HL Deb 30 June 1977 vol 384 cc1305-35

7.21 p.m.

Lord NORTHFIELD

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now further considered on Report.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Clause 18 [General exceptions]:

Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 47A: Page 8, line 41, leave out ("the deer was causing, or had caused, serious") and insert ("deer of the same species were causing, or had caused").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, since we considered this matter some days ago my noble friend Lord Northfield and the Government have been able to discuss a number of outstanding matters. It might be helpful if I were to say at this stage that there is almost complete agreement between my noble friend Lord Northfield and the Government on the majority of the Amendments put down. As all of your Lordships who are present know this Bill from front to back and, if I may say so, from back to front, I would think it is unnecessary for me to move certain Amendments at any great length.

With your Lordships' permission I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 47A and 49A. These Amendments make some changes in the conditions which must exist before farmers and other occupiers may be permitted to shoot deer in the closed season or at night in defence of their crops or other properties. The changes being made by these Government Amendments to Clause 18(6) correspond precisely to the modifications which my noble friend Lord Northfield has introduced in his revised version of subsection (7) in respect of the similar situation to which these subsections apply. I do not think I need to say any more. I beg to move.

Lord NORTHFIELD

My Lords, in supporting these Amendments may I briefly say two things: first, I should like again to thank the Home Office for their great attention to this Bill and for helping me redraft highly difficult sections of it. This has caused staff of the Home Office to be working late at night on more than one occasion. I am fully conscious of that and grateful for it. We have had our conflicts and our arguments, and almost our recriminations, but I am glad to say that, as my noble friend so kindly said, we have reached wide measures of agreement which are reflected in the Amendments on the Marshalled List. Nevertheless, may I say to my noble friend, secondly, that he knows and I know that at Third Reading there will be some small Amendments which are still under discussion, but I hope they will fall fully within the traditions of the House in that they will be in the nature of final tidying up of the Bill. I fully support what my noble friend has moved.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 49A:

Page 8, line 44, leave out from ("and") to end of line 45 and insert—

  1. ("(c) that there was a likelihood of further damage and that such damage was likely to be serious, and
  2. (d) that his action was necessary for the purpose of preventing any further damage").

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

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

7.25 p.m.

Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 50A:

Page 9, line 1, 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 by using—

  1. (a) any smooth bore gun of not less gauge than 12 bore loaded with a cartridge containing a single non-spherical projectile weighing not less than 350 grains (22.68 grammes), or
  2. (b) 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 land if he satisfies the court before whom he is charged—
  1. (i) that he was an authorised person, and
  2. (ii) that deer of the same species were causing, or had caused, damage to crops, vegetables, fruit, growing timber or any other form of property on that land, and
  3. (iii) that there was a likelihood of further damage and that such damage was likely to be serious, and
  4. (iv) that his action was necessary for the purpose of preventing any further damage.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall have to speak slightly longer on this issue. I should be grateful for the indulgence of the House if I may speak to Amendment No. 53 at the same time, and if I may mention Amendment No. 61A, which is the proposed new clause on the Advisory Committee. It cannot be excluded at this point although I shall want to say a further word when we reach it.

Here, we are reaching an issue which was hotly debated at Committee stage. It is the question of the weapons permitted for use by an owner-occupier largely against marauding deer. The original intention of the Bill was that the shotgun should be phased out in favour of the rifle. Some noble Lords at any rate indicated that it would not be acceptable to the farming community to make this transition so quickly. In the end, we reached a compromise which involves continued permission to use a shotgun in the circumstances set out in the proposed Amendment, provided the damage is shown as set out in the latter part of the Amendment. Later, the Secretary of State will, by means of Amendment No. 53, have power, either nationally or area by area, to proscribe and prescribe the appropriate weapons to be used against deer. The present Amendment then will make a full compromise with the farming community, provided that the third element—the existence of the Advisory Committee which in the course of its work will advise the Minister on this issue, among others—is included.

I want to say two or three things about it. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, was most insistent on this issue at Committee stage and will accept from me that this involves leaving the status quo at the moment, with the inevitability, let us face it, of some considerable possibility of continued cruelty to deer by use of the shotgun. I accept this for a transitional period, but I hope that the noble Lord, in turn, will agree with me that the purpose of the years to come must be gradually to get the farming community to accept the phasing-out. They must be persuaded to accept the use of more appropriate weapons through a period of education, discussion, contact with their chief constable, and so on.

Having said that, let me say that this agreement is fully made with the National Farmers' Union. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dulverton, who arranged for me, with him, to meet Sir Henry Plumb, the president of the NFU, with his vice-presidents. This became a package of compromise which the NFU confirmed in writing that they would be happy to accept, and, indeed, to support, provided that the whole thing is there. The package must include the powers of the Minister to act by order but with the possibility—indeed, the certainty—that the Minister will be advised by an advisory committee on which the NFU will be represented, with the possibility of course that if the Minister were to act too precipitately the farming community could make representations to the advisory committee and could finally oppose the Order in Council in Parliament if they were dissatisfied with the speed with which the matter was being dealt. I hope therefore that the whole procedure that is here suggested will commend itself to the House.

The noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, has put some questions to me in writing and I would say three things to him. First, we fully accept that the protection of farmers' crops is a very ligitimate activity and nobody wants to deny the farmer the possibility of that protection. Secondly, I hope that in this transitional period we will move without undue fear that chief constables will be too restrictive or unduly unwilling to give any firearms certificates that the Minister's final orders in years to come—when all this has been through a period of education to final action—may necessitate.

Thirdly, I have with me letters from chief constables from which I will read a couple of sentences. One of them is a very important chief constable, the chief constable of Devon and Cornwall, where I know there is great sensitivity on this issue, and he writes: I appreciate that while the effect of the Bill, if implemented in its present form, would increase the amount of applications by farmers for high-powered rifles, the problem is not a national one and no real difficulties are envisaged in dealing with future applications in this Force". That must be reassuring for the farming community and I want it to be on record. The chief constable of the West Mersea Constabulary writes: In any event, provided the nature of the applications"— that is, for a firearms certificate— were satisfactory, refusals would not arise. I know the concern expressed by the National Farmers' Union, but I think they have exaggerated the situation". I do not want to level any charges whatever; I simply want to allay fears. I hope that after a period of transition, for which this and the associated Amendments provide, we shall in years to come reach a happy outcome, and I hope that that preliminary or advance assurance from two chief constables who have a considerable responsibility in this matter will reassure the farming community that this process of transition should begin and should not in the end lead to undue difficulties when it is completed. I beg to move.

Lord SWANSEA

My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, in what he said about hopes for the future and that chief constables will review their objections to issuing firearms certificates. If we continue to allow the use of shotguns we will be dragging behind other European countries in the humane control of deer; we will, I believe, be the only country in Western Europe still to allow the use of small shot in shotguns and we will still have the situation remaining of deer being wounded and undergoing intense suffering. I therefore also regret very much that it has proved necessary to retain the use of shotguns.

The proposed subsection (7)(b) refers to any smooth bore gun of 12-bore gauge and that, I feel, is rather too restrictive. I suggest it should be brought into line with the preceding provision so as not to allow any smooth bore gun of "not less gauge" than 12-bore. With the larger gauges one has the advantage of a larger shot capacity, which of course will produce a denser shot pattern and increase the chances of an effective kill. In the same subsection, where it specifies the shot size, it specifies only one shot size—"this shot shalt thou use and no other"—which I feel is rather too rigid. I suggest that it should be a minimum size and that scope should be given for the use of a larger size of shot. There are various sizes on the market and the larger size has greater striking energy, and so I suggest that there should be rather more scope in the choice of size of shot.

Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY

My Lords, I wish at the outset to thank the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, for his remarks about farmers' crops and that they should be a prime consideration of the proposed committee. I very much welcome that. I think I should tell him that we farmers are normally a suspicious lot; we have to put up with the Almighty and his weather, but we also have to put up with politicians, who are far worse, and that is why I probably treated the noble Lord's Bill with a certain amount of suspicion.

As he knows, I am more than happy to accept this new provision in conjunction with the one he will move shortly concerning the proposed committee, and I know that the NFU is too, as he intimated. I must agree—as I have always agreed, even on Second Reading—that the rifle is a better weapon. We have discussed this at great length and I know the noble Lord accepts that at the moment we are not ready for it. I am sorry about that, but as we all know there are conditions of safety and the need for people to be educated before we can reach that stage. However, I accept that we should try to move that way.

The noble Lord mentioned a compromise. Your Lordships must realise that Lord Northfield has been a master of negotiation over the Bill. Frankly, I thought that we should never reach agreement. We have, and in my view a great deal of the tribute for that, indeed all of it, must go to the noble Lord.

The Earl of MANSFIELD

My Lords, perhaps it is in order for me to add a word of agreement and of congratulation to the noble Lord, Lord Northfield. Like all compromises, this one is less than perfect. I have been concerning myself throughout the passage of the Bill with the legal side of matters and I am still not entirely happy with the wording of his proposed Amendment. For instance, I am not sure that it will be easy to satisfy a court under paragraph (b)(ii) that one's nibbled turnip had been nibbled the previous night by deer of the same species as the next morning is lying dead. Perhaps a little more consideration could be given to this matter on Third Reading, because it is very nearly a nonsense. I am sure that with good will and slightly better drafting it could be made better.

So far as the use of the shotgun is concerned, I think that I agree with my noble friend Lord Swansea that paragraph (b) should be drafted so as to read "not less than 5.2 millimetres", rather than "of 5.2 millimetres". That would give discretion to the particular user of the shotgun who may happen to have shotgun cartridges of large size which would do the job just as well as those which have been prescribed.

I want to refer to the question of deer drives, which I do not think has been mentioned previously. It caused a great deal of thought and, possibly, confusion at an earlier stage. I think it excellent that this matter, too, will be left in the hands of the Secretary of State as advised by his Advisory Committee. The great merit of a compromise such as this is that it leaves the problem to be decided by those who have to make decisions in the light of the prevailing circumstances. The noble Lord has produced letters from two chief constables which give him solace, or at any rate satisfaction. I am not going to rock the boat more than to say that I have had letters from chief constables, who are perhaps rather nearer to urban areas or conurbations, who said that they would be worried by the issue of firearms certificates. I think that only time will show the Secretary of State how he is to operate it, and it may be that one area would be treated quite differently from another, not from the point of view of education or availability, but simply from the point of view of the number of people who happen to live in an area, and the desirability of letting off high velocity rifles within it. This is the merit of the Secretary of State making orders in the future, and as such I join with others in welcoming this compromise, and in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, upon his considerable devotion to duty.

Lord NORTHFIELD

My Lords, I am most grateful for what noble Lords have said; they have been very indulgent in my weeks of negotiations. I should like to mention two points. I will gladly consider before Third Reading the point raised on paragraph (b). On sub-paragraph (ii), dealing with the same species question, I should say that this provision has been put in very recently, because noble Lords and others interested in deer were anxious to secure that there was some onus on the farmer to prove that in using the exemption provided here he is actually shooting at least something like the deer which had been causing the damage. The danger was previously that it was merely a case of deer having caused damage and he could take a pot shot at the red deer, even though a roe deer or some other deer had been causing the damage. This is simply an attempt slightly to narrow the circumstances in which the farmer can act, and I have put it in under pressure. Although I will consider the point of the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, I hope that at Third Reading I can say that I have convinced him that we should stick to it, but I give an undertaking to have a word about this before Third Reading—

Viscount MOUNTGARRET

My Lords, I should like to raise a point with the noble Lord before he sits down. I apologise in that I have probably not been paying attention. In the Bill as it came through Committee, paragraph (c) of subsection (7) seems to have got lost in the Amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Northfield. I thought it was desirable that we should at this stage try to prevent any possibility of deer drives. Can the noble Lord reassure me on that point?

Lord NORTHFIELD

My Lords, as the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, has indicated, it is part of the compromise that we do not at this point outlaw deer drives. This is part of the agreement with the National Farmers' Union. But I should point out that in Amendment No. 53, which we are discussing together with this Amendment, the Minister is given the power to prescribe conditions to be attached to the use of firearms or ammunition. That would enable him in the circumstances, and with restrictions that he would set out, to regularise deer drives in due course, after the advice of the Advisory Committee, and after talking with the NFU. That is the best we can do in the compromise that we have reached.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

7.44 p.m.

Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 52A:

Page 9, line 21, at end insert— ("(7A) A person shall not be guilty of an offence under section 3(1)(c)(i) of this Act by reason of the killing or attempted killing of any deer by using, as a slaughtering instrument, any smooth bore gun which is of not less gauge than 12 bore, has a barrel less than 24 inches (609.6 millimetres) in length and 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: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, in moving Amendment No. 52A I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 63A and 68A. I do not think that there is any need for me to dwell at great length on this matter. These three Amendments are intended to resolve the problem of defining a slaughtering instrument for the purpose of the Bill. Noble Lords will appreciate that the second and third Amendments remove the definition of a slaughtering instrument from Clause 21 entirely, and transfer it to the reference to a slaughtering instrument in Schedule 2, where it is given the meaning given to it in the Firearms Act. The new subsection which forms the first of these three Amendments introduces the idea of a different form of slaughtering instrument; namely, the sawn-off shotgun, which satisfies the technical specifications set out in this new subsection. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 53:

Page 9, line 21, at end insert— ("(7A) The Secretary of State may by order, either generally or in relation to any area or any species of deer specified in the order, repeal subsection (7) above or amend it by adding any firearm or ammunition or by altering the description of, or deleting, any firearm or ammunition mentioned in that subsection, or by prescribing the conditions to be attached to the use of any firearm or ammunition.")

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

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 55: Page 9, line 24, leave out ("authorised").

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

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 57: Transpose Clause 18 to after Clause 7.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment putting the clause to a more appropriate point in the Bill. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 19 [Power to grant licences]:

Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 58: Page 10, line 10, leave out ("3(2)") and insert ("(Taking etc. of live deer)").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I should like to speak to these two Amendments, Nos. 58 and 59 together. Both are drafting Amendments, consequent on Amendments that we made at an earlier sitting. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 59: Page 10, line 14, leave out ("3(2)(b)") and insert ("(Taking etc. of live deer)(a)").

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 60: Transpose Clause 19 to after Clause 7.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships will see that this is a drafting Amendment. It merely seeks to put Clause 19 in the right order.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

7.50 p.m.

Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 61A: After Clause 19, insert the following new clause:

Advisory Committee on Deer in England and Wales

.—(1) There shall be established an Advisory Committee on Deer in England and Wales, consisting of such members as the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food may from time to time appoint and particularly including nominees of such bodies appearing to him to represent the interests of agriculture, forestry and deer and nature conservation.

(2) The duties of the said Committee shall be—

  1. (a) to advise the Minister on any question which he may refer to that Committee in connection with deer;
  2. (b) to advise on weapons and ammunition to be used for the killing of deer and the areas where such weapons and ammunition are to be used;
  3. (c) to keep under review, and to advise the Minister on, measures needed for the better management of deer in England and Wales.

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 61A. I accept readily Amendment No. 61B in the name of my noble friend; it is a drafting Amendment. Here we come to a slightly more difficult situation. I have said already that the Advisory Committee is part of the total compromise reached with the farming community. I would add that, of course, noble Lords opposite— the noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret; the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, who is not here today; and others—have at earlier stages of the Bill strongly pressed for the introduction of an Advisory Committee. Could first of all give the broad justification, in addition to the issue of shotguns? The Advisory Committee, as set out in this Amendment, is in order to advise the Government (I shall come to the question of Ministers in a moment) on various matters concerning deer. The basic intention, in addition to advice about shotguns, is that in England and Wales we will gradually move towards the better management of deer. In Scotland we have the Red Deer Commission. In Scotland we have a sense of treating deer as a national, natural asset, and managing it.

No one would say that the circumstances in Scotland and England are identical, but there is a similarity. The population of deer in England is growing, and as the years go by it is becoming important to begin to manage deer in a conscious manner and to plan their future. At the moment, with great respect—I know my noble friend will allow me to say this—deer in England are considered wild animals and are dealt with by an Assistant Secretary, who covers, I understand, drugs, probation and all sorts of things. I hope we are going to move on from that state of affairs to conscious management under a Minister. As is set out in the Amendment, the intention is that the Minister of Agriculture should be the person appointing this Committee. This is because, as in Scotland—and I repeat, "as in Scotland", where the Department of Agriculture for Scotland accepts this responsibility—it is appropriate to begin moving deer from Home Office and cruelty to Minister of Agriculture and management.

I know that my noble friend is in a difficult situation. The Home Office does not want an Advisory Committee; but I think I am allowed to say that, in consultations with the Minister concerned at the Home Office, the Home Office is prepared to say, "We will not obstruct such an Advisory Committee provided that we, the Home Office, do not have to set it up and service it, listen to it and give it jobs to do, and assume responsibility for deer" But I know that, wearing another hat, my noble friend has to say that at the moment the Minister of Agriculture is not satisfied that he should take it over—and he has written to me to that effect. I will not read his letter out for that would unduly delay us, but that is a fair statement, that he is not ready to take this matter over.

My Lords, I understand that this should not be regarded as the end of the road. What is needed is for this House and for people outside, and I hope for the other place, to put pressure on the Minister of Agriculture so that he is able finally to say, "All right; I will accept this pressure, and I will begin steadily to accept this responsibility, starting with this Advisory Committee and perhaps broadening out in years to come". Because, as I understand it, if in years to come the Minister develops this sense of responsibility, it will be possible by Order in Council to transfer other functions in this Bill from the Secretary of State for Home Affairs to the Minister of Agriculture, by means of a transfer of function order; so that gradually, using this as the opening, as the thin end of the wedge—I do not deny it for one moment—we begin to introduce into the situation the responsibility of the Minister of Agriculture for the management of deer.

I hope that, if my noble friend has to repeat what I have said—namely, that the Minister of Agriculture is not persuaded —then those noble Lords who have joined me in helping this Bill forward will be outspoken in their condemnation of the Government's attitude on this and in their pressure on the Minister to accept the responsibility. I undertake that, if this clause is agreed at this stage, I will report back on Third Reading whether I have persuaded the Minister, with the help of noble Lords today, to accept this responsibility in some form. I cannot claim T will succeed, but I have a fair hope if noble Lords will back me.

I have just two other points to make. The noble Lord, Lord Stanley, with the NFU, pressed strongly that the farming community should have a clear right to membership of this Advisory Committee. That is safeguarded, not only by saying that they should be on the Committee but that they should be their nominees, and not their representatives. I think that is a very helpful step, although, of course, this must also apply to some other people who are equally interested in deer. Secondly, the noble Lord wrote to me and said that he hoped I would say a word about those farmers, landowners or others who were over-interested in conservation and never wanted any deer killed on their property. I can only say to him that I think an Advisory Committee as constituted under this new clause will have a broad enough membership. a balanced enough approach, to begin this process of management, so that anybody who does not agree with the proper culling of deer—I think there are very few people who do not agree with proper culling, but anybody who wants to preserve deer at all costs, so to speak—will, over a period of time, be educated into proper culling, into proper management, in a way that he would approve.

I hope that goes some way towards reassuring the noble Lord that this is not an Advisory Committee for the permanent protection and conservation at all costs of deer: it is an Advisory Committee concerned with proper management, which includes proper culling. I apologise to your Lordships for speaking at some slight length on this issue, but it is a very important one, and I had to warn noble Lords in advance that my noble friend is likely to be slightly hostile on this issue. I beg to move.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER

I will now call Amendment No. 61B, which is an Amendment to Amendment No. 61 A.

7.58 p.m.

Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved, as an Amendment to Amendment No. 61A, Amendment No. 61B: Line 6, leave out ("appearing") and insert ("as appear").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps this would be an opportune moment for me to intervene so far as Amendment No. 61A is concerned.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER

My Lords, I have called Amendment No. 61B. The noble Lord can speak to Amendment No. 61A also, but No. 61B is an Amendment to No. 61A and we must get that out of the way before we vote on the substantive one. It is the noble Lord's own Amendment.

Lord WELLS-PESTELL

In that case, my Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 61B, an Amendment standing in my name, and perhaps your Lordships will allow me also to speak to Amendment No. 61A. As I was saying, my noble friend Lord Northfield, as I would expect, has put the position very fairly and very frankly, but it is a matter for your Lordships to resolve. I want to put the Government point of view, but 1 do not want to do it in any aggressive sense, and certainly not in any hostile sense. As noble Lords will know, we have come a long way in this Bill, and there is now a very large measure of agreement which some of us could not foresee a week or two ago. But as we understand the situation, there is no Ministerial function under this Bill, or indeed under any other legislation relating to deer.

It has been suggested that this Amendment is a matter for the Minister of Agriculture. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Home Affairs certainly does not consider that it can in any way be his responsibility, and presumably my noble friend has accepted that in moving Amendment No. 61A. Here, again, to impose the duty of appointing the members of the proposed committee on the Minister of Agriculture—who has no responsibilities whatever in relation to deer except in circumstances where they amount to an infestation by causing damage to crops or by spreading diseases —rightly or wrongly, seems to the Government to be unreasonable. I do not think that I can say any more because there is nothing more to say. The Government's view is that this is not a matter for either the Minister of State for Home Affairs or for the Minister of Agriculture. I have not yet heard your Lordships' views; but it is for you to decide whether this is an Amendment which you feel is desirable in the circumstances.

On Question, Amendment to the Amendment agreed to.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Viscount Hood)

My Lords, the Question now is that Amendment No. 61A, as amended, be agreed to.

Lord DULVERTON

My Lords, I should like very strongly to support the Amendment as put forward—and now amended—by the noble Lord, Lord Northfield. I have long had a growing conviction that the deer problem in England and Wales has grown to such proportions—insidiously almost, a phrase which I think I used during the Second Reading—that it must seriously be taken note of, and I would suggest, by the Minister of Agriculture. My interest in the problem we are discussing today, as is known to some of your Lordships. is widely spread. It includes interest and a certain degree of experience of deer control in Scotland. I am, in fact, a member of the Red Deer Commission which is charged with the control and conservation of red deer, mainly in the Highlands but all over Scotland. Their brief does not include the other deer, but, of course, it is the red deer which are the most numerous and which cause the most damage in Scotland. That is not the case, I think, mainly in England and Wales; but for five or six years I have seen intimately the work of the Red Deer Commission in carrying out those two functions of regulated control and conservation. I feel conviced that they fulfil a useful function in carrying the balance in an authoritative manner as between the farming community and the forestry community, on the one hand, and the deer forest owners on the other.

They are responsible to the Department of Agriculture for Scotland. I should have thought that there was a strong case for assuming that, if we set up an advisory committee, as is now suggested, which would bear a great deal of similarity to the Red Deer Commission in Scotland in its duties and functions, then it should be to the Minister of Agriculture that they are responsible.

My Lords, after all, there are other wild creatures for which the Ministry of Agriculture has long taken some responsibility; animals that do a certain amount of damage in farm crops, rabbits, rats—we could go on with a long list. There is some precedent, therefore, even if no strong precedent exists in any direction in relation to deer, for looking to the Minister of Agriculture to take some responsibility in this matter.

I have referred to the natural interest of the Minister of Agriculture in the interests of farmers and farm crops; but he has another interest which he exercises through his Forestry Commission, the Forestry Commission being responsible directly to the Minister of Agriculture. Not only do deer problems exist just in full in the woodlands in England and Wales but they were noticed there before they were noticeable in the farmlands. I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to two points. One is that the Forestry Commission, themselves, have long since banned the use of shotguns in their woods and utilise rifles for the proper control of deer in and around the margins of their woods. This is a point of passing interest. But the other point, which is, I believe, of interest and which relates to the same line of thought, is that when the representative organisation for the woodland growers, the private foresters of England and Wales, had this point put to them, they unanimously decided that they would wish to support a move to stop the use of shotguns in deer drives and to use only rifles as originally was suggested in this Bill.

My Lords, I hope very much that the Government will take another look at their attitude in this matter, and, in particular, that the Minister of Agriculture will do so, because the problem is such—and the population of various sorts of deer is so large now in the Southern half of the United Kingdom—that we cannot possibly ignore it or pretend that it and its attendant problems do not exist. These problems affect mainly the farmers and the foresters, both of whom look to the Minister of Agriculture for the protection of their interests. I wish to support the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, most strongly and I hope the Government will take another look at this matter.

8.8 p.m.

Viscount MOUNTGARRET

My Lords, I should like to support very strongly the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, and, in particular, what my noble friend Lord Dulverton has just said. I should not really comment too much on what he has said since he has said all that I should have liked to say. The noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, however, did invite noble Lords to show what they felt and that is why I am seeking to endorse precisely what my noble friend has just said. I feel that it is entirely right and logical that the Ministry of Agriculture should take the responsibility for the Advisory Committee, if we get this through, on this Bill. I thought for one moment that the noble Lord said that neither the Ministry of Agriculture nor the Ministry for Home Affairs should be responsible for this Bill; but, surely, somebody should be responsible! I am sure that it is only logical that the Minister of Agriculture should be so.

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, said that I was one of those who was most keen on the setting up of the Advisory Committee. I should like to correct him on this. Although certainly I am keen to see it set up, when I heard about it what worried me slightly was that there was no time limit on it. It is easy often to decide to do something, but it is also very easy to get these suggestions and ideas pigeonholed. I should have liked to see some form of timing. If this Advisory Committee can get under way, I should like to feel that the Government would accept that there is a great degree of urgency about this. While I accept that it is possibly undesirable to write an actual time limit into the Bill, for that might be difficult for the Government, I hope that they will realise that the urgency is there; because I am sure there is a general feeling that it is essential to end the use of unsuitable weapons and methods of control of marauding deer.

I should also like to feel that an even balance of interests is fully represented on the Committee. There are occasions when nominees are appointed and there is sometimes an imbalance of interests. This is an important point to bear in mind. I hope very much the Government will bear that point in mind. I fully endorse and support wholeheartedly the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Northfield.

Lord DORMER

My Lords, may I also wholeheartedly support the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, on the setting up of an Advisory Committee. It has worked well in Scotland and that is of great importance. It is also very important that deer should be properly managed in this country. In Scotland I think they are. For some reason in England there is a combination of great ignorance and vagueness in the matter.

As the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, has rightly said, we have come a long way in this Bill now. In the course of the Bill we have discussed poaching, the price of venison—which is now enormous—roe deer, the National Farmers' Union and their objections, the proper calibre rifles and the proper weapons that are to be used against deer, and the damage to crops which, as a practical farmer, I know is of great importance. In all these matters, the Ministry of Agriculture must inevitably take a keen interest. I was particularly pleased to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, that the chief constable of West Mercia had spoken in such approving terms regarding granting firearms certificates. I live in that police area and I feel sure that that is his view. I think that question has been overplayed.

An advisory body should consist of practical men who know deer and are in touch with them. The management of deer is essentially a practical question, and such a body of practical men could co-relate all conflicting interests and advise the Minister in a most valuable way, as happens in Scotland. I can see nothing but good coming from the appointment of such a body and I earnestly advocate that it should be set up. I hope very much that the Government w ill agree.

Lord DE CLIFFORD

My Lords, may I add my support to the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Northfield. It surprised me considerably that there is opposition from the Government that the Minister of Agriculture should not be closely bound up with this matter. As a rather simple minded man who lives in the country, it appears that the deer is the one creature which affects agriculture to its ultimate extent. I cannot see the Home Office, apart from the actual weapons being used to control these animals, being interested whether or not a farmer has had root crops eaten by deer. I should have thought that it was most logical that the Ministry of Agriculture should be the Department most deeply involved in this. I trust that the Government will change their minds.

Lord BURTON

My Lords, I am also disappointed to hear the Government's views. Having heard every speaker so far, I hope that the Minister will be able to convey back to the Government the views of your Lordships' House. This Amendment is absolutely fundamental to the Bill. The agreement has been reached, as some of your Lordships have confessed—and many more were convinced—from an absolutely impossible situation when this Bill commenced its passage through this House. That agreement has been reached not only speaks forcefully for the diplomacy of the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, but also for the value of your Lordships' House. For the Bill to founder now on what appears to be a technical problem between Government Departments would surely be a complete disaster.

I cannot understand how the Ministry of Agriculture can possibly fail to take responsibility for this matter. I am a practical farmer and, as matters stand at the moment, I apparently seldom agree with the current Minister of Agriculture. On this matter, he seems to have a completely indefensible case. I hope that the Government will think again.

Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY

My Lords, unless anybody has objections, I should like to say something on this as I was the main objector. First of all, I welcome the agreement on behalf of the National Farmers' Union. I welcome what the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, has said concerning it being a priority regarding agricultural crops. I welcome his remarks about irresponsible conservationists concerning deer which wander on to other people's land.

I and the National Farmers' Union feel that it is vital for the Ministry of Agriculture to be in charge of this Committee. If they are not, the Bill is going to fall. It seems as though the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, has now taken on my garb of the ugly sister—and I hope he enjoys it! This is an agricultural problem. If his civil servants could read Hansard some time, they will read that this has been my problem. I think—and I regret to say this—I am the only person who has divided the House on it. It is an agricultural problem and I ask them to read what our problems are. If they do that, and take any account of the matter—certainly the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, has—they will see that the Ministry of Agriculture must deal with this Committee.

I cannot understand the argument at all. The Ministry of Agriculture say, I understand, that they have no responsibility for wild animals. They deal with rabbits and rabbit clearance societies. Surely these matters are Ministry of Agriculture problems. The deer lives on my land; what it eats is an agricultural or a forestry problem. It is almost as ludicrous as saying that it does not matter how many sheep one keeps on the hill. If there is not any food on the hill, one cannot keep sheep. It is the same with the deer. It is an agricultural problem and I am sorry for those who cannot see that. I am sorry for the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell. He lives next door to me and will probably kill me next weekend!

I hope that the noble Lord will persuade his civil servants that this is a Ministry of Agriculture problem. We are telling him that they have to change. I do not see why we should always bow and scrape to the civil servants. I do not think they really mean that; they are just being naturally awkward—rather like me! This has been a masterpiece of negotiation on the part of the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, with the National Farmers' Union and myself. Please do not spoil it now.

On Question, Amendment to the Amendment agreed to.

On Question, Amendment No. 61A, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 20 [Orders]:

8.19 p.m.

Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 62:

Page 10, line 24, at beginning insert— (" (1A) Before making any order under this Act, the Secretary of State shall consult the Advisory Committee on Deer in England and Wales established under section (Advisory Committee on Deer in England and Wales) of this Act and such other bodies appearing to him to represent persons likely to be interested in or affected by the order.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on earlier discussions. The Amendment makes it clear that the Secretary of State must consult the Advisory Committee in making orders under the Act. It is partly consequential upon the discussion we had at an earlier sitting, when we said that the power to make orders under the Act would be put in more general form. I beg to move.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Viscount Hood)

As an Amendment to that Amendment, I call Amendment No. 62A.

Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved, as an Amendment to Amendment No. 62, Amendment No. 62A: Line 6, leave out ("appearing") and insert ("as appear").

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

On Question, Amendment to the Amendment agreed to.

On Question, Amendment No. 62, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 21 [Interpretation]:

Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 63A:

Page 11, leave out lines 9 to 16.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships will recall that I spoke to this Amendment when I moved Amendment No. 52A. I think it is quite clear. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 64:

Page 11, line 22, at end insert— (2) Except so far as the context otherwise requires, any reference in this Act to any enactment shall be construed as a reference to that enactment as amended by or under any other enactment.".

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will take my word that this is a technical Amendment. There is no problem. hidden or otherwise, in the wording, and I am sure that if there is my noble friend Lord Northfield will not hesitate to say so.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord BURTON moved Amendment No. 65: After Clause 21, insert the following new clause:

Application to Northern Ireland

.—(1) In the application of this Act to Northern Ireland section 200) shall be omitted and the other provisions shall have effect subject to the following modifications—

  1. (a) for any reference to the Secretary of State, there shall be substituted a reference to the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland:
  2. (b) for the reference in section 14 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;
  3. (c) in section 16(1)(c) the words "or shotgun" shall be omitted;
  4. (d) for any reference in section 16(2) to the chief officer of police, by whom the certificate mentioned in section 16(1)(c) of this Act was granted, there shall be substituted a reference to the Chief 1327 Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary;
  5. (e) in section 16(2)(c) after the reference (substituted by paragraph (d) above) to the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary there shall be inserted the words or within such further time as the Chief Constable may in special circumstances allow";
  6. (f) at the end of section 16 there shall be inserted the following subsection—
  7. "(3) Where the Chief Constable gives a notice under subsection (2)(b) above, subsections (3) and (4) of section 25A of the Firearms Act (Northern Ireland) 1969 (power of police to require surrender or disposal of firearms and ammunition in certain circumstances) shall apply with the substitution for references to the chief superintendent of references to the Chief Constable.";
  8. (g) for the reference in section 18(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;
  9. (h) at the end of section 18 there shall be inserted the following subsection—
  10. "(9) The Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland may by order substitute for the reference to the period of five years in subsection (7) above, a reference to such other period as may be specified in the order.";
  11. (i) 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;
  12. (j) 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, reference 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 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 Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to speak not only to Amendment No. 65 but 66, 69, 70, 71 and 72 as well. My noble friend Lord Brookeborough expected this stage of the Bill to be reached last week and very much regrets that he is not here to move these Amendments himself. His absence emphasises the difficulties in attending your Lordships' House for those who live in the further parts of the United Kingdom. In my wildest dreams I never expected to be involved with seeking legislation for Northern Ireland, but my noble friend asked me to move these for him.

I would say that the remainder of Ireland has already got some kind of deer legislation and the North of Ireland is probably the only country in the whole of Europe without any legislation whatsoever. The object of these Amendments is to bring Northern Ireland into line with England and Wales, and I am confident your Lordships will welcome such proposals. Your Lordships will see that there is some need for redrafting the proposals put forward by my noble friend and we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for putting down Amendments to this Amendment. Meanwhile, I beg to move Amendment No. 65.

Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved, as an Amendment to Amendment No. 65, Amendment No. 65A: In subsection (1) leave out ("the application of this Act to Northern Ireland section 20(1) shall be omitted and the other provisions") and insert ("its application to Northern Ireland this Act").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, subject to your Lordships' approval I should like to speak to Amendments No. 65B, 65C, 65D, 65E and 65F. These six Amendments are technical ones arising out of the Amendment that has just been proposed. As I say there is nothing hidden. They are in a sense drafting Amendments of a technical nature. I beg to move.

Lord NORTHFIELD

My Lords, may I say a few words. I am slightly unhappy about Amendment No. 65E to which my noble friend spoke in moving these Amendments to the main Amendment, because in effect at this point he is deleting the application of the Advisory Committee to Northern Ireland. I fully accept that the clause on an Advisory Committee should be called, Advisory Committee on England and Wales. It would be logical to do so. But, if we have now included Northern Ireland in the Bill, I must give notice that at Third Reading we may need to bring back Northern Ireland within the ambit of the Advisory Committee. I issue that short word of warning so that noble Lords will not be surprised if we have to return to this issue on Third Reading.

On Question, Amendment to the Amendment agreed to.

Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved, as an Amendment to Amendment No. 65, Amendment No. 65B: In paragraph (g) of subsection (1) leave out ("for the reference in section 18(5)") and insert ("in section 18(5) for the reference").

On Question, Amendment to the Amendment agreed to.

Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved, as an Amendment to Amendment No. 65, Amendment No. 65C: At end of paragraph (g) of subsection (1) insert "and for the reference 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".

On Question, Amendment to the Amendment agreed to.

Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved, as an Amendment to Amendment No. 65, Amendment No. 65D: Leave out paragraph (h) of subsection (1).

On Question, Amendment to the Amendment agreed to.

Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved, as an Amendment to Amendment No. 65, Amendment No. 65E: After paragraph (i) of subsection (1) insert— ("( ) section (Advisory Committee on Deer in England and Wales) shall be omitted; ( ) in section 20, subsection (1) shall be omitted and in subsection (1A) for the words from "the Advisory Committee" to "such other bodies" there shall be substituted the words "such bodies";").

On Question, Amendment to the Amendment agreed to.

Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved, as an Amendment to Amendment No. 65, Amendment No. 65F: Leave out paragraph (j) of subsection (1) and insert— (" (j) for any reference in section 21 to the Firearms Act 1968 there shall be substituted a reference to the Firearms Act (Northern Ireland) 1969; (k) for the reference in paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 to section 57(4) of the Firearms Act 1968 there shall be substituted a reference to section 50(1) of the Firearms Act (Northern Ireland) 1969.").

On Question, Amendment to the Amendment agreed to.

On Question, Amendment No. 65, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 23 [Short title, extent and commencement]:

Lord BURTON moved Amendment No. 66: Page 11, line 27, leave out ("or Northern Ireland").

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 67: Page 11, line 28, leave out from ("Act" to ("shall") in line 30.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I can take this briefly. The Bill as drafted provides that it shall come into operation on 1st November 1977, with the exception of Part III which should now read Part II which is to come into effect three months after Royal Assent. This provision was reasonable when the Bill was introduced but the passage of time has made this Amendment desirable. If the Bill reaches the Statute Book, it would be about mid-July. It is, therefore, unreasonable to provide for one part to come into operation in mid-October and the rest of the Bill to come into effect a fortnight later. The effect of the Amendment is to bring all the provisions of the Bill into force on the 1st November. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 1 [Close seasons]:

Lord BURTON moved Amendment No. 68: Leave out Schedule 1 and insert the following new Schedule—

(" CLOSE SEASONS

RED DEER (Cervus elaphus)

Stags: 1st May to 30th June inclusive.

Hinds: 16th March to 20th October inclusive.

FALLOW DEER (Dama dama)

Buck: 1st May to 30th June inclusive.

Doe: 16th March to 20th October inclusive.

SIKA DEER (Cervus Nippon)

Stags: 1st May to 30th June inclusive.

Hinds: 16th March to 20th October inclusive.

ROE DEER (Capreolus capreolus)

Buck: 21st October to 15th March inclusive.

Doe: 16th March to 20th October inclusive.

MUNTJAC DEER (Muntiacus species)

Buck: 16th March to 20th October inclusive.

Doe: 16th March to 20th October inclusive.

CHINESE WATER DEER (Hydropotes inermis)

Buck: 16th March to 20th October inclusive.

Doe: 16th March to 20th October inclusive.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, on Second Reading much concern was expressed over the differences in dates of close seasons between Scotland, England and Wales, and now we hope it will be between Northern Ireland as well. I think these differences were fully justified. There was difficulty in the Border areas where you had only to step one or two paces over the boundary and you were breaking the law if you were doing what you were doing on the other side. As yet we have no customs barriers or other checks on the Border and that the two countries should have so many different seasons seems to me totally incongruous. The seasons for everything else it is legal to shoot in this country—certainly all the game seasons—coincide in the United Kingdom as a whole. For instance, you would not start shooting grouse in England on the 1st August and in Scotland on the 12th, and I do not see why for deer you should start on one date in one country and on another date in the other.

I have publicised these proposals as widely as I could. I have sent copies to the Red Deer Commission in Scotland, to the Forestry Commission, to the Minister and various other people, and until today I have had no objections of any consequence, except for the question that some people feel that the seasons should all start on the first of the month. I do not think it is a very valid ground for complaint. If it is maintained that the police cannot remember these dates, it is unfortunate for the police.

These seasons should be arranged to suit the animals concerned. In any case, the police are not the only people concerned. People who have killed deer on both sides of the Border, if these proposals go through, would have to remember an enormous number of dates and it would be very complicated for them. I understand that the Forestry Commission have discussed these proposals but they are somewhat divided among themselves and have not come to any conclusion so far. I have heard nothing from the Minister about the proposals; I hope that he is satisfied.

In Scotland, I gather that there have been consultations with the Red Deer Commission and that they were not keen on having any changes in Scotland. There appears to be one very minor difficulty— it is the only major change proposed for Scotland—namely, that if the season for red hinds was extended into the autumn there might be difficulty with their counting and census work. That is not a very valid point because the Red Deer Commission have compulsory rights of entry in any case. However, the Red Deer Commission, to my mind, are not the right people to consult in Scotland on deer as a whole. They have a knowledge of hill red deer, but many of them really have not a very great knowledge. I would, of course, exclude my noble friend sitting in front of me who has an intimate knowledge of all kinds of deer; but certain members of the Commission might almost be called "anti-deer". One of them, at a symposium last year, actually advocated killing roe does when they had their fawns afoot, lying hidden, so that the fawn would probably have died. I am sure that your Lordships would never agree with that sort of treatment.

Anyway, the seasons in Scotland are somewhat of a farce because they do not apply on enclosed land, and already a shockingly high proportion of red stags are killed out of season. Also, as roe and sika deer are more often than not killed on enclosed land, they are also getting shot all the year round. A change is badly needed, my Lords. I think it might cause confusion if I were to go through the Schedules in detail: I think they speak mainly for themselves.

There are a number of people who have doubts on certain particular dates, and it is possible that the answer is that there should be round-the-table discussions. If the Bill goes through as it stands, the advisory body would be able to advise the Minister in England. The Minister in Scotland has powers to alter any close season by order in any case, except for red deer. Therefore, it would be possible even after the passing of the Bill, with goodwill on all sides, to try and get coordinated seasons for deer. I beg to move.

Viscount MOUNTGARRET

My Lords, I should just like to say that I did not quite follow what my noble friend was saying about co-ordinating the closed season for stags in Scotland. As regards red deer stags, 1st May to 30th June does not really apply to Scotland at all. The close season for red deer stags in Scotland is 20th October. I may be wrong about that—have I got the wrong paper? I should have thought, my Lords, that this is just the sort of subject where we should leave well alone and let the Advisory Committee advise the Minister. We should not pre-empt the work of the Advisory Committee.

Lord DULVERTON

My Lords, with the greatest respect to my noble friend Lord Burton, I must confess that I am one of those who, like my noble friend who has just sat down, feel that would be a good way of dealing with it and that we should not attempt to change the dates as they appear in the Bill at the present time. I do not feel that I can support this Amendment.

Lord WELLS-PESTELL

My Lords, I was not going to intervene, but in view of what the two last speakers have said, I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Burton, feels that he should proceed with this matter. There seems to be some conflict and I think we ought to get the Bill absolutely correct. If there is any doubt, the noble Lord, Lord Burton, may feel that this should be withdrawn and looked at again.

Lord NORTHFIELD

My Lords, I should like to support what my noble friend has just said, and to record two points. First, the Minister, by means of this Bill, has power to amend close seasons if evidence reaches him that they need to be changed. That is a very important point, so I do not think the noble Lord need ask for a final answer on this issue today. The second point is that, by and large, the Bill as drafted repeats the Deer Act provisions of 1963, which have worked satisfactorily in terms of dates for 14 years; so there is no prima facie case for their alteration in England.

I accept that an effort would be worth while, where it is appropriate, to bring the close seasons into line, and what I would undertake to do, if the noble Lord would accept it, and if the Bill becomes law, would be to ask the Minister to ask the Advisory Committee to look at this urgently. Also, I should be glad, as a preliminary to that, if the noble Lord feels anxious on the issue, to try to get round the table in advance with the two Departments concerned, together with the noble Lord and other interested parties, to see whether, even at an earlier stage, there is some hope of getting agreement on this issue. I hope that assurance will enable the noble Lord to feel able to withdraw his Amendment.

Lord BURTON

My Lords, as usual, the noble Lord is once more full of diplomacy. That is the way in which he has conducted the whole of the operations in connection with this Bill. It really makes it almost impossible for me not to withdraw the Amendment. However, I should like to emphasise that there is a great need to co-ordinate these dates and I would hope that, with the assurances that have been given, something will be done. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

8.35 p.m.

Schedule 2 [Prohibited firearms and ammunition]:

Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 68A: Page 12, line 29, at end insert ("(within the meaning of section 57(4) of the Firearms Act 1968)").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this Amendment when I moved Amendments Nos. 52A and 63A. I beg to move this Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 4 [Enactments repealed]:

Lord BURTON moved Amendments Nos. 69 to 72 en bloc:

Page 14, line 3, at end insert— ("Acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom").

Page 14, line 7, at end insert— ("Act of the Parliament of Northern Ireland

1969 c. 16 (N.I.). The Theft Act (Northern Ireland) 1969. In Schedule 1, paragraph 1.")

In the Title, line 3, after ("Wales") insert ("and Northern Ireland"). Page 14, Line 5, after ("Wales") insert ("and Northern Ireland").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move these Amendments. They are all intended to bring Northern Ireland into line. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendments agreed to.