-minded chairman who tends to assume the consent of other members of his subcommittee and to do all these things in an informal way—as was done at Crichel Down—instead of following the proper procedure which ensures justice. The next Amendment is consequential and seeks to provide that the local panel should equally be under an obligation to adopt the proper methods of procedure which will assure justice. I am sure it is the intention that that should be done, and this Amendment merely seeks to put that in the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After ("may") to insert (", subject to such conditions or restrictions as may with the approval of the Secretary of State be determined by the Commission or as may be required by the Secretary of State,").—(Viscount Astor.)
LORD FORBES: It is already provided that in the exercise of functions delegated to a panel under Clause 6 they shall comply with any directions given by the Commission. There is no reason for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to intervene, either by approving conditions or restrictions drawn up by the Commission or by himself requiring the imposition of conditions or restrictions. The Commission not only will have the initial advantage of the background and experience of its representative members but also will acquire during the course of its activities an expert approach to its task. I believe that that covers the point which is worrying the noble Viscount, and I would ask him Whether he can see his way to withdraw his Amendment.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: I do not think Her Majesty's Government have really answered the point I made: that there should be, at every local panel, proper rules of procedure and a proper quorum; that they should meet together with proper notice (so that, for example, two men will not get together and leave out the third) and that decisions shall be properly recorded and circulated. All those things would provide a real safeguard which, so far as I can see, is not provided in the Bill. I will withdraw my Amendment in the hope that this point will be considered on the Report stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Particular powers of the Commission]
LORD MATHERS: I hope none of your Lordship will take offence at the meaning of this Amendment which seeks to take out the words "on the application of such owner,". The plain, blunt fact of the matter is that it is doubted whether the owner is in the best position, or is the best guide to take, in regard to asking for the advice of the Commission in the interests of conserving stocks of deer. It

1163
seems to me that the Commission should have power to do what is said:
" to advise in the interests of conservation any owner of land … on questions relating to the carrying of stocks of red deer on that land ";
without the necessity of being first asked for advice by the owner of the land. The owner may be the last person competent to ask for such advice, or may neglect to ask for it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 42, leave out (", on the application of such owner,").—(Lord Mathers.)
LORD GREENHILL: I wish to support my noble friend in this Amendment, also, for slightly different reasons. I do not believe that Her Majesty's Government will lose anything at all by the omission of these words. Their omission may strengthen the power in regard to the application of this measure, when it becomes an Act, for the purposes for which it is intended. Clause 4 relates to the advice which the Commission shall have power to give, and deals with the collaboration that will be necessary. All we are saying is that the submission of advice should not depend on the application of the owner, for this reason. I believe it will be generally admitted that nowadays owners of land are changing in character in Scotland. Where at one time owners may have bought land with a view to its continuing as forest, they may buy with a view to clearing the land of deer and putting on sheep or something of that kind. For that reason I believe it should not be left to the owner to apply for advice, but that the Commission should have the power to advise when they feel it is right that advice should be given.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I hope the noble Lord will accept this Amendment. There might be cases where the Commission would themselves like to advise on these particular matters but they would be limited by the words in the clause and would be unable to do so. I do not think the Commission would lose anything by the omission of these words. I believe their omission would be for the benefit of the Commission.
LORD WINSTER: May I ask the noble Lord what is the position should the Commission feel that it is in the interests of conservation that certain steps should be taken in relation to the carrying of stocks
1164
of red deer on land, when the owner of the land does not come forward to make a request that the Commission shall intervene in the matter and consult with him? In that event what powers have the Commission? Or have they to stand by and see the continuance of a state of affairs detrimental to the object of this Bill but about which they feel unable to take any steps at all, because the owner of the land has not come forward and asked them for advice?
VISCOUNT ASTOR: I hope Her Majesty's Government will consider accepting this Amendment. I know of a sporting forest next door to which an area is being increasingly exploited commercially, so that a large number of deer may be killed to get as much money as possible out of the carcases. One owner following that policy could ruin his neighbours. I believe that this is a sensible proposal to ensure that balanced interests are looked into.
LORD FORBES: Noble Lords opposite have made it quite clear that they want advice to be given whether the owner wants it or not. The Commission will, of course, come in as soon as there is any question of damage. But we do not believe that it is necessary for the Commission to go into a deer forest unless there is definite damage being done and they have been asked to go there. Owing to that, and the preservation of the rights of the individual, we do not believe that this extra power should be given to the Commission; and I would ask your Lordships not to agree to this Amendment.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: I should like just to put one point to the noble Lords opposite. After all, as I conceive it, the management of a deer forest is a business—and a complicated business at that. Would noble Lords opposite like some body outside to come in and tell them how to run their business? That is exactly what this is asking for. I do not think they would like it; they would be highly incensed, and would object very strongly. There are owners of deer forests who know how to manage their own deer forest, just as there are owners of businesses who know how to manage their own business, and to interfere with that private right would be deplorable.
LORD GREENHILL: I am shocked by what has just been said by the noble

1165
Lord, Lord Strathclyde. This measure is not being promoted in the interests of deer forest owners, but in the interests of the country as a whole. The noble Lord, Lord Forbes, himself said in the course of a Second Reading speech that he hoped to achieve his ends by persuasion and not by compulsion. All we are saying is that, instead of waiting until a deer forest owner, for reasons of his own, is mishandling his forest, the Commission should have the right to offer advice to—not to punish—any deer forest owner who in their opinion can be persuaded to improve his deer forest.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 5 [Returns of numbers of deer killed]:
LORD FORBES LORD FORBES moved, in subsection (1), after "owner" to insert: "or occupier". The noble Lord said: Clause 5 at present empowers the Red Deer Commission to require owners of land to provide returns of numbers of red deer of each sex which have been killed on their land during a period not exceeding five years immediately preceding the requirements. The Amendment would enable the Commission to obtain returns from the occupier of land, instead of from the owner, where that is appropriate, as it would be, for instance, where a deer forest had been let to a tenant for a number of years, or where the owner is abroad. In such a case it would be unreasonable that the owner should be required to provide the information. The clause, if amended, would leave to the Commission's discretion whether the owner or the occupier should be asked for the information.
Amendment moved—
Page 3 line 5, after ("owner") insert ("or occupier").—(Lord Forbes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6:
Power of Commission to deal with marauding deer
6.—(1) Where the Commission are satisfied that red deer are habitually coming on to any agricultural land and are causing substantial damage to crops, pasture or animal or human foodstuffs on that land, and that the killing of the deer is necessary for the prevention of further damage as aforesaid, they may authorise in writing, subject to such conditions as may be specified in the authorisation, any person who in their opinion is competent to
1166
do so to follow and kill on any land mentioned in the authorisation such red deer as appear to that person to be causing the damage.
(2) An authorisation under the last foregoing subsection shall remain in force from the date thereof for such period, not exceeding fourteen days, as may be specified in the authorisation.
(3) Where the Commission intend to issue any such authorisation as aforesaid, it shall be their duty to give to any occupier of land which is to be mentioned in the authorisation not less than twenty-four hours' notice of their intention.
(4) Where the owner of any land which is to be mentioned in the authorisation is a person other than the occupier, it shall be the duty of the Commission to give to that owner such notice of their intention as may be practicable.
(5) The Commission may make in respect of the services of any person authorised by them to follow and kill deer as aforesaid, not being one of their servants, such payment as may be agreed.
4.14 p.m.
VISCOUNT ASTOR VISCOUNT ASTOR had given Notice of several Amendments, the first being, in subsection (1), after "Where" to insert:
", after considering any complaint made to them concerning damage to crops pasture or animal or human foodstuffs on any agricultural land and after affording to the occupier and the owner of the land and to any other person appearing to have an interest in the matter of the complaint an opportunity of making representations to them with respect to such complaint,"
LORD STRATHCLYDE: Would the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, allow me to say a word? Subject to the approval of the Committee, may I invite the noble Viscount to speak to his Amendments to Clause 6 as a whole? The noble Viscount has twelve Amendments put down to this particular clause; eight of them apply to the first subsection. It seems to me that it would be for our convenience and a better understanding if he could explain the general intention of his Amendments in a general way before proceeding to move the Amendments seriatim. Otherwise, it seems to me, we shall get into a situation where we cannot really comprehend what the outcome of the Amendments will be at the end of the day. I would appeal to the noble Viscount to do that, subject to the approval of the Committee.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: If I have the approval of the Committee, I shall be glad to adopt that course. During the Second Reading debate the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, talked of the necessity for

1167
the co-operation of the owners of the land in the control of predatory deer, and said that normally it would be the duty of the owners of the land to take action at once to ensure that mischief was not done. I am sure that all of us who have had anything to do with deer forests have often had complaints of deer getting on to a crop. We immediately investigate, and a stalker is sent down to shoot as many as necessary and to scare them off. It is well-known procedure and works very well.
The general tenor of my Amendments is as follows. First, that when a complaint is made it should not be possible, when a farmer goes to the local panel with a complaint, for that panel to take action without first discussing the matter with the owner or his factor. It is merely a question of getting the person concerned on the telephone and saying, "There is a complaint from such-and-such a farm. You had better do something quickly." That is the obvious intention; not that the panel and the farmer should be able to kill a large number of deer without any knowledge of the owner and occupier of the land. The first Amendment is to ensure that both sides are heard—both the farmer who makes the complaint and the owner—before any action is taken.
Then Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 will put into law, I hope, what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, on the Second Reading: that it should be up to the owner or his stalker to take the necessary action. I cannot conceive that any owner and stalker would not take the necessary action and that they would not get on with scaring the deer away and shooting on the spot as many as necessary. If we are to have good will, it is essential that this should be done. My further Amendment says that if, by any chance, the stalker or the factor do not deal with the situation, then the panel may put in their own man to deal with it. But this is obviously the right way to do it, and I hope that this will become the law.
Finally, I suggest that the words "follow and" should be omitted from subsection (5)—for the following reason. If deer are coming and eating in a field, the place to kill those deer is on the spot where they are. Perhaps one knows the habits of deer. They come down at dusk
1168
and eat the crops. That is the moment to get them—at dusk or dawn. If twenty deer come down, one may shoot two and the rest will go off for miles. Are we to imagine a representative of the panel paddling off after some deer for several miles and saying to himself, "They were a couple of bad eight-pointers"? Can he possibly identify those same deer miles away? The whole suggestion is perfectly absurd. The obvious course is to take out these words and to take action against the deer at the point where they are doing the damage. Deer are very intelligent animals. All of us who have a sanctuary in our forest know that the deer soon get to know that they are safe there. Equally, they soon get to know if they are regularly shot at in a particular area for two or three nights running, and they will avoid that area like a plague. That is what I mean when I say that action ought to be taken on the spot. The gist of my Amendments, therefore, is as to procedure. If there is a complaint, the panel should immediately get in touch with the owner and tell him to get on with the job; and then the job should be done immediately, on the spot.
Amendment No. 28 provides that, if a panel uses these powers in an unreasonable fashion, there should be a right of appeal. Amendment No. 28 has been drafted so that action need not necessarily be determined solely by the panel. If there were an acute situation they could deal with it, but the owner could say that he had been badly treated and could ask for an inquiry to ensure that future cases would be looked into in a reasonable way.
Finally, in Amendment 28A I have provided for what one might call an emergency appeal. A panel may be intending to take what is obviously unreasonable action—and I know of a case during the war where a local war agriculture committees put in a man with a tommy-gun who, in two days, shot 100 deer off one forest. That action did irreparable damage, which could not be put right for something like eight years. If one did have any real case which appeared to the Secretary of State to be a scandalous abuse of power, and which might cause real, long-term damage to a forest, then he could in that case say to the panel: "Hold your horses. We will hold a

1169
quick inquiry." But I hope and trust that the mere existence of such a right of appeal would be an effective deterrent against any unjust use of powers.
That, I think, is a practical way of dealing with a practical problem, and I hope it will commend itself to the Committee as a general course of action. It is not meant to hold up action. There is a further Amendment, about seven days' notice, which arises only if my first Amendment—that it should be primarily the responsibility of the occupier to take action—is agreed to. It is not meant that there should be a further seven or fourteen days. I beg to move the first Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 20, after ("Where") insert (", after considering any complaint made to them concerning damage to crops pasture or animal or human foodstuffs on any agricultural land and after affording to the occupier and the owner of the land and to any other person appearing to have an interest in the matter of the complaint an opportunity of making representations to them with respect to such complaint,").—(Viscount Astor.)
4.24 p.m.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: However plausibly the noble Viscount has sought to explain his series of Amendments, they are, in effect, wrecking Amendments, and should be rejected. They would practically emasculate this Bill, so far as taking effective action against marauding deer is concerned. As the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, said a few minutes ago, on an earlier Amendment, this is not a landlords' Bill: it is a Bill to deal with all the interests concerned. If the measures suggested by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, were put into effect, it would mean that it would be virtually impossible for deer to be dealt with before the crop, or crops, in question had been completely devastated.
The noble Viscount, if I understood him aright, suggested that the proper place to deal with these marauding deer was in the place where the damage was being occasioned. I can say from practical experience (fortunately small on my own ground) that although deer may sometimes come down at dusk, it is very often after dusk. How, then, are they going to be shot? It means, in the first place, that you have got to abandon the proper and humane method of using a rifle in favour of a shotgun, at least so
1170
far as the tenant farmer is concerned, because it would be, first, impossible, and, in any case, extremely dangerous to start loosing off a rifle in the dark. The use of a shotgun means that a considerable proportion of the animals fired at will be wounded, and that very few will be killed. Those wounded will go off to die or to carry painful wounds for some time before recovery—and I have myself often found stags with a great many pellets in them. It is usually possible to deal with such marauding deer only by pursuing them subsequently on the hill or forest land from which they have come.
The noble Viscount would make it appear that such deer come usually from well-equipped forests where it is only a matter of ringing up the factor or head stalker and getting a posse of stalkers turned out in order to carry out the necessary execution. But it must be remembered that a great proportion of these deer come not from deer forest land at all but from land, usually sheep farms, which has become infested by deer, or from small properties where they may not even have a keeper with a rifle. It is very difficult indeed to keep them in check. I consider that the provisions which the Government have put in the Bill for this purpose are good ones, and that they should certainly be adhered to.
There is the point that you might get a local panel being unreasonable, and I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, to look into that matter between now and the Report stage. However, I think that probably the occasions for anything of that sort arising will be very infrequent, because we are fairly certain that the Commission, which we have agreed will be composed of reasonable people, will issue instructions to all their panels that they should not take action without having given the owner a chance to remedy the position. As these Amendments would have it, however, the owner would have an almost unlimited power of delay. He could pretend to take action and yet not do so. That means that the whole purpose of this Bill—the control, as well as the conservation, of deer—would be set at nought. For that reason, I hope that Her Majesty's Government will not be willing to accept these Amendments and that your Lordships will agree with them in this matter.
LORD FORBES: As the noble Earl has so rightly pointed out, this clause deals with marauding deer, and with marauding deer there is only one essential factor. That is speed. Apart from the importance of speed in dealing with deer, it is also essential, in many cases, that they should be followed from the area of damage, perhaps over a number of properties which may be in different ownership. In order to be sure that it is the marauders that are being killed, you must in each case follow the deer. You cannot go from one part of an estate to another part of an estate: you will always be in the wrong place.
I think I should bring to your Lordships' notice paragraphs that have appeared in the Maconochie Report. They said:
"The nature of the problem is such that, unless a ready means is at hand to meet the emergency, the opportunity for a solution is often irrevocably lost."
I had hoped that the noble Viscount was as anxious as I am to see this Bill passed through this House. However, in view of these Amendments I can only assume one thing: that he is desirous of torpedoeing the whole Bill—because his Amendments have one effect, and one effect only; and that is to weight the scales entirely on the side of the sporting interests and to leave the farmer to get on by himself. I will certainly undertake to do what the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, suggested and look into the question of whether the panel will act in a reasonable manner. I hope that the noble Viscount will now see his way to withdraw his Amendment.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: If I am going to have such monstrous imputations put up against me, I will fight this Bill to the end. The very last thing I am trying to do is to torpedo the Bill, or to weight it. As a landlord who has tenant farmers and crofters, I know the problem perfectly well, and I think that, in the normal forest, to tell the owner and stalker to deal with this is the quickest and most efficient way. They know their ground, the deer and their habits, and they will soon realise that if they do not deal with the matter the panel will take other measures which will be more against the owner's interests.
If the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, really thinks that my proposals mean
1172
delay, he cannot have read the Amendments with the care which I hope they deserve. I am trying to produce a procedure which will be quick and effective, and produce good relations between the three sides. The Bill, as it is, would allow the panel and a farmer to get together without telling the owner, to shoot deer in unlimited numbers, and pursue these deer all over the forest. It is very difficult to do that on your flat feet, on a fairly steep forest, and when you catch up with the deer two or three hours afterwards there is no knowing that they are the right deer. I think that the noble Lord has absolutely misinterpreted my Amendment. I am glad to withdraw it, because my noble friend Lord Stratheden and Campbell has an Amendment dealing with the same point, but I would reserve the right to deal with other matters of principle here. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL moved in subsection (1), after "Commission" to insert
"after consultation with the owner or his agent and the occupier concerned."
The noble Lord said: I am not going to repeat the arguments which have been used about this clause, but I would say that I have no interest because, although I am a Scotsman, I live in the South of Scotland where there are no red deer. The point seems to have been missed that Clause 6 comes into effect only when preliminary methods of dealing with marauding deer have failed to produce results. This being the case, I cannot see why the owner or his agent and the occupier should not be brought into consultation. In fact, it is difficult to see how this can possibly be avoided, because the Commission must be informed by one of the three parties that marauding is going on. In his speech on Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, said that co-operation was obviously the best way and that only when that co-operation had failed would this type of action be taken; therefore it was unnecessary to legislate for it. So it seems only putting into effect his own words to insert my Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 20, after ("Commission") insert the said words.—(Lord Stratheden and Campbell.)
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, will either be willing to accept this Amendment or else produce one in more suitable words, because I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, that it is wrong that a panel should send people out on someone's ground without giving him a chance of remedying the position. Apart from that, my previous remarks remain unchanged.
LORD FORBES: I think that without any doubt the owner and occupier would be consulted, but I will certainly look into this matter before Report stage if the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment.
LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL: I thank the noble Lord for those words, and beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MATHERS LORD MATHERS moved, in subsection (1), to omit "habitually". The noble Lord said: The purport of this Amendment and of No. 14 is the same. What constitutes "habitually"? How many times has a croft (if I may use that as an illustration) to be raided before it is looked upon as being habitually menaced by red deer? Equally, with regard to the word "substantial" in line 22, who is going to be the judge of what is substantial? What is substantial to a small crofter may be considered nothing worth troubling about by a larger landowner. It may, however, mean great hardship to the small man if it is not considered substantial and therefore not liable to be dealt with. I hope that the sense of these Amendments will be apparent to noble Lords and that I may get support for them.
I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 21, leave out ("habitually").(Lord Mathers.)
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: Surely all this ought to be left to the discretion of the Commission, without having these limiting words in the Bill. After all, they are words which may well lead to the Court of Session. I think that they are unnecessary. I should have thought that the Commission would be quite happy to see them out and not be limited by them.
LORD FORBES: The Commission will be concerned with the conservation as well as with the control of deer, and in every case they will have to assess whether damage done is relatively great enough to justify their using the emergency powers under this clause. The word "substantial" gives them the necessary yardstick for this task. Substantial damage does not necessarily mean widespread damage. If substantial damage has been done to one croft alone, these powers can be used. I cannot accept the Amendment because it would tend to enable the Clause 6 powers dealing with marauding deer to be used against deer which, strictly speaking, were not marauding and which on very infrequent occasions may have been driven down to the low ground in periods of very hard weather. If they are driven down in large numbers there may well be scope for action by way of a control scheme, which would be set up by the Commission, and they would only set up a control scheme if they thought that overstocking on a neighbouring forest was a contributory factor. I hope that this explanation will satisfy the noble Lord who has moved this Amendment and that he will be able to withdraw it.
4.40 p.m.
LORD GREENHILL: Does the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, really think that by retaining these two words he is in any way strengthening the power that the Commission already possess? Under Clause 6 the Commission have to be satisfied that certain deer are doing damage and that certain damage is being occasioned to crops. That, surely, is sufficient. They will determine whether the damage is such as to warrant their taking any action; and even that action is not immediate, but is subject to certain delays. Let us not forget that already in the Agriculture Act the Secretary of State has power to deal with animals doing injury, although it is perhaps true that he has not exercised it. I wonder why the noble Lord hesitates to leave it in this vaguer form, equally binding; that is, where the Commission are satisfied that red deer are coming on to any agricultural land and are causing damage—and the two are necessary. What will the noble Lord lose if he agrees to this Amendment and does not leave it to these indefinable terms as in the Bill?
LORD SALTOUN: Is there any point in the word "habitual"?
LORD GREENHILL: They are marauding.
LORD FORBES: The word "substantial" was put in as a safeguard so that the Commission would not be called in on every occasion when slight damage was done. That is why we want it in the Bill.
LORD GREENHILL: If I may say so, whether they are called in or not, does not affect the power of the Commission. It is the Commission who have to be satisfied, whether they are called in or not, and it is the Commission who will determine whether damage has been substantial.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: Are we not rather inclined here to get two things mixed up? This clause deals with marauding deer, and the other clauses later on deal with control. It seems to me, in those circumstances, that the words which the noble Lord desires to have removed from the first part of the clause are quite appropriate. A marauding deer is a beast which habitually comes down on to the land and does damage to crops of a substantial nature, and it is that which these powers in Clause 6 are intended to cover. If damage is being caused by large numbers of deer, too many to be borne on the surrounding countryside, then the control scheme comes into operation. I suggest that it is unnecessary to omit the words from the clause, and that it would damage the powers if they were removed.
LORD MATHERS: No one has ventured to indicate what "habitually" means, or what is involved by "substantial". These words are a matter of personal opinion, and the personal opinions of those prejudicially affected by marauding deer and of those who are not are perhaps poles asunder. I think it is a lame defence that has been put up for the retention of these words, and I hope your Lordships will aid me in pressing their omission on the Government.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD FORBES LORD FORBES moved, in subsection (1), after the first word "land" to insert "or woodland". The noble Lord said:
1176
With your Lordships' permission, I will deal with Amendments Nos. 13 and 16 together. Clause 6, as at present drafted, empowers the Red Deer Commission to set in motion the arrangements for dealing with marauding deer in cases where the deer are damaging trees. Marauding deer might well damage young plantations, and the purpose of these two Amendments is to bring this category of damage within the clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 21, after ("land") insert ("or woodland").—(Lord Forbes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MATHERS LORD MATHERS moved in subsection (1), to leave out "substantial". The noble Lord said: I move this Amendment in order to put the responsibility, if they desire to take it, upon Members of this Committee for rejecting the deletion of this word "substantial". I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 22, leave out ("substantial").—(Lord Mathers.)
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD FORBES: This is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 23, after ("stuffs") insert (", or trees").—(Lord Forbes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT ASTOR VISCOUNT ASTOR moved in subsection (1) to leave out "authorise in writing, subject to such conditions as may be specified in the authorisation, any person who in their opinion is competent to do so to follow and", and to insert:
"by notice served on any person having the right to do so require that person to".
The noble Viscount said: I should like to discuss Amendments Nos. 17, 18, 19 and 20 together, as they form one unit. The object of these Amendments is to put into legislative form the assurance given by the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, on Second Reading, that the first responsibility would be put on the owner of the land to kill a marauding deer. The subsection then would read that the Commission, having satisfied themselves,
"may by notice served on any person having the right to do so require that person to kill on any land mentioned … such red deer as appear to that person to be causing the damage."
If it is the general intention that the responsibility should be put on the owner and occupier to deal with those deer, surely this is a reasonable Amendment. There may be an owner and occupier who is not a keeper and not interested in sporting, and he would immediately answer: "I cannot do it. You do it yourself." He would have no interest whatever in not putting the ball back into the hands of the local agent to kill the deer. If the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, on Second Reading, means anything, I feel that these Amendments should be accepted. They will require the panel, when there is a marauding deer, to say immediately to the owner that he shall get on and kill it. If he does not do so, there are ample powers for them to do it themselves. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 24, leave out from ("may") to ("kill") in line 27, and insert the said words.—(Viscount Astor.)
LORD FORBES: This Amendment assumes that the Red Deer Commission will know in every case where the marauding deer are coming from. In fact, one of the obstacles to the successful operation of the Secretary of State's power under Section 44 of the Agriculture (Scotland) Act, 1948, is the difficulty of establishing that the marauding deer come from any particular land. The only possible way in which this clause could be operated, if the Amendment were carried, would be for the Commission to impose blanket requirements on a number of owners and occupiers of separate land in the hope that they would co-operate in killing the marauding deer as they passed over their several properties. This would mean imposing an onerous task on several persons whose only connection with the situation is that marauding deer are passing over their land. In the simple case where deer are known to be coming straight from one particular forest on to agricultural land, the Commission, or their local panel, will attempt to reach an agreement with the owner of the forest for the killing by him of the offending deer before any question of authorisation arises.
Amendment No. 20, as I see it, gives the Commission a consequential default power: where a person required to kill marauding deer failed to do so, the
1178
Commission would be empowered by the Amendment to authorise someone else to kill the deer. The authorised person would not, however, have authority, as under the Government's proposals, to follow the marauding deer over a series of farms or estates. In effect, it would be possible for him to take action only where it was known that the marauders were coming from land owned or occupied by a person who had failed to comply with the Commission's requirement. This Amendment would thus render the object of the clause unattainable in all but a mere handful of cases. I would ask the noble Viscount to withdraw his Amendment.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: My noble friend Lord Forbes has made a perfectly good point. There are some areas of Scotland where deer may come from many properties, and it is impossible to identify the area. On the other hand, there are many other parts of Scotland where there is one vast forest from which, clearly, the deer come. The noble Lord has said that it is the intention that the onus should, where possible, be put upon the occupier to deal with it. May I suggest that he tries to find a form of words to put that assurance into the Bill on the Report stage. If he will do so, I shall be glad to withdraw this Amendment.
LORD FORBES: I will certainly undertake to do that.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.53 p.m.
LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL moved, in subsection (2), after "shall" to insert:
"(a) not be granted in relation to any unenclosed land in respect of any period from the tenth day of August to the twentieth day of October; and
(b)"
The noble Lord said: In this Amendment we are still dealing with marauding deer, and I think it is generally agreed that the time of year at which this happens is the winter and the spring—more often the early spring. The purpose of the Amendment is that the period from August 10 to October 20 should be excluded from the time when the Commission can take the action of sending men over the country to kill deer. This will not affect the working of the clause, because I do not think there will be any marauding deer during that period.
There is another aspect with which I wish to deal more carefully, directed especially to noble Lords opposite, because it is not in anybody's favour that I am putting forward this Amendment. There is a question of rights. The rights of deer forests and grouse moors in the Highlands are an extremely important part of the Highland economy. If it is known abroad, where a great many of the wealthy renters of these places come from, that it is possible for these areas to be disturbed at any time while they are enjoying their sport, it may well make a big difference to the economy of the Highlands. That is the reason for putting forward this Amendment, and I do not think it will have any effect on the way in which marauding deer are dealt with. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 30, after ("shall") insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Stratheden and Campbell.)
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: I should like to support this Amendment most strongly because, as your Lordships know, deer maraud only when they are extremely hungry; and they are not hungry in August, September or October. We have to remember, as my noble friend Lord Stratheden and Campbell has just pointed out, that the renting of deer forests and shooting generally in the Highlands is a source of dollars to this country. If we are going to have bands of people sent out by the Commission, running all over the Highlands, chasing imaginary marauding stags, it will probably considerably affect the value of shooting rents. Therefore, I hope that the Government will see their way to accept this Amendment.
LORD FORBES: I agree it would be most unlikely that there would be marauding deer between August 10 and October 20, because marauding usually takes place during the winter. But there may be a few cases where it will occur, and where the Commission are unable to reach a voluntary agreement with the owner concerned they will have to take action. I think it most unlikely that these interests will, in fact, clash with sporting interests, and I am quite sure that the Commission can be relied upon to use their powers with discretion. But, as I have already said, for farming in-
1180
terests it would be impossible to have a period when the control Commission could not operate. I can give an assurance that the Commission would not enter on land just to count deer, or anything like that. The only time they would enter on land during this period would be when damage was being done to agricultural land. I hope that I have given a sufficient assurance to the noble Lord to enable him to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL: I hope that assurance will be given out widely, because it is likely to happen. In view of my noble friend's assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT ASTOR VISCOUNT ASTOR moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "twenty-four hours'" and insert "seven days'". The noble Viscount said: The object of this Amendment is to give longer notice to the occupier of land when action is going to be taken against his deer. We know the distances in the Highlands, the difficulty of moving people about, and so forth. The occupier, his stalker and factor should be the people to have the first responsibility of dealing with marauding deer, and to say that they should have merely twenty-four hours to take action before the panel sends in its own man to do so, seems to me excessively short. The occupier will need at least to be able to go there the next day, or the day after, and try to deal with those deer himself. Perhaps my suggestion of seven days may be excessively long, but I hope the Government will agree that twenty-four hours is too short a time to give the occupier any chance of dealing with it himself, and will consider giving rather longer notice. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 36, leave out ("twenty-four hours") and insert ("seven days").—(Viscount Astor.)
5.0 p.m.
LORD FORBES: There are two factors that have to be balanced here: first of all, the need to warn occupiers that there is going to be shooting over the land; and secondly, the need for speedy action in dealing with marauding deer. From the one point of view it is possible

1181
to argue in favour of a longer notice than the minimum of twenty-four hours already given—say, forty-eight hours. On the other hand, one could also argue that to be certain of catching these marauding deer there should be no notice at all. In order to find a happy medium between the two, twenty-four hours has been chosen. I think your Lordships will agree that twenty-four hours is the most reasonable notice that can be given. I hope that the noble Viscount will be able to withdraw his Amendment.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: I do not think it is as reasonable as all that. If a marauding deer is seen on a Monday and the farmer immediately rings up the owner and says "there is a deer coming into this farm; it has got to be dealt with", it means merely giving notice until the Tuesday. It does not give him the time physically to deal with it himself. He simply cannot get to the spot, deploy his stalker and deal with the animal. He has hardly time to make any inquiry of his own or to make any counter-representation. I think that twenty-four hours' notice is almost meaningless, and that one ought to give at least two or three days, so that when a person gets notice he can send a stalker to the spot and take his own action at once.
LoRD FORBES: I think the noble Viscount is slightly misguided here. What would happen, in actual fact, is that the Commission would ask the owner to carry out the work himself. It is only when the owner says he cannot do it that the twenty-four hours' notice comes in. If the owner is going to do the work himself, there is no question of twenty-four hours' notice at all.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: If the noble Lord would agree to put that into the Bill I should immediately withdraw the Amendment.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: It is not twenty-four hours. It is "not less than twenty-four hours". I do not understand.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: The whole point once more is: are the Commission going to be a reasonable body, or are they not? If the Commission get in touch with the proprietor or tenant, and say that they have had a complaint about deer damage, and the proprietor says, "I am sorry, but it is impossible for me
1182
to deal with it", then the Commission will send in their own people. Equally they would do so if it concerned someone who they knew from past experience, was unlikely to be co-operative. But if the proprietor is in a position to deal with it, of course he will do so. To suggest that seven days' notice should be given would mean, as I have said in regard to earlier Amendments, that by the time the Commission's men got there there would no longer be any crops to protect.
LORD WINSTER: I was going to ask the noble Lord about that. I fully appreciate the necessity for speed in this matter, but does the phrase: "the owner of the land" cover the owner's agent? It may well be that the owner of the land is in London; he could conceivably be abroad. Can we assume that the notice to his agent covers the point?
LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL: The noble Lord will see that the next Amendment in my name deals with that point.
LORD SALTOUN: Is not the giving of notice to an agent tantamount to giving notice to the owner? Is not the owner bound by it?
LORD FORBES: It comes later in the Bill. Notice to an agent would, in fact, cover the owner.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: In the hope that the assurance given by Lord Forbes will be put into the Bill on the Report stage—or, at any rate, that he will consider that—I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: This Amendment to omit subsection (4) concerns following, a matter which has been discussed already. I still think that it is highly impractical and dangerous to allow people to go on to deer forests to follow. We know the speed at which deer move. They move for miles. They go out of sight. We all know that when you are stalking you disturb the forest, and the deer will move for miles. It will probably be half a day before you catch up with them again. One can pick out an extremely good stag from an extremely bad or deformed stag; but the average stag is absolutely unidentifiable

1183
from others in the same class. Therefore, the idea of these agents of the Commission setting off a disturbance, sending the deer away for perhaps four or five miles, then having to trace them and pursue them up hill, and try to identify them, lays itself open to abuse. The agent is far more likely to shoot the first deer he sees and to come back and say "I have done my job; pay me my fee". I think this is a highly dangerous course to follow. That is why I have put down this Amendment. I understand from the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, that in some cases the course laid down may be necessary, but I think it is wholly impracticable and will lead to every sort of abuse. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 37, leave out subsection (4).—(Viscount Astor.)
LORD FORBES: Unless there is some power to follow these deer I fail to see how it will ever be possible to kill any marauding deer at all, because, unless they can follow up, the Commission's men will always be in the wrong place. The noble Viscount himself said that it is difficult to follow and to keep track of an eight-point stag. Unless you can actually follow, I fail to see how there is any chance of getting it at all. I would ask the noble Viscount to be reasonable over this and to understand that, if we are to deal with marauding deer, we must follow them. I would ask him to withdraw his Amendment.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: I really do not think that I am being unreasonable. Again and again we have the problem of marauding deer in our forests, and if we have a complaint from a township of crofters the stalker goes out, lies in wait, and shoots the deer. It is perfectly easy and perfectly practicable. But when the deer have gone away, perhaps five miles, the idea of chasing them is quite impracticable. Having said that, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: I quite agree with the noble Viscount. I have stalked ever since a boy. It is quite impracticable to follow marauding deer for miles across a hill. You cannot tell which are the marauding deer. I quite agree with the noble Viscount on that.
LORD SALTOUN: Are we not going to be driven back to the old sport with deer hounds? It seems to me that that is the answer.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: It all depends whether one regards deer or crops as the more important.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.10 p.m.
LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL: This Amendment has already been partly argued. Its object is to strengthen the Bill by speeding up the process. It may well be that the owner is away, and if his agent can be advised, everything will be speeded up—it will have exactly the same effect as if the owner himself was warned. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 39, leave out ("to that owner such").—(Lord Stratheden and Campbell.)
LORD FORBES: I do not wish to emphasise the difference between this subsection as it stands in the Bill and the subsection as the noble Lord, Lord Stratheden and Campbell, proposes to amend it; but I suggest that the present drafting is to be preferred. Unlike the Amendment, it provides for the case where it is not easy to discover the owner of the land. In such cases quick action could still be taken against marauding deer. I am informed that the term "reasonable inquiry" means something much longer than the twenty-four hours which we are envisaging here. Moreover, I would ask your Lordships to agree with me that the really important thing is to give notice to the occupier of the land in order that he may make sure that nobody except the deer gets shot. I therefore hope that the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.
LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT ASTOR VISCOUNT ASTOR moved, in subsection (5) to leave out "follow and". The noble Viscount said: On Amendment No. 23 I made remarks which should have been made on this Amendment, and I will not repeat them. I would only say to the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, that I agree with his point

1185
about the primary interest of the farmers; but his forest may be very different from mine.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: I am not a forest owner.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: I have been associated with a forest for the best part of forty years, and I know from practical experience that if one is trying to protect crops, the place at which to shoot deer is where they come on to the crops—on the spot. It is not necessary to use a gun, for one can get them with a rifle on moonlight nights as they come in and out. It can quickly get into the minds of the deer, however, that that is an extremely dangerous place to come to, and then they keep away. Just as they understand that one place is a sanctuary, they will understand that another is a dangerous area. I believe, therefore, that effort should be concentrated on killing the deer at the point of damage. I believe it is practicable, and we all know that we can do that all the time.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 2, leave out ("follow and").—(Viscount Astor.)
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: I believe that Lord Astor's experience of deer lies mainly in the far west, where it is probable that firing a rifle in the gloaming is a perfectly safe proceeding. In my part of the world deer come down on to little arable farms up on the edge of the hills which are often intersected not only by small private roads, but also by small public roads. It is absolutely out of the question, under such conditions, to use a rifle in the dusk without grave danger to any person who may be within a mile or more; and in such areas there are often many people wandering about. In places like that, one cannot use a rifle, and my own experience is that there is very little chance of doing appreciable damage to deer on the spot, and that they have to be followed up if their numbers are to be reduced.
LORD FORBES: The clause, as drafted, is based on the conception that, since, clearly, marauding deer are not static, it is essential to be able to follow them off agricultural land, and that it may not be possible to kill them until the authorised person has passed over a number of lands in different ownership.
1186
The Amendment would make this impossible, and consequently I am afraid that I cannot accept it.
LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL: There is just one point I would make. My noble friend spoke of agricultural land, but I understand that agricultural land, in the definition in Section 21 of the Agriculture (Scotland) Act, 1948, includes all unenclosed land over which people can graze their stock, which includes almost the whole of the land in that part of Scotland.
LORD FORBES: I agree with the noble Lord that that is the correct interpretation.
LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL: That makes this clause extremely wide; and in fact it will be agreed that the intention is that the deer shall be followed to the utmost limit of the highest deer forest in Scotland.
LORD FORBES: That is quite correct; and it is intentional, so that, if necessary, they can be followed on to a deer forest if they have come off agricultural land. If the deer were living on a deer forest, the Commission would not go up on to the forest, of course. I believe these two things are quite separate. They can be followed but no one would go after them on a deer forest.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.7 p.m.
VISCOUNT ASTOR VISCOUNT ASTOR moved to add to the clause:
"( ) A person aggrieved by any requirement made under subsection (1) of this section may within six weeks from the date of the service of a notice making that requirement make application to the Secretary of State for the holding of a public inquiry into the circumstances in which any requirement was so made and where such an application is made and not withdrawn the Secretary of State shall cause a public local inquiry to be held.
( ) The provisions of Part III of the Second Schedule to this Act shall apply in relation to any application made under the last foregoing subsection and for the purposes of this subsection the said provisions shall have effect as if for the references in paragraph 10 of the said Schedule to an objection there were substituted references to such application as aforesaid and as if for the reference to paragraphs 4 and 9 of the said Schedule in paragraph 11 thereof there were substituted reference to the last foregoing subsection."
The noble Viscount said: This Amendment seeks to give the occupier of land the power to ask that the Secretary of State should make an inquiry into the way in which these powers have been used. May I give a personal experience? During the war a local agricultural committee made an order requiring me to kill a number of deer—so many stags and so many hinds. They had never been over the ground. They had not the faintest notion of the number of deer, of breeding cycles or of the results which that would have. Had that action been taken it would have ruined a forest for at least eight years.
There was then no procedure by which these war agricultural committees could be checked and made to give their reasons, or the views of the other side be heard. In this case, the opinion of the owner was never asked. Quite "out of the blue" one morning this order arrived. I did my best, but the then Secretary of State said he had no power to require a local inquiry. Eventually, unofficially, a retired inspector from Scotland came and made an unofficial inquiry, which had to be shown, unofficially, to the local agricultural cornmittee—who were extremely annoyed about it. After a certain amount of evidence had been got together, and the unreasonableness of this requirement having been brought out by impartial examination by this inspector, a satisfactory agreement was reached between the two parties.
This Amendment is not intended to hold up action. It does not say that action must be suspended pending an inquiry in such a case, but it does say that an inquiry may be held if it appears that these powers have been unreasonably used; and it would give some guidance on the use of these powers in the future. It would require that both sides should be heard and that the reasons should be published. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 4, at end insert the said subsections.—(Viscount Astor.)
LORD FORBES: The noble Viscount said in one breath that he did not intend to hold up any action, and then went on to say that he proposed that an inquiry should be held. I cannot see how, if an inquiry is to be held, one can still
1188
go ahead with the action, for obviously if there is to be a public inquiry there will be delay and the marauding deer will not be dealt with. Owing to this, I cannot see how we can possibly consider accepting this Amendment, as it would obviously defeat the whole object of a clause to deal with marauding deer. I would ask the noble Viscount to withdraw his Amendment.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: This Amendment was drafted on legal advice so that it would deal with the powers which had been used, not necessarily with the way they were going to be used. The next Amendment, No. 28A, gives a very exceptional power to the Secretary of State to say there must be a prima facie case that these powers should not be used, and to hold them up pending an inquiry. This particular Amendment does not say that there should be delay, but merely that there should be an inquiry into the way these powers have been used, and I do not think that this is an unreasonable thing for which to ask.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: I would agree that that is not an unreasonable thing to ask. But from the way I read the Amendment on the Paper, it seems to me that the only possible interpretation is that placed on it by the noble Lord, Lord Forbes. If we look at the first new subsection we see what is there intended. It states:
"… this section may within six weeks from the date of the service of a notice …"
That seems to me, as a simple layman and one not versed in the law, to entail a delay for six weeks. Whatever the noble Viscount's intentions may be, if that is the interpretation, as it seems to me to be, the Amendment is quite impossible in the circumstances which are envisaged in Clause 6. Might I just say to the noble Viscount that here we are dealing with marauding deer—not with colonised deer or any other kind, but with marauding deer; that is deer that come down (according to the definition as I read it) habitually and do damage to agriculture or to forestry. In these circumstances it seems to me that this particular Amendment is quite unnecessary and uncalled for.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: I am quite prepared to accept that, if it is the view that this Amendment is perhaps badly

1189
drafted. It may be ambiguous and may mean "must be suspended". If the Government would care to redraft it so that there would be no suspension of action, and give the power to have an inquiry as to the way in which the powers have been used ex post facto, I should be very glad to withdraw the Amendment. That is, if I can get an assurance from the noble Lord that he will look into the question of doing that.
LORD FORBES: I will certainly look into it to find out whether we can unravel the meaning of the noble Viscount's Amendment.
LORD WALERAN: May I raise this point before the noble Viscount says what he is about to say regarding his Amendment? My noble friend has several times said that he will look into something. I am not at all sure in my mind, I am sorry to say, whether or not when he says that he means that he will consult with whoever has moved the Amendment in time, so that they can put something down at Report stage if they see fit. If my noble friend said that he would consult with the noble Lord concerned I should be much more happy. I am not sure what the noble Lords, Lord Mathers, Lord Astor and Lord Stratheden and Campbell, feel with regard to that matter. If the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, could assure your Lordships that he will give the noble Lords who have withdrawn Amendments an opportunity for putting down something on Report stage, I should be much happier.
LORD FORBES: I can give an assurance that I will look into these matters and will consult with the necessary parties if I consider it necessary.
LORD WALERAN: May I ask my noble friend Lord Forbes this question? Will he give the parties interested and the movers the time to put an Amendment down on Report stage? I believe that several Amendments have been withdrawn on those grounds, which is the normal practice in your Lordships' House.
LORD FORBES: I can give that assurance.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: Is not the usual procedure for the noble Viscount to put down his Amendment on Report
1190
and for the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, to say whether he has looked into it or not and come to a decision?
VISCOUNT ASTOR: It seems to me clear that the Amendment does not make it clear that there is no intention to hold up action against marauding deer for six weeks and merely gives power to the Secretary of State, if there is a complaint that the powers have been unreasonably used, to make an inquiry afterwards as to whether there has been a reasonable or unreasonable use, with a view to guiding and securing justice in the future. If that principle is accepted I shall be delighted to leave it to the Government to find the most appropriate and legal form of words.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: Surely this proposal is an extremely unusual one. When bodies are entrusted with the exercise of public functions, if they do not carry them out properly their actions can be challenged by an action in the court. The machinery of public inquiry is used for a totally different purpose; it is used when Ministers desire to make regulations of some kind or other. It is for the purpose of enabling the public to make representations about those regulations and for the facts which are relevant to them to be brought out. I do not think that the noble Viscount's proposal is really a suitable one in this case. Surely it is a case for the ordinary action of the law to take effect.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: I can only say, in response to the noble Lord, that during the war, when war agricultural committees had these powers, there was no way to take them to law as regards the use of their powers. Action had to be by getting the Secretary of State administratively to make an inquiry into the doings of his agent. There was no legal power, and that is why this Amendment is put down. If, as I understand, this principle of an ex post facto inquiry into the use of these powers is accepted, I shall be very glad to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: This is really a consequential Amendment; it seeks to give the Secretary of State power to hold up action if he thinks that a really unfair use is being made of these powers. I

1191
was referred to the case when a particular war committee sent down a man with an automatic rifle and a tommy-gun and he killed 100 deer off the forest in two days. If there is an intention of using these powers in that way, there would obviously be a case for the Secretary of State to say, "Stop! This must be looked into", and not to have to say, "I have no powers over the Commission. They are completely independent. Go to them." To have this reserve power, which one hopes would never be used, would be a safeguard against any tyrannical use of this clause.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 4, at end insert—
("( ) If the Secretary of State considers that the appellant has made out a prima facie case for enquiry and that action by the Commission or panel might seriously impair the interests of the appellant, he may direct the Commission or panel to suspend or modify such action pending the hearing of an appeal.") —(Viscount Astor.)
LORD FORBES: The Commission would be set up by the Secretary of State and, he having set up the Commission, I think it would be quite undesirable that he should interfere with its working. I therefore ask the noble Viscount to withdraw his Amendment.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: As the previous Amendment is going to be looked into, I hope that the whole process of appeal will be looked into on the Report stage. On that understanding, I withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7:
Control schemes
7.—(1) Where the Commission are satisfied that red deer have caused serious damage to agriculture or forestry in any locality, and that damage is likely to be continued, they shall consult with such owners or occupiers of land, being land where deer are established, as the Commission consider to be substantially interested, with a view to securing the prevention or mitigation of the damage.
5.30 p.m.
LORD MATHERS: I am again getting down to definitions. The Amendment that I now move asks the Committee to leave out the word "serious," in subsection (1)—when "serious damage" to agriculture or forestry is done. Then, in
1192
the next Amendment I seek to omit another pair of words in the same subsection—the words "or mitigation." I contend that these are undesirable words to import into a Statute. The Commission is to be set up for the purpose of seeing that crafting and farming and forestry interests may be preserved against depredations by deer, and it is desirable, I think, that the doubt which is left in the mind of anyone as to what is "serious" damage should be removed. Similarly, in regard to the use of the words "or mitigation," what is desired is to prevent the damage and to make sure that the interests that are menaced are being properly safeguarded. The dropping of these words from this subsection will strengthen the position and will give a greater guarantee to those who are being prejudicially affected. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 6, leave out ("serious").—(Lord Mathers.)
LORD SALTOUN: I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mathers, as to the word "serious." I think that that merely means that no trifle should be considered. However, I am rather interested in the words "or mitigation." They do not seem to me to strengthen the subsection at all, and I wonder whether my noble friend could explain the necessity of having them in the Bill. If the Commission cannot entirely prevent the damage, they ought at least to try.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: We are back again to the same arguments that were used in relation to the earlier Amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Mathers. I agree that these words are quite unnecessary. Further, I am not sure that, when the Commission are set up, they will like to have these limiting words. It is surely for the Commission to decide the degree of damage necessary to bring their operations into effect. It seems to me that these words may not only lead to litigation but may also lead to considerable ill-feeling. I hope, particularly with regard to the words "or mitigation," with which the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, is concerned, that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill will be able to consider their omission.
LORD GREENHILL: I should like again to support my noble friend Lord

1193
Mathers in this particular Amendment, and for perhaps other reasons. We have disposed of the marauding deer, and we are now dealing with the established deer—and here we are undertaking a very serious project: a project the purpose of which is to reduce, and in some cases exterminate, numbers of deer, in order to maintain (if you like to call it so) the local ecology. In that respect I should like to quote from what I think is a sympathetic article which appeared in last Sunday's Observer. I will quote only part of it. The writer says this:
"Since 1914 deer-stalking has declined and sheep farming and forestry have increased, without any adequate steps being taken to reduce the numbers of deer thus deprived of their natural winter feeding grounds, so that they often compete with sheep for grass and sometimes raid crops."
I have already said that the writer is sympathetic to the Bill, and I had better substantiate that by quoting his final sentence. That is:
"The prime aim of the new Red Deer Commission will be to maintain a reasonable stock of red deer in the Highlands, for the sportsmen, tourists and naturalists, while eliminating or minimising farm damage."
I think that we shall all agree that that is the purpose of this Bill.
When one comes to the language of this Bill and finds words which do not help either the clarity of the clauses or the powers included, it seems that some explanation is due from the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, as to why these unnecessary words are introduced. While we are dealing with these words, let us bear in mind this further point. The Secretary of State for Scotland, under the Act which has so often been quoted, the Agriculture (Scotland) Act, 1948, has the power to get rid of all injurious animals, including deer. Yet in the Third Schedule to this Bill he gives up a portion of that power by saying that he will no longer assume the power that he had under the 1948 Act, but passes it on, presumably to the Commission. It is therefore extremely important, I think, when we are dealing with the very serious power to reduce the stock of deer in this country, in the interests of what presumably is the greater thing—that is, an increased number of sheep—that we should not have words that are unnecessary and supererogatory, and that we should be quite clear that this power will now be entrusted to the Commission and exer-
1194
cised in the interest of the country as a whole.
LORD WINSTER: I wish strongly to support the Amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Mathers. As it happens, during my life I have had a good deal to do, at one time or another, with the framing of orders or of directives, and my experience in that respect has led me to have a strong objection to the introduction of qualifying words into orders or directives. In this instance we have "serious" damage. One could start an argument lasting a week or a fortnight as to whether damage is serious or not. Then there is "the prevention 'or mitigation' of the damage". Again, one could start a very long argument as to whether steps have or have not been taken to mitigate the damage. My humble advice to the Government would be to be simple and direct in these matters, and not to introduce qualifying words which give the impression that perhaps you are rather shy of saying what you really mean. The Bill should use straightforward and plain language, which everybody concerned can clearly understand.
LORD FORBES: Perhaps I may take first the question of the word "serious". This Amendment, as I see it, would leave the Red Deer Commission without an index of the amount of damage which would justify the exercise of their powers to draw up a control scheme. That is why the word "serious" was included. It is not intended that the existence of a very small amount of damage should set in motion the control scheme procedure which, in the interests of those it affects, is fairly detailed. This does not mean, of course, that minor damage can never be remedied by the making of a control scheme. The area covered by a scheme will, in many cases, be large; and within the area minor occurrences of damage will be remedied, as well as the major occurrences which put into motion the control schemes.
I turn to the words "or mitigation". The reason for putting these words into the Bill was to allow the Commission to instigate voluntary action to reduce damage by red deer in cases where there was little hope of its being prevented altogether. I will give an undertaking to look into the word "mitigation" to see whether it can be improved before Report stage.
LORD GREENHILL: In connection with the word "serious", again let us remind ourselves that it is the Commission who have to be satisfied whether a situation is serious or not. None of us here can define "serious" in any precise way, and the only people who can say whether the position warrants the Commission taking action are the members of the Commission. They are to determine whether or not damage is serious, not the terms of this Bill. The word "serious" adds nothing to the Bill.
LORD FORBES: It is also the case that the Commission must have some measure to go by, and that is the word "serious".
LORD GREENHILL: And they determine it.
LORD WINSTER: If the Commission are doing their duty, the first thing they will think about is whether a matter is serious or not.
LORD FORBES: That is a matter of interpretation. As there is a good deal of feeling on this matter, I will certainly look into it.
LORD MATHERS: In view of the undertaking that has been given, which I am afraid I cannot get extended at the present time, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment. I will wait for further happenings in connection with the matter.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Contents of control schemes]
LORD FORBES: Paragraph (c) of Clause 8 (1) at present enables a control scheme to specify, amongst other things, the limit on the number of deer of each sex to be allowed to be established in the control area—that is, the control area as a whole. It contains no power to specify limits for the several separate parcels of land of which the area is comprised.
To place a limit only on the number of red deer which are to remain in the control area as a whole would leave open the question of how this limit is to be maintained. The owners or occupiers will certainly have been asked to kill a specified number of red deer in terms of the first part of Clause 8 (1) (c); but,
1196
with the best will in the world, they will be unable to make their contribution to maintaining the overall limit unless they are also told what specific limit is to apply to their own land. Such a limit is necessary after the initial kill has been made in order to prevent a fresh build up of stocks on any particular land, either naturally or possibly as a result of deer coming in from neighbouring land. I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 40, after ("area") insert ("or any part thereof;").—(Lord Forbes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF HADDINGTON THE EARL OF HADDINGTON moved to add to the clause:
"(3) Nothing contained in any control scheme shall impose an obligation on any owner of land in the control area to fence his land or any part thereof against the movement of red deer."
The noble Earl said: Paragraphs (d) and (f) of subsection (1) specify what must be included in a deer control scheme, and there is considerable concern amongst owners in Scotland that a scheme might have to provide for the erection of deer fencing. It could conceivably direct owners to carry out this work which, at present-day prices, would be an impossible, or certainly a prohibitive, task. I believe that an ordinary stock fence to-day costs in the neighbourhood of 7s. 6d. a yard, and I am informed that a substantial iron deer fence might cost as much as £1 a yard.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: More.
THE EARL OF HADDINGTON: If an owner were directed to put up half a mile of deer fence, it might easily cost £1,000. Such power of direction has been abolished, I understand, by the Agriculture Act, 1958, and it would be wrong to allow it under this Bill. I have no vested interest in this Amendment, but I am speaking on behalf of the Scottish Landowners' Federation, who are sponsoring it. They feel that the matter should be placed beyond any doubt by adding this new subsection. In any case, we feel that control schemes should make deer fencing unnecessary if they are adequately put into effect. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 8, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Earl of Haddington.)
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: May I say that I think the noble Earl was right in his concluding remarks, when he said that any proper control scheme should make deer fencing unnecessary. I have had some little experience. As the noble Earl knows, at my home on the Isle of Seil I had to put up a deer fence against a herd of wild goats. The cost of that fence to-day would be quite prohibitive, even though it was only a matter of 600 or 700 yards around my garden. Alas! most of the goats were murdered during the war by gangsters, who came not from the noble Earl's Island of Mull but from Oban, and that direction, and landed on the north of the Isle of Seil and devastated the herd. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, will be able to accept this Amendment because it would be quite prohibitive, from the landowner's point of view, to put up anything in the nature of a deer fence of several miles.
LORD FORBES: It has never been the intention that the Commission should be empowered to put owners of deer forests to great expense in deer fencing. It seems to be your Lordships' wish that there should be an Amendment on these lines. I would ask your Lordships, however, whether we may look into this matter, as we are not quite convinced that the Amendment, as drafted, covers the point. We will put down an Amendment for Report stage.
THE EARL OF HADDINGTON: I thank the noble Lord, and with that assurance I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 9 [Liability of owners or occupiers under control schemes]:
5.50 p.m.
LORD MATHERS LORD MATHERS moved to add to subsection (2):
"or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to both such fine and imprisonment."
The noble Lord said: I am not naturally a vindictive man, though it might be supposed that I am when this Amendment is read. Its purpose is to add to the possibility of a fine under this subsection for disregarding—defying, I would put it—the orders of the Commission, a term of imprisonment not exceeding three months. It is, I believe,
1198
a serious thing to disobey the requirement of a scheme put forward by the Commission and confirmed by the Secretary of State, and it should be treated as a serious offence and marked by a substantial penalty. A fine of £50 might not deter some of the multi-millionaires who find their way into the Highlands and become the owners or renters of deer forests, but the alternative or additional penalty of a term of imprisonment might give them pause and cause them to mend their ways. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 16, after ("pounds") insert the said words.—(Lord Mathers.)
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: It is remarkable that the noble Lord, Lord Mathers, should assert that he is not vindictive with this Amendment. He is proposing that there should be the possibility of imprisonment, without the option of a fine, for a first civil offence of a comparatively slight character. I do not know that anything more need be said.
LORD FORBES: The penal provisions of this clause are not the only sanction for failure to comply with the requirements of the scheme. Clause 10 goes on to confer default powers on the Commission, and Clause 11 enables the Commission to recover from the person in default the expenditure incurred in carrying out such a job. In those circumstances, a penalty of £50 seems a sufficiently heavy punishment for failure to comply, without the alternative or additional penalty of imprisonment. I aim surprised to hear that word come from the noble Lord on the Benches opposite. I might point out that it is a heavier punishment than penalties provided for by other Acts for a similar offence. I hope the noble Lord will withdraw the Amendment.
LORD GREENHILL: I want to support my noble friend Lord Mathers, in view of the attack made upon him. Anyone who knows my noble friend knows that he is the kindliest of men, and if he is asking for a term of imprisonment for these people who break the law, let us see what it is that he is asking. The Bill lays down that it shall be the duty of every owner or occupier of land to take notice of the scheme, and it is only when that owner or occupier wilfully

1199
refuses to obey the law that my noble friend thinks he ought to be gaoled. However, if he is willing to withdraw the Amendment, I certainly shall not object.
LORD MATHERS: I observe that there is no sympathy for this punitive Amendment, and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11:
Recovery of expenses incurred under section 10
(3) Nothing in the foregoing provisions of this section shall preclude the Commission, with the approval of the Secretary of State, from waiving the right to recover expenses incurred as aforesaid in any particular case.
LORD FORBES: This is a purely drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 30, leave out ("and") and insert ("or").—(Lord Forbes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MATHERS: I do not think that even the Commission should have the opportunity of failing to recover expenses which, in their view, have been rightly incurred. Notwithstanding the fact that it is provided that the waiving of expenses must have the approval of the Secretary of State, I think that the Act which will emerge from this Bill would be stronger if this subsection were deleted. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 40, leave out subsection (3).— (Lord Mathers.)
LORD FORBES: The deletion of this subsection would leave the Commission with no option but to attempt recovery in every case, regardless of circumstances. It is, however, likely that there will be circumstances in which recovery would be quite unfair. Defaulters may not always be culpable. For example, the control scheme might require the extermination of deer which had colonised on agricultural land, and the owners or occupiers required to carry out the extermination, although anxious to rid their land of deer, might not be able to do so, either from lack of skill or lack of suitable weapons. It is therefore essential, in our view, that the Commission
1200
should have some discretion in the recovery of default costs. I hope that with that explanation the noble Lord will be able to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD MATHERS: The sanction must be endorsed by the Secretary of State. It is not a matter only for the Commission, but must have the approval of the Secretary of State.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12:
Power of Commission to provide services and equipment
12. The Commission may by agreement with any owner or occupier of land—

(a) assist in or undertake, whether in pursuance of a control scheme or otherwise, the taking or killing of red deer and the disposal of such deer or their carcases;

(b) provide any equipment necessary for the carrying out of such an agreement;

and the agreement may make provision for the payment of any expenses incurred by the Commission under the agreement.
LORD MATHERS LORD MATHERS moved to omit the second word "may" and to substitute "shall". The noble Lord said: To me there seems no good reason why the occupier of land which is overstocked with deer and which the occupier has failed to clear should be relieved of the expense of clearing that land. I hope your Lordships will agree with that and will give effect to this Amendment, which provides that it should not be merely a question of "may", but "shall" make provision for the payment of expenses. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 14, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall")—(Lord Mathers.)
LORD FORBES: As the clause stands, an agreement may provide for payment of any expenses incurred by the Commission, but the Amendment would require that payment shall be provided for in every case. The circumstances in which an agreement would be entered into would vary considerably. The owner of a deer forest might wish to avail himself of the expert services of the Commission to make a first-class job of culling deer from the herds on his land. In such a case, payment of the Commission's expenses would clearly be appropriate. But an agricultural tenant on whose holding deer had established themselves through no

1201
fault of his might also come to the Commission for help in killing off some of the deer, or an owner of colonised land might do the same. The Commission might think it unwarranted to require payment of their expenses in either of these cases. It is because such cases may arise that the clause leaves it to the Commission to decide whether to require payment of their expenses or not, and it would be clearly unsound to tie their hands over this matter. I cannot accept the Amendment.
LORD MATHERS: I accept the argument of the Minister and beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clauses 13 and 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 [Entry on land]:
VISCOUNT ASTOR VISCOUNT ASTOR moved in subsection (3), to leave out all words from "right" to the end of the proviso, and to insert instead:
"notice has been given to the owner and occupier of the land that it is proposed to enter during a period, specified in the notice, not exceeding fourteen days and beginning at least fourteen days after the giving of the notice and the entry is made on the land daring the period specified in the notice."
The noble Viscount said: Under the clause as drafted, fourteen days' notice has to be given before entry is made on the land, but those two weeks' notice will allow for the entry to be made at any time in the indefinite future. My Amendment is that it should be a longer notice, and that when you give notice of entry you should exercise it within a reasonable time, which I suggest should be fourteen days. If for any reason that is not sufficient, it is perfectly possible to make an extension. But if you give this unlimited notice it makes it hard on the forest owner, especially during the stalking season, if he never knows when the entry is going to be made. For that purely practical reason I hope this Amendment may appeal to the Government. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 40, leave out from ("unless") to the end of line 5 on page 7 and insert the said words.—(Viscount Astor.)
LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL: I think there is substance in this, because the clause as it stands would give
1202
a long period of uncertainty, especially during the actual stalking and shooting seasons. I hope my noble friend Lord Forbes will be able to give us some assurance.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: I would support this Amendment. I think it is a reasonable one.
LORD FORBES: I cannot accept the Amendment as it stands, but I will give an undertaking to look into this matter with the interested parties before the Report stage.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clause 16 [Service of notices]:
VISCOUNT ASTOR: This Amendment deals with the case of the absentee landlord or absentee occupier in order that his factor or agent may act as his substitute. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 16, at end insert ("or (b) if that person is the owner or occupier of land if it is served on the agent of the owner or occupier").—(Viscount Astor.)
LORD FORBES: Again, I will give an assurance that I will look into this question of whether a notice served on the agent is a notice served on the owner.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 16 and 17 agreed to.
Clause 18:
Financial provisions
18.—(1) The expenses of the Commission shall be defrayed by the Secretary of State, and any sums received by them shall be paid to the Secretary of State.
(2) All expenses incurred by the Secretary of State under the provisions of this Act shall be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament, and any sums received by him under the provisions of the last foregoing subsection shall be paid into the Exchequer.
6.6 p.m.
LORD MATHERS LORD MATHERS moved, in subsection (2), to omit all words after the first "the", and to insert instead:
"Commission which shall have power to impose an assessment for the purpose of this Act, to be called the red deer assessment, on all deer forests according to the yearly value

1203
of such deer forest as entered in the valuation roll and such deer forests assessment may be imposed, collected and recovered by the Commission."
The noble Lord said: I enter a new phase of affairs in putting forward this Amendment. I have no wish to incur enmity between landlords in the south of Scotland, which I know, and landlords in the Highlands, but I take leave to point out that the landlords in the south of Scotland, who have salmon in the rivers which run through their land, have upon them an obligation to make a contribution towards the protection of their salmon rights. It is, I consider, a proper charge to make upon the owners and occupiers of deer forests that they should be called upon to make a contribution and submit to an assessment of their liability, in order that the expense of carrying out the functions of the Commission should not fall upon public funds. That is the intention of this Amendment. The Commission should have power to impose this assessment. Section 23 of the Salmon Fisheries Act, 1862, deals with this point quite definitely. It empowers the district board to recover the assessment, and places great powers in the hands of the district board to make sure that that assessment is enforced. It seems to me that what is good for the fish owners in the south of Scotland should be good for the deer owners in the Highlands of Scotland. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 40, leave out from ("the") to the end of line 46 and insert the said new words.—(Lord Mathers.)
LORD FORBES: This is clearly a question of determining who is going to foot the bill, and, surely, if we are going to consider that we should consider who is going to derive the benefit from it. The Commission's functions are to further the conservation and control of red deer, and the benefits of their activities will accrue not only to the forest owners but also to agriculture, forestry and, of course, to the general public, whose national heritage the wild animals are. The immediate effect of the provision of this Bill will indeed be the reduction of the numbers of red deer in areas where they are in conflict with agriculture and forestry, and the immediate benefit will therefore accrue almost entirely to the farmers and foresters and the taxpayers. The only
1204
fair way of meeting the cost is to recognise that red deer are a national asset, and to provide for the expenses of the Commission from the Exchequer. I hope that, with that explanation, the noble Lord will see his way to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD GREENHILL: I quite agree that the red deer is a national asset and that there should be control and conservation. But what are we dealing with here? We are dealing here with this business of control, which means reducing the stock of deer to a number that will be beneficial both to the farmer and to the deer forest owner. If the deer available to be shot at are fewer in number, as they will be under this Bill, it means that the value of the deer forest will be considerably greater because the opportunities for the sport of deer-stalking will be so much less available under a smaller stock of deer and there will be better deer. In the circumstances, the deer forest owner will benefit financially from this process of controlling deer. For that reason, I think that my noble friend's Amendment ought to be adopted.
LORD FORBES: I cannot agree with that argument at all. Is the noble Lord aware that when you take a deer forest the rent you pay is usually based on the number of stags you expect to get?
LORD GREENHILL:Yes.
LORD FORBES: If there are fewer stags, you will pay a smaller rent.
LORD GREENHILL: It depends largely on the quality of stock in the forest. If, for example, as now happens, the general level of quality is lower than it ought to be, because there are too many stags for the amount of food available, I think you will be improving very considerably the remaining stock of stags, and could therefore demand a much higher rent for your forest.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: I am afraid that the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, has little practical knowledge of the economics of deer forests. I am afraid that the course he suggests would not cause the amount of rent for any forest to rise by even a five-pound note; in fact, it is more likely that the rents of the forests will go down, because, with the control of deer, a great many of the forests will have their numbers so reduced that the number of stags to be

1205
shot each year will be considerably diminished.
LORD SALTOUN: In addition to what my noble friend Lord Mansfield has said, the parallel drawn by Lord Mathers in regard to salmon fishery is not very exact, because that leads to the improvement of the property of every river owner. I do not agree with Lord Greenhill that it will improve—
LORD GREENHILL: In the intimacy of your Lordships' House one can risk saying that a number of deer forests have in recent years been diverted from their identity as deer forests and have become sheep farms. No one, I hope, is going to suggest that there is no scarcity value attached to the remaining deer forests; and the same thing applies to the scarcity value under this arrangement of control.
LORD SALTOUN: The noble Lord knows that it is far better to shoot deer on a sheep farm than it is to shoot deer in a deer forest.
LORD FERRIER: I cannot quite see the comparison between salmon fishing and red deer. This Bill is dealing with agriculture and forestry as a whole, and salmon fishing does not involve either agriculture or forestry. Would it not be more prudent to approach it from the angle that in this case this is an arrangement which is acceptable to all these interests and, as such, should best be left alone?
LORD BROCKET: Perhaps I may ask a question. Are we entitled to suggest that the Commission shall have power to impose assessments for the raising of money?
LORD FORBES: The answer to that is, Yes.
LORD MATHERS: I am working on the assumption that a rent is paid for a deer forest when it is let for shooting purposes. It seems to me that if there is a body seeking to improve the position so far as deer stocks are concerned, and yet looking after the interests of agriculture in the area damaged by deer stocks in which a proprietary interest is claimed by those who own or rent the deer forest, it is not an unfair thing to ask that they should meet the cost of financing these functions. I used the analogy, believing
1206
that it was a proper analogy, of the payments made by salmon fishing interests in the south of Scotland. I must place upon your Lordships who object to my point of view the responsibility of turning down this Amendment; I am not prepared to withdraw it.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clause 20:
Close seasons
20.—(1) No person shall take or wilfully kill any stag, being a red deer, during the period commencing on the twenty-first day of October and ending on the thirtieth day of June or any hind, being a red deer, during the period commencing on the sixteenth day of February and ending on the twentieth clay of October.
LORD FORBES: Perhaps for the convenience of the House we could take Amendments Nos. 43, 46 and 47 together.
THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD AILWYN): I have to take each Amendment separately.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: If it is convenient to the Committee, I should like to move Amendment No. 43 with Amendment No. 46. Therefore, I should like to withdraw Amendment No. 43 for the moment.
LORD SALTOUN: We cannot pass Clause 20 now if we are to be asked to amend it later on. If at this point the noble Duke withdraws his Amendment to Clause 20, how is he going to be in a position to argue it when he comes to Clause 21, because we shall then have already passed Clause 20? I think he will have to speak on both Amendments now.
LORD AILWYN: What I meant was that each clause has to be moved separately, but all three Amendments can be discussed together. I am sorry if I misled the noble Duke.
6.18 p.m.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL THE DUKE OF ATHOLL moved, in subsection (1), after "October," where that word first occurs to insert:
", and in the case of any buck, being a fallow deer, commencing on the seventh day of November,"
The noble Duke said: It is with great nervousness that I rise to address your Lordships for the first time, and I would

1207
ask your Lordships to overlook any points of procedure in which I may go wrong—which no doubt you have already had to do. As a beginning, perhaps I should explain that cervus (dama) dama, as they are called in Amendment No. 46, are in fact more usually known as fallow deer. The object of the Amendment which my noble friend Lord Kinnaird and I have tabled is to give fallow deer a close season, the dates of which, of course, will have to be varied slightly from those of red deer, but which in all other respects will give them the same protection as red deer. I feel that straight away I should declare that I have some interest in this matter, as on our estate in Scotland we have one of the few remaining herds of wild fallow deer—in fact, I think there are probably only one or two other genuinely wild herds of fallow deer in Scotland.
We believe that they should receive the protection of a close season for three reasons: first, because this Bill was primarily designed to stop the growing cruelty attached to the indiscriminate shooting of deer in the Highlands of Scotland—and I am sure that your Lordships will agree that a fallow deer fawn which is left motherless in June or July is just as pathetic and incapable of fending for itself as a red deer calf. Secondly, I feel that it is economically unsound to allow anyone to kill fallow does between the months of February and July and fallow bucks between the middle of November and July. As most of your Lordships probably realise, a deer is in its best condition after it has had the summer grazing inside it, and therefore fallow deer are worth more, from the point of the meat and the taste, from the months of August to October. Thirdly, I feel that an overriding consideration in favour of a close season for fallow deer, one which does not apply to any other species of deer so far mentioned in this Bill, is that the fallow deer is, I believe, much more rare than either the red or the roe deer.
It has been stated in your Lordships' House that the red deer population of Scotland is over 100,000, and while I have been unable to obtain any accurate figure for fallow deer, it seems to be more or less accepted that their population is about 1,000 and certainly not more than 1,500. In a book entitled A Field Guide
1208
to British Deer which was published last year, its authors made some attempt to assess the situation. In only three counties in Scotland—Dunbartonshire, Dumfriesshire and Perthshire—do they classify fallow deer as being present in fair numbers. I have reason to know that the herd in Perthshire is approximately 300 strong. It is very difficult to judge numbers of fallow deer, because, unlike red deer, they are not found in such open country that one can spy an enormous number of them from the top of one hill. It seems very unlikely, therefore, that there are more than 1,500 fallow deer in the whole of Scotland.
My noble friend, Lord Kinnaird, and I, consider, therefore, that, on grounds of rarity alone, fallow deer should be given every protection of which the law is capable. It is a surprising facet of the business done in your Lordships' House and in another place that whereas nearly every bird which is at all rare, even those as destructive as the hen harrier, is given full protection, the law gives no protection at all to our rare mammals. If your Lordships are prepared to agree that the fallow deer should have some form of close season, I think it is only logical that protection for the fallow buck should start about November 7. His rutting season is approximately two to three weeks later than that of the red deer, so if it is felt that the close season for red deer should start from October 21 it is logical that that for fallow buck should start about November 7.
It is for these reasons that my noble friend and I are asking your Lordships to include fallow deer in the close season provisions of the Bill. I should like to point out, if any of your Lordships are worried about control of deer, as I am, that it should not prove too formidable a task to keep in check the small number of fallow deer concerned, during the period when it would be legal to shoot them. I would therefore ask your Lordships to approve this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 8, after ("October") insert the said words.—(The Duke of Atholl.)
LORD KINNAIRD: As this is the first occasion on which my noble friend, the Duke of Atholl, has spoken in your Lordships' House, although in a sense it is not a maiden speech, I am sure your

1209
Lordships will allow me to say a word on how delighted we are to hear his voice here, not only for himself—though your Lordships will have been very impressed by the clear way in which he put his arguments on fallow deer before your Lordships—but also because we welcome him to this House as a recently elected Representative Peer of Scotland. We hope he will often be able to attend our Sittings (as we believe he will) and join in the affairs and take part in the debates in your Lordships' House.
I would only add that while not myself being in forest country, I, like all of us, am intensely interested in the preservation of the fallow deer. As the noble Duke has pointed out, they are comparatively rare and in danger of being exterminated. The fact that they are not mentioned in this Bill is a serious point, because there is, in my opinion, some misunderstanding in the country about the object of the Bill. It is largely held that it is to deal with red deer, and red deer only. The first part of the Bill deals with red deer, of course, but I believe that if the name of the fallow deer is not mentioned in the Bill, when the Bill becomes law a great many people in the country, poachers and others, will say that fallow deer are not included in the Bill and that nobody cares what is to happen to them, and that they are "fair game." So that when and if this Bill becomes law and there is danger in killing red deer, the fallow deer are likely to attract the attention of those people much more and these deer will be in considerably more danger than they are to-day.
I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord, the Minister, will be able to agree to what the noble Duke is asking, and will at least have the name of fallow deer mentioned, so that people cannot say that fallow deer are "fair game" as the Bill does not cover them. On Second Reading, the noble Earls, Lord Haddington and Lord Mansfield, and to-day the noble Duke, the Duke of Atholl, have spoken of a close season; and I believe that not only we in this House but all the people of this country would be very disappointed, for humane reasons, if fallow deer were not included in a close season. I believe the noble Duke has made very clear that it is only right that they should be included in the close season provisions, and I heartily agree with what he has said.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: I should like to congratulate the noble Duke—the Chief of my Clan and head of my family—on speaking so soon after his election to your Lordships' House. All your Lordships will be aware that on the death of his predecessor his family lost the whole of their titles which entitled them to sit in your Lordships' House, and it is, therefore, pleasurable indeed that at a comparatively early age the noble Duke should have sought election to the ranks of Scottish Peers and that they should so readily have admitted him. I know that your Lordships will find his subsequent speeches, on many other subjects besides deer, of great value.
At the same time, in a very few words I want to support the inclusion of this provision for fallow deer in the Bill. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, will accept this Amendment. It seems to me that if he does not do so the position of fallow deer is going to be in rather a mess from the point of view of the Bill, as this particular Amendment deals only with the buck, and I, myself, have down a subsequent Amendment to an Amendment by the noble Earl, Lord Haddington, who is moving a new clause. If the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, is willing to accept this Amendment, I would suggest that he should take suitable measures in the appropriate clause to have both male and female fallow deer protected, in which case I would not move my Amendment to the new clause to be moved by the noble Earl, Lord Haddington.
6.30 p.m.
THE EARL OF HADDINGTON: I am informed that it might be convenient if I spoke now on my Amendment No. 47. Before doing so, may I add my congratulations to those expressed by other noble Lords to my fellow-countryman on his excellent maiden speech. It seems only a few weeks ago that I was taking part in the election of a Scottish Representative Peer to take the place of the late Lord Sinclair. I hope your Lordships feel that our choice in electing the noble Duke has been fully justified by his maiden speech to-day, and I hope that we may have many more speeches from him.
I come now to my Amendment. Its object is to introduce a close season for roe deer which, as I pointed out in the

1211
Second Reading of the Bill, is at present omitted. I say again, as I said then, that it seems illogical to me that a Bill which concerns all species of deer, as this one does, should allow a close season for red deer and not for our other Scottish native deer, the roe. I do not want to tie the Minister to his words, but I feel compelled just to remind him of what he said in the Second Reading of this Bill. He said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 212 (No. 10), col. 561]:
"Thus, the purpose of this Bill is to deal with the deer problem in Scotland as a whole. We are not, therefore, reintroducing the 1952 Bill with modifications. This is not only a new but also a comprehensive approach, designed to deal with all problems relating to deer, especially red deer."
I know that Part II of the Bill concerns the illegal killing and taking of all forms of deer, but it is clear that roe deer can do quite a lot of damage to crops and trees. I know that only too well, as one of my great interests in life is forestry. Nevertheless, there are plenty of months in the year when the roe deer can be controlled. It is on the score not only of humanity but of the preservation of our native fauna—which I feel these days is so likely to die out, in view of the way towns are increasing, and buildings and works are extending all over the country—that I appeal to the noble Lord and to your Lordships to allow more preservation of our native fauna and protection during the breeding season, so that deer shall not be killed while they are carrying their young. Until the young are old enough to exist without their mothers, the does should not be killed.
In our State forests in Scotland there has been for many years an unofficial close season for roe deer. And I have been informed (I have taken great trouble to find out about this from the Forestry Commission in Scotland) that it is very strictly kept, and only occasionally, when roe deer have trespassed on to properties and done a lot of damage to trees, have they been shot. Otherwise it is very scrupulously kept. I only want to bring Scotland into line with most other European countries which the roe deer inhabit and where they are well respected. My Amendment refers only to the female, because, of course, the roe deer, being a woodland animal, does not require the
1212
same protection as the red deer stags in the winter. They can get plenty to eat all the year round.
The dates in my Amendment, from the middle of March to the end of September, are those recommended by the Nature Conservancy in Scotland. I asked them to recommend me the dates, and that is what they say. These dates could, I suppose, be adjusted and the period shortened, if necessary. I have also been advised that it is better to deal with roe in a new clause in a separate part of the Bill, since Clause 20 comes in Part I of the Bill, which deals solely with red deer, while Part II concerns the illegal killing of all forms of deer. If the noble Lord will accept my Amendment, when we come to it—and I hope that he will be sympathetic to it—then it would come into operation one month after the passing of this Bill, as is provided for in Clause 36 (3).
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY: I am sorry for once to be differing from my noble friend Lord Haddington in bringing forward and seeking to add this particular clause to the Bill under discussion to-day. I think it has been mentioned before that the recommendations of the agreements in connection with red deer are the result of discussions over several years between people of opposite points of view and assistance by the Nature Conservancy. I submit that it is unwise to bring in at the last moment, and without any consultations beforehand, new proposals of a different kind.
The noble Earl and I have been closely concerned with the discussions during recent years, and I was not aware that there had been any mention by the noble Earl beforehand of his desire to bring in this new clause. I am sure that, from humane motives, we all favour the principle and practice of avoiding injury to does during the breeding period; but I suggest also that it is unwise to bring in new legislation, especially if there is an element of restriction and control, unless it is shown to be necessary. I submit that we have no evidence to justify that there is cruelty to does during the breeding season and that it is necessary to do more for them by legislation.
There are, clearly, differing opinions as to the most appropriate dates for a close season. Within the last few days, as a

1213
result of inquiries which I have made from people very experienced about roe deer, I have received seven different suggestions for the close season, varying from three months to seven months, with opening dates varying from March 1 to May 1, and with closing dates varying from July 31 to September 30. The noble Earl referred to the close season practised by the Forestry Commission, and I think it is fair and wise to point out that Scottish landowners and woodland owners themselves also practise this avoidance of killing of roe deer during the same period, and I think probably also for longer periods. The noble Earl suggests a close season of six and a half months. He is probably aware, from his conversations with the Forestry Commission, that their period at present is usually three months—May, June, July. He therefore wishes to extend the period by three and half months.
THE EARL OF HADDINGTON: I believe that the Forestry Commission's close season for roe is the same as the close season they apply to red deer.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY: I am speaking only of what is practised in my conservancy, which I inquired about yesterday. The noble Earl mentioned that the Nature Conservancy had given dates also of six and a half months. I inquired of them yesterday about that point, and they agree that, if we were to have a close season for roe deer, which they are not recommending, those would be appropriate months. But they also say that they have not discussed this question with other people; and, of course, there may be many different points of view as to what would be the best dates. I am not saying this to argue, but merely to point out that there is an element of controversy, and that there are different points of view on this matter, as on others, and also on whether the buck ought to be included during this period. I feel that, before a request is made to Parliament to bring in a new law, there should be an opportunity for discussion among those who are most concerned with roe deer, including the Nature Conservancy and representatives of forestry, in an endeavour to reach some agreement.
There are one or two other points of interest which might be mentioned show-
1214
ing the difference between the roe deer and the red deer. The roe deer have not been subject to, and are not readily accessible to, the attentions of poachers. I expect that poaching is very rare among roe deer: they look after themselves very well. They are very difficult to kill, and it is quite a costly matter to kill them. Nor are they preserved for sport, to be shot by the rich. I am not aware of any publicly-stated cases of cruelty or of unnecessary suffering having been inflicted upon them.
I should like also to say a few words about roe deer and trees. I would not wish to over-state or to minimise the damage which is done by roe deer to trees, but I expect my experience is much the same as that of other persons. In a forest area of about 6,000 acres we normally have a population of about sixty roe deer. I think that about twenty-four are killed each year, and the population remains much about the same. My forester estimates that the damage done to trees annually is about 1,500 destroyed. I think that is probably an overstatement, and that about 800 or 900 is more likely to be the number.
The damage to trees is mainly among larch, Douglas fir, oak, and beech. It will be readily understood by those who go in for big plantations with many species that if the oak, especially, and also the beech, are destroyed in any quantity in those big plantations the effect on forestry is quite serious. I would say that persons who work in woods see more of roe deer and of their habits than anyone, and I think they are very sympathetic to roe deer and love them as much as anyone who is humane towards them. I think that representatives of forestry would probably like to have a say in any proposals for a close season for roe deer, and I believe that they would be very fair in what they advised. I submit, therefore, that there are reasons for thinking that it would be wise to have consultations before an Act is passed providing for a close season for roe deer.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I hesitate to intrude into this conflict between my two noble friends, the Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry and Lord Haddington. They have both stated their arguments so admirably before the House that I do not propose to repeat them. All I would say is that if this is one of those matters which

1215
can be reconsidered before the Report stage I should be very glad to see it reconsidered, because I think that the arguments put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Haddington, deserve the most serious consideration. The only other point I want to make is that I hope very sincerely that the arguments put forward by the noble Duke, the Chief of my Clan, and the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, as regards the inclusion of fallow deer in this Bill will be very seriously considered by the Government. I hope that the Government will consider this matter favourably, because I think that, in the interests of fallow deer in Scotland, they should appear by name in this Bill.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: Despite all that the noble Duke has said, I must agree with my noble friend Lord Haddington that there is definitely a case made out for a close season for female roe deer, although I should not have said of six and a half months. It is really repugnant that pregnant doe, or doe suckling their young, should be killed. I hope, therefore, that Her Majesty's Government will at least offer some form of close season for this species.
6.45 p.m.
LORD FORBES: May I first of all congratulate the noble Duke for putting his Amendments so clearly? May I also say that I fully appreciate the humane reasons that have prompted all these Amendments. Roe and fallow deer differ from red deer in many respects—in distribution, in habit, and in their impact on human enterprises. What is more important, they differ in the methods required to control them. What noble Lords have proposed is a straightforward close season for roe and fallow deer. Here I should like to say that we simply do not know whether close seasons for roe and fallow will work without the provisions of a control scheme. What we do know is that they will not work for red deer without control. Consequently, close seasons for roe and fallow deer might lead us into extending beyond red deer the functions of the Commission which this Bill proposes to establish. There is a practical reason for not extending the Red Deer Commission's functions in this way. The red deer problem facing the Commission will challenge their skill and their energies
1216
for several years, and any addition to their responsibilities will inevitably delay the urgent remedies called for in areas where red deer are causing recurring damage to agriculture and forestry.
There are two other practical points that I should like to mention. The first is that roe deer do their best to ensure a close season for themselves in summer by lying in the thick undergrowth, where they are very hard to get at. The second is that it is not clear that any great number of people would be affected by a close season for roe deer. The farmer and forester would not be affected, because they are allowed by the Agriculture Act to kill deer by day on enclosed farm land and woodland. The poacher also would not be affected, since if he breaks the law by poaching anyway he is not likely to pay much attention to close seasons. So the only persons affected would be those who have a legal right to shoot roe deer on open land. As I have said, the Government—and I myself—fully appreciate the humane motives behind these Amendments, but I would ask your Lordships, in view of what the noble Duke has said, not to agree to this Amendment, since to introduce roe deer and fallow deer into this Bill will merely complicate it very much. The next thing will be that we shall be asked to include a close season for wild goats! I would ask the noble Lord to withdraw this Amendment.
THE EARL OF HADDINGTON: Let me say at once that I never had any intention of pressing my Amendment to a Division, but I am very disappointed at the reply of the noble Lord. All I want to do is to have a straight close season for roe deer. It is for that reason that I had this Amendment drafted as a separate clause of the Bill—so that it should not be under the control of the Commission or of anybody else, but should provide for a straight close season for roe deer. There is a very strong feeling in Scotland that, when you have got a Deer (Scotland) Bill, which is supposed to embrace all forms of deer, to exclude the roe deer seems quite fantastic and illogical. However, as I say, I do not wish to press the matter. But would the noble Lord possibly consider introducing on the Report stage a clause which would enable the Secretary of State to introduce a close season for roe

1217
by statutory instrument—in other words, that it should be obligatory on the Secretary of State to impose a close season for roe deer, after he has been into the whole question and consulted all the interested parties, as the noble Duke wants? Would the noble Lord consider this?
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY: Before my noble friend replies, may I ask the noble Earl if he has consulted the Nature Conservancy about the proposal, and if he has evidence of cruelty to does and the killing of does during the summer months?
THE EARL OF HADDINGTON: I have consulted the Nature Conservancy about the dates for the close season.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY: What was their reply?
THE EARL OF HADDINGTON: They suggested from the middle of March to the end of September.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY: Did they reply whether they were in favour or not?
THE EARL OF HADDINGTON: I never asked them that. What was the other question the noble Duke asked?
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY: Have you evidence of cruelty to and the killing of does during the summer?
THE EARL OF HADDINGTON: In common decency we should not kill an animal when carrying its young, or when the young are not able to fend for themselves.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY: Is there any evidence of that?
THE EARL OF HADDINGTON: It often happens.
LORD OGMORE: This has nothing to do with me except as a Member of your Lordships' House, but if the noble Earl feels strongly about the matter and it is important, why does he not press it to a Division?
THE EARL OF HADDINGTON: I do not want to do anything to impede the course of this Bill. I have undertaken not to press this matter to a Division,
1218
and if the noble Lord will meet me by trying to introduce on Report stage something on the lines I have mentioned, I shall be only too pleased not to move my Amendment this evening.
LORD FORBES: I note the noble Earl's views on this question of a close season for roe and fallow deer. I am sorry that I am unable to accept the Amendments on the Order Paper. In this Bill we have proceeded with the general agreement of all interests concerned, and I think that we should have to take these interests with us in examining the Amendments now under discussion. I should like further time to consider their implications, and I hope that noble Lords will be willing not to persist in the Amendments, on my assurance that the Government will give them very careful consideration.
THE EARL OF HADDINGTON: On that assurance, I shall be pleased not to move my Amendment.
LORD KINNAIRD: May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, whether he would consider naming the fallow deer as being included?
LORD FORBES: I have given an undertaking to consider both fallow deer and roe deer.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: With that assurance from my noble friend Lord Forbes, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
House resumed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
6.54 p.m.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, it might be convenient if I were to inform your Lordships that it is intended to continue the discussion on the Committee stage of the Deer (Scotland) Bill on Wednesday next.

NORTH OF SCOTLAND ELECTRICITY ORDER CON- FIRMATION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936), deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.

ARMED FORCES (HOUSING LOANS) BILL
6.55 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (THE EARL OF SELKIRK): My Lords, this Bill is a further extension of the 1949 Act. That Act has already been extended in 1953 and the present Bill extends the period of operation from 1960 to 1965. Further legislation is necessary because when the current Act expires the Services will still need, for at least a further five-year period, to build quarters at a higher rate than could readily be financed from normal Works Votes.
It is necessary to introduce the Bill now because building operations now being undertaken or planned might extend beyond the end of the next financial year. The purpose of these Acts is to enable houses to be provided for married Service men in Great Britain from loans. It is thus possible to provide houses without making full provision for a capital development of this character from current revenue. This puts the Service man as nearly as possible in the same position as the civilian in respect of provision of housing.
The original Act of 1949 provided for loans up to the value of £40 million. Since then the amount of loans which can be made has been increased from £40 million to £75 million. As I see it, by the end of March, 1960, approximately £67 million counting against the loan allocation will have been spent and 24,500 quarters will have been provided. Over and above this, some 7,900 houses have been built out of Service Works Votes, bringing the total provision since the war to 32,400. If we add up all the married quarters now existing in the United Kingdom, we find a total of about 57,000.
Before presenting this Bill it was desirable to estimate broadly what our future requirements would be. The reshaping of our Forces has necessarily raised new problems. In some places, there are houses which will not be required, and in other places further provision will become necessary. Moreover, with an all-Regular Force it is likely that the ratio of married men will be higher than it is at the present time.
1220
We have estimated, however, that between 1960 and 1965 we shall require to build from the loan, over and above the numbers then existing, at least 11,500 houses costing about £28 million. This figure is covered by the Bill, which will permit an increase in the total loan to the figure of £95 million by the year 1965. This is, of course, a financial measure to make it easier for the Services to find money to build houses. But I should say that it in no way involves relaxation of Parliamentary or Treasury control over the way this money is expended, and the proposed annual loans will be presented in the appropriate Votes in the Service Estimates, so that the control and scrutiny of this expenditure is on exactly the same basis as though the houses had been built under normal Services Works Votes.
Clause 2 of the Bill deals with the financial aspect arising from the sale of Service quarters. In the original Act, repayment could be made only by sixty equal instalments of interest and capital combined. Up till now, of course, the question of sale has not arisen, but now, as I have said, this will arise in some cases.
The proposal in this clause is, I think, a common-sense solution, by which the proceeds of sale of a house go to pay off the capital debt incurred for its building. The full amount of the sale price will go towards paying off the debt and the interest on it, whether the sale price is more or less than the original cost of the house.
I think it is fair to say that these Acts have been of great benefit to the Services in the provision of quarters, and I commend this further Bill to the House as offering a valuable addition to improving the general conditions of Service life. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
7.0 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, has explained the objects of the Bill. As I understand them, they are, first, to extend for a further five years the powers under the 1949 Act, and secondly, to increase to a total amount of £95 million the sums authorised under the 1949 and 1953 Acts. The Bill also facilitates the transfer of

1221
premises if they are unwanted by the Services for their own purposes.
The noble Earl has, I think, hinted, though not in any detail, that the original Bill was introduced by the Labour Government, and my noble Leader Lord Alexander of Hillsborough had a good deal to do with it. It has been found most useful, because previous to 1949 married quarters for Servicemen in the United Kingdom had to be provided out of current revenue. That is an example of the curious system under which Government finance in this country so often operates; nobody else in his senses would think of trying to provide capital expenditure of this nature out of fluctuating and current income. Thus the Labour Government, among the many contributions they made to the national welfare, also made this one, under which in future the Services were able to provide out of capital, to be treated as capital, sums for the building of Service accommodation, mainly including married quarters.
Under the original Act, as extended by the Act of 1953, it is anticipated that when the Act runs out in March, 1960, 24,500 quarters will have been provided and £67 million will have been spent. This is £8 million less than the sums available under the existing Acts. The Bill asks for £20 million more. What we should like to know to-night is why the Government feel that they cannot spend the £8 million which is available to them, in addition to the other money they are going to spend up to March, 1960. It is very odd in these days, when there is a long queue of people demanding more money, whether in the Services or outside, whether nationalised industries or private enterprise, that here we have the Services who say they cannot spend the money, and cannot spend it on such a good cause as married quarters for Servicemen. I do not think we should allow this Bill to go through without some explanation of that.
Those of your Lordships who may know but a little of this subject may ask: Is there any need? Alas! as most of us know, the need is there, and it is a pressing need. This has been brought home to us by the Grigg Report. We shall be discussing that Report on December 15 on a Motion standing in my name on the Paper, and also the somewhat elusive reply made to the Report by the Govern-
1222
ment. I think it would be regarded by your Lordships as in order and appropriate if to-night I briefly mention what the Grigg Report found with reference to married quarters in the Services. In paragraph 272 of their Report they say:
"Too much of present accommodation, both married and single, is nothing short of scandalous. The Services have an immense task if they are within a reasonable time to get everybody into buildings which come up to decent minimum standards; but this they must do if recruiting is not to fall. We doubt whether it will be practicable to allot more than the current allocation of £90 million over the next five years—in the past, the Forces have not used all the money voted for housing. It is, however, vital to ensure that decisions about the future of particular stations are taken quickly; it is lack of such decisions which holds up permanent building and leads to makeshift housing."
Then, in paragraph 146, are these curious circumstances found by the Commission. It says:
"Secondly, we are not certain that the design of barrack-blocks and married quarters is always as imaginative as it might be. We have seen post-war married quarters in Cyprus which seemed in some ways designed for a cooler climate. We were shown quarters at Catterick, built in the 1930's, without a hand-basin in the bathroom, it being assumed that the family could wash themselves at the kitchen sink. It is of prime importance that quarters and barrack-blocks should be well designed, taking their site into account, and this is a matter about which the Services must be forward-looking. It is no good putting up buildings which are just about up to minimum contemporary standards; an attempt must be made to assess what the standards will be in ten years' time. For example, married quarters should he planned to take modern domestic appliances, such as washing-machines and refrigerators, and provision for garaging or parking private cars should be made wherever practicable."
The answer by the Government to these trenchant findings by the Commission is this—I mentioned before that it was somewhat elusive, and your Lordships can see whether that description is apposite. They say:
"As was explained last February in the annual Statement on Defence, the extensive reorganisation of the Services now in progress has inevitably created temporary uncertainties about the precise distribution of the Forces. However, the necessary decisions of policy are being made as rapidly as possible, and the building programme should now go ahead more smoothly."
Then, in answer to the design point made by the Commission, the Government say:
"The Committee's detailed criticisms of the design of buildings will be taken into account."

1223
In my view, that is a somewhat unsatisfactory reply to the criticisms. It is obvious that the provision of suitable married quarters is essential if we are to recruit the type of men whom we need in the Services. You will never get the men, or if you get them, and they are single, you will not keep them as married men, unless you have the right sort of accommodation. So what is required in this field is speed and imagination: speed, because the money is there. The money has been voted by Parliament, or at least it has been provided in an Act, and can be obtained by the Services as and when they require it. It is no good saying, as the Government say, that there are temporary uncertainties. The money has been available since 1949 and the uncertainties have only recently arisen. If necessary, we must recommend the Government to take risks in this field, even though it may afterwards be found that some of the existing barracks may be redundant and other barracks will have to be created. The married quarters, which will, in fact, be built outside existing barracks, can easily be disposed of to local authorities, and there is every provision for that to be done. So there are no risks really; and if there is some slight risk I think the Government should take it in order to get the Services decently housed.
As to imagination, I think it is disgraceful in these days that comments like those in paragraph 146 of the Grigg Report can be made. Why should Service men be treated as if they were sub-human? The Services require intelligent, respectable and honourable men; and proper modern housing and the provision of amenities such as those mentioned in the Report is the least they are entitled to expect. I am certain that Parliament as a whole, not only your Lordships but Members of another place, want the Service men to have these facilities and amenities, and I cannot understand why the Service Departments, who have the money available, do not provide them.
What is wrong with the Service architects? Why do they go on providing these houses with the minimum standards? Why do not they make them gay, with bright colours inside and out? The old Victorian barracks were grim enough, as we know. They looked like gaols, and to live in them, as I well remember—I
1224
have lived in some in my time—they felt like gaols. I remember Woolwich during the war and just after the war. The men were still living in the stables which, in the days when the guns were moved by horses, housed the horses. The men were still living, not only in the quarters above the stables but actually in the stables. In these days that sort of thing is not good enough. The Service architects and their overlords should remember that we are now living in the year 1958 and that 1858 is a long way back. They should give the people in the Services the sort of amenities that Parliament wishes them to have. As your Lordships can see, I support the Bill in its entirety, and I urge the Government to carry out the purposes of the Bill with speed and imagination.
7.11 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for the warm welcome which he has given to this Bill. I concede readily that the original Act of 1949 was a Socialist measure. We have always been only too glad and happy, whenever we found any virtue at all in Socialist measures, to make the best of them. It is rarely enough that we have the opportunity; but when we do, as the noble Lord sees, we keep them going and make them go better.
LORD OGMORE: I should like them to go a bit faster.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I should say that, in quoting from the Grigg Report, I think the noble Lord was quoting a house which was over thirty years old. I feel that I can say with assurance that the new accommodation which is being put up, and has been put up in recent years, is very satisfactory. Some of the people have been very well provided for indeed. I am not unaware of the Report of the Grigg Committee which was set up by this Government. We did not expect to have nothing but roses in it: it was their duty to find out the mistakes, and they have brought out a number of points which I can assure the noble Lord are receiving full attention. If he does not like the answer given, all I can say is that the problem is now made known and the Service Departments are dealing with it.
He told us to take risks. With great respect, there are limits to what one can

1225
do in taking risks with public money. There have been big changes in recent years in housing accommodation. The size of the Army, which has been considerably reduced, will mean that the requirements in different places will be markedly changed. It is partly that, perhaps, which has made the Services not make the fullest use they otherwise would have done of the money available. I know that £8 million seems a great deal of money—and it is; but it is not an enormous sum when it is part and parcel of £75 million. I accept fully what the noble Lord has said with regard to the importance of Service accommodation. It is a perfectly fair statement that there is much in certain single and married quarters which could be improved, and it is our intention that we should improve them.
On Question, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived.

DEVELOPMENT OF INVENTIONS BILL
7.14 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, this is another amending Bill concerning an Act of Parliament, which I hope your Lordships will agree was a good Act, passed by the Labour Government in 1948. It seeks to extend the period during which money may be advanced by the Board of Trade to the National Research Development Corporation over a further period of ten years—that is, to 1968. It also authorises the maximum amount of such loans to be raised to £10 million instead of £5 million.
The Corporation was established by the Labour Government in 1948 with the function of developing inventions which emerged from research in both publicly financed laboratories and universities, paying the expenses of testing and proceeding with such inventions, and arranging for their industrial exploitation. The Corporation also has the function of picking up any private inventions which, in its opinion, are good but which for some reason or other cannot be proceeded with otherwise. After ten years of work, the Corporation now holds
1226
about 1,000 British patents and about 2,000 overseas patents. The amount of royalties which it is already receiving amount to £170,000 a year, one-third of which is in dollars.
I think your Lordships would wish me to express our gratitude to the members of the Corporation for the excellent work which they have done and are doing, and in particular to the managing director, the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, to whose personal efforts the success of the Corporation is principally due. I understand that the Bill is supported by all Parties, and I beg to move that it now be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Dundee.)
7.17 p.m.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, we on this side cordially welcome this Bill and the evidence it provides of the success of the National Research Development Corporation. The noble Earl told us a little about it. I do not know whether an annual report is issued by the Corporation.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Yes, it is; and we are hoping to advance the date of the issue of this admirable report. The last one was in March, and we hope that the one for this year may be a little earlier.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, the only doubt I have heard expressed is that the Corporation is rather on the conservative side in its ventures—that it is not very venturesome. That shows that, to some extent, it is not carrying out the functions for which it was originally set up. Whether it sets too much store by the need for earning money and not expending public money, I do not know. One other thing the noble Earl did not tell us is what amount of the £5 million originally authorised has actually been drawn by the Corporation. I wonder whether he could tell us that.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I am afraid that I have not that figure with me now, but as the noble Earl is aware, the total is being increased to £10 million. One would assume that it would not be necessary to do that unless it was anticipated that more than the £5 million was likely to be drawn.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: My Lords, I presume that many of these inventions, if not most, are taken over from private inventors, probably on some basis of payment or royalty to them. In my experience there has been complaint at times that the Government of the day have appropriated private inventions on some occasions, and that the inventors have received no compensation, or inadequate compensation. After the war, a Committee was set up, under the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cohen, which decided on the compensation which ought to be paid. Can the noble Earl tell us what proportion of the inventions which are assisted or exploited are private inventions and inventions made by Government employees, and whether proper compensatory arrangements are made with private persons when their inventions are taken over by the Corporation?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: The inventions taken up by the Corporation are almost entirely public, from public sources, although they have the power to further private inventions which, for some reason or other, have not been used. In practice, they have hardly ever done so because they have not managed to discover many private inventions which, in their view, have not been properly exploited. I will certainly ask my right honourable friend to look into any case in which it is considered that inadequate compensation has been paid. But that is the position: that their powers on the private side are hardly ever used at all.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: My Lords, it would not be proper for me to comment on the provisions of this Bill, but I believe that I shall not be violating the traditions of either your Lordships' House or the public service if I thank the noble Earl most sincerely for the gracious terms in which he has referred to the part that I have played in the direction of this Corporation for the last ten years. I am sure he would also permit me to say that, in so far as the Corporation has found favour in Parliamentary eyes, it is due to the large measure of good will that it has enjoyed in the other branches of the public service, in the universities, many of whose learned professors have given us an extraordinary amount of help and encouragement, and in the industrial firms who have acted as the Corporation's con-
1228
tractors. I hope it will not be out of order if I take this opportunity to thank all those who have helped. Of course, we have a staff, too, and I should like to interpret the kind remarks of the noble Earl as meaning that I have either exercised some skill or been very lucky in getting a first-class staff who have done the work of the Corporation. I shall be laying down my responsibilities in a few months' time, and perhaps I might take this opportunity of wishing my successor and his colleagues the best of good fortune for the years ahead for which this Bill provides.
On Question, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived.

MANŒUVRES BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
SLAUGHTER OF ANIMALS BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
ADOPTION BILL [H.L.]
An Amendment reported (according to Order).
NATIONAL DEBT BILL [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order).
MANCHESTER CORPORATION BILL
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES
First Report from the Select Committee, made and to be printed.