Deer (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]

HL Deb 02 April 1996 vol 571 cc159-90

3.58 p.m.

Lord Strathclyde

My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Deer (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.

Bill read a third time.

Clause 1 [Constitution, functions and membership of Deer Commission for Scotland]:

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (The Earl of Lindsay) moved Amendment No. 1: Page 1, line 16, after ("of") insert ("deer in Scotland").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I indicated at Report that I would be tabling an amendment to Clause 1 to make a specific mention of welfare in subsection (1)(a) of the 1959 Act dealing with the general functions of the commission in response to the widespread view taken by your Lordships that that is needed. The amendment before the House would have the effect of ensuring that the welfare of deer is a matter which is always kept under review by the commission.

As I have made clear throughout our discussions on the subject, welfare is at the heart of the 1959 Act which, among other things, provides greater protection for the welfare of deer than is available for probably any other wild animal in Scotland. The deer commission has taken an interest in deer welfare from its inception and has conducted a number of research enquiries into deer welfare issues in conjunction with the Lasswade veterinary centre. The commission has also developed a good working relationship with bodies concerned with animal welfare, including the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and has, for example, recently agreed with that society to prepare guidelines on the use of enclosures for managing wild deer.

The welfare of deer is also at the heart of the Bill before your Lordships. All night shooting will henceforth be subject to authorisation and the code of practice for night shooting prepared by the commission. All driving of deer for the purpose of taking or killing them will be subject to a code of practice to be prepared by the commission. Clause 3, on the commission's advisory and research powers, now includes a specific reference to welfare as an area the commission can devote its resources to.

I have also confirmed that welfare is an integral part of sustainable management, a general function of the commission introduced by this Bill. It is an essential component of sustainability that deer as a species have a right to co-exist with humans and cannot be treated simply as human property to do with as we please. We must respect their right to live healthy lives in balance with their habitat. Indeed, the legal status of wild deer in Scots law encapsulates this fact neatly. Deer, when wild, belong to no one but themselves and can roam freely, subject only to controls when they conflict with other land uses and the rights of landowners to take or kill deer on their land.

I have also described the legal advice I have received about the possible dangers we might face if we were to introduce a new general function of welfare alongside the existing functions; in essence we risk creating a duty which might override the other general functions, and perhaps even run into real conflict with the traditional practices of sporting, shooting and population control. For that reason I have not been able to support amendments to this effect.

I have also not been prepared to introduce the word "welfare" into the balancing duty since I see welfare as a matter central to the commission's concerns and not one which should be balanced against the commission's general functions. I have therefore concluded that the most appropriate mention of welfare is to single it out as a matter to be kept under review by the commission in its general work. This will have the effect of ensuring that welfare concerns are always at the centre of the commission's work and that all issues relating to welfare can be tackled by the commission.

Moreover, the commission will be able to keep under careful review the impact on deer welfare of its own activities and where necessary adapt its policies and practices to take account of that impact. At the same time this stipulation will not cut across the existing general functions which the commission will be able to pursue while having regard to the welfare stipulations in the specific functions throughout the Act.

I believe that this amendment will capture the aim of those who have pressed for the inclusion of welfare in this section. I acknowledge that many Members of the House at different stages of the Bill did so. The amendment will capture that aim while ensuring that the commission is able to carry out its general functions effectively. I beg to move.

4 p.m.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for these amendments and support them. They give effect to the unanimity of expression which was present at our hearings in Edinburgh and during the various stages of the Bill as your Lordships have considered it. There is perhaps one point I might put to my noble friend. He revealed that the Red Deer Commission and the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals are conducting a study to produce a code of practice for the management of deer in enclosures. My noble friend uses the word "management" in perhaps its more euphemistic sense. I think he means the culling of deer in enclosures. If that study is going on, can I suggest to my noble friend that he does what he can to encourage the Red Deer Commission and the SSPCA to consult with the Association of Deer Management Groups before they produce any code of guidance which obviously should be acceptable to all sides of the land use debate in Scotland. Having made that suggestion to my noble friend, I thank him again for his amendments and support them.

Baroness Robson of Kiddington

My Lords, I too thank the Minister for the amendment. He may remember that I was one of those who spoke in favour of the proposal. It is tremendously important that the welfare of deer will appear in Clause 1 under the functions of the deer commission. We are grateful to the Minister for introducing the amendment.

Lady Saltoun of Abernethy

My Lords, I too wish to thank the noble Earl. It is very clever of him to have come up with a solution. We have all been trying to find a way of introducing welfare into Clause 1 without any unwanted consequences. We are all grateful to him for having been the one who managed to do it.

The Earl of Lindsay

My Lords, I shall pass on the compliments paid by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy, to the draftsman of the amendment. It underlines the concern that we have had throughout the different stages of the Bill. We have all agreed that welfare is vital to the management of deer in Scotland. We wished to ensure that the way that concept was introduced onto the face of the Bill would not lead in later years to a misuse of our intentions. The noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, was, I think, the first to mention the matter at Second Reading—possibly the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, did so too—hut it has been a continuing theme and I am glad that we have managed to reach a successful conclusion.

My noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch suggests that my reference to enclosures was perhaps somewhat euphemistic. I have heard since Report stage about the use of enclosures, described to the SSPCA, alongside the Red Deer Commission, for the treatment of warble fly and other problems that deer suffer from. My understanding is that the SSPCA was quite impressed with the way in which enclosures could be used in those circumstances. However, I take note of the points the noble Lord made. I can assure him that the SSPCA will be consulted in the drawing up of the code of practice.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch

My Lords, I think my noble friend means that the ADMG will be consulted.

The Earl of Lindsay

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that correction.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 2: Page 1, line 17, after ("matters") insert (", including their welfare,").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I announced at Report that I would be tabling amendments to stipulate that the proportion of the commission chosen to represent the deer management category should be chosen from among nominees of organisations representing deer managers.

Noble Lords

Amendment No. 2 has been spoken to.

The Earl of Lindsay

My Lords, I apologise to the House. I am speaking to Amendment No. 4. I spoke to Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 when I moved Amendment No. 1. Along with Amendment No. 2 therefore I also wish to move Amendment No. 3: Page 1, line 17, leave out ("in Scotland").

The Earl of Lindsay

I beg to move the two amendments en bloc.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 4: Page 2, line 24, after ("and,") insert ("subject to subsection (3B)(c) below").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I repeat my apologies to the House. My mistake must have had something to do with my being in Luxembourg last night and not getting any sleep. That means that I am not running with the normal procedures of the House as efficiently as I usually try to do.

I announced at Report that I would be tabling amendments to stipulate that the proportion of the commission chosen to represent the deer management category should be chosen from among nominees of organisations representing deer managers. The amendments before your Lordships are designed to have that effect.

The reason for the amendments is that concerns have been expressed that an unreasonable Secretary of State may decide to choose people to represent this category who do not have the confidence of deer managers throughout the country. To do so would be a foolish act indeed, since without that confidence the commission will not be able to do its job effectively at all. For the most part the commission will not be able to act without the agreement and active co-operation of those who manage deer throughout Scotland. Nevertheless I recognise the validity of the point being made and have therefore decided that the best way to tackle the concern would be to ensure that such persons are chosen from among the nominees of the organisations which represent deer managers.

It may be helpful if I explain that the phrasing of the amendment is designed to ensure that organisations which represent those with a primary interest in the management of deer are asked to provide such nominations. That clearly means that the deer management groups, presumably represented through the association, would be consulted.

Since we have defined deer management to include the sporting interest in deer, the representative bodies involved in that side of deer management will be included. We have not been able to stipulate the names of such organisations in the Bill because such bodies are non-statutory. But the intention and effect are clear.

The amendments will have no impact on the way the rest of the commission is chosen nor on the general principle I have elucidated from the start of our deliberations that the commission must be a balanced body which has the confidence of all those affected by deer throughout Scotland. The reason for including special rules in respect of the deer managers' category is because of the central role deer play in their land use practices, which is not generally true for the other categories. Nevertheless, the Secretary of State will be obliged to consult relevant bodies from all possible sectors before selecting members of the commission and will have the results of the consultation before him when decisions are made.

I am confident that the appointment provisions as now amended will provide a more flexible basis for choosing the best available candidates to serve on the commission in future while maintaining and, it is hoped, developing the level of confidence that exists throughout the country in the commission and its works. I beg to move.

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Lindsay has recognised that the composition of the commission was one of the key areas, if not the key area, which concerned a number of noble Lords as the Bill has been debated in your Lordships' House, and the key to the success of the commission in the future, and of all that the Bill contains.

The amendment that he puts forward today meets as many of the anxieties that I can think of within the bounds of practicality. For my part I am extremely grateful to the Minister for his efforts in bringing the amendment forward.

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove

My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for delineating specific groups that he will consult. I hope that the commission does not become too cosy, and that people in Scotland other than those who have a definite connection with deer and the forest will have an opportunity to be on the commission.

I am sure that the Minister will remember the plea made by me and by the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, for some public representation. We referred to people from outside bodies. We suggested that CoSLA, the Crofters' Commission or some such body might be included. The amendment makes it possible to include a wider range than might be considered ideal by those who are concerned only with the estates.

4.15 p.m.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch

My Lords, again I am very grateful to the Minister for the amendments that he has tabled and for the way that he has introduced them. I speak to Amendment No. 9 tabled in my name. Its purpose is to clarify that the one-third of the new commission which the Secretary of State must appoint from nominees of organisations representing deer managers must be put forward by organisations which have deer management as their primary purpose. This may already be within the legal drafting. If it is, I apologise for taking two minutes of your Lordships' time.

The point I am trying to make is that, although I have been a life member of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds for many years and have a high regard for that organisation (except perhaps when some of its investigations are a little too zealous), I would not expect the RSPB to be among the nominating organisations in this part of the Bill. The RSPB manages deer on several of its reserves, perhaps most notably Abernethy, but deer management is not its principal purpose. The National Trust for Scotland would be in the same category, I suppose, although one should exonerate it from any charge of over-zealous investigation.

The amendment has been tabled to confirm on the face of the Bill what the Minister said on 21st March at col. 1424 of the Official Report at Report stage. He said: The aim behind the proposed amendment at Third Reading is that the Association of Deer Management Groups will be the nominating organisation". My noble friend then wisely went on to say that life is never as simple as that, especially when legal drafting enters upon the scene. Of course, we all accept that.

Apart from the Association of Deer Management Groups, there are other organisations which have as their primary purpose the management of deer. The British Deer Society springs most obviously to mind, as does the British Field Sports Society. The Scottish Landowners' Federation might also be a candidate, especially when it is representing Highland landowners. But I am afraid that it does also busy itself with advice on things like sheep and the unfortunate grants which go with them. Therefore I am not sure that the SLF maintains quite the pristine purity of deer management which my amendment seeks.

I certainly would not expect to see the deer farmers brought within this clause because I should have thought that they would have come under the agricultural provisions of the clause. My expectation, especially after what my noble friend said when introducing his amendments, is that it is in effect the ADMG which will he consulted. It can then consult the BDS, the BFSS, the SLF and such other bodies as may appear relevant.

The Earl of Woolton

My Lords, I should like to support all the amendments relating to membership of the new commission put forward by the Minister. At Report stage I was still not convinced that the correct balance had been found for the various interest groups; there were concerns still being expressed by those organisations representing deer managers about their future representation. These new amendments seek to address those concerns and they remove much of the ambiguity surrounding the issue.

Specifying that one-third of the commission should be nominated by the organisations representing the interests of deer managers should give reassurance to those with the task of implementing deer management on the ground that their interests and opinions will be given proper consideration and hearing. Provided that the Association of Deer Management Groups is one of the nominating organisations—I am pleased that the Minister has confirmed that—I believe that the new commission now has the correct balance of interests while at the same time retaining necessary flexibility and should therefore command the widest possible support from all organisations with an interest in the management and welfare of Scotland's deer.

I welcome the amendments and congratulate my noble friend the Minister on the positive and helpful way that he has handled this sensitive issue.

Lord Taylor of Gryfe

My Lords, I regret that it was not possible for me to attend at Edinburgh, where I gather that there were fruitful discussions on this and other matters. I commend the proceedings at Edinburgh.

I may be out of order in making this comment as regards representation on the Deer Commission. I have heard noble Lords putting down their marker regarding their respective interests and organisations. As noble Lords will appreciate, as chairman of the Forestry Commission I spent a fair amount of time covering the largest estate in Scotland—indeed, in the United Kingdom. The commission was made up of a variety of interests, not unlike the body now under discussion.

One of the areas specifically referred to in the Act governing the Forestry Commission was the representation of those who had experience in labour relations in countryside affairs. Those various worthy organisations which have been mentioned this afternoon inevitably have experience in that regard, but there is merit in having some of the operators in the field of land management and deer conservation with some voice as regards policy. That could be extremely helpful. The point is not introduced in a confrontational sense, but as regards having the co-operation of the labour force which will be operating this piece of legislation.

Lord Mackie of Benshie

My Lords, I am afraid that I shall be introducing a slightly contentious note. It appears to me that the Minister has gone too far. I should like his assurance that he will go no further. In my view, he cannot possibly accept Amendment No. 9 proposed by his noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch. His noble friend specified the trouble with the amendment when he said that he wanted to exclude organisations which took a contrary view to his way of thinking from the one-third of the commission to be appointed. I hope that the amendments which the Minister has put down to appease his noble friends will leave the Secretary of State in control of those appointed. As I understand it, the reason for giving the Secretary of State the power to pick members, as against their nomination by those bodies, was that the system had not been working. I hope that the Minister can give us an assurance that that is so and that a body like the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds would be eligible. I have heard its handling of deer on Abernethy praised by experts in the field. The society handles many deer forests and I hope that it would be considered as having the expertise necessary to be appointed in this case. The Scottish Landowners' Federation should also be one of the bodies eligible that has experience in the handling of deer.

Can the Minister tell us how many organisations will be consulted? He said that they were not statutory bodies and could not be named on the face of the Bill. It would be useful if the Minister could tell us which ones are concerned. At the moment I view the amendments with fear and displeasure. I thought that the provisions were right to start with in the Bill but I wait to hear what the Minister has to say.

Lady Saltoun of Abernethy

My Lords, surely an organisation such as the RSPB would be covered under subsection (3)(3A)(a)(iv), "the natural heritage".

The Earl of Lindsay

My Lords, perhaps I may address first Amendment No. 9 proposed by my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch. Then I shall pick up on the comments made by other noble Lords on the group of government amendments. Referring to my noble friend's amendments, the effect of the amendments I have moved is to ensure that it is from nominees of bone fide organisations representing the interests of deer managers that the Secretary of State will select the members of the commission whom he chooses to represent that category. Organisations which do not represent the interests of deer managers as their primary purpose will fall into other categories. The crucial word is "represent". My noble friend is quite right to compliment the RSPB on its record of working with deer and deer management at Abernethy. Other noble Lords have also pointed out its commendable record.

However, as an organisation, the RSPB does not have objectives which represent deer and deer management. Its objectives are devoted primarily to ornithological subjects and the organisation would not fall within this category, it would come into other categories. I hope to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, that the RSPB is an obvious organisation which will be consulted and it may provide from within its own ranks a commissioner because of its experience with the natural environment and how it impacts on deer management.

I draw the attention of noble Lords to Clause 1(3)(3B) which states: Before making an appointment under subsection (3A) above, the Secretary of State shall … afford to such persons or organisations as he thinks fit an opportunity to suggest the name of any person who would in their view be an appropriate person". The persons so appointed, in other words under the subsection on the natural heritage, will be expected under subsection (3)(3A): to have knowledge or experience of one or more of the following matters … in so far as that matter may be affected by the Commission's exercise of their functions". I make that point because the experience of the RSPB with deer management, as it impacts on the expertise that the organisation has of regenerating forestry or ornithological matters, makes it eligible for the Clause 1 nomination.

My noble friend was quite right, the ADMG is an obvious candidate for nominating persons for the deer management section of the commission, a minimum of one-third deer managers. However, because it is a non-statutory body it cannot be named on the face of the Bill. I can reassure my noble friend that as regards deer farmers, under Clause 10 farmed deer are, for most practical purposes, excluded from the scope of the 1959 Act. The term "deer management" therefore applies to the management of wild deer and not farmed deer.

I am grateful for the support from the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, and my noble friends Lord Glenarthur and Lord Woolton for the Government's amendments. I say to the noble Lords, Lord Carmichael and Lord Mackie of Benshie, that we do not seek a cosy relationship, through the provisions, with certain interests involved in deer management nor do we seek in any way to unbalance the commission. The primary purpose is to inspire confidence in those people whose primary duty is to manage deer. They have deer management at the heart of their activities and all the related activities. Therefore, it is vital, because of the importance that the Deer Commission places on the voluntary principle and voluntary agreement, that it has the confidence of deer managers.

The amendment is proposed in response to many observations and comments made at all stages of the Bill. It is designed to encapsulate our intentions for that section of the Deer Commission that represents deer managers. The word "appeasement" is totally irrelevant in that context. We intend the deer management section to represent the activities with which the Association of Deer Management Groups is involved.

Lord Mackie of Benshie

My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister a question. Can he assure us that there are enough groups concerned with deer management to give the Secretary of State a choice from among the nominees they propose?

The Earl of Lindsay

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch named three groups to begin with, and the Association of Deer Management Groups is exactly that—an association of many groups of people who manage deer. There is no shortage of avenues for nominees. The overlap between the British Deer Society, the British Field Sports Society and the Association of Deer Management Groups will ensure that both cohesion and a width of field will be available to any Secretary of State.

I must also reassure the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, that crofters are already guaranteed representation on the Deer Commission. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, that we see forestry as being a critical interest which must be properly represented on the Deer Commission. I am glad that he reminded the House of his illustrious career with the Forestry Commission. He was a chairman who is still remembered at Forestry Commission headquarters. He rightly points out that the Forestry Commission is a huge landowner; it still owns over 1 million hectares, despite the erroneous fears of some Members opposite who feel that the modest sales of about 1 per cent. of the holding per annum for the sake of rationalisation is, for some reason, privatisation by the back door. It will take 100 years to achieve that if that is the theory held by noble Lords opposite.

The Forestry Commission is an organisation that any Secretary of State would want to consult before appointing commissioners who could represent the forestry interests on the commission. Indeed, someone within the ranks of public or private sector forestry might be suitable to be a commissioner.

On the matter of labour, I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, that it is open to nominating bodies and bodies that are consulted to put forward names which they think are fit for consideration by the Secretary of State. So if, for instance, a stalker was put forward by one of the nominating groups from the deer management section, it would be for the Secretary of State to judge the eligibility of that potential member against others.

I hope I have answered most of the points raised. The crucial point expressed by those who doubted the need for this amendment is that we are determined that the commission should retain a balance and also that it should retain the confidence of those who spend most of their time and their focus on deer management at ground level.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

4.30 p.m.

The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendments Nos. 5 to 7: Page 2, line 29, leave out ("persons or"). Page 2, line 29, leave out ("he thinks fit") and insert ("appear to him to represent the interests of persons concerned with the matters mentioned in subsection (3A)(a) above"). Page 2, leave out line 32.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 8: Page 2, line 33, at end insert ("; and (c) where names have been suggested by organisations representing the interests of deer managers, select the one third of the Commission referred to in subsection (3A) above from among those names.".").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 4. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Serota)

My Lords, in calling Amendment No. 9, as an amendment to Amendment No. 8, I point out to the House that "Line 2" should read "Line 3". There is a misprint in the Marshalled List.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 8, Amendment No. 9: Line 3, leave out ("representing") and insert ("which appear to the Secretary of State to have as their principal purpose to represent").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am most grateful for what my noble friend had to say about his amendments and indeed about my Amendment No. 9. I think that what my noble friend said renders my amendment redundant. Before begging your Lordships' leave to withdraw it, I only have to express a certain amount of mild dismay that the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, should have misunderstood the thrust of what I was saying. I confirm my understanding, which my noble friend the Minister confirmed, that the RSPB, which is an excellent body, will presumably be consulted under the natural heritage interest of the clause rather than under the deer management interest of the clause. I am most grateful to my noble friend for explaining the niceties of the legal drafting, in that when the word "represent" is used, we are talking about a primary aim. That was in fact the object of my particular amendment, so I beg your Lordships' leave to withdraw it.

Amendment No. 9, as an amendment to Amendment No. 8, by leave, withdrawn.

On Question, Amendment No. 8 agreed to.

Clause 4 [Emergency powers of Commission to authorise killing of deer causing damage]:

The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 10: Page 3, line 34, leave out from beginning to ("or") in line 35.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I announced on Report that I would table at Third Reading amendments to Clause 4 to clarify further the exact circumstances in which the use of the emergency powers in Section 6 to control damage by deer would be used. This is in response to concerns expressed by noble Lords that the way Clause 4 was originally drafted seemed to make it possible to use the power in other than emergency circumstances.

The effect of my amendments will be to require the commission to be satisfied before using Section 6 powers that the damage in question being caused to natural heritage features on unenclosed land is due to the presence of a significantly higher deer density than is usual in all the circumstances. I have already clearly explained that the clause is designed for use in emergency circumstances only, and also added in Committee the rider that the power can be used by the commission only when no other power is adequate to deal with the situation. Nevertheless, I have thought it sensible in the circumstances to include a further clarification which will make it absolutely clear that the power can be used only when deer arrive in much greater numbers than is normally the case on the ground in question—in other words, they are "marauding".

For the most part, that will be obvious from the nature of the damage or danger being caused: deer are quite clearly not expected to be in a farmer's field of turnips, nor in a school playground, nor for that matter within an enclosure designed to protect some natural heritage feature. No specific qualification is needed in respect of these types of land. But deer can be an integral part of the land management pattern on unenclosed land where natural heritage features might be present. Hence the effect of my amendment will be to make it clear that the damage being caused should be an unexpected event by virtue of the arrival of a significantly higher density of deer than is usual.

As background, I should perhaps mention that the Section 6 powers were originally designed to allow the commission to authorise action to deal with damage to agricultural production when it was not possible, for whatever reason, for the occupier to take action himself on the land in question. Over the years, the power has also been adapted to allow action to be taken in this way in respect of the other forms of damage with which the Deer Commission is concerned, notably damage to woodland.

In 1982, in response to fears then about damage caused by deer which had colonised ground, the original stipulation that deer had to be "coming onto ground" to trigger the use of the power was deleted. The power has been used relatively frequently in the years since the time the commission was established and is, for example, the basis on which authorisations are currently given to shoot in the close season as part of the current voluntary control schemes being run by the commission.

The effect of the Bill, in particular the provisions for control agreements and for out-of-season authorisations to protect the natural heritage and unenclosed woodland will be to reduce considerably the need for the commission to use Section 6 powers. As a consequence, we have used the Bill to recast the various powers of the commission to ensure that they are tailored to the situation at hand and are mutually compatible.

Where special action is necessary the commission would normally look in the first instance to the occupier (or owner in certain cases) to take action themselves on their own land, either during the season or, under the powers in Section 33 of the 1959 Act. Where there are more longstanding or widespread problems, the commission would seek to use the powers available to it under Clause 5, that is to say control agreements, or in exceptional circumstances control schemes. In addition, the commission may turn to the powers to protect the natural heritage and unenclosed woodlands set out in Clause 9 of the Bill. Only in emergency situations where deer are causing unexpected serious damage or danger and no other course of action is adequate, could the last resort powers in Section 6 be invoked.

Section 6 powers are not designed as a catch-all to deal with all the kinds of damage wherever they occur. They are a last resort measure to deal with emergency situations when no other form of control is possible. Consequently if deer are an established and significant part of the land use pattern on the land in question, the damage being caused is unlikely to constitute an emergency. It may very well be serious and require effective action to be taken, but that is precisely what the control agreement and control scheme powers are all about. They contain in particular real safeguards for land managers which cannot be overridden without proper consideration.

It has been suggested that by singling out the natural heritage in this way, we are somehow discriminating against it as a land use worthy of protection compared with the other land uses protected by the Bill. That is not our intention; nor is it the effect of the amendment. All the amendment does is allow the terms of the power to operate in the case of the natural heritage as the power is intended to work; that is to say where deer are causing damage in such a way that emergency action deserves to be taken. Specific reference to the circumstances in which the natural heritage can be protected using these powers is needed, because the natural heritage can occur on any land, including land where deer are the primary land use, unlike the other features worthy of protection which are quite obviously land where deer are not the primary land use. I refer to agriculture and forestry.

Moreover, these amendments do not have the effect, as has been suggested by some, that the occupier or owner in question will be required to put up a fence to benefit from Section 6 protection. Where the commission is satisfied that a significantly higher density of deer are present on the land in question and are causing the damage, then Section 6 powers can be used to protect the natural heritage, just as they can for the other factors worthy of protection. I believe it important to retain the option of using emergency powers to protect the natural heritage in the last resort, wherever it occurs, and am confident that the amendments will achieve that effect.

As I stated at Report, we have not, on legal advice, incorporated the term "marauding" into the text of the Bill because of the real legal uncertainties associated with it, especially the definition of "range". The requirement that deer are present at a significantly higher density on the land in question than is usual is one that can be met by the relatively objective criteria of records of deer numbers and movements.

The phrase "all the circumstances" is designed to ensure that the commission takes into account factors such as seasonality and weather conditions as well as movement patterns in reaching its decision on this matter. I beg to move.

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation, though it did not quite meet some of the objections I received from some of the other bodies in Scotland. It is just as well that the amendments have arisen now and that we have another stage in another place where more discussion can take place. Possible improvements in the wording may be made and matters may be cleared up to allow people to understand better than perhaps some of us are able what the full impact of the new clause is.

As a result of the introduction of the new clause, the majority of Scotland's nationally and internationally important habitats, such as peatland, heather moorland and scrub habitats, have been excluded from protection under the emergency powers available in the Bill. The role of Scottish Natural Heritage as the statutory conservation adviser in Scotland appears to be undermined.

The new clause specifically limits the application of Clause 4 to forestry, ignoring other habitats that may be seriously damaged by higher deer numbers. The Minister said—I wondered whether he would—that the issue is related to not merely the quantity of deer but also to the density. That may be obvious, but it did not appear to be the case from my understanding of the wording.

I received representations from the RSPB and the WWF. They consider that the consultation relationship between Scottish Natural Heritage and the Deer Commission should be a statutory one so that the commission seeks the advice of SNH, first, in order to satisfy itself that adverse change is being caused to the natural heritage and, secondly, for financial reasons. I shall not go into that; the Minister is aware of the grants made to SNH which could be affected if it lost a certain amount of status because of the Bill.

The new clause changes the situation dramatically in that regard. The Minister's explanation will be looked at carefully when the Bill goes to another place. For instance, as a consequence of the new clause, what role will SNH play? We all thought when the Bill was going through that it would be the fundamental body looking after the natural heritage of Scotland. What role will it now play in advising the commission on whether deer numbers are having an adverse effect on the natural heritage? Which body, other than SNH, would be the appropriate body to judge serious damage? The Minister mentioned the Forestry Commission. If that is suggested as an alternative body, what will be the appropriate body to decide that serious damage is being caused to natural habitats such as peatlands or montane features?

A number of issues are raised in the new clause. While its intentions are good, one of the reasons that a second Chamber is important is that the Bill will go back to the other place after all the discussions that have taken place here. I hope that the other place looks at it and we end up with something that at least I can understand.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch

My Lords, I rise to support the amendments of my noble friend on the Front Bench. Though it is with a tinge of regret that I see the word "marauding" disappear even from the rubric of the Bill, I confess that once again his drafting is good and meets the majority of opinion advanced so far in our deliberations on the Bill.

It may not be my place to answer the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, but can I say to him that the Bill does not exclude damage done by deer to sites of special scientific interest, peatlands or whatever; all it does is ensure that if enhancement of the natural heritage is to take place, then that must take place with the consent and agreement of the occupier and owner in question, possibly through a management agreement.

The difficulty in the past has been how to define the natural heritage, which is the new feature of the Bill. It is easy enough to define agricultural production, crops, foodstuffs and so forth. But the amendment meets all the difficulties raised. Where the natural heritage is on enclosed land, Section 6 can still apply and indeed it can also apply on unenclosed land provided a significantly higher proportion of deer than is usual is present and is doing the damage.

I believe that my noble friend has met the main body of opinion advanced during our deliberations. I am grateful to him and feel sure that the amendments will do much to ensure the harmony which we all hope the Bill will introduce into the land in question. I support the amendments.

4.45 p.m.

Lord Taylor of Gryfe

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch. I should have thought that the anxieties of my noble friend Lord Carmichael were covered by the effect of natural heritage in relation to SSSIs. I presume that any operation of the Deer Commission will need to take account of areas of land which are covered by SSSI provisions.

The Earl of Lindsay

My Lords, the advisers to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, would do well to read what I said in Hansard. In fact, I could almost have moved the amendment by saying "This is a clarifying amendment". Not one piece of policy has changed with the amendment. All that has happened is that I have taken the assurances given from the Dispatch Box at every stage of the Bill in relation to Clause 4 and turned them into wording on the face of the Bill. We are therefore clarifying the situation.

The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, said that the intention behind the amendment was good. We have taken that good intention and put it into unambiguous language. I thank my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch for saying that the drafting meets that intention. Once again, that compliment will be passed on to the draftsman involved.

SNH is obviously a vital element in the management of the natural environment of the natural heritage in Scotland. Unavoidably it will be concerned with deer management generally and with advising at various instances on the activities of the Deer Commission. SNH is the statutory adviser to the Secretary of State on the natural heritage in Scotland. It is also a public body, so there will inevitably be a close liaison between SNH and the Deer Commission.

We decided deliberately not to make SNH the statutory adviser to the commission. There will be matters concerned with the natural heritage where the Deer Commission wants to seek advice from other quarters. It may be that the Forestry Commission and many other bodies are the right people to advise the Deer Commission on some elements of the natural heritage. We did not feel that the Deer Commission should be obliged in every instance to seek advice from that quarter. But the link will be close. I shall be grateful if the noble Lord can assure those who addressed their concerns to him on this point that the link will be close.

The grant-giving abilities of SNH are obviously important, especially if enhancement of the natural heritage is sought through voluntary agreements. It may well be that SNH is involved both as an adviser and as a grant-giving body in the drawing up of a voluntary agreement between the deer commissioner and the deer manager.

The definition of "serious damage" which the noble Lord mentioned will be sought depending on the circumstances of the case. I would not be surprised if SNH often provides advice on the definition of serious damage, but there will be other instances where other arbiters or advisers will be drawn in. At the end of the day it is up to the commissioners on the Deer Commission to make a sound judgment, balancing the advice they have had from experts and their other expertise and duties.

The central assurance that I have sought to give on Clause 4 at all stages of the Bill is that we are dealing with marauding deer which cannot sensibly be defined on the face of the Bill but can be described in, as it were, longer hand by saying that they are deer that are not being effectively controlled and that they are not normally established on the ground in question. The amendments that we have brought forward over the course of the Bill ensure that there is a tighter definition of what Clause 4 is intended to deliver. We have also stressed that Clause 4 powers can be triggered only in a genuine emergency—in other words, if the other powers available to the commission are not adequate or have not been able to deal with the situation. I believe that the concerns usefully raised throughout the proceedings on the Bill have led to a wise clarification of Clause 4 and I hope that noble Lords will accept it.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 11: After Clause 4, insert the following new clause—

PREVENTION OF DAMAGE TO NATURAL HERITAGE

(". After section 6 of the principal Act there shall be inserted the following sectionߞ

"Application of section 6 in relation to natural heritage.

6AA. Section 6 of this Act shall apply in relation to the natural heritage as it applies to woodland, where the Commission are satisfied that deer are causing serious damage to the natural heritage—

1. (a) on enclosed land; or
2. (b) on unenclosed land, but only if the Commission are also satisfied that the damage is being caused by reason of the presence on the land in question of a significantly higher density of deer population than is usual in all the circumstances.".").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 9 [Authorisation by Commission of certain acts]:

The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 12: Page 8, line 43, at end insert ("and "vehicle" does not include any aircraft or hovercraft").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, anxiety has been expressed in the House over the use of helicopters to drive deer to take or kill them for deer management purposes. As the 1959 Acts stands at present, it is not an offence to use vehicles to move deer. It is only an offence to make such use of a vehicle with the intention to take or kill deer on unenclosed land.

It is our clear intention that all uses of vehicles to drive deer to take or kill them should require authorisation by the commission and be subject to the code of practice to be prepared by the commission. The Bill makes it clear that this requirement will apply to wild deer on all land.

In the light of comments during the passage of the Bill I have given considerable thought as to whether helicopters in particular should be permissible for such operations. I have discussed the matter with the chairman of the Deer Commission and believe that, if used with due sensitivity to the welfare of the deer, helicopters could be used in some circumstances without raising undue concerns. However, the continuing concern expressed at every stage of the Bill on this matter has tempted me to revisit this clause and to table the amendment now before the House. I am proposing that aircraft and hovercraft should be omitted from the range of vehicles which can be used for this type of work. I hope this addresses the contributions of noble Lords from the committee in Edinburgh onwards. I beg to move.

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove

My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for omitting hovercraft and helicopters from the Bill. The matter was raised right at the beginning of our proceedings. There was a feeling that there could he horror stories in the popular press about helicopters chasing poor little deer over the Highlands. In Committee we heard some interesting information about the use of helicopters in New Zealand. The noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, who is an authority on the subject of helicopters, made a considerable contribution to this part of the Bill. All in all the Bill without the helicopters will be given a better reception than it otherwise would receive. Certainly in the other place the issue would have raised very many doubts.

Lady Saltoun of Abernethy

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Earl for this amendment. Perhaps I may say a brief word about Amendment No. 17. When I first looked at Amendment No. 12 I thought that it was splendid. Then I suddenly asked myself why helicopters had been taken out of Clause 9 while the definition was left under Clause 11. I regret to tell the House that very unworthy dark suspicions entered into my mind and I became seriously worried lest there was some nefarious plot behind leaving the definition in Clause 11. I consulted the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch. That is why I put down my amendment and it is probably why he put down his amendment. Perhaps when the Minister comes to wind up he will comment on what I have just said.

Lord Mackie of Benshie

My Lords, this will be a good amendment if it allays suspicion. As I understand it, it means that one must not move a hovercraft or a helicopter in an operation to take or kill deer. However, rich noble Lords like the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, could have a helicopter and a hovercraft on their estate for the normal work of the estate, but they must not use it to take or kill deer. Is that what the amendment means?

Lord Pearson of Rannoch

My Lords, I regret to say that once again the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, has misunderstood my position, if not my words. As to the amendments themselves, I have to join the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, in confessing that Amendment No. 16 was tabled with the idea of being a backstop in case anything my noble friend on the Front Bench had to say about his Amendment No. 12 had not been sufficient to remove any doubts that remained in our minds and, indeed, helicopters from the use to which we feared they might have been put. I support the government amendment and will not be moving mine when the time comes.

The Earl of Lindsay

My Lords, I shall make a brief comment because the purpose of the government amendments and therefore the problems posed by Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 have become clear. I would stress to the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, that there was no dark intent or conspiracy. However, the problems we had with Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 relate partly to the fact that if one excluded those two vehicles from the definition in Clause 10 one automatically removed much of the merit of an amendment which the noble Lady herself moved and which was accepted at an earlier stage of the Bill—namely, that it is an offence to shoot a deer from any moving vehicle and by changing the definition throughout the Bill to exclude from vehicles hovercraft and helicopters one suddenly legitimised the shooting of deer from hovercraft and helicopters. The issue is not as straightforward as it should be when one looks at the amendments that are tabled. But the intention is very simple. I hope that the House will accept the amendments.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

5 p.m.

Lady Saltoun of Abernethy moved Amendment No. 13: Page 9, line 5, after ("the") insert ("owner or").

The noble Lady said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, in moving this amendment, I shall speak to Amendment No. 14. Clause 9 of the Bill introduces a new Section 33A(5) into the 1959 Act. The section allows the commission to authorise the taking and killing of deer out of season in order to prevent serious damage to unenclosed woodland, the natural heritage, or in the interests of public safety.

The section presently provides that such an authorisation may be given to the occupier or his nominee. The noble Earl indicated at Report stage that he recognised that there may be occasions where the beneficial interest in the woodland or natural heritage feature lay with the owner of the land in question rather than the occupier. He said that he was therefore prepared to allow the occupier, the owner or their respective nominees, to be authorised. These amendments achieve that purpose.

I understand that, for reasons of safety, the commission's application procedures will require the applicant to notify the owner or the occupier, as the case may be, of the intention to apply for authorisation. Since tabling these amendments, I have been shot at down the telephone by a friend who said that he is horrified about this and that it is the lazy deer manager's charter. He said that the provision will allow the lazy deer manager, who has not been bothered to shoot his quota of deer in season, to obtain an authority from the commission to shoot what he has not shot in season, out of season. I wonder whether the noble Earl will be very kind and comment on that point when he replies. Meanwhile, I hope that he can accept the amendments that I have proposed. I beg to move.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch

My Lords, I support these amendments. They seem to me to make sense of what we have been intending in this part of the Bill for some time. The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, suggested that they might be a charter for the lazy deer manager. I suppose it is possible that for one season they might be, but I would have hoped that, with the progress that is being made all over Scotland in counting the number of deer and making sure that the right number is shot through the co-operation of the Association of Deer Management Groups, the Red Deer Commission, SNH and others, before too long the powers which the commission will have under this Bill will be brought to bear against the lazy manager in question. Therefore, I should have thought that the benefits that these amendments confer are likely to be very much greater in the medium and long term than any disadvantage from that fast-disappearing breed, the lazy deer manager.

Viscount Massereene and Ferrard

My Lords, these powers for shooting deer out of season ought to be granted only in the most dire emergency. I know that the Forestry Commission, as a matter of course, likes extending the season for culling hinds. As I said before, they should only be permitted in an emergency.

The Earl of Lindsay

My Lords, as I hinted to the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, at earlier stages of the Bill, I am in complete agreement with the point she makes and I am very happy to accept her amendment.

These amendments will allow the commission to authorise either the owner or the occupier of the land, or their respective nominees, to take or kill deer out of season to prevent serious damage to unenclosed woodland or the natural heritage, or in the interests of public safety. There will be occasions where the beneficial interest lies with the owner rather than the occupier and it is reasonable that the owner should be able to initiate action in his own right.

Proposed new Section 33A(5) introduces what is, in effect, a new power to the commission. The nature of the action that may be authorised, for instance action on unenclosed land, will require careful attention by the commission as to its procedures for ensuring that adequate notification is given to those with a direct interest in the land in question.

I also stress that these are powers which are only to be used in the last resort and therefore they will not be part of a lazy deer manager's charter. Indeed, the discretion available to the commission should prevent that, even if it is unable to establish whether or not these are circumstances which justify last resort powers. In addition, I believe that my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch made the point that lazy deer managers are now a very rare breed indeed.

I also share and sympathise with the anxiety expressed by my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard. The sentiment that he has expressed is one that we would expect to see in the Deer Commission itself in the exercise of such authorisation. The Government are happy to support this amendment.

Lady Saltoun of Abernethy

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Earl for his reception of this small amendment.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lady Saltoun of Abernethy moved Amendment No. 14: Page 9, line 6, leave out ("such an occupier") and insert ("either of them").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch moved Amendment No. 15: After Clause 9, insert the following new clause—

CARCASS TAGGING

("After section 25F of the principal Act there shall be inserted the following section—

"Carcass tagging.

25G.—(1) For the purpose of monitoring the quality and source of venison sold in Scotland the Secretary of State may by regulations made by order subject to an approval by resolution of both Houses of Parliament introduce a scheme to make provisions for the identification of all deer carcasses sold within Scotland ("the scheme"), as may from time to time be defined in the regulations.

(2) The scheme shall require any such carcass sold to bear a tag in a form approved and issued by the Commission and bearing an individual mark or number for each carcass, identifying the producer, the year of issue and the carcass number.

(3) It shall be a requirement of the scheme that any person requiring to sell a deer carcass shall obtain in advance from the Commission the relevant tags and shall affix them to any carcass sold in such manner as may be specified.

(4) At the expiry of the year to which any unused tag relates, the producer to whom it was issued shall return the same to the Commission.

(5) It shall be an offence for any person to sell, offer or expose for sale or to receive or to have in his possession, transport or cause to be transported for the purpose of sale on any premises any carcass not bearing a tag in such form as may be specified by the scheme.

(6) A person who is guilty of an offence under subsection (5) above shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.".").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, we come again to the suggestion that deer carcasses might be tagged in future. Most of what can be said in favour of this amendment has already been said in earlier proceedings on the Bill so I shall not weary your Lordships with repetition now. However, I confirm that the amendment merely advocates an enabling provision, subject to regulations from the Secretary of State and confirmation by Parliament. Since our proceedings on Report, support for the amendment has continued to pour in and most of it addressed to my noble friend the Minister, with copies to noble Lords who have shown an interest in the matter. So I believe that my noble friend is fully aware of the strength of feeling in favour of this proposal.

When we last debated this subject my noble friend seemed minded to set off on a process of consultation. We wish him well on any such journey, although I ask him whom he proposes to consult, who has a legitimate interest in the subject and who has not already volunteered full support for the amendment. There is now unanimous support from producers, including the Forest Authority; support from dealers and processors who handle more than 90 per cent. of the produce, and the supermarkets have also made their position clear. So I have a little difficulty in understanding who may be left to consult in the eventual consultation exercise.

However, there is perhaps one aspect of our proposal which has gained strength owing to unfortunate circumstances since we last discussed it. I refer in passing to the problem of BSE and the emphasis which such a scare gives to the need for the traceability of meat sold in the United Kingdom and elsewhere. The BSE scare might seem to be an irrelevance to the Scottish wild venison market and indeed it probably is. After all, wild venison must be about the most healthy meat that one can eat, free of all contaminants; high in protein and low in fat.

But now I must mention—again, somewhat in passing—Benbecula and the current suggestion that the inhabitants may have higher cancer rates, thanks to fallout from the Chernobyl disaster some years ago. I very much hope that Benbecula's problems may prove to have been invented or exaggerated by our ghastly media, who have bestowed on Benbecula much the same energies as they have bestowed on British beef.

One knows that much of the area of the Scottish Highlands where granite rock is exposed shows above-average radiation readings even in normal conditions. That was certainly the case after the Chernobyl disaster. Even if Chernobyl turns out not to be to blame for Benbecula—let us hope that that is so—one cannot rule out some similar disaster in future which might be shown to have a localised effect. It must surely be sensible to have a system which reveals which carcasses come from that area or at least to have the ability to install such a system quickly. That is what the amendment is intended to do. I very much hope that my noble friend can agree to it. I beg to move.

Viscount Mountgarret

My Lords, I apologise for the lateness with which I have involved myself in the Bill, but I have been following it with the greatest of interest since its early stages. I have done so because, apart from a short interval during the war years, my family owned or leased the same deer forest for over 50 years and I can recall very clearly that after the war when I was there much concern was expressed by many people on the question of the tagging of carcasses. When the Red Deer Commission came into being, we had many conversations with the commission during which the question of marauding deer was raised as, on every occasion, was the question of the tagging of carcasses. It was definitely felt that that was probably the best way of controlling the poaching of deer and of preventing deer that had been poached being described as "marauding deer". However, the idea never seemed to get off the ground. I have never understood why.

I should like to lend the maximum support possible to my noble friend's proposal. The question of the tagging of carcasses has raised its head yet again. Surely we should have at least an enabling provision in the Bill. I am only sorry that it is not a requirement in the Bill. However, I very much hope that my noble friend the Minister will feel able to take the amendment on board and to include such an enabling provision in the Bill.

The Earl of Woolton

My Lords, I, too, should like to support Amendment No. 15, which has been moved by my noble friend Lord Pearson, as I did on Report. Those of us who have been pressing the Government on this issue have been heartened in our attempts by the commitment of my noble friend the Minister to keep an open mind and to be willing to be persuaded by the weight of the argument.

As my noble friend Lord Pearson said, the Minister has now received further expressions of support for a mandatory scheme from organisations representing the great majority of producers, dealers and processors. Both sides of the industry are now united in a desire to see mandatory tagging introduced as a basis for participating effectively in the food industry.

On Report I raised the issue of food quality in relation to persuading the food retailers, the main customers for wild venison, that they could have confidence in the production procedures and in the quality of the meat. As my noble friend Lord Pearson said, since then the beef crisis has underlined how fragile consumer confidence can be even when existing hygiene controls are deemed satisfactory. I was interested to hear the Secretary of State for Health comment in another place during a recent beef debate that the United Kingdom is now the most highly regulated country in Europe for food production. That has been a powerful argument in giving British consumers confidence in British food products.

I believe that a mandatory tagging scheme should not be seen as compromising the Government's deregulation initiative; rather, it should be presented as strengthening the Government's initiatives to improve the quality of another British meat product. In the light of criticism currently being directed at the United Kingdom's public health procedures and at intensive livestock husbandry in general, the Government should be seeking to ensure that there is no possibility of substandard, poorly handled venison being sold either in this country or abroad.

I believe that the opportunity should be taken to introduce an enabling provision into the Bill to provide for a mandatory scheme once the new commission has put in place the necessary administrative details. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will agree that the arguments in favour of such a scheme have now been proved.

5.15 p.m.

Lord Nickson

My Lords, perhaps I may express the same sentiments as my noble friend Lord Woolton because I, too, have not played any part in the Committee stage or the Bill's progress to date, but I, too, have read with great interest the Minister's responses to amendments on carcass tagging. Although I have no interest to declare in relation to deer, the subject interests me greatly.

As some noble Lords may know, I have another even greater interest, salmon in Scotland—and I may be involved at some stage in legislation on that. I have had a very quick look at Clause 31 of the Salmon Act 1986 which provides an enabling provision, not too dissimilar to this, to create a dealer licensing scheme. There are about 70,000 rod-caught salmon in Scotland and about 80,000 red deer are killed there annually. I mention that only because that enabling legislation was passed by Parliament and is now on the statute book. I know that the Government have considered that provision since then although they have not found it practical or desirable to apply it. Nevertheless, that enabling legislation is on the statute book should implementing its provisions become either necessary or desirable at any stage. Therefore, I very much support the amendment because I think that such a system may well become desirable, even if introducing it may not be immediately possible now.

Viscount Massereene and Ferrard

My Lords, I, too, support the amendment for the simple reason that the honest man should have nothing to hide. Many red deer carcasses go under the counter and the more that can be done to make that as difficult as possible, the better.

Lord Mackie of Benshie

My Lords, I believe that subsection (1) of the amendment would be a useful inclusion in the Bill, but I believe that it is probably wrong to set out all the detail now. The deer groups should move not only to tag the deer, but to promote them in the sort of exercise that is now taking place in farming generally in Scotland in relation to beef, lamb and many other products. I believe that the Government should have the power, but that the detail should not be on the face of the Bill.

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, powerful arguments were expressed behind the scenes, if not on the Floor of the House, in 1982 when we debated this matter. Those arguments seem to have been enormously strengthened during the past few weeks. I very much agree with all that my noble friend Lord Woolton said about confidence in the meat industry in this country. With those few words of commendation for my noble friend's amendment, I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to see his way to accepting some kind of enabling measure along the lines suggested by my noble friend Lord Pearson.

The Earl of Lindsay

My Lords, when moving his amendment my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch said that he was not going to rehearse all the arguments that we have usefully gone over in detail at earlier stages, and in responding to the amendment, I shall not go over all the arguments that I have used previously. I accept, as I have at every stage, that there is a strong case for tagging. I accept that I want to keep an open mind on this. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Woolton reminded me that I have done that. My mind remains open on the question of whether a strong case has been made for mandatory tagging as opposed to voluntary tagging by the industry.

The principle behind the proposal, which has been accepted by the Red Deer Commission, was introduced comparatively late in the day in terms of the formulation of the Bill. The Bill was the subject of three or four years of consultation. It was only once the Bill had started its progress through your Lordships' House—at the evidence-taking session in Edinburgh—that deer tagging suddenly became an urgent issue.

I am conscious that the introduction of mandatory carcass tagging will impose burdens on the many people in Scotland who have the right to shoot and deal in deer. Questions relating to the administration and enforcement of such a scheme need to be properly thought through. Of the benefits that have been explored at earlier stages, a number of noble Lords have mentioned BSE and traceability. The noble Lord, Lord Mackie, has pointed out that in the agricultural industry there are traceability systems which are incorporated into quality assurance schemes. Despite some of the animal health problems that have been experienced, to date the traceability procedures have not been compulsory; they have been voluntarily assumed by producers in order to gain market advantage over competitors.

My noble friend Lord Mountgarret refers to poaching. Tagging deters poaching, but whether that argument alone or the various benefits that are accumulated make a strong case for mandatory tagging is yet to be discovered. We believe that the case is not absolutely proven.

My noble friend Lord Nickson, who has a very important job and special interest and expertise in salmon, has prayed in aid the Salmon Act 1986. I acknowledge the point that he makes. However, I am glad to see in the Chamber my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. The contracting out and deregulation Act, which has been introduced since the Salmon Act, has changed the whole approach of government to new regulatory measures which impose a burden on business, however small those burdens appear to be. Quite rightly, it subjects proposals for such burdens to very careful compliance costs and cost benefit analysis. An essential part of this analysis is a properly conducted process of consultation with all potentially affected parties. That will allow all views to be taken into account.

My noble friend Lord Pearson asked who else there was left to consult. I acknowledge the flood of correspondence, bearing in mind the amount of correspondence that has come through my letter-box in the past few weeks from various organisations which support my noble friend's amendment. Given that there are hundreds of thousands of people in Scotland with the right to shoot deer, I imagine that there are still some people to consult. We wish to consult throughout the chain, from the person with the right to take or kill deer to the point of purchase for retailing on to the public. We wish to ensure that farmers and small land managers who now and then take a roe deer and drive up the road to hang it in their larder are consulted, because if there is no tag on it they will be committing an offence under the amendment as moved by my noble friend. They may do that once every year, or every 10 years, but it will still be an offence.

To reassure my noble friend, I have already alerted my officials that as soon as possible a consultation exercise will be conducted on this matter. Noble Lords in the Chamber who have been involved in creating policy will understand the process that has to be gone through, especially where new regulations are to be imposed. They will understand the need to produce a comprehensive argument with evidence across all bodies affected by such a scheme. The Deer Commission will be asked to look again at the proposals. It has commented upon them only in principle, not in detail. A contribution from that angle will be a vital part of the exercise. I renew my promise that, with sufficient evidence from consultees and various interests who will be affected, Ministers will give a positive consideration to this matter. I also flag up, as I did at Report stage, the ability to use the new fast-track procedure for Scottish legislation. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is anxious to seek measures that are required in Scotland which do not involve United Kingdom legislation in order that they can be used on this system. We will consult quickly and widely.

We have available the fast-track procedure for Scottish Bills, if this Bill passes through the other House and this House before the results of the consultation are known. On the basis of those assurances, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Viscount Mountgarret

My Lords, I ask my noble friend why it is so easy to have consultations with the many people that he rightly wishes to consult but not to accept the amendment. If there is an enabling provision and the consultation proves fruitful, it is a simple matter to press the trigger on enabling legislation. If it is not there, one has to go through the long-winded process of having an amendment to the Bill. Surely it is more sensible to have the enabling provision in the Bill in the first place.

The Earl of Lindsay

My Lords, quite often this House takes a suspicious view of enabling legislation, especially when the need for such legislation has not been proven. I remind my noble friend that we now have a fast-track procedure for Scottish legislation. The size of the Bill required for the introduction of mandatory carcass tagging will be ideal for such a procedure. My noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch is often wary of future Secretaries of State having enabling powers which may be misused either accidentally or deliberately. I would rather present this legislation to the House at a later date, with the costs and benefits well proven and the burdens on all businesses involved thoroughly analysed, than simply introduce an enabling power for the Secretary of State without the case having been properly scrutinised.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. I hope he will forgive me if I take his remarks about the deregulation initiative in this country with a pinch of European salt. I remind your Lordships that at the moment there are some 1,500 regulations which pour forth annually from the Brussels monster but do not even see the light of day for debate in your Lordships' House or the other place. I gather that not one of the pieces of deregulation brought forward in this country under the auspices of my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister would have changed one word of any of the articles in the Sunday Telegraph written by Mr. Christopher Booker over the past three or four years on the burdens of overregulation. I trust that my noble friend will accept what I have just said as a general comment.

I thank him for his undertaking to continue the consultancy exercise, which I understand has already been initiated. I hope those noble Lords who support the amendment will wish to keep the pressure on for the fast-track procedure if the consultancy exercise produces the result which we all feel confident it will. With that proviso, and with thanks to my noble friend, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 11 [Interpretation of the principal Act]:

[Amendment No. 16 not moved.]

Lady Saltoun of Abernethy had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 17: Page 11, line 30, leave out ("an aircraft") and insert ("a").

The noble Lady said: My Lords, having heard the Minister's explanation of why the amendment would be totally counter-productive, I am not moving it.

[Amendment No. 17 not moved.]

An amendment (privilege) made.

5.30 p.m.

The Earl of Lindsay

My Lords, I beg to move, That the Bill do now pass.

The Bill is an important measure to amend the legislation on deer management in Scotland set out in the Deer (Scotland) Act 1959 so that this legislation can be better fitted to meet the challenges of today and the new century.

Much has changed since the 1959 Act and since the previous amendment Act in 1982, especially relating to the nature of land use in upland Scotland and the increasing importance society as a whole places on the protection of our natural heritage. The Bill before your Lordships is designed to ensure that deer can continue to thrive as an important part of our natural and cultural heritage yet in harmony with their habitat and with other land uses.

The Bill achieves that aim by making significant changes to the powers and functions of the Deer Commission, to be renamed the Deer Commission for Scotland. The commission henceforth will be responsible for furthering the sustainable management of deer in addition to its existing general functions of furthering their conservation and control. It will now have equivalent powers for all species of deer and be able to exercise them in a manner which takes full account of the characteristics of individual species. It will be subject to a new balancing duty to take into account key issues such as the impact of deer on the natural heritage and the interests of other land uses and owners and occupiers in exercising its functions.

New, more flexible arrangements for the appointment of members of the commission will be introduced, so that the best available candidates can always be chosen. The advisory and research powers of the commission will be broadened and arrangements for appointing advisory local panels made more flexible.

Measures related to the protection of the natural heritage and dangers to public safety will be added to the various powers of the commission to authorise action to control deer. These powers will be in particular strengthened by the detailed provisions in Clause 5 for the commission to promote control agreements.

Clause 9 contains a number of measures to regulate the circumstances in which action can be taken by occupiers and owners, including at night and during the close season, to protect against damage or danger caused by deer. New provisions on close seasons will allow the Secretary of State to set all those by order.

All in all, the package of measures included in this Bill will provide a coherent and consistent framework for ensuring that deer are managed effectively for their own benefit as well as for the benefit of the wider community.

The House has subjected to detailed and careful scrutiny the original proposals put before it which were based on proposals put to us by the Deer Commission. I made it clear on Second Reading that I would listen very carefully to suggestions made by your Lordships for improvements to the wording first proposed, and I am very pleased to say that the work we have done together has achieved precisely that. It is a better Bill now as a result of your Lordships' scrutiny than when it arrived with us.

We broke new ground through the work of the Scottish Select Committee which met in Edinburgh in January to take evidence from a wide range of interested parties. I should like to pay a special tribute to the chairman of that committee, the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Tillyorn, who I understand from all parties, and indeed saw when giving evidence, ran a productive and useful committee. It aided all the Bill's stages to have had that opportunity. That committee stage allowed many of the noble Lords involved the opportunity to learn more about what is to many a very esoteric subject so that we were all well prepared for our subsequent work.

In Committee and on Report we considered many amendments and accepted a significant number which acted for the most part to clarify the wording of the Bill. We have also accepted a number of important amendments today. I would stress again to the noble Lords, Lord Carmichael and Lord Mackie of Benshie, that the policy underlying all the clauses has remained the same, but its intention has been clarified through the introduction of various amendments.

The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, has been diligent and thoughtful from the Bill's very first stages. We are grateful to him for the issues he has raised and for expressing his concerns over the consequences that may result to land which has been enclosed for forests or agriculture and the impact that that will have on deer normally resident over that ground.

The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, expressed a number of concerns. Being a good and honest farmer from Angus, he used turnips in many of his examples of what the Bill will or will not do in relation to the management of deer. I am sorry that his noble friends Lord Mar and Kellie and Lady Robson of Kiddington are not here because they contributed greatly to the Bill's passage. The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, was concerned about the use of the word "servants". The Consolidation Bill, which is almost complete, will address the term "servants", and I hope that any noble Lords who remain uneasy about the use of that term will be reassured.

The experience of many noble Lords of deer management at ground level has been especially useful. I refer especially to my noble friends Lord Astor, Lord Massereene and Ferrard and Lord Woolton, who, the whole House will be delighted to see, made his maiden speech on this Bill. It was a fine maiden speech.

The experience of my noble friend Lord Burton has been missing from every stage of the Bill, which is unusual. But he has been a constant presence through telephone calls and correspondence during the Bill's passage, so that he has played a part in the way that the Bill has proceeded.

I should like also to draw attention to noble Lords who have had previous experience of bringing forward deer legislation in the House. My noble friend Lord Forbes was the Minister in charge of the 1959 Act which this Bill seeks to amend. My noble friend Lord Glenarthur was involved in the 1982 amendment Act. I am grateful to them both for applying their skills and expertise to the Bill. A former Secretary of State for Scotland, my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy, is sadly not in his seat now, although he was here earlier this afternoon. He took a keen interest in the Bill, and due to his curiosity about the possible use of contraceptives in deer management he generated interest among the evening newspapers in various Scottish cities which Scottish legislation in your Lordships' House does not usually achieve.

I pay a special tribute to the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy, and to my noble friends Lord Glenarthur and Lord Pearson of Rannoch for their continuous commitment to the detail of the Bill and their continuous scrutiny of it to ensure that the Bill's intention is properly set out on the face of the Bill and that that achieves what I, from the Dispatch Box, explained. Some of the most important amendments to Clauses 1 and 4 are the result of the bright light that my three noble friends were able to shine on the matter.

I hope that the Bill will be welcomed and useful, and that the improvements that the House has brought to the Bill will be regarded as having made it a better piece of legislation. I look forward to the consolidation Bill which, in the normal way, will be published shortly after Second Reading in another place. I hope that the Bill will be a considerable improvement for all those involved in deer management and that we will have one document which deals with all the legislation on this subject rather than having to have an amendment Bill in one hand and the original Act in another. I beg to move.

Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(The Earl of Lindsay.)

Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove

My Lords, the one person who the Minister could not congratulate was himself. He has done a remarkable job and was courteous at all times. I am sure that many noble Lords, particularly the few on this side of the House, are grateful that he was so courteous.

This is the second Bill with which I have been involved which was outwith the scope of my normal range and experience. When I look across the Chamber, I see almost exactly the same group of noble Lords who discussed a salmon Bill until two o'clock one morning. I then learnt a little about the great Atlantic salmon and so forth and during the past few weeks I have learnt a great deal about deer. I hope that we shall be less esoteric when we next discuss deer.

Someone from my background still has many questions about a Bill such as this. However, we got to know each other very well; we got to know each other's opinions and points of view. It was an experience for which I am extremely grateful. I am pleased that the Bill is now ready to go to another place; but there it may have a slightly rougher time.

Lord Mackie of Benshie

My Lords, I too pay tribute to the Minister, who has handled the Bill extraordinarily well. He has co-operated and compromised and has put up with the close lobbying of his noble friends in an admirable manner. I hope that he has not placed a future Secretary of State in a position in which the close knit community of deer managers will present him with only four names which he will be compelled to accept. The Minister assured me that that is not the case and that a flood of names will come forward from the public-spirited body.

It is a good Bill and it will be useful. It achieves one great aim; it brings in the Scottish National Heritage, widens its scope and shows the concern which we all have for our heritage at large as well as the particulars of deer management in Scotland. I wish the Bill well in another place.

Lord Forbes

My Lords, I too congratulate the Minister not only on being at the Dispatch Box after a sleepless night in Luxembourg but on the way in which he has handled the Bill. My noble friend has spoken with great clarity and courtesy in carrying out his task of steering the Bill through your Lordships' House. We are all most grateful to him for the way in which he has handled it.

The success of the Bill, which amends the 1959 Act, will depend largely on the members of the Deer Commission for Scotland. I cannot emphasise too strongly that its members must be chosen with the greatest care. They must be chosen for their wisdom rather than their technical or scientific merits. The commission has considerable latitude over any action it takes so the onus is on it to use its wisdom. I look forward to the day when a consolidated Deer (Scotland) Act reaches the statute book.

5.45 p.m.

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, perhaps I may follow my noble friend Lord Forbes and congratulate my noble friend Lord Lindsay on all that he has achieved in getting the Bill to its present state. I endorse all the remarks about the way in which he has handled the Bill. I am grateful to him for the way in which he has listened to all the arguments and has taken matters forward in a way which all of us agree has improved the Bill no end.

He has not been alone in that because others have been associated with the Bill throughout its long gestation period prior to reaching your Lordships' House. For a number of years they have played a large part behind the scenes and have been most helpful to those of us who have taken an interest in the Bill. I remember the intense relief, as I expect does my noble friend Lord Forbes, of reaching this point in respect of the Deer (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill 1982 and seeing it on its way to another place. When it came back to your Lordships' House I was not able to take it on but I hope that when this Bill returns my noble friend Lord Lindsay will be able to do so. We all expect that. I wish the Bill a speedy passage to the statute book.

Lord Wilson of Tillyorn

My Lords, the Minister was kind enough to mention that I had the honour and interesting task of being chairman of the Select Committee set up by your Lordships' House to consider the Bill. Since that was an historic occasion, perhaps it deserves a brief mention. Unfortunately, I was unable to be present during the Committee stage but I had the impression that the meeting of the Select Committee in Scotland—that being the historic occasion—was a success. Perhaps this was the ideal piece of legislation to choose as a first for that experiment. It was a matter of great interest to a number of different groups in Scotland. It was not particularly a party political issue. A great deal of preparatory work had been done by the chairman of the Red Deer Commission. There was a great willingness to find common ground, not least in the form of the responsiveness of the noble Earl the Minister to everything that was said in the committee. The committee pursued its questioning with a great deal of good humour and I thank my fellow members for that.

Lady Saltoun of Abernethy

My Lords, I wish first to say a word or two about the Select Committee which was chaired so ably by the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Tillyorn. Most of us believe that it was a useful exercise. It provided the opportunity to receive submissions from so many diverse organisations and to clarify various points by questioning their representatives. Then to have all that body's evidence gathered together in one publication was most helpful in later stages of the Bill. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, has one or two constructive suggestions about how such Select Committees might be even more useful. I shall leave that to him.

Most of us are very happy with the Bill as it now stands. The noble Earl was most helpful in meeting some of us in between its various stages. As a result amendments—mostly Government amendments—were tabled to meet all the principal concerns of, in particular, the noble Lords, Lord Pearson and Lord Glenarthur, and myself. No Divisions have taken place. I thank the noble Earl for that; we are most grateful to him. I also thank him for his kind tribute to myself, over which I am still glowing. Finally, I wish the Bill a speedy and uneventful passage through another place from which we all hope it will return in as good condition as it leaves us now.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch

My Lords, I shall not trouble your Lordships by repeating what has been said. Were I to speak at any length I should be repeating everything that has been said so far. The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, suggested that I might have something to put forward about our Select Committee meeting in Edinburgh. I suggest that it might be helpful if in future such committees which have near unanimity at the end of their proceedings on any particular subject might be allowed to make the briefest of reports to your Lordships' House. I believe that that might have been helpful on this occasion and I can but recommend it to the usual channels or whoever considers the procedure of such committees in future. I believe that if there had been such a report the wish to put welfare onto the face of the Bill in some way and to remove the spectre of helicopters driving deer and causing them great distress would have been one of unanimity.

I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister and I congratulate him on his success in achieving that.

The other important changes which he has been able to agree are to clarify the powers of the new commission to enhance the natural heritage on open ground; that will have to be subject to the consent of owners and occupiers in future.

The only thing that remains undone is that the tagging system is not actually with us but it does appear to be on its way and I am sure that most of us wish it well on its journey.

I end by agreeing with something that my noble friend Lord Forbes said which is, of course, that nothing will be more important than the composition of the commission in future. I very much hope that the Bill as it leaves your Lordships' House will enable the commission to continue to do the good work which it has started to do over the past few years in collaboration with the Association of Deer Management Groups and Scottish Natural Heritage. With that hope, I wish the Bill well in another place.

The Earl of Lindsay

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, described himself as being outside his normal range when he addressed this Bill. Part of the definition which we apply to marauding deer, certainly from the Dispatch Box, is that they are deer which are outside their normal range. I suggest that as a marauding Peer, he did very well. The second part of the definition of marauding deer is that they are not being effectively controlled. But I think that is for the noble Lord's Chief Whip to decide and not for me.

Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, that the intention behind the Bill is that a balance is maintained through all the powers of the commission. Without balance, the commission will not command confidence and if it cannot do that, it cannot promote voluntary agreements. Over the past 30 or more years, it has had a tremendous record in relation to promoting voluntary action and there is nothing to suggest that the commission will seek to follow any path other than that which it has trodden so successfully to date.

I am grateful for the remarks of the noble Lords who have supported the Bill. For those noble Lords who do not know it, my noble friends Lord Forbes and Lord Glenarthur steered the earlier legislation in this area. My officials advise me that the 1959 Act and the 1982 amendment Act were a great deal more complicated than this modest 1996 Bill. Therefore, I commend them in retrospect for what they achieved with that legislation. I commend the Bill to the House.

On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.