SALE OF VENISON (SCOTLAND) (No. 2) BILL (Hansard, 27 June 1968)

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

§ LORD BURTON
moved, in subsection (4), to leave out "£20" and insert "£50". The noble Lord said: I feel that this Bill which has now come to us from another place is really not of very much use. It will probably do no harm but, on the other hand, it is unlikely to do much good. These views have been made clear to the Red Deer Commission, but I understand this is the type of legislation they desire. However, there appears to be little point in having any legislation if it is not possible to enforce it. The penalties under this Bill are less than one might be liable to pay if one failed to pay a fourpenny fare on the London Underground. The penalty of £20 suggested is only the value of 1- stag carcases, and with the small chance of detection dealers would have little at risk if they flouted the law. I may say that this is the view of some of the more respectable dealers, and I therefore beg to move that the penalty be raised to £50.

THE DUKE OF ATHOLL
I should like to thank my noble friend for raising this point, and since he put down this Amendment I have been having a look at the penalties under the original Deer Act 1959 and also the various penalties which we considered in detail in the Criminal Justice Act of last year to see whether this penalty was in line with them or whether it was way below what most modern penalties have been. Under the 1959 Act the penalty for a first offence against the close seasons—that is, shooting a deer 1554 during that time of the year when it was protected—was £20, and for a subsequent offence it was admittedly £50 or three months in prison. Under that Act the penalty for one person, as opposed to a gang, for poaching deer was also £20.
In the Criminal Justice Act, which is probably the most up-to-date Act we have which contains a lot of penalties because it raised and altered the penalties in many Acts which had been passed during the course of the last 200 years or so, various offences were dealt with which were in some way connected with this one. For instance, fixing, inserting, or exhibiting indecent or offensive matter in the public view was made illegal in 1889 and originally had a £2 fine attached to it; that was raised to £20 last year. Whether a deer carcase would be "offensive matter in the public view" I do not know, but I should imagine that when it got somewhat old it might easily be described in that way.
For allowing cattle to stray unattended in any street you can also now be fined £20, but apparently, so far as I car make out, as regards nearly all other animals it is not an offence, or at any rate it does not appear to be an offence under that Act. The penalty for a refusal or failure to make and deliver the copy of entries in the marriage register book, an offence which was originally dealt with in the 1949 Act, was a fine of £10 This was also raised to £20 last year, and I feel that this has something in common with the offence that we are considering now, as that offence is really the failure to register your deer carcases in your book. What is even more interesting is that the penalty for the disposal of a body—and this is a human body—without a registrar's certificate or coroner's order under the 1926 Act was originally £10, and last year we raised it to £20. I should have thought that to make the penalty for disposing of a deer carcase higher than that for disposing of a human body was perhaps wrong; but maybe other noble Lords have different views on that subject.
Another instance which fascinated me, but which has nothing to do with the case in point, is that of riotous or indecent behaviour in churches, burial grounds, et cetera, and harassing authorised preachers. This was originally an offence under an 1860 Act and the penalty was £5. This, again, was raised to £20 last 1555 year. I am now worried in case I ever feel like interrupting a right reverend Prelate in the course of his perorations in this House. But seriously, I think, bearing in mind the penalties under the 1959 Act and the others that I have mentioned, that it probably would be out of line if we raised this to £50, though I fully understand my noble friend's concern in this matter, especially when one considers that a stag carcase, as he said, is worth round about £14 or £15 nowadays. At some time in the future we might consider making the penalty £20 for the first offence and raising it to £50, or possibly a term of imprisonment, for subsequent offences. It is possible that the first offence may be committed in ignorance, but with subsequent offences it cannot be a matter of ignorance. Therefore there appears to be a good case for raising the penalty for subsequent offences, but for leaving it at £20 for the first offence.
Having said that, I would point out that if we made this Amendment it would have to go back to the other place for their consideration, and since this is a private Member's Bill they might not find time to consider it. It would be a pity if we risked the whole Bill in order to raise the penalty, which I very much hope will never have to be imposed. I am sure that on the whole the dealers who are going to keep registers are honest men and will do so without any penalty being attached. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend will agree to withdraw the Amendment.

§ LORD BURTON
The penalty to which I was referring was, of course, the maximum penalty. It may be that a very small penalty would be imposed. Despite the fact that this is probably not a very good Bill, and will not make very good law or be very enforceable—and it is difficult, in spite of the co-operation of some noble Lords opposite, to get any good law while this Government are in power—I feel that it should go through. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.