COMMONS AMENDMENT (Hansard, 21 June 1982)

Lord Campbell of Croy
My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2. This is a subject with which the Government have been mainly concerned, and therefore I think it would be appropriate if my noble friend were to speak first on it.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Campbell of Croy.)

§ Lord Lyell
My Lords, I would apologise for the inadvertent absence of my noble friend who was to have taken this matter, but as your Lordships might appreciate, communications with Scotland are a trifle fraught this evening, and my noble friend the Minister has had to leave me, as a great deer lover, to try to explain (I hope adequately) the Government's position on this point. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy suggested that it might be appropriate that the Government state their view.
At an earlier stage my noble friend Lord Burton moved an amendment somewhat similar to this, and he was persuaded to withdraw it on the grounds that it was not the right time, nor indeed was this Bill the right place, for us or Parliament to be legislating on deer farming. Therefore I owe your Lordships an explanation, which I hope will be brief. When we discussed the subject in Committee, my noble friend the Minister pointed out that the Government would prefer to await the advice of the Farm Animal Welfare Council before being committed to any legislation on deer farming. He also said that it was a subject better suited to treatment on a Great Britain basis. There are deer farms in England, too; indeed we understand that there are more in England than there are in Scotland. But these factors are still relevant. The Farm Animal Welfare Council informed my noble friend the Minister that it intends to consider the entire problem of deer farming, transport and slaughter, and has now started work on this major study. When in due course the council report its conclusions, the Government will have to study them carefully and consider what legislative action, if any, is required in our opinion.
However, the situation has changed since we debated deer farming during the Committee stage of the Bill. Your Lordships will recall that there were later made amendments which severely restrict the circumstances in which deer may be killed in the close season on agricultural land. Under the 1959 Act an occupier may kill deer found on his enclosed land at any time, and Scottish deer farmers rely on this provision to slaughter their farmed stock, in particular stags, at a time of their choosing. However, in the form in which it eventually left your Lordships' House the Bill restricts the right to kill deer to places where they are causing, or threatening to cause, serious damage. Thus it effectively takes away any right which deer farmers may have to slaughter in the close season.
That is a very serious check on deer farmers' business in Scotland, where the close season for stags is nearly nine months long. I am sure that it was not the intention of your Lordships' House to place the deer farmers in that difficulty, which could even drive some very 857 reputable people entirely out of business. Thus, when this amendment was proposed in the other place, the Government did not resist it, even though, as I have explained, we must reserve our position on the whole question of deer farming until the Farm Animal Welfare Council has reported.
There has been some criticism of the drafting of the amendment. We have been told, for instance, that there should be some definition of the term "deer-proof barrier", though I have not heard it explained how the clause as drafted could open the the way to abuse. Indeed, we are not convinced that there is any serious risk of abuse. At any rate, in this respect the provision is considerably more tightly drawn than the existing Act. In any case, as I have said, the Government are likely to be looking again at deer farming in the nottoo-distant future. We shall then be able to consider whether this provision has in fact proved defective. In the meantime, I am in no doubt that something on these lines is now required.

§ Lord Northfield
My Lords, it was a pity that this amendment was suddenly squeezed in at the last moment in another place. With a little more time, and some discussion in your Lordships' House, it could have been improved. The addition of even one word, the word "agricultural", to qualify the word "land" would have made the amendment a little less open-ended. As it stands, "land can be any land, provided the other conditions are adhered to; it could be a back yard, for example. Nobody wants to exempt that kind of phoney activity under the heading of deer farming.
It is difficult to understand why the drafting was hatched in such loose terms, and it is even more difficult to understand why the Government so readily submitted to this permissive drafting. However, rather than risk the Bill falling foul of another place, were it to be amended and sent back, I shall do no more than register this objection. I do this with some reluctance. I understand that it is important to get the Bill through tonight. However, this is precisely the kind of point which could have benefited from a little more discussion had it not been rushed through in the form of an amendment in another place.
The other point I would make briefly is that it has been said that when the Government asked the opinion of the Farm Animal Welfare Council on this amendment the council strongly advised against it. If that is so, why did the Government dismiss the advice? That is a rather different story from the one which the noble Lord gave from the Front Bench, and if he could enlighten me on it I would be very grateful.

§ Lord Glenkinglas
My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend, when he is answering these points, could tell me what it means when it says, provided that the deer are conspicuously marked to demonstrate that they are so kept ". Is that on carcasses or on live animals? Further, deer-proof fencing is never deer-proof for long. What happens if they get out on to other people's land? How is one to deal with that? I think this is a perfectly ridiculous addition, but if we are to accept it then I think it is quite useful to know what it is intended to mean.

§ Lord John-Mackie
My Lords, I think we would all agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, that something like this was necessary in this Bill because, of course, there is a tremendous amount of deer farming; but trying to define what is enclosed land with deer inside it is very difficult indeed, as the noble Lord who has just spoken knows only too well. The other point which I, too, was going to raise and which the noble Lord has already raised is this question of being "conspicuously marked". Most deer on small deer farms, of course, are ear-tagged, but that is anything but conspicuous. Although, as my noble friend behind me says, it is necessary to accept this amendment, some thought should be given in the future to doing something a little more concise and meaningful than this particular provision, although, as Iv said, we do not want to hold up the Bill because of it.

Lord Campbell of Croy
My Lords, at this stage I would simply add a few words. My noble friend on the Front Bench may be able to reply after that, if he is ready to do so, to the points that have been raised by the two noble Lords. I would only say that it is my information that the Farm Animal Welfare Council are looking at this in the light of a general review of the situation, and my understanding is that when they have finished that review the Government will be ready to produce further legislation if it seems necessary.
In the meantime, I think the point which makes something of this kind necessary and desirable in the Bill, even though the drafting may not be as desirable as we would all hope, is the disadvantage which deer farmers in Scotland would suffer vis-à-vis deer farmers south of the Border. The close season for killing deer is very much longer in Scotland, and therefore, for long periods, deer farmers would be unable to kill their own deer at a time when deer farmers in England and Wales would be able to kill theirs. I understand that the close seasons are such that the deer farmers in Scotland would not be able to kill the deer at a time when they particularly wanted to, ready for Christmas and the New Year. That, I understand, is the reason why it was thought that something must be added to the Bill, even though it has been done somewhat hastily.
I would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, that it would be better not to try to make amendments at this stage, because I think we would then be taking a chance that all the work that has been done on this Bill in both Houses might come to nothing because, towards the end of a Session, it is difficult to get more time in the Commons for a Private Member's Bill

§ Lord Lyell
My Lords, with the leave of your Lordships perhaps I might try briefly to reply to the two points which were raised, first of all, by the noble Lord, Lord Northfield. He thought, first, that it might be more suitable to define "land" by use of the word "agricultural", and he suggested this. I am advised that we would have difficulties in using "agricultural" for this particular purpose; and, of course, this would be in terms of the use to which the land is put. We think there would be considerable difficulty in inserting (the example which the noble Lord gave) "agricultural" in the places he suggested it might go in, since we wonder 859 whether it would draw the definition of the amendment too tightly. But I hope the noble Lord will accept that we think that this particular amendment will achieve what we hope it will achieve.
I think his analogy of people keeping deer in the backyard is a trifle fanciful. The noble Lord shakes his head, but I speak from personal experience, not of keeping deer but of keeping livestock in conditions to which they are not entirely used. Cattle may be one aspect; but certainly if you are keeping deer in an urban backyard 1 think that even the noble Lord would admit that those deer are not going to reach the venison market in the condition in which the deer farmer would wish them. So I think he is going just a little far and is pulling my leg slightly over that. But I take his point.
So far as his second point is concerned, about further consultations with the Farm Animal Welfare Council, I hope that we can stick to the line that I took on the consultations in respect to the entire question of deer farming, on both sides of the Border. I hope we can stick to that particular aspect so far as the Farm Animal Welfare Council is concerned.
My noble friend Lord Glenkinglas asked about the deer being "conspicuously marked". Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, asked about that, too. I understand that these would be marked either by a tag or a collar. I understand it is the practice in deer farming that each individual animal is identifiable and easily marked, and I understand that the definition of "conspicuously marked" would include either the ear tag or the collar.