§ 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 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 MANSFIELDThis 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 ELIBANKIf 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 DRUMOCHTERI 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 BROCKETI 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 FORBESThe 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 FERRARDIn view of what the noble Lord has said, rather reluctantly I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
172§ 2.57 p.m.
§ 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 MANSFIELDI 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 DRUMOCHTERI 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 ELIBANKI 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 BROCKETThis 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 LOVATI 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 FORBESMost 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.
§ LORD FORBESThere 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 STRATHCLYDEI 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 DRUMOCHTERThere 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 HADDINGTONI fail to see why it is going to take four years for owners to clear off stocks of surplus deer.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLLUntil 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 WINSTERMay 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 FORBESI 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 ASTORSurely 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 FORBESIn 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 DRUMOCHTERIn 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 ATHOLLThis 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 MANSFIELDI 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 ELIBANKI 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 FORBESI 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.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause 21 agreed to.
THE EARL OF HADDINGTONThis 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—
(3) For the purposes of this section 'roe deer' means deer of the species capreolus capreolus.").—(The Earl of Haddington.)
THE EARL OF MANSFIELDIn view of the assurance given earlier, I do not propose to move my Amendment to the Amendment, to include fallow deer.
§ LORD FORBESI will again give the assurance that I will look into this matter before the Report stage.
§ 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 DRUMOCHTERIn 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 FORBESThe 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 MANSEIELDShould this Amendment be accepted, it would merely be the greatest possible inducement to wholesale poaching.
§ VISCOUNT ASTORMay 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 FORBESI am sure that the noble Lord's remarks will be taken into account by the Forestry Commission.
§ LORD MACPHERSON OF DRUMOCHTERAm 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 FORBESThe tenant can deal with deer on enclosed agricultural land.
§ LORD MACPHERSON OF DRUMOCHTERIn view of that explanation, I withdraw.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ 3.20 p.m.
§ 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 FORBESPerhaps 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 MANSEIELDIs my noble friend Lord Forbes unaware that many people catch salmon "accidentally", so-called, when fishing for trout?
§ LORD LOVATI 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 BROCKETIn 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 SWINTONI 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 FORBESI 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 CAMPBELLIn 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 DRUMOCHTERIn 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 CAMPBELLI 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 FORBESAs I am looking into Amendment No. 49, I will also look into No. 51 which goes with it.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ LORD MACPHERSON OF DRUMOCHTERMy 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.
184§ 3.31 p.m.
§ LORD MACPHERSON OF DRUMOCHTERI 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 FORBESIt 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 DRUMOCHTERI 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 FORBESThe exception is made, of course, because of the remoteness of the areas.
§ VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHIt 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 FORBESThere is nothing to prevent there being two witnesses.
§ VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHThen why not accept the Amendment?
§ LORD STRATHCLYDEMay 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 HILLSBOROUGHThat 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.
§ LORD BROCKETI 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 JESSELMay 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. ALDWYNIn 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.