DEER (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]

HL Deb 20 January 1959 vol 213 cc567-608

3.27 p.m.

Amendments reported (according to Order).

Clause 1:

Constitution and general functions of Red Deer Commission

1.—(1) There shall be constituted a commission to be called "the Red Deer Commission" (hereinafter in this Act referred to as "the Commission") which shall have the general functions of furthering the conservation and control of red deer and of keeping under review all matters relating to red deer, and such other functions as are conferred on them by or under this Act.

VISCOUNT ELIBANK moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "Red". The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name. In my judgment, the word "Red" is redundant and in any case it might impose difficulties in regard to operating the Bill. Let us see what the Bill says. The Preamble to the Bill reads in this way: An Act to further the conservation and control of red deer in Scotland; to prevent the illegal taking and killing of all species of deer in Scotland; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid. Then we come to Clause 1 which I am seeking to amend. These words appear in subsection (1): There shall be constituted a commission to be called 'the Red Deer Commission' … which shall have the general functions of furthering the conservation and control of red deer and of keeping under review all matters relating to red deer. That seems to confine the operation of the Commission to red deer only.

On the other hand, it is now intended, by reason of Amendments which were moved on the Committee stage by certain noble Lords, in certain respects, to include in the operations of the Bill fallow deer and roe deer. I do not know what the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, has in mind in relation to the Amendment in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Haddington, in respect of roe deer, but he certainly had it in mind to include in certain respects and for certain purposes fallow deer. I do not propose to discuss this Amendment, but merely to point out that the Secretary of State may, by Clause 20, in the words of Amendment No. 19: by order fix a period in each year during which any species of deer named in the order other than red deer, may not be taken or wilfully killed, and he may fix a different period for males and females of the species so named.

We all understand that one of the objects of that provision is to allow the Secretary of State for Scotland to make orders either in respect of fallow deer or roe deer, even though they may not be mentioned in the Amendment. But the proposed Amendment No. 19 says: Before making any such order as aforesaid the Secretary of State shall consult with any organisations that appear to him to represent persons likely to be affected by the order. How is the Secretary of State to approach these organisations? Here I come to my main point. He will do so presumably through the Red Deer Commission. I shall be glad to hear whether there is some other method of doing so. If he approaches the Red Deer Commission, then I suggest that under Clause 1 as it stands, the Red Deer Commission being concerned only with red deer and not with fallow deer or roe deer, would have to say, "Thank you very much, but take your argument somewhere else. We are a Red Deer Commission and we have nothing to do with any other deer." It is on those grounds that it seems to me that while the word "red" is redundant in any event, in these circumstances it may hold up the operations of the Bill, and for that reason I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 8, leave out ("Red").—(Viscount Elibank.)

LORD FORBES

My Lords, I have always admired the noble Viscount's great interest in the Far East but I never for one moment expected that he would try to include Japanese and Chinese deer in the Deer (Scotland) Bill. Part I of this Bill is entirely designed to deal with the problem of red deer, a problem about which we know a considerable amount. As the noble Viscount will observe, the close season provisions have been moved to a different part of the Bill and are now in a part by themselves; so that the Red Deer Commission will have nothing whatsoever to do with close seasons. The habits and the problems of the red deer have been studied and we know where we are going with them. We have not yet studied the problem of fallow deer or roe deer and at present we can see no reason to control them more than they are being controlled at present.

I would further point out to noble Lords that the noble Viscount's Amendment would have no effect at all, because all the provisions in Part I of the Bill relate entirely to action to be taken against red deer—for instance, Clause 6 which is concerned with marauding deer and envisages that those deer will be shot when they are on their way to, or leaving, agricultural land. They will be shot on open ground. The habits of roe deer are completely different. They live in woods. They may come out on to the fields and will then go back into the woods; so that Clause 6 is quite inappropriate to deal with roe deer, in any case. Part I of this Bill is designed to deal with red deer and I am quite certain that we should not take our eyes off the ball and that there is no need to make this Amendment. I would therefore ask the noble Viscount to withdraw his Amendment.

LORD BROCKET

My Lords, we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, that Part I of the Bill deals with red deer only; but if the Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, is to move later is carried, amending Clause 19, I think it will be found that Clause 19 is part of Part I of the Bill. I see that Part II of the Bill starts at Clause 22.

VISCOUNT ELIBANK

My Lords, is the noble Lord referring to Clause 19 or Clause 20?

LORD BROCKET

My Lords, the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, is to page 8, line 11. If that is Clause 20 it is equally Part I of the Bill. It seems to me that in due course this Bill will deal with fallow and roe deer, if the Secretary of State for Scotland wishes to bring forward measures to deal with them, and it appears to be unnecessary to have the title "Red Deer Commission" for a Commission which, though it may start by dealing only with red deer, may in due course deal with other varieties of deer. I should have thought that the word "red" here was unnecessary and limiting.

LORD FORBES

My Lords, I can only repeat the argument I have already put forward, that many of the provisions in the Bill, such as Clause 6, would be entirely inappropriate to deal with roe deer. If roe deer were to be included in Part I of the Bill the whole of Part I would have to be re-written.

LORD STRATHCLYDE

My Lords, is not the noble Lord, Lord Brocket, under a misapprehension? He has spoken of Clause 20 being in Part I of the Bill, but if I understand Amendment No. 21 aright that transposes Clause 20 to after Clause 21, as Part II, dealing with close seasons.

LORD BROCKET

My Lords, if that further Amendment is carried that will be so. But is there still any reason for calling this a Red Deer Commission when in due course they may deal with other forms of deer?

VISCOUNT ELIBANK

My Lords, that is my point. It is rather difficult to explain and one is rather befogged by these various Amendments bringing in different kinds of deer. However, in the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD FORBES had given Notice of several Amendments relating to the constitution of the Commission, the first being, in subsection (3), to leave out "ten" and insert "twelve". The noble Lord said: My Lords, for the convenience of the House I will speak on Amendments Nos. 2 to 7. The object of these Amendments is to bring crofting and forestry into the composition of the Commission. Membership of the Commission is now to be increased by two and will consist of twelve members and a chairman. There will be three members representing the interests of land used for agriculture or forestry, two representing sporting interests, three representing the interests of farmers and crofters, two representing the interests of hill sheep farming and two from the Nature Conservancy. During the Committee stage it was asked whether the Forestry Commission and the Crofters' Commission could be included in the Red Deer Commission. We have not included either the Forestry Commission or the Crofters' Commission because they are not really representative of private interests; they are quasi-Government bodies with executive functions. I have no doubt that both these Commissions will be consulted by the Red Deer Commission. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 16, leave out ("ten") and insert ("twelve").—(Lord Forbes.)

THE EARL OF MANSFIELD

My Lords, I hope your Lordships will agree to all these Amendments. They may not be of great importance, but they do make the Commission more widely representative and therefore, I think, will go a good way to satisfying opinions that may otherwise not be altogether pleased.

LORD GREENHILL

My Lords, I should like to add my own approval to that of the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, but I would express this doubt: I do not think the relative numbers representing different interests really alter the balance of power to the extent that I should have liked to see. I should have liked more power given to both crofters and forestry representatives, because by whatever name we call owners of land used for agriculture or forestry or sporting interests, the difficulty is in believing that they are really people with different interests. However, for this small mercy I am duly grateful.

LORD BROCKET

My Lords, on the Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, kindly promised to consider some criticisms which were put forward, and I am glad he has gone into them so thoroughly. The series of Amendments here and later in the Bill are, I think, the result of his reconsideration; and I should like to give him my support, for what it is worth.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, is it the will of the House that I should take the remaining group of Amendments together?

Amendments moved—

Page 2, line 1, leave out ("two") and insert ("three")

Page 2, line 2, leave out ("landowners") and insert ("owners of land used for agriculture or forestry")

Page 2, line 7, leave out ("two") and insert ("three")

Page 2, line 9, leave out ("in general") and insert ("and crofters")

Page 2, line 12, at end insert— ("(5) For the purpose of this section the expression 'crofter' has the like meaning as in the Crofters (Scotland) Act, 1955.")—(Lord Forbes.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to

Clause 2 [Appointment of panels]:

3.41 p.m.

LORD FORBES

My Lords, this Amendment ensures that the panel will have on it at least one voice from the two main groups—that is, the land owners' sporting group and the farming group. In addition, there will be at least one other person who will be chosen, and that person will be the right person in the circumstances, rather than a representative of any particular interest. The Government are not prepared to tie the hands of the Commission any further than that, because in some areas it may be an extremely difficult task to set up these panels at all. If the panels are to work successfully I think it is essential that they should have local knowledge and be accepted locally by the people in the district. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 2, line 20, at end insert— ("(2) Any panel set up in pursuance of the last foregoing subsection shall include at least one representative of the interests mentioned in heads (b) and (c) and at least one representative of the interests mentioned in heads (d) and (e) of subsection (4) of the foregoing section.")—(Lord Forbes.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 6 [Power of Commission to deal with marauding deer]:

LORD FORBES

My Lords, perhaps I may speak on Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 together. In the case of marauding deer Amendment No. 9 gives the person with the right to kill the deer—that is the owner or tenant from whom the deer happen to be coming—the first chance to kill the deer, provided that he deals with the complaint forthwith. This was what was asked for during the Committee stage. My Lords, I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 3, line 29, at end insert— ("(2) Where the Commission are satisfied that the deer which appear to be causing damage as aforesaid come from particular land, and that any person having the right to kill deer thereon will forthwith undertake the killing of the deer first-mentioned, the Commission shall, instead of issuing an authorisation under the last foregoing subsection, make a request in writing to that person to kill those deer.")—(Lord Forbes.)

VISCOUNT ASTOR

My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for meeting so very reasonably the arguments we put forward.

LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL

My Lords, I should like to support those thanks. In Committee I moved an Amendment, the substance of which was the same as this, and I should like to thank my noble friend for meeting it in a most satisfactory way.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD FORBES

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 10.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 30, leave out ("the last foregoing subsection") and insert ("this section").—(Lord Forbes.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD FORBES

My Lords, this Amendment provides that notice of the Commission's intention to follow and kill marauding deer may be served on the agent or servant of an occupier or an owner, provided that that agent or servant is responsible for the management or the farming of the land. This is intended to meet the case of the owner or occupier who for some reason is away. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 3, line 40, at end insert— ("( ) Without prejudice to the general provisions of section sixteen of this Act relating to the service of notices, any notice to be served under this section on an owner or occupier of land shall, where an agent or servant is responsible for the management or the farming of the land, be duly served if served on the said agent or servant.")—(Lord Forbes.)

THE EARL OF MANSFIELD

My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend for this Amendment. Again, I moved one of the same substance on the Committee stage; and this Amendment, if I may say so, goes even further than mine did and is. I think, more satisfactory.

LORD GREENHILL

My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord would explain what is meant by the proviso he expressed in explaining this particular Amendment. Does it mean that where the agent is not an active participant in management he will not be regarded as the agent? Or must he be an agent who is actively operating the particular estate?

LORD FORBES

My Lords, I think that if the owner or occupier says, "That person is my manager" that will be sufficient.

LORD GREENHILL

My Lords, would a lawyer not do?

LORD FORBES

If he were considered to be managing the land, yes.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

3.47 p.m.

VISCOUNT ASTORmoved to add to the clause: (6) Where functions under this section are exercised by a panel appointed under section two of this Act any person aggrieved by any action taken by the panel in exercise of such functions may make application to the Commission for the holding of a public local inquiry into the circumstances in which such action has been taken and where such an application is made and not withdrawn the Commission shall cause a public local inquiry to be held by a person appointed by them and shall send to the panel and to the person by whom such application is made copies of the report of the person who held the inquiry stating his findings with regard to the circumstances as aforesaid: Provided that nothing in this subsection shall require the panel to suspend or modify any action so taken by them or to defer taking further action in exercise of such functions unless the Commission, after receipt by them of an application made under this subsection, direct the panel to do so. (7) The provisions of subsections (3) to (6) of section three hundred and fifty-five of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947 (which relate to the holding of local inquiries) shall apply in relation to a public local inquiry held under the last foregoing subsection as they apply in relation to local inquiries held under the said section three hundred and fifty-five. (8) The person appointed to hold a public local inquiry under subsection (6) of this subsection—

1. (a) shall, having regard to the object and result of the inquiry, determine whether the expenses incurred by the Commission in relation to the holding of the inquiry shall he borne by them or shall he paid to them by the person on whose application the inquiry was held; and
2. (b) may make an award as to the expenses of the parties at the inquiry and as to the parties by whom such expenses shall be paid."

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this Amendment is put forward to try to meet the objections which were raised to a similar Amendment on the Committee stage. I would assure noble Lords that those of us interested in this matter are not interested in merely formal and theoretical grounds, but because during the war sub-committees of war agriculture committees sometimes used their powers in an unreasonable manner, and there was no way whatever, under the legislation as it was, of getting this misuse of powers properly inquired into. Therefore I suggest in the first Amendment I put down that when a local panel issued unreasonable orders the owner or occupier should be able to appeal to the Secretary of State for an inquiry into the way the panel was working. Two objections were made to this course. The first was that the Secretary of State, in appointing a Commission had to appoint reasonable men and trust them to look after their own panels. The second was that there might be some delay. Obviously, if there were marauding deer, and if an order were given and there had to be delay for allowing inquiry, those marauding deer would clear the crops completely and the whole purpose of this part of the Bill might be nullified.

The suggestion which I venture to put before your Lordships to-day is this: that if an owner or occupier feels that a local panel is misusing its powers he should be able to ask the Commission to hold an inquiry; that the Commission should appoint an inspector who would hold, as early as possible, a public inquiry, in which the local panel would have to give its reasons why it made these orders, and hear objections and have cross-examinations; and that there should be a public report. Therefore there could be no hanky-panky in the dark, because all the reasons would be shown absolutely fairly and clearly. I am sure that if that is done it will avoid arty scandal and abuse of powers. The mere existence of this right to ask for an inspector to act if there is a dispute between the owner and the panel will almost certainly mean that it will hardly ever be used. But it is very important that arbitrary powers, with no reasons for their being given and which allow of no examination, should not be put in the hands of any body of men, however carefully they may be selected. The second point is that if there is this question of marauding deer it is not necessary to hold up action. If the panel feel this is a real and pressing danger they could go ahead and kill the deer, pending an inquiry; but, of course, the Amendment would act as a check on them in using these powers because they would know they might have to justify the way they used them to the inspector afterwards. I hope that these two Amendments to my original proposal will meet the objections which were made, and will prove acceptable to the House. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 4, at end insert the said subsections.—(Viscount Astor.)

3.50 p.m.

LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL

My Lords, I am not at all certain that this power to set up machinery to enable an inquiry to be held is necessary, and I think it is less necessary now that your Lordships have agreed to the Amendment to Clause 2 which lays down the composition of the panels, thereby ensuring that the panels are composed, broadly, in the same manner as the Red Deer Commission itself. There is, however, one thing which I would ask my noble friend the Minister if he would do, which would make any question of an inquiry even more unnecessary: that is, whether he will state that the Red Deer Commission will have a completely independent status. That is to say, that its staff should not be composed of actual members of the Department of Agriculture. That would give complete confidence in it among all the parties who will be concerned in its administrations. Further, if possible, it should be financed directly from the Treasury and not through the Secretary of State for Scotland. Whether or not that is a possibility, I do not know, but if my noble friend the Minister could give an assurance that the Red Deer Commission would be completely independent, I think it would be to the great advantage of all concerned.

THE EARL OF MANSFIELD

My Lords, I agree entirely with my noble friend Lord Stratheden and Campbell. I cannot see that this Amendment is either necessary or desirable, because it would put into the hands of an unreasonable aggrieved person a perpetual power to hamstring the operation of the Commission by asking for an inquiry which, according to the terms of the Amendment, could not be refused. It has the further weakness that it perpetuates one of the most undesirable features of the administration of the Agricultural Acts during the war: that is to say, that any appeal from the operations of an agricultural executive committee was not to an independent tribunal but was to the Secretary of State. As we were always informed, the agricultural committees were really the Secretary of State carrying out certain directions. If such an inquiry were to have any value, there would have to be an independent inquirer such as the sheriff substitute or the sheriff principal, and that would lead to a considerable amount of public expense. I am afraid it would be a case of employing a sledgehammer for the purpose of breaking a not very strong nut.

VISCOUNT ASTOR

My Lords, might I answer that one point, that a person might abuse these powers? Surely the remedy for that is the power which is given in the last subsection. The inspector can say who has to pay the costs of the inquiry, and if somebody keeps on asking for frivolous inquiries he can certainly mulct him with the costs and so discourage him from misusing this power. It is a very good way, I should think—certainly in Scotland—of preventing frivolous inquiries from being demanded.

The noble Earl has now gone back to my original idea. My original idea was for an independent inspector. Then I was told: "You must not have an independent inspector; you must trust the Commission." Now I suggest it should be the Commission's inspector, and I am told that it ought to be an independent inspector. Surely an inspector from the Commission, before whom you have a chance to state your case, is a very valuable safeguard. The noble Lord may not have had the experience that we had in our part of Scotland during the war, but I can assure your Lordships, without going into details, that there were foresters to whom much permanent damage was done by the unreasonable use of powers by local committees.

THE EARL OF MANSFIELD

Surely it would be a wholly undesirable thing to put into the hands of such an inspector the power to be able to mulct anyone in costs?

LORD FORBES

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Mansfield and Lord Stratheden and Campbell, for pointing out so very well why this Amendment should not be agreed to. The noble Viscount obviously wishes to make some provision for an inquiry, but we can see that the Bill as drafted provides adequate safeguards, so that that is not necessary. I would also point out that the public inquiry that is suggested is not really appropriate in any way, because there is no provision for the taking of any disciplinary action as a result of the inquiry, and there is no provision for compensation. What is the use of having an inquiry if there is no provision for putting the matter right? Another point is that it is no good having an inquiry when the act has been done and we know that there are no means of putting it right.

The noble Lord, Lord Stratheden and Campbell, asked whether I could give an assurance that the Red Deer Commission would be completely independent. I can state that it will be independent, subject, of course, to the overall direction of the Secretary of State. Regarding the financing of the Commission, I imagine that this would be done through the Secretary of State, though initially, of course, the money has to come from the Treasury. In view of the fact that adequate safeguards exist to ensure that the panel acts reasonably, I cannot agree to accept this Amendment.

LORD SILKIN

My Lords, while this conference is going on, may I say a word on the general principle. I cannot pretend to be acquainted with the details of the Bill itself, but as it seems to me, here is a body which is entrusted with certain functions which may be quasi-judicial. Their decisions may affect individuals, and an individual may feel aggrieved. It seems to me reasonable that that individual should have some opportunity of appealing to somebody for an inquiry to be held into his grievance. That was the purpose behind the appointment of the Franks Committee, which the Government set up. The Report of that Committee was accepted unanimously, and I think was greeted with enthusiasm by every Member of this House. Indeed, in some respects it was thought that the Franks Committee did not go far enough: and we have recently had legislation passed through this House for the purpose of implementing the provisions of the Franks Committee.

I cannot myself see the difference between an appeal against the decision of, say, a local authority or of a tribunal set up by a Minister and an appeal against this Commission, which is also a body set up by the Minister. I should have thought that it would be well worth while for the Government to give further consideration to this point, to ensure that any aggrieved person had an opportunity of ventilating his grievance. There may be technical objections to the wording of this Amendment; there may be certain difficulties, such as those outlined by noble Lords who have spoken; but I think that it would be right that the Government should look at this principle again and see that no body is given a power to act without the subject's having an opportunity of making representations if he is dissatisfied with their decision.

LORD FORBES

My Lords, an aggrieved person can ventilate his grievance to the Secretary of State, who would use his power of direction under Clause 1 (2) if the panel have acted unreasonably.

LORD SILKIN

My Lords, that would be very good if the aggrieved person had an opportunity of having an inquiry, the Secretary of State then coming to a decision. We should then reach the position that obtain at the present time in planning appeals, where the Minister holds an inquiry and makes a decision. But there is no provision here for an inquiry. That is just the protection that the subject wants.

LORD FORBES

My Lords, the subject has protection. The thing we cannot do anything about is that when the wrong has been done, it cannot be righted; the damage has been done.

VISCOUNT ASTOR

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, for his support on what, after all, is a matter of principle.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, I have no more power than any other Member of your Lordships' House, but I would point out that it is the usual procedure of your Lordships on Report stage to make only one speech on an Amendment and not to duplicate the Committee stage.

VISCOUNT ASTOR

My Lords, may I, with your Lordships' permission, finish these remarks, which I hope will be brief? I am most grateful for Lord Silkin's support and for the concession that the Minister has made in saying that the Secretary of State will have power of direction, but I do not see how the Secretary of State can use the power of direction intelligently unless he sends an inspector to the spot to hear both sides and advise him on how he should use this power. I hope that the noble Lord will consider this point. It might be said that the deer have been shot in any case, so why the argument? But we cannot have it both ways. One cannot hold up all action, because the deer are marauding, and therefore an inquiry is impossible; and at the same time one cannot have action and then say that there can be no inquiry because it is too late. I suggest that what we can do, if the panel have used their powers unreasonably, is to give the Commission authority to sack the panel and appoint a new one or give directions that in future they must be more careful of how they use their powers. That is all we want. Like the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, I hope that this matter will be considered further as a matter of principle. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 7 [Control schemes]:

LORD FORBES

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Greenhill and Lord Mathers, for bringing the matter of this Amendment to my attention on Committee stage. The Government accept the view that the words "serious" and "or mitigation" are unnecessary, in view of the fact that any control scheme drawn up by the Commission must go through the detailed procedure laid down in the Second Schedule of the Bill. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 6, leave out "serious".—(Lord Forbes.)

LORD GREENHILL

My Lords, I want only to express my thanks to the noble Lord for having been impressed by the force of the arguments from this side of the House.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD FORBES

My Lords, I apologise to your Lordships; I should have taken Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 with Amendment No. 13. I beg to move.

Amendments moved—

Page 4, line 10, leave out "or mitigation"

Page 4, line 13, leave out "or mitigation".—(Lord Forbes.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

clause 8 [Contents of control schemes]:

LORD FORBES

My Lords, this Amendment also fulfils a promise that I gave on Committee stage, that I would look into the question of fencing. This Amendment goes a bit further than was suggested on Committee stage. It now includes a ditch or a fence to prevent the movement of deer, and the occupants, as well as the owners, are protected from I he requirement of putting up a fence. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 5, line 8, at end insert— (3) Nothing in the foregoing provisions of this section shall empower the Commission to impose on any owner or occupier of land a requirement to construct a fence on his land or on any part thereof against the movement of red deer, and for the purposes of this section 'fence' shall include any artificial obstruction."—(Lord Forbes.)

THE EARL OF HADDINGTON

My Lords, as this Amendment is substantially the same as the one which I moved on Committee stage—indeed, it goes even further than my Amendment—I should like to thank the noble Lord very much for moving it. I think that it is important that it should be definitely stated that a control scheme imposes no obligation on an owner to put up any sort of obstruction. Moreover, as was mentioned before Christmas, when we were discussing this Bill, if a control scheme works properly it should make any kind of obstruction or fence unnecessary. I thank the noble Lord for his attention to this matter.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 15 [Entry on land]:

LORD FORBES

My Lords, this Amendment limits entry on to land by the Commission, except in the case of marauding deer, to the period of one month without fresh notice of entry. Any fresh notice of entry must he served fourteen days before re-entry. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 40, leave out from ("unless") to the end of line 2 on page 7, and insert ("notice has been given to the owner and the occupier of the land that it is proposed to enter during a period, specified in the notice, not exceeding one month and beginning at least fourteen days after the giving of the notice, and entry is made on the land during the period specified in the notice").—(Lord Forbes.)

VISCOUNT ASTOR

My Lords, again I should like to thank the noble Lord for accepting the substance of the arguments put before him.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 20:

close seasons

20.—(1) No person shall take or wilfully kill any stag, being a red deer, during the period commencing on the twenty-first day of October and ending on the thirtieth day of June or any hind, being a red deer, during the period commencing on the sixteenth day of February and ending on the twentieth day of October.

VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARDmoved to add to subsection(1): or sell the carcase or part of the carcase of any red deer during the period commencing on the sixteenth clay of February and ending on the thirtieth day of June.

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the object of this Amendment is to act as a further deterrent to poaching for profit by prohibiting the sale of venison when red deer are out of season. I understand that in the case of cold-storage venison, any retailer who sold out-of-season venison should assure a food inspector that the venison had been legally obtained in season. I appreciate that if the sale of cold-storage venison were prohibited, it might impose hardship on some retailers. Personally, I believe that the time will come when we shall need legislation to provide that all dealers in venison must have a game dealer's licence. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 8, line 11, at end insert the said new words.—(Viscount Massereene and Ferrard.)

THE MARQUESS OF WILLINGDON

My Lords, I should like to support this Amendment, and if the Minister is going to consider a further safeguard would it not be better to have a clause to make it easier for butchers to accept carcases from the cold-storage places during the proposed close season?

LORD FORBES

My Lords, I appreciate the object of this Amendment, namely, that it is an effort to try to strengthen the anti-poaching aspect of this Bill, but I am afraid that the prohibition of the sale of red deer venison would be impossibly cumbersome to enforce. There are many practical difficulties to be overcome. First of all, somebody would have to decide what was red deer venison and what was fallow deer and roe deer venison, and that would cause considerable difficulty. The main difficulty that I can see is that a lot of this venison is sold in England—and some of it is even sold in Germany. This would mean that we should need to have inspectors in England, in any event, and possibly also in Germany. Owing to the many practical difficulties, I cannot agree to this Amendment.

LORD GREENHILL

My Lords, does this apply to hinds as distinct from stags?

LORD FORBES

Presumably so.

VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD

My Lords, with regard to having to have inspectors in Germany, I should have thought that if you had inspectors at the harbours where the venison was shipped, or at the airport where the venison was flown out of the country, that should suffice. However, in view of the difficulties involved, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

4.13 p.m.

LORD FORBESmoved, after subsection (1), to insert: (2) The Secretary of State may by order fix a period in each year during which any species of deer named in the order other than red deer (cervus elaphus), may not be taken or wilfuly killed, and he may fix a different period for males and females of the species so named. (3) Before making any such order as aforesaid the Secretary of State shall consult with any organisations that, appear to him to represent persons likely to be affected by the order. (4) For the purposes of this section "red deer" means deer of the species cervus elaphus."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an enabling Amendment, to allow the Secretary of State to make close seasons for species of deer other than red deer. Each species will have a separate order which may give different dates for close seasons for males and females. The Amendment is drafted to take into account the fact that at present not enough is known about deer of other species to allow close seasons to be fixed for them in this Bill. This will ensure that the position is thoroughly investigated before the Secretary of State makes his orders. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 8, line 11, at end insert the said subsections.—(Lord Forbes.)

THE EARL OF HADDINGTON

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, for giving this matter of a close season for other species of deer so much consideration, and with this Government Amendment on the Marshalled List I will not move Amendment No. 23. However, with other noble Lords who advocate close seasons for fallow and roe deer, I am somewhat disappointed that the noble Lord could not see his way to fix definite dates for a close season to come into operation as soon as the Bill becomes law. I am pleased with the Amendment, but in my view it has one unfortunate aspect. Because the Amendment relates to Clause 20 it means that an interim period of three or four years must elapse between the passing of the Bill and the ability of the Secretary of State to prescribe close seasons. It seems to me that there is no reason why a close season for species of deer other than red deer, should not be brought in, if the Secretary of State so desire, as soon as this Bill becomes law.

The same factors do not apply to red deer as apply to the fallow or roe deer or to other species of deer. There is no necessity to have this hiatus in order that the surplus stocks may be cleared off, which I think was the subject of an agreement between the owners of the forests and the sheep breeders, and on which the whole Bill is rather based. Could not the noble Lord put his Amendment, word for word as it stands, in a part of the Bill outside Clause 20, so as to enable the Secretary of State, if he so desires, and only if he desires, and after consultation with all the necessary organisations, to bring it in before this long period of three or four years? All we want is to prevent other species of deer from being shot, poached or trapped during the breeding season. Could the noble Lord meet us in this respect?

THE MARQUESS OF WILLINGDON

My Lords, I want to support wholeheartedly the noble Earl, Lord Haddington. The experts, including the noble Earl, will probably bear me out when I say that the seeker deer, which I think is increasing almost as much as the fallow deer, appears to have been forgotten.

LORD LOVAT

My Lords, I should like to support the noble Earl, Lord Haddington, in what he has said. As recently as September, 1958, there was a case of poaching of roe deer in Scotland, in the County of Inverness, where a man out looking for roe deer shot two sheep, and the only extenuating excuse he could produce was that he thought they were roe deer. There seems to be absolutely no point in allowing that sort of thing to go on untrammelled for a period of years before the situation can be reviewed.

THE EARL OF MANSFIELD

My Lords, with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, I cannot agree that there is not sufficient evidence to justify the prohibition of the slaughter of hinds and roes during the breeding season. Be that as it may, we are grateful to the noble Lord for having introduced an Amendment which goes even further in certain respects than that proposed by my noble friend Lord Haddington, inasmuch as it makes provision for all possible future kinds of deer that might be involved. There is, however, one point that I would suggest to the noble Lord to which consideration might he given when this measure reaches another place. Could not power be given to the Secretary of State to fix close seasons, if required, only for a certain portion of the country? I can well envisage a situation arising in which roe deer—we can leave out fallow deer in this respect, because they are not sufficiently nutherous—might in certain areas be causing damage serious enough to justify their being shot during what ought to be the close season, whereas over the rest of the country that might not be justified. I suggest that power to fix designated areas would be to the advantage of all concerned.

LORD BROCKET

My Lords, I want to support the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, in his Amendment, and I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State will have these powers. With regard to the point brought forward by the noble Earl, Lord Haddington, it remains to be seen whether the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, is prepared to accept my Amendment No. 20A when I move it, as to whether the close season may be brought a little nearer or not.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL

My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, for his Amendment, but at the same time I would support the noble Earl, Lord Haddington, in trying to get it removed from Clause 20 of the Bill, and for a similar reason: that Clause 20 will not come into operation until 1961 or 1962. I feel that in that time the fallow deer, particularly, which are not at all numerous in Scotland, may have suffered a severe reduction in number.

VISCOUNT ELIBANK

My Lords, this Amendment, of course, is an advance on the original Bill, for which those of us who supported the noble Earl, Lord Haddington, are grateful. But I hope that the noble Minister will be able to give serious consideration to the proposition put forward by the noble Earl this afternoon.

LORD FORBES

My Lords, stags have been roaring all around, and luckily there have been no hinds who seem to have been in combination with them. I am afraid that I must come in as the old switch to try to clear the ground for everyone. The noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, raised the question of whether, when the Secretary of State is drawing up close seasons for other species, it would be possible to have different seasons for different areas. I give the noble Earl the undertaking that the point will be considered when we come to it. I should like to remind the noble Lord, Lord Lovat, once more that poaching has nothing to do with close seasons. He seems to think that if we bring in the close season sooner, it will prevent people from poaching roe deer. Poaching of roe deer is, I think, adequately dealt with in another part of the Bill. Noble Lords have been pressing me to bring in the close season earlier. There is a very good reason why we cannot do that. Not only do we not know enough about roe and fallow deer, but supposing we fixed a close season for roe deer which proved to be too long, it might mean more damage being done than is being done. That is the reason why we must have sufficient time to investigate this matter fully before bringing in the close season. Therefore cannot agree to the suggestion made by noble Lords.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD FORBES

My Lords, this Amendment is consequential upon the previous Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 8, line 12, leave out ("the last foregoing subsection") and insert ("subsection (1) of this section or of any order made under subsection (2) of this section").—(Lord Forbes.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

4.23 p.m.

LORD BROCKETmoved, in subsection (3) to substitute "sixty-one" for "sixty-two." The noble Lord said: My Lords, when I was considering this Amendment, I had consultations as to whether I should delete the word "two" and insert the word "one", but as it refers to a year, we thought that "sixty-one" and "sixty-two" were better. I should like to deal with two specific points. The first is that I know the argument that this is a measure agreed among various authorities who have met in Scotland, et cetera. On that matter, I wish to say that there are people, including myself, who do not like agreed measures, because they affect our rights as legislators. If we are told that we must not move an Amendment because it does away with a certain agreement, I think it is doing away with our rights as legislators. I hope that too much importance will not be given to the "agreed measure" argument if it is used again.

The next point is that on the Committee stage both my noble friend Lord Lovat and I, and other noble Lords, mentioned that the question of a Deer Bill and of close seasons has been discussed in this House since 1952. It is now 1959, seven years later, and I personally feel that if this close season comes into operation in the autumn of 1962 it is a very long time from the original discussion. If people who have to get down the stocks of deer cannot get them down by 1961, I think they must be doing very badly. I am rot using this in any way as an argument for my skill as a shot. Lately I have not shot many stags, but one year I shot over 100. So it is possible that deer can he got down before the autumn of 1961, and I do not think the close season should be postponed until 1962.

In the Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, used the words [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 213 (No. 21), col. 176]: I should like to point out that there is no connection between poaching and the close season. I am as aware as anyone that poachers, if they aim in the right direction, can shoot stags at any time of the year. They will not be bound, of course, by a close season. But the fact is that it is not so easy to sell pheasants in butchers' shops in April as it is during the season when they are allowed to be shot. The same thing applies to deer. I am quite sure that in Scotland butchers and others would be more loath to receive deer in March, April or May than they would during the proper season when stags and hinds can be shot. In fact, I know that to be the case. It is not correct to say that there is no connection between a close season and poaching.

I feel sincerely that everything should be done to stop poaching. During the war I remember that in a neighbouring forest something like thirty stags were shot in March, which is an appalling thing to do from every point of view. I should like the Government to accept this Amendment. It is a very small thing—it is one year. We may be given the arguments which I have already stated, but it seems to me, and to many people, both in Scotland and in England, that the close season might easily be brought in for the autumn of 1961 instead of 1962. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 8, line 25, leave out ("sixty-two") and insert ("sixty-one").—(Lord Brocket.)

LORD GREENHILL

My Lords, I should hesitate to come into this discussion at all but for the fact that my noble friend Lord Mathers, if I remember aright, was also in favour of bringing in earlier the operation of the close season. I think his principle was something like this: if it is a good thing to have a close season, then let us have it as quickly as possible. I tended to differ from him, not because I was assuming any principle which affected the position of the legislator, but because of what was said in the Committee Report by the minority section. It appears on page 49, paragraph 3, under the heading, "Close Seasons for Deer." It says: On the unqualified question as to whether or not a statutory close season for killing deer should be imposed, the evidence submitted to us by way of written statements, answers to questionnaires and in oral examination was almost equally divided. There were witnesses, however, who, although not opposed to the principle of close seasons, gave it as their opinion that close seasons should not be imposed until the situation had been brought under control. After consideration of all the relevant matters, we are convinced that this view is manifestly fair and reasonable and should be adopted. It is for that, as I thought, reasonable attitude towards the date of the coming into operation of the close season that I felt myself not to be in agreement with my noble friend Lord Mathers

THE EARL OF MANSFIELD

My Lords, if my noble friend Lord Brocket forces a Division I shall have great pleasure in supporting him. I must return once more to what the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, has said in regard to there being no connection between the close season and poaching. Even during the last Christmas Recess of your Lordships' House more than one lorry load of deer was intercepted by the police—this time I believe in Inverness-shire—and nothing whatever could be done about it. Your Lordships will remember that the strongest case made against these deer murderers—to call them "poachers" would be to employ much too polite a name—is the amount of revolting cruelty that is caused by the destruction of the deer with buckshot or by the firing, of rifles indiscriminately into masses of deer as they bunch together and are terrified.

Unless a close season is brought in, this will continue for the following reasons. Already I am informed that the murderers have made their arrangements. They have got hold of one or more stooges in the shape of the owner or tenant of some large sheep farm on which there may be at times a certain number of deer. When stopped on the roads during the close season they will brightly say that the contents of their lorries were all shot upon such and such a farm, and it will be quite impossible to disprove legally, although everyone will know that the amount of deer alleged to have been shot in one night is probably more than was ever seen on that farm in the course of a whole season. That slaughter will be accompanied by the cruelty to which I have already alluded.

For this reason it is really urgent that a close season should be brought into operation, and once more I would suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, that if he were to accept this Amendment any possible damage by deer that would be occasioned by that acceptance could be avoided by again having areas which it would be possible to exclude front the operation of the close season. If, for example, in the county of Sutherland it was shown that deer were doing such damage as to justify their being shot in the close season, if it were possible for the Secretary of State to make an order excluding that county from the provisions of the close season, everybody would be satisfied and we should avoid the massacres accompanied by cruelty which will inevitably take place. It is for that reason that I support the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Brocket, and I hope, even now, that the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, will be able to give us some satisfaction.

LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL

My Lords, like all your Lordships. I am all in favour of bringing the close season into operation as soon as possible, but there is a great deal more work to be done before that time becomes possible. This Bill has been for more than two months going through your Lordships' House, and it is not finished yet. It then has to go to another place and then come back to your Lordships again. The noble Lord, Lord Brocket, is anxious that your Lordships' legislative powers should not be interfered with, and I am sure there should be no possible question of making any appointments to the Red Deer Commission until this Bill becomes an Act. Therefore the time that will elapse after this Bill is finally passed until the date this clause comes into operation will not be the two-and-a-bit years that it is now. I think it is most important that everything should be completely organised and arranged before the close season starts.

My noble friend, Lord Mansfield, made two points with which I do not think I can entirely agree. The prevention of the slaughter which he talked about surely depends entirely on the quick passing of this Bill entirely divorced from the close season. I was going to come to that on a later Amendment. I am assured, on the best authority, that the chief constables concerned are quite satisfied that as soon as this Bill is passed they will have power to deal with the exact situation which my noble friend talked about, the lorries filled with carcases. As regards close seasons in different areas, I think if one has a close season it must cover the whole of Scotland and not be spotted about; otherwise there are all sorts of loopholes for evasion. If it does come to a Division I will certainly support the Government on this Amendment.

LORD LOVAT

My Lords, in supporting the noble Lord, Lord Brocket, I hope he will carry this matter to a conclusion, because, as he has already said, since 1952 some of the Scottish Members of your Lordships' House have been advocating the close season for deer, and in 1959 we see the Government proposing to shelve the matter for another three years, according to my calculations. I simply cannot understand why this matter cannot be worked out in a year to eighteen months, as the noble Lord, Lord Brocket, suggested. With the greatest respect to the Minister, I say that he is wrong in supposing that lack of close seasons and poaching do not go hand in hand; of course they do. I would ask him what the Secretary of State for Scotland has been doing with his fact-finding commission which has been counting the number of deer in Scotland. I have personally lent two of my best stalkers. They have been counting for three years now. They ought to have a good idea as to what parts of the country are stocked, under-stocked or over-stocked. It is absurd to suggest that in 1963 or 1965 the situation that deer overflow into areas where they should not be found is going to be changed. Something fairly drastic is needed to get this thing started. It is absolutely no good postponing the overall plans simply in order to agree to a date which suits all interests. I think the deer forest owners who might be criticised as having too many deer on their ground would almost all agree that the quicker this is done the better. A good many of the nomadic deer I know in my part of Scotland are owned by public authorities.

VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD

My Lords, I should like to support this Amendment. We are told there are 100,000 red deer in Scotland. We are also told that we cannot have a close season, before 1962 because of the excessive numbers of deer in Scotland. In Scotland they have 8 million sheep and 1¾ million cattle. Does anybody seriously think that if you had every deer in Scotland destroyed, if that were possible, you could really graze more sheep or cattle? In the terms of the agricultural economy it would make no difference at all. I cannot help feeling that all through these negotiations on deer protection, the Black Faced Breeders' Association, no doubt unwittingly, have rather exaggerated to the Government the nuisance value of the red deer in Scotland, because, after all, the deer forest owners in Scotland are the greatest owners of black-faced sheep. I myself am a very substantial breeder. The Black Faced Breeders' Association never asked me my opinion, nor, as far as I am aware, the opinion of any other deer forest owners who have black-faced sheep.

VISCOUNT ELIBANK

My Lords, all I want to say is that I think all the arguments are in favour of bringing this clause into operation at the earliest possible moment, certainly by 1961. Therefore, if the noble Lord cares to go to a Division I shall have very much pleasure in supporting him.

THE EARL OF HADDINGTON

My Lords, could it be explained to the House just why it must take until 1962 to clear off all these surplus deer? It has never been explained to us yet.

LORD FORBES

My Lords, might I begin by answering the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, who suggested that the one way to stop poaching was to bring in close seasons. The one way to stop poaching is to get this Bill through and get the poaching provisions made law. It is the poaching provisions of this Bill which are going to stop poaching, and not the close seasons. The Government are fully in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, about bringing in close seasons as soon as possible, but surely it is reasonable to expect that it may take up to three years before control schemes can be established in some areas. That is why we have selected 1962 as the most appropriate year. Undoubtedly, before these control schemes are set up, the Commission will have to carry out a considerable amount of investigation and surveying to establish where they should first direct their activities. There may be some areas that need little attention, but there may be other areas to which the Commission will have to give a great deal of their time. Noble Lords have tended to suggest that owners could quite easily reduce their stocks by 1961. I must point out that we know that a considerable reduction is required, and if this problem could have been dealt with as easily as noble Lords are trying to make out, then there would have been no deer problem at all and we should not have had a Deer (Scotland) Bill. Because of that I cannot accept this Amendment.

LORD GREENHILL

My Lords, may I rise to make one appeal, in view of the expressed intention of noble Lords to force this Amendment to a Division? To avoid that kind of step, we would ask the Government (because this Bill has to go to another place) to give us an assurance that they will give serious consideration to the full expressions of opinion made here this afternoon.

LORD FORBES

I can certainly give that assurance, if it is of any help to the House.

LORD LOVAT

If I may speak once more, the Minister did not in fact answer my question about the count of deer going on for three years.

LORD FORBES

I am sorry I did not reply to the noble Lord's question. My reply is that that, count is still incomplete.

VISCOUNT ASTOR

My Lords, I should like to support this Amendment. Certainly from my experience—and I know the power, velocity, accuracy and rapidity of the modern rifle in the hands of a stalker—it is possible quite quickly to kill a large number of deer in the ordinary open season. During the war, when it was decided to cut down, one stalker, single-handed, would kill six, seven or eight stags per day. It is perfectly easy if that is the intention behind the shoot. Therefore, I should like to support the Amendment. May I make what might possibly be a compromise suggestion—namely, that in another place the Government should insert a permissive power to bring in this close season in 1960 instead of 1962, if they thought that progress being made with regard to the control schemes justified that course? I put forward that suggestion as a compromise.

LORD STRATHCLYDE

My Lords, I am rather worried at the moment to know which way to exercise my vote, should I be called upon to do so. Noble Lords who have spoken have laid great stress on the point that ever since the year 1952 they have desired to bring in close seasons. It seems to me that during all these years they have had an opportunity to reduce the stock of deer in their forests. Whether anything of that kind has been done, I do not know, if it had, as my noble friend the Minister has said, there would have been no problem existing at the present time.

But that apart, it seems to me that we are making a terrific fuss about very little. With all deference to noble Lords who have spoken, I cannot help saying that to make all this song about one year really is carrying things to extreme limits. It seems to me a great mistake that we should make this fuss and bother. I have no sympathy with those who say that agreements made outside this House should carry this House with them on every occasion. On the other hand, as I ventured to suggest on Second Reading of the Bill, I think we should be careful to think about the Amendments we put down from that point of view. I really cannot see what great advantage is to be gained from accepting this Amendment and perhaps upsetting the course of the Bill in another place. Whilst I am still doubtful about the situation, certainly my inclination is to support the Government on this matter.

THE EARL OF MANSFIELD

My Lords, cannot another place take it out should they so desire?

LORD BROCKET

My Lords, I listened with interest to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, who thought that this was a very small matter. If it is such a small matter, I hope that before we divide the Government will give way. Otherwise, I feel that I should not withdraw my Amendment.

VISCOUNT ASTOR

My Lords, would the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, answer the point that I made—namely, that consideration should be given to inserting in another place a permissive power to bring this forward a year if the control schemes proceed satisfactorily? If the noble Lord could answer that point, then perhaps we should not have to vote on this.

LORD FORBES

My Lords, I cannot give an undertaking as to what is to be done in another place.

On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.

LORD FORBES

My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Transpose Clause 20 to after Clause 21 as Part 11—Close Seasons.—(Lord Forbes.)

Clause 21 [Interpretation of Part 1]:

4.50 p.m.

VISCOUNT MA SSEREENE AND FERRARD moved to add to the definition of "agricultural land": Provided that in relation to any unenclosed land of which the only use for agriculture is as grazing land such land shall not be deemed to be agricultural land unless it is used continuously throughout the year for grazing sheep to the extent of at least one ewe for every three acres thereof.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the object of this Amendment is to try to define unenclosed agricultural land as it applies to this Bill. For the purposes of the Bill agricultural land is defined as agricultural land within the meaning of the Agriculture (Scotland) Act, 1948. Under the Act, of course, any land on which a domestic animal grazes is classed

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 41; Not-Contents, 35.

CONTENTS
Alexander of Hillsborough, V.	Douglas of Barloch, L.	Massereene and Ferrard, V.
Amwell, L.	Ebury, L.	Moyne, L.
Ashton of Hyde, L.	Elibank, V.	Newall, L.
Astor, V.	Geddes, L.	Portal of Hungerford, V.
Atholl, D.	Greenhill, L.	Shepherd, L.
Birdwood, L.	Haddington, E.	Stonham, L.
Brentford, V.	Henderson, L.	Strathcarron, L.
Brocket, L. [Teller.]	Jessel, L.	Taylor, L.
Carnock, L.	Killearn, L.	Teynham, L.
Cholmondeley, M.	Latham, L.	Thurlow, L.
Chorley, L.	Lovat, L. [Tellers.]	Williams, L.
Congleton, L.	Lucan, E.	Willingdon, M.
Denham, L.	Macpherson of Drumochter, L.	Winster, L.
Derwent, L.	Mansfield, E.

NOT-CONTENTS
Ailsa, M.	Forbes, L.	Onslow, E. [Teller.]
Allerton, L.	Gosford, E.	Perth, E.
Amherst of Hackney, L.	Hailsham, V. (L. President.)	St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]
Bathurst, E.	Hastings, L.	St. Just, L.
Bridgeman, V.	Hatherton, L.	Salisbury, M.
Buckinghamshire, E.	Hawke, L.	Selborne, E.
Chesham, L.	Iddesleigh, E.	Soulbury, V.
Clitheroe, L.	Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor.)	Strathclyde, L.
Colyton, L.	Kinnaird, L.	Stratheden and Campbell, L.
Dulverton, L.	Margesson, V.	Swinton, E.
Dundee, E.	Melchett, L.	Tenby, V.
Elliot of Harwood, Baroness.	Merrivale, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

as agricultural land. Since the great majority of deer ground in Scotland grazes sheep or cattle at some period of the year, such a wide definition surely virtually gives the Red Deer Commission power to exterminate all deer.

It all depends, of course, on how the Commission decides what is damage or, as Clause 6 says: causing substantial damage to pasture". There is no doubt that the Commission will be reasonable and knowledgeable men, but I am afraid of the future. I fear that perhaps, ten or fifteen years hence, we may have working for the Commission on these panels people who will argue that if a deer is eating grass or heather—as it has to, for it cannot eat anything else—it is taking grass or heather from sheep and therefore causing damage to the pasture. In saying that agricultural land ought to be defined as such if it is used to the extent of grazing one ewe for every three acres I have probably made rather a narrow margin, but I feel that we ought to have some better definition than that under the Agriculture (Scotland) Act, 1948, because under that Act if one has 1,000 acres of rock and one goat upon it the land becomes agricultural land—which is absurd. if Her Majesty's Government would agree to regard as agricultural land only land grazing at least one ewe to every five or six acres that would be something. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 8, line 29, at end insert the said proviso.—(Viscount Massereene and Ferrard.)

THE EARL OF MANSFIELD

My Lords, this Amendment is well-intentioned, but I am afraid that I cannot agree with it as it regards as "agricultural land" only land of such quality that one ewe is carried to three acres. That would apply, I have no doubt, to the noble Viscount's land in Mull, for Mull is very fertile, as are my sheep farms in Perthshire. But for some years past I have studied with care, from an interest point of view, the advertisements of sheep farms for sale that have appeared in the Scottish agricultural Press; and, except for the rather unusually fertile parts of the country, it is my experience that the number of acres per ewe is more like four or five, and frequently more than three. The acceptance of this Amendment would be to rule out of "agricultural land" a considerable number of good sheep farms. I am afraid there is no doubt whatever about that. Therefore, I regret that I cannot recommend its acceptance to your Lordships.

LORD FORBES

My Lords, I appreciate the noble Viscount's desire to try to ensure that the Commission do not kill red deer on ground which is purely deer forest ground and ground where deer have been long established. I would just point out that this Amendment can apply only to Clause 6, the clause dealing with marauding deer, as it is only in Clause 6 that the words "agricultural land" appear. While it is true that stocking on rough ground in Scotland is, on an average, probably one ewe to every three acres, there are many places in Scotland, especially in the Highlands, where the stocking is far nearer to one ewe to every six acres. The effect of this Amendment would be to exclude any action being taken under Clause 6 to most of the agricultural land in the Highlands. To that we could not agree. One ewe to an acre is, I am afraid, an impossible yardstick. I can only recommend to your Lordships that we rely on the good sense of the Commission in this case. I cannot accept the Amendment.

VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD

My Lords, in view of what the Minister has said, that he relies on the good sense of the Commission, I would say that I hope that good sense will prevail for ever and ever. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 25 [Unlawful possession of deer and firearms]:

5.5 p.m.

LORD FORBES

My Lords, I think that we can take Amendments Nos. 24, 25 and 27 together. These Amendments merely extend the provisions of Clause 25, concerning unlawful possession, and Clause 26, concerning attempts to commit offences, to deer of any species during the close season. I beg to move.

Amendments moved—

Page 10, line 18, leave out ("section twenty") and insert ("Part II or of any order made thereunder")

Page 10, line 33, leave out ("section twenty") and insert ("Part Ill or of any order made thereunder")

Page 11, line 2, leave out ("section twenty") and insert ("Part II or any order made thereunder").—(Lord Forbes.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

LORD FORBES

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 26. This is merely a drafting Amendment concerning the rearrangement of clauses.

Amendment moved— Clauses 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 and 32 to be called Part IV—"Enforcement and Procedure".—(Lord Forbes.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause, 26 [Attempts to commit offences]:

LORD FORBES

My Lords, this is another consequential Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 11, line 2, leave out ("this Part") and insert ("Part 111").—(Lord Forbes.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

5.8 p.m.

VISCOUNT ASTOR moved, after Clause 26 to insert the following new clause:

"As to appointment of special constables

.—(1) Subject to the conditions hereinafter set forth any sheriff or sheriff substitute may on the application of the Commission appoint all or so many as they think fit of the persons recommended to them for that purpose by the Commission to act as constables for the purposes of this Act in and in the vicinity of such localities as may be specified in the instrument of appointment and the following provisions shall apply to every appointment so made:—

1. (a) every person so appointed shall make oath or declaration in due form of law before any sheriff or sheriff substitute having jurisdiction in any one of the counties, cities or burghs in which such person is to act duly to execute the office of a constable;
2. (b) every person so appointed and having been sworn or having made declaration as aforesaid shall, during the continuance of his appointment, have in relation to the exercise of the functions of a constable under this Act in and in the vicinity of the locality for which he has been appointed all the powers, protection and privileges of a constable in respect of the exercise of his duties;
3. (c) any sheriff or sheriff substitute or the Commission may dismiss from his office or accept the resignation of any constable so appointed and thereupon all powers, protection and privileges belonging to such person by virtue of such appointment shall wholly cease;
4. (d) no person so dismissed or resigning shall he capable of being reappointed except with the consent of the authority by whom he was dismissed or by whom his resignation was accepted;
5. (e) the police authority of any area shall not be liable for any expense of or be responsible for any acts or defaults of such constables or for anything connected with or consequent upon their appointment and nothing in this Act shall restrict or affect the jurisdiction or powers of any such police authority or of any police force under their control;
6. (f) a person appointed as aforesaid shall not act as a constable under the authority of this Act unless he be in uniform or provided with an authority to act as such which authority the sheriff or sheriff substitute before whom such person makes oath or declaration as aforesaid is hereby empowered to grant and if the constable be not in uniform he shall show such authority whenever called upon to do so.

(2) In this section the expression "police authority" has the meaning assigned to it by section 12 of the Police (Scotland) Act, 1946."

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is an Amendment to meet the objections which were made on the one I ventured to put forward on Committee stage, dealing with the enforcement of the Bill in remote areas of the Highlands and Islands. I believe that many noble Lords have little idea of the actual problems in preventing poaching in those areas, of the tremendous distances involved, of the fewness of the police on the ground, of the speed with which poachers can move by car and of their great mobility. I gave an example of an area of 150,000 acres which was 30 miles long and which has no policemen on it whatever; yet it has four deer forests which have been frequently poached in the past. It seems to me that the obvious solution is to apply the same principle as we have with a water bailiff. That has worked for many years perfectly satisfactorily and it had the approval of the Government of noble Lords opposite when a measure was brought in for salmon. The same principle should be applied to deer.

I was told that the only argument the Government put forward is: "It is a new idea, it is a new principle, and we cannot do anything new". My Lords, if we had accepted that argument we should not have this Bill at all. The whole thing is new. If you will the end, you have to will the means to do it, if you are sincere in wishing to get it in force. A similar thing has been done in respect of so many other enactments. You create a new offence in the setting up of a monopoly, and the new machinery of a Monopolies Tribunal is established to deal with it. You create new offences of speeding, and the police have to be provided with motor cycles to deal with them. There has to be a completely new arrangement in order to enforce the law. One cannot say that the machinery can never be changed in order to enforce a new law.

Therefore, my Lords, I had this Amendment drafted so that we could have a discussion on using special constables in Scotland in a similar way to that in which they can be used in England. Now, I know that the objection will be put up that Scottish special constables are very tender plants who can turn out only in case of war, and that they cannot turn out to help control traffic or to do any of the many other things which special is stables can do in England. This s an attempt to begin the change so that special constables in Scotland can be enrolled and can have these powers. They would work under the chief constable, with proper discipline, proper uniform and proper training, so that it would not be a case of putting powers of arrest merely into the hands of private people but into the hands of people who would be under the control of the chief constable of the county.

If we do not have this, or some other equivalent way of enforcing the law, there is a grave danger that this Act will become a dead letter in the remote parts of the Highlands and Islands. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, when we discussed this matter before, said that even if the poachers get away in a motor boat it is difficult to land. My Lords, it is perfectly easy to land deer from a boat. You just throw them in the water and pull them in by a rope to the shore, or you throw them in at high tide and collect them at low tide. The operation is perfectly easy, and it can be done anywhere. The idea that the police have the ability and the numbers to enforce this Act is really totally unrealistic, and I hope that the Government will, in another place, either consider the appointment of deer bailiffs or, if they do not, will give serious consideration to the extension of the powers governing the use of special constables in Scotland. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 26, insert the said new Clause.—(Viscount Astor.)

VISCOUNT ELIBANK

My Lords, I think that this is purely a practical matter. How is the Bill, when it becomes an Act, to be made to operate in areas such as those to which the noble Viscount has referred? Take Jura, for instance; there is no policeman there at all. On the mainland opposite Jura, which I know, there is one policeman who has an area of about 200 square miles, in which there is a telephone here or there. How is the Act going to operate in those areas unless some such Amendment as is proposed by the noble Viscount is made? Will the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, when he replies, say how this Act will operate in Jura, which is an island that we know very well? If the noble Lord will answer that question and will show us how it can operate there and in other places in Scotland where, over huge areas of country, the police hardly exist at all, then that might bring some satisfaction in its train.

I do not think there is anything in the argument that because special constables in Scotland have not been used in this particular way before they should not be so used now. After all, we are dealing with a new problem here, and we may have to adopt means not inimical at all to the liberty of the sub- ject. If the suggestions of the noble Viscount were inimical to the liberty of the subject, I should be against them from start to finish, but I do not think that these suggestions, with all the precautions and safeguards which the noble Viscount suggests, would be inimical to the liberty of the subject. But I do think that they would, if adopted, meet an evil which must otherwise exist. I support the noble Viscount's Amendment.

THE EARL OF MANSFIELD

My Lords, although I am in complete agreement with everything that has been said by both my noble friends, I cannot support this Amendment because it would introduce a considerable constitutional change in the position of the police applied to one subject only. As I mentioned to your Lordships during the Committee stage, it is a regrettable fact that special constables in Scotland, unlike their counterparts in England, cannot be employed save in times of national emergency—not quite only in war, as the noble Viscount said, because I myself became a special constable during the General Strike of 1926, but there has to be what is described as "a national emergency." May I say, as obiter dictum, that it is my intention later this year to ask your Lordships to pass a Motion calling for an alteration in that position but until it is so altered by legislation, thus making it possible for special constables to be used in Scotland on a variety of suitable occasions, I do not think it would be appropriate, nor do I think it would be constitutional, for there to be included in this measure a provision which would make it possible to use special constables merely for the purpose of preventing poaching or shooting out of season and not for any other purpose.

LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL

My Lords, in the light of the very strong arguments put forward by my noble friend Lord Mansfield, I also feel unable to support this Amendment. The two difficulties to the police which my noble friend Lord Astor stressed—the large distances and the speed of the motors used by the poachers—would apply equally to special constables, if it were possible to enrol them. You could never have enough. But there is one further thing that makes it perfectly possible to bring this Bill completely into operation. The roads from the very remote areas all converge on to the markets which it is essential that the deer should reach after they have been killed, and I am assured, on what I consider to be very good authority indeed, that the chief constables concerned are completely satisfied that if they have the powers given them under this Bill they will be able to do a great deal to stop poaching, without any recourse to novel measures such as are suggested in this Amendment.

LORD GREENHILL

My Lords, I, too, have the feeling that this Amendment will not serve the purpose that the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, intends it to serve. My feeling is that we are playing on what we know to be the very deep and widespread feeling against the poaching by gangs and the cruelty inflicted upon the animals that they shoot. At the same time, we must also bear in mind that this Bill is primarily a conservation Bill. Inevitably it will mean a reduction in the stock of deer in Scotland and, one hopes, a better distribution and a better result in quality. If it is thought that by emphasising the cruelty which is almost inseparable from poaching one can introduce such a provision as the Amendment proposes, I think that it stresses wrongly the nature of the problem with which we are trying to deal.

On the 14th of this month there appeared in the Glasgow Herald what I think is a reasonable statement on this question made by Mr. W. B. Swanston, who is convener of the legal and commercial committee of the National Farmers' Union of Scotland. He said that some farmers had mistakenly regarded the Deer (Scotland) Bill as being nothing more than a Bill to stop poaching, whereas it went very much further. The part of the Bill dealing with poaching had a romantic appeal and on that account fired the imagination. One of the major sections, however, was designed to bring about more effective control of the deer population as a whole, to reduce their numbers to reasonable proportions and to restrict their activity, especially out with the deer forests. He went on to say: This is a sensible approach to a problem that has been with them for a long time and it would be in the long run recognised as the best means of protection for all concerned. I feel that that statement sets out, in very reasonable terms, the exact purposes of this Bill. It is primarily intended to improve and conserve the stock of deer in Scotland and, secondly, to deal with what we all admit is a wicked traffic, the gang poaching of deer for illicit gain. None of us, I imagine, would do anything to encourage that sort of thing. At the same time, do not let us exaggerate the incidence of gang poaching and its effect on the deer population as a whole.

I am tempted to add that if an individual occasionally poached a deer, not for the market but for his own use, and divided the carcase amongst his friends, I doubt whether anyone would strongly condemn him. Do not let Its exaggerate the evil so as to make the operation of the Bill difficult by asking for some kind of special protective agent, or by arguing that the appointment of special constables is the appropriate way to prevent an admitted evil. Let us keep the whole thing in balance and see that the important part of the Bill is balanced with what is secondary.

LORD LOVAT

My Lords, I have little to add, except to say how much I sympathise with the noble Viscount, Lord Astor. All owners of island deer forests have been sorely persecuted by wholesale poaching but, as the noble Lord, Lord Stratheden and Campbell, has said, every county council police committee would assure the House, if they were asked, that, given powers, they could deal with the situation. Special constables or sworn-in bailiffs would have only one effect: they would cause bloodshed. Because these poaching gangs are quite prepared to heat up a man in civilian clothes or in uniform which is worn only for the occasion. As I emphasised on Committee stage, it is not only deer that are poached. A gang sets out in a truck armed with rifles to shoot what they can find, and one stalker is not going to stop them. He would be far better concealed with a telescope to get the number of the car and pass it back to the police at the road at the end of the glen, who can deal with them on the way to the market. I hope that the noble Viscount will withdraw this Amendment which, frankly, smacks a little of feudalism. There are too many deer in Scotland—I think we ought all to agree about that.

LORD FORBES

My Lords, I am grateful to all the noble Lords who have spoken against this Amendment. First of all, I should like to take up the point raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank. Admittedly there must be a number of cases of poaching on islands where it is difficult to get the police and where the offenders make off before the police get to the spot. But if these gangs are going to benefit from their poaching—and I do not think, with the penalties there are now for poaching, that they will do it for fun—they must get the carcases to where they can sell them. That means that they must be able to get them into a vehicle and on the road. Surely it is on the road that the police are going to catch the offenders. So far there has been little difficulty in intercepting offenders. During the last two years the police have intercepted over 100. The difficulty has been that of taking effective action after the offenders have been intercepted.

The suggestion that we should make stalkers into policemen means that we should expect them to carry out the duties of the police. Surely this is quite unfair. For example, there would be no means of compensating stalkers in the event of their deaths. It would be placing too much responsibility on their shoulders. This Amendment has been seen by the Chief Constables' Association of Scotland, and I can say that they are unanimously opposed to it. They pointed out that an Amendment such as this is almost hound to lead to violence, as the poachers themselves will be armed. As has already been said, the most sensible thing that a stalker can do, if he sees a poacher, is to keep out of sight and make for the nearest telephone to warn the police. The Government are convinced that the keeping of the law should be left to the police, who are recruited and trained especially for this purpose. I cannot accept the Amendment.

LORD BROCKET

My Lords, before the noble Viscount either withdraws his Amendment or otherwise, I should like to support the Government. From my experience on the West Coast, where I have my deer forest, I know that the police can usually find where the boats come into port—at the Kyle of Lochalsh or at Mallaig or wherever it may be—and I think that the law as it is under the terms of this Bill should work satisfactorily. If it tines not, then perhaps an Amendment could be made. I have much pleasure in supporting the Government.

VISCOUNT ASTOR

My Lords, in view of the fact that the Chief Constables' Association are against me, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 28 [Apprehension of offenders]:

LORD FORBES

My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on placing Clauses 26 to 30 and Clause 32 in a separate Part of the Bill. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 11, line 40, after ("provisions") insert ("of Part III or").—(Lord Forbes.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 29 [Forfeitures]:

LORD FORBES

My Lords, this Amendment is also consequential on making the close season and poaching provisions into separate Parts of the Bill. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 11, line 43, leave out from the beginning to ("of") where that word first occurs and insert ("Part II of this Act or any order made thereunder or against Part III").—(Lord Forbes.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD FORBES

My Lords, this is another consequential Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 12, line 3, leave out ("this Part") and insert ("Part III").—(Lord Forbes.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 31 [Interpretation of Part II]:

LORD FORBES

My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on the splitting of the poaching and enforcement provisions of the Bill into Parts III and IV respectively. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 12, line 16, leave out ("this Part") and insert ("Parts III, and IV")—(Lord Forbes.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD FORBES

My Lords, I beg to move the next Amendment standing in my name. Again it is consequential.

Amendment moved—

Transpose Clause 31 to after Clause 32, and that Part III become Part V.—(Lord Forbes.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 32 [Offences by bodies corporate]:

LORD FORBES

My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on the provision in Clause 20 for the fixing of close seasons by order. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 12, line 33, after ("Act") insert ("or any order made thereunder").—(Lord Forbes.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 33 [Saving for certain acts]:

LORD FORBES

My Lords, perhaps I can take Amendments Nos. 36 and 39 together. These Amendments give exemption to shooting of deer of all species in cases of wounded or suffering deer. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 13, line 6, after ("Act") insert ("or any order made thereunder").—(Lord Forbes.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 13, line 13, after ("Act") insert ("or any order made thereunder").—(Lord Forbes.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD FORBES

My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I will take Amendments Nos. 37 and 38 together. These Amendments have the effect of giving the person having the right to kill deer certain exemptions from the close season provisions. I beg to move.

Amendments moved— Page 13, line 10, after ("of") where that word secondly occurs insert ("or at the request of the")

after ("Commission") insert ("in pursuance of subsection (2) of section six of this Act").—(Lord Forbes.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 34 [Application of Act to the Crown]:

LORD FORBES

My Lords, this Amendment provides for the making of statutory instruments and for revoking orders. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 13, line 25, leave out subsection (2) and insert the following new clause—

("Orders, Regulations, etc.

.—(1) Any order or regulations made under this Act shall be embodied in a statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution by either House of Parliament.

(2) Any order made under this Act may be varied or revoked by a subsequent order made in the like manner.")—(Lord Forbes.)

On Question. Amendment agreed to.

First Schedule [Provisions as to the Red Deer Commission]:

LORD FORBES

My Lords, this Amendment enables the Red Deer Commission to regulate the procedure of panels. This has the advantage of being flexible. The Commission can, if necessary, adjust the rules of procedure according to the circumstances of each panel. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 14, line 40, at end insert ("and that of any panel appointed by them.").—(Lord Forbes.)

VISCOUNT ASTOR

My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, for this Amendment, which meets a point put forward in Committee. I want to thank him, too, for the very reasonable way in which he has accepted many Amendments put forward to the Bill. I hope he agrees that we have done nothing to impede or slow its progress, but that we have done all we can to improve it.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.