I beg to move, in page 4, line 27, to leave out "or may revoke a permit."

I think it would be convenient for the House if we could discuss at the same time the further Amendment standing in the name of my right hon. Friend, in line 30, to insert the new Subsection (3).

I think that these Amendments and that in the name of the right hon. and gallant Member for Gains-borough (Captain Crookshank) in line 30 all come together.

The first Amendment, to line 27, is made to meet wishes expressed by hon. Members on both sides during Committee and in particular by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton). The point was made that the Minister should have complete discretion in the giving of a permit for anyone for whom a licence had had to be refused, but that the conditions under which a permit, once given, could be withdrawn should be more tightly drawn and limited to the circumstances in which the conditions of the permit were broken. The words we now seek to add to the Bill will have that effect. My right hon. Friend will now be in a position to give a permit for an animal for whom a licence could not be issued and which might otherwise have to be castrated or destroyed. He will have the right to lay down the conditions under which the permit will be issued. We now seek to have inserted in the Bill a limiting Subsection which will mean that, provided the conditions of the permit are not broken, the permit will continue to exist; otherwise, if the conditions of the permit are broken, the Minister will have the power of revocation.

We proposed five Amendments to meet this point and I think the Government have managed to effect it in two. The principle which I think is covered by the Government's proposals, is that the power to revoke a permit should be limited to cases where a person has broken or not kept the conditions of his permit. That is the principle underlying our discussions during the Committee stage and I think it is covered by the Government's proposal. We are not clear, however, on the wording of the second Amendment, …if any condition subject to which that permit, or any other permit to the same person.… We should be grateful for some information from the Parliamentary Secretary.

Should any person have applied for a permit for more than one stallion which he or they wish to preserve in its present form and one condition was broken, presumably that might justify the Minister in taking steps in view of the breach of faith of that person.

In that case, would it not be better to say, "or any other permit for a stallion"? The present wording might be construed as a permit for selling a car or tomatoes or anything else. It should be made clear, I think, that it relates to a permit for another stallion by the same owner.

I should have thought that the words on the Order Paper were quite clear. They apply to a "permit" and not to a licence.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In line 30, at the end, insert: (3) The Minister may revoke a permit if any condition subject to which that permit, or any other permit to the same person, has been granted is contravened or not complied with."—[Mr. T. Williams.]