Lords Sitting of 18 November 1958

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

MESSAGES FROM THE QUEEN
THE EARL OF SCARBROUGH: My Lords, I have the honour to present to your Lordships two Messages from Her Majesty The Queen, signed by her own hand. The first is as follows:
"I have received your Address praying that Regulations 1 to 6 of the Defence (Armed Forces) Regulations, 1939, be continued in force for a further period of one year until the tenth day of December, 1959. I will give directions accordingly."
The second is in these terms:
"I have received your Address praying that the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, 1945, be continued in force for a further period of one year until the tenth day of December, 1959. I will give directions accordingly."

DUTIES ON TERRORISTS' VICTIMS' ESTATES
2.35 p.m.
LORD SALTOUN: 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 have levied and propose to continue to levy death duties of any kind upon the estates of civilians murdered in Cyprus.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, during the war relief from Estate Duty was given under Section 46, Finance Act, 1941, in the case of civilians who died from injuries caused by the operations of war. As an extra-statutory concession the same relief has been given, as from the commencement of the disturbances, in the case of civilians who died from injuries caused by terrorist
558
also followed during the troubles in activities in Cyprus. This course was Malaya, Korea and Kenya. The relief is given where the estate passes to the widow or widower or to certain near relatives: it consists of the exemption of the first £5,000 and a substantial reduction in the duty on the balance. The reduction is equivalent to discount (at 3 per cent. compound interest) on the full duty for the period of normal expectation of life of a person of the age of the deceased person.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that Answer, and I am sure it will be received with gratitude by every Member of your Lordships' House.

DENOMINATIONS OF BANKNOTES
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: 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, for the greater convenience of the public, they will now consider the issue of banknotes of a higher denomination than £5.]
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, the issue of banknotes of denominations higher than £5 was discontinued in 1943. This made it possible to simplify the production and handling of the note issue and there has been no indication that the change caused any appreciable inconvenience to the public. If real evidence of a public need for notes of denominations other than those now in use can be produced, I am sure the Bank of England will take account of it.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Earl for that Answer, but is it not a fact that in Scotland notes of a higher denomination are issued, to the great convenience of the public? Why should there be this discrimination between Scotland and England?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, that is perfectly true, and, in fact, until the noble Lord put his Question on the Paper I was unaware that the Bank of England had ceased printing notes of a

559
higher denomination than £5. Since the Scottish banks issue notes of £10, £20, £50 and £100, it seems that the English do not like handling such large sums of money as the Scots.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, now we are on the subject of notes, I should like to ask two supplementary questions. No doubt your Lordships have found that the £1 notes stick together most inconveniently. I hope the noble Earl will try to rectify this inconvenient habit of these notes. The second question is whether notes of different denominations can distinctly have a different colour.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords in reply to the first question, I think my noble friend with a little dexterity can avoid paying too much. With regard to the second question, if he is referring to the Bank of England notes, I think the £5 notes are white—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I am out of date.

JOINT COMMITTEE ON PRIVATE BILL PROCEDURE
LORD SILKIN: 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 when it is proposed to set up the promised Joint Committee of Members of both Houses relating to provisions governing the insertion in Private Bills promoted by local authorities of powers required by other bodies.]
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, the discussions referred to by the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees in reply to a question on this point on July 29 last have now been concluded. Motions will shortly be tabled both in your Lordships' House and in another place proposing the establishment of a Joint Committee to inquire into this aspect of Private Bill procedure.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, while expressing restrained satisfaction at that reply, can the noble Earl tell us what will
560
be the terms of reference? And will they be set out in the Motion?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I cannot to-day say what the terms of reference will be, because they are under consideration. They will be wide enough to achieve the purposes we all want to see achieved; but no doubt they will be set out in the Motion.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, will the County Councils Association be invited to give evidence?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I think the terms of the Motion for setting up a Joint Committee is really a matter for both Houses of Parliament, and we are all aware of the matters into which we wish to inquire. As to who shall be called to give evidence and who shall not at a later stage, I would rather have notice of that question, to consider it.

DEER (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
2.42 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD FORBES): My Lords, as I am presenting from the Front Bench the Second Reading of a Bill to your Lordships for the first time, I ask your Lordships' indulgence for any errors other than acts of discourtesy I may make. Owing to my inexperience, I trust that if, during my innings, the bowling becomes too fast, your Lordships, mindful of your usual understanding but forgetting your unsurpassed ability, will drop me in the slips. I would, however, remind your Lordships that if any noble Lord starts "body-line bowling" and causes me grievous harm, I have right behind me my noble friend the Leader of the House, who will at once step in as my runner, as it was the noble Earl himself who so ably steered a Bill concerning the poaching of deer through this House six years ago
My Lords, I find myself in the position of poacher turned gamekeeper, as it was only last Session that I myself was pressing Her Majesty's Government to introduce a Bill such as this. It therefore gives me great personal pleasure to attempt to describe this Bill which is now before your Lordships.

561
The previous Bill passed by your Lordships' House was founded on the Report of the Scott Henderson Committee on Cruelty to Wild Animals. That Bill was designed to prevent illegal taking and killing of deer by inhumane methods. However, during the course of the debates on that Bill the feeling was strongly expressed that close seasons were also necessary. The Bill was later withdrawn, and the question of the introduction of close seasons was referred to a Committee under the chairmanship of Sheriff Maconochie. Unfortunately, this Committee failed to reach an agreed conclusion and they presented a Majority and a Minority Report.
This appeared at the time to have created something of a deadlock. Happily, the Nature Conservancy later brought together the interests concerned, the Scottish Landowners' Federation, the British Field Sports Society of Scotland, the National Farmers' Union of Scotland, and the Blackfaced Sheep Breeders' Association, to see whether some basis of agreement could be found. Such a basis was in fact found, and in September, 1956, these organisations submitted an agreed Report. It is on this agreed Report that the present Bill is based, and I should like at this stage to pay tribute to the Nature Conservancy for the initiative which they took. Also, I should like to thank the other organisations concerned for the helpful and constructive way in which they responded.
Before touching on the detailed provisions of the Bill I must emphasise one point. The Bill is framed, in the words of the Long Title:
"to further the conservation and control of red deer in Scotland, and to prevent the illegal taking and killing of all species of deer in Scotland."
Thus, the purpose of this Bill is to deal with the deer problem in Scotland as a whole. We are not therefore, just reintroducing the 1952 Bill with modifications. This is not only a new but also a comprehensive approach, designed to deal with all problems relating to deer, especially rod deer.
Your Lordships will observe that in the forefront of the Bill we have put provisions for the conservation and control of red deer—provisions to be administered by a Red Deer Commission to be appointed by the Secretary of State. The
562
joint Report recognises—and I quote the words:
"that deer have their proper niche in the pattern of pastoral and sporting life and that wise conservation, based on balance and control, must make for improved herds of deer."
On the other hand, they agree, and rightly so, that the deer population in Scotland requires to be controlled in the interests of agriculture. I am not going to attempt to measure these problems of conservation, on the one hand, and control, on the other. Obviously, conditions vary enormously from area to area. It will be for the Commission, when it is set up, first, to investigate the circumstances of each area, then to embark upon local consultations, and finally to reach conclusions as to the action to be taken.
Your Lordships will see from the provisions of Clause 1 that it is proposed that the Commission should be constituted on a widely representative basis. It will therefore be a knowledgeable body and one which can act with authority. Owing to this it is essential that we should not attempt to lay down detailed rules or formulæ. Rather, it is surely best to confer general powers on a body so constituted as to command the confidence of all the interests concerned.
Now, my Lords, I should like to say a few words about the general powers which it is proposed to give the Commission. Clause 3 imposes on the Commission a duty to advise the Secretary of State on matters relating to red deer, and Clause 4 permits them to advise owners of land on matters relating to the management of deer stocks. In addition, Clause 4 empowers the Commission to collaborate with others in the investigation of questions of practical or scientific importance relating to red deer. I hope that through the use of these powers the Commission will exercise a helpful influence in furthering the conservation and improvement in quality of red deer in appropriate areas of Scotland. Your Lordships will notice that in this matter of conservation we are relying on persuasion. The Commission will have no power to force their advice upon owners. They will act only at the request of owners.
However, when it comes to the matter of protecting agricultural and forestry interests, stronger powers will be needed, including powers of a compulsory nature. And here let me say this. I trust and

563
believe that when agricultural or forestry interests are being harmed the Commission will generally be able to enlist the co-operation of deer forest owners and others in the necessary remedial measures. But should this co-operation not be forthcoming, compulsory powers must be available for use where necessary. Two main powers of this kind are provided for in the Bill: first, to deal with marauding deer and, secondly, to make control schemes for the reduction in the number of deer in any area or, in appropriate cases, for the extermination of the deer in particular areas. I should like now to say a little about each of these powers.
Clause 6 deals with marauding deer and empowers the Commission, where they find that red deer are habitually invading agricultural land and causing substantial damage, to authorise competent persons to follow and kill such deer. This is obviously a case in which urgent action may have to be taken, and the best way of getting quick and effective action will usually be to secure the co-operation of the owner of the land from which the offending deer have come. This co-operation will, I hope, usually be forthcoming, but we must legislate for the case in which, for one reason or another, it is not given. We have therefore provided that the Commission may take action themselves after giving 24 hours' notice of their intention to do so. We have also provided, as your Lordships will see from Clause 2, subsection (2), that the Commission may delegate their powers concerning marauding deer to local panels which they may set up with the approval of the Secretary of State.
I should like to point out that the power to take prompt action to deal with marauding deer is only of a first-aid or emergency character. Looking further ahead, undoubtedly more radical measures will be needed in many districts—measures designed to secure a permanent reduction in deer stocks or, in some areas, measures to exterminate the deer altogether. For this purpose the Commission will be empowered to make control schemes. Here more elaborate provisions are called for, and these will be found in Clauses 7 to 11 and in the Second Schedule. Your Lordships will note that before taking action under
564
Clause 7 the Commission must be satisfied that red deer have caused serious damage to agriculture or forestry and that such damage is likely to be continued. They must then seek to secure action to put matters right through voluntary agreement. If, failing such agreement, they have to resort to a formal control scheme, they must, in framing it—I quote from the Bill—
"have due regard to the nature and character of the land in the area".
Before coming into operation any control scheme must be confirmed by the Secretary of State. The detailed procedure for making control schemes is set out in the Second Schedule to the Bill. The procedure is on lines which will, I am sure, be familiar, and, I hope, acceptable to your Lordships. I fully appreciate that some of the provisions and procedures relating to control schemes are somewhat elaborate. However the action to be taken under a control scheme may be of a far-reaching character and it is only right that there should be adequate provision for objections and inquiry.
Part I of the Bill also contains a number of provisions of a supplementary character. Of these I would only draw your Lordships attention to Clause 12 which empowers the Commission to assist owners or occupiers of land in killing deer and in disposing of the carcases.
The first Part of the Bill also includes, in Clause 20 the necessary provisions for the establishment of close seasons for red deer. The introduction of close seasons is, of course one of the points agreed on by the organisations. I think I should tell your Lordships that not only did the organisations recommend the suggested dates but they also recommended bringing close seasons into operation some three years after the control provisions become effective. Even when they do come into operation, close seasons will not affect the work of the Red Deer Commission or the right given to occupiers by Section 43 of the Agriculture (Scotland) Act, 1948, to kill deer by day on their enclosed lands.
My Lords, with Part II of the Bill we reach what I call familiar home ground—or should I say Home ground, because, as I have already stated, this is where my noble Leader has already

565
charted the course. The object of this Part of the Bill, which covers deer of all species (not just red deer as in Part I) is to give the police and the courts in Scotland greater powers to deal with the indiscriminate and cruel slaughter or wounding of deer.
There is no doubt that practices of this sort have increased to an alarming extent in Scotland since the War. Gangs come out by car or lorry, mostly from places many miles away from the deer forests. They sometimes work during the hard weather when the deer are low down, but mostly they operate at night when the deer come to the lower ground and are often found close to the road, where they can be easily dazzled by car headlights or spotlights and then massacred, sometimes with Sten guns or other such weapons. This leads not only to the slaughter of deer but, what is worse, to the wounding or maiming of a great many. Perhaps the most pitiful sight of all is helpless calves being left to a lingering death when their mothers have been killed by the ruthless gangs. Part II of the Bill therefore is designed to prevent cruelty rather than just to preserve the rights of owners of deer forests.
Clause 22 makes it an offence to take or wilfully kill deer without legal right or without permission, written or oral, from a person having such right. This is in fact the position under the existing law to-day, hut the offender is liable only to minor penalties under the Game (Scotland) Act, 1832, or to a civil action for interdict. This Bill, however, will provide more adequate sanctions. Clause 23 makes it an offence to kill deer at night in any circumstances, or in daylight otherwise than by shooting with a non-repeating rifle or shotgun. I should add, however, that under Clause 33, later in the Bill, there are no restrictions on the method or time of killing deer to prevent their suffering through injury or disease.
Clause 24 prescribes specially heavy penalties for offences by gangs of two or more persons. Clause 25 provides that possession of deer or firearms or ammunition, in circumstances indicating that an offence has been committed, is in itself an offence. This is to meet the case in which the offender is not caught actually taking the deer but is found in circumstances which clearly suggest he has done so illegally: for example, a person or
566
persons leaving a glen in a motor van loaded with recently killed stags. Under this clause a court will be able to convict for offences on the evidence of one witness. This, again, is clearly necessary, because there will often be only a single stalker, gamekeeper or shepherd at the scene of the offence.
Clause 26 provides that attempts to commit offences shall be treated in the same way as actual offences. Clause 27 gives the police powers of seizure of deer, firearms, ammunition, vehicles or boats—all of which are liable to forfeiture. It gives also, in relation to gang offences, powers of search of premises, vehicles or boats. These are very necessary powers, as at present the police have no authority to stop or search vehicles which may be being used for the illegal killing of deer. The remaining clauses in Part II deal with the necessary powers of arrest, forfeiture and disposal of forfeited articles. I am sure your Lordships will agree that all these powers are both reasonable and necessary, and that they should commend themselves to public opinion generally.
Part III of the Bill contains some general provisions which need no comment. In conclusion, I should like to emphasise that in this Bill the Government are endeavouring, in an atmosphere of general agreement between all the interests concerned, to solve the deer problem in Scotland, a problem which, although known to exist for many years, has escaped a solution. This, surely, is a worthy aim, and one which leads me with confidence to commend the Bill to your Lordships for Second Reading. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Forbes.)
3.2 p.m.
LORD MATHERS: My Lords, it is my privilege and pleasure to welcome the speech that has been made by the Minister of State. I do so with great pleasure. He has already been commended to us by the form of election through which he had to pass before he became one of the Scottish Representative Peers in this House. So already he has had the stamp of approval placed upon him, and I am sure that he has our regard. The speech he has made to-day and the careful way in which he has explained the terms of this Bill have commended him to us all, and I look forward to his intervention

567
for a long time to come on legislative measures for the benefit of Scotland. We learned to care greatly for his predecessor in the office which he now holds, and I look forward to his adequately filling that position.
This is a controversial Bill. There is a distinct cleavage of interest covered by it. To some people, deer bring to mind the Landseer painting, The Monarch of The Glen. To others, those who have suffered from the depredations of deer, I am afraid that they are looked upon as vermin. The noble Lord has sought to bridge these differences in commending this Bill to us to-day. I suppose the one thing that we can most readily agree about is the prevention of wanton cruelty by night poachers who, under the law as it stands at present, cannot be adequately prevented from their cruelty. Reference is made to the policing that is necessary. It seems to me that when these gangs get going a solitary policeman in the wild, open spaces of Scotland will be in a precarious position. I hope that that fact will be kept in mind.
It is this aspect of things—the wanton cruelty that has been described—that moves me to speak on the Second Reading of the Bill. I am not well-informed on the general question covered by the Bill. I have never lived in the Highlands. I have looked out upon the deer forests when travelling, and the thing that has struck me most is that there is no forest. One looks for trees in forests; yet seldom does one come across trees in deer forests. As I say, I am glad that this Bill seeks to deal with the indiscriminate slaughter of deer. It may still occur that an unskilful user of a rifle may inflict injury on an animal, but let us hope that he will be under the observation of a gillie, and that the gillie will be able to remedy any faults that he may have.
The question arises about the position of the crofter or land holder who finds deer from enclosed or unenclosed land menacing his crops or the grazings for his sheep or cattle. Here there emerges a conflict between the occupiers of a deer forest and the occupiers of land used for cultivation. In justice it would appear that the deer forest owner who obtains a reward for letting his land for shooting should compensate a crop owner for any damage that the latter suffers. I suppose
568
it is looked upon as impossible to prevent by fencing the trespass of deer from the so-called deer forests on to land used for crofting or farming or forestry. I would ask whether the Secretary of State has used properly the powers conferred upon him under Part III of the Agriculture (Scotland) Act, 1948, which give him the right to require landowners to destroy injurious animals, including deer. I also ask, will the proposed Commission to be set up under this Bill be any more successful than the Secretary of State has been? I fondly hope that it may be.
Speaking of the proposed Commission, I have received complaints that its constitution is faulty, in that six persons out of ten are more likely to be concerned with the conservation than with the control of deer. There is no provision for representation of the Crofting Commission, the Forestry Commission or forestry interests. Surely these are serious omissions. The First Schedule makes it clear that the Commission is to be paid from funds provided by the Treasury. I ask: Why? The persons who should pay for control of red deer are the deer forest owners, and I ask noble Lords to take a look at salmon fishings as a pattern of what might be done in this regard.
One of the first tasks for the Commission must be to determine how many deer can be carried without danger to agriculture and forestry interests. I understand that the present estimate of the deer population is in the region of 100,000, although I have seen the figure put considerably higher even than that. The question is: Can we afford to carry that number of deer? Another task which might usefully be referred to the Commission is the giving of advice on close season provisions. There will be differences of opinion about those, and the question arises: Why should the date for the commencement of operation be October 21, 1962? I do not want to go into further detail and shall not do so, but I express the opinion that this is a Bill with great potentialities, if it is properly used and provided that the competing interests can be prevailed upon to agree.
3.13 p.m.
THE EARL OF HADDINGTON: My Lords, I should like to add my congratulations to those so well expressed by the noble Lord who has just spoken to our new Minister of State on his appointment;

569
and I should like to congratulate him, too, on the clarity and ability with which he has moved the Second Reading of this Bill. I am personally delighted that one of his first duties on assuming office should be to introduce legislation for the protection of deer in Scotland, for which I know he has pressed more than once in the past.
Now, at length, we have this Bill to control and protect deer in Scotland. I believe it to be a very good Bill and a workmanlike measure, and as it is based largely on the agreed views of all the various organisations concerned I feel that it ought to have a speedy passage through Parliament and be effective in its objects. But surely there is one very serious omission from the Bill, for whereas in Clause 20 the Bill provides for a close season for red deer, there is no provision for a close season for our other native deer—the roe. This Bill deals with the whole question of deer in Scotland, and not only with red deer. Part II of the Bill is concerned with the illegal poaching, taking and killing of all forms of deer, and it seems quite illogical to me that roe deer should be excluded from the close season provisions in Clause 20 which are to apply to red deer.
The noble Lord, Lord Mathers, has said some people regard deer as vermin. Here I must cross swords with him, because I do not see how anyone can look upon such a noble animal as the red deer as vermin, although some people regard roe deer as vermin. As a forester, I know only too well that roe deer do a great deal of damage to forestry, but I do not think they have been left out of the close season provisions of the Bill on forestry grounds alone. The reason why I say that is because the Forestry Commission themselves have for many years past provided, and still provide to-day, a close season for does, although not for bucks. That in itself, I feel, lends great weight to my suggestion that there should be a close season for doe roe deer.
It seems to me both wrong and cruel that these animals should be allowed to be shot, either at a time when they are carrying their young or when the young fawns are unable to fend for themselves. If they are doing damage they can easily be shot, but I maintain that it is not right to shoot them during the winter
570
months. If the Bill goes through as it is, we shall have the situation that a man can come and poach by fair means—if one can call poaching "by fair means "—and take away in the winter time one animal, which he might kill stone-dead, fairly and cleanly with a rifle, and yet be put on a charge, whereas people who have a legal right to kill roe deer on their land can take that animal by any means, at any season of the year, without any regard to the humanities. I feel obliged to put down on the Committee stage an Amendment on this point. If the noble Lord in charge of the Bill can see fit to put down a Government Amendment, so much the better; but I would suggest that this can be dealt with in a new clause, in a separate part of the Bill, because Part I is concerned solely with red deer and Part II is concerned with the taking and killing of all forms of deer. I stress this point and will say little about the remainder of the Bill.
I think it is a great step forward that the onus of proof of the legal right to kill deer is in future to lie upon the person asserting such right. I feel that this will be of great help to the police in their difficult task of apprehending poachers; for, as the noble Lord has said, their work will be difficult enough in some of these remote and lonely areas of the Highlands. I only wish that some provision could have been made for the appointment of special constables to help them. In the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Protection) (Scotland) Act, 1951, there was provision for the Secretary of State to appoint water bailiffs, and they have been of tremendous help to the police. They have powers to stop people, and even to seize salmon; and if similar provisions could have been made in this Bill for the appointment of special constables to assist the police it would, I believe, have been of very great help to them. Perhaps before the Committee stage the noble Lord in charge of the Bill may examine that possibility. Legislation may be hard to put into effect, but nothing can be done without legislation. I feel that the greatly increased penalties which this Bill imposes will be a strong deterrent—at any rate, I hope they will be—so strong, in fact, that malefactors will not feel it worth while running the risk of incurring them. So, my Lords, with this provision about the red deer, I beg leave to give my warm

571
support to the Bill, and I hope that it will soon find its way to the Statute Book.
3.21 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF WILLINGDON: My Lords, may I at once say how pleased we all are to see the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, in a position to pilot this Bill satisfactorily, I hope, through your Lordships' House. I know that this will give great pleasure to our Leader, and I believe that it has been chiefly his help and advice over many years that have made this Bill possible. I have had the greatest sympathy with our Representatives from Scotland who, year after year, probably at great expense and with a certain amount of discomfort, have travelled to your Lordships' House only to be stonewalled in the past by the Scottish Office.
It is horrifying to think that, until this Bill is passed, we still remain practically the only country in Europe that regards the red deer as vermin. I am afraid that this policy, unlike that in our great Dominions, seems to be carried out in our Colonial Empire, for your Lordships are well aware of the awful annual and legal slaughter of deer that takes place, particularly in Northern Rhodesia, and of the vast amount of poaching, which is growing worse day by day, especially in Tanganyika. As representing the Fauna Preservation Society, may I say, on their behalf, how warmly we welcome this Bill, and at the same time state that we regard the true sportsman as the greatest conservationist of all.
May I turn for a few moments to the Bill in detail? The main point on the close season for red deer is that it does not come into operation until October 22, 1962. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, in his reply could state why it is not possible for this to be ante-dated by at least one year; and, also whether it would be possible for the close season for stags to be from October 21, not to June 30, but to July 31. We all appreciate that the stags will still be in velvet then, but that date may be preferable. In regard to the close season for hinds, would it be possible to extend this period from February 16 to October 31—not October 21—thus giving the deer forests
572
a ten-day rest for peace and quiet between the end of the stag-stalking season and the beginning of the hind season?
As regards Clause 22, the fine on summary conviction, as I understand it, is "not exceeding £20" on the sale of the first carcase. Would not a fine of £20 per carcase make the offence even more non-worthwhile to commit? At the present rates the sale of a second carcase would possibly pay the fine. The point I particularly regret is contained in Clause 23 (2). While it forbids the killing of deer by any method other than shooting, it permits deer to be shot with shotguns. Would the Government consider an Amendment as follows:
"It shall be an offence to take or wilfully kill deer otherwise than by shooting, and shooting for the purposes of this section means discharging a rifle of minimum calibre of 0.256."?
This provision is practically universal in the countries of Europe, and I believe that the killing of red deer, or possibly their wounding, by shotguns is far more cruel than killing out of season. I know that in the Bill there is a reference to the Firearms Act, 1947, and that, I believe, deals with shotguns.
Finally, I would make one more suggestion. Would the Government consider making it illegal for butchers and cold storage companies to accept any venison between February 20 and August 1 unless they are in possession of a copy of the written authorisation of the Commission enabling them to kill marauding deer out of season? This would put the Bill on a more satisfactory basis, I believe, and possibly make it even easier to adminster. May I assure your Lordships' representatives from Scotland, particularly those from the Highlands, that we await with great interest their various suggestions, possible Amendments and even criticisms of this Bill; and I only hope that my colleagues from the Lowlands and England and elsewhere within our Empire have not butted in too much on a subject that is of primary importance to them.
3.26 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I also should like to add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Forbes. I am sure that he will prove a worthy champion for all in Scotland who are interested

573
in this Bill. I should like also to congratulate the Government on at last producing this Bill. I say "at last" because ever since the end of the war all with a true knowledge and love of the red deer of Scotland have hoped and prayed that a close season could become law, with heavy penalties for illegal killing.
My reasons for taking part in this debate are twofold: first, as the owner of a Highland estate long renowned as a good deer forest, and secondly, as a big sheep farmer on the same estate. I have therefore had ample opportunity since a boy of studying the habits of sheep and deer in relation to each other. It probably puzzles many people why the red deer, by far the largest and finest indigenous mammasl, has never had the protection of the law, while in all Continental countries he has had for centuries the most rigorous protection. The reason is, of course, that up till the last war the red deer were under the protection of the big Highland estates. We shot the stags for only six weeks in the whole year and a few hinds during three months of the winter. Owing to the great social revolution which has followed the war, many of the big Highland estates have been broken up and large areas of deer ground have fallen into the hands of the speculators and people who have not got the same sense of responsibility towards the wild fauna on their land as had their predecessors. They have consequently frequently indulged in indiscriminate killing as opposed to the manly and clean sport of deer stalking. Nor has the State been always blameless on certain lands that they have acquired. The big estates that have remained reasonably intact have had to reduce drastically the numbers of their stalkers and keepers. This, coupled with the high post-war price of venison, has led to the bestial slaughterings of all classes of red deer by gangs of thugs, at all times of the year, which the Press has lately been reporting.
As a result of his pre-war protection by the big landowners, the stag acquired one advantage and one disadvantage. The advantage he gained was protection from extermination and the advantage of being shot in a clean manner during the correct season of the year: but the disadvantage he acquired—and this is important, my Lords—is that he became
574
a pawn in Party politics. He became looked upon as the exclusive preserve of a privileged class. He was accordingly accredited with all kinds of misdemeanours. He was, for instance, often accused of being responsible for the crofter clearances of the 19th century (in passing, I agree not a nice chapter in Highland history), whereas in fact it was the sheep and the economic necessity of the crofters themselves that were really responsible.
The stag is still accused, by those ignorant enough, of depriving large areas of the Highlands of sheep and cattle grazing. Was it not a famous statesman early in this century who spoke of "The fat stags lying amongst the lush pastures of the Highlands (under the spreading oak trees) and depriving the people of the land"? Even to-day politicians speak as if there were millions of acres utilised solely for deer which could be more productive. I believe that earlier this year the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson of Drumochter, mentioned three million acres of land in the Highlands as being used primarily for sporting purposes, but I think that the noble Lord will find that the majority of these lands carry some sheep stock or summering cattle—and if they do not there is a very good reason. Many of these areas are covered with snow half the year and are therefore quite useless for a permanent sheep farm. No landowner can to-day afford not to run sheep or cattle on deer ground if it is economic to do so.
It is extremely difficult to let deer-stalking to-day. On the West Coast, for instance, where we have the Gulf Stream and therefore milder winters, I do not know of any deer forest which does not have a sheep stock on it. Here is where I foresee great difficulties regarding Clauses 6 and 7 of this Bill, and if possible I should at some time like guidance from the Minister as to how the Commission propose to distinguish what they call "deer forest areas proper" from hill sheep grazings. In the Central and Eastern Highlands, this will not be so difficult, but in the Western Highlands, where deer and sheep inhabit the same ground, I am at a complete loss to understand how this distinction is to be made.
I am also not too happy about the persons who are to be chosen by the Commission to follow and kill marauding deer. Apparently these persons are to be

575
allowed on to any land mentioned in the authorisation and are to be allowed to kill such red deer as appear to them to be causing damage. My Lords, my experience of the State as landowner on deer ground is that they have often empowered any Tom, Dick or Harry who had some knowledge of rifle shooting to murder the deer. The obvious people capable of shooting marauding deer are stalkers from the neighbouring estates. After all, one of the main objects of this Bill is surely to prevent cruelty. It could happen that the cure could become more cruel than the illness. Therefore, I hope that the Commission will be extra careful in deciding who is to kill marauding deer.
From my own experience, I would say that the destruction of deer in a given area does not necessarily enable the sheep stock of that area to be increased. The Department of Agriculture, for instance, several years ago purchased a deer forest marching with mine. They succeeded, by constant slaughter, in reducing to an insignificant number the deer on their hills. Yet, so far as I am aware, this has not helped them to carry any larger sheep stock than before. I still consider my estate at Benmore a deer forest and I have just as many sheep per hundred acres as the Department of Agriculture have on their hills from which the deer have been cleared. I have the majority of hill grazings in hand but I have one large tenant farmer, who grazes about 10,000 acres on the deer forest. In his tenancy, which is a war-time tenancy, there is no limit to the stock he can put on to graze. He has often tried to increase his sheep stock but finds that if he increases it over a certain number, his ewes die. The interesting part is that the deer stock remains constant. Deer cannot drive off sheep, but sheep can always drive off deer. The obvious conclusion one must come to is that deer are able to thrive on land on which sheep cannot thrive.
Regarding Part II of the Bill, I have been most agreeably surprised by the severity of the sentences. To anyone who has seen the aftermath of poachers' work, as I have seen it—deer with smashed jaws unable to graze; deer staggering along tripping over their entrails; motherless calves dying of starvation—it is absolutely repulsive. My only regret is that some of these thugs
576
cannot be flogged. Of course, in the vast, uninhabited areas of the Highlands, where we have so few policemen, it is going to be very hard, I think, to enforce this Bill, and I think that local magistrates should be empowered to give stalkers and other suitable persons power to stop and search cars and, if necessary, to seize cars, rifles and poached deer.
I have always thought that chief constables of counties in the Highlands have been too free in the granting of firearms certificates. All kinds of people seem to have rifles. Every grocer's van and every trader's van, so far as I can see, appears to carry a rifle. Probably their owners apply for these rifles to shoot 'rabbits and rooks, but the trouble is that some of them shoot at the deer, and often instead of killing the deer succeed only in wounding them. On the whole I welcome this Bill most heartily, though landowners will have to relinquish some of their rights in the interests of the deer themselves, which, after all, are by far our most beautiful wild animal. I personally am only too pleased to relinquish those rights. I wholly support the Bill.

NEW STRIP MILL PROJECTS
3.47 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF POWER (LORD MILLS): My Lords, I beg your Lordships' permission to intervene in this debate to make a statement which the Prime Minister is making in another place at the present time.
The Government have accepted the conclusion of the Iron and Steel Board that additional capacity for the production of strip mill products is required to meet the future needs of the national economy. It has been decided, in principle, that this additional capacity should include two major strip mill projects each with appropriate steel making and finishing capacity.
The Government have decided to issue an industrial development certificate for a project to be undertaken by Richard Thomas & Baldwin, Limited, at Newport, Monmouthshire. This will represent the first stage of a major expansion of strip mill production in South Wales. Its precise nature, timing and financing are under discussion between the interested parties, including the company and the

577
Iron and Steel Board, but it is envisaged that the initial production capacity will be of the order of 500,000 tons for sheet and tinplate. It is not yet possible to give an estimate of the cost.
The Board of Colvilles, Limited, have agreed in principle to undertake the other project in association with their new Ravenscraig works at Motherwell and their existing works at Gartcosh, both in Lanarkshire. The Government are prepared to grant an industrial development certificate for this purpose. It is intended that this project, which includes modernisation of existing plant, should have an initial productive capacity of approximately 500,000 tons per annum for sheet and light plate. It will make use of facilities already being provided by the company, and the additional cost is estimated at about £50 million. The initial capacity for sheet will represent a surplus above present Scottish consumption and will, I hope, attract to Scotland new industries using sheet.
Both projects will be capable of substantial extensions, particularly that in South Wales. To the extent that their construction will require funds additional to the resources of the two companies the necessary amounts will be advanced to them by Her Majesty's Government. Details of the final arrangements will be made available in due course.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for giving us the advantage of that statement. I should like to know whether, in deciding on this division between Wales and Scotland, there has been any consideration of the respective costs involved. We have no figure yet for the Welsh scheme, but we have an estimated figure of additional cost in connection with another project in the case of the other scheme. It is a little difficult to ascertain upon what basis it has been made. As I have always understood in the last few months, in talking about the matter, that the Scottish capacity for absorbing steel for tinplate and similar materials is only about 150,000 tons a year, are the Government thinking of transferring Midland industries to Scotland, or have they some other scheme in mind?
With regard to the finance of this matter, these works would no doubt have
578
taken place in the normal course of events under a national scheme, but it is now being done by private enterprise. Could we have some idea as to what is meant by the method of financing? I recognise that full estimates have not yet been prepared, but the Minister's statement says:
"To the extent that their construction wilt require funds additional to the resources of the two companies the necessary amounts will be advanced to them by Her Majesty's Government."
What does that mean? Does it mean a loan direct? Does it mean a loan by the City, guaranteed by the Government? And what proportion of the capital will be provided by the firms themselves, and what proportion by law?
LORD MILLS: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for his understanding of the position. Of course, the Government, in considering the best way to meet the requirement, have had regard both to the demand in Scotland, in England and in Wales and to the costs involved in putting up the necessary plants. I think I made it clear in my statement that in the case of the Scottish project we should be able to take advantage of the existing steel-making capacity and marry-in this extension with the operations already being carried out there. That has been taken fully into account. The noble Viscount said that the present absorption rate in Scotland—of sheet, that is; not of plate—was about 150,000 tons, and this plant will show a surplus above that. It is hoped, however—many people believe it, and I have had it urged frequently—that if Scotland is able to produce sheet within its own borders, then sheet-using industries will establish themselves there. It is not the intention, of course, to move industries or to direct that they should be moved, from the Midlands to Scotland, but it is hoped that extensions and new industries will establish themselves in Scotland with the advantages of a supply of sheet on the spot.
With regard to finance, it is true that I mentioned a figure in regard to Colvilles, because that was fairly easy to work out at this stage. The figure in Wales will be of a higher order. There we are providing a new works, on a new site, which has not the advantages which Colvilles have through the ability to use their existing facilities. But both works

579
are economic. I am not yet in a position to answer the noble Viscount as to the extent to which the Government will provide the money and what it will be possible for the firms to provide from their own resources. That matter is being carefully studied, and I will see that the noble Viscount has the information in due course. I should like to say, however, that the arrangements will be such that the money will be repayable, with proper interest, and the taxpayers' position will be fully covered.
LORD GREENHILL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether these two projects are to be begun simultaneously or at different times?
LORD MILLS: My Lords, we should expect that work on these projects—and by "work" I mean the physical work—will be commenced in both cases in the second half of next year.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for the care which he has taken to see that we get the answers we need—of course, he is always most courteous to the House. May I ask him now whether, when he has got nearer the point of being able to make a statement on the matter of finance, we could have some idea of the method of the finance. For example, what kind of interest will loans carry, and what will be the period? And could we have an estimated cost overall of the capital development, including the amortisation of the loan and interest. It makes rather a difference in assessing the cost per pound or per ton of the additional capacity provided. The statement says that the Welsh plan will be in connection with Baldwin's, at Newport, Monmouthshire. It is a new site. Is the site to be in Newport, west of Newport, or where?
LORD MILLS: My Lords, I will gladly see that all the necessary information to facilitate a full understanding of these projects is made available to the House in due course. So far as the site in Newport is concerned, Richard Thomas and Baldwin, Limited, already have the site. I think it is to the east of Newport.
LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR: My Lords, the statement says that it is at Newport, and I
580
understood that the discussion going on in Wales was whether it should be in Newport or further west. Are we to understand that it has been definitely decided that it shall be in the area of Newport?
LORD MILLS: My Lords, the position is that the major project in South Wales to which I have referred will be in the neighbourhood of Newport. The Government have considered two other possible sites in Wales. Perhaps your Lordships may be interested in the Kidwelly site which we considered, but we had to abandon it on the grounds of economics and because it would prevent access to very large quantities of coal.

DEER (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
4.0 p.m.
Debate on Second Reading resumed.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, in common with all your Lordships who have spoken, I would congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, most heartily on the way in which he has presented this small but important measure to your Lordships' House. In particular, I would commend not only his clarity but his brevity, an example which might be followed with advantage by various Members on both Front Benches in your Lordships' House.
This measure is not brought in as a measure against poaching. It is not a landlords' Bill, and had the question of poaching been the only one at issue the Bill would never have appeared in your Lordships' House. There are really three aspects from which it has to be considered: the question of cruelty, the question of the preservation of law and order and the question of damage by deer to agriculture and forestry. The poaching aspect, though important, is one of little weight so far as the Bill as a whole is concerned. Of course, in the past there has been an undue amount of sympathy towards the poachers. Many of your Lordships will remember the fictional figure of John MacNab, who shot and removed stags under the noses of the stalkers. John MacNab was not a legendary figure but one who existed and who is still alive to-day, at an advanced age. No one is more angry at the present situation than is John MacNab.

581
As the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, has indicated, the amount of cruelty that has been perpetrated by poachers on red deer in the north of Scotland is truly shocking. Most of your Lordships will be familiar with the details, so I do not intend to go into them at any great length. As the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, briefly described, their method is usually to go in lorries or cars along the roads at night and dazzle the deer with their headlights or spotlights—something which is very easy to do—and then to open fire with rifles, or, occasionally, with automatic weapons like Sten guns, or, more often, with shotguns loaded with heavy shot. The ordinary deer-stalking rifle, used under sporting conditions, is one of the most merciful of weapons. It almost invariably stops the deer, if it does not kill it instantly. But the effect of indiscriminate firing, often with totally unsuitable ammunition, and usually with slugs, into herds of deer, sometimes on the edge of killing range, is that throughout the Highlands everywhere, at all seasons of the year, deer of all ages and both sexes are to be found slowly dying of hideous wounds; and calves are left to starve. Nothing more frightful from the point of view of cruelty could be imagined.
Next we come to the question of law and order. No one can surely approve of the fact that over a certain area of the north of Scotland, particularly in the county of Ross and Cromarty, law and order, so far as the killing of deer is concerned, have practically ceased to exist. It is not the fault of the police, because not only are their numbers quite insufficient to deal with the menace, but their powers hitherto have been almost entirely lacking. A lorry may be, and often has been, stopped on the roads and found to contain a dozen or more freshly killed carcases of red deer; and those in charge of the lorry have laughed in the faces of the police or stalkers who have stopped them because hitherto there has been no legal method of bringing them to hook for the offence. It could not be proved that they had poached the deer, and it was not incumbent upon them to prove that they had permission to shoot deer anywhere.
Furthermore, many of these desperadoes have actually created what amounts to a reign of terror in various areas. In one case that I know of, four of them, returning from a foray, were challenged by a
582
water bailiff. Being a wise man, he made his challenge from behind a rock at a range of about 100 yards. With one accord the four men concerned raised their rifles, and in the moonlight fired in the direction from which the voice had come. One bullet actually struck the rock behind which he was sheltering. Only a few weeks ago another party of stalkers were compelled to leap for their lives when a car was driven straight at them. This condition of affairs is surely one that should not be permitted to continue.
Then we come to the really important question of the damage done by deer to crops. Perhaps at this point your Lordships will forgive a short description which has not hitherto been given this afternoon of what has led up to the present situation. Prior to 1914 there were not many red deer outside the strictly forest areas, and such damage as they did was confined to a limited number of crops on the edge of those areas. But, naturally, during the war of 1914, owing to the absence of both shooting tenants, shooting owners and stalkers, deer increased inordinately in number. I will give one example of what happened in my own county of Perth. There was one forest in which this increase had taken place. Gradually the number of deer became too great for the forest to contain, from their food point of view, so one night in the middle 'twenties a number of the deer, estimated to be between 400 and 500, left that forest and proceeded to the Vale of Strathearn, which is purely arable country, and took up residence in the range of hills immediately to the north-west; and, of course, they gradually spread over a large area. This position was intensified by the last war, and to-day we have deer in inordinate numbers, not only in the deer forests themselves, but also in large tracts of country which for many years have never seen a red deer.
Let me say frankly at this point that I do not agree with those who would like to see red deer completely exterminated except in deer forests. I believe that that would be a step as regrettable as would be the disappearance of all foxes outside the strictly hunting areas—I say this despite my detestation of the whole vulpine race. We want to preserve all wild life in reasonable numbers throughout the country, but there is no doubt that in many districts of Scotland there are deer in

583
large numbers which ought to be reduced to a fragment of their present numbers. That is agreed by virtually all forest owners and owners of non-forest ground upon which these deer are now found.
Only a very few people object to the idea of having a Deer Commission which would superintend and control the number of deer. I myself should have no objection whatsoever. I suffer from the fact that I have neighbours who do not kill down their deer in the way they should. The result is that my sheep farms, which since 1914–18 used to carry a small stock of deer which did not do any harm, have suddenly found an increase in the population as a result of my neighbour's default, the result being that we have had to make great efforts to keep these deer in check. It is not easy to do this when they are being constantly reinforced from areas over which one has no control. For that reason, and because they undoubtedly do a considerable amount of damage in young plantations—especially roe deer, which do far more damage with their horns than by what they eat—it is essential to control the numbers of the deer; and such control can be exercised only by a body like the proposed Red Deer Commission. I therefore give the heartiest possible support to this Bill, which I regard as wholly admirable.
There are, of course, as in every Bill, a few points which I hope will be put right on the Committee stage, and I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to one or two of them, and to one or two remarks which have been made by various speakers. First of all, I should like to support the noble Earl, Lord Haddington, in his plea for a close season for roe deer; and with roe deer I would associate fallow deer. Admittedly, these are probably not indigenous to Scotland, and are common only in small areas; but they are still an interesting species, and cruelty perpetrated during the breeding season is the same whatever the variety of deer. Whether it is really practicable to separate roe does and bucks from the point of view of a close season I have rather grave doubts, because when roe are shot for the purpose of destruction it is usually done by driving them and shooting them with a shotgun. I have yet to
584
meet anyone who takes any pleasure in shooting a roe with a shotgun. They are worthy of a better fate—that of being shot with a rifle. Unfortunately, in most areas where roe deer are numerous, and certainly in my own, it is quite unsafe to use a rifle of sufficiently high power in the woods: there are too many people wandering about, with or without justification, and one cannot do it. This means that the roe have to be shot with shotguns, and frankly it is very difficult indeed to distinguish between buck and doe, particularly when the buck happens to have lost his horns, or when they have not yet grown or are still in the rudimentary stage.
I would certainly support the noble Earl, Lord Haddington, in saying that there should certainly be a close season for roe and fallow deer, which I tentatively suggest should be from March 1 to the end of July. At the same time, provision should be made so that where, during the close season, definite damage is being done by either of those species, special permits can be given to owners or occupiers to destroy a specific number of them, equally, of course, with red deer in their close season; otherwise it might well lead to a considerable amount of ill-feeling and unnecessary damage.
I would join issue with the noble Marquess, Lord Willingdon, on the question of the bore of rifles. If I understood him right, he was suggesting the prohibition of the use upon deer of any weapon of a calibre smaller than ·256. I should regard that as being a very retrograde step. Until recently I myself used such a weapon and was not over-satisfied with it. Unless an animal was struck in a vital spot it tended to go away some distance and had to be followed up for killing. Two years ago I changed to the most modern rifle in this country made by our most famous riflemaker. This weapon has about four times the killing power of the Manliche ·256. Its calibre is ·244. What ought to be proscribed is the use against deer of the ·22 rifle, with straight cartridge and light bullet. The use of such a weapon, even against roe deer, is to be deprecated. Occasionally a clean kill will be made, but in four cases out of five the animal is only wounded and is probably never recovered.
There is one other point, and that is when this provision for a close season

585
should come into effect. As the Bill stands, it is to be 1962. Quite frankly, I regard that as being at least two years too late. I hope that the Government will accept an Amendment to advance the date to 1960. I have been informed (I do not know whether accurately or riot) that the reason for 1962 is to give ample time for the destruction of the inordinate amount of deer that exist in certain areas and which it is considered ought to be shot even during the close season if their numbers are to be reduced to a reasonable figure. There again, it would be quite easy to give a special permit to owners or occupiers, or other qualified persons, to kill deer, up to a limited number, in certain areas. But in my opinion it would be a great pity if we were to allow this slaughter in the breeding season, even by those who have a right to carry it out, to go on as late as 1962. I therefore hope that Her Majesty's Government will reconsider this point. Apart from those points I find very little in the Bill which I cannot heartily commend, and I hope your Lordships will give it an enthusiastic and unopposed Second Reading.
4.17 p.m.
LORD WINSTER: My Lords, there is a rather old story about an Irishman who saw a fight going on and inquired whether it was a private fight or could anybody join in. I confess that when I saw this Bill on the Order Paper I said to myself, "That will be an all-Scottish affair and no Englishman need apply." But I am very happy indeed to find that some voices from south of the Border have been raised in the course of this debate.
I should like to begin by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, upon its falling to his lot to introduce a Bill which will, when it becomes law, remove a great evil. How great that evil is has been made clear by the shocking examples of cruelty which the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, has given your Lordships out of his great experience. It is because the Bill will remove the worst of that cruelty that I venture to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, on bringing it in.
I should also like to congratulate the red deer on their now seeing the prospect of an end to the great inhumanity and cruelty which they have suffered in the past. Perhaps it is not inappropriate to say a word of congratulation to the
586
Field magazine, which has, for many years, carried on an unwearying fight in this matter. I am sure that those who direct and control that paper must feel very happy that this Bill is being debated in your Lordships' House to-day. The cruelty has been indeed dreadful, especially cruelty inflicted when shotguns are employed to kill the deer. It adds poignancy to the cruelty that it takes place amid scences of such great natural beauty—beauty to which the red deer themselves are such an ornament.
But there is, of course, bound to be a conflict of interests raised in the discussions on this Bill. On the one hand there are some individuals who I see described as reactionary Tory lairds and who have exerted sufficient pressure to get the Bill introduced in order to facilitate their sport, quite regardless of the interests of the farmers and the crofters. Those farmers and crofters lead a very hard life. They often have a struggle to make ends meet, and it will be most necessary during the Committee stage to watch carefully to see that the balance of interests between the landlords and the farmers and crofters is preserved. I believe that the farmers' interests as regards the destruction of red deer can be maintained without the infliction of such cruelty as has gone on in the past—but that is a matter which will come out in the Committee stage. I was glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, say that under this Bill where red deer have to be destroyed the killing will be done by competent persons instead of by such "butchers" as carry it out to-day.
I have spoken of the interests of the landlords and of the farmers; but I suppose there are commercial interests involved, too. I daresay that many of your Lordships who have ordered steak diane in a restaurant have, though they did not know it, eaten venison; and I am told also that those who are interested in greyhound racing tracks are known to employ the gangs who have been spoken of to-day in order to kill deer for feeding the greyhounds. I do not know whether or not the directors of these tracks get some of the more choice parts of the deer, but undoubtedly the deer do find their way into the kennels of the greyhound tracks.
In listening to the noble Lord's exposition of the Bill, I thought it rather surprising to find that "a gang" may be

587
defined as consisting of two persons. Two people seem to be rather fewer than I have been accustomed to think of as forming a gang. But can it be that one explanation is that this poaching may frequently be confined to two men—a father and a son, or two brothers? Because people who are engaged in breaking the law often like to keep it in the family and do not want to bring in outsiders and strangers who might give the show away on some occasion. That may explain the provision about "a gang" consisting of two people.
Then, as regards the provision that a conviction may take place upon the evidence of one person, I would point out that a magistrate likes to have more than one witness when trying a case; but surely it must be the fact that great numbers of motorists are convicted on the strength of the evidence of one police constable—in fact, it might be difficult to carry out the law if it were obligatory to have more than one witness. My noble friend Lord Mathers spoke about the difficulties which will confront the solitary policeman operating over an enormous tract of country. I see the point; but I should like to ask the noble Lord whether it would be possible to effect any check through the shops where venison is sold. I am quite ignorant on that point, but it occurs to me that it might be possible to get at the business that way, by checking at the shops where this venison is sold.
LORD MATHERS: My Lords, may I intervene for one moment? I have more in mind the danger that one person runs in seeking to have the law adhered to. We had an instance of this only at the week-end—I think it was last Saturday—on the estate of the noble Earl, Lord Rosebery. One of his employees was set upon by two poachers and was rendered unconscious. The policeman or game-watcher is running a great risk with these unscrupulous poachers.
LORD WINSTER: Yes, I quite accept that from my noble friend. These poachers are often desperate and tough men, and undoubtedly the risk of which my noble friend has spoken exists.
My Lords, the only thing I should like to do in conclusion is to congratulate the Government on having, at last, brought a Bill for this purpose before Parliament.
588
May I express the hope that the noble Earl, Lord Haddington, may yet see a Bill brought in to provide a close season for the roe deer?
4.26 p.m.
LORD HURCOMB: My Lords, I hesitate to intervene in this debate because I have no personal knowledge or experience of this problem except as a member of the Nature Conservancy. As a member of the Nature Conservancy, I naturally heard with great pleasure the tribute which the noble Lord who introduced this Bill paid to the long and patient negotiations on this matter with all the interests concerned. This is, of course, a problem that will attract a great deal of attention outside this country. Two years or so ago the Nature Conservancy and the Society for the Promotion of Nature Reserves invited the International Union for the Conservation of Nature to meet in Edinburgh, and I know well that nothing impressed our foreign visitors so much as the sight of the red deer, in their natural surroundings and quite unmolested by man. They commented upon that as a sight which could not be seen anywhere else in Europe, and which alone made a visit to the Highlands well worth while for anybody interested in fauna or in nature conservation. But they went on to say how amazing it was that in this country, alone among the civilised countries of Europe, there was no close time for these magnificent creatures. That reproach is now being ended by this Bill. As my noble friend Lord Willingdon, has said, it is to be hoped that the date for applying the close season may be reconsidered, perhaps on the lines which the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, has just suggested.
I trust that this Bill will not be regarded in any quarter as controversial. No doubt there is a balance of interests, but those interests have been carefully balanced. I think that the Government are to be congratulated upon taking this moment to introduce their Bill, when that agreement has been reached and before the willingness to agree has begun to evaporate, as willingness to agree too often does if measures are too long delayed. There is the legitimate sporting interest; there is the protection required by those who may suffer either from the depredations of the red deer or from competition from them: there is the interest

589
of all those who wish to see the species preserved, and there may be the interest to which Lord Winster has referred, that of deer as a meat supply. In many countries and in regard to many creatures the fauna are regarded as a crop which, if properly managed and carefully conserved, is indefinitely renewable; whereas if it is not properly managed and properly conserved it may disappear or deteriorate.
There is one other point that I should like to mention as one of general interest. The Bill is very careful to use the word "conservation" and not "protection". I believe that that is important and is not merely a terminological difference. It is not a question of protecting animals against man but of conserving what is, it we take a wide enough view, a great natural resource in the human interest, not merely in the interest of the landlord, the sportsman or the sentimental naturalist. Taking every interest into account, surely it is important to emphasise the aspect of conservation rather than protection. Conservation and control go hand in hand. They are not merely compatible with one another but are essentially complementary.
In this particular instance, as I believe the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, pointed out, control—and possibly, in many areas, drastic control—is essential to the proper conservation of a really healthy stock of these animals. On all these grounds I welcome the Bill, not merely as an Englishman who goes to Scotland and can enjoy the sight of these deer, but as one interested in the conservation of nature, and knowing how these careful provisions will be appreciated by other countries who are looking for examples of ways in which these problems should be approached. And I welcome it most of all because I believe that this is a most opportune moment, when all the interests, different though not necessarily conflicting (because I believe that, in the last resort, under proper control, they will not conflict), are now prepared to accept the Bill, to put it on the Statute Book; and the sooner that is done the better it will be for all interested. I should like to end by saying how much I enjoyed listening to the noble Lord who introduced the Bill and to his very clear explanation of its main provisions.
4.32 p.m.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, I should like to join with other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, on this, the first occasion on which he has been in charge of a Bill in your Lordships' House, on the clear and concise manner in which he explained it to your Lordships. I should like to congratulate him, also, on another count—the speed with which he has been able to bring this measure before the House. In that connection I seem to remember other occasions when some of your Lordships were understandably impatient at what was considered to be unreasonable delay in putting into legislative form proposals which were contained in the agreed Report of the interests chiefly concerned in this matter. But these proposals were not in all respects suitable for legislation. Some of them required amendment, and great care had to be taken, as has been emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, that, in making any detailed alterations which were considered desirable, the basis of agreement which had been reached be-between the parties was not upset. As we have been reminded, agreement was reached only after many years of argument and consultation.
For myself, I believe that the time that has elapsed since the Report was received has been well spent, and I feel that that is confirmed by the reception which your Lordships have given this Bill this afternoon, for it seems to me that your Lordships find it to be fair and in accord with the views expressed in the Report. To-day this House has given this Bill a favourable reception, though I have no doubt that, as has been suggested by several noble Lords, when we come to examine it in more detail Amendments will be put forward. I wonder whether the House will bear with me if I dare to issue a word of warning in that connection. It is to ask noble Lords who desire to make Amendments whether they will consider them in the light of the agreement which has been reached by the interested parties so that the balance of agreement may not be upset. I am quite certain that if this Bill is to achieve its purpose, as we all hope it will, it must have the good will of all who are concerned. I believe that the Bill will go far towards remedying a situation which, in one or another of its aspects, has caused grave

591
concern throughout the whole of Scotland for many years, and not least in the immediate past. For that reason I most warmly commend it to your Lordships, and I hope, with other noble Lords, that it may have a speedy passage here and proceed on its way to another place.
4.35 p.m.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, before the noble Lord the Minister replies, I should like to say just two things that I do not think have yet been said. We have here a Bill for which we have been begging for a very long time, and I hope that we shall send it to another place as quickly as possible, while they are not overcome with business, so that we can get it through. My main reason for speaking is this: until there is on the Statute Book a Statute about this matter those unthinking creatures who commit the atrocities which make us so angry and ashamed will not fully realise that their conduct is wrong. A Statute on the Statute Book has a tremendous effect on public opinion in matters of guilt and innocence, and that is a reason which I believe is quite important.
Secondly, I think the noble Lord, Lord Mathers, will remember that my noble friend the late Lord Morrison (and if I can refer to any one of your Lordships as my friend I can certainly refer to him in that way) himself wanted to introduce a Bill on this subject many years ago. He went personally to Scotland and travelled all over the country making inquiries. When he returned he told me, with regret, that the circumstances in Scotland made it impossible for such a Bill to be introduced at that time. I venture to remind the noble Lord, Lord Mathers, of that fact because I hope that both sides will be in complete agreement about getting this Bill through. Finally, I should like to add my own voice to what has been said by other noble Lords on the way in which my noble friend Lord Forbes has introduced this Bill. Those of us who had the privilege of friendship with his noble father will have realised what a tremendous loss it was to your Lordships' House that we were without a Forbes here for so many years. On that ground, too, we welcome the noble Lord who has introduced this Bill, and wish him a happy career in the seat in which he sits at the moment.
4.39 p.m.
LORD GREENHILL: My Lords, may I add my own to the many congratulations expressed to the noble Lord, Lord Forbes? Although this was a maiden effort on his part I feel that, as a Minister, he carried out his job remarkably well, to the acceptance of all in the House, leaving nothing untouched and, so far as I can see, dealing with everything. Speaking, if I dare, for my noble friend Lord Mathers, as well as for my-self, I should like to say that we do not regard this Bill as raising a controversial issue, and we hope, therefore, that, with the necessary modification to details which may be necessary when the Bill goes through its Committee stage, we shall have it on the Statute Book without any undue delay.
If there is any note that I should like to introduce and which has not so far been introduced it is this: I was pleased and interested to hear the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, say that this was not a Bill dealing with poaching or poachers, but a Bill dealing with cruelty. I myself am inclined to accept that view. Whilst no one will deny that there is shocking cruelty on the part of these poachers who do their killing in the way already described, without any attempt at selecting those animals which may perhaps be best killed, let us not forget also the cruelty inherent in leaving too great a stock of deer. The result of doing that may be that during the winter season some of the animals find themselves unable to get the necessary amount of food for survival, and die a cruel death, due to no human agency, except perhaps the difficulty of feeding them.
As I regard this Bill, I was a little amused to note that here we have the word "control" used in a manner which makes it, politically, not a dirty word. We appear to realise that here, for once, the term "control" is a very necessary one if we are to conserve the precious stock of deer that we still have—and I think that they ought to be conserved. It has already been mentioned that there is a certain conflict of interest between the deer-forest owners and the agriculturists, particularly the sheep farmers. That conflict, I feel, ought not to be ignored, because I think noble Lords will agree that within recent years there has been a change in ownership of deer

593
forests that has not always been to the benefit of the deer forests or the deer upon them.
If it be true (I do not know whether or not it is) that there is a stock of some 100,000 or so deer, that certain areas of the country are being taken up by such things as hydro-electric schemes, afforestation, and so on, and that as a result of these necessary developments the deer are now becoming marauding deer—what are called "colonising deer "—I think it is necessary to have some kind of selective control in order to ensure that the population of deer does not encroach upon the amount of food available for sheep. It may interest noble Lords to know that recently there appeared in one newspaper a note which said:
"Britain eats more mutton and lamb per head of population than any other nation in the Northern Hemisphere and yet home production is only about one-third of its requirements …"
That was taken from a report of the Natural Resources Technical Committee on the Sheep Industry in Britain. These are matters which must not, I feel, be ignored. As for the references to greyhound racing and the need for feeding greyhounds, I was amused to read in the Maconochie Report that representatives of the Greyhound Racing Association said that any venison which their members consumed was not consumed by the greyhounds but by the patrons of greyhound racing. Some noble Lords in their credulity might believe that statement. Some of us beg leave to wonder whether it is the fact as they put it.
However, while we are all in agreement about the prime necessity for conserving and controlling the stock of deer, though not at the expense of our sheep population, when it comes to the details of the Bill I feel that there are certain matters which ought to be looked at a little more carefully. The composition of the Red Deer Commission (while I myself am offering no criticism) is, I believe, one which ought to be looked at again in case there are certain other organisations or certain groups—such as, for example, the crofters, to whom my noble friend referred—which ought also to be represented on that Commission. In regard to the Agriculture (Scotland) Act, 1948, by which the Secretary of State is given great powers, particularly in connection with the conservation of deer, one wonders whether it is true that
594
those powers have not been exercised at all, or only insufficiently; and, if so, why. Are we to believe that the Commission will not carry out the powers which are to be given to it, or is there some special reason to account for the fact that the Secretary of State has not exercised the powers which he possesses?
The other thought that occurs to me is this. According to the Bill, any expense or outlay incurred by the Commission will be met from the taxpayers' money. This question arises: is it proper that the cost of the Commission should come from taxpayers' money, and ought it not to come from those whose assets and properties are being preserved? There are one or two other points of that kind, especially on the Schedules, that will need a little consideration. But on the whole I should like to say that if we in Scotland can have a conservation of this irreplaceable and priceless asset—in many directions, economic as well as cultural—and if we can prevent some of the abuses which shock all of us, then I think we shall all be pleased to have taken part in the promotion of this measure.
4.47 p.m.
LORD FORBES: My Lords, it is gratifying to know that so many noble Lords on both sides of this House have given their full support to this Bill. We have had a most instructing and constructive debate. I shall devote most of my concluding remarks to answering some of the points that have been put to me. Before doing so, however, there are one or two general points which I should like to make. I was glad to see from the Press that both the Scottish Landowners' Federation and the National Farmers' Union of Scotland welcomed this Bill. There are, no doubt, points of detail with which they may not entirely agree, but their general support is most heartening. The co-operation of landowners and farmers and, indeed, of all interests concerned, will play a large part in ensuring the success of the Red Deer Commission, The National Farmers' Union made a statement when the Bill was published to the effect that the control of deer is largely in the interests of agriculture. I, too, am anxious that this should not be overshadowed by the understandably wide interest which is taken in the parts of the Bill dealing with the illegal or inhumane methods of killing deer.

595
In my opening speech I emphasised that this Bill constitutes a comprehensive approach to the deer problem. It will not rectify the problem in one day or even in one year; it is essentially a long-term policy. The provisions in Clause 7 for 'the reduction, and in some cases the extermination, of red deer do not in any way prejudice the survival of deer as a species. On the other hand, no one will dispute what the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, said, that deer have become established in recent times in places where no deer previously existed—places which were not deer-forest ground. Here the deer have found refuge, as in a sanctuary, because there are no stalkers. These deer are outwith the management of herds in deer forests, and in the words of the Maconochie Committee's Report, they constitute a real menace to agriculture.
Myxomatosis has also, strangely enough, made the farmers' deer problem worse. The rough pasture surrounding the arable land is now in many cases clear of rabbits, and the deer, which used to keep off this rabbit-soiled ground, now come down on to it and so get much closer to the arable ground. I was glad that the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, pointed out that the present situation is that the police are almost powerless. I was also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, for supporting this Bill so warmly, as it was the noble Lord himself who did so much spadework in connection with the Bill.
Now I should like to turn to some of the questions that have been asked during the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Mathers, and the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, asked whether the powers given to the Secretary of State by the Agriculture (Scotland) Act to prevent damage by deer were ever used. These powers were delegated by the Secretary of State to the agricultural executive committees, and have, in fact, never been used. Lord Mathers also raised the point whether more fencing should be carried out. I do not know whether your Lordships realise that fencing for deer costs at least 15s. a yard, and can cost considerably more than that. The noble Marquess, Lord Willingdon, bowled me a very fast ball when he suggested that possibly Tanganyika and other such places might be included in some provisions of the Bill. I am sorry to say that the Bill does not even
596
cover the Sassenach deer which are south of the Border.
The noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, asked: Will the killing of deer be carried out by the most suitable people? I think that, in the first instance, the owner would be asked to carry out the work himself. If he could not do it, then his stalker (or, if he had no stalker, nearby stalkers) would be called in to do the work. I think the noble Viscount need have no fear, as anyone employed by the Control Commission should, in the eyes of the Commission, be experts at their job. The noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, doubted whether the Commission could enter land and kill deer during the close season. My Lords, this is, in actual fact, provided for in the Bill. The Control Commission can enter land and kill deer which are doing damage to agricultural or forestry land during the close season.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive me, I would point out that that was not raised by me. I fully appreciate, and approve, that they should have that power.
LORD FORBES: I apologise to the noble Earl. The noble Lord, Lord Winster, asked whether "a gang" could consist of only two people. As the noble Lord correctly assumed, a gang could consist of only two people, because it is thought that one might do the shooting while the other is sitting in the car waiting to make a quick getaway. The noble Lord, Lord Winster, also asked whether it would be possible to make a check through carcases being sold to shops or going into cold store. I think the answer to that is that we do not want these illegal carcases to get that far. We want to prevent the carcases from being moved off the ground at all. The noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, asked a question as to how it was proposed to distinguish between deer forest areas and sheep areas. I agree that sheep and deer are often to be found on the same land, but we are not endeavouring in this Bill to define deer forests. It will be for the Red Deer Commission to exercise their judgment on this matter.
The noble Marquess, Lord Willingdon, referred to fines for carcases and asked whether a £20 fine for a carcase was sufficient. I should like to point out to the

597
noble Marquess that it is not just a question of a fine for the carcase but that it is also a question of the carcase being forfeited. The noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, brought up the point about the control of deer so that they do not compete with sheep. This is something which we must leave to the Deer Control Commission. That is one of their main functions—to advise whether agricultural or deer-stalking interests should come first.
The most important point that has been raised during the debate is, I think, the question of close seasons. Several noble Lords suggested that the close season should come in at once, while other noble Lords suggested that there should be some alteration in the dates. The Government agree with the recommendations of the joint report, which report was made by the interested organisations. I have several times referred to this report and I now do so again. The report stated quite categorically that a three-year delay is advisable so that some of the surplus deer can, be dealt with. I remind your Lordships also that, even though the Bill does not propose that the close season should be enforced until 1962, the provisions against poaching offences (which I think are very much in your Lordships' minds) will come into operation as soon as the Bill becomes law.
Then there was the question of roe deer, or sometimes the roe doe, being included in the close season. I would point out here that roe deer have a very different distribution and also different habits from the red deer, and the questions which arise from this distribution and from these different habits make the problem much more difficult. For instance, the roe live mainly in woods: and we have gone on this basis in excluding the roe from the Bill so far. We have left it to the woodland owners to co-operate with the Forestry Commission over this matter. This view was very strongly taken by the Maconochie Committee when they made their recommendations. In the light of what has been said, however, I am certainly prepared to look into this matter to see whether it would be possible to include a close season for the roe deer. At the same time, I do not think we should contemplate coupling a close season for roe deer with the existing control provisions which we are making for the red deer, as this
598
would quite obviously divert the Control Commission from their most important task—that of dealing with the red deer.
The noble Marquess, Lord Willingdon, and the noble Lord, Lord Winster, also brought up the question whether it was desirable to use shotguns. I think the noble Lord, Lord Winster, did not like the idea of using shotguns against the red deer. Neither the Scott Henderson nor the Maconochie Committees, which both considered all the circumstances, recommended the prohibition of shotguns. We are of the opinion that farmers must be free to use shotguns to protect their crops. Red deer come down and do damage to the crops in the evening or in the early morning and that is the time to catch them, but this is a time when it is extremely difficult to make an accurate shot with a rifle. There is also the point that roe deer are invariably found in wooded areas and, as already pointed out in the debate, it might be dangerous to use a rifle in a confined area.
LORD WINSTER: My Lords, may I say to the noble Lord that in what I said about shotguns I had in mind their use by poachers; I was not thinking about farmers.
LORD FORBES: I thank the noble Lord. Many noble Lords have expressed considerable feeling on this matter and I will certainly look into it and see whether it would be possible to make any amendment before Committee stage. There is one other fact I should like to point out about the use of shotguns—that is, that many farmers possess only shotguns. There is also the point that if red deer are raiding the crops, more often than not these crops will he found near farm steadings or roads and conceivably it might be dangerous to confine the killing of these deer to the rifle. I think it was the noble Earl, Lord Haddington, who suggested that further powers might be given to stalkers or gamekeepers.
THE EARL OF HADDINGTON: Excuse me, my Lords; I said special constables.
LORD FORBES: I apologise to the noble Earl, but I thought that he wanted powers extended to stalkers and gamekeepers. I do not think that this really applies to special constables, because special constables are enlisted for the purpose of dealing with an emergency or

599
a riot or for training as ordinary constables and I do not think that any of these duties would cover dealing with deer poaching.
LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, would the noble Lord perhaps consider the tide of "game warden" to avoid that of special constable?
LORD FORBES: That is a different matter altogether. I do not know what powers the noble Lord envisages should be given to these "game wardens".
LORD KILLEARN: I would give them the same powers as the special constables. I was simply changing the name to avoid the technical difficulties about special constables.
THE EARL OF HADDINGTON: My Lords, my suggestion of appointing special constables to assist the police was purely to give the police extra assistance in the widely scattered and isolated areas in the Highlands. As the noble Lord, Lord Mathers, said, it would be a precarious experiment for a policeman to go out—or even for two men to go out—to apprehend a gang; and if they had the additional comfort of one or two special constables along with them, they might feel much happier and safer and might be much more likely to succeed in their object.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, that would require a radical alteration in the laws of Scotland. In Scotland, unlike England, we are not permitted to use special constables except in cases of national emergency. I fully agree that legislation ought to be brought in to alter these powers, but, as it is, the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, can do nothing more in the matter.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, it was I who suggested that local magistrates should be empowered to give stalkers the right to stop and search cars.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I remember the case in Scotland of a constable enlisting Edinburgh University students under such power.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, have all my noble friends, in making their remarks, forgotten that this is a Second Reading debate and not a Committee stage?
LORD FORBES: I am grateful to my noble friend for letting me continue. We must not forget that it is a serious matter to think of giving special powers of arrest and search or seizure. These powers should be restricted to public servants who are subject to discipline. It was suggested that these powers would make a person comparable with a water bailiff. But water bailiffs are entirely different; they are employed by district boards, and these stalkers or game wardens, or whatever we may call them, in all probability would be people employed by private individuals. There is the added risk that if we gave powers of arrest to stalkers and game wardens, there would be even more danger of all these people becoming involved in a shooting match.
If there are any points which I have left unanswered, may I ask your Lordships' indulgence? I can assure your Lordships that nothing that has been said in this debate will be overlooked. Finally, I believe that this Bill will bring a solution of the deer problem that will satisfy farmers, landowners and sportsmen alike. Deer will be given a proper status as game. Sport in the Highlands will improve as a national asset, with increased benefit to the economy of the area. And farming, as well as forestry interests, will be protected from damage by deer, which has led to so many disputes in the past. I hope that your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
5.9 p.m.
LORD LAYTON LORD LAYTON rose to call attention to the fact that a European Court of Human Rights will shortly be set up to adjudicate on alleged breaches of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms to which this country is a party and to the fact that it is already permissible for petitions regarding alleged breaches to be put forward by individuals as well as by Governments in respect of nine member countries of the Convention, and to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will now accept the jurisdiction of the Court and the right of individual petition by ratifying the optional clauses of the Convention. The noble Lord said: My Lords, last September a ceremony took place in one of the international pavilions of the Brussels Exhibition to celebrate the fifth anniversary of the coming into effect of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. But the occasion was more than a birthday party; it was also the occasion of a step forward in the evolution of this Convention, for on that day two more of the parties to the Convention took the opportunity of declaring their acceptance of the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights, if and when it was established. This brought the number of such acceptances up to the figure of eight, which is the minimum needed to bring the Court into being. Early in 1959, therefore, this important and significant institution will come into existence.
Though Britain was the first country in Europe to ratify the Convention on Human Rights (incidentally Britain did not at that time accept the optional clauses) little attention has been given in England to these proceedings, and it seems appropriate that this House, which has frequently in the past discussed the question of a Convention on Human Rights, should take note of the progress that has been made and consider what steps we should take in the second chapter of the history of this important institution. The noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, who, like myself, was present at the Brussels celebration, agreed that the time was appropriate for the Govern-
602
ment to state their position, and suggested that a reply to an Unstarred Question would be a suitable form in which to do so.
In passing, I may say that it was most appropriate that the Lord Chancellor should have been there, because as Chairman of the legal committee which drafted this Convention of 1949 he was the doctor who brought the child to birth. In the discussion which is permitted on an Unstarred Question the questioner can speak only once, and therefore has to choose whether to speak before or after the reply is given. As much of the documentation is unfamiliar to Members of this House—a lot of it is not circulated in this country—I propose to take the former course before the Lord Chancellor makes his statement of policy, and give, as briefly as possible, the background to the decisions now to be taken.
At the outset, it is important to distinguish clearly between the European Convention and the Universal Declaration proclaimed by the United Nations in 1948. The Universal Declaration is a statement of intent by the signatories. It includes a considerable number of "social" rights, such as the right to work, hours of labour, leisure and so on. These social and economic conditions vary in time and place and are certainly not justiciable or capable of being regulated by an international organisation. Such declarations have their value and I should be the last to question their importance in setting a standard of good behaviour among the nations; but their enumeration involves no binding commitment on anybody, nor does it set up any means of enforcement.
The European Convention, on the other hand, is a mutual obligation, voluntarily entered into by those countries which sign and ratify it, to maintain a few only of the rights included in the Universal Declaration—the few being those which would appear to be most justiciable and suitable for implementation under a binding document. In the words of the preamble to this Convention, it was designed as a step towards creating "a collective guarantee" in Western Europe of these few basic freedoms. That is the purpose and concept of this Treaty which has been accepted and which now binds fourteen countries.
Professor Waldock, International Law professor at Oxford and Chairman of the Commission on Human Rights, was fully justified, on the occasion to which I have referred, in describing the conclusion of this Convention as the highest achievement of the Council of Europe up to date—and mark these words, my Lords—and a notable landmark in the development of the status of the individual in international law.
It is worth noting, too, at this point, its place in the general pattern of Europe's evolution in the past decade. It is a platitude to say that if the solidarity of Europe is to be established on a permanent foundation progress must be made on each of three main fronts: the military, the economic and the political. On the first of these, we have seen the ups and downs of N.A.T.O., the E.D.C. and Western Union. On the economic front, there have been Marshall Aid, O.E.E.C., the Payments Union, the Steel and Coal Community, the Common Market, the project of the Free Trade Area and many minor operations. That is a formidable list. But on the political side the total is meagre: a wordy battle lasting for several years between the Federalists and the Functionalists (a horrid word); and even the ambitious progress to institute a political Community of the Six has almost been lost sight of. Yet if priority had to be given to one of those three fronts, my feeling is that the priority should be given to the political approach. For, after all, a composite military organisation can survive only if it is the servant of a political policy; and so far as economic progress goes, the nations will not go very far in accepting a position of interdependence unless they are certain of the political angle of approach of those with whom they are to be tied.
This Convention does not set up an elaborate political structure. It is concerned only to preserve the root principles of democracy. But, by doing so, it should create and preserve an atmosphere in which other political institutions may one day grow. The Convention and its Protocol—to use the words commonly used in his report by Professor Waldock (to whom it will be obvious that I owe a great deal of the information I am going to lay before the House) "the European
604
Bill of Rights"—contains about a dozen rights and freedoms. I do not think I need read them, but they are available in the Convention itself. I have given a sufficient indication of these rights, which start with the right to life; freedom from torture, inhuman or degrading treatment; freedom from slavery; the right to liberty and all the rights associated with habeas corpus; the rights of trial and so forth.
In Clause 1 of the Convention the member States make the declaration, blunt and unadorned, that they will secure these rights and freedoms to everyone within their jurisdiction. The Convention seeks to ensure that this will be implemented in two ways. On the one hand, the parties must each take steps to see that their national law is in harmony with the rights enumerated in the Convention and its Protocol; on the other hand, if accused of a breach, they agree to facilitate investigation by the Commission of Human Rights, and if the case is established against them to accept the decision either of an international court (if one exists) or that of the Committee of Ministers.
The relation of the Convention to internal law varies with the different legal systems of the various countries. These instruments—that is to say, the Convention and its Protocol—do not have the force of law in six of them: namely, in the four Scandinavian countries, in Britain and in Ireland. In those countries the Constitution does not give treaties the force of law, nor has any special law been promulgated in relation to these rights. The courts of these countries therefore are not competent to give effect to the European Bill of Rights. In them the rights and freedoms of the individual law derive from the local law alone.
On the other hand, there are eight countries, members of the Convention, Whose laws do give to the Convention and Protocol the force of law. In The Benelux countries, in Germany, Italy, Turkey and Greece, after receiving Parliamentary approval, and being promulgated, the two instruments acquired the character of Statute Law applicable in domestic courts. In Austria, the last country to adhere, the Convention and Protocol have been embodied in the fundamental law of the Constitution. I am mentioning only a few cases, indicating the operation of the Convention. In Greece, the courts

605
have already been called upon to consider whether Greek law concerning freedom of religion is consistent with the Convention. German courts have applied the Convention in a number of cases, and in one case the court set aside an expulsion order that was held to be in contravention of the Human Rights Convention.
But whether a country does or does not embody the Bill of Rights as part of its domestic law, every member State—and that includes us, of course—is now under an international obligation to ensure that its laws are in conformity with the Bill of Rights and, if necessary, to amend them so as to produce that situation. Let me take the illustration of Norway. Norway, having regard to the guarantee of freedom of religion, has amended an historic provision in her constitution under which Jesuits were forbidden to enter that country. So much for harmonisation (to use a word which is now common form in the economic sphere of international solidarity) in the legal sphere. This is, after all, an example of what Mr. Ernest Bevin once told the House of Commons: that perhaps the surest way to get consolidation was by uniform legislation in different countries.
As to enforcement, the Convention sets up two organs for investigation and judgrrent—the Commission and a Court. Complaints may be received from two sources—member Governments and individuals. But petitions may be received from individuals, or from organisations on their behalf, only if the country concerned has declared its willingness to receive them. That is the first option which figures in my Question. When a petition is received, it is the Commission's task to ascertain whether the complaint is admissible; to ascertain whether all remedies have been exhausted internally; to examine the facts and to seek to bring about a friendly settlement. The provision in the Convention is not a question of challenge but a duty of mediation—a duty which has been exercised in quite recent times in regard to Cyprus, which has been before the Commission now for twelve months.
If the mediation is successful, the case is reported to the Committee of Ministers. If it is not, the Commission draw up a report with such recommendations as they think fit, and send it to the Committee of Ministers, whose task hitherto, in the
606
absence of a court, has been to decide by a two-thirds majority whether or not there has been a violation of the Convention. All parties to the Convention have agreed to regard as binding any decision which the Committee may make, and to carry out any measures required by the decision of the Committee. If and when the Court comes into being, all documents will be sent to the Court, instead of to the Committee of Ministers, if the parties concerned have accepted its compulsory jurisdiction. That is the second of the options which figure in my Question.
Let me say here that the pooling of sovereignty involved in accepting decisions of the European Court, or of a two-thirds majority of the Committee of Ministers, is one of the few decisions that Great Britain has accepted since the war. In this connection I would call your Lordships' attention to some of the misgivings expressed on this score at the time when Britain first ratified the Convention by laying it on the Table of the two Houses of Parliament. In particular, some noble and learned Lords—and I had great sympathy with them—wondered what safer guardian of human rights could be found than an institution with the traditions and record of your Lordships' House. But the Convention passed without opposition, for on consideration many of the critics (and this applies to the then Lord Chancellor, the late Lord Jowitt) recognised the great political importance of getting Germany to agree voluntarily to accept an obligation to the rest of Western Europe to maintain basic democratic freedoms, and to accept also measures of safeguard as a permanent feature of Europe's peace-time structure. In this Convention Germany, as well as the other countries, accepted the right of intervention voluntarily as a permanent fact. If we had to agree, it was felt that it would be a bargain, very cheap at the price.
The surrender of sovereignty, however, is not perhaps as far-reaching as my short statement would imply. The text defining the rights is circumscribed in many ways. The actual clauses are the result of years of discussion. Parties to the Convention are permitted to make reservations at the time of signing, and some have done so. There are three options, two of which I have already mentioned. It is optional,

607
not compulsory, for a country to extend the Convention to territories for which it is responsible. Britain, indeed, has done that for forty-two countries in the British Commonwealth. Then there are two escape clauses, which are of significance because they touch the nub of the problem which any attempt of this kind runs up against.
The object of Article 17 is to prevent groups of individuals within a State from seeking to establish an authoritarian regime by gradually undermining the Constitution under the shield of the freedoms guaranteed by the Convention. The Commission have already had to apply this Article. The German Communist Party was indicted before the Federal Constitutional Court as an illegal organisation under the German Constitution. After a prolonged hearing, the Communist Party was held to be illegal. The Communist Party complained to the Commission that their right to freedom of association had been violated. The liquidation of a political Party, says Professor Waldock, is clearly a matter to be regarded with an extremely jealous eye. The Commission, however, having studied the proceedings, held that the activity of the German Communist Party did fall within the special provision in Article 17, and that it was therefore not entitled to invoke the guarantee of freedom of association enshrined in the Convention.
The other escape clause is Article 15, which comes into play only
"in time of war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation."
At such times parties to the Convention may suspend certain of their obligations under the Covenant
"to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation."
But they must not, except in certain defined circumstances, suspend the clause which guarantees the right to life, or that which guarantees freedom from torture or slavery or from retrospective criminal legislation. Any derogation of rights under Article 15 must, of course, be reported to the Secretary-General and the notification must be made public.
Professor Waldock in his Report covers several matters of interest in regard to procedure and the kind of individual petition that had been
608
received. There is no evidence of an overwhelming flood of petitioners, which might have been expected. Most of the applications were rejected on broad grounds: for example, the Commission cannot receive a petition concerning the Hitler régime applying to years before the Convention came into being; nor is it a mere revising court of the national courts. Very few individual petitions so far have survived to be considered by the Commission. The Chairman rightly regards this winnowing process and the result of it as satisfactory evidence—and I think he is right—that Western European countries are on the whole satisfactorily maintaining the rule of law. There would be something radically wrong with Europe if there were a flood of petitions which could be established. Nevertheless that does not mean that the Commission has no responsible task, for what is important is that the right of petition should remain in the background. Experience teaches what happens if we do not do that.
I come in conclusion to the two options. Of the two, the right of individual petition is perhaps the most fundamental. When the Convention was first drafted in 1949 there was no thought of not making this optional proposition. It was indicated that there should be petitions from Governments or from individuals. I was reminded the other day, in refreshing my mind with the division list, that three Members of the Conservative Party voted for that draft in 1949. Those three Members of the Conservative Party were respectively Mr. Harold Macmillan, Sir David Maxwell Fyfe, and Mr. John Foster representing Sir Winston Churchill. So one may assume that a Convention which does not stumble at the right of individual petition but puts it in on equal terms with the right of Governments has very good high authority behind it. I would say that most people who have followed this problem would agree that unless it is open to the individual to petition under a Bill of Rights it is not really of very great value, though it is clear, and indeed it is almost axiomatic, that it is going to be very difficult to get Governments to take up individual cases unless there is a political reason for doing so. That, again, is proved by the evidence, because it may be, and indeed is, most important that the Cyprus case should be submitted

609
to the procedure of and judged by the Convention, not to say whether there was a civil disturbance, not to say whether there was such an emergency, but to say whether or not the action taken by Britain is in accordance with the escape clause or not.
The arguments in favour of recognising the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court are not dissimilar. It is true that for the purposes of the Convention there is an alternative in the decision made by a two-thirds majority of the Committee of Ministers. But I wish to submit to the House that a political decision, as distinct from a juridical decision, is not what should normally he the peak of the operation of this Convention on Human Rights. In asking the Government to accept the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court, we are not increasing the extent to which we surrender or pool sovereignty. We have already done that. We are in that position. We must accept the decision. We have agreed that it is right that we should accept a European judgment. The only question now is: should that judgment be a juridical expression or a political one?
There are many other aspects which in due course I am sure will come before your Lordships, but I have already taken up a full share of the time available and I will conclude. At the first Assembly of the Council of Europe the hope was expressed that the Convention would be the first Statute of the Council of Europe, and four years later that hope was fulfilled. It is not a perfect document and will no doubt be improved upon, as most other documents of this kind are, in the light of experience. But Professor Waldock has recorded his opinion on its first three years of work and described it as, on the whole, well conceived and well drafted. My Lords, a Bill of Rights as the foundation of the Rule of Law is very much in the British tradition. The Convention owes much to British ideas and to British lawyers, politicians and civil servants. It has been supported by all three British Parties. To assist in strengthening the prestige and authority of the Convention and widening its scope is one of the most certain ways in which this country can help Europe. For political and psychological reasons I suggest that this is a suitable moment for demonstrating our support publicly and to the
610
whole of Europe, by taking the steps which are mentioned in my Question in relation to the right of individual appeal and the jurisdiction of the Court of Human Rights.
5.39 p.m.
LORD BEVERIDGE: My Lords, I rise to join in the hope which my noble friend Lord Layton has expressed, that the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor will find himself able to give a sympathetic and positive answer to this Question. There is no need for me to repeat what my noble friend has just said: I shall put my case on quite different grounds; and I shall put it in as few words as possible.
There may be some noble Lords, as there are certainly some people outside this House, who think that no further action in defence of human rights can possibly be needed by this country or in this country; that here all the human rights which really matter are safe and have been safe for decades or centuries. It so happens that for the past seven or eight months I have been studying what I regard as one of the most vital of all those human rights, though not perhaps a very widely spread one—the, right of freedom of expression particularly in teaching, learning, studying and writing in universities. That right has been attacked in the past twenty-five years by successive tyrants—there are many of them, from Hitler and Mussolini onwards.
I think I may claim that in fact, if one looks at the history of those twenty-five years, we in Britain have done more than any other country to give practical defence to that right, by rescuing the victims of these tyrants and enabling them to go on in their great service to humanity, by teaching, writing and studying freely. But it is not enough for any nation to preen itself on its own performances and virtues. We in Britain love peace, but we have come to realise that we cannot get peace by ourselves; we must act with other nations. We in Britain love freedom of expression and other human rights; but I urge in the strongest possible way that, as suggested by my noble friend Lord Layton, we should also formally and completely associate ourselves with other free nations, to learn from them and work with them.
I need hardly say that I personally accept the two practical proposals made

611
by my noble friend; that we should admit the right of individual petition and that we should accept compulsory jurisdiction. I hope that Britain can add to all that she has done for freedom and human rights in the past by associating herself wholeheartedly on these two points, and on other similar points as they arise, with other free nations. I hope that the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, in answering this Question, will accept both these points which show realisation of the central, general point that I have put forward: that free nations must work together for human freedom as they must, we all know, work together for peace.
5.43 p.m.
LORD BIRDWOOD: My Lords, I rise to intervene for only one moment in support of the purpose behind the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Layton. I find it curious that this country, which was the first to ratify the Convention in March, 1951, should be among the last four out of fourteen to accept these important optional clauses. As a layman who would always accept the supremacy of our own law, and indeed our own thought in relation to human rights (and, after hearing the noble Lord opposite, I assume that that supremacy is not challenged in any way), I cannot believe that we have anything to lose or to fear either in accepting the jurisdiction of a European Court or in accepting the individual right to present a petition to the Commission. But there is in fact another reason which goes far beyond the acceptance of the two optional clauses—a reason that I would submit, with the noble Lord, we in the West are concerned with—namely, strengthening the moral fabric of the free world. In doing so, we make an effort to demonstrate surely to those who are in doubt just the difference between freedom and slavery.
In asking Her Majesty's Government to accept these two optional clauses all we are doing is asking them to reinforce that demonstration. Over and over again, in the years to come, this perennial challenge as to our own interpretation of individual liberty will have to be faced. Those who support a quite different interpretation of human liberty may come to doubt our sincerity in the matter if we leave any room open to that doubt.
612
It is for that reason that I would ask Her Majesty's Government now to place the matter beyond all ambiguity. Going through the Convention I noticed that the German Federal Republic, when depositing their complete ratification in December, 1952, included West Berlin within the terms of the Convention. What clearer way could we find of re-stating our own position than to complete at this particular moment an instrument which is accepted in this vital outpost of the free world as their own declaration of faith? It is in that sense mainly that I would support the noble Lord, Lord Layton, in his Question.
5.47 p.m.
LORD SALTER: My Lords, I beg leave to add just a few words. I think it is extremely suitable that the noble Lord who introduced this Question to us should have done so, for I do not think there are any members of the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe who have done more than—I rather think probably none who has done as much as—he has, with the possible exception of the latest acquisition to our numbers from the other place, the noble Lord, Lord Boothby; and in this particular matter, as Lord Layton has pointed out, the Lord Chancellor has himself given a lead to us and to the Council of Europe.
The noble Lord who has just spoken has pointed out that we in this country are in a small minority among the signatory members of the Convention who have neither embodied the Convention in their domestic law, nor modified our domestic law in order that it may be in harmony with it; nor have accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the court; nor have accepted the right of individual application. I should like, in particular, to ask the Lord Chancellor to tell us, when he replies, whether the question of harmonisation of our own law with the Convention, so far as there may be any differences, has been definitely studied, and whether the Government have taken any decisions upon that. It is, of course, our definite obligation under the Convention to see that our law is in harmony, whether by embodiment of the Convention in our own law or by some such amendment of our law to bring it into harmony, as Norway has done, in one way or the other. I think we should be assured that action is being taken, if it has not already been taken. The same

613
is true, I think, of acceptance of the jurisdiction of the Court as compulsory.
I will not add anything further to what the noble Lord, Lord Layton, has said as to individual application, but in conclusion, and in conformity with what has been said already by Lord Birdwood, I should like to stress the major importance of taking the kind of step, not towards the abolition of national sovereignty, but towards its merging into the wider international or supranational structure, such as this Convention gives us the opportunity of doing. We may say that our law is so nearly the law contemplated in the Convention that no change is needed. But if it is argued that for that reason it is less necessary for us to make a change, it is also equally the fact that any small change which may be required would be less difficult. I should like strongly to suggest the importance of doing anything we can, by example as well as by exhortation, to see that, particularly among those emerging countries whose fundamental law has not been established, or is being changed, the rights specified in this Convention should be embodied. We have only to think of some of the countries newly emerging either into independence or into self-government to see what a great safeguard it would be for the future if they could be induced to embody this Convention in their own domestic law.
Speaking a little more widely, I believe it to be equally true that we all realise that, in view of the political, economic and military situation at the present time, there must be what we might call a dilution of national sovereignties or a merging of national sovereignties into something larger; and that this cannot be done by peaceful means in just one step, but must come gradually. The kind of opportunity which this Convention offers to us of taking a step in that direction is one which I feel it would be extremely undesirable not to use.
5.53 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, the House is very much indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Layton, for introducing this subject and for the way in which he did it. I should also like to add a word of gratitude on my own behalf because he was good enough to send me a copy of Professor Waldock's speech which he had found helpful and which I believe all students of this subject are
614
bound to find most useful. I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Layton, drew a contrast, in many respects, between the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which was approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 10, 1948, and what he conveniently referred to as the European Convention which is the subject of his Motion. I do not know whether that is its official name, but it is a convenient name by which to refer to it.
I confess that I have no very great admiration for the Universal Declaration, but possibly that is due not to what it contains but to the circumstances which ensured that those resounding declarations of principle were accompanied by their reversal in action. It is, I think, an irony that at the time when this Universal Declaration of Human Rights was made, slavery and deprivation of liberty were covering the face of Europe to an extent, I suppose, unparalleled in recorded history. I share the almost universal conviction of English lawyers to which Professor Waldock himself gave expression in that talk, and attach very much more importance to remedies than to grand declarations of human rights.
How much greater, as Professor Dicey pointed out in his day, are the services to human liberty conferred by the mere existence of the writs and Acts of Habeas Corpus than are any benefits to be derived from those great declarations of rights which have figured in many other Constitutions! In order to remind the House that I am not exaggerating about the irony of the 1948 Declaration, let me quote just one Article from it. Article 13, paragraph 2, of the Universal Declaration runs as follows:
"Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country."
That document was assented to by those countries which are now surrounded by guns and barbed wire, from which the inhabitants are allowed to escape only if they escape from a ship or aeroplane visiting another country.
I have shown, I hope, that I have no particular admiration for a Declaration of Human Rights accompanied by a disregard of all those rights in practice, where no remedy whatsoever is provided. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Layton, has pointed out, the position of the European

615
Convention is quite different. That is a Convention among (on the whole) like-minded people who use words with roughly the same connotation and have some intention of carrying out the undertakings which it contains. There is, too, a real attempt to make the matter justiciable, and to provide practical remedies. I must add that there are in the Convention one or two points which puzzle me. I should like to put them in an interrogative manner to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. Let me say at once that I have given him no advance notice of these points and, although I think that his immense knowledge of the whole subject may enable him to reply on the spot, I shall make no complaint of any kind if he does not give me an immediate answer to any of them.
As the noble Lord, Lord Layton, has pointed out, ratification of the Convention by this country does not automatically make the Convention a part of our domestic law. Nevertheless, difficulty would be caused if for any considerable length of time there were a discrepancy between our domestic law and the obligations of this Convention. I should like now to mention three points which struck me on reading this document. The first is a rather curious one, and the discrepancy between our own law and the Convention could perhaps be remedied without too much difficulty. But what worries me a little is that our own law is, in my view, rather superior to the Convention, and if we alter it it will not necessarily be to the advantage of mankind in general.
Let me give your Lordships the example of Article 7, paragraph (1), which runs as follows:
"No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under national or international law at the time when it was committed."
So far, I think, the whole House would say that that is admirable. That is an express prohibition of retrospective action in criminal matters which we all believe to be a right prohibition. But the words that follow seem to me to be much more dubious:
"Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offence was committed."
That is a much more curious doctrine. Let me say at once that in this it follows
616
the example already set by the Universal Declaration, but it is certainly not our law at present.
I think I am right in saying (my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack will correct me if I am not) that, in general, if there is a revision by Statute of a penalty for an offence, the court imposes the new penalty at the time when the offender comes before it. The doctrine which is set out in this second sentence seems to be based on the curious illusion that the criminal is fully entitled to commit his offence if he prefers the penalty to refraining from crime. It is as much as to say that he has a sort of bargain with society: that society says, "If you commit the offence, this is the penalty; but provided you are prepared to undergo that penalty, by all means go on to commit the offence." There is something of that doctrine in this (as it appears to me) curious sentence. In any event, I think my noble friend will agree with me that if we are to be bound by this second sentence in the first paragraph of Article 7 we may need to have legislation to alter our existing law. We shall then get the most paradoxical results. We may have two people apprehended at the same time; but the one who has committed an offence a day or two later than the other, who has escaped custody longer, may be liable to a quite different penalty. I do not think there is any obvious justice in that.
The next matter, which I think is rather interesting, is in Article 10. The noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, was very much interested, quite rightly, in the imparting of knowledge, information and ideas. Article 10 is very much in point. Let us look at what the first paragraph of Article 10 says:
"Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers."
Then come these curious words:
"This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises."
These are three specific exceptions. But what about the person who wishes to impart ideas through the drama? What would happen to a new Bernard Shaw? No mention is made of the licensing of stage plays. I certainly do not wish to debate in this House today whether stage

617
censorship is a good thing or a bad thing, but at least the House generally is of the opinion that that is a matter we could decide for ourselves. But, if I am right, we could be hauled before the European bodies that are being set up if they said we were violating this right by having a stage censorship. I dare say that this would be very good fun, but I think this is a consequence that may not be generally realised.
My third example is under Article 11:
"Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions "—
in the plural—
"for the protection of his interests."
The only words that I have inserted were "in the plural". That is not an accidental use of the plural; it occurs also in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Personally, I have no objection to this at all, but I think it would astonish a great many people of considerable influence in the trade union world if they were informed that every man had the right to belong to at least two trade unions. However, that is the position.
I have given three examples. They may not be of great importance compared with the other great matters with which Lord Layton quite rightly dealt, and on which he expressed himself so admirably, as have others who followed him, with the result that I need not follow him on them. But I must say that I am ready with a rather more open mind, perhaps, than has been indicated in the previous speeches to await the reply of my right honourable and learned friend on the Woolsack on whether we should at once take the two steps that have been suggested. It may be right to do so, but it may be that some of these matters require rather more investigation. I conclude by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Layton, for introducing this subject and for enabling my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor to give a reply, to which we all look forward.
6.7 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, I should like to join the noble Lords who have already conveyed the thanks of the House to my noble friend Lord Layton for initiating this debate; and I should like
618
also to join the noble Lord, Lord Salter, in taking this opportunity of thanking my noble friend Lord Layton, not only for this debate but for all that he has done over so many years now for the Council of Europe. That is a debt which we could never fully discharge, and I am glad to be able to tell him how grateful we are for what he has done.
He was good enough to remind your Lordships that this is not the first time that I have had to consider this Convention. In fact, as he said, I was Chairman of the Legal Committee which began their consideration nine years ago, and I shall say just a word or two in a moment on how it came into being. But I want to say first of all that, although Great Britain has not signed the two optional Declarations to which this Motion refers (and I shall come back to that in a moment), it ought to be made quite clear that it would be wrong and mischievous to deduce from this that we are slackening in any way in the defence of those human rights and values which are our own pride and inheritance. As noble Lords have already said, we were the first of the signatory States to ratify the Convention. In addition to that, as has not been said so far in this debate, if my recollection is right, we extended its application to no fewer than forty-two of our dependent overseas territories.
I think it is worth pausing for a moment and looking at the Convention, as did the noble Lord, Lord Layton, and I shall try to do it as briefly as I can. There are really two points of view from which I should like to consider it. The first obligation which the Convention made mandatory is that the member States of the Council should guarantee some sixteen fundamental rights and freedoms inside each of their countries. Like Lord Layton, I am not going through the lengthy list—your Lordships can see the Convention—but those freedoms include the physical freedoms, judicial freedoms, family freedoms, religious freedoms, political freedoms and—what is most important—the right to have a remedy for an infringement of any of these freedoms inside your own country. That is the first obligation of the Convention. The second—and this is extremely important—is to accept international examination of any complaint of an infringement made by a member State to the European Commission on Human

619
Rights, which is the receiver and investigator of complaints. The third obligation is to accept a decision by a two-thirds majority of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe that an infringement had taken place. Now, when one considers—and this, I think, needs to be stated—that Great Britain was prepared not only to guarantee the existence of those rights but to subject herself in respect of this country and forty-two overseas dependencies to international examination of their maintenance, that is, I believe, a large and generous gesture unequalled in the Colonial history of the world.
My Lords, the three obligations that I have mentioned are those from which there is no escape. Then there are two optional clauses: one is the acceptance of the jurisidiction of the Commission in the case of petitions alleging infringements by individuals as well as member States, and the other is the acceptance of a Court to try disputed matters. In considering that, I think it is important (as my noble friend Lord Layton obviously did) to bear in mind two provisions of the Convention which show that its framers were very conscious that it might well be used by those whose real and ultimate purpose was an authoritarian State. Such persons might well use the provisions of the machinery provided in the Convention solely in order to make difficulties and troubles in the interests of their ultimate aim of Communism or some other form of authoritarian government. It was in order to deal with that aspect that we introduced the two provisions to which Lord Layton has referred and which were well described by Professor Waldock at Brussells in his address to which I was so delighted to listen.
The first is Article 17, which says that nothing in the Convention is to be interpreted as implying for any stated group of persons any right to engage in any activity aimed at the destruction or undue limitation of the rights and freedoms guaranteed in the Convention. The object of that Article was to prevent groups or individuals within a State from attempting to establish an authoritarian regime by gradually undermining the constitution under the shield of the freedoms guaranteed by the Convention. As Lord Layton said, that Article has already been used in regard to the
620
Communist Party in Germany. The other provision, I agree with my noble friend, is Article 15, which comes into play only "in time of war or other public emergency threatening the life of a nation," and in these circumstances authorises a Government to take measures deviating from certain of its obligations under the Convention to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation—and, as the noble Lord said, the Government that does it has to report its doing so to the Secretary-General.
Now these were considerations which showed what was in our minds. We were most anxious—and I think I speak for the 101 members of the Council at that time—that there should be a Convention on Human Rights. We were desperately anxious, as these Articles show, that it should not be used by ill-disposed people for the purpose of subverting the very rights which it was desired to guarantee. The noble Lord, Lord Layton, has referred with great kindness to discussions nine years ago, and, although it would be nostalgically interesting, I am not going to follow him into those in any detail except that I should like your Lordships to know how the matter came into being. I had been working on this for some years with a friend of mine, Monsieur Pierre-Henri Teitgen, a former Minister of Justice in France. In 1949, after discussions on a railway train which the noble Lord will remember (because there were no wagons-lits, and we had to sit up all night), I put this proposal before the Assembly, and they were good enough to elect me as Chairman of the Legal Committee. I produced my draft. There was considerable discussion on the various points in the Committee, and then it came back to the Assembly. There was then further considerable discussion in the Assembly.
If I may give a very mild Roland for the noble Lord's Oliver, I may say that I have turned up the Daily Telegraph of January 9, 1949, and I find that it says:
"Lord Layton, the only British Liberal in the Assembly, set off the argument by asking for the deletion of the two clauses relating to the right to own property and the right to decide your children's education, and the one guaranteeing the right to marry and found a family. He felt that the inclusion of these matters at this stage would hinder the purposes of the Charter."
They are in the Charter. The noble Lord's argument was one very worthy of

621
being put forward—namely, that the Charter should be as restricted as possible and should not go into the economic field. I quote this only to show that at that time we were all feeling our way towards the best possible Charter.
After the end of that session, it went to the Committee of Ministers. They worked at it and produced it for us again the following year. Then it went back to my Committee, and we considered it. I want to say (because I am sure that the noble Lord will agree that this was so), that when it had been to the Committee of Ministers and came back to the Assembly—I do not want to quote the extracts from my own speech—I put it to the Assembly that we should approach the proposals of the Ministers in a spirit of conciliation and endeavour to secure that a Convention should exist. Again there were different viewpoints, and there had to be some field of compromise, before it was ultimately agreed. However, the Convention was signed in November, 1950, in Rome, as the noble Lord may remember, and Great Britain was the first State to ratify the Convention in the form in which the Committee of Ministers wanted it; that these points should be optional.
It is true that this country has not, either under the Labour Government or under the Conservative Government, made the declaration under Article 25 recognising the competence of the Commission to receive individual petitions, nor has it declared, under Article 46, its acceptance as compulsory of the jurisdiction of the Court. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs will consider most carefully all that has been said to-day, but it is right that I should put frankly to your Lordships the difficulties that have been in the mind of my right honourable friend, and not only in his mind but also the minds of his predecessors, up to and including Mr. Ernest Bevin.
In spite of all that my noble friend Lord Layton has said, it cannot be denied that the right of individual petition is open to considerable abuse, and the opportunity for, and possible extent of, abuse must be considered in the circumstances of the world to-day which my noble friend Lord Conesford has so graphically described. It is the misfortune of this sort of world that
622
individual petitions might become as much a method of political warfare as a method of ventilating the genuine grievances of individuals. Even though it may be assumed, as the speech of my noble friend Lord Layton indicated, that in most cases such petitions would be rejected by the Commission as inadmissible, nevertheless they would in the meantime have achieved their primary purpose of mischief-making propaganda against the laws and way of life of this country.
My noble friend referred to the figures given by Professor Waldock in his admirable speech. If he analyses them, he will find that 351 out of 360 cases considered were rejected without reference to the countries concerned. Of course, that cuts both ways, like so many arguments. On the one hand, my noble friend Lord Layton can say that they have been rejected. But if 351 out of 360 petitions have been rejected, then it is almost beyond peradventure that they will have contained a number of the kind I have described—petitions which were vexatious and put in for propaganda purposes and not from an actuality. That is the first point which one might consider. I think that these numbers show that there would be many petitions, and there are always too many credulous people only too ready to believe that "there is no smoke without fire". In a time of cold war in so many places in the world, it is important that no unnecessary handle should be given to troublemakers within or without this country.
There is a secondary point which applies to this country and which affects the point raised by my noble friend Lord Layton and developed by my noble friend Lord Salter—that is, that Great Britain is one of those countries in which treaties do not automatically become part of the law of the land as such. On the other hand, it is the treaty-making practice of this country that we do not ratify treaties unless our law is in a state in which we can carry them out. Although the constitutional safeguards of our laws are more often contained in the Common Law of decided cases than in written Statutes (if my noble friend Lord Salter has any doubt, I would tell him that I am really quoting Dicey, who is a fairly good authority on that point), we are

623
quite certain that our law does guarantee for our citizens the rights and freedoms that are contained in the Convention.
My noble friend Lord Conesford raised most interestingly the question of any rule of law in an omnicompetent Parliament. As he knows from his studies, that is a very difficult point. My friend Professor Arthur Goodhart has suggested that the real solution is that it puts upon the Parliamentary assemblies of this country the responsibility for maintaining the rule of law. It is up to us to see that no Statute contains something which would conflict with our rule of law with regard to personal freedoms or, of course with any treaty obligations which we took on. It is a difficult point in an omnicompetent Parliament, because, while we can put anything we like into our legislation, it is up to us to see that our legislation maintains the treaty.
I can assure my noble friend Lord Salter that we went into this point carefully. He will realise that at that time I was not suffering from the cares of office, so I went into it from the other end of the gun; and I must say, in fairness to the Home Office, of which I had not then the honour of being in charge, that they went into it with the greatest possible care, from the point of view of the general honour of our treaty-making powers—because we do not ratify a treaty unless our law is such that we are in a position to carry it out. I hope that that deals at any rate for the moment with the point that was raised.
I see the noble Lord, Lord Layton, rising. After the slight fracas I caused the other day, I have decided that any Member of the House can interrupt me until he breaks the record of the most;reverend Primate who interrupted me nine times in one speech. I am delighted to be interrupted by anyone.
LORD LAYTON: I am a little at sea as to whether I have the right to interrupt. I have no right to reply, but I presume that I have the right to put a question if one arises. I should like to put this point to the noble and learned Viscount. I was wondering whether these arguments were intended to apply particularly to this country. Is that a fear of opening the door to propaganda? Is that a danger which applies to all the countries
624
concerned, or one applicable specially to this country?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am grateful to the noble Lord. We are particularly susceptible to that difficulty. That was my first argument on the circumstances of the cold war. My second argument, the noble Lord will appreciate, was that in a country that has not a written Constitution, and where individual freedoms are guaranteed by judicial decision, we do stand in a different position. I had not quite finished that point: I dealt with it, I am afraid, rather at length, because my noble friend Lord Salter raised a point and I extended my answer beyond what I had intended to say about it. However, perhaps I may now return to that point.
No individual can, under Article 26, have his petition considered by the Commission until he has exhausted the remedies open in his own country. I concede the theoretical argument that can be made, which is: "You say that English Common Law guarantees these freedoms. You may be wrong. Why not leave it to the Court?" But if your Lordships consider the practical effect of having arguments as to whether, taking the whole summation of English Common Law, we have an exact equation with the Convention, I really think that it would give rise to an unequalled opportunity for frivolous and vexatious cases, when at the end of the day one would not have got any further forward, because no one seriously says that English Common Law does not protect the rights of freedoms, at least to the extent which the Convention says.
The third point here is, I think, some answer to the point which the noble Lord, Lord Layton, specifically put to me. If the right of individual petition were accepted for the United Kingdom, Her Majesty's Government, having extended the Convention to forty-two overseas territories, would at least—and I put the case at its lowest—be subjected to pressure to extend it also, under Article 63, to the colonial territories. I do not think that that would be understood in our colonial territories. Despite our great and continuous work of trusteeship and training, there are considerable sections of the populations in these countries which, politically, are still very immature. I hope noble Lords will not

625
take that against me: I am simply stating the fact that there are sections of the populations that are politically immature.
It is important there to maintain the respect for a single and undivided legal authority which they recognise as responsible for their own affairs, and the confusion that would result would undoubtedly be exploited by extremists to undermine the authority of the Colonial Government concerned. I think that is a particular point. I could give examples, but that would really be contributing to the danger which I am mentioning. I am not going to mention a single name, but I would ask your Lordships to look at the map of our Colonial Empire, and I think you will agree that that is a reasonable point. I put it with the greatest moderation, and I hope that I shall not be misunderstood.
My Lords, I now turn to the question of the Court and our reasons for not recognising its compulsory jurisdiction. Again, both the Labour and Conservative Governments—the Labour Government in power when we signed the Convention, and the Conservative Government since—have thought, as I have understood their spokesmen, that the Convention is important, not so much for providing a rigorously defined system of law but rather for setting out a number of general principles which could be applied to the different legal systems of the countries concerned. My noble friend Lord Conesford (I say this in parenthesis) picked out two parts where the drafting is obviously imperfect, and as one largely responsible for the drafting I am only surprised that he could find bad drafting in but two sections, because it is a very difficult matter to put in terms of legal obligation these principles; and, on the whole, if I may give myself one pat on the back, I do not think it has been at all badly done.
However, the lead that we wanted to give to the world was that these principles, which, whatever may be said about the drafting of certain words, are clearly stated in legal terms, could be applied to every legal system of the countries concerned. In other words, an assessment of whether or not a State has infringed one of the provisions of the Convention cannot, with the world as it is, and with the Convention in its present form, always be taken on entirely technical and
626
legal grounds. Again I want to be careful in putting this point, because I do not want in any way to appear to denigrate either the Convention or its drafting, bat noble Lords will appreciate that not only the facts but any legal issues raised by an infringement to-day are considered by the Commission, as Professor Waldock described. Then it is the duty of the Commission, if they think that there is an infringement, to make a report and they will in that report set out their views of the facts. So that the Foreign Ministers will have that report on the facts and the law and, of course, the resources of their own countries; and they will then come to a decision.
As I have said, I want to make it clear that that is unavoidable. There is no question here that Great Britain resiled from that derogation of sovereignty. Great Britain is leaving to the international body the decision of whether she has kept this Convention or whether she has breached it. I think, and all the occupants of the great office of Foreign Secretary of Great Britain have thought, that that is important at the present time time when you have to make what is a value judgment—that is, a judgment in which there are political assessments given, rather than an act dealing with a purely justiciable issue. It is a very difficult question, and I appreciate the other views that are held. In the circumstances of to-day I should like to test it by the two escape clauses that have been mentioned in deciding whether, under Article 17, what is really happening is a bouversement of everything we want. There are bound to be considerable arguments, under Article 15, as to whether a state of emergency exists.
I thought I ought to put to your Lordships how Foreign Secretaries have felt—that that is a matter for a more flexible view than the judgments of what I am sure will be a most admirable court. I have tried to put it very fairly, but as many of your Lordships have known me for many years I hope you will not think that I am slackening in regard to the faith. I have said that I do not think the British Government are, and I have tried to give the reasons; but if your Lordships will bear with me for two minutes longer I will give you the reasons which set me out on this path. I hope my quotation is not unfair—it is quite short.

627
These were the words I used at the Nuremberg trials:
"But we are determined to do our utmost to see that it "—
that is, the Nazi spirit—
"will pass from Germany, and that the spirit which produced it will be exorcised. It may be presumptuous for lawyers, who do not claim to be more than the cement of society, to speculate or even dream of what we wish to see in its place. But I give you the faith of a lawyer. Some things are surely universal: tolerance, decency, kindliness. It is because we believe that there must be a clearance before such qualities will flourish in peace that we ask you to condemn this organisation of evil.
When such qualities have been given the chance to flourish in the ground that you have cleared, a great step will have been taken. It will be a step towards the universal recognition that—
'sights and sounds, dreams happy as her day,
And laughter learnt of friends, and gentleness
And hearts at peace '
are not the prerogative of any one country. They are the inalienable heritage of mankind."
From that speech I went on in the next few years to try and draft the Convention of Human Rights.
6.45 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I should like to begin, as I think most of those who have spoken have begun, by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Layton, for raising this question. I do it in no conventional sense. Most people winding up a debate take the opportunity of thanking the mover, possibly for the opportunity of making a speech, but I thank him because he has rendered a great service to this House, to the country and, I think, to a great many Members individually who have never had the opportunity of making a study of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights. The noble Lord, Lord Layton, has really introduced them to this subject. In any case, he was kind enough to give me a great deal of information of which I was not aware at all. He made a most powerful speech, and induced the noble and learned Viscount to make a speech to which we all listened with the greatest of pleasure.
Needless to say, I approach this question without any spirit of dogmatism at all. I know too little about it to be dogmatic. Sometimes that is a justification for being dogmatic, but I feel it would be impertinent for one to approach this subject in the spirit of having made
628
up one's mind in advance. I have listened to the speeches, and one has to come to some conclusion. The noble and learned Viscount has stated that what has been said in this debate will be considered by the Foreign Secretary. I know the noble and learned Viscount well enough to know that that is not a mere perfunctory statement; it is a serious promise; and the noble and learned Viscount will himself see to it that the matter is considered by the Foreign Secretary, not only because he has promised to do so, but because we all know how much he has this question at heart. If we had any doubt about it his speech to-day would have reassured us. I would regard as reasonably satisfactory the assurance that the matter will be studied and reconsidered by the Foreign Secretary.
I should like to make one or two observations on the debate as I have followed it up to this point. I am sure the noble and learned Viscount did not intend to make a debating point—I do not think he would on a question of this sort—but he did make the point that the Labour Government had not accepted the two optional clauses and this Government had not. But I would remind him that the ratification by the British Government took place on March 8, 1951, and he will remember that the course of events did not give the Labour Government much time after March 8, 1951, to do much about it. I say, therefore, with great respect, that the fact that it was not ratified by the Labour Government is no indication of their attitude to these two very difficult questions.
I have listened to the case that the noble and learned Viscount made as to the difficulties about accepting the two optional clauses. Of course, there is some force in what he has said; I am sure he would not say anything that had not some force in it. I am sure he would also be the first to recognise that there are very good answers to every proposition that he put forward. For instance, with regard to the question of the right of the individual to be allowed to petition being open to considerable abuse, I think that that argument can be very greatly exaggerated. I do not think the mere fact that an individual comes along with a complaint against a Government would carry a great deal of weight in the world—there are so many cranks, and by and

629
large we can assume that a person who made representations against a Government would be, generally speaking, a crank, as can be seen from the number of petitions that have been rejected without reference to the Government itself. Only nine, apparently, out of 360 were considered worthy of being considered at all in the sense of asking the Government to express some view on it. I do not know how many of the nine were ultimately found to be justified.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If my memory of Professor Waldock's figures are correct, there were two, and one is still being considered. There was one other case where, without any admission of liability, some money was paid; so the total is two and a half.
LORD SILKIN: It does not seem to me to present any great difficulty, but I see the point: that it could be used as a means of propaganda. I myself, however, would take the chance; I feel that on the whole the gesture would have great advantages. After all, the noble and learned Viscount himself must have thought so at some time in his existence, because he put it into the Convention as at least a possibility, at least something which can be capable of being accepted. If he had thought it was wholly inadmissible by this Government, I am sure he would have resisted its going into the Convention at all; but it is in. And a number of Governments have actually accepted this provision without necessarily suffering any great injury. I would not say it is my final view, but my provisional view, having heard the discussion, is that on that point I would take the chance and accept it. After all, the Commission can dismiss a case as being frivolous and vexatious—the noble and learned Viscount is well aware of that expression. That itself, coming from the Commission, would confer a certain amount of odium on such a petition.
Nor do I think the practical point is very serious. I will not argue it, but I was not particularly impressed with the practical point. I see the force of the fact that we would be under pressure to bring in forty-two other territories or such fewer number as we now have responsibility for, and that might be embarrassing. But
630
of course we are under no obligation to do so. I think it would be a very proper gesture if we came in ourselves and did not necessarily bring in the others. I imagine that that would be quite possible, because each of those territories is there in their own right as subject entities and not coming under our own umbrella. If, on the other hand, I am wrong about that, I see that that might present some difficulties, although, even so, I should not think they are necessarily insuperable.
I feel that we have had a very valuable and informative discussion, and I personally should he ready to rest on the assurance given by the noble and learned Viscount that the matter will be reconsidered by the Foreign Secretary. I hope he can give us an assurance that at some time when that consideration has taken place we shall be informed of the result of that consideration.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, if the noble Lord has the Convention, he will see that Article 63 (1) says:
"Any State may at the time of its ratification or at any time thereafter declare by notification addressed to the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe that the present Convention shall extend to all or any of the territories for whose international relations it is responsible."
So it is ourselves, speaking for the Colonies—not a separate act on their part. I think that emphasises the point I put.
LORD SILKIN: Would it nevertheless be possible for us to say we come in on our own behalf?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes, it would be possible.
LORD LAYTON: Article 63 (4) actually gives the answer. It says:
"Any State which has made a declaration in accordance with paragraph 1 of this Article may at any time thereafter declare on behalf of one or more of the territories to which the declaration relates that it accepts the competence of the Commission to receive petitions from individuals, non-governmental organisations or groups of individuals in accordance with Article 25 of the present Convention."
House adjourned at three minutes before seven o'clock.