HL Deb 31 October 1995 vol 566 cc1405-16

6.54 p.m.

Baroness Nicol

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Nicol.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The LORD LYELL in the Chair.)

Clause 1 [Kicking, beating, impaling, burning, crushing or drowning wild mammal]:

Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 1:

Page 1, line 5, after ("person") insert ("intentionally and").

The noble Lord said: This is a vital amendment. Unless it is made, it will mean that innocent people would really be at risk of unjustifiable prosecution because, as Clause 1 stands, it creates absolutely liability and makes no mention of the intention with which the act is done. The mere use of the word "cruelly" is objective to the result upon the animal. It is not subjective as to the person who does those things. But if we include the words "intentionally and", which have been used frequently in other statutes, the matter is made abundantly clear.

I repeat briefly that, if we do not do that, the Bill will have results which I do not believe its promoter ever expected. I gave a number of examples on Second Reading. The principal example that one should mention is that if a lorry driver or a driver of any vehicle in a stream of traffic happened to run over a hedgehog, for example, he would be guilty of an offence under the Bill whether or not he knew the hedgehog was there. That would be an absurd situation. If we put in the words Intentionally and", that clarifies the matter and leads to greater justice. I beg to move.

Lord Monson

I independently arrived at the same conclusion as the noble Lord, Lord Renton; namely, that the words "intentionally and" should be inserted into Clause 1. That is why I took the liberty of adding my name to the amendment. I hope that it will be accepted for the reasons so well explained by the noble Lord, Lord Renton.

Lord Mancroft

I too support the amendment. As my noble friend said on Second Reading, great concern was expressed on all sides that an offence of strict liability had been created. Under the amendment proposed by my noble friend, there will be a requirement to show that the act was deliberate. It is an important improvement to the Bill and I very much hope that the noble Baroness will accept the amendment.

Baroness Nicol

It may assist the Committee at this stage if I make it clear that we have had a number of discussions between the previous stage of the Bill and this evening. We have managed to reach agreement on all the amendments before the Committee with the exception of the last amendment because the wording of it was not available to us when we had our meetings. Therefore, we may need to discuss that amendment at greater length.

I am happy to accept the amendment before the Committee moved by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. In our earlier discussions, that was a major worry. I take the opportunity to repeat now, as I did then, that, as the promoter of the Bill in this Chamber, I can say that it is not the intention to make life difficult for farmers and landowners going about their lawful activities. I welcome the inclusion of the amendment and am happy to accept it.

Baroness Mallalieu

We are extremely grateful to the noble Baroness for accepting the amendment because it was the major worry in the Bill. This change is essential and I am delighted that she is able to accept the suggestion made.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Mancroft moved Amendment No. 2:

Page 1, line 6, at beginning insert ("nails or otherwise").

The noble Lord said: It may be of help to the Committee if I explain the purpose behind the amendment. I shall try to be as brief as possible. The Bill as currently drafted makes it an offence cruelly to impale a wild mammal. I believe we are all clear that this Bill is designed to prevent that kind of act of cruelty. We all remember the dreadful case that was presented to the Chamber of a live squirrel being nailed to a tree. However, the 1993 New Shorter English Dictionary defines "impales" not just as the transfixing of a body with a stake, etc: it also provides a rarer definition of enclosing with pales, stakes, etc. or surrounding as with a palisade. I do not think any of us intended that it should be an offence to surround or enclose a wild mammal. Therefore I believe that this amendment is necessary to make it clear that the archaic definition of impales is not intended to apply to this offence. I accept that this is only a modest improvement to the Bill but I am grateful that the noble Baroness felt it was useful and that it would make the Bill rather more acceptable to all. I beg to move.

7 p.m.

Lord Kilbracken

May I ask the noble Lord if he can explain what is meant by nailing a mammal? If that is a form of impalement, surely it is already covered by the existing wording. But I have never heard the verb "nail" used in that way. I, too, consulted the dictionary and find that it means to fix or fasten with nails; to pierce with nails‹—but that is obsolete—to fix something firmly to something with nails; or to fix or keep fixed in a certain place. I do not understand under what circumstances a wild mammal is likely to be nailed.

Lord Mancroft

The noble Lord asks an extremely reasonable question. It is for that very reason that we are all here and this Bill is before us. I am afraid that people commit the appalling act that the noble Lord has just described. They take nails and transfix small animals to trees. It is for that reason that we have tabled this amendment alongside the word "impaling" because impaling has another meaning—as I believe I described a moment ago—besides transfixing. It also means to surround with a palisade. For the sake of clarity and to help the courts, we needed to make it clear that in this case impaling meant transfixing. Regrettably one of the weapons that is used to transfix small animals is a nail; hence the use of the word "nail".

Baroness Nicol

I am happy to accept this amendment. It clarifies the Bill and removes any possible doubt about the use of the archaic word.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2 [Exceptions from offence under the Act]:

Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 3:

Page 1, leave out lines 10 to 13.

The noble Lord said: Paragraph (a) of Clause 2 is totally redundant. One can only suppose it was lifted wholesale, along with other more relevant paragraphs, from some existing Act of Parliament and incorporated into this Bill by accident. Apart from anything else, taking as such is not an offence under Clause l of the Bill. If no other amendments had been tabled this evening, I suppose we could reluctantly have let it stand, but, as it has been agreed that certain improving amendments ought to be made—and indeed have already been accepted—it is only sensible to make this improvement too. I beg to move.

Baroness Nicol

At the risk of boring everyone, I am happy to accept this amendment too. As the noble Lord, Lord Monson, said, there was no offence of taking a wild mammal to begin with, so the paragraph was unnecessary. I am happy to accept the amendment.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 4:

Page 1, line 16, at end insert— ("(bb) the killing, in a reasonably swift and humane manner, of any such wild mammal if he shows that the animal had been injured or trapped in the course of either lawful sporting activity or vermin extermination;").

The noble Lord said: Perhaps I should have made it clear earlier that, although I did not take part in the Second Reading of this Bill because of a long-standing prior commitment, I fully support the admirable aims of the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, in trying to outlaw the sort of sadistic practices and sadistic behaviour involving hedgehogs and other animals which she described so well in her Second Reading speech. The purpose of this amendment is only to try to eliminate any accidental loopholes or ambiguities which extreme proponents of so-called animal rights might exploit to hinder or render impossible traditional farming and other rural activities.

If prosecutions for the offences created by this Bill could be initiated only by the Crown Prosecution Service, there probably would not be much of a problem. However, for better or for worse, private prosecutions can be brought. Even if over 95 per cent. of such prosecutions result in acquittal, we know that the acquitted person is then at risk of receiving obscene telephone calls and possibly letter bombs and threats to his or her children. Therefore the fewer loopholes or ambiguities that can be exploited by those with extreme views, the better.

The purpose, more precisely, of this amendment is, first, to protect those who shoot, either for sport or for the purposes of vermin extermination and who then dispatch a slightly wounded hare or rabbit. That set of circumstances would not be covered—as I interpret it—by Clause 2(b). Secondly, the amendment would protect ferreters whose dogs had caught an unwounded rabbit, and, thirdly, it would protect those whether in the town, the country or the suburbs who have caught mice or rats in a trap which they then wish to dispatch, most usually by drowning.

That might appear, at first sight, to be covered by Clause 2(e) but that paragraph is ambiguous and could be construed so as to protect the trapper—if I may so describe the owner or user of a trap—only so long as the rat or mouse is in the trap. I have followed the rest of the wording of Clause 2(b) as far as possible. The word "swift" is used both in the sense of quick and in the sense of prompt, or, as the Shorter Oxford Dictionary expresses it, "performed without delay". The words "reasonably" and "humane" are self-explanatory.

I had originally ended the amendment with the words, "or rodent extermination" but to confine it to rodents would exclude rabbits. I believe that would he undesirable and therefore I have substituted the word "vermin" which, contrary to my earlier assumption, I have been told is legally sound and unambiguous. If the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, were minded to accept Amendment No. 8, that would achieve the same objective far more concisely. I await with interest her comments on that. I beg to move.

Baroness Mallalieu

I support this amendment. It is, as I understand it, clearly the intention of the promoters of the Bill to draw a distinction between people who beat animals gratuitously and those who are attempting to dispatch animals as humanely as possible, particularly those which have either been injured or been trapped. There is a danger to which the noble Lord, Lord Monson, has just referred, that a Bill of this nature may be employed to bring private prosecutions for purposes which were not intended by its promoters. It seems desirable that the purposes of the Bill should be absolutely clear on the face of the Bill. This amendment seems to me to serve an important and a useful purpose in making abundantly clear where the Bill is intended to apply, and for that reason I support it.

Lord Kilbracken

I do not see the need for this amendment, because it seems to me that, if a person acts in such a manner and kills any mammal in a swift and humane manner, he cannot possibly be said to have acted with cruelty, and he has to act cruelly in order to be guilty of an offence.

Lord Mancroft

While I support the intention of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, I think that some of the other amendments which we may be able to secure to the Bill will deal with some or all of the points which he made. As regards trapping, there is already an exemption for the lawful use of a trap for the purpose of killing or taking a wild mammal under Clause 2(e). I hope that addresses the noble Lord's concern. More generally, however, I support the need for clarification but I believe that is only necessary in respect of the verb "beats" in an offence.

This is an issue to which we shall return with Amendment No. 8. However, I believe that specific clarification in respect of that verb would be more acceptable to the noble Baroness than a rather more general defence such as that set out in Amendment No. 4.

Baroness Nicol

I am remiss in not having had the two amendments grouped, because the debate is very much the same and there is a likelihood of conflict. I do riot know whether procedurally I can suggest that at this point we debate Amendment No. 8, but I believe that it would be wise because we can make a decision on the basis of having heard all the arguments. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, would like to speak to his amendment, Amendment No. 8.

Lord Mancroft

I am grateful to the noble Baroness and the Committee for allowing me to do so. It may be for the clarification of the Committee if I do that. I hope that I shall not go over old ground.

The Bill makes it an offence to cruelly beat a wild mammal. At Second Reading the noble Baroness Lady Nicol gave examples against which that provision is aimed. She reported the case where six youths battered a wild rabbit to death by throwing a coat over the screaming animal and beating it with sticks. No one would dispute the need to prevent cruelty such as that. However, there may be times when it is necessary to kill a wild animal such as a rabbit or a hare by a blow to the back of the head. At present that is, quite rightly, lawful and humane. However, if more than one blow is inflicted does such an act of dispatch automatically become beating, and if so, would such beating be cruel? On recourse to dictionaries, I am advised that even a single blow may fall within the definition of "beats".

Our concern is to ensure that normal sporting and pest control activities are not caught by this provision. As I said at Second Reading, we are on difficult ground if we do not make clear which activities are prescribed. It may be argued that the courts would not find normal pest control activities to be cruel. But if an animal is dispatched by a blow to the head in the course of a sport which is opposed by animal rights groups, they would contend that the act of dispatch was unnecessary and therefore cruel. That would produce an argument in court. It may also be said that the Crown Prosecution Service would not entertain a prosecution in those circumstances. However, as I said at Second Reading and as the noble Lord, Lord Monson, said, in moving his amendment, our concern is the use to which this legislation might be put by animal rights groups in pursuing private prosecutions for their own political ends.

The ADAS and Local Government Reference Manual for Pest Control recommends that, trapped squirrels are run out into a sack held over the cage entrance. Once in the sack they are moved into a corner and dispatched by a sharp blow on the head with a short heavy stick". That is the official guidance, but it may well be that animal rights groups object to the dispatch of squirrels by that method. As a matter of fact, there is very little difference between that official prescription for dealing with squirrels and the description that the noble Baroness gave of a blanket being thrown over a rabbit and it being beaten. The difference, of course, is that in one case pest control staff would attempt to dispatch the squirrel with one blow, but in the other case the youths may have intended to punish the rabbit by repeated blows. In terms of what actually happens, the gap between the two activities is very narrow indeed.

I am certain, and I am advised by my legal advisers, that a statutory clarification is necessary. That is the purpose of my amendment. I have no wish to prevent the prosecution of people who cause unnecessary suffering to animals. It may be argued that this clarification would impose an additional burden on the prosecution since defendants might claim that they were trying to dispatch the animal with reasonable expedition. I reject that. I do not think that a magistrates' court would have difficulty in distinguishing between a responsible sportsman or pest controller on the one hand acting with "reasonable expedition" and a group of youths acting gratuitously on the other. Frankly, if it is suggested that the magistrates would have such difficulty in distinguishing between the two, that would only add to my anxieties about the word "beats".

It has also been suggested that to define "beats" would be invidious because none of the other verbs is defined. In fact, the Committee has already accepted clarification of the word "impales". None of the other verbs gives rise to any doubt. We all know what "kicks", "burns", "crushes" or "drowns" mean, but it is not clear what "beats" means.

It has also been suggested that no definition of "beats" is provided in respect of the protection afforded to domestic animals under the Protection of Animals Act 1911, which already makes it an offence to cruelly beat an animal. That argument completely misses the point that domestic animals are not dispatched by blows to the head. It is precisely the failure to understand the difference between what is done to domestic and to wild animals that underlines the need for clarity in legislation of this kind.

As she told the Committee, the noble Baroness kindly chaired discussions with the RSPCA and the League Against Cruel Sports before the Committee stage and after Second Reading. We reached a consensus except, as the noble Baroness said, on this issue. However, the very presence of the League Against Cruel Sports at that meeting gives me great cause for concern. This Bill is no longer meant to be aimed at country sports which the league opposes. So why does it have an interest in its provisions? That makes me doubly determined to ensure that, without weakening in any way the main purpose of the Bill, none of its provisions can in any way be used against legitimate countryside activities.

The league suggested at the meeting that there might be circumstances in which it would wish the provisions to be used to stop an attempt to kill an animal with a blow to the head if the animal was of an inappropriate size or weight, or the instrument used was not sufficient. Where will the objections end? Since the league, which has taken out many private prosecutions in the past, objects to the coursing of hares, for example, what happens if a hare coursed legally is caught and needs to be dispatched by a blow to the head? What guarantee do we have that the league will not prosecute that activity? We must have clarity on the face of the Bill, and we must protect legitimate countryside activities.

The noble Baroness has shown tremendous flexibility and great courtesy in the way she has piloted this Bill, and the Committee will be grateful to her for that. I am grateful to her for taking on board what I hope she will agree have been legitimate concerns, expressed gently but firmly from many sides of the Chamber. I must emphasise again that I wish to see the Bill go forward to the statute book. I do not want to create obstacles. This clarification, which is merely, in the words of the amendment itself, "for the avoidance of doubt", in my view and that of all my legal advisers, is absolutely essential.

7.15 p.m.

Baroness Mallalieu

Having spoken in relation to Amendment No. 4 perhaps I may now speak in relation to Amendment No. 8. Looking at the amendment, it seemed to me necessary to consider it very closely to see whether, first, it proposed changes which were necessary and, secondly, whether they were desirable. So far as concerns necessity, it seems to me on reflection that the amendment covers a situation which is omitted from Amendment No. 4 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, where, for example, an attempt is made to kill a wild mammal by beating it with a stick or club when it is neither already injured nor trapped. Obvious examples would be a mole emerging on to a lawn or a rat running out of a pipe. Amendment No. 8 seems to cover all the situations which the earlier amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, was intending to deal with, and also that additional situation.

The question which then falls to be considered is whether it is necessary to interpret further the word "beats", given that no such attempt is made in relation to any of the other words in Clause 1. On reflection, the amendment does not seek to define the word "beats" but simply indicates an activity which will not constitute cruel beating under the Bill. That seems to me a desirable step.

The last question which troubled me in relation to the amendment was whether it would produce an unreasonable obstacle to prosecution in proving an accused person to be guilty of cruelly heating. Repeated blows which fail to kill an animal with reasonable expedition will not provide a defence in a case where the court takes the view that the accused person was not in fact trying to kill the animal swiftly. That would be a matter of fact for the court to determine on the evidence, no doubt depending in part on the number and nature of the blows and the surrounding circumstances. In any event, following the amendment which the Committee has just made to Clause 1 of the Bill, the court will have to determine the intention of the accused before there can be a conviction. It seems to me that the amendment would impose no additional burden on a prosecuting authority in that respect. For those reasons, having already spoken in favour of the amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, I believe that Amendment No. 8 both encompasses that amendment and deals with matters which would otherwise have been excluded. It is therefore the more desirable of the two.

Lord Boardman

We are debating Amendments Nos. 4 and 8 but I wonder whether it is necessary to separate them. Are they not both aimed at the same purpose? Could they not both live comfortably in the Bill in order to achieve the objectives which all Members of the Committee seek?

Baroness Nicol

Did the noble Lord, Lord Monson, wish to comment on Amendment No. 8 before we reach a decision?

Lord Monson

I have no objection to Amendment No. 8. My only worry is whether it covers the drowning of mice and rats. If the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, speaking on behalf of the Home Office, could assure me that Clause 2(e) is not ambiguous—and I suggested that it was—hut protects householders, whether rural or urban, in such circumstances, I should be delighted to withdraw my amendment and support Amendment No. 8. Perhaps the Minister would like to comment.

Lord Renton

I speak for myself and do not expect everyone to agree with me. I believe that Amendment No. 4 by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, is the preferable of the two amendments.

Baroness Blatch

I am not sure that I can throw any more light on the subject. My own view is that there is no cause for worry; and the Government were satisfied that nothing in the Bill would prevent the continuation of normal humane methods of killing such creatures. However, I have to say that a sufficient element of doubt has been introduced into the debate as the discussion has progressed. My noble friend quite rightly pointed out that a definitive interpretation of what the clauses mean will be a matter for the courts. No one here can properly pre-empt how the provision would work in practice. For those reasons, I believe that the more clarification, the better. We remain neutral over the Bill. It is for the promoter to decide whether the amendments are acceptable.

Lord Skelmersdale

Before my noble friend sits down, I realise that this is the Committee stage and I have not taken part in the Bill so far. However, both amendments incorporate the concept of "reasonable". Amendment No. 4 says "reasonably swift" and Amendment No. 8 states "with reasonable expedition". Surely that is a subjective concept. Is it not possible that one magistrates' court would interpret "reasonably" rather differently from another? Would it not, therefore, be better to omit the words "reasonable" and "reasonably" altogether?

Lord Monson

Perhaps I may intervene again. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for his support and also to the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, who seems to have suggested an excellent compromise. It was to have both belt and braces. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, also hinted that that might be a better way of going about matters.

My only worry is whether it would impede the swift passage of the Bill. If another place found that one or other amendment was not to its liking, of course, we would not dream of insisting upon it. I await the comment of the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, on that point, because we do not wish to impede the passage of the Bill during this Session. If asking for acceptance of my amendment were to do so, I should happily withdraw it. Perhaps she would like to give her opinion on it.

Baroness Nicol

I find it difficult to do so. After hearing the debate, my first reaction is that there is a certain amount of overlap in the two amendments. I do not see why we need both and if I have to choose between them it seems to me that Amendment No. 4 by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, is more likely to succeed in another place than Amendment No. 8.

At this stage I am prepared to accept Amendment No. 4 and perhaps when we come to the final debate on Amendment No. 8 we will see how the Committee feels about accepting it also. If I have to choose between the two, I feel that I must choose the first and I am happy to accept it.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Mancroft moved Amendment No. 5:

Page 1, line 17, leave out ("unavoidable").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 5. Concern has been expressed by the National Farmers Union, the Country Landowners' Association and many noble Lords at Second Reading that the defence provided in Clause 2(c) may be too narrow as it stands. As drafted, it states that: A person shall not be guilty of an offence … by reason of … the unavoidable killing or injuring of any wild mammal as an incidental result of any lawful action".

The problem is the concept of avoidability. As the noble Baroness conceded in her Second Reading speech, there may be many situations where farming activities, while being lawful, are avoidable. An example would be if a landowner were asked not to burn heather on the grounds that it might cruelly burn wild mammals in it. If the landowner, rightly appreciating that heather burning is an essential part of the process of regenerating moorland and conserving wildlife, nevertheless proceeds with his burning, his action is not unavoidable. It is possible to conceive of a prosecution in those circumstances. Plainly that would not be acceptable. By removing the too harsh test of avoidability, the defence would be of more use in normal farming situations. I believe that the amendment substantially improves the Bill and I very much hope that the noble Baroness will once again be able to accept it.

Baroness Nicol

Yes, it is a sensible amendment and I am happy to accept it.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Mancroft moved Amendment No. 6:

Page 1, line 21, leave out ("or trap") and insert ("trap or dog").

The noble Lord said: By now Members of the Committee will be aware of my concern that it should be made clear that the Bill is no longer designed to attack legitimate country sports. I know that that is the noble Baroness's intention, but I was concerned on Second Reading that, in the examples she gave as to why the Bill was needed, she mentioned that the RSPCA had found mutilated foxes that, had been set upon by dogs".—[Official Report, 19/10/95; col. 863.] That suggested that there was something in the Bill which would prohibit such activities. Lawyers have said that it was possible that any use of a dog or hound to control wild mammals could be prosecuted if it was held that the animal was crushed in a dog's jaws. To make it clear beyond doubt that the Bill is not to be used in that way, the amendment specifically exempts the lawful use of a dog for the purpose of killing or taking any wild mammal. The lawful use of snares or traps is already exempt for the same reasons.

I believe that the noble Baroness might welcome the opportunity to clarify her position as the promoter of the Bill in this House by saying that it is neither her intention nor the purpose of the Bill to make any part of the legitimate practice of country sports unlawful. I hope that the noble Baroness will accept that it is a sensible amendment. I beg to move.

Baroness Nicol

There was considerable discussion on the point. Although I found it difficult to believe that anyone could suggest that inviting your dog to crush an animal meant that you had crushed it, nevertheless, it seemed to me that people were worried about the matter. I understand that none of the organisations concerned is opposed to the amendment, and I am happy to accept it.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 3 [Interpretation]:

Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 7:

Page 1, line 25, after ("any") insert ("wild").

The noble Lord said: This amendment is necessary in order to bring Clause 3 within the terms of the Long Title. The Long Title refers to "wild mammals", not merely to "mammals". Also the amendment would remove a doubt as to whether the Bill applied to a domestic animal which had either gone wild or was born in the wild. Such animals could then become "wild mammals" and be protected by the Bill. Therefore I believe that the amendment should be made. I beg to move.

7.30 p.m.

Baroness Nicol

Again we had considerable discussion on this addition to the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, succeeded in convincing us all that it was necessary. I therefore accept the amendment.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Mancroft moved Amendment No. 8:

Page 1, line 26, at end insert— ("( ) For the avoidance of doubt, "beats" does not include an attempt to kill a wild mammal with reasonable expedition.").

The noble Lord said: So as not to risk testing the patience of the Committee and the noble Baroness, I shall not go over the ground again. But I feel it is important to make one or two points. The purpose of this amendment is very simple. It seeks to make this area of the Bill as clear as possible. We were originally concerned about it when the Bill came to this Chamber from the other place. Two different sets (if that is the word; no doubt I shall be corrected) of leading counsel gave the opinion that the specific word "beats" was a dangerous area and needed clarification.

The reason that we could not reach a conclusion at the meetings held before Committee stage was that, after we discussed the amendments to come before us, we returned to counsel to ask their opinion. Even taking into account those amendments, they flagged up for us as firmly as they could that this is the great area of contention. That is why I press this point.

Noble Lords will understand—as we have all in our time paid the odd lawyer's bill—that there is very little point in taking very expensive and detailed legal advice, not once but on two or three different occasions, and then ignoring that advice. This is the strongest piece of advice that we received in relation to this Bill.

I shall not ask the Committee's pardon for making again another point that I made previously. It is that this is the area in which our enemies (I do not say "opponents" in this case), the enemies of country sports, are keenest to preserve intact. That raises even greater concerns.

The year before last, for nine months I watched a very close friend of mine dragged through the courts by animal rights people on an entirely spurious private prosecution under a former piece of legislation that came before this Chamber and in which I was involved; namely, animal welfare legislation. We had been given assurances by the promoters in this Chamber and in another place that this would never happen and that the Bill would not be used against legitimate country sports. That very close friend, a Master of Hounds, spent 18 months waiting to see whether he would go to prison. When the case came to the Crown Court he was told that the prosecution should never have been brought. That was the fifth, or possibly the sixth, case to be brought under that legislation. Therefore this is the area about which we are most concerned.

I consulted widely with my noble friends and with other friends outside this place who are concerned about this matter. It is in this area that we need to be most resolute. Therefore, without going over the arguments, I ask the noble Baroness to look favourably upon this amendment. It may be one dot too many to the "i" on that side of the fence; but from this side of the fence it is the dot to the final "i" that we would like in order to ensure that we are 100 per cent. comfortable with this Bill. I beg to move.

Lord Renton

I greatly appreciate all that my noble friend Lord Mancroft has already done to try to improve this Bill. Up to now I have agreed with him. However, it seems to me that the word "beats" is perfectly plain. "Beats" could mean either with one stroke or with several strokes.

The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and accepted, seems to me to deal with the situation that my noble friend Lord Mancroft has in mind; namely, an attempt to kill a wild mammal with reasonable expedition. Amendment No. 4 refers to, the killing, in a reasonably swift and humane manner". The other parts of Clause 2 also help. Therefore, although I do not disagree with the intention and spirit of what my noble friend proposes, we have to be careful not to clutter the Bill with words that are repetitive or unnecessary.

Baroness Nicol

I find myself in some difficulty over this point. Although I appreciate the worries of the noble Lord about frivolous or vindictive prosecutions, there is, as the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said, a degree of repetition which is probably not very sensible and which may cause problems when the Bill returns to another place. Nevertheless, it seems to me that there is still an area that is not quite covered by the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Monson. Therefore, I am willing to accept the amendment.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.

Remaining clauses agreed to.

House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.