I am grateful to the Minister for introducing the order. He is right; it is not contentious. We welcome the changes, too. Anything that enables the necessary culling of deer to be done in the most humane and up-to-date way makes good sense.
I want to put on record my thanks to the Minister. This time last week, when he was taking through the animal welfare order and I could not be here because it was my grandson’s speech day, he was very generous in his comments following the announcement of my retirement from the Front Bench. I thank him most warmly. It is nearly 10 years since I took the first of many Bills through the House; it set up the Food Standards Agency. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, then the MAFF Minister, met me and said, ““And how are you doing with this particular one?””, to which I said, ““It’s the first one I’ve taken through on my own””. What the noble Lord brings to the House, as he did to the other House, is that he tries to help those who are on Benches opposite to him to succeed in getting legislation through in the proper manner.
The order, interestingly enough, has been laid under the Regulatory Reform Act 2001. Only last Session the House debated at great length the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006, which gave the Government enormous powers to amend primary legislation by secondary legislation. I find it surprising that, so far as I am aware, no order has yet been moved under that Act. Why are we still moving orders under the 2001 Act? That seems very strange.
I thank the Minister for acknowledging that Defra reconsidered the close season. It was originally proposed by the specialists that it should be shortened by four weeks, but at that stage Defra was recommending only two weeks. I am grateful to the department for accepting the longer period. As the Minister has said, the deer population is rapidly on the increase, and anything that helps to reduce the number without causing suffering seems to make great sense.
The crux of the legislation as it stands is to protect the health of the deer and of humans, conserving natural heritage and trying to prevent damage to property. When we took the CROW Act through in 2000, some 28 days had been set aside for the management of wildlife. We need to ensure—and the House of Commons Regulatory Reform Committee has picked up on this—that good warning is given to people that night-time culling will be happening on a particular section of property at a particular time. My fear at the time was that people do not always listen to advice about what will be happening and consequently could be in the wrong place at the wrong time. I am sure the department has taken that on board, and I am grateful to it for that.
As we know, there are no real natural predators. The estimated damage caused by road accidents is £41 million to £181 million a year. That is a huge cost, which is not commonly known.
On the estimated costs, based on 60 applications a year, if broken down that might work out at around £5,000 covering costs for each licence. Does the department control those costs when they come in or will that be for Natural England? The Minister will be acutely aware of an issue that I have raised consistently, on the IPPC charges for pigs and poultry. Those charges are set by the Environment Agency, and I do not think that the department has any control over them, but the amounts and hourly rates set do not seem to be reviewed in any meaningful way. Will the Minister touch on that?
Disease is one of the reasons culling is allowed. Some deer may be infected with bovine TB, and I was not sure from reading the paperwork that I received whether that was considered.
On the subject of bovine TB, I place on record my dismay at the overnight news that Shambo the Hindu cow is being reprieved. It is not that I have anything against it, but it is an infected cow carrying infective diseases. It seems extraordinary, as it must to the many farmers who farm close by, that one known disease-carrying cow is being permitted to live when 28,000 to 30,000 cows troubled with bovine TB are killed annually. Can the department raise this matter again or is that the end of the matter, now that the judge has given his judgment? One could say that, because this is happening in Wales, it is a devolved matter, but the judge was sitting in the High Court; therefore, I presume that it was a UK judgment, but I am not clear on that.
I thank the Minister for introducing this measure as he did and for the work that has gone into it. Basically, we need to be able to control the deer population in the most humane way possible. I am pleased to see that one is allowed to use a vehicle when shooting deer but that it must be stationary at the time.
Regulatory Reform (Deer) (England and Wales) Order 2007
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Byford
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 17 July 2007.
It occurred during Debates on delegated legislation on Regulatory Reform (Deer) (England and Wales) Order 2007.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
694 c15-7GC Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand CommitteeSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 12:44:43 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_411371
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_411371
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_411371