Lords Sitting of 21 April 1977

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Peterborough.

ELECTRICITY DISCOUNT VOUCHERS
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government where is the budget allocation and what is the accounting procedure for the £25·30 million to be reimbursed by the Department of Energy to electricity boards in respect of discount vouchers they have accepted in part payment of pensioners' bills.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, provision for the financial year 1976–77 was made in the Supplementary Estimates presented in December and February, and further provision has been made in the Estimates for the current financial year published on 29th March. The Departments are paying to the electricity boards and the Post Office the value of electricity discount vouchers which they accept from consumers. The actual expenditure will be accounted for in the Appropriation Accounts for the years concerned.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord for that reply, may I ask him two questions: First, who decides who is eligible to receive these vouchers? Secondly, is there not a danger that the Department of Energy is being asked to exercise a function which is more appropriate to one of the Departments of social service?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, the scheme is restricted to those on supplementary benefit or family income supplement, and it is administered by the
268
Departments. Because the scheme is restricted to certain users of electricity it is considered administratively more convenient for the Department of Energy and the Scottish and Northern Ireland Departments to handle the scheme with the co-operation of the electricity industry.
Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE: My Lords, can the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, tell me how many people received these vouchers during the period about which the noble Lord is talking?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, up to and including 31st March, about 500,000 households received these vouchers.

MOT VEHICLE TESTS
3.8 p.m.
Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied that the new MoT motor-car testing arrangements brought into operation on 1st January last are operating satisfactorily.
Baroness STEDMAN: Yes, my Lords.
Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her Answer. Is she aware that she is in a minority? Is she further aware that the rate of failure has increased considerably, and that this is due in some part to the lack of knowledge of owners? Can the Ministry make official publicity available so that owners are more aware of their obligations regarding the test?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, regarding the first question, the average failure rate for the first two months of operation of the new regulations was 35·4 per cent., whereas the average failure rate for the first two months of 1976 was 31·4 per cent., so there is not a considerable increase in the number of vehicles that have failed under the new methods.
In so far as publicity is concerned, we had consultations on the draft proposals with some 150 organisations before the

269
proposals were introduced. They represented both the private and the commercial motorist; the vehicle manufacturing and repairing industry, the vehicle traders and the transport operators. In addition to the official Press notices which were put out, we have had a number of radio and television interviews with Ministers and officials from the Department and a considerable coverage in the newspapers. Quite frankly, within the limited budget at the disposal of the Department, we did all that we could in publicity before the test took place.
Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her reply. Despite all those consultations, is she aware that there still remains some confusion in industry, particularly with regard to the legal position that arises where a garage repairer drives a motor vehicle belonging to a customer that has been the subject of refusal to issue a test certificate? Is she able to clarify that position?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I am not a lawyer, but I am advised that if, after repairs, a motor mechanic drives a vehicle which does not have a current MoT certificate, an exemption from test certificate requirements is provided for road tests after repairs, where both repair and testing are carried out by a motor trader to whom a trade licence has been issued. A trade licence also exempts such use of the vehicle from the tax requirements. If no trade licence exists, then it is the responsibility of the garage to ensure that the legal requirements are met before driving the vehicle.
Lord INGLEWOOD: My Lords, in older that the less technical among us may be informed of what lies behind this Question, can the noble Baroness tell us the principal difference between the old system and the new arrangements to which my noble friend takes exception?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, that is rather wider than this Question. I am happy to write to the noble Lord to inform him of the extra tests which now have to be carried out.

MILK PRODUCTS: AID TO THIRD WORLD
3.12 p.m.
The Marquess of SLIGO: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the use of more European milk as milk powder for the underfed millions in the Third World would not be more humane and economically more sensible than the regular production of butter mountains.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, a substantial EEC programme of food aid in the form of milk products already exists. We have under continual review with our Community partners the scope of such aid. But we believe that food aid programmes should be designed to meet the needs of the recipients and not simply to dispose of unwanted surpluses.
The Marquess of SLIGO: My Lords, may I just elaborate on the original Question?
Several noble Lords: No!
The Marquess of SLIGO: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether he does not think that the surplus milk from efficient farms would be better utilised as a desperately needed protein food rather than as a semi-luxury fat which it is impossible to dispose of? Does he not think that the Departments responsible for agricultural prices and for the taxpayers' contribution to the Third World should co-operate in this matter?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I think there is a great deal in what the noble Marquess says, but there are limitations to the use which can be made of skimmed milk powder in food aid programmes. Immediate famine relief often depends mostly on the supply of cereals. In the administration of food aid programmes, close attention is paid to the most beneficial mix of the pool of available foodstuffs. There is, of course, already close co-operation between the two Departments mentioned by the noble Marquess.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, while welcoming the constructive humanity behind this Question, may I ask whether my noble friend is aware that in Africa there is a great deal of controversy about the suitability of the powdered milk that has been provided'? Will Her Majesty's Government take great care about its quality and suitability for the feeding of babies?
Lord STRABOLGI: Yes, my Lords; my noble friend is absolutely right. Skimmed milk powder can be dangerous if it is not diluted or if it diluted with polluted water or mixed in the wrong quantities. That is one of the difficulties we are up against.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that it is the constant dilution with polluted water which has caused considerable epidemic where the powdered milk has been distributed?
Lord STRABOLGI: Yes, my Lords; my noble friend is quite right. We believe that the main aid should be in the form of cereals, which are not in surplus.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Lord Wigoder he appointed to the Committee of Selection, the Committee for Privileges and the Select Committee on Leave of Absence and Lords' Expenses in the place of the Lord Amulree.—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

STATUTE LAW (REPEALS) BILL [H.L.]
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, I understand that no Amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript Amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the Order of Recommitment be discharged.
Moved, That the Order of Recommitment be discharged.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITIES (CONFERENCES) (PAPUA NEW GUINEA AND WESTERN SAMOA) ORDER 1977
3.16 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, I beg to move that the Diplomatic Immuties (Conferences) (Papua New Guinea and Western Samoa) Order, which was laid before the House on 9th March, be approved. This order will have the effect of adding Papua New Guinea and Western Samoa to the countries to which Section 1 of the Diplomatic Immunities (Conferences with Commonwealth Countries and Republic of Ireland) Act 1961 applies. The order is required so that diplomatic immunities may be conferred upon representatives of Papua New Guinea and Western Samoa, and their staffs, attending inter-governmental conferences in the United Kingdom—for instance, the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting this year.
The order itself will not confer any immunities, but it will enable the Secretary of State to confer them upon any repre sentatives of Papua New Guinea and Western Samoa and their staffs while attending, for instance, the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, which I mentioned. The procedure required by the Act is that a list of the persons to whom it is desired to grant immunities shall be published in the London, Edinburgh and Belfast Gazettes.
The 1961 Act was used in 1969 when the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting was last held in London, but it has been used on only three occasions since then. We intend to use it for the purpose of according immunities to representatives of the countries attending the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting this year, among whom we hope to welcome representatives from Papua New Guinea and Western Samoa. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft Diplomatic Immunities (Conferences) (Papua New Guinea and Western Samoa) Order 1977, laid before the House on 9th March, be approved.—(Lord Goronwy-Roberts.)
Lord ELTON: My Lords, I do not think the content of this order is in any way controversial. We are grateful to the noble Lord for making it so clear and explaining it so succinctly. I think that the Commonwealth Conference will be an apt opportunity to welcome the independent members of Paupa New Guinea and Western Samoa to the Commonwealth. Today, as it is the birthday of the Head of the Commonwealth, the Sovereign of Papua New Guinea and Western Samoa and of this country, this would be an opportune occasion to voice the wish of many of us that Her Majesty will have many happy returns; and I am sure that her newly-admitted subjects will join us in that wish.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, while heartily endorsing the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, may I intersperse one point to which I should like to draw attention. While welcoming the immunity and the diplomatic privilege which is given, may I ask my noble friend this. Although this is not quite in the 1961 Act, has not the extension of diplomatic privileges now reached a pitch where nationals of the various parts of the Commonwealth and of foreign countries can have diplomatic immunity which gives them privileges which are not even allowed to the Royal family? We are getting into an anomalous position. Consequently, while welcoming this order, I think that the time has come for Parliament to look thoroughly into the whole question of diplomatic immunity. Without wishing to introduce a harsh note, which might be misunderstood, I think that this is an appropriate moment quietly to draw the attention of Parliament to this fact.
Lord HAWKE: My Lords, this House has frequently voiced such sentiments as the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, has uttered on this order. I wonder whether the Commonwealth Conference would be a suitable opportunity to try to do something about the parking ticket scandals that go on, because I understand that some
274
of the Commonwealth members are among the biggest offenders in this matter. I understand perfectly well the desirability of being able to get reciprocity in foreign countries, but things are getting to a pretty pass when one gets Embassies totting up thousands of unpaid parking tickets. Before they get any diplomatic immunity, why not make them pay a deposit, to be used against these tickets?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, if I may reply briefly to the very interesting points made by noble Lords in welcoming this order, I would hardly say that my noble friend Lord Davies of Leek could raise any point quietly. But we understand his motive, that he wishes to make the point, which was supported by the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, about the extension—some would say, the undue extension—of diplomatic immunity and privileges. This is, as both noble Lords mentioned, a larger question and is, as I believe the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, said, a matter of reciprocation. Therefore, it would need to be taken up internationally. I note the suggestion he made that possibly, as a first step, it might be discussed by the Commonwealth Heads of Government. Of course, I can give no undertaking that their agenda will necessarily include such a discussion, but I note the point and also the quiet incisiveness of my noble friend's contribution to the argument.
I particularly welcome the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Elton. This is a day on which everybody can unite in warmly congratulating the Head of the Commonwealth on her birthday. The Commonwealth is a unique association of some 36 countries, among the most recent being Papua New Guinea, to which this order refers, and Western Samoa. Papua New Guinea have chosen to accept the Queen as their Head of State. She is equally their Queen as she is ours. Western Samoa, for their own good reasons, are appointing a Head of State indigenously. Nevertheless, both countries, like the rest of the membership of the Commonwealth, look to our Queen as the Head of the Commonwealth and I therefore, officially and personally, warmly reciprocate the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Elton.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MERCHANT SHIPPING (SAFETY CONVENTION) BILL [H.L.]
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I beg to move that the Order of Commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the Order of Commitment be discharged.—(Lord Oram.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

DEER BILL [H.L.]
3.24 p.m.
Lord NORTHFIELD: 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.—(Lord Northfield.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Lord Aberdare in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Close seasons]:
Viscount THURSO Viscount THURSO moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 14, leave out from ("Schedule") to end of line 16.
The noble Viscount said: The purpose of this Bill, among other things, is to conserve deer and protect the various species of deer which are native and wild to this country. One of the principles of conservation is that the habitat, and the predators upon species to be conserved, must be in some way controlled. If they are allowed to become out of control, it is bad for the species. I think it is unnecessary for me to remind your Lordships that indiscriminate competition being added for habitat, food supply and so on is a bad thing for a native species. One has only to think of the grey squirrel, mink, coypu and so on to realise that it is a bad thing if breeds of plant, bird, animal, bacteria or anything else are let loose within the ecosystem of this country, without careful thought being given to how and why they are being let loose. It is therefore with this in mind that I approach this first Amendment to Clause 1.
What I am saying here is that we should not make it the sole responsibility of a Minister in a Government to decide, off his own bat, whether another species of animal should be added to the list of wild animals which we consider to be native to this country, and this is what this clause would tend to do. Subsection (2) states:
"The Secretary of State may by order amend the said Schedule 1"—
that is, the Schedule of species being granted various forms of protection under the Bill—
"by altering any close season mentioned in that Schedule, or by the addition of deer of any species not mentioned in that Schedule."
Every species of deer which is wild and native to this country, every species of deer which has been accepted as having been introduced into this country, is already in the Schedule. The only species which could be added to it at any stage is something which, at the moment, is definitely not native, definitely not wild and, therefore, definitely not a British species of deer. It is for that reason that I suggest to your Lordships that we should amend this Bill by leaving out from "Schedule" to the end of line 16, which means omitting the words:
"or by the addition of deer of any species not mentioned in that Schedule and of a close season for any description of deer of that species."
This does not, of course, prevent a Government, a Parliament or the country as a whole from deciding that there is some species of deer which ought to be let loose in the country and established wild. What it does is to remove the possibility of some new species of deer being added to our list of native species, being granted a certificate, as it were, which recognises it as a species wild in this country, being granted the protection of a close season, and being granted the right to proliferate, to take up habitat, to compete with existing species of deer and so on. Therefore, I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
Lord NORTHFIELD: I am grateful to the noble Viscount for the spirit in which he has moved the Amendment. However, I want to draw a few facts to his attention. One purpose, among others, of the Bill is to bring up to date and to re-enact, where appropriate, the Deer Act 1963 which applies to England. I do not know whether the noble Viscount

277
realises that the provisions which he seeks to delete are contained in the 1963 Deer Act. If I may speak also to Amendment No. 2, both of these Amendments are a restatement of the provisions contained in the 1963 Act which have worked in a perfectly satisfactory way for the last 14 years. I see no reason whatsoever for going back on the provisions of the 1963 Act. I will not trouble the noble Viscount by reading the provisions of that Act, but t have them in my hand and they are contained in subsections (2) and (3) of Section I of the 1963 Act.
Secondly, the noble Viscount said that there might be some danger in the addition to the subsection of species which are afforded protection in the close season if this was done frivolously or without proper thought. But this cannot be done frivolously or without proper thought. One could only allege that that might happen, because these powers are in the hands of the Secretary of State. No Secretary of State exercises powers like this in a frivolous way; he would hold wide consultations. As the second Amendment says:
"Before making any such order … the Secretary of State shall consult with any organisations that appear to him to represent persons likely to be interested in or affected by the order."
This is a device which is used frequently in order to leave some latitude in technical matters to the Government of the day, after proper consultation.
The noble Viscount made one other point about which I should like to say something immediately. He may he hinting that the powers contained in the Bill require some form of advisory body to be set up, and attached to the Secretary of State. With advisers, I have given some thought to the matter. It is too early yet to say whether we should do it. If, however, the noble Viscount thought that it would be appropriate and would affect the application of the subsection as drafted, I should be very happy to meet him to consider the drafting of an Amendment for the Report stage, to set up an advisory body to watch over the position of deer in this country.
With that assurance and having stated my two objections to the two Amendments, I hope that the noble Viscount will not jeel bound to press them to a vote.
Viscount THURSO: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, for putting the case on the other side. I think that the noble Lord shows a somewhat touching faith in the previous Act, which is surprising in view of the fact that he is busily amending it. He also shows, to my mind, a touching faith in the Secretary of State and in the present state of affairs—that is, to leave it to the Secretary of State to consult those bodies which he believes to be appropriate. On the other hand, the noble Lord has shown me what I consider to be a very large olive branch. He has said that he is interested in setting up some kind of advisory body to advise the Secretary of State.
I think that there is one glaring omission in the Bill; namely, a body which can advise the Secretary of State on all the matters which the Bill is designed to control and legislate for. In Scotland, it is our privilege to have such a body for one species of deer, though not for all. If an advisory body can be set up to advise the Secretary of State on all species of deer in England, I am certain that a very good job will have been done. If the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, is serious about this and thinks that progress can be made in setting up such a body, I shall be more than happy to enter into discussions with him. Therefore, I am happy at this stage not to press Amendment No. 1 and I will not move Amendment No. 2, which also stands in my name.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Nightly close times]:
On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
The Earl of BALFOUR: I apologise to your Lordships' Committee that I shall be unable to attend to the end of the debate; I have a very important commitment later this evening. That is one of the reasons why I did not put down an Amendment to Clause 2 of the Bill. However, may I draw your Lordships' attention to the wording of Clause 2, which states that the time during which you may kill deer extends from one hour before sunrise all the way through the day to one hour after sunset. I believe

279
that this period is too long. It is too dark and too dangerous to shoot one hour before sunrise and one hour after sunset. If your Lordships glance at Schedule 1 you will see that the season extends from November to February. Unfortunately, I have not had a full opportunity to study the Bill and have been unable to take advantage of the Nautical Almanack to determine exactly when it would be dark. However, assuming that we are speaking about the end of November, the sun's declination would be about 20 degrees South; and one hour after sunset the sun would be about 12 degrees below the horizon. This brings it into the nautical twilight where the horizon ceases to be distinctive. If the period were to be only half an hour after sunset, this would be the time when, if you were driving a car, you would expect to put on at least your sidelights, if not dipped headlights.
I do not intend to take up the time of the Committee any further. However, on the grounds of safety, remembering that the best shot can occasionally miss with his first shot and that if it is too dark he may fail to kill the deer he is shooting at, may I recommend to the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, to whom I am sure we are all grateful for having introduced this Bill, that the time in Clause 2 should be reduced to half an hour before sunrise and half an hour after sunset.
Lord NORTHFIELD: I am grateful to the noble Earl and I should like to assure him that I will take some expert advice before the Report stage, but I should like to draw his attention to the fact that so far as I know this is a provision which has worked satisfactorily since the 1963 Act came into force. This provision is identical with the provisions in that Act and if there is new information I shall be glad to have it in order that the matter may be considered before the Report stage, although I say that without giving any commitment. It will depend upon the advice I receive.
Viscount THURSO: I should like to add a word from the practical point of view. Anybody legally and sensibly trying to cull deer will not, if they can possibly help it. be firing their first shot one hour after sunset or one hour before sunrise—particularly the former. People
280
doing the job professionally and sensibly will try to do it in daylight. On the other hand, if by any chance they have the misfortune to be out on their own and to wound a deer early in the day it is as well to give them usable light in which to try to follow up that deer and bring it to the bag. With telescopic sights, up to one hour after sunset and at one hour before sunrise there is a great deal of light within a telescope; the deer is clearly visible in most lights, and the graticule is clearly visible.
Lord GISBOROUGH: I should like to draw attention to the roedeer buck which is shot during the summer when there is plenty of light one hour before sunrise and one hour after sunset, and indeed it is about the only time that it can reasonably be shot.
Clause 2 agreed to.
3.42 p.m.
Lord NORTHFIELD Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, leave Out line 9.
The noble Lord said: This is a drafting Amendment to delete line 9 on page 2. I would simply explain that this drafting Amendment is to enable Parts I and II of the Bill to become one Part instead of two. I should like to take this opportunity of thanking the Home Office, who have assisted me a great deal with the technical redrafting of this Bill. From time to time this afternoon I hope to have the opportunity to move Amendments, most of which are drafting and virtually all of which have been kindly and helpfully suggested by the Home Office to improve the drafting of the Bill. I give the Committee the assurance that such drafting Amendments will not in any way change the sense of the Bill.
The reason for running Parts I and II together is that, as later Amendments show, it is better to subdivide the penalties, Part by Part. Instead of having one penalty clause for the whole Bill, it is better, as we shall see when we move on, to add penalties which apply to each Part of the Bill. We shall later come to an Amendment dealing with the appropriate penalties to go with Parts I and II as so joined. I beg to move.
Lord BURTON: Would I not be correct in saying that, if the words "Part II" are to be removed, the following line, which is the heading to the Part, would also have to be removed?
Lord NORTHFIELD: That has slightly puzzled me and I do not know the answer to it. I think we might leave it in order to see whether the printer then deletes it as a consequence of this Amendment. I suggest we look at the Bill when it has been reprinted.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3 [Unlawful weapons, etc.]:
Viscount THURSO Viscount THURSO moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 11, after ("to") insert ("subsection (4) below and to").
The noble Viscount said: Amendments Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7 all relate to the same thing and therefore, with the agreement of the Committee, I will speak to them all at the same time. The principle involved here is that this clause makes unlawful a number of ways of taking or handling or treating deer, with all of which would agree if they are to be applied to deer in the wild state; but, as your Lordships are possibly aware, since the previous Act was passed, great interest has arisen in deer farming, which is becoming a very real and active proposition. It is being pursued in an experimental way by universities and agricultural colleges, and in fact in Scotland it is being taken up by the Highlands and Islands Development Board who have bought an area of ground on which to start a demonstration deer farm in a practical sense.
If this Bill goes through in its present form a number of things which it may be practicable, sensible and reasonable to do within the confines of a deer farm are banned. For instance, the marking and tagging of deer; the handling of deer by moving them round by vehicles, and so on. I felt that, as there is no Act and no regulation governing the farming of deer in any way, it would be helpful if those provisions were left out of this Bill in so far as they apply to deer on land totally enclosed and where deer are not kept in the wild state but are obviously kept for some sort of agricultural or commercial purpose.
This does not mean that I consider that deer kept for an agricultural purpose should in any way be ill-treated. I consider that they should be as well treated as possible. But what is ill-treatment to a deer in the wild state may not necessarily be ill-treatment to a deer in the tame state. For instance, to kill a deer after dark in the wild state has clearly been demonstrated to be dangerous and undesirable, but to kill it after dark in a lighted shed is completely reasonable if it is an animal that has been farmed. It would be unreasonable not to allow a deer farm to slaughter out of season.
I have tabled these Amendments in order that your Lordships may consider the position of deer farming in relation to the management of deer as a whole in the country. Without these Amendments we should be passing a law and amending an Act to control deer and the management of deer without taking deer farming into account at all. I beg to move.
Viscount MOUNTGARRET: I think the noble Viscount has a very good point here, but surely the simple way to deal with this matter would be, not to have all these Amendments, but to include a clause relating specifically to the fact that deer farms should be excluded.
Lord BURTON: Surely this proposed legislation already covers deer parks. I am not quite clear what would be wanted in a deer farm which is not already available for deer parks.
Lord NORTHFIELD: Once again I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, but I should like to draw his attention to the effect of these Amendments. The effect would be that some of the methods of killing which we all deplore in this House would then be made legal on a deer farm. I wonder whether the noble Viscount has realised that? In fact, this would be an open door to cruelty on a deer farm. In trying to reach the quite legitimate objective which he has in mind—namely, to see whether particular provisions are needed for the new, and now spreading, system of deer farming—he is in fact moving Amendments which would allow such deer farms to practise almost any form of cruelty if they were run by unscrupulous people. I am sure he does not wish to do that. Therefore if he would

283
withdraw his Amendments there would be the possibility at Report stage of drafting a clause to deal with deer farms, and, if that were not possible, I would agree with him that perhaps some small Bill might be needed at a future date to deal with deer farms. They are, as I understand it, new in England, to which the Bill applies, and, consequently, would not have very great effect for the time being until deer farming began to spread to some extent in England. I would suggest that there are very great drawbacks to the noble Viscount's Amendment in the precise effect it would have in unscrupulous hands. He could reach his objective by a different route at Report stage, or indeed in another small Bill. For those reasons I hope the noble Viscount will not feel bound to press this Amendment.
Viscount THURSO: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, for his suggestions. In moving these Amendments, I had felt that, in the first instance, it might have been simplest to leave out all the provisions of the Bill relating to deer farms, but it is slightly difficult to disentangle them. For instance, the use of stupifying drugs, muscle relaxing agents and so forth, would be an everyday practice on a deer farm, in the sense that they would be necessary in order to carry out operations. I suggest that the idea of deer farming is catching on fairly strongly North of the Border, and one should be prepared this side of the Border to receive the idea. It would not be very safe to sit back and think that deer farming will not cross the Border if it proves to be economically successful in Scotland. There will be areas in England where deer farming is shown to be even more profitable than it is in Scotland. I take the noble Lord's suggestion that we might get together on this and look for a clause that would satisfy deer farming as such. If he would be agreeable to discuss with me the possibility of such a clause, then I would be happy to withdraw these Amendments which relate to deer farming. I would propose not to move Amendments Nos. 5 and 6, and to withdraw Amendment No. 4.
Lord BURTON: Before the noble Viscount withdraws the Amendment, I wonder whether he could tell me what he
284
has specifically in mind which would need to be done on a deer farm which is not done already in a deer park?
Viscount THURSO: Particularly the administration of stupifying drugs, the methods of killing and matters of that kind.
Lord BURTON: I think it would be most undesirable if you started using stupifying drugs on a deer farm. These drugs persist. I have heard of a case where an animal was given an overdose and when the vet came to kill it he got some of the blood on his fingers and he passed out. It would be most unsatisfactory if drugs were administered to animals which were for slaughter for human consumption.
Viscount THURSO: I am not suggesting that one should drug animals which are to be slaughtered for human consumption. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Burton, also farms as well as shoots deer, and he must be well aware of the number of times his vet has dealt with his animals with muscle relaxing drugs for various purposes. Therefore, it has to be legal, and not merely in the narrow sense of medicine; it may well be necessary in relation to the actual operations that take place on a farm.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITEES: There is a mistake on the Marshalled List; Amendment No. 7 refers to Clause 4. So the Question now is that Clause 3 stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 [Prohibition of poaching, etc.]:
Viscount THURSO Viscount THURSO moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 3, line 15, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (1A) below").
The noble Viscount said: This is the question of the following of a wounded deer. It is perfectly true that in Scotland it is not necessarily legal to follow a wounded deer off your land on to somebody else's; nevertheless it is in fact the custom for obvious humanitarian reasons. It is something which it is perfectly possible to do in Scotland, as I know from personal experience, without anybody taking offence or taking legal action.
However, when we are examining legislation relating to deer I think we must examine the question of what happens if you have the misfortune to wound a deer, or to find an injured deer on your land; you set out in pursuit of it and it crosses on to your neighbour's land with you in hot pursuit. Clearly, to hold back and not pursue it would be to make certain that it continues to suffer. To pursue it is at least an attempt to put an end to its suffering. Therefore, what I have sought to do here, in conjunction with Amendment No. 8, is to make it possible to pursue a wounded deer across arbitrary territorial boundaries and dispatch it as quickly and as mercifully as possible. That is the reason for these Amendments. I notice that there are other Amendments by the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, which seek to do the same thing, and it may well be that your Lordships would like to discuss the whole question rather than just these two Amendments which I have put down at this stage.
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: I should also point out another mistake on the Marshalled List. Amendment No. 8 should have been listed after Amendment No. 11, and I will call it when we reach that point.
Lord NORTHFIELD: I wonder whether that provides us with an opportunity to deal with the matter in this way. I was going to suggest to the Committee that the Amendment which the noble Viscount has moved is dealt with by my Amendments Nos. 9, 10 and 11. If those Amendments were passed and the noble Viscount was dissatisfied, we could then come to Amendment No. 8, because it follows Amendment No. 11, as the Chairman of Committees has just said. If the noble Viscount would withdraw Amendment No. 7 for the moment, he could come back to No. 8 when we have dealt with Nos. 9, 10 and 11.
Viscount THURSO: Yes. I prefer to think of all these as being one and the same, in that Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 have to be taken together and Amendments Nos. 9, 10 and 11 have to be taken together—really they all have to be taken together. We are both after the principle of constant pursuit of an injured animal
286
in the interests of mercy. I am quite happy to accept the Amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, if noble Lords agree. At this stage I think that we should ask whether anyone else wishes to speak on any of these Amendments. If I have understood the consensus of the Committee, I shall be happy to withdraw my Amendments in favour of those of the noble Lord, Lord Northfield.
Viscount MOUNTGARRET: If it is to come to a decision on which type of Amendment we prefer, I am bound to say that I rather prefer the phraseology of the Amendment tabled by the noble Viscount. I do not like the words "without reasonable excuse"; they open the door to some confusion later. Either something is lawful or it is unlawful; we do not want half measures. The object that the noble Viscount and the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, are trying to achieve is admirable and absolutely right. Of the two, I prefer the drafting of the noble Viscount.
Lord DE CLIFFORD: I am absolutely confused. Which Amendment are we discussing?
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: Amendment No. 7 is the Amendment that has been moved, but the discussion is ranging over Amendments Nos. 7 to 11.
Viscount THURSO: Perhaps I could return to the discussion. Clause 4 of the Bill says:
"If any person unlawfully—

(a) takes or wilfully kills, injures or drives any deer on any land; or

(b) enters or is on any land in search or pursuit of deer with the intention of taking, killing, injuring or driving deer, he shall be guilty of an offence."

This is a prohibition of poaching, with which I am in hearty accord. It is one of the ways in which one regularises the culling of deer. However, there is the case where a deer is standing, for instance, on one side of a boundary fence and as one squeezes the trigger the deer moves and the bullet does not lodge in a lethal place; the deer jumps the fence and is then on someone else's land. In order to follow that deer quickly to despatch it one has to cross the fence. No one is on the other side with a gun waiting to despatch the deer. Therefore, we must have some sort

287
of provision for crossing over and killing the deer, otherwise the deer will be left to die or to suffer.
Both the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, and I recognise that that is the case. I suggest that we should specify the case, and that we should say:
"Subject to subsection (1A) below "—
which is my Amendment No. 7. Therefore, Amendment No. 7 is a paving Amendment for Amendment No. 8. Amendment No. 8 says:
"… It shall not be an offence under subsection (1) above if any person is in constant pursuit of an injured or wounded deer and such injury or wound was accidentally inflicted on land where the pursuer was lawfully entitled to take deer."
I am being specific about this and saying that if a deer has been wounded upon one's land one can follow it on to one's neighbour's land in order to despatch it. In that case one should not he committing an armed trespass upon one's neighbour's land; one would be in constant pursuit. That has a naval analogy where, for instance, a fisheries protection vessel is following a poacher and can remain in constant pursuit. I prefer my wording, but if noble Lords prefer the wording of the Amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, I am prepared to accept that because I think that his Amendment means the same, although his does not say so as definitely and clearly as mine.
4.5 p.m.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: Perhaps I could intercede. It seems that the Committee's deliberations are becoming a little confused, although that is in no small measure due to the unfortunate failure to marshal) the various Amendments properly. It may be my stupidity but I have failed to realise that Amendments Nos. 8 and 11 are trying to say the same thing. Indeed, I do not believe that they do. If they are trying to say the same thing, their individual effect will be very different. Indeed, I expected the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, to rise to move Amendment No. 11 with Amendments Nos. 9 and 10, and to justify it on a rather different basis than the justification of Amendment No. 8. I see him nodding, and I believe that I am right about that. As I have a number of semi-legal questions to put to the noble Lord, Lord
288
Wells-Pestell, on Amendment No. 11, I should very much prefer it to be considered separately. I intend to do just that. Therefore, the noble Viscount's Amendment is a hot pursuit Amendment. Speaking in a private capacity, I should have thought that it was an entirely merit-worthy Amendment, or at any rate an Amendment which deserves serious consideration. If the noble Viscount is minded to withdraw it on the basis that Amendment No. 11 is acceptable to the Committee, he would not necessarily achieve the effect that he seeks.
Lord NORTHFIELD: Perhaps I can help on this matter. I should like to consider Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 between now and the Report stage. I give the noble Viscount the assurance that if there are no intrinsic disadvantages in the wording of Amendments Nos. 7 and 8, I shall ensure that they are tabled on Report. In other words, I will examine them on their own merits, and if the noble Viscount is willing to withdraw them now I shall table them on Report. Then perhaps we can proceed to consider Amendments Nos. 9, 10 and 11.
Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH: When one has followed a deer in hot pursuit from one's own land on to the land of someone else and has duly despatched it, to whom does the deer then belong?
Lord NORTHFIELD: That is one of the matters which I should like to consider.
Viscount THURSO: The situation in Scotland is very different from that in England. Usually one does this late at night, when it is exceedingly dark and wet and one is far from home. Therefore, the only person really prepared to go that distance and drag the carcase hack to where it can be dealt with is usually the person who has fired the first shot. So nine times out of 10 if the deer is only slightly over the march it is claimed by the person who has fired the first shot. He then telephones his neighbour and says, "Look, Charlie, a deer has strayed over on to your land and I have claimed it", and usually nothing much happens. On the other hand, if the deer finally falls on his neighbour's front lawn, he would feel very hard put to it to come round in his Land Rover, pick it up and

289
drive away. It is a very difficult matter to decide. The law states that if the deer falls on the neighbour's land it belongs to the neighbour and by rights the neighbour can claim it. That being accepted, nevertheless the person who fires the first shot should be indemnified against committing an offence in despatching the deer mercifully.
My Amendment says nothing about ownership, it only says, "The right to kill". I feel that this is important and necessary because deer will be wounded standing beside fences; they will cross fences on to other people's land; and it may be necessary, if the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, accepts these Amendments at Report stage, to add some further words in order to clarify the point. I do not think it invalidates the point that the man ought to be legally allowed to cross the barrier.
The Earl of BALFOUR: May I add one more remark. I know of a case where a deer must have struck a stone when jumping a fence, or perhaps caught his foot in a fence and had broken the fore wrist. I am not an expert on this. The keeper and I followed that animal for over four miles before we could get close enough to it to put it out of its misery. That was partly on our land, but it did eventually die on my own property. However, deer can go an incredible distance with a broken leg, and that is where I feel that this "constant pursuit", and the words used here, are important.
Lord DULVERTON: I have been trying to follow the arguments on the noble Viscount's general Amendment, and I fail to see much difference in what he has set down and what is already stated under the existing Clause 17(2) which comes at the bottom of page 7. It says:
"A person shall not be guilty of an offence of taking, killing … by reason only of the taking or killing, or attempted taking or killing, of any deer which appeared to be so seriously injured …"
It seems to me that that virtually achieves what the noble Viscount's Amendment is setting out to achieve in slightly different words.
Lord SWANSEA: The difference is that Clause 4, which is what we are discussing, is not covered by Clause 17(2).
290
If Clause 4 was included in Clause 17(2) then he would be right.
Viscount THURSO: I set a great deal of store by the principle of hot pursuit, because otherwise it is difficult to say, if you are not in hot pursuit of the animal, that it is your business to despatch this particular wounded animal. It might be for you to tell your neighbour that he has on his land an animal which appears to be wounded, which again is something I have done often, seeing it through a telescope. If you see an animal on somebody else's land you let him know, but I do not gratuitously try to do his job for him. However, if I am the responsible party, I feel that I should be left with the responsibility of despatching the animal, and this is the principle of this Amendment. I should be quite happy to leave it to the good offices of the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, and withdraw Amendment No. 7 at this stage until we can see what we can do at Report.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.14 p.m.
Lord NORTHFIELD Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 3, line 15, leave out ("unlawfully") and insert ("without reasonable excuse").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 9, and I hope that it will be for the convenience of the Committee if we discuss with it Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 at the same time. Clause 4 is an important clause in the Bill. May I begin by dealing with the point raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, in his last Amendment. Possibly what my Amendment would do to meet his case—I should like to hear what the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, says on this point—is this. My Amendment would say that instead of it being unlawful to enter land in the way set out in the clause, it would be an offence to enter land "without reasonable excuse". That is the first point to register with the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso. There would be a clause here that would allow a person with reasonable excuse to enter land and to take, kill, injure, and drive any deer on that land and enter in pursuit of deer on to that land. Secondly, if he looks at Amendment No. 11, he will see that he would have a double-banked help in reaching his objective. That Amendment goes so far

291
as to say that this would be particularly the case where a person could say that he had a reasonable excuse, in that he had every confidence that the people who owned the adjoining land would be willing for him so to enter and to continue the pursuit of the deer concerned.
The difficulty that I can foresee in the mind of the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield—I hesitate to anticipate what he might say in case I am wrong—is that he may say that this is a clause to deal with poaching and, therefore, how can it cover the kind of case raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, when poaching is not involved at all. I would remind him that it says, "Prohibition of poaching, etc." and I should have thought that this is probably the way in which we could see this clause being interpreted; namely, that it is a prohibition of illegal entry on to land in pursuit of deer. That is a slightly wider interpretation, which I hope is legitimate, based on the addition of the word "etc." in the rubric of the clause. However, that may or may not meet Lord Thurso's point, and I have already given an assurance that I should like to consider the two matters before Report and take advice. If he is dissatisfied, and the advice supports him, I shall gladly move Amendments to fulfil what he had in mind in Amendments Nos. 7 and 8.
I come now to the wider point about the redrafting of Clause 4. Why have these Amendments been put down to Clause 4? They have been put down because, as I said at Second Reading, I have made every possible attempt to meet the objections of the British Field Sports Society to Clause 4 as drafted. I am able to tell the Committee that the British Field Sports Society are satisfied with the effect on the clause of my Amendments Nos. 9, 10 and 11. The British Field Sports Society were concerned that, unintentionally on my part, stag hunting could have been made illegal by Clause 4 as originally drafted. That is why the clause has been redrafted in this way to say that people who enter land must have reasonable excuse and that they must be able to say, as a means of avoiding any penalty or conviction for it, that they, at the time of the alleged offence—this is Amendment No. 11—
"had reasonable cause to believe that the person or persons entitled to consent to the act or acts"
292
would have consented. I do not wish to justify that wording in any final sense. I can say simply that it has been done to meet the views of the British Field Sports Society, and I understand that they are now satisfied with this wording.
I come thirdly to the point raised by my noble friend on behalf of the Government on Second Reading. He was not anxious to have a clause in the Bill outlawing poaching because this is, he said, a departure in our law from the existing practice. I sense in this Committee that if my noble friend says that again he will be the only one to say it. I believe there is virtual unanimity of opinion in this Committee—if there is not unanimity, there is overwhelming support—for a clause to outlaw poaching. It is one of the central purposes of the Bill, and without Clause 4 the measure would become largely ineffective.
The reason is that the police find that the best way to catch poachers is not to be on the land seeing them doing illegal things, using the wrong weapons or whatever else it may be, but by being able to catch them coming off the land with the deer in their possession. They can then be asked, "Are you an authorised person? Where did you get the deer? Are you aware that you have committed an offence by illegally entering?" Without this clause, poachers may drive a coach and horses through the carefully balanced provisions of the Bill and get away with the continuation of poaching.
My noble friend may reply, "That may be so, but what about the view of the police?" True to my word on Second Reading, I have been testing the opinions of the police, and I hope that those opinions will weigh with the Home Office in this matter. I have asked the police bodies for their views about the Bill and I am able to read from two letters which I hope will go some way towards reassuring the Government, and any other doubting noble Lords on this matter, that there is no question but that the police support the Bill in all its detail. The first letter—I will read one of its two paragraphs—is from the Police Federation of England and Wales and is dated 21st March. It says:
"My Committee have now examined the Bill in detail and I am pleased to inform you that we support its proposals in all its aspects."

293
I emphasise, "in all its aspects", and that is the view of the Police Federation. The second letter, from which I will read a little more, is from the Police Superintendents' Association of England and Wales, a separate body whose views are of course very important. It says:
"On 7th March you wrote seeking the views of this Association on the problems being experienced throughout the country by the rapidly expanding problem of deer poaching."
There is no shirking the issue there, for the letter clearly refers to, "the rapidly expanding problem of deer poaching". It continues:
"The Executive Committee considered this question at a meeting held"—
appropriately, one might say—
"at Nottingham on 5th April 1977. While the proportions were not known to all members, it was apparent that the members from rural areas had been experiencing problems and would welcome an extension of the Deer Act 1963, in particular in respect of powers to stop, search and seize."
While that may not exactly cover Clause 4, it is as near as one is likely to get in a letter of that kind, which ends:
"I am therefore authorised to inform your Society"—
the letter was addressed to the Deer Society rather than to me—
"that this Association supports the Deer Bill which is presently being discussed."
I have gone into this matter at reasonable length because of the three attacks on the clause, attacks which I hope I have gone at least some way to answer. I hope I have dealt with the points raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, although I do not claim to have done so exhaustively, which is why I should like to consider his Amendments before Report. I have dealt with the question of the British Field Sports Society and I have made at least the beginning of an attack on my noble friend, if I may say so, for what I consider was the reactionary view of the Government on this matter on Second Reading by quoting to him the full support of the police bodies for the amended clause. Even if my noble friend has more words to say about the matter, I hope that in these circumstances he will temper them in the knowledge that many people are against him on this issue.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: Has the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, sought the advice of the Forestry Commission in regard to the clause? My experience of the management of deer arises largely as a spectator in the Lake District, where there is an abundance of deer in the forests and plantations. As he has obtained the advice of the British Field Sports Society and the Police Federation, may I ask him whether he has done the same with regard to the Forestry Commission?
Lord NORTHFIELD: I cannot answer that question directly, but I can say that one of the main advisers helping me with the drafting of the Bill and looking at Amendments to it has been an official of the Forestry Commission, and he has not at any time told me that the Forestry Commission has any doubts about Clause 4.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: I am much obliged to the noble Lord for that information.
4.26 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: It might be convenient if I were to intervene at this point because the Government have certain views on the matter and I feel that I should give my noble friend Lord Northfield an opportunity of continuing, through me, his onslaught on the Government in respect of this issue. I thought it might be helpful to intervene now so that, in any discussion which undoubtedly will follow, noble Lords will have some idea of the Government's thinking on Clause 4, and, to some extent, what I say will be a repetition of what I said on Second Reading. However, having said that, I can give the Committee an undertaking that we will read very carefully not only what my noble friend has said but what other noble Lords will say when I have sat down.
This series of Amendments goes to what is probably the central issue in the Bill. Indeed, they raise the question of what is really the Bill's primary purpose. The Long Title of the Bill recites that its purposes are to:
"… re-enact with amendments the Deer Act 1963; to provide for the better management of deer … to prevent the poaching and the illegal taking, killing and injuring of deer …"

295
I think it is agreed that the Bill is not about conservation; nobody has suggested that deer are an endangered species. Indeed, as noble Lords know, they are on the increase. The provisions in Clauses 1 to 3, or at least the majority of them, suggest that the primary purpose of the Bill is to prevent cruelty to deer, although that is not specifically stated in the Long Title. Nevertheless, I think the whole tenor of my noble friend's presentation of his Bill —and, if your Lordships' debates on Second Reading are anything to go by—makes the purpose clear.
I can assure the Committee that the Government's general position is to give unqualified support to the principle of outlawing any cruelty or unnecessary suffering to animals, whether they be wild or in captivity. Despite the importance attached to the clause which these Amendments seek to improve, I have to advise the Committee that the Government find the clause unacceptable in principle and that these Amendments do nothing, in the Government's view, to cure its defects.
It might be thought that a clause with the object, as the side note to Clause 4 states, of introducing a prohibition on poaching, represents little more than what I think one could call—I am not trying to be offensive—a statement of the obvious. In the Government's view, however, that is very far from being the case. Where deer have been reduced to captivity—for example, in a deer park—we can probably recognise a property in them and protect that, but, this clause refers in the widest terms to "any land" and that, as the Government understand it, includes public highways and common land as well as private property. I believe that a provision drafted in such wide terms is bound to give us pause for thought and to make us ask what offence we are seeking to create and what policy we are seeking to implement.
Before coming to the Amendments, I think it important to consider the clause in the form in which it was introduced and the offences which it seeks to create. The key word is "unlawfully". Under the clause, if any person takes or wilfully kills or injures a deer unlawfully, wherever the action may take place, he commits an offence. If he drives deer unlawfully, he commits an offence. If he enters
296
land unlawfully for any of these purposes, he commits an offence, as he does if he is on land unlawfully for those purposes.
In other words, if a person contravenes any of the provisions of the first three clauses in this Bill, he will also automatically commit an offence against Clause 4 by virtue of that illegality. To that extent, the provision makes it an additional crime to commit one of the other crimes under the Bill and exposes the offender to a further charge and a further penalty. If he trespasses in pursuit of a deer, he also commits an offence. If he infringes some other person's shooting rights, he commits an offence. Before we contemplate putting persons in a position of double jeopardy or convert civil wrongs into criminal offences, I believe that we need to be satisfied beyond all doubt that the case for doing so is really strong and that there is no other more satisfactory way of achieving the desired object.
There is no disagreement about the real mischief which the clause is intended to deal with. It is the activities of organised, commercial poachers who are entirely ruthless in their methods. However, other provisions in the Bill already go a long way towards strengthening more substantially the legal armoury against these malefactors. Clauses 1 and 2 protect deer when they are at their most vulnerable. Clause 3 prohibits many cruel methods of killing. Other provisions very substantially strengthen the powers of the police in respect of entry, arrest and seizure of weapons and other property, including vehicles, which may be used in the commission of these offences. The powers of the courts and the penalties that they may impose are also strengthened.
In the light of these provisions it is legitimate to ask what loophole remains which the sweeping provisions of Clause 4 are needed to fill. As the Government understand it, the real mischief is in the use of dogs. If this is so, the question inevitably arises, why does the Bill not include a straightforward provision making it unlawful to use dogs to take, kill or injure deer, instead of introducing the sweeping and circuitous approach adopted by Clause 4?
I shall now turn to the Amendments. The first Amendment of substance in

297
the name of my noble friend is intended to overcome the difficulty of the use of the word unlawfully", the objections to which I have already discussed. For that word, it would substitute the words "without reasonable excuse". In the Government's view, these words serve only to introduce a fresh range of difficulties. This is a penal provision and this House has emphasised on numerous occasions the importance of ensuring that criminal offences are defined in precise terms which the court will be able to interpret without difficulty.
Before considering the meaning of this phrase, however, I would draw to your Lordships' attention the fact that the Amendment has the effect of shifting the burden of proof. As introduced, the clause would at least require the prosecution to prove an illegality of some kind in connection with the activities complained of. Under this Amendment, however, proceedings might be instituted on the merest suspicion, leaving it to the defence to prove reasonable excuse. We then come to what we mean by, "reasonable excuse". Is it a reasonable excuse to shoot deer using the most suitable rifle on one's own land? I do not believe for one moment that my noble friend Lord Northfield intends to outlaw the properly regulated shooting of deer for sport. However, his Amendment gives the courts no guidance upon this point. It will presumably be reasonable to kill deer for the protection of person or property, or to put them out of their suffering, but what other reasonable excuses will the courts find to justify the killing of deer? The question will be even more difficult to determine in relation to the driving of deer or entering on or being present on land for those purposes.
Very similar objections apply to the second Amendment of substance in the name of my noble friend, which would remove the word "wilfully" from paragraph (a). This goes a long way towards creating an absolute offence—a category which Parliament is always most reluctant to sanction. Will it be a reasonable excuse to drive deer accidentally or to kill a deer accidentally when it runs into the road in front of one's car? The objections to the new subsection introduced by the third Amendment of substance are rather
298
different. It would seem that this provision is intended to safeguard the position of stag hunts. I do not propose to say anything about the Government's attitude to stag hunting. This is a matter on which we reserve our position. I think that, for the present purpose, it is sufficient to say that the Government's view is that a provision under which the determination as to whether or not an offence has been committed depends on the court's assessment of the state of mind of the defendant is wholly unworkable and is fundamentally objectionable.
I regret that my intervention on this issue has been lengthy, but I said at the beginning that rightly or wrongly—and I know how my noble friend feels about that and his view may be shared by other Members of your Lordships' House the Government have a responsibility in matters of this kind to tell your Lordships what are their feelings. Whether or not they are acceptable is another matter. It is the Government's view that the issues raised by this clause and by the Amendments to it are of considerable importance. We believe that the clause is misconceived, that it seeks to achieve what we believe to be its object—the elimination of cruelty—by circuitous and objectionable means and that the Amendments do nothing to improve the clause or to overcome the objections to it in any way.
I have to advise the Committee that in the Government's view it would be wrong for the Bill to reach the Statute Book with this clause in either its original form or as is proposed in the Amendment. I must advise your Lordships that the Government feel that the clause should not stand part of the Bill. If the Committee act contrary to my advice—or rather the advice of the Government—and the clause is retained, the Government may wish to consider what action they can take at a later stage. I think it right that your Lordships should be given the Government's view. I apologise for taking so much time. I fear that my noble friend will not find much comfort, if any, in what I have said. Of course, I concede that he has the right to deal with the Government as he may well feel he is justified in doing—
Lord DE CLIFFORD: I should like to raise a point with the noble Lord before he sits down. Earlier in his speech he asked, why should there not just be a clause which prohibits the use of dogs, but he has ended up by saying that the Government will not make any decisions on the subject of deer hunting. But he has done that. He has said, "Why don't you prohibit the use of dogs?". What are hounds if they are not dogs?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I think I said that we would make no comment on stag hunting—not deer hunting. The Government were throwing that out as a suggestion. If that is what is wanted, why not include a prohibition of dogs? I was making the point for no other purpose than to suggest that this course was open to the Committee if they so wished.
4.43 p.m.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: I must confess that I had intended to twit the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, gently but I find myself, in certain aspects of what he said, so much in agreement that I will not do that. I do not want to follow him particularly down the paths he went. At the Second Reading of the Bill I thought that from this Bench I had welcomed the Bill, but I had two major reservations and Clause 4 was one of them. That brought a certain amount of criticism from my noble friends who sit behind me because I think that they felt that I was against the spirit of the Bill, which was very far from being so.
Clause 4 has a perfectly proper and laudable motive; namely, to stop poaching. Here if I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, it is on that point. I regard it as extremely desirable to stop deer poaching. But there is a difficulty here. As it stands, the Bill puts those who pursue the perfectly legal activity of stag hunting in grave jeopardy. That was a matter on which the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, agreed with me wholeheartedly, and he went further to say that this was a matter which would have to receive the attention of your Lordships' House in Committee in order to remedy this obvious defect.
From that stage we go on to consider-whether the Amendments which the noble
300
Lord has tabled at this stage of the Bill first of all remedy the defect and, secondly, make legal sense. As I read the Amendments, I think that the answer to both those questions will have to be, "No". As it stands the clause is perfectly sensible, if one leaves out considerations of stag hunting. The clause states: "If any person unlawfully"—and "unlawfully" is a word which is well hallowed in the English law, and it means what it says" takes or wilfully kills "—and so on, as is stated in paragraph (a), while in paragraph (b) it states,
"enters or is on a land"—
and it goes on to refer to what they might do and to say that if they do it they will be guilty of an offence. All of that is perfectly comprehensible and is in perfectly good English.
But in Amendment No. 9 the noble Lord proposes to remove the perfectly satisfactory word, "unlawfully" and insert the phrase, "without reasonable excuse". In Amendment No. 10 he proposes to leave out the word "wilfully" in relation to killing, making it some kind of deer manslaughter instead of murder, but I do not really quarrel with that— and I must not be facetious. But in Amendment No. 11 the noble Lord gives a defence. I think that part of the difficulty is that if these Amendments were accepted, it would be perfectly proper to prosecute the owner of land under Clause 4 because Amendment No. 11, and so far as I know the Bill itself thereafter, does not go on to specify the person or persons entitled to consent to the act.
If I might go back for a moment to the Amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, I should point out that if, for instance, he were to depend on this Amendment to chase a wounded deer across somebody's marsh on to somebody else's land, I do not think that in law he could rely on Amendment No. 11 as a defence to a prosecution under Clause 4. But the matter does not end there—
Lord NORTHFIELD: Would the noble Earl explain why that is so? I did not quite understand why he thought that Amendment No. 11 did not give a person a reasonable excuse to chase a wounded deer on to other land.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: If the because he had wounded a deer and noble Lord will bear with me, I should prefer to get to the end of my objection to Amendment No. 11 and then come back to that point; I promise that I will do that. What Amendment No. 11 does—and this I find objectionable in the legal sense—is, in a penal provision, in what is to be a part of our criminal law, to throw the burden of proof on to the defence; the defendant would have to show that he had reasonable cause to believe certain things. At a time when increasingly in our criminal law we are placing the burden upon the prosecution, and not on defendants, this flies in the face of what might be called modern trends.
Secondly, in my submission to the Committee, instead of a subjective test, there is imposed upon the defendant an objective test. This is one of the matters about which I intended to ask the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell. He may have some ideas on this. For instance, over the squatting provisions of the Criminal Law Bill, which received its Third Reading earlier this week, the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for the Government, removed from a portion of that Bill these very words with which we are now concerned, because he said that he, and indeed the Government, accepted that in these circumstances it should be a subjective test.
Is it really the case that three days later to make the unfortunate defendant the subject of an objective test is a matter to which the Government would wish to lend their support? I do not think it is. If any of my noble friends behind me asks what is wrong with the phrase "reasonable cause", I would say that it is implicit in the defence—and we had plenty of instances of this in the various rape cases earlier this year—that the belief must be a reasonable one, and that is a matter of fact for the magistrates to take into account when they decide the issue. I do not think that there would be anything between us on that point. That is my second objection to Amendment No. 11, and indeed to Clause 4 as it would stand amended by these three Amendments.
Returning to a point raised by the noble Viscount, I should like to ask: how could somebody in hot pursuit of a deer prove to the satisfaction of a magistrates' court before which he appeared, that merely
302
because he had wounded a deer and pursued it over a boundary he had reasonable cause to believe that the person or persons entitled to consent to the act would have consented thereto? The noble Lord, Lord Northfield, shakes his head. He might say, " I thought my next-door neighbour was a reasonable bloke and would not object"; but I do not think that that is a proper test, and it certainly does not satisfy Amendment No. 11, however much the noble Lord would like to think that it does.
Finally, I would doubt whether in fact these Amendments, particularly Amendment No. 11, would give any proper protection to people who follow stag-hounds if they found themselves in the position in which, on Second Reading, I suggested they might—and it may be helpful if I recapitulate. In passing, may I say that whatever discussions the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, has had with various pressure groups or bodies, he has not had any with me. I do not blame him for that. I do not appear on behalf of any organisation. I do not represent either the British Field Sports Society or anybody else; I speak for myself. The example which I postulated was this, that if, in pursuit of the deer, stag-hounds found themselves on the edge of a small town, where they normally do not go, and a number of the hunt followers in fact strayed on to, let us suggest, a smallholding, what defence would they have to a prosecution which might well be privately brought under Clause 4? The answer, of course, was, "None". Do they get any defence under Amendment No. 11? I fear that, again, the answer must be, "No", because how could somebody who strayed on to a smallholding 30 miles from where he lives say, "I had reasonable cause to believe that the smallholder would not have objected"? He has no reasonable cause at all; he has not even an unreasonable cause.
In those circumstances, I should hate (because I believe in this Bill) to vote down Clause 4. I think that would be an unkind thing to do, and I say that in its widest sense. Is it possible, one asks the noble Lord, to withdraw these Amendments, to leave Clause 4 as it is for now and for us to have a little legal conversation on this before Report stage to see whether we cannot tidy it up?
4.53 p.m.
Viscount THURSO: I should like to support what the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, has said. I think that I should find these Amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, very difficult to accept as fulfilling the conditions that I was trying to cover in my Amendment. I should also like to suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, that he considers what is meant by the first sentence of the Explanatory Memorandum of the Bill; viz., that—
"The main purpose of the Bill is to improve the management of deer —"
The management of deer is carried out by the control of the deer herd, and the deer herd is controlled by appropriate culling. Appropriate culling can be done only by somebody who is concerning themselves with knowing the numbers and herd shape of the deer herd within an area. This is not ever the concern of the poacher; and I feel that, if you are going to maintain proper management, you have got to show that you are putting management clearly into somebody's hands—and the appropriate hands, I think we have all thought, are those of the owner of the land.
I think we have then to give the owner of the land, upon whom we are going to place the burden of responsibility for management, some protection against somebody coming upon his land indiscriminately and, by any legal method or not, affecting the process of management which he is trying to carry out upon that land. I think the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, is right when he says that he needs a Clause 4, and I think the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, is right when he says that we need a Clause 4. We do not necessarily need it as it is drafted in the Bill, and I certainly do not think that the Amendments improve it all that much.
I should like to say one thing relative to stag-hunting, for which I hold no greater brief than the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, and upon which I, too, reserve my judgment. Stag hunters can perfectly well obtain their clearance to enter upon land by arranging permission from owners of land wherever they go, and I do not see why this should not be done. It may well be impossible to do this; I do not know. But there is a problem here, and I think the problem should be solved, if possible,
304
by the withdrawal of these Amendments and by all those interested trying to get together in order, at the Report stage, to come up with something better than the present Clause 4, at this stage leaving Clause 4 to stand part of the Bill.
Lord DE CLIFFORD: Before the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, replies, may I join my noble friend Lord Mansfield. I, too, am not a follower of stag-hunting; I would not take part in it myself, but I should not like to see it prohibited. I think we do not want to interfere with people. But it has been brought to my attention that there are people poised with this clause in its present shape in their hands who would be well prepared to make a very good legal battle out of it. I think my noble friend Lord Mansfield is quite correct, and that one does not want to put oneself in the position of opening up to lawyers a field of approach in trying to stop something being carried out by a minority which the majority probably does not want to stop. I think it is quite wrong to put people at risk through a clause like this. I read the clause without having a legal mind, and I have come to exactly the same conclusion as my noble friend Lord Mansfield.
Baroness HYLTON-FOSTER: May I raise a slightly different point. I have a worry that it is not going to be possible to enforce the prohibition on poaching in places like the Home Counties and other parts of the country where there is (shall I put it this way?) an infestation of roe deer. I know we have been talking about the red deer, but the roe deer are a very real worry because they are enormously on the increase, and it is not always possible for those who can shoot them, such as the Deer Society, who are a very great help, to do so. That is because there are so many of the deer and they are so tame that they wander off into the villages and into the outskirts of towns, into the allotments, and they take their pick, not only of the roses, or whatever they like, but also of the choice vegetables. They really are an enormous worry to the ordinary householder, as well as to the farmer. I do not think that the licensing of shops for the sale of venison will make much difference, because it is quite easy to pop a deer in your deep-freeze; and, particularly in the South, the object of

305
killing them is not always for sale, but to prevent the vegetation from being eaten. I wonder whether we ought not to consider that there should be very much more attention paid to the culling of roe deer before we think we can enforce this new provision.
Lord BURTON: Not to accept the principle of this clause would mean that a coach and horses could be driven through the principles of the Bill. I think most of your Lordships who have spoken, if not all, have been in favour of some clause with this sort of principle in it. The possible exception is the Minister, and I noticed that when the Minister spoke he said that they were not necessarily his views, they were the views of the Government. So it is possible that it is the unanimous view of your Lordships that something of this nature should be in the Bill. The Minister also said that the Government could not accept a clause such as this unless the case for doing so was really strong. My understanding is that a very strong case has been made out, and that an enormous amount of evidence has been produced to the Government showing the need for this clause. Indeed, in moving his Amendment, the noble Lord said that it had the utmost support from the police. If they feel that it is necessary, how is it that the Government turn round and say that it is not necessary? It does not seem to make sense.
I should like briefly to mention another thing, the question of hounds. There are some dogs which can be termed hounds, such as beagles and dachshunds which are used legitimately to move deer, and particularly the females, in the dark winter months so that they can be properly shot with rifles when they go into the open. If you are going to ban dogs, then you are going to ban this sensible and reasonable method of culling deer. Apart from what my noble friend said about the question of deer hounds, there was the question also of animals crossing the estate boundary. I am not sure what the law is on this, but I know that it is a general principle in England, Wales and Scotland that if you wound a creature you can cross the boundary to collect it. A number of your Lordships will have put some game bird over the boundary and will have gone to collect it. I cannot
306
see that there is a great difference between going to collect a wounded pheasant or partridge and collecting a wounded deer.
I know that there was some objection to the clause as it stands in the Bill, but it seems to me that Lord Northfield's Amendments, even if they are not perfect, go, at least some way, to improve it. I think that my noble friend Lord Mansfield's point about "person or persons entitled to consent" in Amendment No. 11 may want further amendment; but I should have thought that the Amendments as drafted by the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, improve the clause and we ought to accept them and then go ahead at the Report stage to make amendments to anything else which is required to make it good law.
Lord NORTHFIELD: I am grateful for the temper of the debate. I should be hypocritical if I were to say that I was grateful to my noble friend for his remarks. I disapprove of them strongly and I believe that they are one more piece of evidence that on this matter of the reform of legislation dealing with animals, the Home Office, which mainly dictates these matters, is reactionary to a degree that I hesitate to put into the appropriate words. This has been proved so many times in the last 50 years that I am sorry that we must still go on saying it and finding the Home Office unmoved by our protests at the way it "lives in the last century" or whatever century it is that it lives in.
On this matter, let me deal first with the prime problem as I see it. It comes from my attempts to meet the British Field Sports Society's views. This is the great trouble. I tried to reach agreement in order that no one can complain that Clause 4 will harm stag hunting and I seem to have let myself into very hot water as a result of it. That is rather sad. It proves that one can be too amenable. I would say to the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, whose intervention I welcomed and found helpful, that if he feels that the Amendments as drafted mean that stag hunts must in future try to limit themselves to areas over which they have permission, he may well be right. But in accepting these Amendments as drafted, I suspect that the British Field Sports Society accepted that point: that there

307
was a limit to the extent to which they could get both things: a laudable objective and an absolutely free run for stag hunting. They realised, therefore, that this was worth while.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: Can the noble Lord accept that I have nothing to do with the British Field Sports Society? They have their own good reasons for agreeing or disagreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Northfield. All that I am saying is that if anybody, whether the British Field Sports Society or anybody else, thinks that stag hunting is going to be legally safe (if I may put it that way) as a result of Clause 4 or of the Amendments to it, they are in my opinion wrong. But I have nothing to do with the British Field Sports Society.
Lord NORTHFIELD: I was not saying that the noble Earl had anything to do with the Society. They must have taken into account the point that he is making in signifying their acceptance of this wording. I think that that is a matter for them. I do not think it is up to us to over-protect them if they are satisfied with the wording on the Marshalled List.
We now come to the main point raised by my noble friend. The difficulty I am in is this. If I withdraw these Amendments—and I think I have little alternative but to do so—and if I then, as I should be delighted to do, consult with the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, to get a more watertight Amendment that satisfies all the legal requirements or whatever other point he raised; and I accept the point about the onus of defence and so on, the net result will still be that my noble friend will get up at Report and move the deletion of the whole clause. He does not want a clause against poaching. His reactionary remarks were not directed to the drafting of this clause but to the principle of it. He does not want a new clause, breaking new ground, in our Statutes that goes so far as to outlaw poaching.
This is the burden of the complaint of the Home Office: that they do not want this new offence to be created. The difficulty is that at Report stage we shall have to face the fact (where I hope noble Lord will support me) that if we get to
308
what is a satisfactorily drafted clause—and I will do my best to reach that point with the generous offer of the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, to help me—I hope that, after that, we shall all unite and vote down the Government and show them on this matter that we will not have them dictate to us on a matter of cruelty to animals which is so clearly proved in the statistics and in the remarks of all noble Lords at Second Reading.
What my noble friend will not accept is that this business of poaching has reached such proportions (as was said in the police letter) that it is now becoming an abuse that must be remedied by straightforward powers of the police to intercept people illegally going on to and leaving land as the only strong way of achieving the prohibition of this abuse. And it is more than that; because, as I said on Second Reading, the abuse has got so far that there are threats to the police as a result of this undesirable activity. It has got to the point where, with a dead animal worth £150, gamekeepers are being threatened and beaten up; and if my noble friend asks: "What is the overwhelming case for a prohibition of poaching on these lines?", what more does he want? We have now got poaching to the degree of being a highly-organised business, of being immensely cruel, of being unable to be detected and satisfactorily controlled by the police because they say that they cannot intercept people and ask: "Where have you come from; where are you going to; what are you doing on that land?—and they have a power behind them in the Bill.
I cannot give him any more evidence than that, except to bring him, if he wishes, all the hundreds of cases that I refrained from reading out at Second Reading. If we come to it at Report stage, I will spend half the night reading them out to my noble friend to prove that there is an abuse, and to prove that it is so overwhelming that it is time to break new ground and to create an offence of poaching.
In response to the overtures from the other side of the Committee, and particularly in response to the very generous offer of the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, I will gladly withdraw my Amendment No. 9 and not move Amendments Nos. 10 and 11. But I hope that noble Lords will

309
support me at the Report stage in closing down the reactionary views of the Government on this matter.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I was going to say, "Before my noble friend sits down", but that is a meaningless phrase, as everyone knows. I will make this one point. It is the duty of a Government in a Private Member's Bill to be in a position to advise and to guide your Lordships. That does not mean that you have got to accept the advice and the guidance which is given. There is a duty—let us be fair about this—on the Government to be in a position to give what help and advice your Lordships may need. This has been going on for a good many years. Having given that help, it is for your Lordships to make up your minds—and your Lordships frequently fail to take the advice of the Government.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn,

PUBLIC RECORDS DEBATE: PROFUMO DOCUMENTS
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: With the leave of the Committee, at a convenient moment after 5.30 p.m., I propose to move that the House do resume, when my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will make a Statement about yesterday's debate on the Public Records.

DEER BILL [H.L.]
5.11 p.m.
Committee stage resumed.
On Question, Whether Clause 4 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord BURTON: May I ask whether the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, will ask his friends in the Government why it should be illegal to take a sheep and yet not illegal to take a deer? This is what he is saying: that it cannot be a criminal offence to take a deer.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I have already come to the conclusion, having listened to Lord Mansfield's comments and the observations of others, that I would want to read very carefully what has been said
310
in the debate regarding Clause 4. If there is any information that I can give the noble Lord, I will certainly do so.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Lord NORTHFIELD Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 12:
After Clause 4 insert the following new clause:
Attempts to commit offences, etc.
.—(1) Any person who attempts to commit an offence under the preceding provisions of this Act shall be guilty of an offence.
(2) Any person who, for the purpose of committing an offence under the preceding provisions of this Act, has in his possession any firearm, ammunition or prohibited article shall be guilty of an offence.
The noble Lord said: May I explain briefly that this is a transposition of Clause 13 to this point in the Bill, as advised by the Home Office who have on occasion—I readily acknowledge—been very helpful in small drafting Amendments. They advise that Clause 13 fits more appropriately at this point; and there are also small amendments to the wording, which do not alter the sense of Clause 13. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Lord NORTHFIELD Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 13:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause:
Penalties under Part I
. A person guilty of an offence under this Part of this Act shall be liable on summary conviction—

(a) to a fine not exceeding £500 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to both, and

(b) in the case of an offence which involves the taking, killing or injuring of two or more deer, to a further fine not exceeding £200 for each deer, excluding the first, taken, killed or injured.

The noble Lord said: May I now explain, to follow up what I said at an early stage of our proceedings, that it was found suitable, on advice from the Home Office, to split the clause creating offences, and provide the appropriate penalties to go with each Part of the Bill rather than to have them all in one omnibus clause which might have been wrong and, indeed, misleading. This is the first of a series of Amendments, therefore, effectively to split the penalties as suitable to the various

311
parts of the Bill. If Amendments Nos. 13, 21, 24 and 32 are approved, then I will move the deletion of Clause 16, which was the original omnibus clause creating offences and providing for fines.
I may be asked why the figures of £500 and £200 are in the new clause. May I explain—and I am no expert in this matter —that I understand that Governments now prefer that in our legislation generally penalties shall be of fairly standard figures: £50, £200, £500 or £1,000. There is a general attempt, I understand, to keep penalties to one or other of those four alternatives. The first one is a figure chosen for the penalties of cruelty. Cruelty might he on a vast scale and it might be repeated on several occasions. Therefore, it may well be that a fine of some considerable size is appropriate; in any case, it is an upper level.
As to the second one, it may be said: "Why is not the figure, say, £50 for each deer?" The answer is of course that a deer is now often worth £100 and more, and it would be good business for a poacher, whoever he was, to do his poaching, be fined £50, and still be in pocket at the end of the day because of the value of the carcase. So the figure of £200 is put in as the figure for each deer as something more appropriate, given the level of inflation, than £50 covering the value of each deer which might be taken in the course of poaching. With that explanation, first, that there is not any great alteration in principle because it is a splitting of Clause 16, and, secondly, regarding the figures, I hope that the Amendment will be acceptable. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.17 p.m.
Viscount THURSO Viscount THURSO moved Amendment No. 14:
Before Clause 6, insert the following new clause:
Registration of venison dealers etc.
.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act,

(a) every local authority shall maintain a register of persons carrying on business in their area as dealers in venison; and

(b) after the expiry of twelve months from the passing of this Act no person shall sell (whether by wholesale or retail) or offer or expose for sale or have in his possession for sale at any premises in the area of a
312
local authority any venison unless he is entered for the time being in accordance with the provisions of this Act in the register maintained by the authority under this section:

Provided that this subsection shall not apply to the sale, offer or exposure for sale by any person to a registered venison dealer of the carcase or part of the carcase of a deer lawfully killed or taken.
(2) Every local authority may, on application being made to them for that purpose by any person carrying on or proposing to carry on business in their area as a dealer in venison and on payment of a fee of fifty pence or such other fee as may be prescribed, register that person as a dealer in venison and issue to him a certificate of registration which shall be valid for a priod of three years.
(3) Every local authority by whom certificates of registration are issued under this section shall, as soon as may be after the first day of January in each year, make a return to the Red Deer Commission in the prescribed form showing the names and addresses of the persons who on that day were entered in the register maintained by them under this section as dealers in venison.
(4) Any person who contravenes any of the provisions of subsection (1)(b) of this section shall be guilty of an offence against this Act and shall be liable

(a) on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £20; and

(b) to the forfeiture of his certificate of registration, issued under the provisions of subsection (2) above.

The noble Viscount said: The Committee will have noticed that I have taken exception to the whole of Part III of the Bill as drafted and have attempted to offer an alternative. The principle which I think is mistaken is that of trying to use venison dealers as a means of catching poachers. I consider that it would be of far greater value in pursuit of the ideals of the Bill, particularly in the management of deer, to obtain accurate information. I sincerely believe that if game dealers are made to be sources of information upon which cases for prosecution—
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I wonder if the noble Viscount will allow me to intervene. It may be helpful—I may be wrong and, if so, he will put me right—to speak to Amendments Nos. 14, 15, 16 and 30. With great respect, I think they can be taken together, unless the noble Viscount thinks otherwise.
Viscount THURSO: Yes, I was going to come to that. The explanation of Amendment No. 14 will cover the following

313
Amendments, as the noble Lord has pointed out. In other words, it is a substitution of a whole new section for Part III of the Bill as drafted. Rather than alter the Bill as drafted, I have taken the similar Act which operates at the moment in Scotland and adjusted it for the purposes of becoming Part III of this Bill.
As I was saying, I feel the danger here is in using game dealers as a principal means of identifying and attempting to convict people for unlawful acts in relation to the poaching of deer. I think that is a mistake, because it will drive from the ranks of venison dealers the more respectable people and will encourage the less respectable people to sail near the wind and perhaps even to falsify records. The way in which it has been done in Scotland has been to treat the records of venison dealers as confidential and as records upon which prosecution cases cannot be founded. They are confidential and provided merely for the sake of recording the quantities of deer taken, the dates on which they were sold, the areas from which they have come and those to which they have gone; in other words, providing thereby a useful picture of the venison trade. Because those records have been so treated, and treated confidentially, it has been found that the venison figures are pretty accurate. We know that because, in fact, they reveal an element of poaching. Reading the figures one can discover that element of poaching, which is being confessed to in the total records. I think that poaching is a bad thing, but it is not at all a bad thing to be able to discover it in confidence from dealers, so that you know the problem you are up against and are made fully aware of the factors affecting the management of deer within an area.
All that these Amendments seek to do is to substitute provisions of an Act which is working admirably in Scotland for this particular clause in the Bill as drafted. What I am particularly concerned about is that venison dealers' records might be used to found prosecutions. I am also very concerned that the records we have should be accurate and well kept, and that there should be no pressure on venison dealers in any way or for any reason which might cause them to falsify their records, because I take it that one of the main objects of this Bill is to improve the
314
management of deer. It is for that reason that I beg to move these Amendments.
Viscount MOUNTGARRET: I am probably very dim, but I really do not see that what the noble Viscount is trying to do is substantially different from what is provided in the Bill. I do not think that his Amendments should go very much further. I should like to refer to subsection (3) (on page 3 of the Marshalled List) which says that local authorities should make a return to the Red Deer Commission. The Red Deer Commission operates in Scotland, whereas this is a Bill for England and it is not relating to red deer but just to "deer". So the Amendment is not correctly drafted in the first instance. That brings us back to a point made by the noble Viscount earlier today. It seems that if such a system is to be instituted we might find ourselves in the position of needing to have an overall Deer Commission. That is a very wide subject, and I should be interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, feels about it.
Lord BURTON: Just briefly, I should like to say that this works in Scotland only so far as red deer are concerned. It does not really work as regards the other deer. As has been said, there is a Red Deer Commission, but there is no one to look at the records for other species. Furthermore, mention has been made of falsifying records; but all salmon has to be recorded and I think I am right in saying that all small game has to be recorded. Therefore, there would appear to be no great difficulty in including deer along with these other species.
Lord NORTHFIELD: I think there is a basic difference here between the noble Viscount and myself. He believes, as he is perfectly entitled to do, that the use of any control system of venison should not be used in order to prevent poaching. He prefers that control over sales of venison in the Bill, as altered by his Amendment, should be for the quite dissimilar purposes of the Red Deer Commission. That is a straight difference of opinion and I do not wish to disguise the fact.
I must tell him why I differ—and I think many noble Lords would agree with

315
me in this. I differ because I believe that the traffic in poached deer in England, at any rate, has reached such proportions that the recording of the sale of deer through licensed dealers is an important way by which the police will be able to check on whether poaching has occurred. It will thus help to stamp it out. This is an important and, indeed, a central weapon in the Bill against poaching. It is purely a difference between the noble Viscount and myself, and I think also many other Members here, as to whether that should be the central purpose of the Bill. But, even were we to accept modification of that purpose in the way in which the noble Viscount has outlined in his Amendments, I wonder whether he realises that it would result in a most ridiculous situation. We shall have returns for English deer being made to the Red Deer Commission in Inverness. I do not know what they would do with those returns when they got them and—
Viscount THURSO: Perhaps I might prevent the noble Lord from wasting a lot of time on that point. This is a straight-up error in drafting on my part. The words "Red Deer Commission" should not have been left in. They should have been deleted and replaced by a phrase such as "the Secretary of State", or some similar words. I feel that the Government Department responsible requires to have details and if, as we have discussed already, there is the possibility of some sort of advisory body being set up to advise the Department concerned, it may very well be that such a body should be substituted for "the Red Deer Commission". The fact that those words were left in by mistake when the Amendment was drafted does not negate the rest of what is in this Amendment.
Lord NORTHFIELD: I am very much obliged to the noble Viscount for that explanation. May I go on and say that the next difficulty with his Amendment, as drafted, occurs if one looks at subsection (2) of Amendment No. 15. There he is bringing in the English local authorities to issue the certificates, and so on. I have no evidence to believe that this is a duty which ought to be pushed on to local authorities in this form or for this purpose. They do not particularly want
316
to be a vehicle for this kind of control, and I suggest that they would probably resent being bothered with the kind of control which the noble Viscount wants to institute, if it is for the purposes which he has set out. I would tell him also that a great deal of the drafting is defective, in that this matter has nothing to do with county councils, which he has mentioned, and I strongly suspect that the Secretary of State would not want to be bothered with these regulations about this kind of control system.
I could go on but will not do so, because I hope that I have persuaded the noble Viscount of two things: first, that his Amendments are in any event defective, and therefore could hardly be pressed at this stage; and, secondly, that there is a difference here which ought to be more fully explained if the Amendments are put down in a clear form at a later stage. The noble Viscount discussed these Amendments with me, and I suggested to him that I should be very willing to discuss my version of Part III with representatives of the Red Deer Commission, to see whether they could convince me that the control system in my Bill should be abandoned in favour of the version which he is trying—ineffectively, as I suggest—to put forward in his Amendments. I repeat that assurance.
I have looked at my diary, and how I am going to do it between now and Report stage is slightly problematical. But, in one way or another, especially if the Red Deer Commission have representatives occasionally visiting London, I should be delighted to talk with the Commission to see whether they have advice to offer on this Part of the Bill. I could not be bound in any way to accept the wholesale modification of objectives which the noble Viscount is setting out to do, but I should certainly like to learn from their experience about Part III, and come forward and say what I have learned at a later stage.
Viscount THURSO: I am grateful for that assurance confirming something which we spoke about. As I can accept that assurance, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 [Sale, etc., of venison]:
Lord NORTHFIELD Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 3, line 39, leave out from beginning to end of line 7 on page 4 and insert—

("(a) at any time during the prohibited period sells or offers or exposes for sale or has in his possession for sale any venison; or

(b) at any time sells or offers or exposes for sale any venison otherwise than to a licensed game dealer,

he shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £200.
(2) In this section "prohibited period", in relation to any venison which comes from a species and description of deer in relation to which a close season is prescribed by Schedule 1 to this Act, means the period beginning with the expiration of the tenth day, and ending with the expiration of the last day, of that season,")
The noble Lord said: This is a redrafting of the clause. It does not alter its sense, but it also specifies the appropriate penalty at the right point in the Bill. I do not think I need say any more. I beg to move.
Lord MARGADALE: I wonder whether I may ask the noble Lord the position of venison in deep freezes. Is that covered by this Amendment, because a lot is exported and it has to be frozen first.
Lord NORTHFIELD: I must confess that I cannot answer that question, but I should like to do so after this debate by writing to the noble Lord and perhaps, if I cannot find him the answer, returning to the point at Report stage. I apologise for the fact that this point has caught me unprepared.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7 [Licensed game dealers to keep records]:
Lord NORTHFIELD Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 4, line 18, leave out from ("dealer") to end of line 22 and insert ("or from a venison dealer registered under the Sale of Venison (Scotland) Act 1968, he shall be deemed to have complied with the requirements of this section if he has recorded in the book—

(a) that the venison was purchased or received from another licensed game dealer, or from a venison dealer registered as aforesaid;

318

(b) the name and address of that other licensed game dealer or of that venison dealer so registered;

(c) the date when the venison was so purchased or received; and

(d) the total weight of the venison so purchased or received.")

The noble Lord said: This is very largely redrafting, but it also covers the case of the sale in England of deer imported from Scotland, which I believe was raised on Second Reading, making clear the details that will need to be kept by such a game dealer in England, dealing in venison that has come from Scotland. I can only suggest that these words involve no great departure. They cover a point which was legitimately raised on Second Reading. I beg to move.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

PUBLIC RECORDS DEBATE: PROFUMO DOCUMENTS
5.35 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to make a Statement relating to a matter which arose in the House last night during the course of the debate on Public Records and about which the Prime Minister has been questioned this afternoon in another place.
During the debate, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, stated that he had been asked whether the surviving evidential material submitted during the inquiry he conducted into the Profumo affair could be destroyed. He told the House that he agreed in the circumstances to this being done. I have discussed this matter with the noble and learned Lord this afternoon and he has authorised me to inform the House that, when he added last night that the evidence had been destroyed, he assumed and inferred from the circumstances I have mentioned that this had been done. In fact it was not done, and as the Prime Minister said in another place this afternoon the documents in question are in the Cabinet Office. Lord

319
Denning has asked me to say how sorry he is that he drew the wrong inference and that he is glad to know that the documents have not been destroyed.
Earl ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, on behalf of noble Lords on this side of the House, may I say that we are very grateful to the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack for putting the record right. It is important in a matter of this kind that the record should be absolutely correct.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, I also should like to say that it is a very good thing that the record should have been put straight. But I should like just to put the question—and it is only a question—whether there is any point, in the circumstances, in hanging on to this record any more. Could it not be destroyed now? After all, Mr. Profumo has now been, so to speak, rehabilitated. The evidence was, I think, given on the understanding that it would never be quoted as coming from the man who gave it. I suppose that there is always a conceivable possibility of leaks, which might be distressing to some people. Is there any point in hanging on to the document, and why should it not be destroyed? I only put the question.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, there is no doubt that the documents in question were, and are, public documents and the question as to their disposal does not, of course, arise at this stage. It will not arise until 30 years have elapsed, under the provisions of the 1958 Act. So in the circumstances the question is wholly hypothetical and it will be for the Government of the day, and, indeed, the Lord Chancellor of the day when the matter comes to be determined, to answer the question posed by the noble Lord.

DEER BILL [H.L.]
5.39 p.m.
House again in Committee on Amendment No. 18.
Lord NORTHFIELD: I had just completed explaining Amendment No. 18 and making clear its purpose.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8 [Inspection of records, etc.]:
Lord NORTHFIELD Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 4, line 29, leave out ("his premises or in his vehicle") and insert ("any premises or in any vehicle under his control").
The noble Lord said: Again this is a slight redrafting and tightening of the words in the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Offences in respect of records]:
Lord NORTHFIELD Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 5, line 1, after first ("person") insert ("wilfully").
The noble Lord said: Again, this is a very small drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord NORTHFIELD Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 5, line 5, at end insert—
("(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £50.").
The noble Lord said: As I mentioned when moving an earlier Amendment, the intention here is to introduce a penalty appropriate to the offence at the appropriate point in the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11 [Venison from deer taken illegally]:
Lord NORTHFIELD Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 5, line 6, leave out ("purchases, receives or sells") and insert ("purchases or offers to purchase or receives or sells or offers or exposes for sale any").
The noble Lord said: Clearly, this is a drafting Amendment which has been suggested by expert advisers. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord NORTHFIELD Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 5, line 7, leave out ("illegally or").
The noble Lord said: Again, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord NORTHFIELD Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 5, line 10, at end insert ("and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £500 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to both.").
The noble Lord said: This is a point where again I beg to move the penalty appropriate to this part of the Bill.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 24A:
Page 5, line 10, at end insert—
("() For the purposes of the foregoing subsection a deer which has been taken by means of shooting with any smooth bore gun shall be deemed to have been taken in circumstances which constitute an offence under this Act.").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 24A is consequential upon my later Amendment No. 44 which permits, in certain circumstances, the use of the shotgun. With your Lordships' permission, I should prefer not to press this Amendment until after your Lordships have come to a decision on Amendment No. 44. Therefore I prefer not to move this Amendment until the Report stage, by which time your Lordships will have had the opportunity to consider my later Amendment.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12 [Interpretation of Part III]:
Lord NORTHFIELD Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 5, line 20, leave out from beginning to ("shall") in line 23 and insert (" "sale" includes barter and exchange and "sell" and "purchase" ").
The noble Lord said: This is a drafting Amendment to clear up a definition. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 13 [Attempts to commit offences, etc.]:
On Question, Whether Clause 13 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord NORTHFIELD: This clause has been slightly redrafted and in an earlier Amendment has been placed after Clause 4. Therefore I hope that at this point we may negative the clause.
Clause 13 disagreed to.
Clause 14 [Powers of search, arrest and seizure]:
Lord NORTHFIELD Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 6, line 19, leave out ("Subject to the next following subsection").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 26 perhaps I may deal also with Amendment No. 27. These words become unnecessary to the Bill, in view of various Amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord NORTHFIELD Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 6, line 22, leave out subsection (3).
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord NORTHFIELD Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 6, line 38, leave out ("section") and insert ("subsection").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 15 [Forfeitures and disqualifications]:
5.49 p.m.
Lord NORTHFIELD Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 7, line 3, leave out from ("the") to end of line 8 and insert ("taking, killing or injuring of deer and which is found in his possession, or of any dog used (by the person convicted or by anyone else) for the purpose of committing, or facilitating the commission of, the offence;").
The noble Lord said: Here I come to an Amendment which has two purposes. First, it slightly redrafts this part of the Bill. Secondly, it has a much more important purpose; namely, to meet a point which was raised, I think by the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, at Second Reading when I made a promise to him to consider the matter before the Committee stage. The noble Lord raised the point that it would be iniquitous, as the Bill is drafted, too easily to allow any dog to be destroyed if it had been used in the activities prohibited by the Bill. As the noble Lord will recall, I readily took his point. The effect of the Amendment would be to remove the order allowing for the possibility of destruction and to substitute that any such dog could be forfeited. This would mean that the court would have to be satisfied either that the dog was taken by somebody else or that it was not left in the hands of a person who might misuse it once again for one of the illegal purposes mentioned in the Bill. I hope that these words commend themselves to the noble Lord and meet the point he raised on Second Reading. I beg to move.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: Simply for my own curiosity does the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, think that an order for forfeiture by a court would be anything other than a sentence of death?
Lord NORTHFIELD: I think it might well be that the court could order it to be sent to a dogs' home. It would be up to the court to investigate whether the only possible thing to do would be to destroy it. I would not want to say to the court that it should necessarily do so if an alternative way of keeping it out of the hands of a miscreant could be found.
Lord DE CLIFFORD: I should like to thank the noble Lord for going this far towards meeting my suggestions. I can assure my noble friend Lord Mansfield that I have mentioned this matter to the Canine Defence League, who said that they would be only too pleased to take such a dog, rehabilitate it and find a home for it.
Lord SWANSEA: I am slightly puzzled, and perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, can enlighten me. If this
324
Amendment is agreed to, the word "dog" will still remain in line 2 on page 7, so that paragraph (b) will read,
"order the forfeiture of any firearm, ammunition, prohibited article, dog, vehicle or any other thing …"
and there is a further reference to "dog" later in the subsection. Is that really what the noble Lord intends?
Lord BURTON: I have one hesitation in regard to this Amendment. I am not quite clear about the position in England and Wales, but in Scotland when a court orders an article to be forfeited it can be bought back. Indeed, there was a most unfortunate case in Sutherland recently where the weapons belonging to people who had been shooting deer out of season were bought back at substantially less than their face value. Might it be in this case that the owner of a dog could just go round the corner and buy his dog back?
Lord GISBOROUGH: I should like to refer to one small point on which the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, may be able to enlighten me. There is no mention of horses. It may be a rather old-fashioned form of transport, but a horse could well be used. Would it be possible for somebody to be brought before the court for the use of a horse? Also, there is no mention of transport as a means of taking and killing: is that covered?
Lord NORTHFIELD: I should like to reflect on that point and consider it for a later stage in the Bill, although I would point out that the word "vehicle" is included. I am not sure about the horse, and I should like to think about it.
The answer to the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, is that if he will look at the way in which the subsections would be redrafted, he will see that they really fall into two categories: on the one hand the court could order the forfeiture of any firearm, dog, et cetera which is capable of being used for the taking or killing and is found in his possession. It would also be up to the court to order the forfeiture of any dog actually used. In the redraft it would refer to a dog used by the person convicted or by anyone else associated with the offence, not just for committing, but for the purpose of committing or

325
facilitating the commission of the offence. In other words, it is to broaden the whole way in which people misusing dogs can actually be caught. On reflection, I think he will see the sense of the total re-draft.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord NORTHFIELD Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 7, line 20, leave out ("it is an offence for the holder to fail") and insert ("if the holder fails").
The noble Lord said: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord NORTHFIELD Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 7, line 22, at end insert ("he shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £50 ").
The noble Lord said: This again is a case where the appropriate penalty is being fitted in to the appropriate point in the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 16 [Penalties]:
On Question, Whether Clause 16 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord NORTHFIELD: At last I come to the point where I can stop saying that we are inserting the appropriate penalty at the appropriate point. We have reached the end of that catalogue and we can now leave out the omnibus clause which those Amendments will replace. Therefore, I hope we may be able to negative Clause 16.
Clause 16 disagreed to.
Clause 17 [General Exceptions]:
Lord NORTHFIELD Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 7, line 37, after ("1") insert ("or 2").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment covers a point which has arisen since the Second Reading of the Bill; namely, that some of the mercy killings which it may be appropriate to authorise may be necessary at night as well as during the
326
day. Therefore, inserting the words "or 2" would authorise such mercy slaughtering at night. It is an appropriate Amendment which might meet some particular cases. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
6 p.m.
Lord DORMER Lord DORMER moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 7, line 37, after ("done") insert ("with reasonable excuse").
The noble Lord said: The clause as drafted gives the unscrupulous or ignorant person, or the person who is both, the excuse to take a deer calf away from its mother under the pretext of preventing suffering, whereas that may not be the case at all. As is well known to many of your Lordships, a red deer hind may leave its calf for many hours of the day while it goes in search of food or water and it will always return in the evening. A red deer hind may travel up to 20 miles a day for that purpose. The inclusion of the words "with reasonable excuse" may cause a person to think carefully before committing such an act in regard to a red deer calf which it may be thought is crying for its mother. I consider these words to be a safeguard to protect the calf. I beg to move.
Lord NORTHFIELD: Subject to the views of other members of the Committee, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dormer. This double-banks again; it helps to prevent the words "mercy killing", or whatever phrase we use to justify these matters, being misused, by forcing the person concerned to provide evidence that this was an appropriate label to put on his action. I am slightly afraid that the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, is going to say this is another case where we are putting in words of which he disapproves. Therefore I should like to defer any final comments until I have heard any legal advice he may feel free to offer.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: It should really be for the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, to be saying this, not me. All I would say to my noble friend is this. I am sure we all agree with what he is seeking to do to strengthen the clause. In fact, if somebody is summonsed and is before

327
the court and tries to pretend—tries, in other words, to justify his action—what the court will have to decide is whether the act was done for the purpose of preventing suffering or not. If the person is unscrupulous, it really would make very little difference, in my submission, whether the words suggested by my noble friend, "with reasonable excuse", were in the clause or not. Either he acted in good faith for the purpose of preventing suffering or he did not, and the court will have so to decide. The point of the matter is—I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, will agree with me—that it is undesirable to put surplusage into a clause unless there is a real point of doubt or something which needs reinforcement.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield. I did not get up because I had a feeling that your Lordships felt I had acted unreasonably earlier for quite a long period of time; I did not want to be unreasonable again. I think the noble Earl has put his finger on the point. Either you have authority to do something or you do not have authority. In this particular case it provides an exemption for a person who kills a deer in the close season "for the purpose of preventing suffering to any deer calf, fawn or kid deprived of its mother". It is quite clear. There is a danger, if I may say so with the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Dormer, in putting in any more words than are necessary because the additional words will often give rise to a lot of argument. We would think that either a person had the right to do it or did not. For that reason we would take the view the noble Earl has taken, that the Amendment is unnecessary because as the clause is worded it is quite clear.
Lord DORMER: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord NORTHFIELD Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 7, line 40, leave out from ("offence") to ("of") in line 41 and insert ("under section 1 or 2").
The noble Lord said: With the permission of the Committee, in moving Amendment No. 36, I should like to speak also
328
to Amendments Nos. 37 and 38. All three Amendments are entirely drafting Amendments and do not alter the sense of the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord NORTHFIELD Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 8, line 3, leave out ("by setting in position, or using, any trap or") and insert ("or of an offence under section 3(1) of this Act by reason of setting in position or using any trap or using any").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord NORTHFIELD Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 8, line 6, leave out ("it") and insert ("the deer").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Viscount THURSO Viscount THURSO had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 39:
Page 8, line 7, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
("(3) Nothing in section 1, 2 or 3 of this Act shall apply to anything done by the owner or persons employed by or authorised by the owner in relation to deer kept on enclosed land not in the wild state.")
The noble Viscount said: Here we come to an Amendment that has to do with a subject I raised earlier on in the Committee proceedings on the Bill, the question of deer farming. I think I can take it that the assurance which was given to me by the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, that he would discuss the whole question of deer farming, applies here. If that is so, then I am happy not to move this Amendment.
Lord NORTHFIELD Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 8, line 12, leave out ("apply to") and insert ("make unlawful").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 40. This is a purely drafting Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord NORTHFIELD Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 8, leave out line 14 and insert ("for the purposes of, or in the course of, the veterinary treatment of a deer.")
The noble Lord said: The point was raised at Second Reading, or at any rate it was raised with me privately, that the clause as drafted did not cover any preparatory work that might be done by a veterinary surgeon. The specific point of the Amendment is to introduce the words "for the purposes of", which will cover a veterinary surgeon in his preparatory work to anything that he is doing to a deer in the circumstances set out in the clause. In that sense the Amendment does not widen the Bill in any vital sense, and it does clear up a point raised earlier. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord NORTHFIELD Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 8, line 19, leave out from ("offence") to ("under") in line 20.
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 42. This is purely drafting.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
6.8 p.m.
Viscount THURSO Viscount THURSO moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 8, line 23, leave out from ("he") to end of line 30 and insert ("is the occupier of that cultivated land, pasture or enclosed woodland or a person authorised in writing by him.
( ) A person shall not be guilty of an offence under section 2 of this Act by reason only of taking or killing or attempted taking or killing by means of shooting any deer on any cultivated land, pasture or enclosed woodland if he is the occupier of that land.").
The noble Viscount said: Here we come to another of the important points on which I am at variance with the Bill. This Amendment is similar to another Amendment put down by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley. It is a matter very much in the minds of farmers, and it is one to which I should like your Lordships' Committee to turn its mind. If it is to be made an offence to use certain weapons for the taking or killing of deer, then it seems to me it must follow that a farmer may automatically arm himself with appropriate weapons if it is necessary for him to protect his crop.
Lord NORTHFIELD: If I may interrupt the noble Viscount—I apologise for doing so—I wonder whether I might suggest to the Committee that it would be
330
convenient, because of the big issue being raised by the noble Viscount, if we could discuss with his Amendment Amendments Nos. 44 to 55 inclusive. These Amendments all deal with the issue of the shotgun and the position of the owner-occupier in relation to use of weapons against deer. I would hope that we could have a general debate on this issue because there are several alternative possibilities of amending the clause. If one or two Amendments were moved and were agreed that would pre-empt discussion of some of the others; they would fall. If we could have a general debate on Amendments Nos. 43 to 55 inclusive, I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee.
Viscount THURSO: I should be happy to agree to that, but it is also for the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, to say whether he agrees.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY: I am perfectly happy to do that. I think it would make the proceedings much shorter and more convenient.
Viscount THURSO: If your Lordships' Committee wishes, let us discuss the whole matter. It is a matter of principle. It is the question of how a farmer or a forester is to protect his crop against depredation by deer which may wish to establish themselves on his land, or depredation by deer which cross on to his land from his neighbours land. If one is to take away from the farmer certain weapons which are readily available to him, it must follow, it seems to me, that one should automatically give him a right to weapons suitable for protecting his crop.
No one has suggested—the Government, the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, and none of the sponsors of the Bill have in any way suggested—that it is possible to set up a body, similar to the field officer and his control staff on the Red Deer Commission in Scotland, which would professionally be able to control deer for farmers if the farmers were under severe attack and being marauded by deer. Therefore, your Lordships must understand that this will open wide the right to apply for, demand and receive firearm certificates for high-powered rifles. That is a very serious matter of which we must be aware in dealing with this part of the

331
Bill. We cannot simply say that we shall take away the farmer's right to use his shotgun to protect his crops and that we shall not give him a right to obtain a weapon suitable to protect his crops. That would not be in the interests of farming; nor would it be in the interests of the country.
It is not essential to take away the shotgun. In many circumstances the shotgun is a preferable weapon to the rifle. At very close quarters—and this certainly applies to smaller forms of deer, such as Muntjac deer or Chinese Water deer—a high-powered rifle has too much power and would be liable to blow the animal to pieces. I know of an instance when someone shot at a fox with a high-powered rifle and all that was picked up was the brush, the mask and the pads; the rest of the fox disintegrated. Therefore, such a weapon would not be suitable or necessary for a deer that is not much larger than a hare, and would be dangerous.
There was a case in Caithness of a farmer protecting his crop by using a rifle. In fact he shot his neighbour's cooker—luckily, his neighbour was not at the cooker at the time. The rifle bullet entered a window, crossed the kitchen and drilled the cooker stone dead. Therefore, it would be very dangerous if many people who are not, perhaps, familiar with high-powered rifles and not using them in a controlled manner, went around the countryside desperately trying to protect their crops from attack and depredation by deer which possibly have not lived on the land in question but which have come from neighbouring land.
Until some sensible alternative can be found with which the farmer can protect his crop, and until a body of professional people can be found which can be relied upon to use rifles securely and accurately, like the field officer and stalkers of the Red Deer Commission in Scotland, it is only right and sensible that the farmer be left with a right to use the one weapon which he knows how to use, the one weapon which is commonly in his possession and the weapon which for his purpose at close quarters is in many ways preferable to some of the other weapons to be made legal under the Bill.
332
Therefore, I have tabled this Amendment which says that if a person:
"is the occupier of that cultivated land, pasture or enclosed woodland or a person authorised in writing by him.
() A person shall not be guilty of an offence under section 2 of this Act by reason only of taking or killing or attempted taking or killing by means of shooting any deer on any cultivated land, pasture or enclosed woodland if he is the occupier of that land."
As we are discussing all these Amendments together, I go on to add that he would not be guilty of an offence of shooting:
"deer, by means of shooting with any smooth bore gun of 12 bore gauge loaded with a cartridge purporting to contain shot each of which is 203 inches (5·2 millimetres) in diameter, on any cultivated land, pasture or enclosed woodland of which he is the occupier."
Noble Lords will also notice that I have extended the time over which the farmer can shoot. That is vital, because the best opportunity of taking deer which are damaging crops occurs at dawn. The reason for my first Amendment is to cover a farmer shooting at first light. The other Amendment is to cover a farmer shooting with the weapon which he at present probably possesses and which he can use more safely and accurately than any other. I wish to press these Amendments at this stage because they are very important and we must bear in mind the consequences of the Bill on agriculture and forestry as well as on other aspects of our life.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Maybray-King): I understand that your Lordships have agreed that we discuss with this Amendment Amendments Nos. 44 to 55 inclusive. I must point out that if Amendment No. 44 is agreed, I shall not be able to call Amendments Nos. 45 to 55.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY: Perhaps I should speak now as my Amendment is next on the Marshalled List. At present, I shall speak particularly to how it relates to the Amendment tabled by the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso. The Amendments are more or less identical, though naturally I believe that mine is better, mainly because it was drafted South of the Border.
The purpose of these Amendments, as the noble Viscount said, is to allow the farmer to protect his crops. I have no

333
intention of repeating my Second Reading speech, partly because it would annoy your Lordships and partly, and more importantly, because since the Second Reading debate I have learned quite a bit about the justifiable and worthy feelings of those who have promoted the Bill. Perhaps I was not too kind on Second Reading and, if so, I apologise unreservedly.
I am more than prepared to agree that, all things being equal, I would not insist on this Amendment which allows the farmer in certain circumstances to use a shotgun to protect his crops. Indeed, on my farm, where I have increasing and extensive deer damage, I found two policemen to cull deer using rifles. Unfortunately—as your Lordships know better than I—things in life are not always equal, and despite my sympathy with those who would like to forbid the farmer to use a shotgun to protect his crops, as is proposed in the Bill, I am more than ever convinced that in the best interests of the deer population—and more particularly farming and food production, on which I feel very strongly—I must insist on my Amendment. Should this Amendment not be acceptable to your Lordships, as I said when I moved Amendment No. 24A, I shall move it on Report. It would make it an offence to sell venison shot by means of shotgun pellets and thus stop those very few rogue farmers—and I believe that they are very few—from making money out of such carcasses.
To sum up, I believe that the Bill as it stands gives grave concern to those of us trying to produce food. It creates, first, a precedent of taking away from the farmer the right to protect his crops. Secondly, the compulsory use of the rifle by farmers is dangerous, particularly to those who have many footpaths, as I do, through their land. I have changed my mind over this question of access to the land as I believe that we are particularly fortunate in being able to farm and own land, or tenant land, and we should allow those less privileged to walk over our land. We should not be covetous.
I should like to say that I was particularly impressed earlier on in your Lordships' debate by Lady Hylton-Foster's remarks about roe deer in her
334
part of the country. I do not think that I should like to shoot her roe deer in her villages with rifles. Thirdly, the effectiveness of the deer control societies in certain areas is much in doubt, and the effectiveness of the average farmer with a rifle very much in doubt. Fourthly, the use of the shotgun as a threat—and I am sorry to use such a word—to make people use a rifle on deer is most effective. I am sorry to use a personal case but I have done it and, as a result, we are now using a rifle. Maybe it is not the best way but sometimes it works like that in the country.
Fifthly, I know no one who will forecast the size of the deer problem in the next two years, let alone in the next 10 years, as I know we are going to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Northfield. I do not think it is right to legislate 10 years in advance. Sixthly, with regard to the use of shotguns this Bill will in my opinion be unenforceable in the countryside. Do we really want to force farmers to break yet another law? Surely your Lordships will agree that we have enough of the wretched things already. Seventhly, and I am glad to say, lastly, many of your Lordships are fortunate in living in the country, and I suggest that this method of forbidding and saying "No" is not the way to achieve less cruelty and poaching by alienating the farmers—and you will alienate quite a lot of them. Of course you can take individual ones who will not mind. They probably have not got a deer problem.
I am sure your Lordships will agree that it is better in the country to persuade personally. I know that when I behave badly in the village—and of course I do—it is not the law that puts me right; it is my neighbour. In the country you have a lot of neighbours to tell you that you are a fool, or an ass, or whatever you are, and it is not very pleasant to be told so. I believe that that is the way to do it in the country, not to legislate the whole time. I therefore ask your Lordships, before you decide on this Amendment, which I believe to be very important, to consider the points I have raised carefully and, I hope, kindly. It is so easy to meddle in the countryside with disastrous effects, completely opposite to those you intend. I have done it. I believe there is not a noble Lord here who has not done it himself. I ask your Lordships to let

335
things stand as they are. Please do not legislate; let us try and educate. I do not think I can move my Amendment at the moment, because I think Lord Thurso's Amendment has been moved.
6.24 p.m.
Lord NORTHFIELD: May I intervene at this stage because I should like to suggest that this discussion ought to take into account the very broad range of alternatives that are set out in this dozen or so Amendments. I think that it would be a mistake to discuss them individually because in fact they boil down to four alternative ways of handling this shotgun issue. At this stage, even if it takes slightly longer than I would normally speak on Committee (and I shall try to be brief), I should like to set out the four alternative packages of shotgun provisions that the Amendments, taken together, offer as a choice.
The first package is the Bill as drafted. The Bill as drafted is that there should be a prohibition after five years on the use of a shotgun—this means moving over to the rifle—and that within those five years it shall in any case be illegal to use a shotgun on red deer. The first point is that the package proposed by the Bill has those first two features: a five-year switch to rifles, but with an immediate ban on using shotguns on red deer. Moreover, it goes one stage further at the top of page 9. The package under the Bill bans deer drives except in particular forms. I forgot to mention the fourth point in this first alternative. In our view it improves the kind of shot that can be permissible in the use of the shotgun compared with the existing situation under the 1963 Act. That is the first package: five years of use of the shotgun with different shot, with a switch at the end of five years to the rifle, and no use on red deer, and the beginning of banning of the less scrupulous forms of deer drives. That is the first package, and I have to speak deliberately about this to get the alternative packages set out.
The first alternative to that package is the one suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley. Before I come to it may I. say that, in looking at the package in the Bill, I have, as I undertook to do at Second Reading, had very wide-ranging consultations indeed. I do not
336
think that the National Farmers' Union can complain that I have been impossible to get at. They have seen me on two occasions, and kindly been up to London and brought people from other parts of the country, and we have met in a spirit of trying to reach agreement. I was slightly disappointed that at the end of those consultations the NFU did not come back to me with their final conclusions. They did not do me the courtesy of coming to me at the end of the day and after the second meeting and saying, "This is the position we now feel bound to take up". All we have is their final statement which, as a circular letter, appeared this morning. I do not think that that was as courteous as it should have been. Even so, I do not think that I can be faulted in my attempts to consult.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY: I am sorry if that is what happened, but they did not make up their final position until Monday night. It is true, as I hope the noble Lord knows, that I telephoned the Chairman of the British Deer Society that night, I think 30 minutes after I had heard from the National Farmers' Union.
Lord NORTHFIELD: Nothing has reached me other than a copy of the circular letter. I do not make a great issue of this, but I wanted to prove that I had tried to be as amenable and courteous as possible. The second point I make before looking at Lord Stanley's Amendment is that I want to reject the suggestions that this Bill was, and should be regarded as, a Bill simply to stop poaching. It is not. It is a Bill to tighten up the methods of killing deer so as to minimise the extent of the cruelty that can be involved, sometimes unwittingly, in all forms of slaughter of deer. Indeed, I might tell your Lordships that when the Bill was originally drafted its Long Title contained the words, "To further humane methods of control". This has always been the intention of the Bill. It has never been simply an anti-poaching Bill. That is why it strays into this domain of the farmer trying to control, and legitimately control (I have made that clear all the time), deer making themselves pests on his land.
With those two remarks, let me come to Lord Stanley's alternative package. The first thing I would say is that if he

337
presses this we shall be just about the most backward country in Europe in this matter. Not only have all the countries in what one might call Western Europe moved over to banning the shotgun, but now we have—and I did not mention this at Second Reading because I did not in fact know about it—the fact that Eire has just passed its own wildlife Bill which totally bans the shotgun in all these circumstances, and indeed extends the banning of the shotgun to the killing of other mammals. I can only say that a very good case must be made out if we are now to stand alone in the whole of Western Europe in making no progress—I choose my words carefully—in outlawing the shotgun. I hope the noble Lord realises how far behind the whole of Western Europe, including Eire, we should be if we accept his Amendment.
On Second Reading, a number of noble Lords expressed the fear that farmers would not obtain firearm certificates if there was a move over to the rifle, whether it be now, in five years or whenever. In this respect, I wish to inform the Committee of a letter I have received from the Minister of Agriculture which I hope will go a long way towards allaying forever the fear that if the Bill were left in its present form farmers would not be able to obtain firearm certificates. The crucial sentence in the Minister's letter reads:
"I would be prepared on enactment of the Bill to instruct appropriate regional officers of my Ministry to supply to any farmer having a genuine agricultural case for needing to kill deer a report which could be submitted by him o the chief constable in support of an application tor a rifle licence".
By that he means, of course, a firearm certificate. I hope that as a result of that we can get away from the fear that a farmer legitimately requiring a firearm certificate to use a rifle would in some way not have much support and might be unduly in the hands of the chief constable in this matter.
Lord GISBOROUGH: How does the noble Lord equate that with a letter which has been sent round—indeed, it is being sent round now—by my chief constable saying that he is doing everything he possibly can to stop the spread of certificates and reduce the number of firearms held in the county?
Lord NORTHFIELD: I can answer that question simply by referring the noble Lord to what the Minister says in the letter from which I quoted. He says:
"I would be prepared on enactment of the Bill …".
In other words, if Parliament makes up its mind that it would be a proper thing to outlaw the shotgun in the circumstances, then, when that point has been reached, the Minister will put on pressure through his officers to help farmers in legitimate circumstances to obtain a firearm certificate. That means that if Parliament passes this Bill the Minister will intervene in what will be a totally different situation to change the views of chief constables, and that is clearly a helpful letter from the Minister.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord again and I admit to being ignorant on this matter, but I did not think it was the right of a Minister of the Crown to tell a chief constable what to do or how to do it.
Lord NORTHFIELD: I am not saying that the Minister has said anything of the sort. The Minister has written saying, in effect, that he would be prepared to get his officers to support such an application. He cannot, of course, tell a chief constable what to do. However, if a Minister writes to a chief constable saying that Parliament has said that it would be inappropriate for shotguns any longer to be used on deer, but that a farmer should be allowed to kill his deer with a rifle, I cannot see any chief constable saying, "I will take no notice of the Minister". Parliament would be guiding the law of the land in this matter towards the issuing of firearm certificates in appropriate cases. I beg noble Lords not to misinterpret what I am saying, which is simply that the Minister will support applications in appropriate cases.
What Lord Stanley is proposing in his package, as opposed to the steps forward in the Bill, would be retrograde; indeed, what he proposes would be worse than the situation we have now and, I think worse than what we would all accept to be reasonable. What would be the effect of his Amendment? First, unless I have misread his Amendment—I hope he will interrupt me if I am wrong—it would mean that the shotgun could be used on all deer,

339
including red deer. I should have thought that if we are agreed on nothing else, we are agreed that the shotgun is a very inhumane weapon, using shot of this size, on such large deer as red deer. Secondly, his Amendment as drafted would not necessitate any farmer having to prove that the animals were causing serious damage to his crops. It would therefore be almost an open door to farmers to use the shotgun for any purpose they liked against deer.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY: I interrupt only because the noble Lord asked me to do so. On the first point, so far as red deer are concerned, I am advised—I must admit that I do not know practically—that the solid shot referred to in one of the noble Lord's Amendment is liable to wound and be more dangerous and is more cruel than the SSG shot which is mentioned in my Amendment. I think he is also wrong unless I am mistaken, on his second point about a farmer being able to shoot deer at any time. It is true that he can when the deer is in season but, as I understand it —and I am sure the noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong—the provision will still apply and, as a farmer, I will not be able to shoot a deer on my land out of season unless it is doing or has done serious damage. I may be wrong about that, but that is my understanding of the position.
Lord NORTHFIELD: The noble Lord is mistaken on the second point. I am not saying that this gives the farmer the right to shoot out of season. I am simply saying that the Amendment as drafted would allow a farmer to shoot without the necessity of proving that the deer was causing serious damage. I should have thought that if we are to leave any shotgun authorisation in the Bill, we should limit it by saying that it can be used only when the deer are causing damage. That is not said in the noble Lord's Amendment, which makes his proposal faulty and retrograde compared with the existing law and what we should all, I think, agree to be reasonable.
Regarding his first point about the use of the shotgun on deer, I am not at the moment discussing my Amendment but his, and that would allow the use of shot
340
of an inappropriate kind on red deer. We really must consider his Amendment as it is drafted. If he insists on it and gets it voted through, it will have a retrogressive effect in two senses; no proof of damage and use on red deer, both of which are totally inappropriate.
The third disadvantage of his Amendment as drafted is that it would introduce the definition of a shotgun cartridge which would be even more cruel than the one in the Bill. I am not technically equipped to argue this, but I am told that the cartridge in the noble Lord's Amendment is more likely to cause cruelty than the slight step forward, compared with the 1963 Act, contained in the Bill. Thus, in that third sense his Amendment is, if not exactly defective, at least not progressive.
Let us consider the associated Amendment to which the noble Lord referred, No. 24A, which he said he would move on Report. I confess that I regret ever having floated the idea that is contained in Amendment No. 24A, because I accept that it was my idea in the first place and that it has now been taken up by the noble Lord. I have to tell him that this idea in Amendment No. 24A is unworkable. The idea of that Amendment, which he would associate with the present Amendment at Report stage, is to limit the farmers to using shotguns, but at the same time to try to tame their use of shotguns by preventing them from selling the carcases.
That is the purpose of Amendment No. 24A, and it is the package which the noble Lord is offering. Frankly, it is unworkable. I want to tell the noble Lord why. It would then he the case that the carcases that could legally be sold would be only those shot by rifle. However, most carcases are sold in the skin. How is the game dealer to know exactly how the animal has been killed and whether or not he should accept it? I would go even further and say to the noble Lord that, should a farmer wish to get round the provision proposed in Amendment No. 24A—and I must discuss this because it is associated with the noble Lord's Amendment—he need only put a bullet through the animal when it is dead or drive a skewer through its head and say, "That's a bullet hole." In fact, the farmer would be able to drive a coach and horses through the whole

341
scheme proposed in the noble Lord's present Amendment together with the Amendment to be moved at Report stage. The scheme would be unenforceable.
Lastly, perhaps the noble Lord will consider the onus that he is putting on the venison dealer. He is saying that the dealer must bear the onus of deciding what carcases he should accept as legal and what he should not accept as illegal. That is an unfair burden to put on the game dealer and, I believe, would not only be resented by the dealers but the Home Office would feel that we were misusing the system of registration proposed in the Bill. I must tell the noble Lord that I started with immense sympathy towards finding a way of allowing owner-occupiers to protect themselves against deer that are pests on their land. However, when I looked at the package that he proposed, I was horrified at the defects in his Amendments.
Those Amendments comprise the second package as against that which appears in the Bill. I apologise for speaking at some length but I feel that we should narrow this matter down to discussing the four packages which the Amendments offer. I come to the third package. That is comprised in the Amendment put down by the noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret. He says, "Oh, I am very sorry, but I am in total disagreement with the noble Lord, Lord Stanley. What is wrong with the Bill is not that it is too tight; it is not tight enough". In effect, he says, that the five-year period during which the use of the shotgun would be allowed should be cut right down to two years.
Viscount MOUNTGARRET: With great respect to the noble Lord, I have not actually got round to saying anything yet. I do not know whether it would be appropriate if I did so, and the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, then continued his comments on the packages that we are discussing.
Lord NORTHFIELD: I can save the noble Viscount the bother, because I am not going to discuss the package. I am just setting out the four packages, as I see them. We then come to the fourth package, which is my own attempt and
342
which, appearing in the Marshalled List after the Amendments proposed by the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, and the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, is an attempt to find a way of helping farmers without going to the extreme position of the noble Lord, Lord Stanley.
Here, I offer four possibilities in my set of Amendments. If it is felt by farmers that the package now in the Bill is too hard on them, I would propose the Amendments that I have put down. The package has four features: first, while allowing the continued use of the shotgun, it would nevertheless limit the use of the shot used to the rifle slug. This will be something which is familiar to Members of your Lordships' House. It is more like a bullet, and I am assured by the experts who examined the issue that it is much less liable to cause cruelty than the kind of shot which is proposed in the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Stanley. Secondly, if it could be agreed that the use of the shotgun should be limited to using a rifle slug, we could then say that it could be used against red deer because it is big enough not to be cruel. Thirdly, to placate the farmer, I suggest a ten-year period for a switch to rifles. Fourthly, if we could move to the rifle slug, we could return to the proposals in the Bill and allow deer drives to continue.
So what I am proposing is a series of Amendments which adds up to a four-pronged attempt to meet the view of the farmers; ten year transition, continuation with the shotgun, use of the rifle slug against red deer as well as any others and the continuation of deer drives. I apologise for speaking at such length but the packages which I have set out are the alternatives which are available. I guess that I shall be hammered because, once again, I have tried to find a compromise. I accept that, but I did not set out to find a compromise on this matter. I have done the best I can. I am very hopeful that if we can have a general debate on the four alternatives we may then all agree to withdraw our Amendments and try again between now and Report stage, having narrowed down to these four alternatives, to get a finally agreed form which goes some way to meet the farmer. I hope, however, that we shall bear in mind all the time that, in doing so, we shall end up being less

343
progressive in this matter than the whole of Western Europe and Eire. Therefore, if I may suggest it, we ought to tread reasonably carefully in this matter.
Baroness HYLTON-FOSTER: The noble Lord, Lord Northfield, has been addressing himself to the red deer. I mentioned earlier the problem of the roe deer, and I should like to ask what the noble Lord has in mind as regards the shooting of roe deer near built-up areas. I do not think that it is possible or safe to use a rifle, and I believe that there is a right cartridge for a shotgun which will kill roe deer much more humanely than the wrong methods that people will use because the roe deer is such a very great menace. I do not believe that, even in five years' time, it will be safe for anybody to use a rifle.
6.49 p.m.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: I should like to add a few words on this matter. I fear that I shall incur some displeasure from my noble friends, and especially from the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, because I am on the side of the noble Lord, Lord Northfield. I have had a life experience of deer, of farming and of land-owning. The object of the Bill is to achieve a more humane attitude towards deer generally. Some noble Lords appear to have forgotten that fact, and I would emphasise what the noble Lord. Lord Northfield, has said. I have shot all over Europe and it has always been embarrassing when Germans, French people, Austrians and Swedes have said, "How appalling it is that in your country you use a shotgun on deer!" It is very difficult for me to explain why.
In the Bill as drafted, if deer are causing damage to a farmer he has perfect redress; he has only to explain matters to the court. When we come to enclosed woodland, nearly all the woodland in this country is enclosed. There are millions of acres of it. If some of these Amendments were agreed, they would give the farmer carte blanche not only to shoot deer to protect his crops but also to make money. As I mentioned on Second Reading, I have come across very many instances in which farmers do not shoot the deer to protect their crops but try
344
to exterminate them to make money. If some of these Amendments are allowed then probably most of the deer will eventually be exterminated in England, quite apart from the question of their being foully wounded.
I agree with one point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso. I have Chinese water deer and they can be shot stone dead at 30 or 35 yards with a shot gun, and the same applies to Muntjac. As we know, under the Bill there is a five-year period anyway in which farmers can use shotguns. But if the use of a shotgun is to be allowed for ever, what is to prevent farmers using it on red deer or on any other deer? That is the difficulty that I foresee, and I cannot see how there can be a guarantee against that.
I admit that the noble Baroness had a point regarding roe deer in built-up areas. It is dangerous for an inexperienced person to use a rifle in a built-up area; but there are very few roe deer in built-up areas, and anyone whom the chief constable thinks is competent enough to have a firearm will not fire his rifle at the horizon. He will make sure that he has the ground behind the deer, that he is firing into a solid background. I can hardly think that any danger would arise that inexperienced people could get rifles. I will not delay the Committee, but I must say that I do not find favour with these Amendments that have come from my side of the Committee, because as I have said, I have seen instances of great cruelty by farmers. I have seen the horrible sight of extremely badly wounded and mutilated deer, and I should be very sorry if the subsection did not become law.
Lord TANLAW: It might be helpful at this stage to make two general assumptions because I feel that we are getting a little off the subject. As has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, I think that it is a pity that the National Farmers' Union has not tried to define or to put the farmers' case rather more clearly before this debate. I may be wrong, but I think that we are all working on the assumption that all the farmers are gentleman farmers, with a knowledge of wildlife and of the types of shot used in shotguns. The working farmers whom I have come across, and who perhaps cause most of the damage which the Bill is meant to prevent, use a shotgun as a form of

345
protection in their job which gives them a reverence for life, rather than for death. They do not like killing things and they use a shotgun only as protection against the fox or the sheep-worrying dog, and so on.
I speak in support of my noble friend's Amendment, as I think that it would be highly dangerous to try to persuade the farmers, or to force them legally, to enter the world of having to engage in the task of protecting their farm with a rifle, because I do not think that they would take care of it and, generally speaking, I do not think they would make proper use of it. But, far more seriously—and I think this point takes us outside the Bill—I am very concerned that if the Minister of Agriculture has really said that he will support the Bill as it stands and promote and encourage the issue of firearms licences for this purpose, then he can not have discussed this matter fully with the police. This goes against all the evidence put forward by the police on the use of firearms licences as a form of currency. This matter is outside the Bill, but let us make it quite clear that if firearms licences are not taken proper care of—and they will not be by ordinary working farmers, if they happen—
Lord NORTHFIELD: I should like to make a point here. I do not think that the noble Lord was present earlier when I read out letters from the Police Federation and the police superintendents who said that, having studied it in every detail, they support the Bill.
Lord TANLAW: I am sorry I was not present when that was stated, but I am extremely surprised that it has been said, and despite it being said, I would be strongly against the issue of more firearms licences simply because of a Deer Bill. I am concerned about a firearms licence being in the wrong hands. This could result from an ordinary case of breaking and entering or from theft from an ironmonger's shop where such licences are often retained. The theft of a firearms licence gives the right to the illegal holder of the licence, as I understand it, to be able to go to any ironmonger to buy ammunition, and indeed firearms. We are living in dangerous times, and I do not think, and I am not encouraged to think, that this is the right moment to
346
issue more firearms licences with the very excellent motive to kill deer in a gentlemanly and humane way, when by so doing human lives could be greatly endangered.
6.55 p.m.
Lord SWANSEA: I think that the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, is under a slight misapprehension about firearms certificates, because the possession of a firearms certificate does not of itself entitle the holder, whether or not he is the authorised holder, to go into a dealer's shop to buy any rifle or firearm which he may choose off the shelf. What it does is to record the firearms which the owner holds, and if there is a variation on it to authorise him to acquire a firearm, then the nature of that firearm is very clearly specified. I am not aware of any instances where the holder of a firearms certificate lodges it with the local ironmonger, or wherever the holder may buy his ammunition. One of the conditions of issue of a firearms certificate is that it should be kept in a secure place, and one would expect the holder to keep it at home.
The noble Lord, Lord Northfield, mentioned the sponsoring by the National Farmers' Union of applications for firearms certificates. Of course that does not in any way bind the local chief constable to issue a firearms certificate, but it should help the application, in the same way that a member of a rifle club, wishing to apply for a firearms certificate, will get a supporting letter from the secretary of his club. The principle here is exactly the same. I should like to think that a supporting letter from the regional secretary of the National Farmers' Union, in such circumstances, would facilitate the issue of a firearms certificate.
At the same time, one must overcome the natural prejudices of a number of chief constables against the proliferation of rifled weapons within their jurisdiction. I think that I said something to this effect on the Second Reading of the Bill. This is all part of the process of education regarding the use of rifled weapons, which has to be gone through during the interim period while shotguns are being phased out. I hope that by the end of that period we shall have overcome some of those prejudices against the use of rifled weapons, which I am quite convinced is the only humane way of controlling deer.

347
A shotgun is the most inhumane weapon. Whatever size of shot you choose to use in it, it can inflict the most terrible wounds, and on that ground alone I should advise the Committee not to accept Amendment No. 44 because that retains the size of shot laid down in the Deer Act 1963. That size of shot, commonly known as SSG, is larger than that specified in the Bill. Although, therefore, it is more powerful and has greater striking energy, it is not so effective for use against deer because there are fewer pellets in the shot-charge and therefore you have a much thinner pattern. With SSG, there are 15 pellets to the ounce; with AAA, which is the size specified in this Bill, there are 35 pellets to the ounce. You have to balance the size of the pellet and its striking energy against the density of the pattern. It is a case of two crossing curves, so to speak, and you have to select the optimum size. The British Deer Society, I am told, has conducted some exhaustive experiments against targets with different sizes of shot, and they have concluded from these trials that the size known as AAA, which is specified in the Bill, produces the optimum density of pattern consistent with enough striking energy to kill, or at least disable, a deer. But, even so, the use of small shot I think should be regarded only as a necessary evil until such time as its use can be phased out altogether.
Now we come to the question of the rifled which is a very different matter altogether and produces a worth while alternative to the use of rifled weapons, because it can be used in a shotgun and it can be used safely in a full-choke barrel; and, although a firearms certificate is necessary for the purchase of shotgun cartridges containing a single ball or slug, I think that chief constables might more easily be persuaded to issue a firearms certificate for such a purpose than to issue a firearms certificate for the acquisition of a rifle.
As regards the use in populated areas, again, a shotgun is safe, comparatively speaking, because it has a very limited range with small shot—only about 300 yards. So it is as comparatively safe as it is possible to be with any weapon. The rifle slug, again, has a very limited range because by the very nature of the shape
348
of the bullets—and I can show a specimen of one of those slugs to any noble Lord who is interested—it loses its velocity very rapidly. It has a very limited range, but it has considerable "knock-down" effect; and even if a deer was not hit in a vital spot, it is much more likely to be disabled that it would be if it was shot with small shot.
Rifled weapons of course have a considerable "carry", and their use in populated areas would have to be very carefully controlled. The only safe way is by shooting from what is commonly known as a high seat, where you are shooting down towards the ground and a bullet either missing or passing through an animal will be stopped by the ground. The modern, small-bore, high-velocity rifles are much safer to use in such circumstances than the older, larger-calibre rifles which our forebears used, because the bullets, travelling at a very high velocity, break up on striking the ground or any other obstruction, and are not so likely to ricochet and cause injury to anyone at a distance. So that is really the safest way to use a high-velocity rifle. Those are the main points I wanted to make arising out of this series of Amendments. I hope that my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley will see fit to withdraw his Amendment, and I should very much prefer to see approved certain later Amendments relating to the use of solid slugs.
Lord GISBOROUGH: I have already spoken about firearms certificates, which I think there would be difficulty in getting; and I think there would be great difficulty in deciding which farmers should have one. One farmer will come along and say that he is having a lot of trouble with deer. How many has he seen? He has seen two. Another farmer may have seen far more, or less, or whatever. I think it will be a great problem for chief constables to decide just exactly who is to be given these firearms certificates. I think that many of those who are given certificates anew and who are therefore allowed to buy a rifle will keep them locked away in safe rooms, somehow, and will have to go and get them when required. But in practice, of course, a lot of farmers will keep them as they do their guns, and they will in fact be available for theft. I think this will

349
cause a lot of problems. In practice, also, many farmers will be told that there is a deer in the corn, they will rush to their gun, they will have six-shot only and they will go and shoot at it as they would at a dog chasing a sheep. I think this will happen regardless, and probably does now.
With regard to the slugs which have been mentioned, and which, incidentally, from a gun, are lethal up to 450 yards and accurate up to about 150 yards, I had the good fortune to be asked to shoot boar last summer. There were two sorts of shot used: one was the single slug, and the other was the cartridge with five large pellets. What was interesting was that, as these boar, which each weighed about 16 or 17 stone, were galloping through, the single slugs were usually inaccurately placed because of the speed, whereas the five-shot were quite lethal with a spread of about a foot, and killed immediately. If the farmers are going to crawl up to the deer on their farms and shoot with rifles, as they will have to, the trajectory, as has already been mentioned, will be horizontal and therefore there will be great danger to the public; whereas if they are allowed guns—particularly, in my view, with the large five-shot, or whatever it may be—then there will be a much shorter range with much less danger to the public, and the shot will be much more likely to kill the deer immediately.
7.8 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I wonder whether your Lordships will allow me to intervene at this stage. I have listened with some considerable care to what has been said, and I had come prepared to say something about the Amendments of my noble friend Lord Northfield, of the noble Viscounts, Lord Mountgarret and Lord Thurso, and of the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, notwithstanding the fact that they may not have spoken. We have given very careful consideration to these Amendments, but I could not say what I have to say unless I kept your Lordships here for some appreciable time. My mind goes back to when we were considering dangerous wild animals—guard dogs, and so on—when there was a considerable divergence of opinion in your Lordships' House on these matters and we were able to get together. I am not suggesting that I call your Lordships together, but I am
350
wondering whether this might be the appropriate time to suggest to those noble Lords who have put down Amendments, and to others who feel very strongly on these matters, that it might be possible to get together to see whether something could be hammered out and whether there might perhaps be some consensus. We have done this sort of thing before, with very great profit.
I merely suggest this because I was wondering, having listened to your Lordships, whether we were going to reach a conclusion tonight. I would have thought it extremely difficult, in view of what some noble Lords have said. There is a wide divergence of opinion. I hope your Lordships will not accept this as an instruction; it is meant to be a helpful suggestion, because this is a very important part of the Bill, and, as I say, it might not only serve a useful purpose but might help us in coming to some conclusions which would be acceptable to all noble Lords who are vitally concerned.
Lord AIREDALE: May I throw out a suggestion? I think there is power to refer any part of any Bill to a Select Committee, and it might possibly be thought advisable to refer this part of this Bill to a Select Committee.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: If I may express a personal opinion to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, I would not want to suggest that. I was thinking of something much less formal—I know Select Committees are not necessarily formal, but it is a Select Committee—whereby we could get together with a number of advisers and, perhaps, some legal authorities and really go into this matter (as we have done, as I said, on previous occasions) with some merit and success.
Viscount MOUNTGARRET: I should like to support what the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, has said. I think we are likely to go round in circles over this; there are too many questions left unanswered. One noble Lord says one thing and another says another. They cannot both be right. I think it would be helpful if we could all meet together with come professional people from the Ministry, the NFU and from the police and so on. I think that this would be most helpful.
Viscount THURSO: I, too, feel that the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, has offered a solution that I would find acceptable. I feel that there has to be an answer to this question, a suitable answer to take into account all the points of view that have been put forward on this matter this afternoon. I should be prepared to play my part in trying to arrive at a solution. I should like to have the fullest possible professional advice available to such a meeting. If this is offered, I should be prepared to withdraw my Amendments until such time as this discussion has taken place.
Lord BURTON: If there is to be such an inquiry I feel that it would be useful if the NFU could produce some instances of damage. I understand that they have some census form going round at the moment. If they are to have this form sent out, could they ask the farmers concerned how many have already got a firearms certificate?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I think it might be essential in the beginning to have a small group of your Lordships to meet first to determine the kind of procedure. I am a little fearful of an ever-growing committee. I think that much could be done over the telephone or by post. I am concerned about getting, if possible, a consensus of opinion of your Lordships. It is true that we could take advice and probably get some officials present who would be able to give us some help and guidance. Perhaps in the initial stages those concerned with the Amendments, my noble friend Lord Northfield and perhaps myself, could get together to discuss a few dates and, at the same time, the procedure that we are going to adopt.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: I fear that I shall strike a slightly discordant note from the somewhat cosy tone that has recently crept into the Chamber. As I understand it, the various interested parties—and I am not one of them—have been chewing over this matter for over a year and they have not yet come to any form of agreement. I understand that there is no possible likelihood of their agreeing in any circumstances. The cleavage of opinion between those who wish to use shotguns for the control of deer and those who do not is complete.
352
As I understand it, no form of negotiation is going to bridge that gulf. Amidst our national political genius when things get difficult, we have a habit of trying to appoint a Committee, a Select Committee, or an unselected committee, to work out a compromise. I do not think there is room for compromise in this particular situation.
I am bound to say that I was very disappointed with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, because I had hoped that we were going to get from him the definitive Home Office view of this matter, which is really a very difficult one. It poses questions of policy, it poses questions of law and it is a matter which is, above all, for the Home Office. It is a matter of regret that more was not forthcoming from him.
I have this further to say. The noble Lord will know that I asked him certain questions a long time ago, a matter of weeks; and no answer, let alone a satisfactory answer, has been forthcoming. It seems to me that there again there is very little room for compromise unless the Home Office is prepared to make up its mind about where it stands and where chief constables are likely to stand over this matter of certificates. Perhaps I could deal with that one. My noble friend Lord Swansea will know better than I that the conditions which govern the issue of firearms certificates and shotgun certificates are totally different. When the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, read out part of a letter from, I think, the Police Federation, saying that they agreed with every facet of the Bill, I am bound to say that I was staggered. If the Police Federation (or whatever body it was) addressed themselves to the likely proliferation of rifles in this country if the Bill goes through as it stands, I cannot believe that they or any police authority would be agreeable to such a prospect.
I myself sit in Scotland as a magistrate and, in a slightly superior court, as an honorary sheriff. Many other noble Lords will have the same kind of experience. Every chief officer of police throughout this country is doing his best to reduce the spread of rifles and handguns. I find it difficult to credit that any responsible police authority would welcome any legislative move which would increase the number of rifles available to the public at large.

353
With the incidence of violent crime we are now facing and the ever-increasing escalation of robberies and the use of firearms in the pursuit of crimes of one kind or another, rightly, I think, in the minds of the general public, most police forces are trying to control them as far as they can and withdraw firearms certificates whenever they get the opportunity to do so. I do not think it will count for anything if a local chief officer of police receives a letter either from the Minister of Agriculture or one of his officers or anybody else. His duty is contained in the Firearms Act 1968 and I have no doubt that all chief officers of police will use that discretion in the way that they think best; and a letter from anybody saying they consider it desirable for a farmer to be given a firearms certificate simply and solely because he wishes to control deer would cause very little reaction on their part.
Lord SWANSEA: If my noble friend will allow me, if he makes inquiries I think he will find that very many farmers, probably the majority, already own 0·22 rifles for the control of vermin, for killing rabbits and pigeons and so on, and therefore already have a firearms certificate for that purpose. The variation or the issue of a firearms certificate for deer control is a simple extension of that principle.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: I cannot deal with such a sweeping statement. I do not know the incidence of farmers with 0·22 rifles. I do not think my noble friend knows, either. It does not help our deliberations very much, I suggest, to make that sort of statement.
Lord DULVERTON: If my noble friend Lord Mansfield will allow me, I have been trying for some minutes to furnish this bit of information. I was talking to the Deputy President of the NFU last week on this whole vexed question. I understood from him that he had approached many local police forces to get their views on what their attitude would be if a farmer applied to them for a firearms certificate for a rifle in order to control deer eating their crops—the point that my noble friend and other noble Lords have been talking about. He had not had replies from all the police forces approached, but at the time
354
I saw him, which was five days ago, those police forces who had replied said that they believed that that would constitute a good and proper cause for granting a firearms certificate to a farmer.
7.20 p.m.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: I am very grateful to my noble friend, too, for regaling us with his conversation with whoever it was. But this should have come from the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell. Do not misunderstand me. The noble Lord is the Home Office Minister; he is supposed to tell us what is the attitude of the police to this. It should not come from conversations which my noble friend has had with some colleagues or friends in respect of other matters.
I was going to tell the Committee of the two sections which govern the issue of certificates to do with rifles and shotguns, but I think I will try to get on. What this matter comes back to is what an owner or occupier of land is to make of his rights as an occupier in the control of deer. I concede at once—and I have no specialized knowledge of these matters—that the use of a shotgun is undesirable in itself. What one has to balance that against—
Lord BURTON: May I interrupt the noble Earl? He said he thought that the use of a shotgun was undesirable. Why is it that up until recently he has been using a shotgun on his own estate for roe deer?
The Earl of MANSFIELD: I never said that I did.
Lord BURTON: No, but the noble Earl has been using one.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: If we are going to become thoroughly personal, the only shotgun which was used on my estate was on a piece of land taken by a syndicate in which the local secretary of the Deer Society was a member. May I say that I deplore my noble friend introducing such personalities into this argument, especially as it is outside the jurisdiction of this Bill. However, I deal with it as I find it.
Now, may I try to get hack to some semblance of order. What is the balance of priorities of this matter? Is it the

355
admittedly unsatisfactory use of the shotgun as against the rifle, with its greater danger to the public, especially in congested areas, and with the possibilities of its misuse as a weapon? Here again the Committee has to make up its mind. So far as the four packages are concerned, as the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, regaled us, I do not see the difference between five and 10 years. It could be that more people would be trained to use rifles who could then provide some sort of a deer control service. That would seem to make sense. It might, I suppose, allow farmers to take courses in using rifles, and thereby persuade their local chief constables that they were suitable persons to have a high velocity rifle. But I do not see the difference between five and 10 years.
As a matter of politics and law, I should have thought that it was undesirable to peer forward 10 years into the future and say that this is something which will definitely happen at the expiration of a ten-year period. Parliament tried that with the gaming laws, particularly, as some noble Lords may recollect, over the "spot the ball" competition. It was an extremely unsatisfactory exercise because at the end of the period when everybody thought that that particular form of gaming would be phased out, it was not, and it was producing so much money for charity that a new Bill had to be brought in to extend the period.
If the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, had introduced an Amendment or had introduced his Bill in a way that it would be up to the Home Secretary, in effect, to trigger off the change in the law by issuing an order, that is something which one would consider extremely seriously because it then would mean that Parliament would be in control of the situation, acting on the recommendation of a Minister of the Crown. But to say that after 10 years, come hell or high water, the use of a shotgun is forbidden by law is not the best way of dealing with the problem.
We are left in this unsatisfactory situation: what do we do? I suppose everybody could withdraw his Amendments and have a new attempt on Report stage. The difficulty about that is one can speak only once on Report and it is
356
difficult to have other than a thoroughly formal debate. I suppose that other alternatives would be to accept one or other of the four packages as they stand and try to improve them on Report. For myself, I would prefer to do something rather than nothing. I have to confess to having an interest as a farmer, although not in England and Wales. But, for myself, I will support my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley, but— thank goodness!—this is not a Party matter and it will be for every noble Lord to do what he thinks best.
7.26 p.m.
Lord NORTHFIELD: I have listened to the debate and I regret that the suggestion by my noble friend on the Front Bench has apparently not been found acceptable. I hope it will be. The noble Earl who has just spoken has introduced one more possibility that I floated in the conversations that I have been having; namely, that this clause should be triggered by a Government Order in Council at an appropriate stage. One has to consider what advice the Minister would take in triggering off such a thing. That means that the piece of machinery he may need to have must be considered. It shows very clearly, from that one example above, that there is a good deal still to be explored in the way of reaching a possible compromise in this matter. I would therefore happily agree to withdraw my Amendments and leave the whole question quite open, not trying to insist even on the words as drafted in the Bill, if other noble Lords will also agree to withdraw their Amendments. Then we should accept the advice of my noble friend and return to this matter at Report stage after an attempt to get some agreement.
Although I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, when he reads his remarks in Hansard tomorrow he will find that the early part of his speech did not do him much credit. He made very sweeping statements about what chief constables would or would not do. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, he said he could not deal with sweeping statements that other people had made. Then when he was given particular examples by the noble Lord, Lord Dulverton, he said: "I will not even answer that; that should have been answered by the

357
Minister". At the end of that exchange I did not feel, with great respect, that the noble Earl had done himself much credit. It only illustrates the fact that we are in a quandary.
The consultations I have been having so far I have been having openly, honestly and at great length. They have not reached the point of agreement. At least we made some progress: we got away from the shotgun as normally used, to the idea of the rifle slug; and to the idea of something which was big enough to be used against red deer. We achieved a form of amendment to allow deer drives to take place. Those were three ideas of great importance to the National Farmers' Union. It showed that in three out of four issues we made considerable progress towards reaching agreement with the NFU. I reject the statement being made here that it is impossible to get agreement. If we made that much progress on three major issues of concern to the NFU, I do not see why we cannot try to settle the remainder of the disagreements.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: I wonder whether the noble Lord will give way? While he was on his feet an idea came to me which may get round this difficulty and preserve the rather satisfactory state—that is to say, a Committee stage—which the House is in. It is now half past seven. There is nothing to stop the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, from moving that this House do now resume, and the whole matter will be adjourned. The conversations which the noble Lord may feel appropriate can then take place and the House can come back and reconsider these matters. We have the four main packages. We have not taken any irrevocable step, and I suggest to the noble Lord that this might be something he might favourably consider.
Lord NORTHFIELD: I am in the hands of the Committee, but I am in a further difficulty in that several noble Lords have come here to move particular Amendments—for example, the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, wants to talk about Northern Ireland—and there is also the fact that many of the Amendments that remain are purely drafting Amendments and could be dealt with speedily. I am therefore in some difficulty in accepting that suggestion, because it might
358
cause some inconvenience to certain noble Lords.
Also, I cannot quite see what advantage would be gained, because the discussions that we have talked about could easily take place by leaving the Bill as it is and with nobody pressing their Amendments. The Amendments in question could then possibly be discussed during the Report stage. So what would be the particular advantage in postponing completely, to the inconvenience of people who have come here specially to speak to Amendments today, the remainder of the Bill when the Amendments could be dealt with not only on Report stage but on Third Reading, if we do not reach agreement? Therefore, unless other noble Lords feel it to be essential, I would still press my view that we should leave the Bill as it is, we could start the consultations, and we could then go on to Report stage and Third Reading. But at least we should satisfy the convenience of noble Lords who have come here to discuss the few remaining Amendments which could be got out of the way today.
Lord AIREDALE: I think the advantage which the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, has in mind is that if we were to adjourn now and come back to it, we should come hack in Committee and have a fuller and freer discussion, again in Committee. If we were to come back on Report, there would be much stricter rules of procedure.
Viscount MOUNTGARRET: The noble Lord, Lord Northfield, said that we had made tremendous progress this afternoon. I do not wish to be argumentative about it, but in some ways I do not think we have made all that amount of progress. The noble Lord indicated that we had covered the subject concerning deer drives. In fact, that subject has not been raised and, of course, it has not been discussed. The idea of re-introducing deer drives has not been discussed. Therefore, I think there is much merit in calling a halt to proceedings and letting us have the discussions, as the noble Lord Lord Wells-Pestell, has suggested.
Viscount THURSO: I am not at all sure that I want to call a halt to the proceedings. We have made some progress, but we have identified certain problems. We are in fact discussing

359
primarily one of my Amendments, and I should like a wink or a nod from the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, or the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, as to whether the Amendment we are discussing—that is, No. 43—is also within the province of the proposed discussion, because this particular Amendment is the one which exempts farmers from the restriction on times at which they shoot, and will allow them to shoot at first light, at last light and by moonlight, which I think may well be important as regards the protection of crops. I do not know whether this topic could be included in the discussions, but certainly I should like it to be so included, and would be prepared to withdraw this Amendment if the matter could be discussed, with a view to its possible reintroduction at a later stage of the Bill.
As regards the rest of our deliberations, it is not for me to say whether or not the noble Lord. Lord Stanley of Alderley, presses his Amendment, No. 44. That is a matter for him. If he should have his Amendment accepted, I gather that all the following Amendments fail—certainly my following Amendment would fail, and the Amendment of the noble Lord would go through. If he does not get it and my Amendment is still available to your Lordships' Committee, I would certainly wish to avail myself of the opportunity suggested by the noble Lord, Lord WellsPestell, hacked up by the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, that we might discuss the whole matter on the grounds that we are nearing some sort of agreement.
The agreement we are nearing is this—and I shall be corrected if I am wrong—namely, that there is a danger in giving out too many firearms certificates. It may not be thought as totally desirable as some chief constables may think. But the matter ought to be looked into. It is possible that a load of shotgun cartridges could be found which would be satisfactory for the purpose, and it is possible that farmers could be allowed to use that within certain restricted spheres. I should like to hear whether it is possible. If my later Amendment is reached, I would probably withdraw it in the face of an assurance of this kind, but in the meantime I can say to your Lordships' Committee that I am prepared to withdraw my Amendment No. 43.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.36 p.m.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 8, line 31, leave out subsection (7) and insert—
("(7) A person shall not be guilty of an offence under section 3(1)(c)(i) of this Act by reason only of the taking or killing or attempted taking or killing of any deer on any land by means of shooting with any smooth bore gun of 12 bore gauge loaded with a cartridge purporting to contain shot each of which is not less in diameter than 269 inches (6·8326 millimetres) in diameter if he satisfies the court before whom he is charged—

(a) that he was the occupier of the land; or

(b) that he was acting with the written authority of the occupier.").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 44.
Lord NORTHFIELD: I must say I think this is being extremely unreasonable in view of all the suggestions that have been made in the Committee—
Several noble Lords: Order!
Lord NORTHFIELD: I have a right to say that to the noble Lord. I think it is being unreasonable to press this Amendment in view of the fact that we have offered all the consultations possible to try to reach agreement. I have shown that we have reached agreement on major points with the National Farmers' Union. I think this will sour the future progress of the Bill, no matter what happens. We have offered all possible consultations to reach agreement on this matter. I repeat that the noble Lord's Amendment is going back even beyond what is in the 1963 Act. It is even taking away the necessity for the farmer to show that the deer are doing damage to the crops. I think the noble Lord is being extremely unreasonable in wanting to go back even beyond the law as it stands at the moment and in not allowing the consultations to take place.
Lord DULVERTON: I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, in what he has just said. With a very deep interest in the subject that we have been discussing for the last hour or so, both as regards my connection with the Deer Society and as a farmer and forester, I feel quite sure that we are barking up the wrong tree if we try to perpetuate the use of the shotgun without

361
fully arguing the case at greater length between ourselves. There is a deep division of feeling. My personal view is that the rifle is not only the most humane method of controlling deer, but it is the best method from the point of view of the farmer. However, it is going to take a long time to get that across to the farming community. I support most strongly what the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, has asked of my noble friend Lord Stanley, and I hope that he will reconsider the statement he made a few moments ago.
Viscount MOUNTGARRET: May I support entirely what my noble friend Lord Dulverton has just said. I was clearly under the impression that we were discussing, generally speaking, Amendments Nos. 43 to 55. At no time have we been specific on any one particular Amendment, and for the noble Lord suddenly to put forward his Amendment just like that, at a moment when that Amendment is not being discussed in detail, seems to me a little wrong. I am being corrected by my noble friends on the Front Bench, and I apologise.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: No: go on discussing it.
Viscount MOUNTGARRET: I am sorry: I thought the Question was about to be put.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: No; we have got all night. Go on.
Viscount MOUNTGARRET:I apologise. I thought when the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, got up that the Question was about to be put and that we were not in fact discussing it. I agree with my noble friend Lord Dulverton, as I said, that the rifle certainly is much the most effective weapon for dealing with deer. We are not, as the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, said, taking weapons away from farmers at all. In fact, we are helping them by getting them the right weapons to do their job. As regards security, I believe that more shotguns are stolen and sawn-off and used for criminal acts, such as breaking into banks and so on, than rifles, and if there was a choice between rifles or shotguns being kept in farmhouses, possibly at times unattended, I should prefer
362
to see rifles unattended than shotguns. But I may be wrong about that. So I hope very much that my noble friend Lord Stanley does not press his Amendment.
Lord DORMER: May I make a brief point? I recently had consultations with a senior officer of police, in an area where they are considerably troubled by deer poaching, and he told me that in suitable cases a chief constable will readily give a firearms certificate to a farmer in order to control deer poaching.
Lord DENHAM: The noble Lord, Lord Northfield, has himself been a little unreasonable in attacking my noble friend Lord Mansfield. My noble friend made what I thought was a perfectly reasonable suggestion to the noble Lord, that we should adjourn at this point, have all the consultations that we are going to have and then come back, still in Committee, so that we can discuss whatever comes out of those consultations. My noble friends Lord Dulverton and Lord Mountgarret both said that they rather agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, that my noble friend was being unreasonable. But this is reason, surely. In Report stage, we cannot properly discuss some brand-new solution that is going to emerge. If we adjourn the Committee at this stage, we shall still be in Committee and can then give proper consideration to whatever comes out of the consultations suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Northfield.
Lord NORTHFIELD: May I say this in answer? The noble Lord, Lord Denham, whose help on this Bill I fully appreciate, has misunderstood the situation. What I am saying is that it is slightly unreasonable to other noble Lords, who want to complete the remaining Parts of this Bill and who have come here specially today to do so, to chop it off at this point, particularly in view of the fact that the Bill can be recommitted to a Committee at any time. I gladly give my undertaking that, if the consultations that take place mean that we need to come back into Committee after completing the remainder of the Bill tonight, I will move a Motion that the Bill be recommitted to a Committee in due course, in order to examine this Part of the Bill. That is a Motion which can

363
go on the Order Paper, and I think it meets everybody's convenience and allows us to dispose of the remainder of the Bill this evening and have a recommittal to a Committee at a later stage.
7.52 p.m.
Lord NORTHFIELD Lord NORTHFIELD had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 45:
Page 8, line 37, leave out from ("offence") to ("under") in line 32.
The noble Lord said: With the permission of the Committee, I do not propose to move Amendment No. 45. Despite the vote that we have just had, I still think that consultations should take place between now and the Report stage. Therefore I hope that we can carry on as though this unfortunate misunderstanding, or whatever it is, had not occurred.
Viscount THURSO Viscount THURSO had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 47:
Page 8, line 34, leave out from beginning to end of line 5 on page 9 and insert ("deer, by means of shooting with any smooth bore gun of 12 bore gauge loaded with a cartridge purporting to contain shot each of which is 203 inches (5·2 millimetres) in diameter, on any cultivated land, pasture or enclosed woodland of which he is the occupier.")
The noble Viscount said: Before we went into the Division Lobbies I said that if the same atmosphere prevailed I should also like to have consultations. Therefore I do not intend to move Amendment No. 47.
7.43 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 44) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 16; Not-Contents, 20.

CONTENTS

Colville of Culross, V.

Hacking, L.

Margadale, L.

De Freyne, L.

Long, V.

Stanley of Alderley, L. [Teller.]

Denham, L.

Lyell, L.

Sudeley, L.

Elles, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Tanlaw, L.

Falkland, V.

Mansfield, E.

Thurso, V. [Teller.]

Ferrier, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Mottistone, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Mountgarret, V.

Burton, L. [Teller.]

Inglewood, L.

Northfield, L. [Teller]

de Clifford, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Dormer, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Dulverton, L.

Longford, E.

Swansea, L.

Gisborough, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Lord NORTHFIELD Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 9, line 6, leave out subsection (8).
The noble Lord said: I can be very brief. If it is convenient to the Committee this Amendment can be taken with Amendment No. 63. It is designed to meet a point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, at Second Reading. I apologise to the noble Earl for not fully understanding at Second Reading what he said—it was my fault entirely—about the definition of a slaughtering instrument. I hope that the two points taken together—Amendments Nos. 56 and 63—now carry out the intention, which is to license a sawn-off shotgun for the purpose of slaughtering after deer hunting. I beg to move.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: I am much obliged to the noble Lord. I do not mind being accused of speaking nonsense, but it is nice when it is rectified later.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord NORTHFIELD Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 57:
Page 9, line 23, leave out ("the") and insert ("a").
The noble Lord said: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 18 agreed to.
Lord NORTHFIELD Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 58:
Transpose Clause 18 to after Clause 15.
The noble Lord said: This is a drafting point. I am advised by the experts that it would be more convenient if this clause were taken after Clause 15. Therefore I beg to move that Clause 18 be transposed.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 19 [Power to grant licences]:
Viscount THURSO Viscount THURSO moved Amendment No. 59:
Page 9, line 37, at end insert ("Secretary of State after considering the advice of the").
The noble Viscount said: This Amendment, and Amendment No. 61, deal with the same point. It may be true that at the moment the Nature Conservancy Council do not carry out any large-scale, continuous experiments on deer in England similar to the experiments which they carry out on the Island of Rum in Scotland. However, it seems to me to be an anomaly that, if they were to start to carry out experiments, they would then be put into the position of licensing their own activities. We ought to consider whether or not even the Nature Conservancy Council should be required to ask for permission to carry out experiments. I should prefer permission to be given by the Secretary of State after considering the advice of the Nature Conservancy Council, so that if and when it comes to a question of the Nature Conservancy Council wishing to license itself to carry out experiments, it is relieved of the slightly invidious job of having to license its own activities. That is the reason why I put down these two Amendments.
7.59 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I think that I ought to say a word about the Government's view. The Amendments are designed to give licensing powers in respect of certain otherwise unlawful activities affecting deer to the Secretary of State who, as we understand it, would be obliged to consider the advice of the Nature Conservancy Council. Under the Bill, the Nature Conservancy Council alone would have licensing powers. At
366
present, the Nature Conservancy Council has the power to license otherwise unlawful acts in respect of deer so as to enable them to be moved from one area to another, or to be taken alive for scientific or educational purposes. The Bill retains the purpose of the licensing power but adjusts the licensable activities in the light of the offences created by the Bill.
During the Second Reading debate I understood the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, to question the correctness of leaving the licensing power with the Nature Conservancy Council when so many of the licensable activities were performed by the Council's employees. I assume that the noble Viscount believes that this situation can be corrected by transferring the power to the Secretary of State and restricting the Nature Conservancy Council to an advisory function. It is not quite clear to us—but I accept that this is a matter which could be easily ascertainable—which Secretary of State it would be. I do not know whether the noble Viscount has a Secretary of State in mind. Presumably it would be the Secretary of State for the Environment—the Nature Conservancy Council's sponsoring Department—who would have a wider conservation remit.
On the other hand, I suppose there is a possibility that applications for licences might be put elsewhere. The Nature Conservancy Council has been operating a licensing system since 1963, and there is no evidence that it does so other than impartially and in accordance with sound criteria. May I ask the noble Viscount whether he feels that it is necessary to change the situation. At the same time, the licensing provisions under the existing law are curious and their expansion by the Bill either adds to or enlarges what I think is an oddity.
The NCC is not an appropriate organisation for the purpose of exercising this power. At the same time it is not a power which the Government would wish to exercise, not least for the reason that the promotors have never succeeded in persuading us that the licensing provisions serve a useful purpose, or precisely what purpose it is that they are intended to serve. Undoubtedly they need much closer investigation than they have so far received, and to the extent that this Amendment prompts such an investigation I am bound to say that in some

367
respects it has a great deal to commend it. However, the solution would be nothing like so simple as the transfer of a licensing power to a Minister. Before that could be accepted the purposes of the provision would need to be clarified and made more acceptable. I do not know whether the noble Viscount wants to rethink this issue, or whether he feels strongly enough to press it. I would say that there is an argument either way and it may well be something that he wants to be considered.
Viscount THURSO: I do want it to be considered because I have absolutely no criticism of the Nature Conservancy Council. I do not think they have in any way misused their powers and I am sure they do not intend to misuse them, but I feel that the interest which this Bill has aroused, and the interest which exists in deer, will possibly prompt further experimentation. It may well prompt the Nature Conservancy Council, or some other body in conjunction with the Nature Conservancy Council, to wish to carry out experiments on deer management in England similar to those carried out on the Island of Rum. It is invidious to be put into the position where one issues one's own licences. It seems only right that such a council should look to somebody for a licence for an activity which they probably ought to be doing.
I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, would welcome my pressing this Amendment at this stage, or whether he would like to enter into further discussions on this matter. Clearly, in referring to the Secretary of State I had in mind the Secretary of State for the Department which is responsible for nature conservancy for the time being, but I inderstand that the term "Secretary of State" is acceptable as a general term for all Government Departments and therefore I used that term.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: Perhaps the noble Viscount will allow me to look at it and before Report stage I will let him know our views so that if he wants to table the Amendment again he may do so. On the other hand, if we find that it will serve a useful purpose but there is some drafting matter to be considered, we could table it ourselves.
Viscount THURSO: I am grateful to the noble Lord and, with the permission of the Committe, I beg to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord NORTHFIELD Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 10, line 6, leave out ("in the close season prescribed by Schedule 1 to") and insert ("in circumstances which, but for this section, would constitute an offence under section 1 of").
The noble Lord said: This is purely a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Viscount HOOD): There are two Amendments numbered 63. I call the first one.
Lord NORTHFIELD Lord NORTHFIELD moved the following Amendment:
Page 10, line 26, after ("under") insert ("Part I of").
The noble Lord said: This is purely a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 20 agreed to.
Clause 21 [Interpretation]:
Lord NORTHFIELD Lord NORTHFIELD moved the following Amendment:
Page 11, line 12, at end insert ("and, for purposes of this Act, includes any smooth bore gun of not less gauge than 12 bore, if its barrel is less than 24 inches (609·6 millimetres) in length and it is loaded with a cartridge purporting to contain shot none of which is less than ·203 inches (5·2 millimetres) in diameter;").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this Amendment when moving Amendment No. 56. Therefore I beg to move formally.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 22 [Application to Crown]:
On Question, Whether Clause 22 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord NORTHFIELD: I hope we can agree to delete this clause. The clause

369
would bind the Crown, and my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell said during the Second Reading debate that it would be unacceptable. He has since written to me in the following terms:
"There can be no question of the Crown instructing any of its servants to carry out their function in such a way as to contravene the provisions of this Bill if it becomes law. To put the matter beyond doubt I give you an assurance to this effect."
With an assurance of that kind, of course we do not need Clause 22 and therefore I hope we may agree to negative the clause.
On Question, Clause 22 disagreed to.
Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH moved Amendment No. 64:
After Clause 22, insert the following new clause:
Application to Northern Ireland.
.—(1) In the application of this Act to Northern Ireland section 20(1) shall be omitted and the other provisions shall have effect subject to the following modifications—

(a) for any reference to the Secretary of State, there shall be substituted a reference to the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland;

(b) for the reference in section 12 to the Game Act 1831 and the Game Licences Act 1860, there shall be substituted a reference to the Miscellaneous Transferred Excise Duties Act (Northern Ireland) 1972;

(c) for any reference in section 15(2) to the chief officer of police, there shall be substituted a reference to a chief superintendent of the Royal Ulster Constabulary attached to the police division in which the certificate was granted;

(d) for the reference in section 17(5) to a requirement by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food under section 98 of the Agriculture Act 1947, there shall be substituted a reference to any scheme made by the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland under section 2 of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland) 1959;

(e) for any reference in section 19 to the Nature Conservancy Council, there shall be substituted a reference to the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland;

(f) for any reference in section 21 to the Firearms Act 1968, and for the reference to section 57(4) of that Act, there shall be substituted respectively, references to the Firearms Act (Northern Ireland) 1969 and a reference to section 50(1) of that Act.

(2) The power of the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland to make orders under this Act shall be exercisable by statutory rule for the purposes of the Statutory Rules Act (Northern Ireland) 1958; and any
370
statutory rule made by virtue of this Act shall be subject to negative resolution within the meaning of section 41(6) of the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954 as if it were a statutory instrument within the meaning of that Act.
The noble Viscount said: With the leave of the Committee, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 65, 77, 79 and 80 as well as to No. 64. These Amendments arise by reason of the fact that in Northern Ireland we no longer have a devolved Government. At this hour of the night I think a long speech would be most unwelcome, but suffice it to say that the only law which controlled the killing of deer in Northern Ireland was repealed 20 years ago. That was the 1698 Act, so your Lordships can see that we are in a fairly powerless plight when one Act was repealed and nothing was put in its place. In fact, there is no control over the killing of deer in Northern Ireland. They can be killed by dogs, by snares or by any means, so if this Bill is to be enacted we in Northern Ireland must have it applied to us, otherwise we shall be the only part of the British Isles without a Bill concerning the control of deer. I beg to move.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I am sorry that the noble Viscount has been kept here so late, because at this stage I really cannot do very much to help him. We are aware that these Amendments would apply the Bill to Northern Ireland, and, as the noble Viscount knows, those in Northern Ireland who are likely to be affected are farmers, the Department of the Environment and the Agricultural Department. The only thing I can say is that the Northern Ireland Office are considering the matter about which the noble Viscount has tabled Amendments, but so far they have not reached a decision. However, I understand that a decision is likely to be reached by Report stage and if there is anything I can say which will be helpful to the noble Viscount between now and Report stage I will communicate with him.
Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH: I thank the noble Lord very much. If this Bill becomes law it is important that it should apply to Northern Ireland. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 23 and 24 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Close seasons]:
8.9 p.m.
Viscount THURSO Viscount THURSO moved Amend-ment No. 66:
Page 12, line 5, leave out ("1st May to 21st July") and insert ("21st October to 30th June").
The noble Viscount said: The Amendments which are listed in relation to Schedule 1 are an effort to try to get some uniformity between the two sides of the Border between England and Scotland. It is not merely that one side should follow what the other does; it is that there are very large numbers of deer on both sides of the Border, close to the Border. This is particularly true of roe deer inhabiting a lot of the afforested land on each side of the Border. If you have a season of one sort on one side of the Border and regulations of one sort on one side and another sort on the other side, it seems to me an open invitation for people to find ways round the regulations. It would be very desirable if greater uniformity could be obtained between the seasons on both sides of the Border.
I have heard it said that there is difficulty in reaching agreement with the powers that be in Scotland in this matter. I am frankly surprised to hear this, because I have spoken about this matter to both the chairman and the secretary of the Red Deer Commission and as far as I know they are anxious to help if they can. I know that we have at least one member of the Red Deer Commission sitting with us in this Committee in the shape of the noble Lord, Lord Dulverton. I think it is a great pity that there should be a difference between the seasons because this will encourage problems on each side of the Border. I can envisage things being taken across in order to be sold, if they are saleable on one side and not saleable on the other. I am prepared again to put these matters to further discussion because I really believe that accommodation could be reached. I should like to hear what other members of your Lordships' Committee have to say on this. I really believe we ought to be able to reach agreement on this problem, taking into account the requirements on both sides of the Border.
Lord BURTON: I would agree in the main with the noble Viscount on this
372
matter. I am sure we can reach agreement. But the first of these particular Amendments would not be acceptable in England, the 21st October being the closing date for stags. I feel that his suggestion that this should be discussed between Committee and Report stage is the right answer. I would hope your Lordships would agree. Perhaps we could make a new Schedule rather than deal with it by individual Amendments as we have proposed here at the moment.
Viscount MOUNTGARRET: I am not very happy with the Amendment the noble Viscount has moved. There is a problem relating to the staghounds. If we had the close season as suggested that would not be very helpful to the Devon and Somerset staghounds. I do not really think it is so important that we should have similar close seasons. We are only thinking of the Border. I do not think it should affect Lancashire, the Home Counties, Devon and so on. I do not see that we shall gain a great deal. Life will be made more difficult for farmers in England to deal with their deer if they have to spend most of the year trying to prove that there are always marauding deer and therefore they can be taken out of season. I do not think this suggestion is entirely helpful. I would have thought it better to leave matters as they stand.
Lord NORTHFIELD: Perhaps I can help the Committee by saying this. The noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, wrote to the Secretary of State for Scotland pressing that the dates be brought more into line. I have in my hand a copy of Mr. Bruce Millan's reply. He says that he has not received any pressure from the Red Deer Commission and other bodies to make any changes in Scotland. He goes on to say:
"I am not at this stage persuaded that there are over-riding reasons for bringing the close seasons in the two countries into line".
In view of that statement by the Secretary of State, that he does not think there is any particular reason for bringing them into line, it would be helpful if between now and Report stage the noble Viscount would work on his own colleagues in Scotland to see whether there is any reason to say to the Minister that there is pressure to bring them into line, in which case he would be able to press the matter at Report stage.
Lord DULVERTON: Perhaps the Committee would like to know that we considered this point at the Red Deer Commission meeting last week. On the point of the red deer seasons, after much discussion it appeared that there were very good reasons for keeping the seasons exactly as they are now in Scotland. We realised there were very good reasons for having the seasons in England as proposed in the Bill. I will not refer to the comments, which were inconclusive, about the other forms of deer, but that was the result of the deliberations on red deer.
Lord GISBOROUGH: It seems to me that the main deer concerned is the roe deer, which, to the best of my knowledge, is the main deer of the Borders. I should have thought there was a very good case for trying to cover roe deer, if no other.
Lord TANLAW: Can the noble Lord let us know whether the Secretary of State had the question presented in the form of red deer, or roe deer, or all deer? I agree about the situation with red deer, but I should be surprised that the Secretary of State should take such a strong view if he was presented with the question of roe deer. I believe there is a case for looking at them separately.
Lord NORTHFIELD: That is a very fair point. The Minister did say—and I quote in order to be helpful:
"The divergence between the dates for roe deer covers only a small proportion of the total close times for the species, and in the absence of any strong arguments against the dates which have been in operation in Scotland for the past 10 years or so I doubt whether I would be justified in opening up this issue with the various interests who would have to take part in further discussions".
In other words, he is saying that the roe deer issue is such a small one that he does not feel able to open the whole issue of all deer. To answer the noble Lord, I think the question was put in the right form to the Secretary of State. I think this is a matter the noble Viscount might want to take up in his discussions in Scotland.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I intervene only to say that if the noble Viscount is prepared to do that, which I think might be helpful at this stage, and if he does decide to put forward the matter again, I should perhaps point out that the first
374
and the fourth of these Amendments should have the date 31st July in both cases and not the 21st.
Viscount THURSO: I think that the Secretary of State for Scotland has been somewhat less than helpful in this matter, because it has been my experience that he has sent no information whatever to the Red Deer Commission. Most of their information on what was happening in your Lordships' House came from me sending them photostatic copies of information which I had on Amendments and so forth. I have sent copies of Hansard to the Secretary and Chairman of the Red Deer Commission to make sure that they knew what was going on. I do not think that the Secretary of State and his Department have been all that speedy in sending up the information from Edinburgh to Inverness so that it could be considered by the Red Deer Commission.
I feel that it has been valuable to talk about this. I will certainly keep up the pressure on this matter, because I think there will be difficulty on the Border. If you once start to get an Act into disrepute, it is very difficult to stop the malpractices that may arise. It should be our intention at this stage to try to get things right in the first instance. At this late hour I will do no more than say that I will certainly continue to press every authority I know in Scotland on this matter. I will withdraw the Amendment, and I hope it may be possible to bring at least some of them back at Report stage so that we can obtain useful uniformity.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Prohibited firearms and ammunition]:
Lord NORTHFIELD Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 73:
Page 12, line 30, at end insert—
("5A. Any weapon which discharges a missile by means of a gas propellant").
The noble Lord said: This is a new point which has been brought to our notice as a form of weapon that should be prohibited under the Bill. It is self-explanatory. I hope that it will not cause any difficulties. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord NORTHFIELD Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 74:
Page 12, line 36, after ("than") insert ("(a)").
The noble Lord said: With the permission of the Committee, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 74 and 75. Amendment No. 74 is a drafting Amendment, as is Amendment No. 75. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord NORTHFIELD Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 75:
Page 12, line 38, leave out ("9. Any bullet for use in a rifle other than") and insert ("(b)").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Form of record of purchases and receipts of venison to be kept by licensed game dealers]:
Lord DORMER Lord DORMER moved Amendment No. 76:
Page 13, line 11, in column 13, at end insert ("and registration number of vehicle delivering venison.").
The noble Lord said: I have been advised by a senior member of the police that the powers given to them under the Bill as printed are entirely adequate but that they would very much prefer to see the registration number of the vehicle delivering the venison to the dealer inserted in the last column of Schedule 3. That is to enable the police to check on the vehicle in future, if necessary. It would also be a protection to the person delivering the venison.
Viscount THURSO: I am rather sceptical about this Amendment. Anyone who is at all crooked or bent can simply falsify the registration number. I do not think that it is an enormously helpful piece of information.
Lord NORTHFIELD: I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Dormer,
376
in the sense that if falsification is at issue, such people can do it in any other part of this draft form. One must assume that falsification will not apply right across the form. This is an additional precaution in order to check the origin of venison and it is a very helpful one. I hope that the Committee will accept the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Dormer.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Enactments repealed]:
Lord NORTHFIELD Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 78:
Page 14, line 5, at end insert—

("1977 c. 4.

The Roe Deer (Close Seasons) Act.

The whole Act.")

The noble Lord said: This small Amendment is in anticipation of the Bill one day becoming law, although at this stage of the proceedings, after a tiring day, one begins to doubt that slightly. However, in the event of the Bill becoming law it would be necessary to repeal the Roe Deer (Close Seasons) Act because this Bill, when it becomes law, would then supersede that Act. Therefore, the Amendment is to that purpose. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendments.

LONDON TRANSPORT BILL
Brought from the Commons; read la, and referred to the Examiners.

BRITISH TRANSPORT DOCKS BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past eight o'clock.