HL Deb 01 July 1980 vol 411 cc306-16

6.58 p.m.

The MINISTER of STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (The Earl of Mansfield)

My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 (Schedule 3 Amendment) Order 1980 and the draft Welfare of Livestock (Deer) Regulations 1980, copies of which were laid before the House on 21st May, be approved. If I am not entitled to move two Motions at once, I shall move one and then the other later. These statutory instruments are two in a series of four instruments which if approved will implement the Government's decision to ban the harvesting of antlers in velvet from live farmed deer, with exceptions for veterinary treatment and for first-aid in an emergency. Before I outline the effect of the two draft instruments now before the House, it might be helpful to your Lordships if I were to explain something of the background and of the reasons why the Government consider it necessary to introduce this ban.

In recent years, the farming of deer has become more popular in this country because of the better prices obtainable for venison. In some other countries, however, deer are farmed for another crop which, unlike venison, can be taken annually; this crop is the antler when it is in velvet. A deer's antlers are shed and re-grown each year. While growing, they are soft, sensitive to pain and covered with a velvet-like skin. In Far Eastern countries these growing antlers have long been a component of traditional medicine. Suitably processed, they are used as tonics, often for children and for nursing mothers. I understand that it is also claimed that they act as an aphrodisiac, but I must tell your Lordships that I do not know whether this claim is justified or not. As standards of living in these Far Eastern countries have improved, the demand for this product has increased and this has pushed up the price it can fetch. The result has been that the price obtained for antlers in velvet soon became higher than that for venison, and this encouraged the production of antlers in velvet in countries outside the traditional producing countries, particularly in New Zealand.

There is no evidence that antlers in velvet have been harvested from live deer in the United Kingdom. However, in view of the considerable publicity given in this country to the commercial benefit of producing antlers in velvet, and as little was known of the effect of harvesting velvet on the welfare of the deer, the Agriculture Ministers invited the Farm Animal Welfare Council, which is an independent advisory body, to examine and report on this aspect.

The council took written and oral evidence from a wide range of organisations and individuals. After weighing this evidence, the council's main conclusion was that there was no overriding need on medical, veterinary or husbandry grounds for the practice of harvesting antlers in velvet, and that the commercial benefits of the practice should not out- weigh those other considerations. It therefore recommended to Ministers that the harvesting of antlers in velvet from live deer should be banned in Great Britain. The council's report was published and was placed in the Library of the House, and some of your Lordships may already have studied it. I would like to take this opportunity of thanking the council for producing such a comprehensive and well-researched report so speedily.

As your Lordships will no doubt be aware, public opinion in this country attaches great weight to the humane treatment of animals, and this attitude is reflected in our wide range of legislation which aims to ensure that the animals which we use for food and other produce are not caused unnecessary pain or distress or unnecessary mutiliation. The evidence presented to the council showed that antlers in velvet were sensitive to pain and it did not show any valid husbandry reasons for removing them. After studying the evidence and the council's report, we concluded that the correct course was to ban the harvesting of antlers in velvet from live farmed deer, except in certain closely defined circumstances to which I shall come, and to implement this ban as quickly as possible before the practice became a feature of deer farming in this country.

In order to put this decision into effect, four statutory instruments were necessary, two of which have already come into operation. First, we introduced the Welfare of Livestock (Deer) Order 1980, which brought deer kept for their antlers in velvet within the definition of "livestock" contained in the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968. That order came into operation on 20th May. The second order that we have already made is the Removal of Antlers in Velvet (Anaesthetics) Order 1980, which came into effect on 11th June. This prohibits the operation of removing any part of a deer's antlers while they are in velvet without an anaesthetic being given, except to save life or relieve pain in an emergency.

I come to the two draft Instruments which are before the House this evening. The first of these, the Welfare of Livestock (Deer) Regulations, applies to deer being commercially farmed on agricultural land in Great Britain; they prohibit the removal of any part of the antlers of the deer while those antlers are in velvet, with two exceptions which allow a deer's antlers in velvet to be removed by a veterinary surgeon where in his opinion this is the proper treatment of the deer for a disease or injury, and which allows anyone to remove antlers in velvet in an emergency to save life or relieve pain. I would emphasise, however, that these exceptions in respect of first-aid and veterinary treatment do not impair the effectiveness of the ban on the harvesting of antlers in velvet; on the contrary, they are abolutely necessary in the interests of the deer themselves.

The last piece in this legal jigsaw is the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 (Schedule 3 Amendment) Order. The Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 imposes restrictions throughout the United Kingdom on the practice of veterinary surgery by unqualified persons. Part I of Schedule 3 to that Act provides exceptions which allow the owner of an animal and certain other unqualified persons to carry out treatment and specified operations which could otherwise be carried out only by a veterinary surgeon. The proposed order, if approved, will have the effect of excluding from these exemptions the removal of any part of the antlers of a deer while those antlers are in velvet, except in an emergency for the purpose of saving life or relieving pain. The order will therefore bring the law regulating the practice of veterinary surgery into line with the provisions of the Welfare of Livestock (Deer) Regulations 1980.

In accordance with our statutory obligation, we have consulted interested bodies on the making of the two statutory instruments. These consultations have resulted in useful comments; in particular, we have defined antlers in velvet in these two instruments in such a way that deer farmers will still be able to remove antlers when these have ossified and become insensible to pain, a practice which may be necessary under some husbandry systems since antlers harden in time for the mating season, when stags are naturally aggressive and can inflict severe injury on each other or on those who look after them.

I hope that what I have said will have made clear to your Lordships the reasons for our proposal to ban the harvesting of antlers in velvet from live farmed deer. The measures before your Lordships this evening will provide a valuable protection to farmed deer; they reflect the genuine concern felt by Parliament and by the people of this country for the welfare of all farm animals, and I commend them to the House. I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 21st May be approved. —(The Earl of Mansfield.)

7.7 p.m.

Lord WYNNE-JONES

My Lords, it has been a pleasure to listen to the noble Earl on this matter. He explained it extremely clearly and told us exactly why the order is necessary. From these Benches we would not wish to oppose the order, but on the contrary welcome it. The noble Earl made certain references to the potency of the velvet, of which, frankly, I was not aware. I am always interested when matters like this come before your Lordships' House because so much information is put at our disposal, and we go away very much better educated than when we came in. I remember that when we were discussing the Endangered Species Act we learnt that the whiskers of tigers were considered to be of importance in parts of the world with regard to potency, and I have no doubt there are many other things, such as the horns of rhinoceros, which are considered important.

Those matters, which are either trivial or mythological, should not be allowed to interfere with what the noble Earl rightly described as being the wish of people of this country to ensure that livestock of all types are properly and humanely treated, and this order—so carefully considered by the Government, and I congratulate them on that—will clearly lead to a better state with regard to the care of deer in the country, and we therefore heartily support it.

Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN

My Lords, I apologise to the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, for being a little late in coming in. I therefore missed the initial part of his speech. However, any order which has the support of the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, has my support, particularly in these matters. I must, however, declare an interest in that I have to look after in the Lake District about 250 acres associated with the home of John Ruskin, and deer is very much associated with that area.

I have only one question to ask the Minister, and I shall understand if he cannot answer it now. What has been the attitude of the Forestry Commission to the order? The noble Earl may have mentioned this point before I came in, in which case I apologise. This is obviously a matter which closely concerns the Forestry Commission, and if he could help me in relation to the attitude of the Forestry Commission, particularly from the point of view of the Lake District, the area about which I have declared an interest, I should be much obliged.

7.10 p.m.

Lord TRYON

My Lords, I, too, welcome this order and the most expeditious way in which the Government have moved to meet an abuse that might have arisen and offended a great many people in the near future, apart from causing great suffering to deer. However, for those interested in the welfare of deer this is really not even half a loaf; it is a mere crumb of what we need, at any rate South of the Scottish Border. Discussion of a much needed comprehensive deer Bill has been an almost annual feature of Parliament for some years now. The noble Earl and I well remember several previous Sessions concerned with this matter, and there is at present a Bill before a Select Committee of the other place.

We have tonight saved deer from having their antlers cut off while in velvet, but we are really no nearer to preventing other, arguably worse, abuses whereby they are almost daily being killed, particularly by poachers employing the most inhumane methods. We have heard from all noble Lords who have spoken of the great wish of the British public to see farm animals, and to that one can add wild animals, properly and humanely treated; but surely it is time that we again gave some really serious consideration to the other problems affecting deer at the moment.

Time is running out for the present Deer Bill in this Session. We may or may not see it, but the chances of it reaching the statute book must not be good. Therefore may I urge the Government themselves to promote a proper deer Bill as a matter of urgency, and may I ask the Minister whether there are any plans for this.

The Earl of CRANBROOK

My Lords, I join other noble Lords who have spoken in congratulating the Minister upon his very clear exposition. I also welcome the intention of the Government in inserting these two extra pieces in what, by some curious coincidence, both my noble friend the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in another place, have termed a "legal jigsaw".

I should like to ask whether the picture is now complete. It seems clear that other pieces are needed before this jigsaw does the job that is required. May I ask my noble friend, with reference to Regulation No. 2, to explain exactly what in the circumstances is agricultural land. If a deer from a deer farm is temporarily removed so that "for the time being" it is situated on what one could term nonagricultural land—which in my opinion might very well be the deer farmer's garden, or a patch of wood adjoining his farm—is the deer no longer protected by these regulations?

It has been said, again in another place, that there are 20 deer parks in this country. I have a feeling that there may be many more than 20 parks in which there are deer. Are these, or are they not, also agricultural land for the purpose of the regulations before us? Is a zoo in any way agricultural land? Is a menagerie in any way agricultural land for the purposes of the regulations?

It is also clear, I believe, that wild deer remain unprotected, and it seems likely that rather few domesticated or farmed deer will actually be protected. My noble friend has told us that as far as we know there is not yet any velvet culling (if that is the right word) being practised in the country. He has asserted that valuable protection is being given to farmed deer. However, I should be grateful if my noble friend can give an approximate estimate of how many deer are actually protected, and how many more deer remain unprotected.

There is a final question which ought also to be asked. Two of the four orders that make up the jigsaw apply to the whole of the United Kingdom. May I ask the Minister whether we can hope that all four orders in the present jigsaw will ultimately cover the whole United Kingdom?

Lord de CLIFFORD

My Lords, I join with other noble Lords in thanking the Minister for these two orders. May I also join with other noble Lords in saying that while these are very good orders, they form only part of what is required for the protection of deer in this country. It would also be most interesting to many people who are interested in deer to know exactly where the Forestry Commission stand in regard to this matter. The commission has many hundreds of deer on its property. Can the commission's activities be considered as farming. It would be most interesting to know. I wish to ask the Government most earnestly whether they cannot within the next few Sessions produce a really comprehensive deer Bill which would absorb all the orders that are now being brought into operation.

7.16 p.m.

The Earl of MANSFIELD

My Lords, first, may I thank noble Lords who, generally speaking, welcomed this proposed legislation. I think that there are a number of misconceptions as to the extent and scope of the legislation. I shall try to disabuse noble Lords (if that is not being offensive) of what may be misconceptions.

In the first place these measures are not designed to afford protection in general to deer, similar to that which might be afforded by a deer Bill if, and when, it comes along, or by general legislation on the treatment of animals, wild, domestic, or farmed. The measures are designed to deal with the case of farmed deer where the farmer (if I may so call him) might be tempted to remove the antlers in velvet for purposes that I have related to the House.

I think that the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, will see that in fact the Forestry Commission really has nothing to do with this situation. It did not give evidence on this matter to the Farm Animals Welfare Council. The Forestry Commission is not in the business of farming deer. If one finds a deer in one's woodland, be it big or small, and one says, "Ah, I'll have that", meaning its antlers in velvet, for the purpose of enriching oneself, or for any other purpose for that matter, that is not the same thing as what we are talking about here, which relates to the farming of deer. Therefore I hope that that disposes of that point—

Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN

I am sorry to interrupt the noble Earl. Is he saying that the Forestry Commission is not at all concerned with these orders?

The Earl of MANSFIELD

Yes, my Lords, because the Forestry Commission does not farm deer. If the commission farmed deer, it would be just as concerned as anyone else. The keeper of a forest, such as the Forestry Commission, or anyone in the private sector for that matter, is not concerned with these orders because such a keeper is not a deer farmer.

The noble Lord, Lord Tryon, described the measure as but a crumb. I quite agree; if one takes the subject within the totality of the welfare of deer, both farmed and in their wild state, it is but a crumb. But we think that it is an important crumb. We wanted not only to nip the practice in the bud, but in fact to stop it before it started. No evidence has come to the agricultural departments in Scotland or in England that these practices have started. Nevertheless we wanted to ensure that they do not start.

There is a Deer Bill. At the moment it is going through the Commons. If I may say so, I think it is wrong to say that it is before a Select Committee. It has left the Standing Committee and it is due to be considered by the other place on Report on, I think, this coming Friday—at any rate, within a matter of days. In a debate such as this, I think it would be wrong of me to forecast what is to be the fate of Mr. Farr's Bill, still less to surmise what would happen to it if it were passed by the other place and sent to your Lordships. There are obviously time contraints, and it is not for me to say what attitude this House would take to that Bill. But I would be being hypocritical, in view of the many times that I have addressed your Lordships in possibly a more private capacity in the past on earlier Deer Bills, not to say that it contains elements which I am sure would be very welcome to anybody who has the welfare of wild deer, particularly, at heart.

I come finally to my noble friend Lord Cranbrook, who, if I may say so, as usual put his finger on the pressure point (if that is right) of this particular legislation. The answer, in a sentence, is: No, my Lords, the picture is not complete. This measure deals with one aspect of keeping deer on a farm, which I have already told the House is limited in scope. But now we come to deer in parks—not on farms, but in parks. There, the situation is that the individual is not allowed to remove antlers in velvet unless it is in an emergency; to save pain, for instance, or the animal's life. In those circumstances a registered veterinary surgeon is allowed to remove antlers in velvet by means of a proper medical operation (if I may so term it); and, therefore, to be frank with my noble friend, it is possible, if the owner (if I may so call him) of deer in a park persuaded a veterinary surgeon to remove antlers in those circumstances, that would not be against the law as it stands. But I do not think that is something which really we need concern ourselves about very much, because there is no evidence that the owners of deer in parks would want to assign that fate to them. If it was necessary to legislate in that way, then it could be done.

Now we come to the situation of wild deer. There, again, there is legislation. It is an offence to take a deer in the close season, and I am advised that to capture a wild deer temporarily, as it were, when it is in velvet, and to cut off its antlers, would be taking for the purposes of the legislation, and would be an offence. The only time when it would not be an offence to take a wild deer is in the season, so to speak; and, as my noble friend will know just as well as me, the period of time when a deer is in season and in velvet would be, if at all, an extremely short one.

The Earl of CRANBROOK

My Lords, my I ask my noble friend whether the regulations he has just outlined are applicable to England and Wales only, to Great Britain or to the entire United Kingdom?

The Earl of MANSFIELD

My Lords, agricultural land (which is one of the questions I was asked) is defined in both countries. In Scotland it is in the Agriculture (Scotland) Act, Section 86(1) and (3), and there is a similar provision for England, although I do not have it to hand. The measures which I have outlined to the House this evening apply to both countries. In fact, everything which I have said applies, although with different legislation, to both countries.

There was another question I was asked by my noble friend. If a farm deer escaped into a garden, that would be agricultural land within the meaning of the section, and therefore the deer would be protected. He asked me how many deer are unprotected, which really is a "Catch 22" question, because I suppose any deer is unprotected by the legislation which your Lordships are considering this evening if it is not on a farm, which is the vast majority. I certainly have not got figures which would enable me to tell my noble friend how many deer are in parks, still less how many deer are wild in the United Kingdom. I could make a guess, but I really do not think it would be very helpful. The Welfare of Livestock (Deer) Regulations are on a Great Britain basis; the regulations concerning veterinary surgeons are on a United Kingdom basis. I think that, one way or another, I have answered all the questions which have been put to me. I shall look at the Official Report tomorrow, and if I have not answered any questions I shall, if I may, write to the noble Lords concerned.

On Question, Motion agreed to.