DEER BILL (Hansard, 16 July 1963)

HL Deb 16 July 1963 vol 252 cc177-200 177

§ 5.58 p.m.

§ Order of the Day for the House to be again in Committee read.

§ Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Massereene and Ferrard.)

§ House in Committee accordingly.

§ [The LORD AILWYN in the Chair.]

§ Clause 3:

§ Unlawful weapons, etc.

§ (2) Subject to the next following subsection, if any person—

(a) discharges any firearm, or projects any missile, from any mechanically propelled vehicle at any deer; or
(b) uses any mechanically propelled vehicle for the purpose of driving deer;

he shall be guilty of an offence.

§ LORD DOWDING moved, after subsection (2)(b), to insert: (d) organises or takes part in any driving of deer for the purpose of shooting such animals;". The noble and gallant Lord said: As the noble Lord, Lord Crook, is not in the House, I beg leave to move this Amendment. I was not quite prepared to do so, but I know his views. This Amendment refers to the practice of driving deer in order for them to be shot at, and this is a practice which results in a very high proportion of animals being wounded to those that are killed. For one thing, it is quite impossible to legislate as to the range at which guns should fire at the deer. Of course, if one can get within 15 or 20 yards of a stag, almost any charge of shot will bring it down, if it is hit in a mortal place. But when it comes to long-range shooting—by which I mean up to and around 50 yards—small shot is of course not lethal; it simply serves to wound the animal. If larger shot in a shot-gun is used, the larger the shot the worse is the pattern, because they spread out widely and you cannot guarantee to put 178 shot into a vital part of the deer. Of course, scatter guns are not used at all, but shot-guns with lethal bullets or with rifled slugs require excellent marksmen to hit a deer in a vital place with a single bullet.

§ Lord Crook and I moved this Amendment in order to prohibit the practice of driving deer in order to shoot them. We think it is much more preferable that the general practice of the Forestry Commission should be adopted—namely, to shoot deer with a powerful rifle from a high seat, or to stalk the deer individually and shoot them while they are at a standstill. I think that covers what I have to say on the subject, and I would ask the Committee to accept the Amendment which I now beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 2, line 28, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Dowding.)

§ 6.3 p.m.

THE EARL OF MANSFIELD
It is with considerable regret that I have to ask your Lordships to reject this Amendment. In dealing with this whole question of deer, we have to consider it not only from the point of view of cruelty to deer, but also from the points of view of agriculture and forestry. There is no doubt whatsoever that if deer drives are not permitted there are many areas where deer will increase to such an extent that they will do considerable damage to agriculture and/or forestry. It is perfectly correct, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Dowding, says, that the ideal thing is, when they are stationary to shoot them from a high platform; but that can be put into operation only on a property where deer are regarded as game and where they are objects of the chase. In many cases deer are found in areas which are not the property of anyone who worries much about them—it may be, in places where they are not usually seen. In dense young woods it is not possible to stalk them with any prospect of success. The ground in which they come out to feed is often inaccessible, and again all too often it is much too dangerous to use a rifle. For that reason I am afraid that this well-intentioned Amendment is one which is impracticable and undesirable.

§ 6.5 p.m.

§ LORD CROOK
I put down this Amendment, and I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Dowding who has been 179 with me in this matter, for moving it so excellently. I would say straight away that I have learned since I put it down that there are difficulties which people like myself, who are not possessed of lands, would not always appreciate. I had a conversation with the noble Marquess, Lord Exeter, on Friday, after the passage of other Amendments, and I knew of the reasonableness of the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, who was with me on some of the other matters.
Like my noble friend Lord Dowding, what I want to do is to stop the cruelty. After the proceedings on Friday, when I talked to one or two noble Lords who have estates with trees on them, I understood that there are things that they must do if they are to look after their estates and if they are to see that the trees, and various other things, are safeguarded. But what I was after in this Amendment—and I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Dowding for supporting me—concerns the organised drives which are for the special purpose of people wanting sport, and not for the kind of protection of estates to which the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, has referred.
I referred on Second Reading to reports which had appeared in the Manchester Evening News, and the like, of organised deer drives in the North, where it was regarded as a new status symbol for people who had now got a better standard of life to be able to spend 8s. an hour as the cost of chasing deer during a week-end. They are the people who lead to the production of the kind of article that is written in the Field. I should like to read to your Lordships from a recent issue of the Field. After all, that is a magazine which knows the subject, whilst I do not. When I moved the two Amendments on Friday and managed to persuade your Lordships to be good enough to carry them, I knew exactly what I was concerned with; but here (this I admit) I can go only upon this kind of material.
The Field says: These drives result in the finding of facial shotgun bullet wounds on all of the twelve roebucks shot by a stalker in the South-East last summer; in local people becoming familiar enough with the sight of wounded deer; to like them less warmly, and to think less warmly of those who clamour for their destruction; and of the deer being harried 180 about the countryside so that the appropriately equipped stalkers have greatly reduced chances of finding them. That is a description of the kind of drive that I am trying to speak about—drives that I referred to in the Second Reading debate, conducted like pheasant shoots, with deer being sent forward in a panic and hasty shots fired.
I had some criticism to offer on Friday on the other two Amendments of people who miscall themselves sportsmen. I am bound to say to noble Lords who go in for the sport of stalking that I am talking about, that although I should not want to do it, they are entitled to do it; and I believe—I think the noble Earl, Lord Fortescue, is with me in this, whatever he may have had against me on Friday—that the stalking should be carried out in England with some of the precision and care that there is in Scotland under the Act that we put through two or three years ago.
This method of indiscriminate shooting is something which I find absolutely abominable, as I believe do the majority of your Lordships. I do not seek to interfere with the skilled stalker. He relies on his skill to close in to killing range. I am satisfied that he will not take any chancy shots. He does not want to injure the deer; he wants to kill it. He does not want to take chances that might injure members of the public. The real sportsmen have such an approach that they regard it as a matter of honour that, if a poor beast has been wounded, the first job is to follow it up quickly and put it out of its misery. For those reasons I believe that I can look for support on this Amendment from those who share that view. I am sorry that the noble Marquess, Lord Exeter, is not here at the moment. I told him that I was going to say something about this, as I know he has about 2,000 deer roaming in his own forest.
I hope that the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, who is the sponsor of the Bill will be speaking on this matter. It would be advantageous if, in the course of the views he has to offer on my Amendment, he will try to agree with me that he and I and others of my friends, and Lord Mansfield, Lord Fortescue, and Lord Exeter, could try to get together to see whether there is some way in which we can put down 181 words which will achieve the objective I and, I believe, other noble Lords have in mind, without cutting across other objectives which they have. All these Amendments have been drafted by me, and I am no skilled draftsman. So if someone can help me to draft a form of words which will achieve what we both want, I shall be most happy.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL
I think that the noble Lord, Lord Crook, will very nearly cover his point if he is able to carry his Amendment No. 14, to Schedule 2, which, as I read it, would make it illegal for anyone to shoot deer with a shot-gun. While I think that it may, on occasions, be permissible to shoot a roe deer with a shot-gun, I think that his Amendment is certainly right so far as fallow deer and red deer are concerned. I have every sympathy with him on that Amendment. I feel that nowadays people organise deer drives only if they propose to shoot them with a shot-gun at the end of it. I could not agree mare that this is an extremely cruel thing and ought to be stamped out; but if they are going to use a rifle, they take enormous care about it, for obvious reasons—because it is very dangerous, and an exceedingly skilled matter. I do not think the noble Lord can realise how skilled it is to get driven deer to go into a place in which one can shoot them with a rifle and, at the same time, not put other people in danger. They have to be driven with great care and skill. I feel that the present Amendment goes too far, because it would stop people guarding their crops and young woods. But, as I have said, I think that the noble Lord's Amendment No. 14 would very nearly have the effect he desires.

§ VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD
I should like to point out that in my experience no sportsman ever shoots driven deer with a shot-gun. People who follow this practice are certainly not sportsmen. I imagine that they are the sort of people who have just bought a gun for the first time and are quite ignorant about the pursuit of sport. One has to differentiate between moving deer by experts and deer-driving. Before the war, on my estate in Argyll-shire we had about 8,000 or more deer, and in a part of the estate there was a "punch bowl" in the hills in which it 182 was impossible to stalk because the wind went round and round. All the big stags gathered in there, and we had to drive them out once or twice a season. Those stags were driven out by two or three men giving them a touch of the wind from a mile away and moving them at a walk out through the passes. One would have perhaps four men with rifles, and they might shoot three old stags, past their prime, which were very carefully selected. There cannot be any objection to that sort of driving.
I was interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Dowding, say that the Forestry Commission do not drive. I am sorry to contradict the noble Lord, but in the New Forest the Forestry Commission do drive deer. The Scott Henderson Committee, in paragraph 208 of their Report pointed out—

§ LORD DOWDING
I did not actually say they did not drive. I said that their normal method of killing deer was by shooting from the high seats.

§ VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD
The noble Lord is quite correct there. I am sorry if I misunderstood him. The Forestry Commission have found it necessary to drive deer in the New Forest.
I tried to explain during the Second Reading of this Bill—but apparently did not explain it very well—that this Bill is a compromise. It has taken a long time, over a year, with all sorts of organisations, to come to terms. Among those involved are the Nature Conservancy, the Council for Nature, the Fauna Preservation Society, the Animal Welfare Society, the National Farmers' Union and the Forestry Commission. We cannot have everything in this Bill that we want, but it is a compromise. While I agree that if one has a farmers' deer-drive, with shot-guns and lots of beaters, one may get indiscriminate killing without selection, and wounding, this is a compromise Bill and we cannot overrule the farmers. The farmers are the greatest industry in this country and we have to run along with them. I agree also with what the noble Lord, Lord Crook, has said on the cruelty aspect of mass drives with shot-guns.
My noble friend the Duke of Atholl is quite right in saying that one should shoot deer with rifles if they are being 183 driven. But you cannot do so in England. It is too restricted. I have done so in Austria and Germany, and all over Europe. I have taken part in many boar and deer drives where one shoots with a rifle; but that has been in extremely lonely country, where there were very few people about. It would be quite impossible in England and Wales. So, while expressing every sympathy with the sentiments that have been voiced, I should like to refer to my noble friend Lord Mansfield's speech and to say that it would be quite impracticable in this Bill to accept the Amendment. I therefore hope that the noble Lord, Lord Crook, will see fit to withdraw it.

§ LORD CROOK
If nobody else intends to speak to your Lordships, may I say that the only thing I regret about the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, is that he did not refer directly to my suggestion of consultation, with a view to securing some form of Amendment that could be put before your Lordships at Report stage, with the agreement of a number of noble Lords who have spoken. I cannot think that the cause here is one which ought not to be pursued. I am well aware that it does not rank, even with me, with the two Amendments that I asked your Lordships to agree to on Friday last, but it still involves enough suffering, enough belief that it can be stopped even by those who want to take part in this sport, to make me believe that some gathering together of people could help.
Since I am now at the stage of replying, I have to make up my mind whether or not to withdraw, and I am clear in the light of my own observations that I ought at this stage to withdraw, in order that your Lordships may have a well-considered Amendment to look at. I will therefore ask the leave of the Committee to withdraw this Amendment, indicating to your Lordships that, if my noble friend Lord Dowding and my other noble friends agree, I will try to get together with the noble Lords to whom I referred a few minutes ago to see whether it is possible to put down a considered Amendment. I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Clause 3 agreed to.

§ Remaining clauses agreed to.

184

§ Schedule 1 [Close seasons]:

§ 6.25 p.m.

§ LORD DOWDING moved to alter the start of the close season for red deer (hinds) from 1st March to 1st February. The noble Lord said: I should like to ask whether I should be in order in speaking to Amendments Nos. 9, 10, 12 and 13 together because they are all precisely similar in intention. I should like to take this opportunity of saying how glad I am to see this Bill, almost in any form, because it is almost incredible that there has been no close season at all in England and Wales. There are just two points on which I think the Schedule could be improved, and the first one is by advancing the opening date of the close season from March 1 to February 1. In Scotland, I believe, the close season begins in the middle of February, and as the females as a rule drop their fawns somewhat earlier in England than they do in Scotland, owing to the variations in temperature, there is a good case for beginning the close season earlier than in Scotland rather than later.

§ I do not know why the sponsors of this Bill chose March 1. I think it may possibly be because they wished to allow the practice of hunting hinds, often pregnant, to continue as long as possible. I suppose that if it is to be hunted to death at all, it does not much matter to a hind whether it is pregnant or not. But there is in our rather muddle-headed attitude to animals a tendency to spare their lives during pregnancy. So I hope that the earlier date suggested in the Amendment may be accepted.

§ Amendment No. 11 refers to the roebuck, and proposes that the roebuck shall be allowed to enjoy the same period of immunity as other male members of the deer tribe. I know that the roebuck is a very destructive little animal in woodlands, but there is the point that an open season for roebuck all the year round may quite possibly destroy the effect of the close season for other deer. Anybody found in woodlands with a gun could always claim that he was after roebuck, and even if he had shot another type of deer he could always plead that he had made a genuine mistake and thought it was a roebuck. For these reasons, I hope your Lordships will accept the Amendment. I beg to move.

185

§ Amendment moved— Page 5, line 6, leave out ("1st March") and insert ("1st February").—(Lord Dowding.)

§ LORD CROOK
First of all, may I thank my noble friend Lord Dowding for moving this Amendment. When I put it down I had no idea that he would be delightful enough to associate himself with it. He has so ably moved it that I have little to a dd. So far as the females are concerned, the first effect of this Amendment would be to protect the pregnant hind, who under the Scottish Act is already protected from February 16, as the noble Lord said; so less protection is given in England where we should have thought more was needed. In addition, I understand from those associated with deer that the erratic nature of the breeding season is such that it is possible for a hind to have with her last year's fawn and the younger one, to be born in the summer; she can have a babe at the same time as she is pregnant. There are many difficult problems associated with this throughout. Every single society in any way connected with animals is in favour of this Amendment, and a number of people—in fact, most of the people connected with sport to whom I have referred—have also expressed their belief in the Amendment which I have put down.
The four Amendments relate to the females, and, as the noble Lord has said, the middle one only refers to the male. I will speak on that now, if I may, since the noble Lord did, in order to save time when we come to putting it. The page 5, line 10, Amendment refers to the one poor male who got left out. I do not think he got left out by accident. If I may say so to your Lordships, he was left out of the close season from May to July, which is given to all the other male species, because the stalking of the roe is at its best from May until August, sportsmen tell me, and it is during this time that sportsmen like to shoot the buck. Indeed, among the Press cuttings on this subject which I have accumulated over the last few years I have one by the field-sports correspondent of The Times which makes this very clear. He said. The does during this period have their family responsibilities. In fact, one of the greatest joys of roebuck stalking is the fact that it can be practised in the spring and early 186 summer months, when there is virtually no other form of shooting available to the sportsman. That is not an unskilled, ignorant person like myself trying to express a view to your Lordships: it is one of the authorities, the shooting correspondent of The Times, who is trying to express a very real point of view. I hope that this is not a series of Amendments that we shall have to fight through. I hope that the sportsmanship of the noble Viscount responsible for the Bill and those associated with him is such that they will find it possible to rise and say that they will accept the Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Dowding, has moved, and which I support.

§ THE EARL OF LISTOWEL
May I say something before the noble Viscount replies? What seems indefensible about the date in the Bill is that the date for the start of the close season in England is to be a fortnight later than the date in Scotland. Surely, that cannot be reasonable. If the forestry and agricultural interests in Scotland are satisfied with the date at which the close season starts there, in the middle of March, then surely the forestry and agricultural interests here in this country should be prepared to accept as reasonable a date the same as, or approximate to, the date in Scotland. I should like to ask the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill whether he would consider the possibility of a compromise which at any rate brings the two dates closer together. One possible compromise would be that there should be the same date for England as for Scotland, and that the date should be the middle of February. In any event, I hope that he will be willing to reconsider the date that stands in the Bill at the moment, because it seems unreasonable that the close season should start later in England than it does in Scotland.

§ VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD
Regarding the first Amendment moved by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Dowding, you have to take into consideration the difference between the type of country in the Highlands of Scotland and that in England. In the Highlands the majority of the deer are out on the bare hillsides, and you can therefore have a longer close season for the hinds because it is far easier to 187 control them. Personally, I never shoot a hind in Scotland after January 15; but, of course, in this Bill we are dealing with England and Wales. If you brought the close season back to February 1, you would then have only three months of open season to control the hinds and the does. A great many people think it is too short a time in England and Wales where, of course, the majority of the deer country is heavily-wooded country.
The hinds are, as I think your Lordships know, served until the end of October. You cannot really say that they are heavy in pregnancy in February, because they do not calve until the end of June. I do not think that there is a great case for altering the date for England and Wales, but I will certainly bear in mind what the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, has said, and will have consultations with the interested parties. We will see whether something can be done in the future to alter this; but I must ask the noble Lord if he will withdraw the Amendment on the understanding that I will do everything I can to have consultations and see if the date can be made the same as that in Scotland. May I now go on to the question of the roebuck?

§ BARONESS SUMMERSKILL
May I just ask the noble Viscount a question? I was trying to follow him, and I am very sorry I was late. I did not realise the debate had started. He was saying, rather lightly, that he did not think there was any harm in hunting the hind in February because she would not give birth until June.

§ VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD
I never mentioned hunting.

§ BARONESS SUMMERSKILL
That is what we are discussing. I thought the noble Viscount felt that we should not perhaps exercise too much care with regard to her because she would not give birth until June. Is that not right?

§ VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD
The end of June.

§ BARONESS SUMMERSKILL
I thought I followed him. Then he said he was talking about February. How many months pregnant would she be then, in February?

188

§ VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD
At the end of February she would be four months.

§ BARONESS SUMMERSKILL
I thank the noble Viscount. I wanted him to tell me it was four months. Can he tell the Committee how he can reconcile this Bill, which ostensibly is to protect deer, with the fact that he is prepared to see the hind hunted when it is four months pregnant?

§ VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD
You cannot make one law for one part of England and another law for other parts of England; you must have a law applicable to the whole of England and Wales. The only county which hunts the red deer is Devonshire, on Exmoor, and you cannot make one law for people there and another law for the farmers, the landowners and the other interested parties all over the rest of the country. That is surely obvious to the noble Baroness. The point is, as I have already explained, that the terrain in England is completely different. Owing to the heavily wooded habitat of the deer in England, the experts in all the organisations, who have conferred over the various clauses in this Bill for over a year now, have come to the conclusion that if you put back to February 1 the close season for hinds you will have only a three-months open season, which is too short for the farming and other interests to control the deer population. It is the opinion of experts. It has nothing to do with hunting, so far as I am informed. It is just the opinion of all the experts of these organisations and, as I told the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, I will certainly have consultations with the interested parties to see what can be done.

§ BARONESS SUMMERSKILL
The noble Viscount has quoted in defence of his speech all the organisations who support the Bill. Those organisations which have the interests of the animal at heart do not support the hunting of pregnant animals.

§ VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD
I have already named all the organisations who support the Bill. Does the noble Baroness want me to name them again?

§ BARONESS SUMMERSKILL
I should like the noble Viscount to tell me of one 189 organisation which has the welfare of animals at heart and which has proclaimed that they support the hunting of pregnant deer.

§ VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD
The noble Lady came in late. The organisations that support this Bill in the interests of animal welfare are the Universities Federation for Animal Welfare, the Fauna Preservation Society, the Council for Nature and the Nature Conservancy.

§ BARONESS SUMMERSKILL
Have they specifically said that they support the hunting of pregnant animals? Would the noble Viscount tell me what pamphlet I can refer to where that is specifically stated? Can he give me the names of the officials of these organisations who have publicly said they are prepared that this shooting should take place?

§ VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD
They have supported the clauses in this Bill. As I have tried to explain, this Bill is a compromise. I do not know if they support hunting of pregnant deer; but they have supported this Bill.

§ BARONESS SUMMERSKILL
The noble Viscount has admitted it.

§ LORD CROOK
May I add the point that I made on Second Reading and on Friday last? Of the eleven bodies that were consulted with regard to the Bill, not one was an animal protection society. The R.S.P.C.A. were not consulted, nor was the League against Cruel Sports.

THE EARL OF MANSFIELD
The point made by the noble Viscount, that there might be too little time for killing hinds or does if only three months of the year is open, is met by Clause 10(3), which permits the occupier of land, pasture or woodland, or someone armed with his authority, to kill such deer if undue damage is being done; and I must say that I, myself, should not in any way object to the close season being lengthened. So far as the noble Baroness is concerned, it must be remembered that her point is a narrow one, dealing with one species in a small part of the country. If we were to say that there should be no killing and taking of female deer in a state of pregnancy, very few female deer would be 190 killed, because the mating season of the roe is in August and that of the red deer in September and early October. That is to say that a large number, probably most, roe does when shot are pregnant, as are almost all red deer hinds. But, of course, while I appreciate the question in regard to hunting, it is no crueller to have them shot, in a respectable fashion, when pregnant than when they are not.

§ VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD
I thank my noble friend for his remarks with which I agree. It is no crueller if a hind is slightly pregnant to have her shot or hunted.

§ BARONESS SUMMERSKILL
But the noble Earl did not say that. He differentiated between shooting and hunting. I was putting the point of the hunting.

§ VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD
I thought he said it was no crueller. Of course, pregnant hinds in February are certainly far from being heavy in pregnancy. There is very little there.

§ BARONESS SUMMERSKILL
The noble Viscount has never been pregnant.

§ VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD
Nor am I likely to be. Regarding the Amendment for roebucks, on which the noble Lord, Lord Dowding, spoke, the object of the close season for male deer is to have a close season for them when in velvet. Of course the roebuck is not in velvet between May 1 and July 31: he is in velvet during the winter. But on the Continent, which is far ahead of us in this question of deer preservation, they have a close season for the roebuck in the winter. So the noble Lord's Amendment is rather illogical, since the object of this Bill, as regards the male deer, is to protect them when in velvet. During this time the roebuck is not in velvet. But perhaps some day we may have a close season for roebuck during the winter; but I cannot speak about it here. The Amendment says "1st May to 31st July"; and the whole object of having a close season during that time would be defeated. The object is to defend the deer when it is least able to take care of itself. To defend the roebuck during the time when he has shed velvet would be pointless.

191

§ 6.48 p.m.

§ LORD CROOK
This is not the first time that the noble Viscount has said that something is nonsense and illogical when it is far from nonsense; it is the most utter common sense that has ever been put in front of your Lordships. The Bill for which the noble Viscount is responsible clearly says that for red deer, fallow deer and Sika deer there shall be a close season, for stags, from the 1st May to the 31st July. I put down my Amendment No. 11, to which he is now referring, to provide for the buck of the roe deer a close season from 1st May to the 31st July, inclusive; for one reason to agree with the date that the noble Viscount has already included in the Schedule. "Ah", says the noble Viscount, "three kinds go into velvet at one time and the other goes into velvet at a different time". This is the value of the observation which the noble Lord, Lord Dowding, made. What is the good of trying to put three kinds into the close season and leaving out the fourth?—because all this does is to provide a godsend to anyone who wants to go illegally shooting. He will say, if he is caught, "I am sorry, I didn't know it was that kind; I thought it was the other". Is the noble Viscount seriously suggesting that a fellow going to try to take a pot-shot looks to see which kind of deer he is shooting at before he shoots at it? The noble Viscount has to tell me something more than that if he is to convince me. Of course, these experts on hunting can tell right away.
On an earlier Amendment, the noble Viscount, if I may say so with all respect, made no attempt to deal with the valuable point which the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, made about why there should be a change in the close season for the female. I would ask your Lordships to look at Clause 10(3), on which some of us pin our hopes. May I read it to the noble Viscount?—because it seems to answer him: A person shall not be guilty of an offence against section 1 or section 2 of this Act by reason of the taking or killing by means of shooting of any deer on any cultivated land, pasture or enclosed woodland if that person proves—

(a) that he is the occupier of that land, pasture or woodland, or that he acted with the written authority of the occupier; and
192
(b) that his action was necessary for the purpose of preventing serious damage to crops, vegetables, fruit, growing timber or any other form of property on that land, pasture or woodland."

When we first saw the Bill we thought that that was extraordinarily well drafted to give exactly the effect the noble Viscount wanted. Now it seems perfectly clear that he could agree to the Amendment which my noble friend Lord Dowding moved, which I have seconded and which my noble friend in front of me supported. Perhaps at this late hour we might be making a grave mistake if we went on unduly what I might call "flogging the issue". I accept the suggestion made by my noble friend Lord Listowel that, in the period between now and Report Stage, those who have talked about getting together on earlier Amendments should get together on this question of the female deer and see whether we can secure some compromise.

THE EARL OF MANSFIELD
This question of the proposed close season for roebucks, which I did not deal with in my previous remarks because I was trying to keep them strictly to what was-then being discussed, I view with somewhat mixed feelings. As my noble friend said, the roebuck is a perfectly worthy object of the chase during the summer months, when his horns are completely clear of velvet. On the other hand there are a few considerations. The first is that I think there is a general feeling that it is not very nice that this extremely attractive little animal should be left to be shot at at any time without any close season.
Furthermore, we have to hear in mind, certainly so far as forestry is concerned, that the roebuck does no damage at all then with his horns to young trees, which is the principal cause of offence, because his horns have shed their velvet and are no longer itchy, and he does not rub them against the trees. If he does do damage, it is by biting off the tops of newly planted trees, but he could do that only so long as they were not more than four or five feet high at most. Or he may start to damage crops. Then he could be dealt with under Clause 10(3), as before. So I must say that, on balance, I am rather brought down in favour of this close season for roebuck, although I have some slight qualms about it.

193

§ LORD DOWDING
As regards the close season, the compromise of a consultation between now and Report stage is quite sensible to me and I gather that the noble Lord, Lord Crook, would agree with that also. As regards roebuck, I think that it is a "this way, that way" question, as I thought all along. But with the support we have just had from the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, I should be reluctant to withdraw the Amendment as regards the roebuck.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Schedule 1 agreed to.

§ Schedule 2 [Prohibited firearms and ammunition]:

§ 6.57 p.m.

§ LORD CROOK moved, in paragraph 1, to leave out "of less gauge than 12 bore". The noble Lord said: In this Amendment I am moving into a field where I have no experience, but I am very much heartened by the sympathy I have had from noble Lords on the other side who have the experience and knowledge and who have told me that I am on the right lines. I particularly refer to the support I received earlier in the evening from the noble Duke, the Duke of Athoil. The Amendment I am moving and the next one try to stop the use of shot-guns for gunning deer and to put down some definition.

§ On the Second Reading I listened with awe almost to the learned disquisitions on the size of bore and shot to be used, from those noble Lords who hunt. I am not going to try to set myself against their views, which are based on knowledge. My knowledge is not of the ability to fire guns, but of the cruelty inflicted upon deer by the use of shot-guns. I understand that the shot-gun is prohibited in Denmark and in Germany, and yet good hunting is done there. I rely upon the sponsor of the Bill supporting me on this, because I know that he shoots deer and wild boar in Germany, but he would not dream of going there with a shot-gun.

§ I should like to quote Kenneth Whitehead, who I believe is an acknowledged expert on deer. He wrote, in an article on this Bill, in the Shooting Times of March 1: I am very much disturbed that the Bill has not banned the shot-gun firing shot even as large as LG and SSG, for it is the use of 194 shot of any size on deer that has resulted in so much cruelty and suffering in the past. He goes on: … just as the wildfowler firing BB shot on the foreshore is tempted to take long shot at duck or goose, so, I am afraid, will the same occur with the man using LG or SSG, and the consequence will be that a deer fired at, at, say, 30 or 40 yards will get away more severely wounded than if he had had at a similar range a charge of No. 6 shot in his backside. The inexperienced person who merely wants to try to stop cruelty cannot do better than rely on experts of that kind. He makes his own recommendation, and quotes Holland and Sons, the leading gunsmiths, who do not recommend that 12 bore guns be used on deer. I am backed in my own view by the remarks of some noble Lords who do what I do not—that is, go shooting deer. I hope the noble Viscount responsible for the Bill will accept this Amendment, and, if not, that your Lordships will insist on its acceptance. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 5, line 18, leave out ("of less gauge than 12 bore").—(Lord Crook.)

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL
I thought my noble friend was a little unfair to me when he said it was impossible to use a rifle in England. I would not go so far as that. In fact, I am convinced that, if you are properly positioned and are sufficiently skilful, you can with a rifle shoot red deer or fallow deer in any country, except in the most built-up parts. Roe deer are a different problem, and I should be much more happy about the Amendment if the noble Lord excluded roe deer from its provisions, as I think there may be occasions when you must shoot them with a shot-gun in the interests of safety, and also because they have different habits from the red deer and the fallow deer, which are much harder to get out into the open where it is safe to shoot them. But if my noble friend thinks it so unsafe to shoot with a rifle in England, why has he excluded the.22 from his list of firearms which can be used? A high velocity.22 is certainly a perfectly good weapon against a roe deer, and I have known one or two people who have used it against a red deer—though I would not do it myself. It seems to me extraordinary that he should consider a.22 weapon cruel, and yet retain the 12 bore for any form of deer, including the red deer.

195

THE EARL OF MANSFIELD
As I said earlier, I am afraid it is quite impracticable to try to do away with the use of the 12 bore. I entirely agree with my noble chief that it would be a good thing if it could be prohibited for use on red deer or fallow deer. But as the Bill is at present drafted, and the Amendments, that does not come into it. I must ask your Lordships not to accept this Amendment at the present time because it would certainly mean that a great many roe deer would exist in places where they are far too numerous and they will not be able to be kept down safely.

§ VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD
The real difficulty here is the granting of a firearms certificate. As your Lordships know, anyone having a rifle must have a firearms certificate. The authorities are not keen on a great number of extra people acquiring firearms certificates, for obvious reasons. My noble friend the Duke of Atholl said that rifles are not dangerous if they are used properly in a restricted area; and he is quite right. But how are you going to guarantee that they will be used properly?

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL
By giving firearms certificates only to people who know how to use the weapons.

§ VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD
Then you have to introduce a law, and have tests, the same as you have driving tests, for anyone having a rifle. But you cannot introduce it in this Bill; you would need a new Bill for that. I agree that if you had only experts shooting deer there would be no trouble at all. The other point against the Amendment is that there would be an outcry from the farmers. The average farmer owns a shot-gun, but does not want to go to the expense of buying a rifle. Perhaps your Lordships will say that he should be made to go to that expense. But here, again, farmers are a big body in this country, and we have to abide, to a great extent, by their wishes. But I understand that the real reason against the Amendment is that the police do not want to have a great increase in the granting of firearms certificates. I agree that shot-guns can be cruel, but I must ask the noble Lord to withdraw the Amendment.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL
I find on most occasions that farmers who want 196 the deer dealt with are encouraged to ring up the keeper of the estate concerned. Nearly everywhere where there are deer there are keepers, and in most cases I think you would find that the keeper has a rifle.

§ BARONESS SUMMERSKILL
The noble Viscount's arguments sound to me confusing, but perhaps I am a little illogical. Here, in the name of humanity, in a wider context, he still argues that, although the shot-gun is more cruel, he is prepared to allow it to be used on the ground that the farmer might not be able to afford a rifle. Does he not think that is a very cruel argument? Is he prepared to allow this continued cruelty on those grounds?

§ VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD
I have already explained that this is a compromise Bill between all the organisations. It is not my Bill; I am only the spokesman. In this country we are a democracy, and we have to abide by the various interested parties. The great point about having shot-guns is, as I have said, that the police do not want to have thousands of people owning rifles. That is quite understandable. My noble friend the Duke of Atholl asked why the ½22 was excluded by the Schedule. The reason is that the ½22 in the hands of somebody who is not really expert, even with such a small deer as a roedeer, can wound it very badly. You may not even know that you have wounded it, because the bullet is so small that the deer will hardly jump at all. He may go away wounded, and the person will not know he has wounded him. That is why the ½22 is excluded.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL
I said a high velocity ½22.

§ VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD
I have seen people using a high velocity ½22. I have taken people out stalking and have told them not to use it, but they have used it, and they have fired three or four times. It has had very little effect, and I have then had to shoot the stag. I cannot agree with my noble friend, and I have had experience of these matters.

§ LORD SANDYS
I should like to support the Amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Crook, and I am moved by very much the same sentiments as he 197 is. I am not an expert, but I feel there is a strong reason why 12 bore shot-guns should be excluded. After all, as I understand it, the background to the Bill is the focusing of attention upon a very malicious form of activity—namely, the chasing and driving of deer by night with searchlights and shot-guns. This seems to me thoroughly against the tradition of sportsmanship in these islands, and I would heartily support the Amendment. For that reason, I would also venture to suggest that perhaps the word "pistol" might be added. There are such things as small bore pistols. If you are driving in a Land Rover or a Jeep it is quite possible to make use of pistols to kill or maliciously wound the beast, and I would suggest that pistols should be brought into this highly important section of the Bill.

§ VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD
Might I point out that under Clause 2 no night-time shooting is allowed?

§ LORD SANDYS
I agree absolutely with the noble Viscount, and I quite understand that point. I was directing my remarks to prohibiting firearms.

§ LORD CROOK
In the whole progress of this Bill there has never been agreement before. The police do not want to issue thousands more licences; the noble Lord does not want them to, and I do not want them to. I am perfectly happy that the police shall not issue them. The purpose of this Amendment is merely to stop cruelty, to stop filling the face of the deer with all this little shot. The noble Viscount, whether he speaks, as he says, as the spokesman for people in another place who are merely the manipulators of the wires, or whether he speaks for himself, cannot deny the cruelty. I must admit the logic of what the noble Lord has said. If this House wants to deal with the licensing and use of firearms in general (which we could easily do if we were not careful) then we should need a separate Bill. I am not certain that one of the preoccupations of the noble Baroness and myself might not give your Lordships the chance of saying whether we want to go on with one kind of firearm or the other. As it is, I see no alternative at the moment but to withdraw this Amendment, both in the knowledge that there are further Amend 198 ments on the Order Paper—although the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, is not here to move his—and in the knowledge that having got the two Amendments I wanted last Friday, I do not want to press the other House too much. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD
Might I point out that small shot cannot be used, as the noble Lord will see in the Schedule?

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ 7.12 p.m.

§ VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD
Might I point out regarding this Amendment, that though I am moving it, I propose to withdraw it. Under the Bill, the Secretary of State has power to amend by order the weapons clause, so it is not necessary to move this Amendment. But I should like to explain the reason for it. As I pointed out to the noble Duke, the reason the ½22 has been excluded is that the weight of the bullet is too small. Under this Amendment the weight of the bullet is specified as not to be under 75 grains. I hope that this will be taken note of by the proper authorities in due course, and that the weapons clause will be amended to ensure that no deer is shot with a bullet weighing under 75 grains. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved—

§ Page 5, leave out lines 26 and 27 and insert— ("5. Any cartridge for use in a rifle other than a cartridge—

(a) loaded with a soft-nosed or hollow-nosed bullet weighing not less than 75 grains; and
(b) sufficient to cause that bullet to be discharged from that rifle with a muzzle energy of not less than 1,700 foot pounds"),—(Viscount Massereene and Ferrard.)

THE EARL OF MANSFIELD
This Amendment is quite an important one. It is to be hoped that the Secretary of State will read these debates carefully, because there are few things more likely to cause suffering to deer—and that is what we are all, on both sides of the House, trying to avoid—than the use of unsuitable rifles.
These very small calibre rifles, even if they have very high velocity, are quite unsuitable for the purpose, because a small bullet, travelling at high velocity, 199 may go right through a deer, inflicting a wound which may or may not eventually be mortal, but in no way stopping it, so that the unfortunate animal may go on for hundreds of yards or even miles. The ideal bullet is one with a soft or hollow nose, so that when it hits the skin of the animal and penetrates it sets up; that is to say, the bullet widens until its surface area as it goes through the animal is several times its original diameter. The result is that tremendous shock is caused, and if the bullet comes to rest against the skin on the far side of the animal the greatest effect is achieved. One wants that the animal should be shot through head, neck or heart so that it collapses and never knows what has happened to it. Unfortunately, even the most expert shots err a little. One wants to have this tremendous shock effect. If it is not killed at once, it will be so much shocked that it is possible to approach it and finish it off. That is why the whole question of calibre is important, and why muzzle velocity is not important, but muzzle energy is, because on that depends the force with which the animal is struck and the probability of its being brought down immediately.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ On Question, Whether Schedule 2 shall be agreed to?

§ THE EARL OF LISTOWEL
I was glad that the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene 200 and Ferrard, was willing to meet my noble friend Lord Crook between now and the Report stage of the Bill to discuss the next stage. It is a sound practice of your Lordships' House that the sponsors of a Bill and its critics can meet together to discuss it between the different stages through the House. I hope that the noble Lord who represents the Minister may be willing to meet with us at the same time, and to give us the Government's view about the prospects of the Bill in another place. We all want the Bill to go through. That is the common interest both of noble Lords who promote and support the Bill and of the critics of the Bill, in all parts of the House. That is a matter we have to consider at the same time as any Amendment about which we may be able to agree before the Report stage of the Bill.

§ Schedule 2 agreed to.

§ House resumed: Bill reported, with Amendments.