Deer (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]

HL Deb 01 April 1982 vol 428 cc1534-66

7.56 p.m.

Report received.

Clause 1 [Alteration of general functions of the Red Deer Commission]:

Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 1:

Page 1, line 12, leave out ("6(1),").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 1, which removes the reference to Section 6(1) from Clause 1(2) of the Bill, merely paves the way for the next amendment, and perhaps it will he convenient if I speak to both together. At the Committee stage several noble Lords expressed dissatisfaction with the drafting of Clause 3(a) and I undertook to look at the various amendments that had been put down and to come back with a tidier version. This amendment is the result. It is still not particularly simple, but accuracy rather than simplicity was what we were trying to achieve. However, I think that it is at least clear. I beg to move.

Lord Northfield

My Lords, I should like very briefly to thank the noble Lord for the amendment, and to thank him most warmly for many further amendments that appear in his name on the Marshalled List. I also wish equally to thank the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, for going such a long way in the amendments that are now before us to meet points that I made at the Committee stage. To save the time of the House I shall not get up on each occasion and thank noble Lords. I hope that both noble Lords to whom I have referred will accept this as an omnibus word of very warm appreciation for the steps that they have taken to meet me on so many amendments. If we can this evening reach similar agreement about the measures to tighten up against poaching, I think we shall have virtually a totally agreed Bill. I again thank the noble Lords and repeat that I shall not intervene each time to do so.

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his kind remarks.

Lord Burton

My Lords, I should like to associate myself with the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, since I have been one of the strong critics of the Bill in the past. I am grateful for the very agreeable way in which my noble friend Lord Glenarthur has progressed.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 2:

Page 2, line 17, leave out paragraph (a) and insert— ("(a) for subsection (1) there shall be substituted the following subsection— (1) Subject to the following provisions of this section, where the Commission are satisfied—

1. (a) that red deer or sika deer are, on any agricultural land, woodland or garden ground—
   1. (i) causing serious damage to forestry or to agricultural production, including any crops or foodstuffs; or
   2. (ii) causing injury to farm animals (including serious overgrazing of pastures and competing with them for supplementary feeding); and
2. (b) that the killing of the deer is necessary to prevent further such damage or injury,

they shall authorise in writing, subject to such conditions as may be specified in the authorisation, any person who in their opinion is competent to do so to follow and kill on any land mentioned in the authorisation such red deer or sika deer as appear to that person to be causing the damage or injury.";").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment in connection with Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 3:

Page 2, line 34, leave out ("or are likely to cause").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, when we discussed Clause 4 of the Bill in Committee I said that since the clause brings in a new Section 6A, which is intended to operate in parallel with the existing Section 6 of the Act, it should be made as similar as appropriate to Section 6. Section 6 is triggered only when serious damage is already occurring, and so it should be with Section 6A, too. This amendment is designed to have that effect. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Northfield moved Amendment No. 4:

Page 2, line 38, after ("consent") insert ("in writing").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, we had similar amendments to this amendment in Committee. Its purpose is to ensure that in this case the consent of the occupier is not a casual, blanket consent or tacit acquiescence. It is to make sure on this point that I move the amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, it might be helpful if I reminded the House of the general circumstances in which action under Section 6A will take place. The commission will have come in under the existing Section 6 to deal with a red deer problem. They then find that among the red deer—or sikas, as it will now be—there are also pockets of roe or some other deer which are also causing some damage. But they need the power which Section 6A will give them if they are lawfully to shoot deer of these other species.

The commission will certainly be on the land with the knowledge of the occupier, and in 99 cases out of a hundred they will in fact be there at his request. The commission's stalkers will have a written authority from the commission itself given under Section 6: and under the terms of Section 6A the Commission, in turn, will have had to have got the consent of the occupier before their stalkers could shoot the other species. Thus, the stalkers will already have full written authority from the commission, and the occupier will be fully in the picture.

To add to all this the requirement that the occupier must give his consent in writing seems to me to be unnecessary, and could indeed cause some delay in dealing with a problem which requires quick action. This being the case, which I hope explains the situation to the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, I trust he will see fit to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Northfield

My Lords, I am not entirely satisfied but I see the point that the occupier will already have invited the people on to his land. At this stage, therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Northfield moved Amendment No. 5:

Page 3, line 3, leave out ("Sections 21 and 23(1) and insert ("Section 21").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, subsection (3) of the new Section 6A confers automatic immunity on the servants of the Red Deer Commission for two of the most important and, indeed, the most necessary and sensitive constraints in the Bill, and that is shooting in the close season or shooting at night. I think it would be quite wrong if this immunity, so far as killing at night is concerned, were to be completely unfettered. I am therefore proposing that, in effect, the exemption should not be automatic but that the Red Deer Commission's stalkers should be subject to the same disciplines as any other person who may shoot at night. They would therefore seek permission under the authorisations given in Clause 9 (4), like anybody else, if they wanted to shoot at night. This gives a much more direct control over shooting at night. I beg to move.

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, the Red Deer Commission stalkers already have a dispensation under Section 33(2) of the 1959 Act, which was amended by the 1967 Act, to shoot at night when they are operating under Section 6 of the Act or under a control scheme. Section 6, however, and the control scheme provisions, which are found in Section 7 and following, apply only to red deer or, as it will be under this Bill, red and sika. Thus, Section 33(2) confers no exemption in respect of other species, and the special exemption for night shooting under Section 6A, which is Clause 4 of my Bill, is therefore required if it is intended that Section 6A should operate in parallel with Section 6.

This is fairly tortuous, but I hope the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, will feel that he is satisfied by it and that we should not make the further amendment that he proposes, but that he will withdraw it. Perhaps I may also say that it makes it perfectly clear, I think, that the individual stalkers will in fact be individually authorised.

Viscount Thurso

My Lords, it would seem rather a charade to ask the deer commission stalkers to seek authoristation when they are already on the spot dealing with a case, because in fact the people from whom they would be seeking the authorisation would be administrators not familiar with what is happening on the ground. The normal procedure is that, if the Deer Commission wants advice on whether to authorise something to happen, they send their stalkers to look at the situation and the stalkers are the people who report back. If they have then to report back and have their report okayed, it seems to me to be rather a charade. I think that in this case it would be helpful if the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, were to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Northfield

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, said, his explanation is very tortuous. Frankly, I have not followed it, and I shall have to read it in Hansard to see whether it is worth pursuing the point any further. Meanwhile, I have to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

8.5 p.m.

Lord Northfield moved Amendment No. 6:

Before Clause 6, insert the following new clause:

("Prohibition of poaching

For section 22 of the said Act of 1959 there shall be substituted the following new section—

"Prohibition of Poaching.	22.—(1) Subject to section 33 of this Act, if any person enters any land without legal right or without permission from a person having such right in search or pursuit of any deer with the intention of taking, killing or injuring it, he shall be guilty of an offence.
	(2) Subject to section 23 of this Act, if any person while on any land—
	(a) intentionally takes, kills or injures any deer;
	(b) searches for or pursues any deer with the intention of taking, killing or injuring it; or
	(c) removes the carcase of any deer,
	without legal right or without permission from a person having such right, he shall be guilty of an offence.
	(3) If any authorised person or any constable suspects with reasonable cause that any person is committing or has committed an offence under subsection (1) or (2) above on any land, he may require that person—
	(a) to give his full name and address; and
	(b) to quit that land forthwith;
	and any person who fails to comply with a requirement under this subsection shall be guilty of an offence.
	(4) Subject to subsection (5) below, a person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £500 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to both.
	(5) Where an offence under this section was committed in respect of more than one deer the maximum fine which may be imposed under subsection (4) above shall he determined as if the person convicted had been convicted of a separate offence in respect of each deer.
	(6) In this section "authorised person", in relation to any land, means the owner or occupier or any person authorised by the owner or occupier of the land, and includes any person having the right to take or kill deer on the land.".").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a very important amendment, and perhaps needs slightly more time than we have been giving to the previous amendments. We are now dealing with poaching. At the moment, poaching is really governed by Section 22 of the 1959 Act. All that Section 22 does is to say that anyone who takes or wilfully kills without legal right commits an offence. Frankly, I do not think—and I made this very clear at previous stages—that this is sufficient, and I will explain the extent to which my amendments now strengthen the powers against the poacher.

I might say in passing that there is considerable disappointment and surprise in many quarters that the Bill has not taken more vigorous and far-reaching steps towards curbing deer poachers. In fact, the Bill seems almost timid in its approach to this very serious matter; and I am astonished, frankly, that the Bill as originally drafted did not go for poaching as one of the main matters to be dealt with.

Here, I may say in parenthesis that it is not that I necessarily want to stop people from getting a bit of free meat; that is not the point. The point about poaching is the immense cruelty that is involved. I cannot over-stress this. The Deer Society and many others can bring the most terrible examples of mutilation and barbaric activity committed by poachers that leave people aghast. They are the sort of things that make middle-page spreads in the Daily Mirror and in the Scottish papers, too, and they occur on a scale which is absolutely horrifying in modern-day society. So let us get clear why we are anti-poaching: it is because of this cruelty.

I want to emphasise that I remember very well, too, that the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, in introducing this Bill at Second Reading himself referred to the objectionable practices of poaching, and made clear that he was against them as much as anybody else. The increase in poaching is well known—I am not going over it again—and the deterioration in the observance of law and order in Scotland is also recognised. It has been in The Scotsman in recent days. It is increasing in the Highlands, too. I am not saying that it is all about poaching—not for one minute. All I am saying is that we are not dealing with a static situation in this matter; we know that this sort of thing is increasing, and that in some parts poaching—I have given figures at previous stages—really is a very active form of earning a living. I therefore do not understand why additional provisions were not in the Bill, and I believe that this sort of weakness cannot be left.

I want to make it clear, too, that the sort of provisions that are in here to strengthen the hands against the poacher already exist in similar legislation dealing with game. I am not here introducing anything novel or new. Much of subsections (1) and (2) in my amendment are to be found in the Night Poaching Act 1828 and in the Game (Scotland) Act 1832, both of those measures being introduced during a similar period of increased poaching over a century ago.

So far as subsection (3) is concerned, very similar provisions already exist in relation to game in the Game (Scotland) Act 1832. So in fact I restate the point: this is not a series of revolutionary proposals that I am putting forward; I am merely making use of existing provisions as aids to curb deer poaching. I therefore hope that my proposals will not be objected to if there is real determination to tackle poaching.

In the light of what I have said, I will not go into all the details, but it is worth saying that, instead of the very simple power that is in the 1959 Act, the amendment is trying to make it clear that a person can be apprehended on entry into land without legal right if he is proved to be in search or in pursuit of deer with the intention of killing it; and that it covers not just taking and killing but wilfully injuring, intentionally injuring. It enables him to be apprehended if he is searching or pursuing with the intention of taking or if caught removing the carcase from the land. Then it goes on to give the police power to demand his name and address and that he quit the land. This is a simple and well-documented attempt to strengthen the 1959 Act. I beg to move.

The Earl of Mansfield

My Lords, perhaps I may respond to the noble Lord because this is a matter which goes rather further than the actual subject of this Bill. I say by way of preface that I am at one with the noble Lord when he expresses his detestation of poaching and the cruelty which frequently accompanies it. I appreciate the fact that what he is seeking to do by this amendment is to stiffen Section 52 of the 1959 Act. But I would hope to show him that, in at least one instance, what he seeks to do is unnecessary; in another it may be desirable but is something to be decided at a later stage of this Bill; and that, in the third instance, what he seeks to do is otiose according to Scottish law and the way in which we in Scotland comport ourselves. I shall come to all those.

What the noble Lord seeks to do in effect in subsection (1) is to make it an offence to be on land with the intention of poaching. I am using baby language but I hope that the House will forgive me. Secondly, he makes it an offence to remove the carcase of a deer without authority and, thirdly, he, as it were, makes it an offence (in subsection (3)) to decline to meet a challenge by virtue of his presence when he is challenged by a constable or any authorised person. So far as subsection (1) is concerned, it has little or nothing that is new. A person who is acting as described in subsection (1)—that is to say, being on land with intent to take, kill, or injure deer, to have what used to be called a felonious intent towards deer—is already covered by Section 26 of the 1959 Act where it refers to acts preparatory to an offence which are punishable as if they were the offence itself.

Furthermore, I would draw the attention of the noble Lord to Section 20 of the Firearms Act 1968 which applies to Scotland and which makes it an offence to enter or be on any land with a firearm as a trespasser without reasonable excuse—and the proof of that latter phrase lies on the accused. Conviction of an offence under Section 20 allows the court to order forfeiture or disposal of firearms and ammunition found in the offender's possession and to cancel his firearm or shotgun certificate. The maximum penalties on summary convition are a £200 fine and/or three months' imprisonment. So far as subsection (1) is concerned, nothing is achieved that is not already contained in the law as it stands.

Lord Northfield

My Lords, does not the 1959 Act refer only to killing? This amendment would extend it under subsection (1) to taking, killing or injuring, so is it not to some extent the case that these provisions are not covered by existing legislation?

The Earl of Mansfield

My Lords, I disagree with the noble Lord. If injuring a deer is not an act preparatory to taking it, I do not know what is. Coming now to subsection (2), that does very little but re-enact what we have already in the existing Section 22. I agree that the noble Lord has a point here. There is one particular difference which, in effect, is the offence of removal of the carcass of a deer without authority. The noble Lord will be conversant with the case of Miln v. Maher, with which I will not weary the House. I agree that the noble Lord has a point here. I should like to look at it further. I would hope, if I dare to suggest it, that we need not return to it at Third Reading; but this is a matter which the Government would like to look at. I think this is something which might be considered by another place. The legal position is that the interpretation of taking a deer is not clear. It should be the subject of research, and I am grateful to the noble Lord for bringing up this part of the Bill.

Now I come to subsection (3). That would require a trespasser on land to give his name and address to a constable or an authorised person and to remove himself from the land forthwith, and if he did not he would be committing a criminal offence and would be liable to a penalty. Under the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act which the House discussed in 1980, a constable already has the power to demand the name and address of a suspect and to detain him where necessary while it is verified. This is part of the general law of Scotland and relates to any offence and not merely to those which have to do with deer or poaching. So we have that. That applies to a constable.

Now we come to what I regard as the difficult part of the noble Lord's amendment—and I am trying to be fair—the business of the authorised person. Such persons, according to this amendment, would be receiving a power, if not to arrest a poacher, to challenge him in circumstances which could and might be extremely tense. I would not want to take it upon myself to import such a power into the law of Scotland. It may be that we have in Scotland rather different ways of going about things than in England but in general people tend to walk about in Scotland on other people's land and, although there are certain rather shaming exceptions to the rule, basically landowners accept the position nowadays and we do not have more friction than we need. I think that to have presumably gamekeepers or owners or their agents challenging people in this way, which means that if, for instance, the accused person or the challenged person refuses to comply, he is guilty of a criminal offence, is entirely wrong.

The other matter is that I have had a lot to do with the law in Scotland and in England, although, I hasten to say, always at a fairly humble level. But I deprecate the making of law which if not complied with makes the law look an ass. In those circumstances, if the challenged person says that he will not give his name and address to the authorised person nor intends to quit the land, what happens? That is a recipe for violence or, at least, a breach of the peace. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his second suggestion, subsection (2), which I undertake to look at with sympathy; but, for the reasons that I gave, I cannot accept the first two heads of his new clause.

Lord Northfield

My Lords, again the noble Earl has been helpful. I am glad to be put right about the matters and powers which exist in other Acts and in connection with subsection (1). I beg to withdraw the amendment on the understanding that the noble Earl will look at subsection (2).

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

8.20 p.m.

Lord Northfield moved Amendment No. 7:

Before Clause 6, insert the following new clause:

("Unlawful injury of deer

The said Act of 1959 shall be amended as follows

1. (a) in sections 21(1) and 23(2) after the word "kill" there shall be inserted the words "or injure"; and
2. (b) in section 23(1) after the word "kills" there shall be inserted the words "or injures".").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in asking your Lordships to consider this amendment, I should like to refer to an important speech made at Committee stage by the noble Lord, Lord Glenkinglas. He said that those in areas where almost everyone had a shotgun, knew perfectly well that they were not going to kill the deer in 99 cases out of a 100 but it gave them some satisfaction if there was a deer in a field to go out and fire a gun at it. This was purely a "get off my ground" attitude which they could take and get away with. It was entirely cruel; it was entirely ineffective and it should be stopped.

The noble Lord, Lord Glenkinglas, knows a good deal more about these things than I do and he was there perfectly blunt about this practice of simply going out, not necessarily with the intention of killing, but with the clear intention of injuring in order to get the animals off the land. This is where, particularly in using a shotgun, a great deal of the cruelty occurs. There are so many examples of animals found with shot in them, and so on, eyes blown out, living out a miserable life until perhaps some stalker catches them eventually or until they die of their wounds.

This is talking therefore not about unintentional injury but wilful injury. My proposals have a good pedigree in the number of previous statutes. The provision I want to make is already in the Protection of Birds Act 1954, the Conservation of Seals Act 1970, the Badgers Act 1973, the Conservation of Wild Creatures and Wild Plants Act 1975, the Deer Act of 1963, the Deer Act of 1980 and the deer provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. That is a substantial pedigree indicating that wilful injury is something which in other respects we have been trying to curb. I therefore beg to move.

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Mansfield said earlier, a court would probably be able to deal with a case of wilful injury in an attempt to kill, as Section 26 of the 1959 Act makes clear. However, I accept—to put the matter beyond doubt—that to deal with any cases that might arise this amendment should be made. Accordingly, I accept it.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Northfield moved Amendment No. 8:

Before Clause 6, insert the following new clause:

("Control of vehicles

.—(1) After subsection (2) of section 23 of the said Act of 1959 there shall be inserted the following new subsections—

"(2A) Subject to subsection (2B) below and section 33(1) of this Act, if any person—

1. (a) uses any mechanically propelled vehicle for the purpose of driving deer on any unenclosed land or unenclosed woodland;
2. (b) discharge any firearm, or discharges or projects any missile, from any aircraft at any deer; or
3. (c) uses any aircraft for the purpose of transporting any live deer other than in the interior of the aircraft,

he shall be guilty of an offence.

(2B) Nothing in subsection (2A)(c) above shall make unlawful anything done by, or under the supervision of, a veterinary surgeon or practitioner.

(2C) In subsection (2B) above "veterinary practitioner" means a person who is for the time being registered in the supplementary register, and "veterinary surgeon" means a person who is for the time being registered in the register of veterinary surgeons.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, at the Committee stage we tried a version of an amendment to control the use of vehicles. A number of objections were made to the drafting at that point. Since then, and following a number of useful discussions with a number of interested people, I have recast the proposals, as noble Lords will see, and they are now three-fold. Paragraph (a) will make it an offence to drive deer, to herd them, on unenclosed land. There is a misprint in the paragraph. The word "was" should be "uses". That is a simple misprint which I am sure the printer will put right at the next stage.

This is very important because it concerns the use of vehicles to drive animals in this way. That is one of the favoured methods of the poacher. It might be asked: what is a definition of "vehicle"? That is in the 1959 Act, if noble Lords care to look it up. If there is any problem about what is "mechanically propelled", I am sure that we can put in a definition at a later stage.

It will be noted that in paragraph (a) I have omitted the provision that was objected to in Committee, where it said that firing from a vehicle is often very useful in controlling deer. I have not put back the provision to prohibit the firing of firearms from a vehicle, only the use of the vehicle for driving.

Paragraphs (b) and (c) are to prohibit the use of all types of aircraft for shooting deer and the use particularly of helicopters for carrying deer when slung underneath the helicopter. I have not seen the film which many noble Lords have talked to me about showing the use of helicopters in New Zealand for pursuing, shooting and tranquillising deer and for transporting live deer. I am told that it caused widespread concern in this country, lest similar practices—and "barbaric" is often the description of them—should be adopted.

It was obvious from the film that during pursuit the deer were subjected to extremes of stress and, so far as transport was concerned, the deer were often suspended from a helicopter by their hocks fully conscious. One could see them struggling upside down in mid-air. More recently, deer have been netted and have been fully conscious when the net was slung from the helicopter. Is this really a practice that we want in this country? I hope that we can agree right now that we should prevent it before it becomes widespread.

I can tell your Lordships that there has already been one such case in Wales. While it was claimed that the deer were tranquillised, one would need a great deal of further expert information as to the degree of tranquillisation, and so on, before one could accept it. This has alerted us to a possible development that could start in Scotland now that it has been started in Wales. If I may put it this way, just as Governments rightly made it an offence to remove velvet from the antlers of live deer before the practice became widespread—and I have raised this matter in the House before and luckily we have managed to get provisions to stop velveting before it has become widespread— similarly in this case we should do something to outlaw this practice before a court is left to decide that it is cruel.

I maintain particularly that the use of aircraft—helicopters—should be prohibited and that we should take a stand on that matter right now. On the other hand, it may well be acceptable for a live deer to be transported slung from a helicopter so long as the deer is fully and properly tranquillised. One has then to ask: how can we assure ourselves of this? Has the deer had the right drug, the right dose, and so on? This is why the latter part of the proposed new clause deals with using these practices—and I am sorry that they are rather cumbersome—in the presence of veterinarians. The final subsection merely makes the practices subject to the penalties in other provisions of the Bill.

I have had a lot of discussion about this amendment between the stages of the Bill. I hope that we are now getting to a point where it is in a form that is acceptable. I beg to move.

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, first of all, may I say that I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, for removing the detail to do with shooting from vehicles which was in his original amendment? Referring to this amendment, it certainly has points of interest and some merit in certain places. I start with paragraph (b): the noble Lord probably has a very good case for saying that it can be cruel to shoot at deer from helicopters. I saw part of the film to which the noble Lord referred.

I have little doubt that at the very least a deer could be exhausted and therefore the practice could be considered exceedingly cruel. I am not entirely satisfied with what he feels about paragraph (c), about it being cruel to "undersling"—as we call it in the trade—a deer in a net beneath an aircraft. I entirely agree with what he says about suspending an animal by its hocks. He might like to know that it would be very difficult in many respects to carry a deer inside an aircraft. The animal would have to be suitably and correctly "anaesthetised"—for want of a better word—and strapped down to prevent any damage should it start to move around in the aircraft. I think with nets it is an acceptable procedure and one used for the rescue of animals which have been stuck in bogs. I know that the Army in Northern Ireland has done this on several occasions and it has not been too terrifying provided the animal is suitably drugged.

I think that what I have to say on the first point really covers all three: there is a great deal here which is not really suitable to put in an amendment to be made to primary legislation and it might be better left to another method. Perhaps I might refer particularly to Amendment No. 9. The equipment detailed there is the sort of equipment which could be affected by this amendment. I should like to make one other point. In paragraph (a) when the noble Lord attempts to prevent— … any mechanically propelled vehicle for the purpose of driving deer on any unenclosed land or unenclosed woodland", I accept the point that the noble Lord is trying to make, but I must point out to him that, as he may recall, there was a great deal of discussion at Committee stage on the question of an occupier being allowed to shoot a deer he found on his land. It seems to me that what the noble Lord is achieving, probably accidentally, here is, first, saying that he does not like the idea of having to shoot it and, secondly, if he sees a deer about to come off unenclosed land on to enclosed land he may not even go out with a Land-Rover to frighten it off, because effectively he would be driving deer. So I hope that I may have satisfied the noble Lord to some extent, particuarly on the point of detail which we would be going into in primary legislation. I hope that, having heard those remarks, he will see fit to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Northfield

Before the noble Lord sits down and before the noble Lord, Lord Burton, speaks, do I understand him to say that if we withdraw this amendment the words "other equipment" in Amendment No. 9 will be specifically used to bring in some provision about the use of motorised vehicles?

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, I will come on to Amendment No. 9 in a moment, but the point about "other equipment" which is mentioned there is that it is a very wide device indeed and, in my view and in the view of others who have given advice, it could accommodate the use of helicopters, which the noble Lord has in mind.

Lord Burton

Although appreciating the situation on Amendment No. 9, I am a little worried that paragraph (a) could not be covered by this. There are now modern vehicles such as Argocats and other things which you can run about in on the hills, and there have been at least two cases where they have even been used to drive deer: probably, there are more cases. I wonder perhaps whether this paragraph might not be improved by adding words similar to— for the purpose of killing or taking deer". Clearly it would be beneficial to use those vehicles to chase the deer out if they are coming in and doing damage on the ground, so I think it would be useful to have something along these lines. Perhaps my noble friend would look at this again and bring it back on Third Reading.

Lord Ross of Marnock

My Lords, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, has got something here in respect of his desire to try to stop this cruelty in relation to transportation. Personally, I do not see how it is going to fit in just with the question of equipment. It is really a method of dealing with it in circumstances in which I think most people would agree, with an aircraft or helicopter being used. How are you going to limit that just by "equipment"? If the Government are satisfied that they can in some way cover this, certainly I would be reasonably well pleased with it; but at the moment I cannot see that Amendment No. 9 is adequate to cover the point, and I think that most of your Lordships would want this to be covered.

The Earl of Mansfield

My Lords, perhaps I could satisfy the House on this point. "Other equipment"—though I do not want to trespass on Amendment No. 9 more than I have to—is a very wide phrase and has been specifically used to take account of developments which perhaps we do not foresee at the moment. As I have said, it gives very wide powers. The one matter which I do not think it would satisfy is paragraph (a), but I hope that my noble friend has convinced the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, that that part of his amendment, although I entirely sympathise with its objects, is so drafted that it would have the opposite effect to the one he hoped to achieve: in other words, somebody would have to wait until the deer came on to enclosed land before anything could be done about it—unless they got out of the vehicle and advanced to the deer waving their arms!

Lord Northfield

My Lords, this has been an interesting discussion and I think we shall have to consider putting down on Third Reading an amendment which limits the provisions to an improved version of paragraph (a), namely: using any mechanically propelled vehicle for the purposes of killing a deer", or something on those lines. That would meet the point about using a vehicle simply to frighten deer when they are attempting to come on to your land. That is the poachers' real use of vehicles and that is the one I am trying to prevent by this provision. I see the point about aircraft, and I am grateful to my noble friend for taking issue as to whether "equipment" covers aircraft. But as the noble Earl is so clear in his mind—and he has better legal advice than we have—that the word "equipment" could cover aircraft and other things not yet thought of, I suppose the proper course at this stage would be to accept the criticism of the amendment and return to paragraph (a) on Third Reading, which I shall do. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 6 [Firearms and ammunition]:

Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 9: Page 3, line 41, leave out from ("firearms") to end of line 44 and insert (", ammunition, sights and other equipment which may lawfully be used in connection with killing or taking deer, and the circumstances in which any class of firearms, ammunition, sights or other equipment may be so used.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, we discussed this just now in relation to Amendment No. 8. It is an amendment which is identical to one put down by my noble friend Lord Burton in Committee. He then graciously withdrew it so that we could consider it further. Having done so, I am fully persuaded that his idea is a valuable one and have therefore adopted it. It provides a very wide and flexible power to regulate by order not merely the type of firearm and ammunition, as was originally envisaged, and not merely the extra bits you might bolt on, such as a special type of sight, but the whole range of ancillary equipment—I suppose that helicopters would come in that range—and the circumstances in which they could all be used. How this power will be used in practice remains to be seen, but the beauty of the device is that it is flexible and could accommodate developments which cannot be foreseen. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Deputy Speaker (Lord Aberdare)

I understand there is also a misprint in Amendment No. 10. It should refer to page 4, line 8.

Lord Northfield moved Amendment No. 10:

Page 4, line 8, leave out ("killed or taken or attempted to be killed or taken") and insert ("taken or killed").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is virtually a drafting amendment and the words I omit are not really needed because they already appear in the 1959 Act. Therefore, there is no need to repeat them in the clause here. I beg to move.

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, I accept the amendment.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 11:

Page 4, line 11, at end insert— ("(4) No order shall be made under this section unless a draft of the order has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment provides that an order made under Section 23A, unlike other orders under the 1959 Act, should be subject to affirmative resolution. My Lords, I beg to move.

The Earl of Mansfield

My Lords, I think I should point out that this amendment was prompted by my noble friend Lord Burton. I undertook to consider the matter of affirmative resolutions. Governments, of whatever complexion, do not like affirmative resolutions very much, because they take up parliamentary time. It is much easier, from the point of view of the Executive, if somebody wanting to challenge subordinate legislation has to move a prayer. But, in the circumstances, it was thought that your Lordships might well want to debate an order made under this section, without the necessity of having to pray against it, and I felt, all things considered, that the affirmative procedure would be appropriate.

Lord Burton

My Lords, I thank my noble friend.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

8.41 p.m.

Lord Northfield moved Amendment No. 12:

Page 4, line 11, at end insert—

("(5) Without prejudice to the provisions of this section and subject to section 33(1) of this Act, if any person uses for the purpose of taking, killing or injuring any deer any smooth-bore gun or any ammunition for use in a smooth-bore gun, he shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £500 in relation to each deer taken, killed or injured or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or to both.

(6) A person shall not be guilty of an offence under subsection (5) above by reason of the use, for the purpose of taking or killing any deer during the hours of daylight, of any smoothbore gun or any ammunition for use in a smooth-bore gun on any arable land, garden grounds or land laid down in permanent pasture (other than moorland or unenclosed land) forming part of that land or on enclosed woodland, as the case may be, if—

1. (a) he has reasonable grounds for believing that deer of the same species are causing, or have caused, damage to crops, pasture, vegetables, fruit, trees or human or animal foodstuffs on that land; and
2. (b) it is likely that further damage will be so caused and any such damage is likely to be serious; and
3. (c) his action is necessary for the purpose of preventing any such damage;

and in this subsection "the hours of daylight" means the period between the commencement of the last hour before sunrise and the expiration of the first hour after sunset.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is one of the sticky points of the Bill, and it could be a kind of reef on which the Bill will break its back one day, unless we can get some agreement about it in one or other of the two Houses. The use of shotguns is well established as being to the shame of this country when used against deer and, as I said at previous stages, we are now almost alone in Europe in allowing them to be used against deer at all. I really must say that it does little credit to some members of the agricultural profession and its associations, who are still resisting us in making progress on this issue.

So much of the Bill seems to have been angled towards red deer, but, of course, this is not a Red Deer (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill; it is a Bill about all deer, and what we must sometimes consider here is the effect on roe deer, as was mentioned at previous stages. It is they who are so often the victims of farmers and, indeed, of some foresters who drive around at night in Land-Rovers with lights full on, pumping shot into half-seen animals. That is the kind of thing which we are very anxious indeed to stop.

The arguments are well-known and I shall not labour them. But what my amendment is seeking to do is three things. It is saying that we really must now come to grips with the issue of the shotgun. We must prohibit its use, except in genuine cases of crop damage, which is covered in the latter part of the amendment. It should be made an offence intentionally to injure deer with a shotgun—and I have partly covered that. Thirdly, the amendment prohibits absolutely the use of a shotgun at night. That is what the amendment does. I hope that I shall not have to say very much more about it. If we can reach agreement on the contents of this amendment—and I choose my words very carefully—I shall be very happy indeed, and I think that it will help progress in another place when, as I hope, the Bill goes there. I beg to move.

Lord Houghton of Sowerby

My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend Lord Northfield in this amendment. This is really one of the troublesome parts of the Bill. Of course, I listened to the debates on this subject at the earlier stages of the Bill. We have to make up our minds that public opinion on cruelty, on the treatment of animals—domestic pets and wildlife—is changing. If one looks back 100 years, one realises that things were done then which would not be tolerated today. For example, in the slaughter of animals for food, there was a time when the most disgraceful conditions obtained in our slaughterhouses. If you look back over the debates on the slaughterhouses legislation of different kinds since 1928, you see that the most horrible descriptions of conditions and methods used in slaughterhouses came before the House at different times. That was part of the business at that time, but now it is not. We now have humane slaughter, humane treatment and humane societies, all in relation to animals throughout the world.

Even though a forward date might have to be thought of in this connection, those who want to kill animals must, to do so, acquire the equipment which is regarded as acceptable today. It is no good saying, "All I have got is an old-fashioned pole-axe in my cupboard and I propose to use that to slaughter animals". There is better equipment available today than a shotgun for shooting mammals of this size and temperament, and position in the sentimental and emotional life of the country. These are animals which people regard with affection.

I know that a marauding deer is a most tiresome animal to have around the place. We have heard a good deal about marauding deer, and I have dealt with the philosophical aspects of putting a label of guilt upon an animal before you shoot it. That gives some kind of moral justification for what you are about to do. But it may not be marauding; it may be just eating, like any deer might do. So I feel very strongly about this amendment and I am sticking here at the moment to deal with it and to support it. I will stay all night to do it and will keep your Lordships here all night to do it. Some accommodation has to be reached on this, if we are to give this Bill final approval.

Lord Burton

My Lords, if we proceed with this Bill, as it appears we might, and we are to have a code of what is required for night shooting, that will require suitable equipment. Therefore, if there has to be suitable equipment I do not see why this amendment cannot be accepted, because, clearly, a shotgun is not a suitable part of the equipment.

Lady Saltoun

My Lords, may I just say one or two words about roe deer, which have been mentioned in connection with this amendment? Roe deer are very widespread throughout the lowlands of Scotland, both in the north and in the south. They are much more widespread than red deer and, for preference, they live in young woodlands. They are far more prolific breeders than red deer, and they have increased so dramatically in the past 20 years that they now occupy very much the same position as a forest and agricultural pest that the rabbit had before myxomatosis. No one ever suggested that the rabbit should not be shot at all times, without the inconvenience of the person shooting requiring authority from the Deer Commission. We all hope that people shooting roe deer will have suitable firearms for doing that, and I think that the schedules which are proposed to be introduced by the Secretary of State should help to cover this.

But I want to emphasise the importance of being able to control roe deer without a great deal of trouble and difficulty and, preferably, without the person shooting needing authority from the Deer Commission, because sometimes we are approaching the point where we have to choose between having roe deer unlimited and having trees or crops. Matters are getting to that point. If any noble Lord is in any doubt as to the truth of this, perhaps he would care to read an article entitled "Too many deer for the trees", which was published by the New Scientist on 18th March. I believe that the Forestry Commission have sent a copy to those who took part in the Committee stage debate and it is very interesting.

The Earl of Mansfield

My Lords, the House will recollect that we had quite a full debate on this matter in Committee. I sympathised then with the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, in his desire to curtail the use of the shotgun. I still do not think there is anything—or if anything, nothing very much—between us. No responsible body of opinion maintains that a shotgun is a suitable weapon for sporting use against deer. That is for sure. But I think I can claim, from the way he has put down and tabled his amendment and the phraseology which he has used, that the noble Lord reluctantly concedes, as I do—as we all have to—that it continues to be a disagreeable necessity, for the purposes of crop protection.

If we start from that base line, where do we get to? I am slightly disappointed that after the debate which we had the noble Lord has come back to this matter. I have read what I said in Hansard and, may I say, approved it. I had thought that what I undertook to do was this: that if the noble Lord conceded the principle that regulation of firearms should be relegated to subordinate instruments—and he did concede that—then I would take the very greatest trouble to be quite sure, first, that we should have consultation. I gave various undertakings about who would be consulted, and the various interested parties. Secondly, that we would press ahead with it as soon as this particular piece of legislation reached the statute book. Third, that we should go into those consultations with a strong presumption that the use of the shotgun is to be restricted to certain bores and to certain types of shot. And, fourth, that its use should be restricted to certain circumstances which would be well defined and which would be in connection with crop protection.

Having given all those undertakings, I then look at my list of amendments, as they come from the printer, and back comes the noble Lord to the same old subject. He drafts an amendment which in fact is designed, I know, with the very best motivation but which in fact is looser than the original one in Committee, and for this reason: that if the noble Lord will look at subsection (6) it has the curious effect, which I am sure the noble Lord would not want, or certainly would not intend, of making it impossible subsequently to prohibit the use of smaller bores and smaller shot. That, I am sure, is not in the noble Lord's mind. It would be the Government's intention that guns and shot below a certain size would be absolutely banned. That is one avenue in which the amendment is deficient: to the extent that it would, by being primary legislation, stop the Secretary of State from doing what we all want him to do as soon as he has had the consultations. That, I suggest, would be a very foolish procedure.

The same provisions as to damage appear in this amendment as we debated at length in Committee. We are going to deal with other damage provisions later on in our proceedings, but I think the House knows very well my views about damage. I myself and also, I think, my noble friend Lord Dulverton—who I regret to see is not with us—and the House agreed reluctantly that some night shooting is necessary for crop protection and that the shotgun should be permitted for that purpose. Therefore, there is logic in permitting their use in those circumstances. But the nuts and bolts of the regulations will be pursued during the consultations before the regulations are laid, and as we have now adopted the affirmative procedure they will be subject to debate in your Lordships' House when they come forward for approval under the affirmative procedure.

For all those reasons, if the noble Lord thinks that in some way the Government are going to be "got at", if I may use the phrase, so that they will renege on the undertakings and the, I hope, really fulsome promises which I have now given to the House on two occasions, I can assure him that we shall not. I think we agreed on the last occasion in Committee that we had got the right way of going about this. We had a little debate in which the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, took part as to the essentially Scottish nature of this legislation and the way in which we leave it to the Secretary of State to lay orders as he may be advised—and properly advised. In those circumstances, I can only hope that the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, and, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, whose concern I share so far as the cruelty aspect is concerned, and the House, will see the wisdom of what it is that the Government have been consistently suggesting is the right course to be pursued.

Lord Northfield

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Earl the Minister, but I would say three things to him. I am not sure about his interpretation of subsection (6) because it refers back to subsection (5). Subsection (5) is carefully prefaced by the words, "Without prejudice to the provisions of this section". I would chance my arm in saying that if the Secretary of State wished to vary subsection (6) he could do so under the earlier powers in the Bill because subsections (5) and (6) are without prejudice to the powers of variation which he has, anyway. Until the noble Earl can convince me of it, I am not really penitent on that point.

My second point, if the noble Earl will accept it from me—I hope he will, and then he will not be so discomfited that I have come back to it a second time—is that it is important that we should get clear what the minimum is that we shall be looking for in the orders which the noble Earl will eventually be bringing to the House. The purpose of this amendment, as I said in introducing it, is to get clear the understanding that we have, and what I have not yet had from the noble Earl—which is important to me and, I guess, to my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby—are any remarks about restrictng the use of the shotgun to daylight hours. That is of great importance in outlawing the shotgun. With great respect, I have to say to the noble Earl that I do not think he said anything about this at Committee, and he has not said anything about it tonight. So he cannot really blame me for coming back to state what our minimum is.

The third point I want to make is this. I hope the noble Earl will give us credit for trying to help this Bill through another place. As I have made clear on previous occasions, there are two kinds of people who might stop this Bill: first, the pro-farming lobby and, secondly, the animal welfare lobby. If we are getting the noble Earl to state and restate for the benefit of the animal welfare lobby the energetic use which he is prepared to make of his powers to issue orders about weapons, it is some way of assuring the animal welfare lobby that they should not need to object to this Bill at four o'clock on a Friday when it goes to the House of Commons.

I hope that the noble Earl's discomfiture—his displeasure, almost—at this amendment being brought again will be withdrawn when he realises that we, too, are trying to be helpful. The animal welfare lobby is already in touch with people like me, saying, "Are you satisfied? Is this Bill making enough progress? Is there enough protection against cruelty in the Bill? Or should we arrange with our supporter Members of Parliament to block it?" Therefore, I am trying to get the noble Earl to state as often as he can the reasons why they might not need to block it on one of the issues about which they feel most strongly.

I have given three reasons why I have come back to the issue. I am disappointed that I still have not had an answer as to whether in fact there will be some assurance on the point that the restriction of the shotgun to daylight use will be included in the affirmative order. If the noble Earl could help me on that point I should be very grateful. I am sure that he would have the permission of the House to make another short intervention.

The Earl of Mansfield

My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I should just say something for the benefit of those members of the animal welfare lobby who do not read Hansard.

Lord Northfield

I will make sure that they do, my Lords.

The Earl of Mansfield

Well, if they do block this in the other place at four o'clock on a Friday afternoon, we shall just go back to the 1959 Act, and the very real concessions which are being made by the farming lobby will be lost. I say no more.

With regard to the undertakings I have given, have really gone as far as I can before the Secretary of State undertakes due consideration. I believe it is generally agreed that some shooting at night is necessary for crop protection. I believe it is also agreed, reluctantly, that for the purposes of crop protection shotguns sometimes have to be used. I am not going to say whether the two marry up for these purposes because I do not believe that such a matter should be decided—or rather, that I should pronounce on such a matter—before the necessary consultations are undertaken. It would be quite wrong of me to say "Yea" or "Nay" on what I know the noble Lord would like me to deal with.

I have now said on two occasions that the Government are entirely with the view expressed and that we are all concerned to ban so far as we possible can, where necessary invoking criminal law so to do, any cruelty in the control of deer. It is therefore of the utmost importance that this Bill proceeds along its way to another place. One hopes, as I said on Second Reading, that the consensus which I feel is emerging so far as this Bill is concerned is allowed to flower and that we get a really worthwhile measure.

Lord Northfield

My Lords, I have probably pushed the noble Earl as far as he should go. I greatly respect his assurances. As long as we have an understanding that the issue of daylight use is at least considered, then I must be "happy"—although obviously I am slightly unhappy at the same time. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

9.2 p.m.

Lord Northfield moved Amendment No. 13:

After Clause 6, insert the following new clause:

("Extension of application of s. 25(4) of Act of 1959

. In subsection (4) of section 25 of the said Act of 1959 for the word "section" there shall be substituted the words Part of this Act".").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a simple point, and again I hope that I have learned from what was said at Committee stage. This amendment is about the use of one witness. The noble Earl suggested that I pressed the extension of the conviction on the evidence of one witness too far in my Committee stage amendment. Therefore, I have now restricted this amendment to Part III of the 1959 Act, so introducing one witness in connection with poaching, killing at night, and killing by illegal means.

I believe it is well known that most of the offences we are dealing with in this part of the Bill take place in remote areas where we are lucky to have one witness, let alone two. Clearly, there is a lot of evidence that catching poachers is very difficult. If I may say so, the noble Earl was very doctrinaire in his approach to this issue at the previous stage. I would point out to him that similar examples exist in Scottish legislation; there is nothing new about all this. It appears in the Game (Scotland) Act 1832 and in the Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Acts 1862 and 1868, which all dealt with poaching at that time. It is time that we tried to get agreement on what I might call the minimum proposition that I can make in this case which is necessary in order to deter poaching. This amendment would simply extend conviction on the evidence of one witness to poaching, killing at night and killing by illegal means. I have taken out what the noble Earl said at Committee stage were the more objectionable provisions.

The Earl of Mansfield

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, has said, this amendment is very similar to that which he moved in Committee. He now has an ambition to extend the relaxation to offences under Part III of the 1959 Act—that is to say, covering the poaching, killing at night and unlawful killing of deer. I vigorously opposed the noble Lord at Committee stage—and I had the support of the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock—and I vigorously oppose him now. I do so even more vigorously because I have looked up what occurred at Committee stage when the 1959 Act was going through. There was one and a half hours of heated debate in another place. I hope that I am not being too rude when I say that sometimes they conduct their debates like the Mad Hatter's tea party. At one moment, rather like the dormouse, somebody accused the honourable Member for Kilmarnock of being asleep; an allegation which, I may say, he rapidly refuted. However, when they finished with the points of order and actually got down to the debate, there was a consensus on all sides, led by the Lord Advocate, an ex-Lord Advocate and all the Front Bench speakers on both sides—and I may say that in those days the Opposition was united against subsection (4)—that only in very rare circumstances indeed could the law of Scotland permit an exception such as this. The matter was debated for one and a half hours. It went to a vote and the Government of the day won.

It is a fact that, under Scottish criminal law, the facts which establish guilt must be proved by the direct evidence of two witnesses or two or more evidential facts spoken to by separate witnesses from which the facts can be inferred, or a combination of direct evidence of one witness and of one or more evidential facts spoken to by other witnesses which support it, unless the crime is covered by a statutory exception to this rule. That is a fundamental principle of Scottish law. The noble Lord, Lord Northfield, said, quite rightly, that they have passed statutory exceptions, but there are very few. The view has been taken consistently that the fundamental principle should be departed from only in exceptional cases and for the most compelling of reasons.

The debate in 1959 involved a protracted argument over the unlawful possession of deer and firearms in circumstances which afford reasonable grounds for suspecting that an offence has been committed under Part III of the 1959 Act. This relaxation was quite wide enough to secure the effective enforcement of the provisions of the Act, and I really do not think it is necessary or desirable that we should extend the relaxation to the other offences in Part III. I can go into the details of the arguments in the other place in 1959, but I really do not think it is desirable that I should. I have to say to the noble Lord that the Government are totally opposed to him on this occasion.

Lord Northfield

My Lords, I am very sorry about this, because I think the noble Earl will regret it. I think poaching will go on increasing in Scotland. All the signs are in that direction. It will be increasingly difficult to convict. The noble Earl will regret that he did not think the situation was as urgent as it was in the 1832, 1862 and 1868 days of increasing poaching. I think he will find he will be back with that situation before this decade is out and will regret that he has not got this piece of ammunition against the poacher.

Perhaps the best thing to do would be to try it in the other place when the Bill goes there, and see if this time we can have it sent back from the other place as a legitimate provision and see whether the noble Earl will then accept it once the House of Commons has changed its mind. Meanwhile, I see no point in pursuing it, as the noble Earl is so adamant. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 7 [Licensing of dealing in venison]:

The Deputy Speaker

My Lords, if Amendment No. 14 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 15.

Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 14:

Page 5, leave out lines 10 to 12.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I was at some pains at Committee stage, in replying to amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, to argue that we should not encumber the Bill with the kind of detail which can be left to subordinate legislation. My noble friend on the Front Bench also argued this in particular reference to the form of venison dealers' records, and the noble Lord opposite eventually accepted my noble friend's point gracefully.

I think it only consistent, therefore, that I should invite the House to take out the words which this amendment details, which do exactly what we have decided should not be done, namely, circumscribe what may go into subordinate legislation. I do not mean that I am at all against having the sex and species of the deer recorded—on the contrary, it seems to me a fundamental piece of information—nor that I want to see the price recorded; I think that is probably irrelevant anyway. My motive is purely one of consistency, to leave the whole matter of the form of records to be settled, after consultation, by statutory instrument. I beg to move.

Lord Northfield

My Lords, as this is in substitution for my following amendment, perhaps I may say a word about what the noble Lord has just said. Here again, we are quite obviously looking for assurances. If we take out the directions to the Secretary of State as to what shall be included in the form, we are clearly looking for undertakings about how he will use the power he will have to set up the form. Here I am pointing at three issues which I think must be included: first, the place where the deer was killed. I cannot see any possible argument against that, because this is one of the crucial things in determining poaching. Secondly, the registration number of the vehicle delivering the venison. How can there possibly be any disagreement about the need for this? One of the most important ways of frightening off poachers turning up with one animal in an odd vehicle is that they may be traced through their vehicle registration. They can, of course, give a false name themselves, but they cannot get away with giving a false registration number to the vehicle when the venison dealer can look out of the window and see what it is. Thirdly, it is helpful if we can have an assurance that there will be some record of the manner of killing, where that is possible, and the type of firearm, especially if certain firearms are going to be outlawed under the Bill. I should have thought I was justified in asking the noble Earl to give us a few indications of how far he is prepared to go in using the powers under this part of the Bill if we leave it entirely to his discretion.

The requirement to include the means of killing is also a very good deterrent if the poachers have set a snare or killed by lurchers. Not that a crooked dealer would always put it down; nevertheless, all this adds to the pressure on the poacher. I should be grateful if the noble Earl could give us some guidance as to whether he thinks the points that are in my amendment will be considered for the form.

Lord Burton

My Lords, I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, on this amendment. One of the reasons why we would like it written into the Bill is that, if I remember rightly, in Committee my noble friend on the Front Bench strongly resisted having put in the schedule the question of how the deer was killed. It is quite easy to see when an animal is hanging up in a game dealer's premises whether it has had a snare around its neck. If he has put it in his records as having been shot, then clearly he is committing an offence. I think that this must be written into the Bill. Indeed, although I agree with my noble friend Lord Glenarthur that we do not want more in than is necessary, in view of the resistance that there was in Committee, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, is quite correct in asking for an assurance at this stage.

The Earl of Mansfield

My Lords, I apologise for hesitation on my part because I really had thought that on the last occasion that your Lordships debated this matter in Committee, I had given a good and useful undertaking of what the Government were prepared to do. I do not want to say anything which is at variance with what I said on that occasion, which was carefully considered and which I had hoped and, indeed, from the reaction of the Committee I had concluded, was going to be satisfactory.

The only matter that I was rather doubtful about was the registration number of the vehicle delivering the venison. I am still doubtful about that. We have not had the time for consultation between stages of the Bill. For reasons which the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, knows better than anybody else, the stages of this Bill have not exactly dragged and I simply have not been able to have consultations. But certainly I think that the police were doubtful as to whether this should be included in a register in the form in which the noble Lord wants it.

I can only repeat what I said previously, that we shall pay close attention to the noble Lord's draft form in Committee, that we shall have consultation with all the interested parties after this Bill becomes an Act and, subject to the reservations of the police—I think it was the police who were worried—I have no doubt that a form of register will be produced which will commend itself to the noble Lord.

I am sorry not to be able to dot the i's and cross the t's in primary legislation which I know the noble Lord, with his tidy mind, dearly wishes me to do. I am simply not in a position to do it.

Lord Northfield

My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down may I say that the point which was worrying me concerned the vehicle. I have not yet understood from the noble Earl the problem about recording the registration number of the vehicle.

The Earl of Mansfield

My Lords, I do not know either. What I assume it to be is that the vehicle which eventually turns up at the dealers premises may not necessarily bear any relation to the vehicle which was actually used either in connection with the killing of the deer, or in its transporation. Therefore, the details in such form might well be misleading and certainly not very helpful.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

9.16 p.m.

Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 16.

Page 6, line 5, leave out ("and").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 16, and I should like also to speak to Amendment No. 17. We are here concerned with the form of record to be required in transactions between dealers. Your Lordships may recall that when we were dealing with this matter in Committee the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, suggested that the Red Deer Commission should be informed of the species of the carcases, to which the noble Duke, the Duke of Atholl, responded that, while the Committee would very much like that information, it would not always be feasible to get it. We looked at the matter, discussed the question with the Red Deer Commission and this amendment is the result. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 17:

Page 6, line 7, at end insert— ("; and (e) the species of deer, provided that it is possible to identify it.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 17. I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 16.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 18: Page 6, line 14, at end insert ("or he has purchased the venison from a licensed venison dealer.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 18. With this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 21 at page 7, line 28, because they are designed to work together. It was, I think, agreed in Committee that, while we want a tight control of the venison trade, it need not be so tight as to oblige every single retail outlet necessarily to go through all the hoops of the licensing, record-keeping procedure which the Bill describes. With that in view, I seek to define the term "venison" loosely so that we can exclude the later stages in the marketing chain, yet not so loosely as to leave the way open to easy abuse.

The noble Lord, Lord Northfield, made some constructive proposals, for which I was very grateful. But even so, I was not satisfied that we had it quite right and I undertook to give the question further thought. On looking at it again and considering the matter, it seems to me that the essence of what we were trying to achieve was that the venison should pass through the hands of at least one licensed dealer. There might be more than one licensed dealer in the chain, but there need not be. One is enough. On the assumption that there are typically four links in the chain—a stalker who shoots the animal, a wholesaler, a retailer and a consumer who eats the venison—one can get the requisite degree of control if one provides that it is lawful, first, to sell to a licensed dealer; secondly, to sell if one is a licensed dealer; and, thirdly, to sell if one has bought from a licensed dealer.

We have the first and the second in the Bill at present. My amendment provides the third of those that I have just mentioned; that is to say, the man who has bought from a licensed dealer. In effect, it means that once the venison has passed through the hands of a wholesaler who is licensed, the retailer will be free to sell to the consumer without further ado. If this is accepted, it becomes less critical how one actually defines "venison". In particular there is no longer the need for the exemptions which were giving us trouble; that is to say, canned, processed, for sale and so on.

That is the point of my other amendment, Amendment No. 21, at page 7, line 8. It cuts short the definition of "venison" before one gets to the exemptions. Indeed, I am not sure whether any definition of "venison" is any longer needed; but at any rate, the shorter definition of "venison", with which we would be left, does no harm. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 19: Page 6, line 43, leave out ("£50") and insert ("£200").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment increases the maximum penalty for obstruction under Clause 7 from £50 to £200. I am advised that it is Government policy that the penalty for an offence of obstruction, which is a pretty standard kind of provision found in many statutes, should be £200. A more immediate reason is that in the Bill we are increasing the penalty for the offence of obstruction in Section 17 of the 1959 Act to £200. Therefore, for consistency, this penalty should go up by the same amount. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 20: Page 6, line 45, leave out ("this section") and insert ("Part III or IIIA of this Act").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment provides that the penalty of disqualification from holding a venison dealer's licence should be available on conviction not only for an offence against the Part of the Act that concerns the trade in venison, but also an offence against Part III of the 1959 Act, which is to say an offence of poaching, unlawful night shooting or killing by some prohibited means, such as snaring. I think the House will recall that we debated a similar amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, in Committee, which, however, extended the penalty further back still to include Part II of the Act; that is to say, unlawful shooting in the close season.

I accepted the extension to Part III but not to Part II, and undertook to provide an amendment to that effect. For his part, the noble Lord threatened to resurrect the argument at this stage. As I have discharged my undertaking with this amendment, no doubt he will now carry out his threat. Therefore, I should like to say a little more about—

Lord Northfield

My Lords, no, I do not intend to.

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, in that case, I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 21: Page 7, line 28, leave out from ("deer") to end of line 31.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Deputy Speaker

My Lords, if Amendment No. 22 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 23 or 24.

Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 22: Page 7, line 32, leave out subsection (2)

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a technical amendment. What was Schedule 1 to the Bill, which concerned the procedure for handling applications for dealers' licences, was deleted in Committee. At the same time we should have taken out Clause 7(2), which brought Schedule 1 into the Bill. Hence the blank space at line 33 in the current print. This amendment simply takes out a provision which no longer serves a purpose. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 23 and 24 not moved.]

9.25 p.m.

Lord Northfield moved Amendment No. 25:

Before Clause 8, insert the following new clause:

("Powers of search and seizure.

.—(1) For subsection (1) of section 27 of the said Act of 1959 there shall be substituted the following new subsections— (1) Without prejudice to the provisions of subsections (2) to (4) below, if a constable suspects with reasonable cause that a person is committing or has committed an offence under Part III or this Part of this Act, the constable may without warrant—

1. (a) stop and search that person if the constable suspects with reasonable cause that evidence of the commission of an offence is to be found on that person;
2. (b) search or examine any vehicle, animal, weapon or other thing which that person may then be using if the constable suspects with reasonable cause that evidence of the commission of an offence is to be found on that vehicle, animal, weapon or other thing;
3. (c) arrest that person;
4. (d) seize and detain for the purposes of proceedings under this Act any thing which may be evidence of the commission of the offence and any deer, firearm or ammunition, vehicle or boat, animal or other thing which may be liable to be forfeited on conviction of an offence under this Act.

(1A) For the purpose of exercising the powers conferred by subsection (1) above a constable may enter any land, and in this subsection "land" includes land covered by water but does not include any dwelling-house. (2) Section 28 of the said Act of 1959 is repealed. (3) In section 32 of the said Act of 1959 the definition of "land" shall be amended by inserting after the word "land" "the words", except in section 27(1A),".").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, we can be brief about this amendment. I understand that there may be some sympathy for its intent. This is to strengthen the powers of the police to stop and search in connection with poaching. I think enough has been said about that during different stages of the Bill. I hope that the sort of thing I am proposing here commends itself to the noble Earl. I move it as briefly as that, and ask for his comments on it. I beg to move.

The Earl of Mansfield

My Lords, there is considerable sympathy for what the noble Lord is trying to achieve. There is inconsistency in the face of the statute. Therefore, it follows that the powers under Section 27 should be extended to cover all offences of poaching and unlawful killing under Part III of the 1959 Act. The drafting of the noble Lord's amendment is not altogether happy, and I do not think he intends to press it tonight. Therefore, I am not going to weary him with all the details.

We should take advantage of the opportunity to include a subsection making an offence of obstructing a police constable in the exercise of his powers. I think that would be helpful. If the noble Lord is agreeable, I intend to look carefully at Section 27 and at the noble Lord's amendment and what he seeks to do. I think when this Bill gets to another place the Government will bring forward a revised Section 27 for consideration in Committee in another place, and when the Bill returns to your Lordships' House—always assuming that it does—then it will be for your Lordships to consider what has been done.

Lord Northfield

My Lords, that is helpful and I am grateful for what the noble Earl has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 9 [Exemptions for certain acts]:

Lord Glenarthur moved Amendments Nos. 26 and 27: Page 8, line 5, leave out ("or agents") and insert ("in his ordinary service"). line 9, leave out ("normally employed") and insert ("in his ordinary service").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, with Amendment No. 26 I shall take No. 27. They are drafting amendments made for consistency. Lower down in line 27 we have the expression "in the occupier's ordinary service", and to use a different form of words at lines 5 and 9 where we intended the same meaning would be a nonsense and could lead to confusion and misinterpretation. It is important that we have the same wording in both cases. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Northfield moved Amendment No. 28: Page 8, line 13, after ("approved") insert ("in writing").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I understand that this is probably acceptable. It is on all fours with previous similar amendments, and I beg to move.

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, I am quite happy to accept this amendment.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 29:

Page 8, line 21, at end insert— ("Provided that the occupier has reason to believe that serious damage will be caused to crops, pasture, trees or human or animal foodstuffs on that land if the deer are not killed.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the House will recall that we had a long and somewhat fairly heated discussion on this point in Committee over two amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, concerning the extent to which an occupier of agricultural land or woodland ought to be required to show that damage would ensure if he did not shoot deer found on his land. I undertook, with the noble Lord's agreement, to discuss with him and with others whether a generally acceptable formula could be found. This amendment and the similar one at page 8, line 43, are the result of that discussion.

I have not had an opportunity of discussing it with the noble Lord in person, but he was given some notice that I was putting down an amendment on these lines, and I hope he will find that it is acceptable. I hope he will recognise that it goes some way towards meeting his point of view. At the same time, I have reason to believe that it is acceptable not only to the farmers' union but also to the landowners, who of course represent both farming and sporting interests.

The amendment can be briefly described. First, the occupier must have reason to believe that damage will follow. He is not put under the burden of objective proof, nor does he have to wait for damage to begin for, as was argued at length in Committee, these would be unreasonable constraints. On the other hand, he may not irresponsibly shoot deer merely because they are there, which does, as the noble Lord observed, rather run counter to the idea of close seasons, or whatever one takes to be the purpose of close seasons. Secondly, as your Lordships will have observed, the damage anticipated has to be serious. That goes without saying after all our deliberations in the past on that point.

Finally, it will be observed that the formula avoids suggesting that other methods have been tried and found wanting before shooting as the last resort. That is realistic; in many cases shooting is the first and only resort, and we must recognise that. I believe this formula is the best compromise to be found among the conflicting interests, and I commend it to the House.

Lord Northfield moved Amendment No. 30 as an amendment to the Amendment No. 29: Line 1, leave out ("reason to believe") and insert ("reasonable grounds for believing").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, although I said at the beginning that I would not do so, I simply wish to say "Thank you" to the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, for what is a most important amendment, plus No. 34, which goes with it, which I hope we shall not now need to discuss when it is called. It is probably one of the most important amendments to have been made since Committee, and I am very grateful.

I hope that my amendment to the amendment is acceptable. "Reason to believe" is a subjective state. "Reasonable grounds for believing" is, I suggest, a much better phrase because it means that other people can give their opinion as to whether that person is or is not being reasonable. It may sound complicated, but I believe it is well understood in draftsmanship terms and that "reasonable grounds for believing" is the right phrase to use.

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, a philosopher could probably tell us whether there was any difference between a reason to believe and a reasonable ground for belief. I suspect that in this case one would get as good an answer by tossing a coin. The noble Lord, Lord Northfield, seems to have reason to believe that his is the better formula, and as I have no reasonable grounds for resisting, I accept his amendment.

On Question, amendment to the amendment agreed to.

Lord Northfield moved Amendment No. 31 as an amendment to Amendment No. 29: Line 2, after ("caused") insert ("by deer of the same species").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this matter was discussed at an early stage in Committee. If people are to have carte blanche to go out shooting because serious damage has been caused, I suggest that they should be slightly checked by someone saying, "You do it every time as if they were always the same deer causing the damage, when we know perfectly well that may not necessarily be the case". The amendment should cover cases where deer of the same species are continuing to cause bother. I beg to move.

Lord Glenarthur

I am not really convinced that this amendment to the amendment is necessary, my Lords. An occupier cannot lawfully act unless he has good reason to believe that damage will follow in some form or other. I would go so far as to say that a good reason is a good reason and that should be sufficient. In any case, there seems to be some repetition in what the amendment would achieve. The deer found, so to speak, will in fact be the same species, as the noble Lord will see if he looks at the provision to which it refers.

Lord Northfield

My Lords, as this is concerned with a small point, I am happy to withdraw it on the basis that I shall consider the matter between now and Third Reading.

Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Question, Amendment No. 29, as amended, agreed to.

Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 32:

Page 8, line 42, leave out ("deer") and insert ("red deer or sika deer or any hybrid of those species").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this effectively removes roe deer from the deer which can be shot at night by occupiers. When we were debating an amendment to Clause 4 in Committee I gave a firm undertaking that provided some facility for night shooting of roe was left in subsection (4)(a), I would bring forward an amendment to take roe out of Clause 4 so that an occupier could not shoot roe at night without reference to somebody. My understanding from the debate we had on subsection (4A) was that noble Lords were prepared to see roe left within its scope, though with reluctance and heavy qualification. I hope that was the position reached and that there was no misunderstanding. At any rate I have in good faith put in this amendment to subsection (4), and equally I have not put forward a parallel amendment to subsection (4A), though I hope that your Lordships will see that I have other amendments there.

I do not think that I need say any more on the amendment. As I have said, it means that occupiers no longer have the rights which have been theirs hitherto to shoot deer of any species—say, roe, red and sika—on their land at night. They are to be restricted, and they will have to go through the whole panoply of applying to the Red Deer Commission if they wish to shoot roe. Roe do occasion damage; we know that. It is, I think—and I hope that the noble Lord will agree—quite a significant amendment in that it imposes a substantial restriction on occupiers of the rights which have been enshrined in law for some considerable time. I beg to move.

Lord Northfield moved Amendment No. 33 as an amendment to Amendment No. 32:

Line 2, leave out ("or any hybrid of those species").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope that we can dispose of this quickly. I think that the sponsor of the Bill knows that we need a definition in this part of the Bill, and I seek to provide that by Amendment No. 39, which we should discuss with this amendment. If my Amendment No. 39 is accepted, there is needed my small amendment to the noble Lord's Amendment No. 32. I think that, if that is agreed, this boils down to drafting. I beg to move.

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, I accept that we should have a separate interpretation clause which would give the Latin names of these species, as is done elsewhere for another part of the Bill, and that the place for hybrids is in such a clause. The noble Lord has down a later amendment on this point, for which this is a paving amendment. I am quite content to accept this amendment.

Lord Burton

My Lords, with regard to Amendment No. 32, it is not only roe that will be exempted, but also fallow deer. I rather wondered why the poor sika—there are thought to be only 4,000 of them in Scotland—should be the ones left in. I do not want a reply on this tonight, but I hope that the noble Lord will consider it. I see that there is a case for red deer, and if one accepts the hybrid point, hybrids would be covered by red deer. I do not see any reason why the sika should be harried by the occupier at night.

On Question, amendment to the amendment agreed to.

On Question, Amendment No. 32, as amended, agreed to.

Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 34:

Page 8, line 43, leave out from ("occupier") to end of line 2 on page 9 and insert ("has reason to believe that serious damage will be caused to crops, pasture, trees or human or animal foodstuffs on that land if the deer are not killed.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment qualifies the occupier's right to shoot at night by precisely the same formula which we have already considered in relation to out-of-season shooting. I submit that it is equally appropriate here. I beg to move.

Lord Northfield moved as an amendment to the amendment, Amendment No. 35:

Line 2, leave out ("reason to believe") and insert ("reasonable grounds for believing").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, we have already discussed this point. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment to the amendment agreed to.

On Question, Amendment No. 34, as amended, agreed to.

9.39 p.m.

Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 36:

Page 9, line 12, at end insert— ("( ) that no other method of control which might reasonably be adopted in the circumstances would be adequate; and").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, as I said when speaking to an earlier amendment, the impression that I took away from the Committee stage was that your Lordships were prepared reluctantly to tolerate night shooting of roe under authorisation from the Red Deer Commission on the understanding that authorisation would be granted by no means as a regular thing, but only in exceptional circumstances and, as it were, as a matter of last resort. That is what this amendment seeks to express. It might not be a particularly elegant amendment, but I hope that it will be accepted as accurate. It leaves the commission a measure of discretion to determine what is reasonable, while at the same time guiding it firmly away from any thought that night shooting of any species of deer should be considered run-of-the-mill, or normal, or a regular method of control. I beg to move.

The Earl of Mansfield

My Lords, I think that it would be for the convenience of the House, and more especially for those who hearken to our debates, if I say something about what has troubled the House and indeed me. I have throughout the Second Reading and Committee stages taken note of the very widespread concern which has been expressed about the standards and methods of control exercised over deer in forests, especially those owned by the Forestry Commission. My noble friend Lord Dulverton wrote to me at length, and indeed most helpfully, on the subject, and of course I shall reply to his letter in due course; but I think it is right that I should say what I am going to say at this juncture.

I do not want to go into detail. I think it is sufficient to say that the Government are always concerned about the standards achieved by their departments, and in the light of comments made by noble Lords forestry Ministers will want to maintain some surveillance over the practice of the Forestry Commission, looking broadly at the design of forests, the instructions and training given to forest rangers, and the increasing body of knowledge that exists about the life style and habits of deer.

I do not wish to suggest that the commission themselves are not alive to these issues, and they have a

Enactment	Amendment	Present penalty	New penalty
1	2	3	4
("Section 26 (attempts to commit offences).	At the end of the section, add the words "; except that in the case of preparatory acts, the penalty shall be a fine not exceeding £500 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or both.".	As for offence.	As for offence, except for preparatory acts, where it is £500 or 3 months or both.").

wealth of professional expertise in the practice of deer management. Many of the problems that are being met are new and unforeseen problems, especially those which arise from the behaviour of roe deer in new and even-age plantations. So I have no doubt that the Forestry Commission, while faced with an urgent problem, will not adopt a blinkered approach to its solution. But I, too, undertake that I will keep closely in touch with what is going on and with the developments in deer management which the Forestry Commission will undoubtedly be introducing over the next few years.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 37 not moved.]

Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 38:

Page 9, line 23, at end insert— ("(4D) The Commission shall prepare and publish (with power to prepare and publish a revised version from time to time) a code of practice for night shooting to which they shall have regard when exercising their powers under subsection (4A) above and it shall be a condition of any authorisation under the said subsection that the person concerned complies with the relevant provisions of the code.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in Committee both the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, and I put down amendments to the effect that the Red Deer Commission should publish a code of practice. Lord North-field's amendment, as I read it, was more for a code of self-discipline for the commission, outlining the type of circumstances in which they would sanction night shooting: mine was rather more a code by which those authorised to shoot would be bound in technical detail. At any rate, there seemed no dissent from the view that both types of code were desirable, and this amendment seeks to achieve that. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Northfield moved Amendment No. 39:

Page 9, line 23, at end insert— ("(4E) In this section— red deer" means deer of the species cervus elaphus and "sika deer" means deer of the species cervus nippon; and any reference to "red deer" or "sika deer" includes any deer which is a hybrid of those species.").

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

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right in what he said earlier, as well, that we ought to define the species by their Latin names. I accept the amendment.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 40 not moved.]

Schedule 1 [Penalties]:

Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 41:

Page 12 line 17, at end insert—

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a technical amendment but an important one. The revised penalties in Schedule 1 each embody the concept, borrowed from the Deer Act 1980, that where one commits an offence in respect of more than one deer the court may treat each deer as a separate offence when it comes to determining a fine. Section 26 of the 1959 Act makes a general provision in respect of all the offences involving deer, to the effect that an attempt may be punished on the same basis as the offence itself. So far as the new penalties are concerned, that works quite well. One can attempt to kill three deer just as much as one can kill three deer.

But Section 26 goes further. It says that an act preparatory to an offence can also be treated as the offence itself. But, of course, an "act preparatory", such as going on to a hill with a loaded rifle, does not itself concern any defined number of deer, and it is therefore necessary to establish as it were the base line; namely, that in the case of a preparatory act, even though no individual deer was involved, the court may punish the offender as if he had taken one deer. This amendment has that effect. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Schedule 2 [Minor and Consequential Amendments]:

Lord Northfield moved Amendment No. 42:

Page 13, line 9, leave out ("licence") and insert "(certificate").

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

On Question amendment agreed to.

Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 43:

Page 13, line 20, at end insert— (". In section 27(1) of the said Act of 1959, for the words "in pursuance of" there shall be substituted the words "on conviction of an offence under". . In section 35(1) of the said Act of 1959, at the beginning there shall be inserted the words "Subject to section 23A(4) of this Act,".").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Section 21(1) of the 1959 Act provides that a constable may seize any deer, fire-arm or ammunition, vehicle or boat liable to be forfeited in pursuance of this Act. We are, however, removing most of the forfeiture provisions from the Act, since everything that one would want to make subject to forfeit is covered by a more general provision in the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975. Only deer are covered specifically by the 1959 Act. It would follow therefore that the list of things which the police might sieze would be correspondingly curtailed, quite accidentally and quite unnecessarily. The first part of this amendment is designed to restore the position.

The second part of the amendment is purely consequential on an earlier amendment to Clause 6, which provided that orders made under that clause should, unlike orders generally under the 1959 Act, be subject to the affirmative procedure. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Schedule 3 [Repeals]:

Lord Northfield moved Amendment No. 44:

Page 13, line 30, column 3, after ("Deer") insert ("(Amendment)").

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

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Glenarthur moved Amendment No. 45:

Page 13, leave out lines 37 to 40.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a consequential amendment to Amendment No. 2, which rewrote the whole of Section 6(1) of the 1959 Act, making the scheduled repeal redundant.

On Question, amendment agreed to.