Lords Sitting of 10 December 1958

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

MANCHESTER CORPORATION BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

WAGES ROBBERIES
2.35 p.m.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, I beg to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many cases of robbery of cash being conveyed from banks to places of work for payment of wages have taken place this year in the Metropolitan area, and whether this shows any increase over past years.]
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, the precise information for which the noble Lord asks is not available, but I am informed that in the Metropolitan Police District in the first ten months of this year there were thirty-five robberies of messengers carrying money. The figure for the whole of 1957 was thirty-one.

PAYMENT OF WAGES BY CHEQUE
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, I beg to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will amend the Truck Acts so as to authorise the payment of wages by cheque.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Minister of Labour and National
164
Service is considering this matter in consultation with his National Joint Advisory Council.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, without suggesting that the working man should be compelled to accept cheques instead of cash, would Her Majesty's Government consult with the Trades Union Congress to see whether the very real advantages of using a bank account might not become available to working men generally by good will and consent, so that they may enjoy the facilities which we enjoy in using bank accounts, as well as providing security in this present situation?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, the Trades Union Congress is represented on the National Joint Advisory Council which considered this matter at the beginning of 1957 when the Cheques Act was before Parliament. I think everybody is agreed on the great advantages to be derived from paying wages by cheque. But there are also some disadvantages, one of which is the objection of the retail shopkeepers who represent that if a large number of wage earners were paid by cheque they would be asked to cash cheques on pay day by large numbers of people so that they would have to accumulate large quantities of cash. They were afraid that the attention of the robbers would then be transferred to them, instead of to the vans carrying cash for the employers. But the matter is being reconsidered at this moment by the Council, and my right honourable friend does not want to form his own opinion until he has received their considered advice.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, I think that that is wise. Can we be assured that all the American experience on this subject, which is, I think, large, will be put at the disposal of both the Minister and the T.U.C.?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Earl for making that suggestion. I will certainly convey it to my right honourable friend to make sure that that is being done, though probably it has been done already.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, would Her Majesty's Government tell me whether it is already legal to pay wages by cheque

165
if the cheque is drawn on a bank which has power to issue notes and has a branch within fifteen miles of the working place of the man; and whether Scottish banks and their branches in England fulfil those conditions in many places?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Yes, that is correct, I think, under the Truck Act, 1831. It is legal to pay wages by a special cheque drawn on a bank which has its own powers of note issue. If the Scottish banks who have that power were within that distance, I believe that would be quite possible.
LORD LAWSON: My Lords, may I ask whether the noble Earl is aware that the Trades Union Congress would have to make further investigations before it could give authority to this suggestion, and that those who know the difficulties at first hand of people who have to spend their wages are very doubtful about this suggestion because of the embarrassment which it would cause to the people who received wages in the form of cheques?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I am indeed aware of these doubts and possible objections, and I have no doubt that they will be fully considered by the Trades Union Congress representatives on the National Joint Advisory Council.
LORD REA: My Lords, in view of the general interest in this matter, could the noble Earl give any indication as to when a decision is likely to be arrived at?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: No; but I understand that the National Joint Advisory Council are meeting to-morrow to consider it. I do not think I can say how long it will be before they present their revised conclusions—because they have already considered the matter more than a year ago—to the Minister of Labour.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, is it not the case that it is a general habit of people who receive their wages in cash to divide the money they receive—so much to be spent on this, so much on that and so much on something else, so that, somehow or other, it is all, or nearly all, spent in the course of the week? Would not payment by cheque encounter the obstacle of running up against the formed habit of the people, although if
166
this were done it might, to the advantage of the country, lead to saving in much lower wage groups than at present?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE.: My Lords, there are certainly considerations on both sides.

ADVERTISEMENTS ON MOTORWAYS
2.43 p.m.
LORD SOM̃ERS: 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 they will consider the desirability of banning all public advertising and other disfigurements of this type on the new motorways.]
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport and Civil, Aviation is equally anxious that unnecessary advertisements should not impinge upon the new motorways. No advertising will be permitted on land acquired for the motorways except at the service areas, where advertisements will be permitted only to the extent necessary for the information of motorway users.
Control of advertisements in general is exercised by local planning authorities, in accordance with the regulations under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947. My right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government has already asked local planning authorities to ensure that advertisements which are harmful to amenity or dangerous to traffic will not be allowed on land adjacent to the motorways. He has also suggested that they might consider seeking his approval to extend along the motorways the areas of special control in which, among other restrictions, large-scale advertising is prohibited.
LORD SOM̃ERS: My Lords, while thanking the noble Earl for that very satisfying answer, may I ask him whether his right honourable friend the Minister has made any particular statement as to advertisements for alcoholic drinks?
THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, my right honourable friend has not yet made his decision. I should like to thank the noble Lord for his kind reception of my Answer.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I should like to inform the House that my noble friend the Leader of the House will be making a statement on Cyprus at the same time as the Prime Minister is making one in another place at approximately 3.30 p.m. I would also inform the House that the Procedure Committee will meet after the statement has been delivered.
CHURCH OF SCOTLAND TRUST ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Considered on Report (according to Order).
NORTH OF SCOTLAND ELEC TRICITY ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Considered on Report (according to Order).
SOCIETY IN SCOTLAND FOR PROPAGATING CHRISTIAN KNOWLEDGE ORDER CON FIRMATION BILL
Considered on Report (according to Order).

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES
2.45 p.m.
Order of the Day read for the consideration of the First Report from the Select Committee.
The Committee reported as follows:
1.—APPOINTMENT OF SUB-COMMITTEES
(1) LIBRARY
The Sub-Committee on the Library was appointed as follows: E. Attlee, E. Home, E. Ilchester, V. Esher, V. Simonds (Chairman), V. Soulbury, L. Burden, L. Chorley, L. Reid, and the Lord Great Chamberlain, with the Clerk of the Parliaments.
(2) REFRESHMENT DEPARTMENT
The Sub-Committee on the Refreshment Department was appointed as follows: E. Gosford, E. St. Aldwyn, L. Amulree, L. Blackford, L. Henderson, L. Killearn, L. Lucas of Chilworth, L. Macpherson of Drumochter, and the Lord Great Chamberlain, with the Clerk of the Parliaments.
The Sub-Committee was given power to co-opt further members and to appoint its own chairman.
(3) STAINED GLASS WINDOWS
The Sub-Committee on Stained Glass Windows was appointed as follows: D. Wellington (Chairman), M. Salisbury, E. Crawford, E. Munster, L. Burden, L. Kenilworth, and the Lord Great Chamberlain, with the Clerk of the Parliaments.
(4) HOUSING OF HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS IN THE VICTORIA TOWER
The Sub-Committee on the Housing of Historical Documents in the Victoria Tower was appointed as follows: M. Salisbury (Chairman), E. Home, E. Lucan, E. Munster, V. Thurso, L. Amulree, L. Rea, and the Lord Great Chamberlain, with the Clerk of the Parliaments.
2.—REPORT FROM THE WINDOWS SUBCOMMITTEE
The Duke of Wellington reported that the Sub-Committee had in the last session completed its task of putting up in the Prince's Chamber stained glass windows containing the arms of some of the figures shown in the wall paintings, and that a certain amount of money still remained available to the Sub-Committee.
3.—RETIREMENT OF PRINCIPAL CLERK, JUDICIAL OFFICE
The Committee learnt with regret of the voluntary retirement on 1st January, 1959, of Mr. Geoffrey Hugh Eastwood, C.V.O., C.B.E., after thirty-four years in the service of the House, and sanctioned the payment of a pension and an additional allowance to him under the Superannuation Acts.
4.—REVISED SCALES OF PAY
The Committee sanctioned the application of the following Establishments Circulars:—

(a) No. 22/58 Increase in Higher Grades' Pay,

(b) No. 24/58 Pay, etc., of Messengerial and Paperkeeping Grades,

to analogous grades of the staff of the House of Lords.
The Committee also sanctioned consequential increases in superannuation awards in seven cases.
5.—DOORKEEPERS' DRESS CLOTHES ALLOWANCE
The Committee authorised an increase in the annual allowance for upkeep of dress clothes.
6.—ESTIMATES
The Estimates for the House of Lords for 1959–60 were laid before the Committee and approved.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD MERTHYR): My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now considered.
Moved, That the Report be now considered.—(Lord Merthyr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORD, MERTHYR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be agreed to. In doing so I do not think that there is any special matter which I need draw to

169
the attention of the House, except that, with reference to paragraph 3, I hope that I may be allowed to voice the regret of every Member of the House at receiving the retirement decision of Mr. Eastwood, and to express our sincere appreciation of his services to the House over a period of thirty-four years. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Report be agreed to.—(Lord Merthyr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

DEER (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
2.49 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be again in Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Forbes.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD AILWYN in the Chair.]
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 day of October.
(3) This section shall come into operation on the twenty-first day of October, nineteen hundred and sixty-two.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "twentieth day of October" and insert "first day of November". The noble Viscount said: My object in moving this Amendment is merely to give the deer a rest between the end of the stalking season and the commencement of the hind shooting season. In the majority of deer forests one does not usually shoot hinds before about the middle of November, but in order to be as uncontroversial as possible I have suggested this date of November 1 for the commencement of hind shooting. It is also, I think, a tidier date than October 21, and I hope the Government will see their way to accepting this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 10, leave out ("twentieth day of October") and insert ("first day of November").—(Viscount Massereene and Ferrard.)
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: This Amendment presents a certain amount of difficulty. The stalking season in most forests ends on or about October 10, although a good many go on until the 15th, and the period of up to the 20th gives a good opportunity for the pursuing of any wounded beast that may be known to be on a forest and also for getting the requisite number of stags if, owing to bad weather, it has not been possible to get them earlier. The fact remains that in many forests by October 20 a large proportion of the stags are not really any longer fit for human consumption. Equally, there are many younger stags which are so fit and which there is not the slightest objection to shooting. I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Forbes —I shall return to this point on the next Amendment to be moved by Lord Mathers—that he might consider the advisability of giving some discretion to the Deer Commission in this matter: that is to say, while retaining the present proposed date of October 20 as the normal season, that the Deer Commission, when satisfied that it would be in the interests of the forests and/or agriculture, should be empowered to lengthen the season in certain specified areas by the ten days suggested.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: If the Deer Commission are to be allowed to do that, I do not know how it is going to be worked into the Bill; it will require something other than a mere Amendment. I think the Deer Commission ought to be allowed to go a little further in certain cases. I quite understand the object of the noble Viscount in not wishing to raise any controversial point—it is for that reason that he limited his Amendment to the ten days—but if the Deer Commission are to have a discretion, there will be some forests where it might be advantageous to extend the period beyond the ten days. I think that if discretion is to be given, that ought to be taken into consideration.
LORD MACPHERSON OF DRUMOCHTER: I think it would be a mistake to leave in doubt when the close season for deer begins or ends. It should be fixed, and fixed for good. After all, people who go out deer stalking in the Highlands of Scotland, especially people from other parts of the United Kingdom,

171
often make their plans a long way in advance, and I think it would be a mistake to leave this matter in doubt. We have no close season to-day, and at last this Bill gives us one. I suggest, with respect that we should stick to the words in the Bill and leave the date definitely as October 20.
LORD BROCKET: I hope Her Majesty's Government will give favourable consideration to the Amendment moved by my noble friend. November 1 appears to me to be a much better date to start the shooting of hinds. In recent years there have been a number of late seasons and the stags have not come to the hinds as early as they used to years ago. Another important point is that the calves are with their mothers, certainly until November 1, and it gives the hinds that little bit of rest during the rutting season. I think it would be advisable to start the possible shooting of hinds on November 1, instead of giving less rest to the deer herds and allowing the start of hind shooting on October 21. I therefore hope that Her Majesty's Government will give favourable consideration to this Amendment.
LORD FORBES: The Maconochie Commission were specially invited to go into this particular question of close seasons, and they made a unanimous recommendation that close seasons should be as stated in the Bill. Since then a considerable amount of time has elapsed and there has been no representation whatsoever from any side for a change in the close season. I would point out that poaching is not in any way affected by close seasons; also that the activities of the Deer Commission are not affected. The close season as laid down is a minimum close season, and there is nothing whatsoever to stop owners of Jeer forests, if they want to, from lengthening their own close seasons. I hope that with that explanation the noble Viscount will withdraw this Amendment.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: In view of what the noble Lord has said, rather reluctantly I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
2.57 p.m.
LORD MACPHERSON OF DRUMOCHTER LORD MACPHERSON OF DRUMOCHTER moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "nineteen hundred and sixty-two" and insert "nineteen hundred and sixty". The noble Lord said: First I have to offer to the House the apologies of my noble friends Lord Mathers and Lord Greenhill, who are, unfortunately, prevented from being here this afternoon. With the permission of the Committee, I beg to move the Amendment standing in their names.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 25, leave out ("nineteen hundred and sixty-two") and insert ("nineteen hundred and sixty").—(Lord Macpherson of Drumochter.)
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: I hope that Her Majesty's Government will give some consideration to this Amendment. While repudiating the theory put forward in our earlier debate by Lord Saltoun that we should not attempt to amend a measure the main provisions of which have been agreed upon provisionally outside the House, I think that where such agreement has been reached one should carefully consider before making an alteration of major importance. Undoubtedly, it is the opinion of many agriculturists that the operation of the close time should be postponed until 1962 in order to deal with the admittedly excess number of deer that exist in many areas, but if we agree to this point of view, we are going to perpetrate for a longer time the cruelties and useless slaughter that have been taking place up to the present time. Only in the week, a few days before your Lordships were last discussing this Bill on the previous Committee stage, the police in Inverness-shire intercepted three lorries loaded with deer carcases, amounting, I understand, in total to between twenty-five and thirty bodies. As usual, the state of the law being as it is at the moment, they were unable to take any action. The majority of these deer must have been quite unfit for human food. Whether they were to be used for the nourishment of greyhounds, or whether they were going to be minced up and put into receptacles designed for human consumption, I do not know. The fact remains that they were shot at a time when they could not be of much nutritional value.
Furthermore, and more serious, if the close season is not to be brought into

173
operation until 1962, we shall have a continuation of the slaughter of pregnant hinds, and the killing of hinds that have already had calves, resulting in the starvation of these young animals. That, I submit, is something which ought not to be tolerated and which I suggest can be avoided. On the last Amendment I suggested that some discretion should be given to the Deer Commission, and I repeat that now. I would suggest that Her Majesty's Government should seriously consider, at least between now and the Report stage, accepting the principle that the close season should come into operation in 1960 instead of 1962; but at the same time a provision should be inserted in the Bill to enable the Deer Commission, at their discretion, to specify that in certain areas of any particular county or counties where it was thought necessary the close season should not come into operation for a period of, say, three months, which period could be renewed at the discretion of the Commission. This would mean that in areas where damage was shown to be done it would be possible to reduce the numbers of deer during what will become the close season, regrettable though such necessity would be. At the same time it would mean that the appalling slaughter of animals in the early summer would be avoided.
Then, too, in many cases the flesh is really unfit for human consumption. Those who consume deer pâté made from animals slaughtered in summer probably do not realise that a considerable proportion of such pâté consists of grubs of the warble fly which infest deer to a great extent at that period. If Her Majesty's Government could see their way to accept something on these lines we should be keeping the spirit of the Act which is to enable surplus deer to be destroyed as soon as possible, but, at the same time, should be doing something to stop the appalling cruelty which is going on, and which, as the Bill is at present drafted, will continue until 1962.
LORD MACPHERSON OF DRUMOCHTER: I should like to support what has been said by the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield. I could hardly believe my eyes when I read this Part of the Bill whereby the operation of this clause is postponed for four years. In view of the w ay in which we have been admonished,
174
since the start of the debate on this Bill, that speed was essential, why on earth should we delay the matter for four years? If, as many of us believe, this Bill, and this clause, are good, why postpone action for four years? I cannot understand it. There may be special circumstances. If there are special reasons I would support what was said by the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, that the Deer Commission might, in special circumstances, and in special parts of the country, use their discretion to deal with any special case which required the season to be extended.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I support the Amendment, for the reasons so admirably stated by the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, which I do not want to repeat to the House.
LORD BROCKET: This particular clause postponing the close season for four years has, I believe, caused more dissatisfaction than any other part of the Bill. I do not regard this point as being part of any bargain which may have been made with those interested. If the deer which should be shot cannot be shot before 1962 the people who are trying to shoot them must be very bad shots. I had a good deal of deer-stalking in other years, and I remember that in 1952 some noble Lords who are here to-day, including myself, were then advocating what is provided by Clause 2. That was six years ago. I believe that my noble friend Lord Lovat proposed that in 1952. It is now 1958 and I feel very strongly that it would be very bad to delay this for another four years. If this is a good Bill let us have it operating in two years. I do hope that noble Lords who have moved this Amendment will not withdraw it but will put it to a vote of the House.
LORD LOVAT: I am rather amazed that this Amendment should have been moved. My noble friend Lord Brocket has just said that I made a genuine, albeit feeble, effort to make this the law no less than six years ago. It is to the credit of Her Majesty's Government that they have at last got to grips with what has become a most vexatious and dilatory affair. All the parties concerned in Scotland, who represent many different interests, have been united; and I think it is an extremely wrong-headed approach to introduce an Amendment of this kind. Having been abroad, I missed your Lordships'

175
debate in November, but I am shocked to read of the number of Amendments put forward, some of which are mere pinpricks, to a perfectly simple proposal which should go ahead as quickly as possible.
The noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, has referred to deer being destroyed in Inverness-shire, which is my own county. I do not think that many of those deer are actually consumed for human food in Great Britain. The last consignment of which I heard was sold at £3 a head for animal food, and that will go on throughout the winter, regardless of the effect. Poaching has become such a highly organised business in the county of Inverness-shire that when a lorry driver is stopped at night with a load the driver produces his licence without a blush and helps the police in the procedure necessary to clear him so that he may drive on. I hope that this Amendment will be dropped.
3.5 p.m.
LORD FORBES: Most noble Lords seem to be under the misapprehension that if we introduce the close season sooner it will make some difference to poaching; but there is no connection whatsoever between poaching and close seasons.
A NOBLE LORD: Oh yes there is!
LORD FORBES: There is a definite need to reduce stocks of deer if agricultural interests are to be safeguarded, and the only way to do that is to ensure that owners themselves have the chance of dealing with some of these surplus deer. It is quite likely that the Commission will go round and see owners of deer forests to discuss the problems with them, and the owners will then be invited to shoot the surplus deer. If they cannot do that, then the Commission will do so themselves; but to begin with the Commission will have a tremendous amount to do and will not be able themselves to reduce the surplus stocks. That is why we suggest that the close seasons should not be brought in so quickly; for it will give owners themselves an opportunity of dealing with the problem. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: I would appeal to the noble Lord to withdraw his
176
Amendment. I well realise what has been said in favour of it, but surely we should take into consideration that it would be much better to have action by the individual owner, as suggested by the Minister, rather than that the Deer Commission should immediately go ahead with control schemes and other courses of that nature. I would appeal to the noble Lord to take that point into consideration. We want owners to have a chance to go ahead and to clear up the situation themselves, rather than that the Deer Commission should act immediately in terms of the Bill.
LORD MACPHERSON OF DRUMOCHTER: There is no proposal to bring the new close season into operation quickly. The Amendment says "by October, 1960." Surely two years is plenty of time in which to get this matter put right.
THE EARL OF HADDINGTON: I fail to see why it is going to take four years for owners to clear off stocks of surplus deer.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: Until there is a close season, when the police stop a lorry on the roads they have no possible way of prosecuting the people concerned; for all those people have to say is that someone who owns about 100 acres of land which has deer on it once a year has given them permission to shoot deer there. I believe, therefore, that we want a close season as soon as possible.
LORD WINSTER: May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, whether his point is that the legitimate interests of the landowners can be met only if, at the same time, poachers are allowed to continue their nefarious practices?
LORD FORBES: I should like to point out that there is no connection between poaching and the close season. When a poacher is caught it does not matter whether he is committing the offence during the close season or whether he is not. There is no difference.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: Surely it is possible for the number of stock to be reduced in the proper season, without the killing of pregnant hinds, calves and so forth. It is perfectly easy to kill a few more deer than is normally done. I hope that the noble Lord who leads for the Government will give some assurance,

177
otherwise I am afraid that I shall follow the noble Lord opposite into the Division Lobby.
LORD FORBES: In view of the feeling of the House over this matter, I will give an undertaking to look into it before the Report stage.
LORD MACPHERSON OF DRUMOCHTER: In view of what has been said, I will withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 20 agreed to.
Clause 21 [Interpretation of Part 1]:
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: This Amendment follows on what I was saying earlier. The noble Lord, Lord Forbes, said last week, when we considered this matter under Amendment No. 43, that a close season had no effect on poachers. I still cannot agree with that statement, as I feel that if the police or anyone else stop a lorry on the road and it contains deer carcases, they are absolutely powerless to act in any way against the people concerned if there is no close season. I should also like to point out that fallow deer have much more in common with red deer than do roe deer. Fallow deer live in a herd, although admittedly it is much smaller than that of red deer; and unlike roe deer they do not lie up during the day, so they are much easier to find and shoot. Therefore, I feel that fallow deer should be given some sort of close season.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 38, after ("elaphus") insert ("and for the purposes of this Act shall include deer of the species cervus [dama] dama.").—(The Duke of Atholl.)
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: I should like to support the noble Duke. Damage to crops by fallow deer is so rare that it can be left out of account altogether. These animals, few in number in Scotland, are in danger of being reduced to a dangerously low point, and I hope that Her Majesty's Government will accept the Amendment.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I hope so, too. I do not want to repeat all the arguments in favour that were adduced in the House last week. But because fallow deer are rare in Scotland I hope that the Government will consider this Amendment, and I can see no arguments against its inclusion.
LORD FORBES: I will repeat the undertaking I gave on December 4, and that was that I would look into the question of close seasons for fallow deer and roe deer.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: With that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 21 agreed to.
THE EARL OF HADDINGTON: This subject of a close season for roe deer was fully discussed last Thursday. However, I understand that it is my duty formally to move the Amendment now, and I beg to move it.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 21, insert the following new clause:
(".—(1) No person shall take or wilfully kill any doe, being a roe deer, during the period commencing on the fifteenth day of March and ending on the thirtieth day of September.
(2) If any person contravenes the provisions of the last foregoing subsection he shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable—

(a) on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds, and in the case of a second or subsequent conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or to both such fine and imprisonment; and

(b) on conviction on indictment to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or to both such fine and imprisonment.

(3) For the purposes of this section 'roe deer' means deer of the species capreolus capreolus.").—(The Earl of Haddington.)
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: In view of the assurance given earlier, I do not propose to move my Amendment to the Amendment, to include fallow deer.
LORD FORBES: I will again give the assurance that I will look into this matter before the Report stage.
THE EARL OF HADDINGTON: With that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 22:
Prohibition of poaching
22.—(1) If any person without legal right or without permission from a person having such right takes or wilfully kills deer on any land, he shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not

179
exceeding twenty pounds, and to the forfeiture of any deer illegally killed by him or in his possession at the time of the offence:
Provided that the provisions of this subsection shall not apply to any person taking any deer lawfully killed by him.
LORD MACPHERSON OF DRUMOCHTER: In the absence of my noble friends, Lord Mathers and Lord Greenhill, I beg to move Amendment No. 48, standing in their names. The object of the Amendment is to establish quite clearly that not only the owner but the occupier of land has a perfect right to kill deer. The point is: who has a legal right to kill red deer? This Amendment seeks to make it clear that occupiers of agricultural land, or land of that nature, coming into that category, would not be prosecuted under this clause in the event of having to kill deer in order to protect their crops and the rights of their land.
Amendment moved—.
Page 9, line 3, leave out from ("person") to ("takes") in line 4 and insert ("other than the owner or occupier of land or a person having permission from such owner or occupier").—(Lord Macpherson of Drumochter.)
LORD FORBES: The effect of this Amendment would be to give the tenant right to shoot deer anywhere on ground that was let to him. The present position is that the owner, or anyone having the owner's permission, may shoot on that ground. The agricultural tenant is, I think, well protected already by the Agriculture (Scotland) Act. That gives him protection on enclosed land. To give the tenant a right to shoot on unenclosed land would completely upset the balance between agriculture and sporting interests, and that would be quite unreasonable. The agricultural interests are already protected, first of all by Clause 6, against marauding deer, and secondly, in more serious cases, by Clause 7. I can see no reason for this Amendment at all, and I ask your Lordships not to accept it.
THE EARL OF MANSEIELD: Should this Amendment be accepted, it would merely be the greatest possible inducement to wholesale poaching.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, whether the Forestry Commission will have their woods closely scrutinised? They contain more vermin in this connection than any other source I know of.
LORD FORBES: I am sure that the noble Lord's remarks will be taken into account by the Forestry Commission.
LORD MACPHERSON OF DRUMOCHTER: Am I to understand that the Minister has confirmed that an agricultural tenant has rights, particularly in dealing with marauding deer, under the Agriculture (Scotland) Act, 1948, so that he can legally and properly shoot such deer?
LORD FORBES: The tenant can deal with deer on enclosed agricultural land.
LORD MACPHERSON OF DRUMOCHTER: In view of that explanation, I withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.20 p.m.
LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "wilfully". The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment standing in my name. I think it is agreed by the whole Committee that everything possible should be done to prevent the cruelty and beastliness connected with the poaching of deer. It seems to me, and also to the Landowners' Federation, that the insertion of the word "wilfully" in this clause would make an additional complication for the sheriff when he came to try a case. I cannot see how it can ever be easy to prove that an action is done "wilfully". We were told last week that anything connected with salmon was not necessarily applicable to this Bill, but in the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Protection) (Scotland) Act, 1951, the word "wilful", when dealing with poaching, is not used, and I cannot see any reason why it should be used here. If this Amendment were accepted, there would be a following Amendment safeguarding people who genuinely killed a deer by accident. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 4, leave out ("wilfully").—(Lord Stratheden and Campbell.)
LORD FORBES: Perhaps it will be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak on Amendments Nos. 49 and 51. The normal principle of criminal law is that the onus of proof rests upon the prosecution. The effect of this Amendment is to turn the onus of proof round

181
the other way. My right honourable and learned friend the Lord Advocate agrees with me that there should be no difficulty in obtaining a conviction under the Bill as it is drafted. I think your Lordships will agree that if somebody is seen aiming at a stag there will be no difficulty in proving that that person has "wilfully" killed the stag. It is quite possible that deer may be killed accidentally. They might be killed by a car, or by a train, and it would be absurd to think that the driver would have to prove his innocence. There is also the point that my right honourable friend the Minister of Defence may be greatly embarrassed in this matter in connection with exercises of the Armed Forces. It happens sometimes that a deer gets killed during an exercise.
The noble Lord raised the question of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Protection) (Scotland) Act. I would point out that that Act says "fish for" or "take" a salmon. Clearly one cannot fish for or take a salmon otherwise than wilfully, and therefore the word "wilful" was left out of that Act. I can see no reason for departing from the normal principle of criminal law and I would ask the noble Lord to withdraw his Amendment.
THE EARL OF MANSEIELD: Is my noble friend Lord Forbes unaware that many people catch salmon "accidentally", so-called, when fishing for trout?
LORD LOVAT: I am loth to disagree with my noble friend Lord Forbes, but his explanation is unconvincing. I live in the heart of deer forest country, and in spite of taking a great many precautions I have never yet seen a poacher aiming a rifle at a stag, nor yet have I known a stag being killed on the road by a motor car. My noble friend is wide of the mark if he thinks that his explanation would be a satisfying one to anybody who has close contact either with lorry drivers or train drivers. In the case of a train, the deer would obviously not be fit for human consumption.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARI): I should like to support my noble friend Lord Lovat in what he has just said. What is to prevent a poacher from wounding a stag on purpose and then shooting it dead and saying he
182
shot it out of mercy because he found it wounded? To prove that a stag is killed wilfully is extremely difficult unless one sees the person killing it.
LORD BROCKET: In Acts of Parliament the fewer words there are the better, and I should have thought that there was no reason for this word "wilfully" to be in this future Act of Parliament The simpler it is the better. I should like to support the Amendment that "wilfully" should be taken out.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: I should have thought it unnecessary to have the word "wilfully". The noble Lord said that by taking it out, when anybody kills a stag and is prosecuted, the onus of proof is switched on to the defendant. Of course, that is contrary to the principles of criminal law. On the other hand, the criminal law is competently administered, particularly in cases of this kind, and there is no obligation to prosecute every time a stag dies. What would happen would be that the chief constable in England or the procurator fiscal in Scotland would make up his mind whether there was a case for prosecution. Obviously, if the troops had run riot and shot so badly that they shot stags instead of whatever they were supposed to shoot, or if the noble Lord, Lord Lovat, had driven his car so carelessly or in a manner reminiscent of his earlier exploits that a few deer were killed, I take it that there would be no prosecution. The noble Lord knows the ingenuity of lawyers—et ego in Arcadia vixi. They are likely to raise all sorts of difficulties founded on the word "wilfully". I very much doubt whether it is necessary. We do not find "willful murder" in a Statute, or "wilful theft".
We want this Bill to have a deterrent effect. As my noble friend Lord Forbes has said, this Bill is not going to succeed in its purpose if there are going to be prosecutions every day. Its real purpose is to stop these things happening. On the whole, I think that the deterrent would be better if this word were left out and we took in the provision that my noble friend Lord Stratheden and Campbell is proposing later on, leaving it to the common sense of the procurator fiscal not to prosecute except in cases where there was good prima facie evidence

183
that a deer had been killed and some unauthorised person had shot it.
LORD FORBES: I will certainly undertake to look into the question of the word "wilfully", but I would point out that the onus of proof should be turned round only in very exceptional cases.
LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL: In view of what my noble friend has said, and on the understanding that the matter is looked into carefully, because I think that this word possibly gives a tremendous loophole for the escape of poachers, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MACPHERSON OF DRUMOCHTER: In the absence of my noble friend Lord Mathers, I would say that I am not moving Amendment No. 50, as it is consequential on agreement to Amendment No. 48. That Amendment not having been agreed to, I am not moving this one.
LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL: I beg to move the next Amendment formally because it ties up with Amendment No. 49 which my noble friend agreed to look at again.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 13, at end insert—
(" (3) In any proceedings for an offence under this section it shall be a defence to prove that the killing was unintentional.")
LORD FORBES: As I am looking into Amendment No. 49, I will also look into No. 51 which goes with it.
LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL: On that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MACPHERSON OF DRUMOCHTER: My previous remarks apply also in connection with Amendment No. 52. Having regard to the fact that No. 48 was not accepted I do not intend to move this.
Clause 22 agreed to.
Clauses 23 and 24 agreed to.
Clause 25:
Unlawful possession of deer and firearms
(4) It shall be lawful to convict a person charged under this section on the evidence of one witness.
3.31 p.m.
LORD MACPHERSON OF DRUMOCHTER: I am not a lawyer, nor am I skilled in the law, but, being a Scotsman, I have always understood that in Scotland one cannot get a conviction on the testimony of one witness only. I understand that that is a long-established practice in criminal law in Scotland. That is why I move this Amendment, which proposes to leave out subsection (4). I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 41, leave out subsection (4).—(Lord Macpherson of Drumochter.)
LORD FORBES: It is the very purpose of this subsection to make the exception that there can be a conviction on the evidence of one witness There is a safeguard, however, in that the court themselves have to decide whether the evidence is sufficient for a conviction. They may well say that the evidence of one witness is not sufficient. I would also point out that this is not the first time that this exception has been made. It was done in the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1903, the Road Traffic Act and the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Protection) (Scotland) Act, 1951. In view of the difficulty of having two witnesses at the scene of the crime in these remote areas, I hope that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD MACPHERSON OF DRUMOCHTER: I can well appreciate the difficulties, but there are also difficulties in getting a conviction in regard to other forms of crime where more than one witness is required. The exceptions to which the noble Lord refers are so rare that I think they prove the rule and prove this law. I do not think there is anything in this particular Bill to justify making any exception from this long-established practice in our country.
LORD FORBES: The exception is made, of course, because of the remoteness of the areas.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: It seems an extraordinary thing that these so jealously guarded Scottish traditions in law, which have been so rarely excepted, should come into a Bill of this minor character to check crimes upon which apparently it will be difficult to get evidence. For that reason

185
the exception is made and only one witness is wanted. I should have thought that some of these deer-poaching crimes would have been in the very hours of the twenty-four when there were difficult conditions of sighting and recognition and matters of that kind. In order to be sure that justice is done in Scotland in accordance with their established practice of law, I should have thought that this was one of the cases in which you would most certainly require more than one witness.
LORD FORBES: There is nothing to prevent there being two witnesses.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Then why not accept the Amendment?
LORD STRATHCLYDE: May I ask the noble Viscount a question? Was it not his own Government that introduced the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Protection) (Scotland) Act, 1951, and did not that introduce a clause exactly similar to the present one?
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: That may well be, but I should think that a good many of the fishing operations are much more easily detectable than over the wide range of deer forests.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No.
LORD BROCKET: I have much pleasure in supporting the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, for once. I can say that before the war and during the war many cases would have been brought in the remote parts of the West Highlands on the witness of one person, but you could not get the witness of any more. I used to own forty miles of coast, and we had stalkers and watchers all round, but could not get two witnesses. I think that if the Government want to put down deer poaching this is one of the most essential parts of the Bill, and in this case I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, and the Government will stand fast.
LORD JESSEL: May I ask the noble Lord how many witnesses are needed in Scotland to get a marriage?
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 25 agreed to.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: In order that my noble friend the Leader of the House
186
may make his statement I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved, That the House do now resume—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and House resumed accordingly.

CYPRUS
3.37 p.m.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I will repeat a statement on Cyprus which the Prime Minister is now making in another place. It is as follows:
"We have been striving, and we shall continue to strive, for a political settlement which will bring peace to the island. I intend in a few moments to say something on the position now that the debate in the United Nations is over. I wish first to refer to the suggestion arising out of the inquest on Andreas Louca that there should be some form of inquiry into the conduct of British troops in Cyprus.
"When we consider the crimes which have been committed against our troops and the provocation which they have undergone, I think we have a right to be proud not only of their high morale but of their discipline and restraint. Of course there are people in some countries who would wish to discredit Great Britain by wild and unjustified allegations. Nevertheless we are very jealous of the honour of our troops and we have recognised that in the peculiarly difficult circumstances of maintaining order in the face of terrorism and civil disorder vigilance was required and there were bound to be incidents concerning which as full information as possible should be available. The Governor therefore some time ago set up a special investigation group to undertake prompt inquiries into any complaints against the security forces. This has been of considerable value to the Governor and his advisers. It is clear that the reports could not be released for publication without prejudicing the usefulness of this system in the future.
"After the murder in Famagusta on October 3 of Mrs. Cutliffe and the wounding of another soldier's wife it was hoped that the assailant might be

187
seized and identified in the neighbourhood of the crime. A round-up of the males nearby for possible identification therefore followed. In accordance with normal practice a report of the events was made to the Governor. The searching inquiries which were made have not led to the securing of any evidence to identify any particular individual or individuals of the security forces as having used an unjustified degree of force.
"Coroner's inquests were held in two cases. The coroner formed the view that there appeared to have been used on some of those arrested a greater degree of force than was justifiable. The coroner also recognised the horror, disgust and anger that filled the minds and hearts of everyone on that day. Thirdly, he drew attention to the many discrepancies in the evidence of certain witnesses who alleged brutality and he said that certain witnesses seemed more anxious to inculpate the security forces than to help the court with unbiased evidence. He said he had not sufficient evidence to enable him to conclude when or by whom the blow which led to Louca's death was struck.
"In view of the very full inquiries made by the coroner and the group to which I have referred and to the fact that none of these investigations has produced evidence to identify any particular individual or individuals as having used excessive force I do not consider that any useful purpose would be served by holding a further inquiry now. I should mention that there was one case in which misconduct by a particular individual has come to light—it was a case of larceny—and this man has already been tried and sentenced by court-martial.
"More generally, I must repeat that even in the suppression of brutal murder the use of undue force is repugnant to the civil and military authorities in Cyprus as well as to the Government here. In any case where there is evidence of a kind to justify the preferment of charges in respect of such misconduct action will be taken in the future as in the past. In addition, the new Director of Operations has recently seen all the commanding
188
officers and made personal visits to the units to impress upon them the need for the utmost restraint in the use of force, however great the provocation. I feel sure that we can have full confidence both in the troops and in their commanders.
"Before passing to the future I ought perhaps to say a word about the Geunyeli incident, concerning which the Governor of Cyprus published a report on Tuesday, the 9th of December, of which copies have been placed in the Library of the House. This report is of a Commission of Inquiry conducted by the Chief Justice into an incident on the 12th of June when eight Greek Cypriots met their deaths at the hands of Turkish Cypriots after they had been detained by the security forces and then released some distance from their village. A special inquiry was held in this case because the incident occurred at a time of acute intercommunal tension and it was imperative to investigate the allegation that the security forces had intentionally contributed to the death of the unfortunate victims. The Chief Justice's report, although he had certain criticisms to make, wholly repudiates this baseless suggestion.
"I now turn to questions of general policy. After two weeks of debate on the Cyprus question the General Assembly of the United Nations has passed a short resolution in very general terms. At one time there were seven different draft resolutions before the Political Committee. Some of these would have been acceptable to us; others, we thought, pointed too much in the direction of a particular final solution. The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs took the opportunity of the debate in the United Nations to give a full explanation of our policy. He described in detail the British plan with which the House is familiar. He also explained the lengths to which Her Majesty's Government have gone in their endeavours to reach an agreement for the holding of a conference at which the British plan could be discussed and amendments to it agreed, and at which the final solution could also be discussed. We still believe that useful progress could be made through a conference, either confined to the parties directly concerned,

189
including, of course, Cypriot representatives, or with the assistance of others chosen by agreement.
"The proceedings in the General Assembly revealed a wide measure of understanding of the complexity of the Cyprus problem and not a little sympathy for the efforts which Her Majesty's Government have made to deal with it. They also, I think, revealed some reluctance on the part of many of those not directly concerned with the problem to try to lay down the conditions on which a settlement should be sought. The resolution finally adopted avoided this and simply expressed confidence that continued efforts would be made by the parties to reach a peaceful, democratic and just solution in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. That is certainly our hope.
"It is right that a little time should now be allowed for the Governments concerned to consider their position in the light of the United Nations debate. Next week in Paris there is a Ministerial meeting of the North Atlantic Council which will be attended by my right honourable and learned friend the Foreign Secretary, and I have every expectation that the Foreign Ministers of Greece and Turkey will be present. No doubt advantage will be taken of this occasion for confidential discussions between those who have been principally concerned. I feel sure that this approach is the most likely to be fruitful.
"As we have already made clear, we are ready to discuss with our Greek and Turkish allies the interim arrangements for the administration of Cyprus described in my statements of the 19th of June and the 15th of August; and we are willing, as we have said, to put into effect any amendments to our announced policy on which agreement can be reached. These offers remain open and can be taken up at any time. We regretted that the Greek Government did not feel able to agree to a conference on the lines discussed in N.A.T.O. last October. But the position may now have changed. In any case we continue to hope that in time the Greek Government will see the advantages to the Greek Cypriots and
190
to Greece of the offers which we have made to them. Whatever the difficulties, progress has been made in narrowing the area of dispute. For our part we shall do our utmost to reach agreement."
My Lords, that was rather a long statement, but I thought the House would like it in full.
3.47 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am indebted to the noble Earl the Leader of the House for making a statement which has proved to be quite interesting, although there is nothing very new for Members of your Lordships' House to gather from it. We welcome the large amount of evidence which has accrued to show that many of the statements made against the British troops' conduct in Cyprus were not justified, and we support the view that the British troops, though under great provocation, have nevertheless carried out their duties in Cyprus with a great deal of restraint and a great deal of satisfaction to many people.
The point I should like to raise first is on the second page of the statement (with which I was supplied) and deals with the investigation. The statement says:
"It is clear that the reports could not be released for publication without prejudicing the usefulness of this system in the future."
That may well be so; I cannot say, because I do not know exactly what is in the reports. But it is a good principle to adopt that not only must justice be done but it must be seen to be done. It might be a matter for consideration whether, whenever that particular group are holding an investigation, if they cannot reveal all the factors in the evidence that they have received they should nevertheless make some statement. But, of course, that is a matter for the Government. They must judge upon it according to the nature of the reports which they receive.
I think there is a great deal of regret in all Parties in the State that it has not been possible to arrange a conference since the statement made by the Greek Government. There have been criticisms from time to time that perhaps an opportunity was missed at one point where Archbishop Makarios seemed to be making an effort. I make no comment

191
upon that, and I fasten on to the general promise which Her Majesty's Government make in this statement that they are first giving consideration to their position as a result of the proceedings in the United Nations Organisation, and, quite apart from that, as I understand the statement, holding themselves perfectly open to have a conference at any time that the parties concerned are willing to come together. That is, I think, a right conclusion.
Then the question arises of Parliamentary discussion. We have, from time to time, as the noble Earl the Leader of the House knows, discussed this matter through the usual channels, and we have come to agreements from time to time that while certain events were taking place or the United Nations were considering the matter it would be better for all parties concerned not to have a public Parliamentary debate on it. It would seem from the nature of the statement to-day that it may still be difficult to have a debate, say, before the adjournment for the Christmas Recess; but would it be possible for the Government to notify Parliament soon after the return from the Recess of their conclusions as the result of their further examination of the position arising out of the United Nations discussions, and thereupon for the House and Parliament in general to have an opportunity of discussing the situation?
3.52 p.m.
LORD REA: My Lords, I should like to join with the noble Viscount in thanking the noble Earl the Leader of the House for his very interesting statement, which I think has probably served to clear the air a good deal. Like many of your Lordships, I served in the Forces in two wars and consider that I know a little about the private soldier, and it seems to me that when a private soldier's wife is murdered in a cowardly manner it is perfectly natural that his hackles should rise and he should behave in a manner slightly different from his normal one. That can be understood and forgiven, but of course must be suppressed as far as possible. I think many of us feel that probably the handling of these Greek Cypriots was not kid-gloved and we are not surprised that it was not; therefore I am glad to hear from the
192
noble Earl that all these investigations have shown that there was no real guilt to be placed on one man or body of men. We have great faith in the officers and men there.
For the future, Her Majesty's Government must know that there is a feeling in this country that things are not going as well as they might go. Some other Party might be able to handle them better. Some other Parties would have handled them better in the past—but that is a matter of opinion. But I should like the noble Earl to know he has behind him from all Parties and all people their earnest desire that things should go right. Even if we do not think the present Government plan is as good as it could be, we hope it will develop into something more acceptable. I ask Her Majesty's Government to keep in mind three particular points which we on these Benches and those associated with us should like to have clearly stated. The first is that this country renounces all self-interest in Cyprus. That would be a reversal of Government policy of some years ago, but I am not going to cry over spilt milk. After an appropriate and definitely specified period, let Cyprus have the right to decide it own future. There must be a period for things to settle down, and the right must be subject to various safeguards. Finally, when that final time comes great care and energy should be taken in putting to a sober and quiet Cyprus the point that one of the choices is to remain in the British Commonwealth, and, so far as most of us in this country can see, however much we sympathise with the Cypriots, that indeed would be their most advantageous choice in the end.
3.56 p.m.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I am obliged to the two noble Lords who have responded to the statement I have made. On the first point which the noble Viscount. Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, raised, I think the value of this particular investigation group for the Governor is that its advice is confidential. That does not, of course, preclude other methods from being used for making public such facts as the Colonial Secretary thinks the public here ought to know. Secondly, it is our desire to see a conference between the Greeks, the Turks and ourselves, and others if it is necessary and wise to have them in and it

193
is agreed, at any time at which it can be agreed. The Foreign Secretary will have an opportunity next week, we hope, to make contact with the Greek and Turkish Foreign Ministers. Thirdly, so far as Parliamentary debate is concerned, I think the House would probably feel that it would not be wise to have one in the immediate future; but, of course, soon after we return from the Recess we can consider this question together, through the usual channels, and see whether one is appropriate then.
So far as the three points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rea, are concerned, I think that if I were to make an answer now I would say that I would not, on the first hearing, accept the first two. I think they would be points really more appropriate for him to elaborate in a debate when the time comes.

DEER (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
3.57 p.m.
House again in Committee.
VISCOUNT ASTOR VISCOUNT ASTOR moved, after Clause 26 to insert the following new clause:
Appointment of deer bailiffs
"27. The Commission may by writing under the hand of the chairman of the Commission, authorise any person who has the right to kill deer on any land or any responsible agent or servant of any such person to act as a deer bailiff for the purposes of this Act in relation to that land, being land mentioned in the authorisation."
The noble Viscount said: I think it will he appropriate for the convenience of the House that I should discuss this Amendment and Nos. 57, 58, 60, 61 and 62 together. I have put down these Amendments to enable the Commission to appoint deer bailiffs to enforce the Act in those parts of Scotland where the police are few and far between. There is a close analogy to what has been done in the Salmon Act, I think by the Government of noble Lords opposite, in the appointment of river bailiffs; the principle is entirely the same. The only difference is that in this case the deer bailiff would be paid by the owner of the land, rather than by the Commission. Of course, if the Commission are prepared do have their own bailiffs no one would be more pleased than the owners of the land.
I think that all of us who have experience of remote deer forests can be certain that, unless we have some clause of this sort, this Bill, when it becomes an Act, may well be a dead letter in some of the more remote parts of Scotland. The police are already, by and large, overworked and understaffed. They have not the time and the mobility to patrol the vast distances of coast and hill. They are mainly bound to the road. They have their hours of service which do not normally include going out at night as well as doing their normal work. In large areas there really are no police who could do this.
My own island, Jura, for instance, is an island thirty miles long—as big as the Isle of Wight. It contains four forests. We are so law-abiding that we have had no policeman of any sort on the island within living memory. How on earth can we expect to catch the poachers who come by boat and land on the west coast, where there is not even a road or track of any sort, unless the stalker or the watcher has powers such as offered in this Amendment? When a stalker out on the west coast sees a poaching boat, he takes two hours to get across and telephone the island of Islay, where lie hopes to find a policeman available. And he, in turn, will take a quarter of an hour to get to the ferry, and a quarter of an hour going across; another hour in the car and then, if he is fit, two hours on his flat feet across the island. By that time the poacher will be away at sea. There are many other forests where the same conditions exist. Therefore, think that, as an earnest of the Government's real intention to put down poaching, they should pass some clause of this description.
My clause may not be the best, and they may be able to work out a better one. As I have said, this involves no new principle: it follows the Salmon Act, and has a practical purpose in enabling this Bill to be enforced and in stopping poaching in these areas. If I may make one more point, as the police get more active in the closely inhabited areas where there are roads, the poachers will tend to go to the more remote areas where there are no police. Therefore, I beg to move this Amendment, which I hope that Her Majesty's Government will see fit to accept.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 26 insert the said new clause. —(Viscount Astor.)
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: I should like to support this Amendment. The island upon which I have my forest is about forty-five miles long and forty-five miles across. We have only policemen and a sergeant, two of whom are chiefly concerned with parking offences in Tobermory. I do not know how they are going to deal with poaching offenders—in fact, however hard they have tried in the past it has been quite beyond their powers. I wholeheartedly support this Amendment.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I think there is a great deal to be said for this Amendment. I have lived for thirty years on the Isle of Seil, looking across to Mull and to Jura. One knows the conditions that exist on the mainland opposite those islands. There is one policeman in the area in which I have lived—one policeman with an area of about 100 square miles. In the main, that is not forest land, but here and there it is, and I think it would be very difficult indeed to enforce this Bill in such regions unless some such powers as are contained in this Amendment are given.
LORD LOVAT: I should like to support the noble Viscount on this point, with reservations. I think he has put his finger on the danger with which forest owners living in remote areas, and particularly on the western seaboard, are faced, that of poaching from a boat. This will certainly increase as the tightening-up on poaching offences occurs under police control along the roads where deer are killed at night. But where this Amendment may fall down is the fact that most of these gangs, who no doubt respect the police, would be quite prepared to get to grips with a civilian carrying some form of authority which they would most certainly refuse to recognise.
I do not know whether, in the debate last week, sufficient attention was drawn to the fact that these men are completely lawless. It is not necessarily deer that they take: hill cattle vanish along the western island coastline, after being taken down and shot on the shore; and if they do not get deer the poachers take sheep. If they saw a decent stalker, who is nature's gentleman, they would have no hesitation in tipping him upside down in
196
the nearest burn, although they would not do that to a policeman. On the other hand, I think that Lord Astor has made a point that the western island forests will be in for a really bad time unless the Government provide some elasticity to cope with this very real danger.
LORD FORBES: This Amendment involves two new principles—first of all, the granting of powers of search, seizure and arrest to persons other than the police; secondly, the appointment by the Commission of such persons having these powers. This is something entirely new and so far outwith this Bill. Her Majesty's Government consider that the powers which have already been given to the police under Clauses 27 and 28 are very wide and already involve substantial infringements of individual rights. In principle, we think that the powers of search should be restricted to members of a disciplined service—namely, the police.
I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Lovat, raised the point that these poachers will, in many cases, be armed, and there is the grave danger that a shooting match will take place with people who are not in uniform, especially if these people who are not in uniform themselves try to search the poachers or their vehicle. I believe that, with the heavy penalties that are to be imposed for poaching, it is quite likely—or so one hopes—that there will be fewer cases of poaching. On the other hand, the fewer people who poach will, in all probability, be much tougher; and, as so often happens, these tough people will not allow themselves to be dealt with by people who are not in uniform, but as soon as a policeman comes along they will give themselves up with little trouble. The police are trained in apprehending criminals, and it is quite possible that the success of a prosecution could be endangered if, for example, a man was cautioned in an incorrect manner by somebody who was not a policeman.
Furthermore, this Amendment goes further, in that it gives more power to these deer bailiffs than the police themselves have: it gives them power to search without warrant. The Commission is not being constituted to deal with the enforcement of criminal law; it is being constituted to deal with the control of deer. The point was raised that this matter was on a par with salmon

197
poaching. I would point out to the noble Lord who made that suggestion that, whereas you can put a salmon into your "poacher's pocket", you cannot do that with a deer.
The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, raised the point that he had no constable on his island. I am sorry to hear that, but I am afraid there is nothing I can do about it.
would point out, however, that the deer have at some time to be taken to the mainland, and that is where we hope that we shall catch the poachers. I admit that the noble Viscount has made a valid point, but I would ask him and the Committee to agree that the principle that powers of arrest should be given only to uniformed services is a most important one, in the interests of the liberty of the subject, and that it must be maintained by this Committee. I would ask the noble Viscount to withdraw the Amendment.
THE EARL OF HADDINGTON: I do not know whether the noble Viscount who moved this Amendment is aware that all the officers in the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals are sworn in as justices of the peace, constables for counties, by old Scottish Acts of Parliament, and that they have exactly the same powers of arrest, seizure and search as have ordinary constables. It may not be very much, but it is of some assistance to the police.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: The noble Lord, Lord Forbes, in his reply has not attempted to repudiate—because of course he cannot—that the number of police is totally inadequate, particularly on the Island of Jura where there are none at all. The noble Lord said that there is nothing he can do. I beg to differ. The noble Lord could ask his superior, the Secretary of State, whether he will consider the introduction of legislation to make it possible for the special constables to be used in Scotland on occasions like this, as they can be in England—one of the few ways in which Scotland is inferior to England—in which case we should be able to deal with this menace much more effectively.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: Will the noble Lord consider that?
LORD FORBES: No; I am afraid that I cannot consider special constables or deer bailiffs.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: I consider that a most unsatisfactory answer. The noble Lord has not begun to explain how this Bill can be anything but a dead letter on the west coast and the Western Isles of Scotland if we are to have the law observed. Presumably, having made this great pressure on us to pass this Bill quickly, with few Amendments and so on, because of this great problem, he intends the law to be preserved and enforced. How on earth is he going to do it? He can do it only by increasing the police force, and that would not be very popular with the committees on county councils who would have to pay for it.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: He is not going to do it, anyway.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: No, he is not going to do it; and there is no new principle. As the noble Earl, Lord Haddington, has said, we have had this power with river bailiffs. They have had powers of arrest and search; and yet the cruelty involved in poaching salmon does not begin to touch the cruelty in poaching deer. If this Bill is not going to be a dead letter, and if there is any real sincerity here, we must have some form of special constable or deer bailiff; otherwise, as I say, the Bill is going to be a completely dead letter. I much regret that, unless the noble Lord can give a further assurance, I do not feel inclined to withdraw this Amendment.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: The noble Lord, Lord Forbes, has said he would not consider it to-day, but assuming that the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, were to put down a similar Amendment on the Report stage, I hope that the noble Lord would then be prepared to consider it.
LORD FORBES: The police to-day have telephones and mobile patrol cars, and we believe that they are perfectly competent to deal with this situation.
LORD KILLEARN: On an island?
VISCOUNT ASTOR: I still ask: how can that be done on the Island of Jura, where we have no policemen at all? The idea that there will be police and patrol cars in parts where there are no roads at all is really absurd.
4.13 p.m.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: I feel that the noble Viscount is being less than fair to my noble friend Lord Forbes.

199
After all, as the noble Lord pointed out to the House, if these animals are to be sold or used for any purpose they will have to be moved to the mainland, and there is a perfectly good chance for the poachers to be apprehended when arriving at their destination. Further, I feel that the Committee have to take into consideration the difference which arises in dealing with what Members in another place called, during the discussion of the Salmon Bill, the "decent poacher." There is quite a difference between dealing with the man who goes to take a fish and the man who goes armed to shoot a deer. I believe that this Amendment would involve serious danger to people who might go to apprehend such persons. I hope that the Committee will take that fact into consideration and that the noble Viscount may yet find ways and means of withdrawing his Amendment.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: What is a stalker going to do if he sees a poaching party? Is he to sit and look at them through a telescope, and do nothing about it? Presumably he will take some action; and if he has some legal power as a special constable the poacher will treat him with more respect than if he has no power whatever.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: It is not just a question of Jura and Mull, but of the mainland. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, says that these poachers have to get back to the mainland, but on the mainland, too, in many parts, there are no constables.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My noble friend the Minister has already told the Committee that there are telephones all over the place, and I should think that the answer to the noble Viscount is that if a gentleman on a hilltop sees poachers arriving he will go to the nearest telephone box and inform the police of where they are going to arrive.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: That is a ridiculous suggestion.
LORD KILLEARN: I should only like to ask why is a gentleman to be sitting on a hilltop? Would he spend every night sitting on a hilltop, with a spyglass, to see whether men are coming across? It seems rather a curious position for this gentleman to be in.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Killearn, is not referring to me, for that suggestion came from the noble Viscount.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: I hope my noble friend will not take this Amendment into the Division Lobby for, with great reluctance, I should be unable to support him—for the reasons which the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, has stated. This would make a really drastic alteration to the law. At the same time I must state quite frankly that the Minister's reply has been utterly unsatisfactory and has not been helped by the bolstering-up of his predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. The position is profoundly unsatisfactory, and I hope that Her Majesty's Government will consider what I have already suggested—that special constables should be empowered to act in Scotland, not just on this question of deer poaching but in ways other than during a national emergency. In England they can be used to direct traffic and so on, where they are invaluable; but in Scotland at the present time that cannot be done. If we had that power it would help very much in this particular case and in many other ways.
I cannot support the Amendment in this form, but I support it in spirit, and I feel that the answer which has been given is most unsatisfactory. It has been pointed out that nothing whatever can be done in the Western Isles to apprehend poachers. They cannot be caught when they can come in at one of the hundred and one ports up and down the coast, and throughout the western seaboard the number of policemen is minute.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: I appreciate the point the noble Viscount has made, about the scarcity of police officers in the districts where deer poaching takes place, but there is nevertheless an objection to the principle which is embodied in his Amendment, for it proposes to make the servants of interested parties the possessors of police powers. That is something entirely alien to our law. The possessor of police powers ought to be an absolutely impartial person and not the servant of somebody who has an interest in prosecuting the offender. That is the fundamental difficulty that I see in this Amendment, and I do not think there is any answer to it.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: May I ask the noble Lord why, in that case, the Labour Government brought in that precise principle in introducing river bailiffs into the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Protection) (Scotland) Act?
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: It is no use the noble Viscount asking me that.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: It would not be in the interest of anyone suggested by the noble Lord, because it is the procurator-fiscal who prosecutes, and he has no interest in anyone else.
LORD LOVAT: The noble Lord. Lord Forbes, has held to his guns, and I believe that he is right to do so. Perhaps he has not made sufficient of the fact that the poachers with whom we want to deal are the gang poachers who work from a fairly big boat. That boat has to come back to port and the venison has to be taken off and moved across the country. The noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, has said that there are a great number of ports where that can be done. Speaking for Inverness-shire, I can think of only two; cm the western seabord there are not many places where a boat can tie up alongside and off-load venison.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: There is no need to tie up; one can use a rope to pull them ashore.
LORD LOVAT: There are communications between the islands, and there are very "live-wire" county police forces. I have never yet seen a poacher kill a deer, and I have had vigilant people looking out for poachers for years. It is the interception of venison that is more important than apprehending the poacher.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: I still think that the view taken by the Government is most unsatisfactory. They have ignored all the practical arguments and based this matter entirely on theory. This idea of flying squads and networks of police all over the Highlands and Islands is absolutely remote and fanciful: it has no relation to reality at all. I foresee that it is no use dividing this House on the point unless noble Lords behind me wish to divide, but I hope that Her Majesty's Government will consider this matter seriously. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment,
202
reserving the right to raise the matter again on the Report stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 27 [Powers of search and seizure]:
LORD FORBES: The purpose of this Amendment is to enable the police to seize a boat or any deer, firearms or ammunition found therein while the boat is on the water. It seems right that the police, if they can pursue offenders, should have power to seize a boat and its contents while on the water and not have to wait until the boat reaches the land. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 5, leave out ("on any land").—(Lord Forbes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.23 p.m.
THE EARL OF HADDINGTON:
Clause 27 deals with powers of search and seizure, but it seems to restrict those powers to suspicion of an offence under Clause 24. Clause 24 deals with gang poaching, two or more persons acting together. I feel that it cannot be the intention of the Government to exclude the offences under the two previous clauses, which deal with prohibition of poaching and the unlawful killing and taking of deer. Suppose a single man was in a boat or vehicle in suspicious circumstances. Would a constable have power to seize or search that vehicle or boat? Under this clause as it stands, he would not. He would have only the power of seizure and search by virtue of Clause 24, where two or more men must be acting together. This Amendment, therefore, seeks to apply the powers of Clause 27 as to search and seizure to all these clauses, Clauses 22, 23 and 24. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 10, leave out ("section twenty-four") and insert ("sections twenty-two, twenty-three or twenty-four").—(The Earl of Haddington.)
LORD FORBES: The power of arrest is given in Clause 28 and this also covers illegal possession of deer, firearms and anything to do with taking deer. I think that that covers the point which the noble Earl raised. The object of his Amendment seems to be to increase the powers of search where one poacher has committed an offence. As the Bill stands at

203
present, the powers of search apply only in cases of gang poaching. I think that the noble Earl's point has been covered and that the individual who has a deer in his car can be arrested. I hope that the noble Earl will be able to withdraw his Amendment.
THE EARL OF HADDINGTON: I am sorry, but the noble Lord has not really covered my point. My point is this: a gang might have acted together in killing or taking deer. That would be a poaching offence. But some of those men might have cleared off, and they might have left the vehicle and the deer in charge of one man. In that case, the vehicle, just because it was in charge of only one man, could not be seized or searched. That is my point.
LORD FORBES: The vehicle can be stopped and the man arrested under the power given in Clause 28.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: Does that mean that the noble Earl's objective is achieved under the Bill as it stands and his Amendment is unnecessary? It means that?
LORD FORBES: That is correct.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: I am sorry, but I fail to follow the explanation which the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, has given. He is saying, in effect, as I understand him, that this Amendment is not needed because the powers already exist in the Bill. But I do not know where the powers exist in the Bill to conduct a search of premises where offences under Clauses 22 or 23 are suspected of having taken place. Would the noble Lord say where these powers are?
LORD FORBES: I am sorry if I misled the Committee. There is no power of search when one person is suspected of committing the crime. But the noble Earl raised the point of dealing with a driver of a car who had deer in the car. That is covered under Clause 28. There is no power of search other than in the case of gang offences.
LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL: I still do not understand that explanation of the noble Lord. Surely the places where venison may be concealed are just as important if one man
204
is poaching as if a gang is poaching. Clause 27, at line 12, uses the words: "premises…vehicle or boat". I cannot understand why one man should be treated differently from a gang.
THE EARL OF HADDINGTON: The poaching might have been committed by a gang, and yet the gang could disperse if they thought there was a chance of their being found. They might leave one man in possession of a vehicle loaded up with deer and say to him, "Go on and get away with it. If you are found they cannot search or seize you, because you are not a gang; you are one man by yourself." Under this clause there cannot be a search.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: I think this is a definite weakness. All that a gang of poachers have to do is to have two motorcars. They can have the deer in one and the other can go off in the other direction. This is an obvious loophole in the Bill, and I hope that the noble Lord will close it.
LORD FORBES: We can still get the one man under Clause 28. What we are arguing about is that we do not want to give the powers of search except in gang offences.
A NOBLE LORD: Why not?
LORD FORBES: The powers of search are a very serious encroachment upon the individual's rights, and those powers should be confined to very serious offences; that is, offences committed by gangs where there will probably be wholesale slaughter of deer. What we have been talking about is the case where one deer has been killed; and in such a case we do not contemplate giving these wide powers. The person who has taken one deer can be arrested and dealt with under Clause 28.
THE EARL OF HADDINGTON: A person may have six or a dozen deer concealed in his van, and it still cannot be searched; nor can it in the case of suspected offences under Clauses 22 and 23. I do not want to press the matter but I regard this as a great weakness in the Bill.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: I have actually known cases of this kind. Recently one man alone killed seven stags, but he is to be regarded as a "dear little amateur,"

205
like the people who tickle for trout, and he cannot be searched. Surely he is as big a criminal as if he had his brother with him.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: I should like the noble Lord to reconsider this point. It appears to me that a flaw in the Bill has been brought out. Perhaps the Minister will reconsider it between now and Report stage and, if he finds that this is a weakness, take steps to remedy it.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I hope the noble Lord will do that.
LORD FORBES: I will certainly look into it. but I still do not see the weakness which noble Lords have pointed out.
THE EARL OF HADDTNGTON: With that assurance. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.32 p.m.
LORD FORBES: Clause 27, as drafted, does not make it absolutely clear that the police may seize an article found on a person who is about to enter or has just left the premises, vehicle or boat, if a gang poaching offence is suspected. The additional words are intended to remove this doubt. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 23, after ("boat") insert ("or on any such person").—(Lord Forbes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT ASTOR VISCOUNT ASTOR had given notice of his intention to move to insert, after subsection (4):
"(5) Where a deer bailiff has reasonable grounds for suspecting that an offence against section twenty-four of this Act has been committed and that evidence of the commission of the offence is to be found in any vehicle or boat on any private land in relation to which he is authorised to act as deer bailiff the deer bailiff may search that vehicle or boat."
The noble Viscount said: On this Amendment I would just say that the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, seemed to say that my previous Amendment would mean that a deer bailiff would be given powers of search which the ordinary policeman did not have. Surely in lines 31 to 35 of subsection (4) of this clause the police have exactly those powers. Having made that remark, I do not wish to move this Amendment.
Clause 27, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 28 to 32 agreed to.
Clause 33 [Saving for certain acts]:
VISCOUNT ASTOR: This is really a drafting Amendment to give to someone who kills in pursuance of an order of the Commission the same absolution as is given to servants of the Commission. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 10, after ("done") insert ("in pursuance of a requirement or").—(Viscount Astor.)
LORD FORBES: This Amendment is really consequential to an Amendment that has already been moved and I cannot accept it.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: In that case, as it was drafting, I am glad to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 33 agreed to.
Clauses 34 to 36 agreed to.
First Schedule [Provisions as to the Red Deer Commission]:
VISCOUNT ASTOR VISCOUNT ASTOR moved at the beginning of paragraph 2 to insert:
"The term of office of the Chairman of the Commission shall be at the pleasure of the Secretary of State and the term of office of any other member shall not exceed three years. Subject thereto"
The noble Viscount said: This Amendment is designed to make appointments on the same lines as those of members of the agricultural committees, who are appointed for three years and are subject to re-appointment, while the chairman holds office at the pleasure of the Secretary of State. This is done under the Agriculture (Scotland) Act, 1948. When people are put forward to represent a section of the community, surely it is a good idea that they should be nominated for a definite period and that those who nominate them should have a chance of re-appointing or not. The members may not have proved to be satisfactory representatives of those who have nominated them. They may have got out of touch with the people they are supposed to represent. The term of office of the Chairman, who is appointed by the Secretary of State, should be entirely at the Secretary of State's pleasure. I think that this is a real point and hope that it will be considered. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14 line 7, at beginning insert the said new words.—(Viscount Astor.)
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: I hope that favourable consideration will be given to this Amendment, because there certainly are cases when persons appointed to represent various bodies do not prove so satisfactory as was hoped. It is much better that these persons should have a definite period of office at the end of which they need not be re-appointed rather than that the organisation concerned should have to take steps to displace them or have to continue to suffer them if they are not doing their jobs properly.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I hope that the noble Lord will be ready to accept this Amendment, which would make the position far easier. After all, this is the ordinary custom in every business. Directors do not go on for all time; they have to come up for re-election from time to time.
LORD FORBES: It is entirely for the Secretary of State to draw up the instrument of appointment, and that instrument will provide for such term of office as the Secretary of State thinks fit. The only way to get a good Chairman—and in this case the Chairman is going to be a salaried one—is to give him some security of tenure. If the Chairman were appointed entirely at the Secretary of State's pleasure there would be nothing to prevent my right honourable friend from waking up one morning with a frightful liver and sacking the Chairman that day. There is a perfectly good safeguard, if the Chairman does not act in accordance with the Secretary of State's wishes: the Secretary of State can ask him to resign. In drawing up the instrument of appointment, I am certain that my right honourable friend will take into consideration the suggestion made by the noble Viscount that appointment of members should be for three years. With this assurance, I hope that the noble Viscount will be able to withdraw his Amendment.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: We have been asked to accept the fact that the Commission will be composed of reasonable men, and I expect they will be serving a reasonable Secretary of State who will not suddenly, because he has had a bad
208
night, start sacking the Chairman. I cannot imagine that that is really a serious argument. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
First Schedule agreed to.
Second Schedule [Provisions as to control schemes]:
4.40 p.m.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: This Amendment is put down merely to ensure that copies of the control scheme shall be deposited for public inspection in more than one place, for the convenience of any members of the public who wish to inspect the scheme. In Argyllshire it would be little use if the only place open was as far away from the town as London. I hope this is a common-sense Amendment which will be accepted. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 30, after ("place") insert ("or places convenient to the public").—(Viscount Astor.)
LORD FORBES: I hope I can satisfy the noble Viscount on this question if I say that "place" includes "places". I think I can also give the assurance that the Commission can be relied on to put the notice in a convenient place and not somewhere where it cannot be seen. This is a common form of procedure for bringing notices to the attention of the public, and no difficulty over it has so far been experienced. I hope that the noble Viscount will withdraw his Amendment.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: It seems to be an odd bit of grammar that the singular includes the plural, rather than that the plural includes the singular. However, if that is so in law, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: This Amendment would require the Secretary of State to send to the parties a copy of the inspector's report following an inquiry. This follows the recommendations in paragraphs 343 and 344 of the Franks Committee Report. I think it is important, if there is to be good will, that nothing should be done in a hole-and-corner way, and that everybody concerned should have the opportunity of seeing these reports. Half of the trouble with Crichel Down and other matters has been that the various

209
reports made were not shown to everybody concerned, with the result that misunderstanding followed. As I say, this Amendment is in accordance with the recommendations of the Franks Committee. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 46, after ("modifications") insert ("and on intimating his decision he shall send to the Commission and to every person by whom objection has been made and not withdrawn a copy of the report of the person who held the inquiry")—(Viscount Astor.)
LORD FORBES: I agree with the noble Viscount that the Amendment is in accordance with the Franks Committee, whose recommendations the Government have accepted in general terms. But as the proposals for legislation are now before Parliament I cannot say more on this matter, and I cannot accept the Amendment.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, will bear in mind that in the past the non-circulation of such reports has caused a great deal of inconvenience and ill-feeling. If we are going to get this Commission to work smoothly, and with the agreement of all parties concerned, it is necessary that full information about the facts should be made public, or, if not actually made public, at least supplied to the persons most intimately concerned.
LORD FORBES: I agree with what the noble Earl has said, and I am hopeful that the report will be published. But as I have already said, this matter is now before Parliament and I cannot go further.
LORD MACPHERSON OF DRUMOCHTER: Is it not the case that we shall have an annual report from the Commissioners? Is not that stated somewhere in the Bill?
LORD FORBES: Yes; there will be an annual report.
LORD MACPHERSON OF DRUMOCHTER: And it will be laid on the Table.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: This is not a question of an annual report; this is a question of a report after particular inquiries. If the Government accept the principle that this shall be so, what constitutional objection is there to putting it in the Bill? They say that they are going to
210
put it in a general Bill, to which naturally we wish all good luck and which we will help through the House; but mean-while I cannot see any difficulty about putting it in this Bill. It would show good will, and it would also show that there is no question of any hole-and-corner business. However, in the hope that the noble Lord will think it over, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD FORBES: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 24, leave out ("a revocation of") and insert ("may revoke").—(Lord Forbes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD FORBES: This, too, is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 37, leave out ("(3) to (8)") and insert ("(2) to (9)").—(Lord Forbes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD FORBES: This is a further drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 40, leave out ("4 or 9") and insert ("3 or 8").—(Lord Forbes.)
VISCOUNT ASTOR: This is a case where my eagle eye and that of my legal advisers spotted a drafting Amendment which has since been discovered by the noble Lord, Lord Forbes. It is a real pleasure to find myself in agreement with the noble Lord on one of these Amendments, and I give him my hearty support.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I was going to say that after some of the acute differences that have been so harmoniously disposed of between the noble Viscount and the noble Lord, it is a great pleasure to see them embracing each other towards the end of the proceedings.
LORD LATHAM: Even if only verbally.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: Under paragraph 10 of the Second Schedule the Secretary of State may disregard an objection made if he does not like it. It is not clear, under paragraph 13, as it stands, that this would be a matter which could be questioned by appeal to the courts. The Amendment is proposed to cover this. It

211
makes it clear that in the final resort it is possible to go to the courts, which give such great safeguards against any form of injustice or bad administration. It is a right that is unlikely to be used, but I think it would be useful to have it in reserve. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 17, after ("with") insert ("or that any objection made by him has been unreasonably disregarded,").—(Viscount Astor.)
LORD FORBES: This Amendment proposes to allow an appeal to the courts on the ground that the objector does not agree with the Secretary of State's decision. This is a matter of policy, and not one of law, and I cannot agree that an appeal to the courts should be allowed. However, an objector can at any time take his case to a court of law, where the objection will be considered on legal grounds. I hope that, with that assurance, the noble Viscount will withdraw the Amendment.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: Before asking leave to withdraw the Amendment, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, on the way he has "carried his bat" through a long series of Amendments. It is his first appearance on one of these long Bills, and he has conducted it remarkably well. I believe that all of us with experience, on which-ever side of the House we sit, know that
212
it is the Front Bench who are conciliatory and prepared to listen to Amendments who get legislation through, whatever be the size of their majority. The noble Lord has given some important undertakings, the most important being those which he gave to the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, the noble Lord, Lord Stratheden and Campbell, and myself in columns 1171 and 1181 of the OFFICIAL REPORT: that it will be the primary job of the owner to deal with the marauding stag, rather than to send someone else. He has given an undertaking on the principle of inquiry on any delay as to whether the powers have been properly observed: whether notice given to a factor could be equally good as notice given to an owner, and both regarding the balance of the local panels to be set up and the modes of procedure to see that there is nothing unsatisfactory. Those are some of the assurances the noble Lord gave us, which we welcome. In begging leave to withdraw my Amendment, I congratulate him upon his good work.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Second Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining Schedule agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at eight minutes before five o'clock.