HL Deb 11 December 1973 vol 347 cc1065-80

4.10 p.m.

EARL FERRERS

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

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—[Earl Ferrers.]

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER in the Chair.]

Clause 1 [Infected areas—destruction of foxes and other wild mammals]:

On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?

LORD FERRIER

I should like to say a word on Clause 1. I regret that I was unable to attend the Second Reading of this Bill. I should think that there are not many noble Lords who, like myself, have been bitten by a rabid dog and had to undergo treatment. My wife had the same trouble, due to our affection for animals, when a tree rat fell from a tree in Bombay; she picked it up and it bit her. Although she cared for it, it died. She had to be treated for rabies because there was at that time an epidemic in Bombay. Under this clause, subsection (1) refers to "such other wild mammals". An Indian tree rat can be a carrier, and I wonder whether a grey squirrel in this country could also be something of the sort.

LORD BALERNO

On this clause I should like to ask whether there is any proper definition of the word "captivity". It says, "being animals held in captivity". It is uncertain to my mind whether this captivity means behind bars, as it were, or whether it is behind wire fences, as in the case of a safari park, because wild animals, including foxes, do get into the safari parks. Indeed at the present moment they quite easily get into certain zoological gardens. I think the definition of "captivity" would be an important part of the Bill. Otherwise, there could be considerable litigation.

EARL FERRERS

With regard to my noble friend Lord Ferrier's question about grey squirrels, if any individual grey squirrel were infected or suspected of being infected with rabies, it could be destroyed under existing powers of Section 17 of the Diseases of Animals Act 1950. If evidence emerged that squirrels had a similar ability to spread disease as do foxes, they could be prescribed by Order under the powers to be taken under Clause 1 of the new Bill, and be subjected to a programme of destruction in the affected areas. Although I am bound to say that there is plenty of evidence that grey squirrels can be vicious animals in the many countries where rabies is established, we know of none where squirrels have shown a similar capacity to form a reservoir of rabies as, for example, foxes and bats. I can assure my noble friend that if there were such cases, the grey squirrel is in fact covered either under the new Bill or the existing Diseases of Animals Act.

My noble friend Lord Balerno referred on Second Reading to the problem of "captivity", and suggested that the only person in captivity in a safari park was the fellow in his motor car looking at the lions. I explained to him at the time that I did not think it was the purport of the Bill to cover the man in the motor car. I should like to explain, because I think it is important, why "captivity" is not defined in the Bill. It would be very difficult and almost certainly not helpful to provide for a definition of "captivity" in the Bill. Many animals are clearly in the wild and are not in captivity, and the great majority of animals, therefore, fall normally into one category or the other. But there is a grey area between the categories relating to such species as deer and wild ponies which in certain circumstances may be subject to a measure of control but which are very little more than wild animals.

It would be almost impossible to produce a workable definition which placed every type of animal in every type of circumstance clearly in either one or the other category, either in captivity or not in captivity. The approach under the Bill, therefore, has been to provide power to deal with animals not in captivity under Clause 1, and domestic animals and other animals in captivity in Clause 2, so that we can be certain that the grey areas are covered, even though we might not be able to say whether if need arose we would deal with it under Clause 1 or Clause 2. They are both covered.

Safari park animals are not in the grey area. They are clearly in captivity even though, as my noble friend has pointed out, they are free to roam within the boundary fences and those fences are not proof against small indigenous mammals with which they may come into contact. If safari park animals were threatened by rabies or actually infected we should have ample power to deal with the situation. Under Clause 2 we could require the animals to be confined and controlled and not allowed to roam, and if they were not so confined we could seize them and if necessary destroy them. If there were infected animals or animals directly exposed to infection in the park, we could destroy them under powers already available in Section 17 of the Diseases of Animals Act.

I can reassure my noble friend about the problem with which he was concerned, as to the gentleman in the motor car being in captivity, by saying that man is specifically excluded from the definition of animals under the Diseases of Animals Act 1950, as amended by Section 2 of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1972.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 [Powers as to quarantine and control of rabies virus]:

On Question, Whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill?

LORD FERRIER

I do not know whether the point I wish to raise comes under Clause 3 or Clause 1. On one of my many voyages I travelled in a freighter on a regular line between Liverpool and the East. I was interested in the fact that the ship's master said that his cats were regular travellers with him, and they had a pool of them in the company's sheds at Birkenhead. They came on board and completed a voyage, then went ashore, and one might or might not get the same cat on the next voyage. Of course, the cat is a carrier. I was wondering whether there is a loophole here. I have given my noble friend notice of this point. Perhaps he will be able to reassure us. I am perfectly certain that on a voyage like the Calcutta to Liverpool run if a cat were infected with rabies it would have developed the disease on the voyage and there would be no problem. But if rabies is getting closer to this country and there are to be short runs, with freighters travelling between the Continent and this country carrying ships' cats, I should like some assurance that as potential carriers they are kept under control. One noble Lord has told me that Australia, for instance, makes a ship's captain declare the number of cats he has on board, and he has to have the same number on board when he sails. If he is short, he has to send someone ashore to top them up. Joking apart, I mention this in case it is of real importance to the protection we seek under the Bill.

EARL FERRERS

Ships cats are required by law to be closely confined at all times while on board vessels in ports in Great Britain. Article 8 of the Importation of Dogs and Cats Order 1928 refers to the detention of dogs and cats on vessels in port, and it says: Every dog or cat to which this Article applies shall at all times while on board a vessel in any port in Great Britain be—(a) confined in an enclosed part of the vessel from which it cannot escape; (b) or, alternatively in the case of a domestic dog, secured to some part of the vessel by a collar and chain and muzzled with a wire cage muzzle, so constructed as to render it impossible for such dog while wearing the same to bite any person or animal, but not so as to prevent such dog from breathing freely or lapping water. When officers of Customs and Excise board vessels that are entering port, they hand to the master a notice describing the regulations concerning the Diseases of Animals Act Importation and Exportation Orders, including the requirements for cats and dogs. At the same time the Customs Officers complete a return of the animals found on board which have not been licensed to land and which should remain on board. A copy of this return is sent to the dock or other local police and to the Ministry or Department. We have occasionally received reports of difficulties encountered by port authorities with members of ships' crews attempting to take pets ashore, but the infrequency of these reports indicate that ships' pets are not a great problem. There is a responsibility on the master of the ship to ensure that any cats that he does keep on the ship should remain on the ship and not be allowed to land.

LORD FERRIER

I thank my noble friend. I think that that is an adequate assurance for the problem I have in mind.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Clause 4 agreed to.

Clause 5 [Destruction of imported animals]:

4.22 p.m.

LORD AMULREE moved Amendment No. 1: Page 3, line 18, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").

The noble Lord said: In the unavoidable absence of the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, I am moving this Amendment on his behalf. Where Clause 5 states that an animal imported illegally "may" be destroyed, we want that changed into "shall" be destroyed. There are various reasons for this, one of which is that one would not quite know what to do with such animals if they were not destroyed; whether they would be repatriated to the country they came from, or what their fate would be. The second reason is that we thought it would be a further deterrent to people who tried to import animals improperly and illegally. The fine to which they are at present subjected is not a very substantial one, and if they thought that the animal would be destroyed that might be an additional deterrent to people trying to import their pets illegally.

At the same time, it will be necessary for extra care to be taken by the Customs now that we are a member of the European Economic Community. Many of the customs checks have been, quite properly, relaxed, and one does not want to see it made possible for pets to be brought in any more easily now than was the case in the past. As things become more difficult, when or if we get a Channel Tunnel, a check will have to be kept even more firmly on the illegal import of animals and pets.

I do not propose to press this Amendment, but if the Government are at all sympathetic to what the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, and I have thought about this, we hope that it may be possible to redraft this clause in some way so as to give the Minister some kind of discretion not to have to kill an animal illegally imported, supposing that there was some good reason why it should not be killed. I beg to move.

EARL FERRERS

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, for putting my noble friend's Amendment, and I am sorry that he is not here to support it because I know that he feels very strongly about this matter. I think that I can allay the noble Lord's fears, although for the reasons that I propose to give I am not able to accept the Amendment. I am entirely in sympathy with the strong feelings which he and other noble Lords expressed at Second Reading on this question of importing animals.

May we first be quite clear on what the Amendment would do? It would remove discretion from Ministers by forcing them, as distinct from enabling them, when they make importation control measures which are expressed to be for the purpose of preventing the introduction of rabies, to provide for the destruction of animals which are landed in contravention of such an order or a licence made under it. I can say at the outset that it is the Government's intention, when new rabies importation control orders are made, to provide for the power of destruction in such circumstances. Lack of this power without question leaves a loophole in our import control arrangements which we intend to close at the earliest possible opportunity, and that is why we are seeking the powers under Clause 5. But if the Amendment were accepted, it would make no difference to the action which the Government intend to take.

I must resist this Amendment for two main reasons. The first is on the grounds of principle, because it is, I suggest, inappropriate to attempt to limit the discretion of Ministers in this way in what is essentially enabling legislation. The second reason is that it is superfluous in that, in practice, the Amendment would not restrict Ministers to any extent since it could be got round by making general orders which are not specifically stated to be for rabies prevention. The mere provision of destruction powers in orders in themselves would not prevent the exercise of discretion under them. I should perhaps make it clear on this point that although it is intended to take the powers in future orders, it is not intended to make mandatory the destruction of all imported animals in respect of which contravention occurs. These powers are required primarily to deal with illegal landing situations where no secure alternative course exists—for example, to reexport or to direct into quarantine at the owner's expense.

One has to accept that many contraventions occur unwittingly; some are purely technical, and others entirely accidental. There have also been occasions in the past where, through an oversight by the importers, quite rare exotic species have been landed illegally, without intent to smuggle. In many of these cases, it would be quite unacceptable, where there was an alternative course of action offering no animal health risk, for the authorities to be forced to exercise this sort of power. If one may think of a simple case, a child with a hamster, not knowing of the Acts, would automatically have its hamster beheaded. This would seem rather a harsh measure to take. There is a degree of severity between the one end of the scale and the other, and I would respectfully suggest to the noble Lord that, while we take his point about the importance of having measures to destroy animals, it would be wrong to make it mandatory that all animals that come into this country illegally should automatically be destroyed.

LORD AMULREE

I should like to thank the noble Earl for giving me that full explanation and reply. It goes a long way to satisfying me, and I am quite sure that the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, would feel the same way. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 5 agreed to.

4.30 p.m.

LORD SHEPHERD moved Amendment No. 2:

After Clause 5, insert the following new clause— (".In section 79 of the principal Act (which relates to punishment for offences against the Act), as it applies to orders made under section 24 of that Act, after the word "not" where it occurs—

  1. (a) in subsection 1(a) and
  2. (b) in subsection 1(b),
of the said section 79, there shall be inserted the words "less than two hundred pounds and not" and the words "less than twenty-five pounds and not" respectively.")

The noble Lord said: I apologise to the Committee for an Amendment that looks rather involved, but it has a simple application. It is to provide for a minimum penalty of £200. Under the principal Act provision is made for penalties to be imposed for the illegal importation of animals. During the Second Reading debate I think we were united in the understanding that rabies is one of the most evil of diseases. The noble Earl himself gave details of the way rabies is spreading in Europe; and I think there was a general understanding throughout your Lordships' House that the best protection, if not perhaps the only protection, is the effective control of the importation of those animals which are rabies-bearing. I cited my own experience in Singapore, and told your Lordships how rabies was brought in by a woman who smuggled a dog from Malaysia into the Island. Not only did it cause one person, I think, to receive rabies, but of course it involved the Colony in a very big expenditure of money on rabies control—and this again is a factor that we should not forget.

If control is the best and perhaps the only way, then clearly the penalties for illegal importation—and I stress the word "illegal", meaning an act done with full knowledge of what one is doing—have to be severe. In the Second Reading debate the noble Earl gave details of some recent penalties. He gave instances of fines of £25 and £30, although he did say that there were one or two cases where fines of £200 had been imposed. I am quite certain that those of your Lordships who have any knowledge of rabies and of the cost involved in rabies control would believe that magistrates were clearly failing in their duty to the State as a whole when they imposed such small penalties on people guilty of the smuggling of animals into this country.

The purpose of this Amendment is to put a minimum penalty on to the Statute Book so that there is a clear deterrent; and the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, was seeking to do this in the first Amendment. I must admit that I rather sympathised more with the noble Earl, speaking on behalf of the Government, but I think that at least we are all together, including the noble Earl, in thinking that we need an effective deterrent. I would suggest that a minimum fine of £200 would in itself be an effective deterrent, and I therefore beg to move the new clause.

EARL FERRERS

Perhaps I may say at the outset that I sympathise with the point of view of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. He is anxious to see that there is an adequate deterrent for what is a horrible disease, and in this I entirely agree with him. This Amendment is of course similar in nature to the last one; and while I am bound to say that I understand the objective behind it I must tell the noble Lord that, for the reasons which I will give, I should not be able to accept this easily.

The first is, I think, a compelling reason, and that is that there is no precedent for prescribing minimum penalties which the courts should impose. Serious though the consequences of animal smuggling might be, the Government do not see justification in this situation for a complete departure from our normal approach to the imposition of penalties, with all the wide-ranging implications which this would have. The provision of a mandatory minimum penalty for a particular type of offence implies of itself that any offence of that type which is committed is inevitably serious enough to warrant a punishment of at least a certain degree of severity. In fact, confining our attention to the field of offences against rabies importation orders, the nature of an illegal landing offence and the intentions of the offender can vary enormously.

At the worst extreme, we have the deliberate smuggler who may be fully aware of all the risks involved and who may be prepared to sedate his animal and hide it in order to avoid detection, and so put the country at risk of this appalling disease, mainly just to save the quarantine fee. At the other extreme, there are people who arrive in this country with unconcealed and unlicensed animals—including, as I suggested to the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, earlier, small animals like hamsters and gerbils—who have never heard of import controls or quarantine requirements. And there are people who may know of quarantine but not of the licensing arrangements, and who think that they simply have to hand over their animals on landing for them to go into quarantine. These people may certainly be at fault and they may be prosecuted, but I would suggest that their offence does not compare in any way with that of the deliberate smuggler; and it would take us from one extreme to the other if magistrates were forced to impose similar fines on these totally different categories of offence.

I believe that offences of this type clearly do call for the consideration of cases on their merits, and the settling of penalties accordingly. I suggest that it should be a matter for the courts to decide, which is a cardinal principle of our judicial system, within the confines of the maximum penalties involved, what should be the penalty for any particular offence. I understand the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, about this, and the emphasis that the Waterhouse Committee placed on this problem and the need which they saw for higher fines; but we shall be initiating more publicity about our regulations and the reasons for them. The power provided under Clause 5 of the Bill to slaughter illegally landed animals should make an impact on some of those who are potentially people, who will import animals and who would, I hope, find some deterrent in this. Although it is not our intention to require the slaughter of all animals illegally landed, there is a considerable shortage of quarantine accommodation, and anybody who brings in an animal without a licence will be putting its life severely at risk. That has been a rather general description of the reasons why I believe it would be undesirable to accept the noble Lord's Amendment, and I hope that he will feel that he can withdraw it.

4.39 p.m.

LORD BESWICK

I wonder whether the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, is aware of the quite elaborate and sophisticated arrangements that are apparently available to those people who want to bring animals into this country. I am not sure whether he is putting into this legislation the necessary fines. May I tell him, without I hope boring the Committee, of an experience which came within my knowledge? Someone whom I happen to know wished to bring into this country a Siamese cat from Switzerland. It was said that Siamese cats in Switzerland were quite free from rabies, and therefore she was quite justified, without contravening any ethical consideration, in going through certain procedures.

The procedures included going to the American Express Company in the Haymarket, looking at the man over the counter and indicating that she wanted to bring a cat into this country. She asked whether they could advise her as to the possibilities, putting a £5 note under the blotter on the counter and receiving a note with an address of a person who apparently kept an establishment where animals were quarantined. She was then enabled to deal with this individual and it was so arranged that when she brought her Siamese cat into Heathrow this person produced a substitute cat which the woman handed over and which went into quarantine, and she was enabled to bring out her drugged Siamese concealed in her fur coat. She thought that the animal was quite clean, as it came from Switzerland, and not therefore likely to be infected with rabies. I speak not at secondhand or third hand but at first hand. I was absolutely amazed when I was told about the procedures which apparently were available. I have wondered whether the anthorities for whom the noble Earl speaks are aware of these quite deliberate procedures, which must be widespread, and whether they have been taken into consideration when legislation is drafted.

EARL FERRERS

The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has certainly given us a fascinating account of how to bring an animal into this country illegally. I suggest to him that that is precisely the type of case which needs to be very severely dealt with; where a person deliberately comes in with a sedated animal and goes through all the procedures which the noble Lord described to bypass the rules —even to the extent of bribery—and then gets away with bringing in the animal. I agree with the noble Lord that that is the type of person who should be dealt with very severely. On the other hand, what about a person returning from Germany, having been there on active service, and who brings his family back, and his child brings in a pet such as a hamster? I do not believe that crime is nearly as serious as the crime which the noble Lord describes, nor do t believe that it is one which should be subjected to the penalty which the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, mentioned. Of course the child may be breaking the law, but he does it unwittingly and unknowingly, and I suggest that there is a great deal of difference between the two examples. That is the reason why the Government would like to see the provision for high penalties for transgressing the law kept, but not put in a minimum penalty.

LORD SHEPHERD

The noble Earl said in reply to my noble friend Lord Beswick that courts ought to impose a heavy penalty. There is no indication that the courts will do anything other than what they have been doing over the range of years, imposing, in general, fines of £25 or £30.

EARL FERRERS

I think I should say, just for clarification, that I do not think I said that the courts "ought to."

LORD SHEPHERD

That was my understanding, but we will not quibble. The point is that we wish to see a real deterrent to those people who smuggle animals into this country illegally. We are not concerned with the person who brings in a hamster and declares it and admits that he was wrong. Such people may have committed an offence by bringing an animal into the country without a certificate, but they are not seeking to smuggle it in illegally. I am concerned about those people such as were referred to by my noble friend—and one hears about them on many occasions—who bring in animals under some form of cover. Their activities represent a severe threat to the country, with the increasing amount of rabies in Europe, and I do not believe the Committee can accept that the present scale of penalties is in any way sufficient or represents a deterrent.

We could have a discussion about whether the fine should be £100, £200 or £300, but the noble Earl said that it would be quite wrong to have a mandatory minimum penalty. It may be that there is no precedent for that in this field, but previous Governments have brought in mandatory penalties in respect of motoring offences. Only in this way could there be a real deterrent. There are mandatory sentences for driving under the influence of drink, so I should have thought that someone who threatened the public health by smuggling animals into the country illegally should be confronted with a very severe sentence We are at one in what we are seeking to do; it is a question of the means. I should be willing to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment if the noble Earl would give further consideration to the matter and discuss it, as I suggested on Second Reading, with his noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. I recognise that this is something to do with the law and the courts. Having said that, and if it is the wish of the Committee—

4.47 p.m.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I should like to say a word about this matter. I have not done so hitherto, because I am not primarily concerned with the Bill, but before the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, seeks leave to withdraw the Amendment, if he intends to, there are two or three things I should like to say. This question of minimum penalties and mandatory penalties cannot be restricted to rabies or the Rabies Bill. It raises the general problem of our whole penal system. Although I would fully agree that in the case of murder there is a mandatory penalty, and that for treason there is a mandatory penalty, and that in drinking cases and other driving cases there is a mandatory disqualification, designed not so much only as a penalty but to put the driver off the road, in general, in England and also in Scotland, we have set our face against mandatory or minimum penalties. We cannot begin to introduce a totally new principle in the Rabies Bill because rabies is a danger to health. There are a great number of other things which are a danger to the public and a danger to health, and if one wants to start with a new principle I think one has to do it on a much more general scale.

On the other hand, I agree completely with the noble Lord that the penalties imposed by magistrates' courts, where they have an option to impose a monetary penalty, are in general too low. In my capacity as President of the Magistrates' Association I have said so to magistrates on more occasions than one, and I shall continue to press this upon them. Probably it is one of the prices we pay for a system of lay magistrates that we tend to err on the side of leniency. Personally—I am not now talking about rabies; I will come to that in a moment —I am prepared to pay that price, because on the whole (your Lordships may be very surprised to hear this, but none the less it is the case) by far the bitterest complaints I get about magistrates do not relate to the lay magistracy. It is a curious fact, but I think it is true, that this country has an extraordinary system which gives a great deal of satisfaction; but there is no doubt that in the matter of monetary penalties magistrates as a whole tend to be too lenient.

Last year when I was addressing them I drew attention to the overloading of vehicles, which also is a source of great danger and where the penalties actually inflicted were at that time quite derisory. I pointed out what were the economics of loading, and this is another instance which is still, up to a point, going on. The Diseases of Animals Act, which is the vehicle for these penalties, provides for fines of up to £400; and as my noble friend reminded the Committee, some years ago the Waterhouse Committee drew attention to the fact that the average fine imposed at the time that they reported had been about £30, which I think is much too low as an average as compared, for instance, with the cost of quarantining a dog, which is £75. There again you have the economics of smuggling as against the economics of obeying the law. Therefore it is quite unreasonable to impose so low a fine as that.

The Waterhouse Committee said that substantially increased fines would be necessary in future if prosecution was to be an effective deterrent. Since then the average cost of quarantining a dog has risen to £150, but the average fine has risen to no more than £50. There has been, I think quite rightly, a good deal of public criticism, and particularly by the British Veterinary Association, as to the level of fines. I am glad to say that magistrates are beginning to take a more serious view and I hope that they will continue to do so. At Folkestone earlier this year two people were fined £200, and that is much more like the level. But the general level is still disappointingly low. Only the other day a particularly blatant piece of dog smuggling in Scotland (I am glad to say that Scotland does not come "within my manor", as the police say; although I am called rather pompously "the Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain", they do not recognise my Writ in Scotland) which incurred a fine of only £20. Perhaps it would have been better if they did recognise my Writ. But that is the sort of thing that the noble Lords, Lord Shepherd and Lord Beswick, are quite right to complain about.

I was asked by the Minister to draw the attention of magistrates to this problem. I pointed out that I cannot direct courts under the Constitution, but I suggested that a rather good way of doing it in this case would be by an article in their trade magazine, the Magistrate. That duly appeared, and I think that in England it has been producing results. I feel that noble Lords are quite right in protesting against the level of fines imposed for this particular offence. I spoke again to the Magistrates' Association last October, and I pointed out that in these cases where people incur monetary penalties you have to take into account what the economics of the thing are, and make it thoroughly worth while for the prosecution to be brought and un-worth while for the offence to be committed.

Although I cannot promise, as the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, asked, that we will reconsider the question of a minimum penalty solely in relation to rabies, I hope that this debate will get across to somebody, including magistrates, in the country. If you want to impose higher penalties—and perhaps the noble Lord might consider talking to my noble friend about this at a suitable stage in this Bill—the only way of doing it compatibly with our general policy is to make it optionally an indictable offence. Then you can put the penalties fairly high. The prosecuting authorities ought to proceed by indictment if they want to penalise this kind of thing severely.

I think I should say to the noble Lord that, according to my information, only a small proportion of illegal landings represent deliberate cases of smuggling. A considerable number of people, surprising as it may seem, do not appear to realise that they cannot bring an animal to this country without quarantining it. Clearly, they ought not to incur serious penalties if they make their mistake in good faith. As one knows, if one does bring an animal into this country one ought to make prior arrangements—that is to say, prior arrangements of a legitimate kind, and not of the kind described by the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, because those actions are much to be deprecated. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, will feel that neither my noble friend nor myself are unsympathetic in this matter. If he feels that there ought to be an indictable offence as well, perhaps he will let my noble friend know. I hope that he will not press this particular Amendment.

LORD SHEPHERD

I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for what he has said. We are in a difficulty. I fully appreciate—and I endorse what the noble and learned Lord has said—that there is a price to be paid for having lay magistrates and giving them a degree of freedom. On the other hand, one is confronted with this evil disease and its growth in Europe, and the deterrent is clearly a major factor in our one line of defence in preventing it from coming into this country. As I say, it is a difficult matter, and I should like to give careful thought to what the noble and learned Lord has said. I think at this moment I should accept his suggestion and consider whether we should make it an indictable offence, which clearly would be an indication to the courts that it is a serious offence and is to be regarded as such. However, this is a matter that I should be happy to discuss with the noble Earl between now and the next stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Remaining clauses agreed to.

House resumed: Bill reported without Amendment; Report received.