§ 3.57 p.m.
§ House again in Committee.
§ 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.
194§ 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.
195
§
Amendment moved—
After Clause 26 insert the said new clause. —(Viscount Astor.)
§ VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARDI 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 ELIBANKI 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 LOVATI 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 FORBESThis 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 HADDINGTONI 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 MANSFIELDThe 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.
§ LORD FORBESNo; I am afraid that I cannot consider special constables or deer bailiffs.
§ VISCOUNT ASTORI 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 ASTORNo, 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 ELIBANKThe 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 FORBESThe police to-day have telephones and mobile patrol cars, and we believe that they are perfectly competent to deal with this situation.
§ LORD KILLEARNOn an island?
§ VISCOUNT ASTORI 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 STRATHCLYDEI 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 ASTORWhat 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 ELIBANKIt 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 STRATHCLYDEMy 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.
§ LORD KILLEARNI 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 STRATHCLYDEI hope that the noble Lord, Lord Killearn, is not referring to me, for that suggestion came from the noble Viscount.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELDI 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 BARLOCHI 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 ASTORMay 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 BARLOCHIt is no use the noble Viscount asking me that.
VISCOUNT ELIBANKIt 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 LOVATThe 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.
§ LORD LOVATThere 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 ASTORI 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 FORBESThe 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 HADDINGTONClause 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 FORBESThe 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 HADDINGTONI 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 FORBESThe vehicle can be stopped and the man arrested under the power given in Clause 28.
VISCOUNT ELIBANKDoes 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 FORBESThat is correct.
§ LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCHI 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 FORBESI 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 CAMPBELLI 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 HADDINGTONThe 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 ASTORI 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 FORBESWe 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.
§ LORD FORBESThe 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 HADDINGTONA 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 ASTORI 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 MANSFIELDI 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.
§ LORD FORBESI will certainly look into it. but I still do not see the weakness which noble Lords have pointed out.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ 4.32 p.m.
§ LORD FORBESClause 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 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 ASTORThis 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 FORBESThis Amendment is really consequential to an Amendment that has already been moved and I cannot accept it.
§ VISCOUNT ASTORIn 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 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.
207
§
Amendment moved—
Page 14 line 7, at beginning insert the said new words.—(Viscount Astor.)
THE EARL OF MANSFIELDI 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 ELIBANKI 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 FORBESIt 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 ASTORWe 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 ASTORThis 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 FORBESI 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 ASTORIt 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 ASTORThis 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 FORBESI 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 MANSFIELDI 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 FORBESI 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 DRUMOCHTERIs it not the case that we shall have an annual report from the Commissioners? Is not that stated somewhere in the Bill?
§ LORD FORBESYes; there will be an annual report.
§ LORD MACPHERSON OF DRUMOCHTERAnd it will be laid on the Table.
§ VISCOUNT ASTORThis 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 FORBESThis 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 FORBESThis, 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 FORBESThis 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 ASTORThis 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 ELIBANKI 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 LATHAMEven if only verbally.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ VISCOUNT ASTORUnder 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 FORBESThis 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 ASTORBefore 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.