HL Deb 08 July 1977 vol 385 cc537-68

11.26 a.m.

Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE

My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales that they, having been informed of the purport of the Deer Bill, have consented to place their prerogative and interest, so far as they are concerned on behalf of the Crown, the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.

Lord NORTHFIELD

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill he now read a third time.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 3*.—(Lord Northfield.)

On Question, Bill read 3*.

Clause 3 [Unlawful weapons, etc.].

Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 1: Page 2, line 29, after ("to") insert ("section 9 of this Act and").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a very simple Amendment. Clause 9 of the Bill concerns exceptional circumstances in which certain things can be done in the use of weapons, and other matters; for example, in mercy killing or in veterinary activity. It is thought—and I agree with the advice—that these exceptions should apply to the use of vehicles et cetera as detailed in the subsection on page 2. It is a very simple Amendment, and I move it on advice. My Lords, I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4 [Prohibition of poaching, etc.]:

Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 2: Page 3, line 1, leave out (Subject to section 9 of this Act").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, may I speak to Amendments Nos. 2 and 4 together? These words which it is proposed to be left out are unnecessary, in view of the rephrasing of Clause 4 which occurred at an earlier stage. They do not alter in any way the meaning of the Bill, but tighten it up. My Lords, I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 3: Page 3, line 2, leave out ("on").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is purely drafting. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 4: Page 3, line 5, leave out ("Subject to section 9 of this Act").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this Amendment with Amendment No. 2. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 5 [Taking etc. of live deer]:

Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 5: Page 3, line 21, after ("takes") insert ("and removes").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is to clarify an offence as defined in the Bill, and is drafting. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 9 [General exceptions]:

11.30 a.m.

Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 6: Page 4, line 22, leave out ("section 3(1)") and insert ("subsection (1) of section 3").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, again this is purely a drafting Amendment. It has no effect on the meaning of the Bill. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 7:

Page 4, line 24, leave out from ("any") to ("not") in line 26 and insert ("weapon or article mentioned in paragraph (c)(i), (iii), (iv) or (v) of that subsection, for the purpose of taking or killing any such deer and in a manner which did").

[See Lord Northfield's statement which begins at 12.37 p.m. in today's proceedings.]

The noble Lord said: My Lords, there is a slight misprint in this Amendment. It should read: "leave out from the first ('any') to ('not') in line 26". Although it is rather long, again this is purely a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Lord LEATHERLAND

My Lords, the words proposed to be inserted are "for the purpose of taking … any such deer". A few moments ago we deleted the word "takes" in Clause 5 and inserted the word "removes". Should we now use the word "removing" instead of the word "taking", or are two separate operations involved?

Lord NORTHFIELD

My Lords, with the leave of the House, may I point out to my noble friend that we did not delete "takes". We left it in and added "and removes". In other words, the phrase "of taking deer" is used throughout the Bill, and it is quite correct in these circumstances.

Lord LEATHERLAND

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his explanation.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 8: Page 4, line 29, leave out ("or (iii)") and insert ("(iii), (iv) or (v)").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the effect of this Amendment is to widen the way in which a person may defend himself or another person threatened by a deer in a deer park. In such circumstances, the Amendment would permit the use of articles which are otherwise prohibited by Clause 3(1)(c)(iii), (iv) and (v). Your Lordships will find a reference to these sub-paragraphs in Clause 9 which has the rubric "General exceptions". Sub-paragraphs (iv) and (v) relate to missiles carrying or containing any poison, stupefying drug or muscle relaxing agent and to any type of artificial lighting or light-intensifying or infrared ray devices.

There are various reasons which appear to the Government to justify the widening of the exemptions in this way. First, such articles would be permitted under Clause 9(2) of the Bill for the purpose of dispatching injured or suffering deer. It seems to be anomalous that they should not also be permitted to prevent the suffering or possible injury of persons threatened by deer. Secondly, if a person in possession of a tranquillising gun happens to be on land, it seems to be unnecessarily restrictive not to allow him to use it so that the person threatened may escape unharmed without the need to kill the deer. Thirdly, a person driving in a deer park—for example, Richmond—might well instinctively flash his headlights to drive away a stag. By doing so, but for this Amendment, he would commit an offence.

The Promoters of the Bill are understood to be apprehensive that this exemption in respect of lights might be abused by poachers at night. It is, however, inconceivable that a poacher would be able to convince a court that his unlawful activities at night were unintended. A good deal of consultation has taken place between my noble friend Lord Northfield and other interests, and we feel that this Amendment meets a situation which, in the circumstances, appears to be realistic. Therefore, I beg to move.

Lord DERWENT

My Lords, I am not quite clear who it is who is supposed to walk about with a tranquilliser gun.

Lord WELLS-PESTELL

My Lords, the Amendment is designed to try to cover every eventuality. I do not know whether the noble Lord likes tranquilliser guns. However, it is conceivable that certain people may walk about with such a gun. We are trying to remove the exemptions, so that if a person is threatened by a deer and he happens to have a weapon which is prohibited by Clause 3, he can use it. In fact, most of us would not have much more than a piece of wood—if that.

Lord NORTHFIELD

My Lords, the noble Lord opposite has expressed exactly my concern. My noble friend has said that we have reservations about the Amendment which he is moving, but we have had so many consultations with and good will shown by the House Office in the redrafting of this very complicated matter, that I should not like to take issue with him on this Amendment. It will not do a great deal of harm. Although we have reservations, I feel sure that the House should pass this Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 9: Page 4, line 33, leave out ("or 3") and insert ("3 or 5").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this small Amendment is designed to give greater exemption from the controls contained in the Bill to vetinerary surgeons who may need to do various things to deer in the course of their lawful activities with deer. This very laudable Amendment has been suggested by the Home Office. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 10: Page 4, line 40, leave out ("sections 1 to 5") and insert ("section 1, 2, 3 or 5").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this purely drafting Amendment. It arises because the exemption from the redrafted Clause 4 is not necessary.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 11: Page 5, line 7, at beginning insert ("that he had reasonable grounds for believing").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 11. If noble Lords will look at this Part of the Bill, they will see that it relates to a situation in which farmers and others have the right to shoot deer which are marauding their crops. It is the concern of the Promoters of the Bill to ensure that this authorisation to farmers to shoot deer should not be so wide that a farmer may shoot at any deer that he sees anywhere, on the pretext that perhaps six months ago, or at any other time, he had seen some other kind of deer eating his crops. The object of the Amendment is to narrow the scope of this paragraph so that the farmer has full protection but cannot at the same time take undue advantage of the right to shoot any deer which he sees.

At the Report stage of the Bill the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, suggested that it was rather restrictive to say that the farmer must be able to prove that it was deer of exactly the same species that he had seen eating his crops, and that therefore he was now shooting them. The noble Earl asked whether we could obtain a slight relaxation in favour of the farmer. These words indicate that the farmer must have reasonable grounds for believing that deer of the same species had been seen marauding his crops and for shooting at them. I believe that this Amendment meets the point which the noble Earl made at the Report stage. I beg to move.

Lord DENHAM

My Lords, I should like to say a word of thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Mansfield. This is only one example of the tremendous trouble that the noble Lord has taken throughout this Bill to meet all interests. Although it is only one small example, none the less we are grateful to him for it.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

11.40 a.m.

Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 12: Page 5, line 24, after ("of") insert ("not less than").

The noble Lord said: I must ask the indulgence of this House at this point because there is a slight printing error. In fact to follow the phraseology used in the whole of the body of this Bill in respect of the gauge of weapons the phrase should be, for example, "not less gauge than 12 bore" or whatever might be the appropriate phraseology at any one point. In other words, in this Amendment the word, "gauge" is missing. It should be transposed from slightly later in the line of subsection (7)(b) and therefore the Amendment should read, "not less gauge than" in order to get the sense in line with the remainder of the Bill. I give noble Lords the assurance that this is no more than a printing error. I beg to move.

The LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, I think formally at this stage the debate should be confined to the words as printed on the Marshalled List.

Lord WELLS-PESTELL

My Lords, I know of no rules in your Lordships' House which will permit of an Amendment of this kind, and certainly at Third Reading unfortunately we cannot move a manuscript Amendment. I do not know whether my noble friend Lord Northfield feels that this is of supreme and paramount importance. If it is not, I hope that it may be left as it is. I do not quite know that we can deal with it in any other way.

Lord NORTHFIELD

My Lords, with the leave of the House I am happy to accept the guidance of my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell to leave the Amendment as it is on the Marshalled List.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 13: Page 5, line 29, at beginning insert ("that he had reasonable grounds for believing").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in effect I spoke to this Amendment when moving Amendment No. 11. I beg to move Amendment No. 13.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 14: Page 6, line 4, leave out from ("by") to end of line 5 and insert ("adding further matters as to which the person charged must satisfy the court").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a redrafting of a phrase inserted at an earlier stage of the Bill, allowing the Minister to attach conditions to the use of any firearm or ammunition. It was felt by Parliamentary draftsmen, who have been very kind in advising on this Bill, that this is a better phrasing of the intention in the words at present in the Bill. I beg to move.

Lord DENHAM

My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, could assure the House that the new wording does not add any more strength to this particular provision. Does it, for instance, give the Minister any more powers to limit possibly one or two of the safeguards that are already in the Bill than did the previous form of wording?

Lord NORTHFIELD

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to say that the Bill as drafted laid down that the Minister could prescribe conditions to be attached. Prescribing conditions is a very wide authority for the Minister and I should have thought that adding further matters on which he must satisfy the court is almost tautologous. I do not think that it would increase the powers, but for reasons on which I am not an expert the Parliamentary draftsmen said that it was a more felicitous way of reaching the same objective.

Lord WELLS-PESTELL

My Lords, if my noble friend will allow me to intervene at this stage, I think the wording of the Amendment puts beyond doubt the fact that the power of the Secretary of State could be used to introduce a provision prohibiting deer drives. The important point is that it puts it beyond doubt legally, and in a Bill of this kind that is important.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 15: Page 6, line 7, leave out ("pasture or woodland").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 16. These two Amendments are consequential on an Amendment moved at Report stage to leave a very broad definition of the land on which certain activities should take place, and therefore the words, "pasture or woodland" are not necessary. Amendment No. 16 is consequential. I beg to move Amendment No. 15.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 16: Page 6, line 15, leave out ("that land") and insert ("the land on which the action is taken").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this Amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 10 [Power to grant licences]:

Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 17:

Page 6, line 20, leave out from beginning to ("any") in line 21 and insert "provisions of—

  1. (a) section 1 of this Act in respect of the taking or killing of deer for scientific or educational purposes;
  2. (b) sections 1 and 2 of this Act in respect of the taking of deer alive for scientific or educational purposes;
  3. (c) section 3(1) of this Act in respect of".

The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, while moving Amendment No. 17 I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 18 and 19. These are purely redrafting Amendments as advised by Parliamentary draftsmen and they do not alter the sense of the Bill. I beg to move Amendment No. 17.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 18:

Page 6, line 30, at end insert— (d) section 3(1) of this Act in respect of the use of any type of artificial lighting or light- intensifying or infra-red ray device authorised by the licence for the purpose of taking deer alive for scientific or educational purposes;".

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 19:

Page 6, leave out lines 31 to 44 and insert— (e) section 5 of this Act in respect of the removal of deer from one area to another or any act done for scientific or educational purposes.".

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 20:

Page 7, line 1, at beginning insert— ("()The Council may charge such fees as appear to them to be appropriate for the grant of a licence under this section").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, it has been represented to us that if any demand for licences under this part of the Bill grew it might be necessary for the Nature Conservancy Council to begin charging fees for them. Therefore this Amendment is designed to allow the Council to charge those fees if it should become necessary. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 21: Page 7, line 2, leave out ("Nature Conservancy").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the permission of the House I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 together. They are purely drafting Amendments. I beg to move Amendment No. 21.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 22: Page 7, line 3, leave out ("and") and insert ("(4)").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this Amendment when moving the previous Amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 23:

Page 7, line 9, at end insert: (5) If it appears to the Secretary of State expedient that the Council should cease to be responsible for exercising the functions conferred on them by this section, he may by order transfer those functions to himself or to any other Minister of the Crown. (6) An order under subsection (5) above may make such incidental, consequential, transitional or supplementary provision as appears to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment has been suggested by the Government, because it may prove expedient in the future to try to transfer the licensing functions, mainly concerning the movement of live deer throughout the country, from the Nature Conservancy Council to some other body and perhaps even to a Minister of the Crown if deer were to become a responsibility more directly of any particular Department of State. The Amendment is very sensible and provides for the future. I hope that it commends itself to your Lordships. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 12 [Licensed game dealers to keep records]:

Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 24: Page 7, line 41, after ("forthwith") insert ("full particulars of").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is really a drafting Amendment and reinstates words the need for which we did not appreciate in an earlier Amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Northfield. There is nothing hidden in the Amendment; it is perfectly straightforward. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 14 [Powers of search, arrest and seizure]:

Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 25: Page 10, line 8, leave out ("forfeiture") and insert ("be detained and forfeited").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is intended to make it even clearer that when the police exercise their power to seize a deer under the provisions of Clause 14(1)(d) they are not required to keep the animal itself right up to the date of the proceedings. Anxiety has been expressed that the inclusion of the words: detain for the purpose of proceedings might be construed by the police as requiring them to keep the animal until the actual day of the proceedings—an obligation which might deter them from seizing the animal at all, even though it would be right for them to do so. This anxiety is entirely without foundation. The power to detain the animal is purely permissive and not mandatory in any way. By making clear that the proceeds of a sale may be detained as well as forfeited, the Amendment emphasises that the sale itself may take place at any time, certainly before the date of the proceedings. It is a sincere attempt to make the position so far as possible watertight. I therefore beg to move.

Lord NORTHFIELD

My Lords, I shall not, of course, resist the Amendment and I must assume that my noble friend, Lord Wells-Pestell, has cleared this with the police. However, the advice that I have—and perhaps my noble friend could check this—is that it may well be that in practice the Amendment could slightly (I do not want to exaggerate) inhibit the police in seizing illegally killed carcases. However, that is something that can be looked at and made up for in some other way in due course. I have that slight reservation about the Amendment, but I have no wish to resist it.

Lord WELLS-PESTELL

I am grateful for the observation of my noble friend Lord Northfield. It was with that point of view in mind that we tried to make it clearer by saying that they do not have to detain. If the Bill said that they had to detain until the date of the proceedings I think that it could work against the purpose of this clause. However, as it does not do so, I should have thought that it would help the police rather than hinder them. I cannot say what consultations have taken place, but I shall convey my noble friend's point of view to my right honourable friend and see whether this point has been cleared.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 17 [Advisory Committee on deer for England and Wales]:

Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 26: Leave out Clause 17.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 26 which stands in my name. In doing so I should like, with your Lordships' permission, to refer to Amendment No. 27 which is an Amendment to Clause 18 and also the Amendment to Clause 20. Noble Lords will recall from the Report stage proceedings of the Bill that the Government did not feel able to accept the proposed Advisory Committee on Deer, despite the fact that the case was so persuasively argued by not only my noble friend Lord Northfield but a number of other noble Lords with a great deal of experience in this area who were in your Lordships' House during the Report stage.

The Government's objections were that the powers conferred by the Bill did not in themselves call for the creation of such a Committee and that some of the wider functions contemplated for it went well beyond the existing responsibilities of Government Departments. The Government considered with care everything that was said on the last occasion and I think that my noble friend Lord Northfield will admit that a good deal of thought and care has been given to the matter. However, I am sorry to tell your Lordships that we have felt unable to arrive at any different conclusion from the one that I tried to state on behalf of the Government at the Report stage. There have, however, been discussions at which my noble friend Lord Northfield has been present, and as a result of those discussions I am able to make a statement to the House about the Government's intended course of action when the Bill becomes law which will, I believe, justify the deletion from the Bill of the proposal for a statutory Advisory Committee.

I know that some noble Lords feel extremely keenly about this matter and that is why I think that I should put the Government's point of view. The statement that I wish to make falls into two parts. The first part deals with the phasing out of the use of the shotgun by farmers and occupiers in Defence of their crops. The second part deals with the wider question of future policy in relation to deer.

As regards shotguns, the Government have taken full note of everything that has been said in the debates on the Bill and fully accept, as a matter of principle, that the use of the shotgun can cause cruelty. Indeed, this was a conclusion that the Scott Henderson Committee on Cruelty to Wild Animals reached as long ago as 1951. The situation is further demonstrated by the fact that, although it has not been possible to establish the situation authoritatively, as I understand it, the United Kingdom is one of the very few remaining European countries to permit the use of shotguns against deer. If we are not the last such country, we must be very nearly the last. Accordingly, we accept that it is desirable that the machinery provided by the Bill for phasing out the use of the weapon ought to be used, so as to achieve this objective as soon as it is practicable.

I can give the assurance that the Government will accordingly keep this issue under constant review and will seek to achieve progress, so far as may be proved possible, consistent with any representations made by the various interests involved. I should particularly like to stress that last point; namely, having regard to representations made by the various interests involved". The Bill provides that the Secretary of State shall consult all the interested bodies before exercising his powers. I assure noble Lords that not only will he do that, but he will also give full weight to all the representations and objections he may receive, and, before exercising his power over shotguns, the Home Secretary will consult with the Minister of Agriculture. I wish to make that quite clear.

As regards the future policy concerning deer, the Government propose to set up an inter-Departmental committee to examine this question. The purpose of the review will be to obtain as much accurate information as possible, and, in the light of that, to study what need there may be for further measures to be taken relating to the management of deer, what forms these might take and how they might be effected. The performance of the licensing functions covered by the Bill and which Department should be responsible for their exercise is likely to form part of this review. As noble Lords will realise, the time which has elapsed since the Report stage has left very little opportunity for discussions to go into detail about the precise machinery of the review. It will have to be worked out, and we propose to write to my noble friend Lord Northfield about this in due course.

The deletion of Clause 17 requires a consequential Amendment to be made to Clause 18 to remove the reference in that clause to the Advisory Committee. The revision of Clause 20 also takes account of the fact that no adaptations in respect of the Advisory Committee provisions will now be needed.

Lord DENHAM

My Lords, could the noble Lord say which is the consequential Amendment?

Lord WELLS-PESTELL

It is Amendment No. 28, my Lords. I do not think I can say anything more. I have given the assurance that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary will consult before making decisions about the shotguns; he will consult with the Minister of Agriculture and will consider representations from a very wide area, and also any objections he may receive.

I would like to emphasise again the setting up of an inter-Departmental committee to examine the whole of this question. I should have thought, with the very greatest respect, that would have met the situation of noble Lords who have pressed for an Advisory Committee. As we have had a long discussion about this behind the scenes and the various interests have been consulted, I hope that your Lordships will agree.

12.3 p.m.

Lord DENHAM

My Lords, your Lordships will be under a considerable difficulty at this stage in discussing an Amendment which has such a major effect on the Bill. Such Amendments are not usually moved at Third Reading. I propose to say more on that when I speak on the Motion, That the Bill do now pass. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, will realise the difficulties which it does put us under; only he and the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, have the right of reply. I hope he will try as fully as possible to answer any questions he is asked.

I am not yet completely happy, after hearing the noble Lord, with the safeguards provided by these new arrangements in relation to orders to ban shotguns in various instances, and other points of view. The noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, will appreciate that a very great deal of discussion had gone into arriving at what everybody thought was an ideal solution, the Advisory Committee. The noble Lord said that since Report stage there have been wide discussions in respect of this new proposal. I do not think any views from the National Farmers' Union or various other interests had time to be taken into consideration.

What really worries me is this. The Advisory Committee was going to be a widely representative body on which various interests were to be represented, spokesmen for various interests were to he involved. When these various proposals were brought before it anybody could have come to put their point of view. It is true that in the Bill as the noble Lord proposes to amend it the Minister has a statutory obligation to consult all bodies as appear to him to represent persons likely to be interested in or affected by the orders. I wonder whether the noble Lord could go a little further into what will appear to him to be bodies interested. Obviously, they must include the NFU. Will they include the British Field Sports Society? Will they include the Deer Society?

This Advisory Committee would have had representatives of various interests who would have been in a position, when evidence was being given before them, to see how that evidence was going. When people come to give evidence before a committee sometimes they are not accustomed to doing it, they are very nervous; sometimes they do not make the really telling points. Very often it is possible for one member of the committee, not to affect it in any way, but just to bring out by questioning points that ought to be made and considered. This, I feel, will be lost in the Minister's considerations. Again, on the Advisory Committee, while consideration was being given to these various points, representatives would be able to see how the general mind of the committee was going; and if they thought it was going wrongly, they could bring in possibly another argument or suggest that another point of view should be heard. Will the Minister keep the various bodies representing the various interests informed during the course of his consideration?

The third point is that the Advisory Committee would, I think, on certain occasions have gone to certain parts of the country to have a look for themselves. For instance, they might have gone to see a deer drive conducted before they started making an order. Will the Minister himself go to see a deer drive conducted before he makes an order which will affect it? That is my worry about the safeguards. Perhaps the noble Lord will be able to settle all those worries so that I will not have them any more.

My Lords, I still am not quite clear as to why the Home Office should object to this Advisory Committee. It seems to me such a suitable solution to all the problems that appeared in the course of this very difficult set of discussions, during which we tried to get general agreement. Is it that it is going to be too expensive, or is it that it is going to be too much trouble? This Advisory Committee was going to do quite a lot of things. It was going to act as the advisory body to the Minister when he was making his orders under this Bill. It was also going to act as a controlling body to advise on and bring about the control of deer in the right way.

Instead of this one body the Minister is now going to set up a Departmental inquiry—that is going to mean a lot of trouble and expense—to find out whether in fact we should have an Advisory Committee or a commission or something of the sort in the future. I think anybody who has been into the deer question is fairly convinced that some form of advisory body or commission will be necessary in the future. So that body will eventually have to come, and it will not have the use which it would have at the moment of acting as a watchdog to the Minister over these various orders. Also, there is to be some form of internal machinery within the Home Office to look into these various points of where the orders should be made, to interview all the people, to take all the interests into account, to go to see the various parts of the country. It seems to me that there ate three bodies in place of one. I am not convinced that the Minister is right. The reason I am not convinced is that this complicated Amendment changing the whole purpose of the Bill has come at Third Reading. It may be that when one has had more time to study it one will be satisfied. I hope the Minister will be able to say something that will set at rest the worries that some of us certainly have.

12.10 p.m.

Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY

My Lords, I have a few questions to ask about this Amendment. I have to say at the outset that I am disappointed by this Amendment, which does away with the Advisory Committee. I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, would have expected me to say anything else. I think I am correct in saying that every noble Lord welcomed the idea of this Advisory Committee, which is no doubt why it has now lost its head! That may be the answer to Lord Denham's question.

When introducing it on Report the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, emphasised that the Advisory Committee was an integral and essential part of the agreement with the farming community. He said that they, that is, the National Farmers' Union: …would be happy to accept, and, indeed, to support, [the package] provided that the whole thing is there".—[Official Report, 30/6/77; col. 1308.] Sadly, half the package has gone; hence my disappointment and, much more so, my sadness. Sadness, because I fear, like my noble friend Lord Denham, that there will be very little constructive deer culling and conservation compared to the amount there would have been under the Advisory Committee. Why do I say that?—because I do not know who will advise the Home Secretary to take this action.

This morning we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, that various bodies, inter-Departmental committees and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, will be involved. If it is the Minister of Agriculture—which in my opinion should be so, and not the Home Secretary—will he really bother to argue a deer case with his Cabinet colleagues, particularly if he has more pressing matters on his mind which he wants to put to those Cabinet colleagues, such as the devaluation of the Green Pound? Anyway, who will advise the Minister of Agriculture? Will it be his pest officers?—they have not been particularly effective in controlling rabbits. I do not see the Minister of Agriculture, the Home Secretary or, indeed, this inter-Departmental committee really becoming involved—as my noble friend Lord Denham said—with any degree of success in controlling on the ground excessive numbers of deer, particularly if in the end the responsibility lies with the Home Office.

Although I do not feel particularly strongly about it, I also feel that the Minister will be at risk of severe criticism from the farming community—no doubt he gets used to that—should he advise the Home Secretary to change the method of shooting or culling deer; whereas if he had an Advisory Committee it would have seen the problem on the ground and spoken to farmers; the farmers would be able to put their views to the committee and would have discussed it with them, as my noble friend said. They would be live human beings with dirty boots and hands.

I am sorely tempted to be unpleasant about the Home Office and its civil servants. I do so dislike being so. They have destroyed this excellent, practical solution to the deer problem, which was so well achieved by the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, in consultation with all parties. I think that it was a quite remarkable achievement, particularly with the farming community. I frankly admit that I do not understand their reasons or their mentality, although that does not, of course, matter. Ours is to do and die, and all the rest of it—not to reason. But what does matter is that I very much doubt whether they—and that probably means the inter-Departmental committee—understand farmers; and even if they do, farmers will not understand them, which is really the point. They will lose the obvious confidence that I believe this Advisory Committee would have created.

Lastly, I find it difficult at this eleventh hour to understand the implications of this change. I shall read very carefully what the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, said. Perhaps he could reaffirm one or two remarks that were made by the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, on Report. The noble Lord said that the Advisory Committee would pay particular attention to farmers' crops and to the responsible culling of deer. Can the Minister say that that too will be a prime responsibility of the Minister of Agriculture, or whoever will deal with this Bill now? I should also like to raise a technical query about the inter-Departmental committee. If the Minister wishes to make an order under Clause 9, which alters the method of killing, will he consult the inter-Departmental committee before doing so, or will he do it straight off his own bat?

I certainly do not wish this Bill ill. The noble Lord, Lord Northfield, has shown me what can be achieved by hard work and understanding. I hope that whatever Department takes on the job, it will follow his example. Certainly I would have wished his Bill, with the Advisory Committee, a straight path to heaven. I now fear for the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell. I can only wish it paradise.

The Earl of HALSBURY

My Lords, there is one aspect of this Amendment which disturbs me a trifle. It arises out of the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Denham. Only a few days ago the noble Baroness the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms, charged us all very straitly to confine Amendments on Third Reading to matters of spit and polish, clarification of the Bill, and so on. The noble Baroness emphasised that we should not do anything to change the character of the Bill by way of amendment on Third Reading. Here is a Government Amendment which does exactly the opposite of what, only a few days ago, their own Chief Whip told us they should not do.

Lord SWANSEA

My Lords, I should like to support other noble Lords who have spoken on this point because I am surprised that the Government have seen fit to introduce on Third Reading an Amendment of such substance as this. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, will not press this Amendment because, as the clause was introduced on Report only a few days ago, it is a little too soon to whip it out of the Bill now. If any further consideration is to be given to it, that should wait until the Bill has gone to another place.

The Government seem quite unwilling to listen to any sort of expert advice. When this clause was tabled on Report from all parts of the Chamber it received support from noble Lords with first-hand experience of the control and management of deer. It seems extraordinary to me that the Government are not willing to listen to such expert advice from people who have practical experience, as my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley has just said. I very much hope that the noble Lord opposite will not press this Amendment.

Lord DE CLIFFORD

My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend, Lord Swansea. We have been strictly charged, and yesterday when I spoke on the Third Reading of the Minibus Bill I was told that I was wrong to do so. The Committee of your Lordships' House took a long look at this matter and there were wide-ranging negotiations on it. But with one sweep of the pen on Third Reading the matter of principle has been completely changed. I join with my noble friends in asking the Government not to press this Amendment. Further consideration should be given to it when it goes to another place. This is contrary to everything that noble Lords have discussed throughout the Bill. Now, on Third Reading, we are told to change a matter of principle and drop the clause.

12.20 p.m.

Lord NORTHFIELD

My Lords, as noble Lords will well understand, I have listened to this short debate with great interest and a good deal of heartburning. I think noble Lords will appreciate that it would have been quite open to me at this point to leave this Amendment simply in the name of my noble friend. I should explain why I have added my name to it when it makes it look as though I am eating words—and words which I stand by—which the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, has read out again today, and which I uttered as recently as the Report stage a few days ago.

Why then did I add my name? May I tell your Lordships that this Bill, which is an immensely complicated Bill to be a Private Member's Bill—normally Bills like this that we hope to get through, so to speak, on the nod in the other place are very short Bills—is also very long and has been the subject of continuous consultation by Ministers in groups and individually at the very highest level to be in the Cabinet—such is the importance of it and so difficult has it been.

If I may lighten the proceedings, I may tell your Lordships that the last letter I had on this issue was from the Home Secretary, Mr. Merlyn Rees, himself. I do not know what had got into him, whether it was being sick and tired of this Bill or some reaction inside him, or whether it was a leg pull, but I can tell your Lordships that it began: "Deer Donald"—the "Deer" being spelt d-e-e-r. This Bill has got to that level in Government. I think they will be very glad when we are through with it and even senior Ministers can see the back of it and get it finally on its way.

This leads me to the precise point I want to make. I added my name to this Amendment because I believed that the only hope for a Bill of this kind at this stage was if it was agreed upon all sides, because the slender chance is that it might go through on the nod in the other place and become law reasonably quickly. That can be done only if it is not blocked by very simple procedures. I had to get agreement not only with all the interested parties—the people outside the Chamber, including farmers, whose opinions and needs and fears I respect—but I had also to get agreement with the Government.

The Government have compromised to a considerable extent in this Bill. For a start, the Government, against their own will, have accepted a Clause 4 which, for the first time, outlaws poaching and makes it a criminal offence. This was bitterly opposed by the Government in the early stages. They have accepted, under pressure from your Lordships, a whole section concerning the control over the sales of venison, which they did not particularly want. I could give other examples. In other words, I want to make it clear from the beginning that the Government, too, have compromised with your Lordships, just as we have compromised among ourselves, in order to get an agreed Bill. I accept this final Amendment very reluctantly indeed, but as another point on which we are compromising in return for these other compromises that the Government have already made against their better judgment in other parts of the Bill.

Secondly, may I look on the bright side. If we are not to have an advisory committee, we are now being offered an inter-Departmental Committee. I think that this may, in the end, prove to be a good thing. What it will mean is that, instead of an Advisory Committee swimming against the stream of Government thinking in Departments, if the inter-Departmental Committee, on whom pressure can be put by the Deer Society and by farmers and everybody else, comes out finally and says that it is time that deer in England be properly managed as they are in Scotland, we shall have made an immense piece of progress compared with having an advisory committee on the edge battering at the Government and only reluctantly accepted by them. Because the outcome of that report from the inter-Departmental Committee might well then be a deer commission with real powers of management and quite wide duties that could go well beyond what we had envisaged in an Advisory Committee. So I look on the bright side; that is, that if this inter-Departmental Committee is pressured by all of us, it may, in the end, lead to a quicker use of a more scientific approach to management of deer in England.

As to the other half of the package about shotguns, I apologise to noble Lords that it was not possible to consult with the National Farmers' Union about the proposals to abandon the Advisory Committee which, as the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, correctly said, was an integral part of the package arranged with them. This was simply a matter of timing. I only knew of the Government's final opposition to the Advisory Committee two days ago. I spent a whole afternoon then consulting with Ministers, who each received me in order to discuss this issue at the highest level of Government. I do not think I am speaking out of turn when I tell you that Mr. Silkin, the Minister of Agriculture, has himself been in touch with the National Farmers' Union to reassure them of his view on this matter, that he will want to be consulted, exactly as my noble friend has said, in any moves to outlaw the shotgun, and that, I would suspect, although I did not hear the conversation with the Minister, that the National Farmers' Union firmly understood at the end that they had a friend in Government on whom they could lean if they felt that the Home Office was moving too quickly in beginning to outlaw the shotgun. That is the level at which Ministers have tried to involve themselves in this Bill and tried to get this final compromise agreed.

May I make a final point. The Minister has an absolute power to do this phasing-out of the shotgun. After all the consultations he has to do it by order, and that order is subject to debate and annulment in Parliament. If the Home Office, even against the advice, or with the advice, of the Minister of Agriculture brings forward orders for the outlawing, perhaps even area by area, of the shotgun in due course, that is subject to debate in your Lordships' House as it is subject to debate in another place, with the possibility of annulment of the order.

I am unhappy, of course. I am trying to make the best of an unhappy situation. I do it because I want this Bill through after all the hard work we have put into it, and the last thing I want, in view of all that has happened, is to have a situation where, in another place, Government Whips simply blocked this Bill because we had not reached this final point of compromise. It is a great deal to ask of the farming community to give up this part of the package, and I have only done it reluctantly after the Government have pressed me. I can only apologise to them and to tell them my own belief, which is that I do not think that they have lost a good deal because we may get a better form of Advisory Committee in the end. Meanwhile, we have the Ministry of Agriculture as firmly their friend and their protector in place of an Advisory Committee when these issues are argued out by the Home Office. On the whole, therefore, I have added my name to this Amendment, albeit with the greatest of reluctance.

12.29 p.m.

Lord WELLS-PESTELL

My Lords, in view of what my noble friend Lord Northfield has just said, I do not think it is necessary for me to take up much of your Lordships' time. However, I should like to answer one or two points I have been specifically asked. I would remind your Lordships that when this Bill came before the House originally there was no one in your Lordships' House who thought that it stood much of a chance. We have come a long way. We have had to follow the old sort of British way of life, and that is by deciding issues by compromise. There has been a compromise, so far as this Bill is concerned, but let me say, with great respect, that it has been a good compromise.

I do not want to go over the reasons why we found it impossible to have an Advisory Committee. I tried at the end of the Report stage to persuade your Lordships not to include in the Bill an Advisory Committee, and I gave my reasons, which I thought were, and still think are, quite sound. At no stage in this Bill and in many Bills like it has such a responsibility been put on the Secretary of State. There was the problem, "How can you possibly lay this at the door of the Home Secretary?", which is what noble Lords wanted. It was not exclusively a matter for the Minister of Agriculture because the Minister for the Department of the Environment could be brought in.

I think we have a much more effective way of dealing with the matter and the proposed committee will probably serve the deer interests far better. It will be much more widely representative. The inter-departmental committee should, in my submission, consist of far more people than the advisory committee was likely to have, yet still retain the interests and representation not only of the National Farmers' Union and the British Deer Society but also of the British Field Sports Society. It could bring in a whole wealth of experience and a fund of knowledge that I think would not have been possible with an advisory committee.

I do not like Amendments of this kind coming on Third Reading, but it is tabled today in order to save the Bill. I never like misleading the House; I like to be honest and frank. Without the Amendment the chances of the Bill's survival in another place would be very remote because there would remain one or two major contentious matters and we must deal with those matters in this House. I hope noble Lords will take, not necessarily the advice I am trying to give but the advice which my noble friend Lord Northfield gave.

Ministers have been involved. I do not want to take my old friend the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, to task when he remarked that he would like to say some very unpleasant things about the Home Office and civil servants. We do not criticise civil servants, as the noble Lord knows; in the last analysis civil servants do what the Minister requires. Of course they are available for consultation and I know that my noble friend Lord Northfield would be the first to say that he has had almost their undivided attention over a long period of time. There has been one meeting after another and, to my personal knowledge, four Ministers, including two Secretaries of State, have been involved in the final decision. If we have any criticisms we must make them to the Minister or Ministers concerned and, so far as your Lordships are concerned if you have any unkind things to say they must be directed to me, and I shall not mind that one bit.

I do not think I need say more. Lord Stanley asked whether the inter-Departmental committee would range over the whole field. The whole purpose of this inter-Departmental committee is to work out a policy for deer for the future. I cannot see that it could exclude anything pertinent and relative to deer. I cannot see that it could exclude opinions, objections and observations coming from people who have a competence in that field. I should have thought—Lord Northfield reinforced this—that ultimately this will probably prove to be much better than what was intended by an advisory committee.

I hope your Lordships will not put the Bill at risk, and I am sure you will not. I again apologise for the fact that we have had to do this on Third Reading. The time between Report and Third Reading was all too short, as is often the case, both in this House and in another place, but we take this action to send to the other place a Bill which we hope—perhaps I should not use the expression—will be taken on the nod.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 18 [Orders]:

Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 27: Page 11, line 27, leave out from ("consult") to ("bodies") in line 29 and insert ("such").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move what is a consequential Amendment and I need not delay your Lordships by speaking to it.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 20 [Application to Northern Ireland]:

Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 28:

Page 12, line 29, at end insert— ("and for any reference to a Minister of the Crown there shall be substituted a reference to a Northern Ireland Department; () for the reference in section 9(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; () for the reference in section 9(5) to any power conferred on the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, or on that Minister and the Secretary of State acting jointly, by or under the Diseases of Animals Act 1950, the Rabies Act 1974 or section 9 or 10 of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 there shall be substituted a reference to any power conferred on the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland by or under the Diseases of Animals Act (Northern Ireland) 1958 or the Diseases of Animals (Northern Ireland) Order 1975; () in section 10 subsections (5) and (6) shall be omitted and for any reference to the Nature Conservancy Council there shall be substituted a reference to the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland; () in section 12(9) the words "or London borough, or of the Common Council of the City of London" shall be omitted;").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I will with the permission of the House speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 29, 30 and 31. These Amendments deal with the application of various provisions of the Bill to Northern Ireland. They transfer paragraphs (g) and (h) to what are now their appropriate places in the subsection and make some further adaptations which were overlooked at an earlier stage. Some of the Amendments are consequential on earlier Amendments in the Marshalled List. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 29:

Page 13, leave out lines 13 to 38 and insert— ("() in section 18, subsection (2) shall be omitted;").

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 30: Page 13, line 39, after ("19") insert ("(1)").

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 31:

Page 13, line 41, at end insert— ("() for any reference in section 19(2) to any enactment there shall be substituted a reference to any enactment of the Parliament of Northern Ireland or of the Northern Ireland Assembly;").

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

12.37 p.m.

Lord NORTHFIELD

My Lords, I crave the indulgence of the House to point out that, inadvertently, I misled the House when speaking to Amendment No. 7. The word "any" occurs twice in line 24 and the Amendment on the Marshalled List did not make clear to which "any" the Amendment referred. I told the House that we were talking about the first "any" but I am now advised that I should have said that we were talking about the word "any" where it occurs the second time in the line. I apologise to your Lordships and I hope that the Amendment can be accepted in that form and that my mistake may be rectified.

Lord WELLS-PESTELL

My Lords, I am sorry always to appear in the role of having to say, "You can't do that", but even a simple change is contrary to the Rules of your Lordships' House. The matter has been decided and it is impossible to alter it at this stage. It may seem rather ludicrous that we cannot make such a simple alteration but I must point out that to do so would be contrary to our procedure. I must, therefore, advise against it. However, I think it is a very simple matter that can be put right in another place without any problem.

Lord NORTHFIELD

My Lords, I hope my noble friend will accept that the Amendment without this correction is incorrect because the Amendment does not say to which "any" it refers. The word "any" appears twice in that line and we must say to which "any" it refers. It was a slip of the tongue on my part when I was talking about the first "any" in that I should have been referring to the second. In other words, I am not seeking to alter the words but simply to amend my reference to the word "any". Perhaps if the matter were left there it would, in view of my remarks, be put right by the printer.

Lord WELLS-PESTELL

My Lords, if the House is looking to me for guidance I can only say that once an Amendment has been moved, whether it has been moved wrongly or if, inadvertently, something has been left out, that must remain the position.

Lord NORTHFIELD

It was a slip of the tongue, my Lords.

Lord WELLS-PESTELL

My Lords, it may have been a slip of the tongue, and I should like to help, but we are bound by our Standing Orders and, so far as I can see, there is no way round this problem. I suppose in the last analysis it is a matter for the House because it is your Lordships' House and your Lordships can do more or less as you please. I do not know the procedure from here, but—

Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON

My Lords, surely one cannot correct an Amendment, but at any time any Member of this House, or any other House, can correct his speech. The noble Lord said that in his speech he made a slip of the tongue; he is not asking to correct the Amendment.

Lord WELLS-PESTELL

My Lords, in that case I would leave it to my noble friend Lord Northfield to check his speech with Hansard.

Lord NORTHFIELD

My Lords, I hope it will be accepted at this moment that I say that I was wrong in saying the first "any"; I meant to say the second "any".

Lord WELLS-PESTELL

My Lords, I think that that will have been heard in the right quarter, and I am also sure that your Lordships would support my noble friend in correcting his speech with Hansard.

Lord NORTHFIELD

I am much obliged.

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.

Moved, That the Bill do now pass—(Lord Northfield.)

12.41 p.m.

Lord DENHAM

My Lords, I do not want to detain the House, because there is another debate coming on, but I think it would be wrong for this House not to pay some tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, for the tremendous work he has done on the Bill. When he first took on the task I thought it was impossible, but he had achieved it until last Thursday when the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, came and threw a little spanner in the works. It was a little spanner, but it did quite a lot of damage.

I said I would return to the procedural point, but the procedural point has been made. I submit that this is an abuse of your Lordships' procedure. The Companion to the Standing Orders says that one should not reverse an Amendment that has been refused at an earlier stage; this is in fact putting out an Amendment which was accepted at an earlier stage, which is much the same thing. I think that it is wrong. If the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, was going to bring this matter to the House, he should have done so at Report stage. At that stage the Bill could have been recommitted, and we could have discussed the matter thoroughly.

I asked the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, a number of questions, to none of which he replied, although I had explained to him beforehand the importance of him doing so. Had it not been Third Reading, I could have come back to him and asked him for an answer but I could not do it; I was tied, because this Amendment of great substance has been put in at Third Reading. I hope that the Procedure Committee will look into this matter and see whether it should be ensured that what I think is an abuse does not occur again.

I was looking forward at this stage to welcoming the Bill on behalf of the Opposition and then to taking a metaphorical step backwards to the Back-Benches, and saying on behalf of the British Field Sports Society that they expressed active support for the Bill. I cannot do that. I want to choose my words very carefully. It is very difficult for a Private Member's Bill at this stage in the Session to go through another place, and I do not want to say anything that will prejudice the aspirations of the noble Lord, Lord Northfield. I cannot express active support for the Bill in its present form, because we do not know, and we have not had time, to consider exactly what it will do. So while I am not expressing disapproval, I cannot express active welcome.

Lord NORTHFIELD

My Lords, with the indulgence of the House, I should like, in turn, to thank noble Lords who have been very kind to me. I am a complete novice with regard to deer, and now I feel that I am only half an expert on the subject after several months of learning. But noble Lords opposite and on the Government Front Bench have taught me much about deer, and they have been very kind in understanding my ignorance, and in guiding me along in this very complicated issue.

I wish to thank in particular the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, and the noble Lord, Lord Denham, who have been kindness itself in meeting me on all occasions to get agreement and who have made very valuable suggestions regarding the drafting of the Bill. I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell, always a model of courtesy. He has excelled himself even in that quality in dealing with me on the Bill, and lie has been kindness at every point. His colleagues in the Government, Dr. Summerskill, Mr. Silkin, and the Home Secretary, have all taken a hand in the Bill, and have been very helpful. I cannot thank them enough. I believe that, as a result of all this—and whatever may happen to the Bill—deer will now be much more actively studied and managed in this country in years to come, in one way or another, following the proceedings we have had and the undertakings and interest that we have elucidated from the Government.

Finally, I should like to thank the Deer Society, and in particular Mr. John Hotchkiss who has been the man behind the Bill for many years. It has gone through years of preparation. He has worked tirelessly almost day and night, with civil servants and draftsmen who have been kindly put at our disposal, to produce what is now, subject to what the noble Lord, Lord Denham, has just said, virtually an agreed Bill. I hope that noble Lords, however much they may have a jaundiced view of this final compromise, will help me to see that there is no opposition to it in another place, because our best chance in curing some of the desperate cruelty now going on in this country in the slaughter of deer by poachers, and our best chance of eliminating this blot on our life at the moment, is in the passing of the Bill as quickly as possible. I therefore hope that that will be the guiding principle which will enable us to get it through another place and, hopefully, into law without too much delay. I conclude by expressing my gratitude to everyone who has helped in every way on the Bill.

On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.