HL Deb 21 June 1982 vol 431 cc859-60

3After 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) discharges any firearm, or discharges or projects any missile, from any aircraft at any deer; or
  2. (b) notwithstanding the provisions of section 23(5) of this Act 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)(b) 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."

(2) In subsection (3) of section 23 of the said Act of 1959 for the words "subsections (1) or (2)" there shall be substituted the words "subsection (1), (2) or (2A)".").

Lord Campbell of Croy

My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3. Subsection (2A)(a) makes it an offence to shoot at deer from an aircraft. Subsection (2A)(b), read with subsections (2B) and (2C), makes it an offence to transport deer underslung from a helicopter except under veterinary supervision. There was some debate on a similar amendment at Report stage, when it was suggested that these were matters which could be dealt with appropriately in subordinate legislation. I am advised, however, that shooting from aircraft could indeed be dealt with in a firearms order.

Underslinging is not so straightforward. It would probably have to be dealt with in a movement of animals order made under different legislation. In any case, the Commons seems to have felt that these matters should be dealt with in one Bill; namely, this Bill. This is a matter dealing with the prevention of cruelty rather than poaching, and from the previous debate I think your Lordships are likely to agree with this amendment. I beg to move.

Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Campbell of Croy.)