| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Deer (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill [Lords]
Mr. John McFall (Dumbarton): I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 18, after 'deer', insert--
'(aa) have regard to the desirability of preserving freedom of access to the countryside.'.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 3, in page 2, line 24, leave out from 'Commission' to end of line 38.
No. 9, in page 2, leave out lines 35 to 38.
Mr. McFall:
I shall be brief because I can see that many hon. Members are interested in this Bill. It contains a provision against night shooting, but I have a feeling tonight that I may not be safe in the Chamber as a result of that.
Amendment No. 1 deals with freedom of access where outdoor groups in Scotland contribute much to the highlands and islands economy--indeed, they contribute more than the red deer sports centres. Their interests are neglected and sometimes obstructed by landowners and red deer sports centres, and the amendment would maintain access.
We debated amendment No. 9 at great length in Committee and elsewhere. The wording of the clause was changed in the other place and, despite five years of consensus, an amendment moved by Lord Pearson of Rannoch ensured that a third of the new Deer Commission for Scotland would comprise sporting interests. In a letter from WWF Scotland, Simon Pepper, head of operations, said:
Mr. Jon Owen Jones (Cardiff, Central):
Has my hon. Friend read about the proposal to introduce the wolf to the isle of Rum? Does he believe that it is worth exploring the reintroduction of the deer's natural predator to Scotland, rather than shooting those animals?
Mr. McFall:
My hon. Friend makes an interesting point, but I should be straying out of order if I pursued it. There has been interest in that, but we must take social
The WWF has 20 voluntary groups in the highlands and islands, including crofters, the John Muir Society and the Mountaineering Council of Scotland, which are on its side in this matter. The Government have let down the people of the highlands and islands and those groups by accepting that naked amendment in the other place. The voice of the people and of those groups must be listened to. As the Government have not done that and have broken their promise, we shall press the issue vigorously.
Ms Roseanna Cunningham (Perth and Kinross):
Amendment No. 9, which stands in my name, relates directly to the controversy surrounding the proposed method of selecting members of the new Deer Commission for Scotland. Many of the comments made by the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) are pertinent to my remarks.
There is no doubt about the strength of our opposition to the Government's attempt to give one specific interest group a dominant and unrepresentative influence on the control and management of deer in Scotland. The amendment seeks to combat new subsection (3B)(c), which is an explicit attempt to ensure that a third of the commission's members represent the interests of deer managers.
What the Government mean by "deer managers" can no longer be in serious doubt. The Government introduced the subsection after consistent lobbying in the other place, led by Lord Pearson, which sought specifically to protect the traditional sporting estates' interests. Lord Lindsay's initial defiance crumbled as pressure was applied by his colleagues. Bit by bit, initial Government policy unravelled, and the result was a complete betrayal of the initial commitment that the commission would not be dominated by one sectional interest. Paragraph (c) must therefore be seen as the culmination of a cynical and systematic betrayal. In short, it is an attempt to protect the sporting lobby.
That preferential treatment is entirely without justification. Its effect is not in doubt. The WWF says:
First, the preferential treatment is insupportable in the face of the facts of the deer issue in Scotland. One of the key features of the new commission is that it now has responsibility for all species of deer. Figures produced by the WWF show that more deer now live in forests and woodlands throughout Scotland than on the open hills in the sporting estates--and, perhaps more tellingly, the proportion is rapidly increasing in that direction. More people are now employed in the management of deer in woodlands than on sporting estates. More deer are killed every year to protect crops and trees than for sport.
Is it not clear, to even the most fervent defender of the Bill as it stands, that to give pride of place in the new commission to an interest group that is declining in relative importance is to fly in the face of common sense?
Secondly, that preferential treatment completely wrecks the consensus that was so important to the originators of the Bill. I quote the words of Lord Lindsay:
Thirdly, there is disbelief in the organisations involved in Scotland's natural heritage that sporting interests are now, at a time when they are in relative decline, given greater representation than they have been allowed at any time in the past 37 years. We must ask why.
May I suggest a possible answer to those questions? Is it just possible that, once again, the Government are putting their preferences before those of the wider community? We are witnessing favouritism on a grand scale.
Let me take an example. Damage to forestry caused by deer is estimated at £10 million per annum, a figure many times greater than the money brought in by sporting estates. Despite that, the failure to recognise the importance of forestry is clear from the blatant advancement of sporting interests to the exclusion of all others. The people of Scotland can only be confirmed in their belief that what is being promoted is the result of a quasi-aristocratic relationship, which has very little to do with real consultation and shows no desire to find an effective, lasting consensus among disparate interest groups.
In opposing paragraph (c), the Scottish National party is articulating what most of the interest groups involved in the issue believe. The following is a sample of the range of interests: the National Trust for Scotland, the Ramblers Association, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the Scottish Crofters Union, the Scottish Countryside Rangers Association, the Scottish Wildlife Trust and the Woodland Trust.
I tabled amendment No. 9 because I had concerns about amendment No. 3, in the name of Labour Members. Amendment No. 3 has in common with the Scottish National party amendment the desire to remove paragraph (c), so I welcome the fact that the Labour party is on board on this issue.
There are two problems with Labour's desire to remove the stipulation that the Secretary of State must
"In long and tortuous discussions with civil servants and with Lord Lindsay over the last few days, we have now secured their verbal but very clear and specific confirmation that the intention of the clause is indeed to provide 'traditional sporting estate interests' with a guaranteed representation of a third of the new Commission."
That destroys at a stroke the consensus about the need for a new Bill to replace the Deer (Scotland) Act 1959, which did not cater for the issue of red deer in Scotland. When that Act was passed, there were some 150,000 red deer; the latest estimate is that there are more than 300,000. A consensual approach is thus needed, because the system is not working.
"Domination by the sporting interests in the 37 year history of the Red Deer Commission has been a crucial factor in the failure of the Commission to control deer numbers."
The concern that has grown about the proliferation of deer in Scotland is that it has been brought about by the very big landed interests that will now be built into the new Bill if the Government have their way. It is likely that they will thereby exactly replicate the mistakes that were made in the past.
"If the balance of interests on the deer commission is reduced or in any way skewed so that it is less of a level balance across the different interests, the commission would be in danger of losing some of its credibility and legitimacy in the wider community in Scotland."--[Official Report, House of Lords, 4 March 1996; Vol. 570, c. 16.]
We should ask the simple question: what has changed? If balance was so important then, why is it no longer of interest to the Government?
"afford to such organisations as appear to him to represent the interests of persons concerned . . . an opportunity to suggest the name of any person . . . appropriate".
First, new subsection (3B)(a) provides the only effective check on the powers of the Secretary of State. Labour's amendment leaves those powers unfettered, which cannot be acceptable.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |