| Previous Section | Home Page |
Column 803
first, freedom from thirst, hunger and malnutrition ; secondly, appropriate comfort and shelter ; thirdly, the prevention or rapid diagnosis and treatment of injury, disease or infection ; fourthly, freedom from fear ; and, fifthly, freedom to display most normal patterns of behaviour. I argue that the second, third and fourth criteria are not met in the keeping of mink.As articles 3 and 4 of the European convention deal with the natural behaviour of animals and seek to ensure that they are given the opportunity to display natural behaviour, it is clear that mink farming breaches that convention. Given that overwhelming evidence, how can the Minister justify the continuation of fur farming in the United Kingdom? The Minister referred to the Council of Europe report. It is clear that if that report evolves into a directive, it is unlikely that the mink farms in this country will be able to meet such a directive.
I draw the Minister's attention to early-day motion 143 which calls for an end to the keeping of mink. That motion has been signed by 226 hon. Members, including many of the Minister's hon. Friends who are sitting behind him. Fur farming is reviled by the public, as the mail bags of many hon. Members show only too clearly.
I also draw the attention of the Minister to a recent survey which found that 78 per cent. of the public opposed fur farming. Fur is clearly out of fashion, because people rightly reject the infliction of such stress and misery on animals for the sake of the vanity of a few people. That view is reflected in both the decline in the number of farms--to which the Minister referred--and the decline in the price of pelts.
Given the decline in the number of mink farms in Britain, is it not time to act? Is it not time that the Minister took the opportunity not merely to cut out the consultation on the option of banning mink farms but to introduce an order that bans them?
While mink farms exist, they must be properly regulated. The Opposition have tabled an amendment calling for the phasing out of mink farms at the earliest opportunity. I appreciate that our procedures did not allow such an amendment to be selected for debate. We argue that the order does not go far enough. Unless we receive assurances from the Minister tonight, first, that there will be a moratorium on all new fur farms, in the sense that the Minister will refuse to issue new licences, and, secondly, that existing fur farms will be phased out as soon as possible, we shall have no option but to vote against the order, not because we do not want fur farms to be regulated but because we want an order that will bring about the end of the vile and inhumane exploitation of animals for no real or useful purpose.
10.55 pm
Mr. William Ross (Londonderry, East) : As the House will have noted, the order applies only to Great Britain. However, we have feral mink in Northern Ireland and, like other hon. Members, I have an interest in the matter.
I listened with care and attention to what was said by both Front-Bench spokesmen. The debate deals with not only the welfare of farmed mink but the problems associated with escaped feral mink. The Minister talked about a natural feral population. By definition, feral populations cannot be natural. They are the descendants of escaped mink. As the Minister said, they pose a threat of substantial damage.
Column 804
It is clear from the experience of those who live in the countryside that escaped mink have caused considerable damage in all parts of the United Kingdom and even further afield. We should not allow that to continue because the feral mink do not simply die out ; they breed and live in the wild. Their numbers are constantly increasing. In some areas they have increased to the point at which the population is stable. The population can be stable only at the expense of the local indigenous species, which we in Britain want to maintain.No one has mentioned so far that the order is descended from the Destructive Imported Animals Act 1932. As the Minister will be aware, that Act covered only musk rats. All the other animals covered by subsequent orders were added at a later stage. The list of animals covered by orders is long. The 1932 Act was followed by the Northern Ireland legislation in 1933. The list is long and all the species included are species that none of us would love.
The list includes the grey squirrel, which was included by an order in 1937. Non-indigenous rabbits were included in 1954. The Coypus (Prohibition of Keeping) Order was introduced in 1987. I am sure that the Minister will have looked at that order in preparing for the debate and will have noted that it placed an absolute prohibition on the keeping of those animals in Great Britain. That species has vanished from the countryside--or at least I hope that it has disappeared because it caused considerable damage in the east of England. The Mink (Keeping) Order 1987 has lasted for the past five years.
The 1932 Act referred to non-indigenous animals. But I suggest that we should not close our minds to the wider difficulties of bringing other non- indigenous creatures within the scope of the legislation. The intention of the original Act was to license the keeping and to prohibit the importation of the animals. The Act also laid down another duty, which at least shows that our predecessors had some concern about the animals--a duty to destroy escapees--or it took refuge in the old parliamentary device of saying "may" take the necessary steps to destroy them. Those steps could be taken directly by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, or by the council in whose areas the escapees existed but, as far as I can tell, that has never been done.
From what the Minister and other hon. Members have said, it is plain that there are many escapees, which have bred, and that there is a stable population of these vicious and destructive animals. One of the Minister's comments should not be quickly forgotten. He said that mink were easy to catch and I have also been told that by one of my relatives who lives in Canada, and has caught them with a trap line. They are obviously easy to catch there too. If that is so, why have no consistent and assiduous efforts been made to wipe out what is, by all accounts, a destructive animal? It should not be all that difficult--all that it would take is time, effort and a bit of money. It would pay rich dividends and, for the good of all our indigenous species, it is long overdue.
Many other species have been introduced into this country and released, and are having an unfortunate effect on indigenous species, for example, catfish, rainbow trout and farmed salmon. As the Minister will recall, fish were dealt with fairly comprehensively throughout the United Kingdom by changes in the law some years ago. Those changes were wise, very welcome and have done some good.
Column 805
I am sure that, like myself, the Minister reads country magazines that deal with wildfowling and shooting. If he has not noticed it with his own eyes I am sure that his officials will have drawn to his attention the problem caused by various types of geese, which are hybridising and will cause the most enormous damage and difficulties. That problem should be dealt with.Furthermore, I believe that there are populations of escaped kangaroos and wallabies in England. Those are not the sort of animals that one would normally think of as traditional in the English countryside.
A large number of different species of deer have been running loose in this country for a long time--some are useful and others are not.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris) : Order. The hon. Gentleman is getting rather wide of the subject. Will he return to mink, please ?
Mr. Ross : I have just come to the end of my list, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I am grateful that you allowed me to go so far. If you had allowed me a moment more, I would have said that some unwelcome plants have also been introduced, but I shall leave those. Some animals are more acceptable than others and we can live with some of them. I suppose that we can live with almost any strange creatures, provided that they are present only in small numbers, but that is not true of mink or other destructive animals, which should be destroyed. We can do that only by killing each and every one. That might not sit happily with some folk, but it is a fact of life that if we do not destroy them, they will do further immense damage to our indigenous species and will interbreed with closely related creatures-- God knows where it will end.
All such animals are a factor in changing the ecology of our countryside. I hope that the Minister will consider my comments and will start down the road of eliminating them.
I intervened in the Minister's speech because I thought that, in the middle of the hubbub, he had missed something. He was reading out the technical specifications for burying wire underground to keep in mink and I believe that he said that the wire should be bent outwards. If that is the specification, and if it is not a misprint in his brief, then the specification is wrong. If it is bent outwards, the mink will simply dig out under it, whereas if it is bent inwards, the mink will not know, if it digs out, how to get back. I think I see the Minister nodding in assent, so I assume that there was a mistake in his brief. If there was not a mistake, I hope he will change the regulations.
11.5 pm
Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West) : I know that the Minister has some sympathy for the arguments that are being advanced about the welfare of mink, but we had expected him to be rather more robust with his officials in terms of the assurances that he blandly read out from his brief--assurances that do not seem to match the reality of the situation.
The Minister said in reply to me that there had been one case of an escaped mink. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) asked in an excellent speech, in which he covered most of the salient
Column 806
points, how can one expect mink farmers to report that some of their mink have escaped? It is like a speeding motorist going to the police and turning himself in. It might be an act of Christian charity and show respect for the law, but it would also be stupid in view of the penalties that would follow. So it is not satisfactory for the Minister to say that, because there has been only one reported case, that must mean that no other mink have escaped. There was a litany of eye- witness evidence surrounding the case that Lynx presented in court regarding Swalesmoor. Many people in the vicinity of Swalesmoor testified to the number of times that they had had to send for the farmer from Swalesmoor to recapture mink that had escaped from his farm. It is true that they are easy to catch. That is because they have been half domesticated and their spirit is broken by the appalling conditions they must endure at Swalesmoor and, I am sure, at other fur farms.It is nonsense for the Minister to say that mink have not escaped from Swalesmoor and elsewhere. My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) said that one was seen in the middle of Halifax and had to be captured by environmental health officers from the local authority. Was that the one escaped mink that ended up on the records of the Minister's Department? My hon. Friends and I found the Minister's speech insufferably complacent in many respects and we expect him, after this debate, to toughen up his approach to his officials and his attitude towards the practices of some of the appalling mink farms.
The Minister said we were not debating the issue of mink and animal welfare. I do not see how one can avoid that issue, given the conditions at some mink farms. I find fur farming obnoxious and unacceptable and I regard the wearing of mink fur--other than by natural mink in the wild--to be naff and vulgar. People who go round wearing mink have more money than taste.
The Minister mentioned the Farm Animal Welfare Council, which drew attention to the fact that the systems employed in the farming of mink and fox--including white Arctic fox--do not satisfy some of the most basic criteria for protecting the welfare of farm animals. That should lead one logically to the conclusion that we should phase out all mink farms. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe pointed out, the original consultation paper leading up to the 1987 measure--
Mr. Soames rose--
Mr. Banks : Let me finish the sentence, Minister. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is active and eager, but I would appreciate being allowed to complete the sentence.
One would have thought, under the circumstances, that the phasing out of mink fur farms would have been natural, and it has not been explained why the option of phasing out was included in the consultation paper leading up to the 1987 measure but was somehow excluded from the 1992 consultation process.
Mr. Soames : It may be convenient for the hon. Gentleman to know that neither the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food nor any of its agencies has ever received any report of escaped mink from Swalesmoor.
Mr. Banks : I find that incredible.
Mrs. Mahon : My local Evening Courier contains photographs of a mink that escaped and was caught in the
Column 807
centre of town. Most of the population was shocked and horrified because the environmental health officers clubbed it to death. There have been numerous such reports. Many complaints have been made to the local council and I am pretty sure that they have been reported to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.Mr. Banks : I am beginning to feel sorry for the Minister because his civil servants must be either incredibly stupid or entirely negligent. It is apparent from all the evidence in the locality of Swalesmoor that numerous escapes have been reported. The Minister should stop simply taking assurances from his civil servants and start investigating in greater detail precisely what is going on on the ground.
It is difficult for us to accept the fact that the order excludes the Isle of Wight, which has a licensed mink farm, although it is currently free of feral mink. Lynx, the organisation which has done so much to draw the attention of the public and the House to the conditions within those appalling hell holes of factory farms, has made it clear that the Isle of Wight mink farm should be closed. It is in the immediate vicinity of Newtown harbour nature reserve, which is a site of special scientific interest and an internationally important site for nesting and migrating birds. Should any of those mink escape, the damage that they would do to that reserve is incalculable. It is amazing that the Minister is prepared to run such a risk in respect of the Isle of Wight.
Opposition Members have made it clear that there have obviously been escapes in the past, otherwise there would not be feral mink populations in various parts of the country. Minks have been escaping since 1929. I agree with the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) who said that the minks should be killed. I must admit that I feel a bit sorry for them, but, because of the destruction that they wreak on other species, a humane trapping programme should be adopted and the mink humanely destroyed.
Mr. Harry Cohen (Leyton) : Will my hon. Friend comment on the Prime Minister's crusade against bureaucracy and red tape? Does not that mean that mink farms should be prohibited rather than licensed? With licensing, either there will be no inspection, in which case there will be much cruelty and the hell holes to which my hon. Friend referred, or the Minister is way out of line with the Prime Minister's requirements, because much costly bureaucracy will be involved.
Mr. Banks : The Minister is trying to suggest that my hon. Friend's facial hair is a false mink beard. I assure him that it is natural and flourishing feral hair on Harry's face.
Column 808
My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. I would not mind if that bureaucracy was working. The Minister has given us all the assurances which his civil servants wrote. He must test the issue for himself, not simply take assurances that clearly do not match reality. I have shown him the enormous album of photographs from Swalesmoor. If these are the result of annual inspections by his civil servants and inspectors, he should sack the damn lot of them because they are clearly taking their money under false pretences.As my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe said, the inspectors managed for a number of years to miss a shed containing thousands of mink. It takes a very myopic inspector to miss a shed of such dimensions that it can enclose thousands of mink, but the Minister's inspectors managed to do so. What action did the Minister take against those civil servants who are clearly not doing their job? The pictures that I have show the sort of conditions that inspectors are prepared to accept when licensing the farms. The conditions are disgusting and unacceptable, and the Minister must change them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe said that the mink is a wild, semi-aquatic animal, whose normal territory is anything up to 2.5 miles. The animals we are talking about are kept in rows in wire mesh cages that are 24 in long, 15 in high and 12 in wide. Mink normally avoid each other's company except at mating times because they protect their own territories. Given the amount of stress that they are under, it is no wonder that they go in for self-mutilation--they are bored. They are placed in conditions that are so unnatural they are totally obscene and unacceptable. The order should be about the welfare of those animals. The state in which they are kept is unacceptable in this day and age. Why are we keeping them in such appalling conditions? Is it so that prune-like little old women and flashy, spivvy types can wear mink coats? There is no justification for that. Individuals' vanity is paid for by obscene suffering by animals.
We shall vote against the order, but the Minister must start checking the facts. I know him to be a reasonable person, and when he has checked the facts for himself, he might share some of the anger that I feel tonight. Then he will go into his Ministry and start tearing up his speech in front of the civil servants who wrote it, and tell them to get out and start earning their money.
Several hon. Members rose--
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse) : Order. The Front Bench teams have said that, with the leave of the House, they wish to begin the wind-up speeches at 11.30 pm.
Column 809
11.17 pmMr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall) : It is clear that there is widespread concern throughout the House and in many parts of the country about the continuation of mink farming, not least in the agriculture community, where it is regarded as a potential time bomb that is ticking away in the rural parts of the country.
As has been mentioned, at the time of the 1987 order, there was full consultation on a three-way choice : continuation or renewal, lapse of the order, or total prohibition. The agriculture community expected to be consulted on the options in the run-up to the current order, but they were not. They should have been.
Why did the Ministry remove the obligation to report the presence of mink at large in 1987? That obligation existed before 1987, but has not existed for the past five years and the system has been greatly weakened as a consequence. That is why so many hon. Members tonight have expressed their concern at the Swalesmoor case and others. Surely the Minister should give us an explanation as to why that case was not referred to his Ministry, rather than the other way round.
Mrs. Mahon : The Swalesmoor case has been referred to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I have done so at least twice. I have received unsatisfactory replies stating that nothing can be done about it. There must be a file on the Swalesmoor case gathering dust somewhere within the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
Mr. Tyler : I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that contribution, as she has made my argument for me. Under the present system it is left to the breeders to report an escape. With great respect to the hon. Lady, it should not be left to a Member of Parliament to draw the problem to the attention of the Ministry--that is not our function ; I was not trained for that job when I was elected to the House. At present, the breeders are the only people obliged to report an escape. Who has ever heard of a poacher going to see the gamekeeper and saying, "Gamekeeper, sir, I want to report that I have been poaching this evening." That is ridiculous.
Mr. William Ross : If the hon. Gentleman looks at the relevant Act, he will see that there is a legal obligation on the owners to report escapes.
Mr. Tyler : Under the Wildlife and Countryside Act, if owners do that they will put themselves outside the law. So the law is making an ass of itself. It is important to clarify it as soon as possible. Are we really to believe that as of 9 June this year there had been no reports of escapes from registered farms in the previous 12 months? That is patently untrue. The feral population is increasing ; that cannot be happening by natural breeding alone.
The Minister gave the impression that the annual inspections in these fur prison camps were an effective parade and that it was possible to check on precise numbers--and that any animal escaping would be immediately identified, like some prisoner of war. That is absurd : the system is not working.
The escapees from this artificial captivity are especially dangerous to the fragile ecological balance in the natural habitat. Wildlife is suffering. Feral mink can cause chaos and ecological disaster.
Column 810
If there were some sudden change in the tactics of the Animal Liberation Front and it let loose large numbers of captive animals into the wild, that would cause great damage.We greatly regret that the House is not being given the chance to vote on the amendment. At the same time, we should acknowledge that eradication of mink in the wild is probably now impossible. It is important not to treat the mink as a scapegoat for all the problems of the delicate balance in the wild. English Nature says : "The mink is now too well established in Britain for eradication to be an option, so conservation action should focus on creating those conditions which best enable vulnerable prey to cope with mink predation in the future."
That means that we will have to be even more careful about allowing this activity to continue. We should work steadily on a planned programme of the run-down and eventual prohibition of all mink farming. The massive increase in such farming which still might occur would be extremely dangerous, and any more escapes to the wild would cause great damage.
I was interested to hear the Minister say that mink are very easy to catch. I understand that a great many different techniques are used to catch them. I am not sure which one the Minister recommends as easy, but since a large number of mink in some parts of the country are still doing great damage, the Minister should concentrate his attention on advancing the parallel development of improved methods of eradication--at the same time as running down and prohibiting the farms.
Both the Council of Europe and the Farm Animal Welfare Council have pointed the way : their expert advice is available to all Members, many of whom support it. Tonight the Minister has a responsibility to assure the House that he will ensure that this trade is stopped and the problems with which it is connected are removed.
11.23 pm
Mr. Peter Griffiths (Portsmouth, North) : The large number of signatures appended to the relevant early-day motion shows that the strength of feeling expressed by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) is shared by Members of all parties. The aim of most of our constituents is the elimination of fur farming. I would have hoped that we might vote on the amendment tonight. That is not possible, but it is the reason I and others are speaking. To vote against the order would be a disaster. If by some mischance it was defeated, it would not lead to the abolition of controlled mink farming in this country ; it would mean that mink farming could proceed without any control whatever. Farms would be able to be set up without the restrictions and controls that the Minister described. Competition would put out of business immediately those who were attempting to conform to the order. The result of that would certainly not be the humane slaughter and disposal of the present stock of mink, but escape to the wild would be facilitated as the cheapest possible option.
I want to see an end to fur farming in this country. My hon. Friend the Minister may not be able to give us an assurance about that tonight, but until that happy day comes we need some control of these animals and the order must therefore be supported.
Column 811
11.25 pmMr. Brian Wilson (Cunninghame, North) : I shall certainly speak briefly so as to let other hon. Members in. My interest arises only because of the reference to my constituency in the order. I do not criticise the Minister for flippancy, but things were said that require the record to be straightened.
The hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) made the point that there is no such thing as a natural mink population and, therefore, the Minister was unintentionally misleading in suggesting that there was. The parallel between Lewis and Harris, and Arran in my constituency, is precise in that both have mink populations because there were farms in those islands 20 to 30 years ago when people were crazy enough to open those farms in agricultural communities and then to allow those creatures to escape. We have lived with these problems ever since. I do not think that in the real world anyone will open a mink farm on Arran ; there are ways in which it would be blocked if anyone made such a ludicrous proposal. However, I gather from the Minister's remarks that exclusion from or inclusion in this order is a reflection of the steps taken to eradicate the existing problem. That is what I want to set straight. The Minister said that mink are easy creatures to catch. I did not know about that, but I am prepared to take the word of hon. Members here who know a great deal about the subject. If that is the case, it is surely unforgivable that local groups in these communities and crofters and farmers have been suffering the problems for years without the little bit of support and expertise necessary to get rid of the problem once and for all.
On Arran for many years it was impossible for people to keep hens because of the mink population. I know that that has also been the case in the Western Isles. There the problem spread. The mink were swimming from Harris across to North Uist and establishing a presence in a different group of islands where there had been no mink farming.
I shall end now so that others may speak. Surely if a little bit of money and a little bit of expertise are needed, on the basis of this debate that should be forthcoming. I shall certainly be raising the possibility with Scottish Natural Heritage on behalf of Arran and any other communities that continue to labour under this unfortunate and unnecessary affliction.
11.28 pm
Mrs. Llin Golding (Newcastle-under-Lyme) : I am very concerned about the fact that nothing seems to be done about destroying the mink that are in the wild. Nobody has mentioned that in my part of the country some lunatics broke into a farm and released all the mink into the wild and ever since we have had a problem in north Staffordshire and the surrounding area. I have written to the National Rivers Authority which said that it had always been the responsibility of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I wrote to the Minister and he said that it was entirely at the discretion of individual landowners or occupiers to decide whether they wished to control mink. Nobody is taking responsibility. Mink roam for at least a mile when they are breeding and can move at least 30 miles after the breeding season is over.
Column 812
In north Staffordshire and the surrounding areas, there are reports of the destruction of wildlife. Despite what some people say, mink are not often seen. However, people do see fish killed by a bite through the backbone, between the head and the dorsal fin ; and mammals and birds killed by a bite in the neck--usually near the base of the skull. In the case of a fresh kill, sometimes it is possible to see punctures about 8 mm apart, made by the mink's canine teeth. Those are nasty, vicious and destructive creatures. I want to know who will take responsibility for getting rid of them before they destroy all our wildlife.11.30 pm
Mr. Peter Hardy (Wentworth) : Hon. Members have already commented about sordid stalags, and I want the Minister to make it clear that Britain can provide standards higher than those recommended in the Council of Europe report. It would be extremely useful if we did so at this stage, since a number of member states permit cruel and barbaric practices. We want to see their standards raised, and it could be helpful if we could point to higher standards in Britain. The Minister referred also to security. I believe that there have been no prosecutions for any fault or failing under the previous arrangements. Will the Minister make it clear to the remaining fur farmers that standards will be properly supervised, and that there will be no hesitation in bringing prosecutions should faults of the kind described to the House occur? There can be no excuse for the sort of cases to which reference has been made.
I hope that in the short time that remains before we can see an end to the wearing of furs produced in such odious circumstances the Government will ensure the standards are a great deal higher than they have been over the past 30 years.
11.32 pm
Mr. Morley : I hope that the Minister has noted that not one hon. Member who has spoken during this short debate supported the keeping of mink or the Minister's claim that the order will be effective in preventing the escaping of mink.
We know that mink have escaped in every area where there have been mink farms. They have been established as a breeding species in the wild since 1957, and escaped mink are found around every mink farm, or the site of every former mink farm.
I accept that there is a legal obligation on mink farm owners to report escapes, but in reality not only are they reluctant to do so for obvious reasons--they will face prosecution--but when there are escapes, because there is a feral population in the wild, the mink farm owners invariably say that the mink are feral mink and not from their own farms.
That is certainly what happened in Halifax. The farmers did not report the matter to MAFF. When the local population see the mink, they understandably complain directly to the farm. That accounts for the lack of official complaints--and to suggest that that means that there have been no escapes is disingenuous.
I hope that when the Minister replies he will explain, as I asked him to do at the start, why the option to consult on the banning of mink was denied during the consultation period. I hope that he will also explain why it was that,
Column 813
although the advice of Scottish Natural Heritage was accepted, that of English Nature was not, in the case of the Isle of Wight. I hope that it has nothing to do with the fact that there are no grouse moors on the Isle of Wight.Will the Minister give an assurance that the state veterinary service will inspect every existing mink farm annually, as recommended by the Farm Animal Welfare Council, and that the service will be able to do that despite the Government cutbacks that it has suffered?
I hope that the Minister will acknowledge an argument that has been clearly made in the debate : that fur farming in this country does not meet either welfare standards recommended by the Government's own advisers or the recommendations of European committees. I hope that he will also acknowledge that 226 hon. Members have signed an early-day motion calling for an end to this type of intensive farming.
The hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths), expressed concern about voting against the order. I will give an assurance if, by any chance, the order is defeated tonight. If the Government will come back to the House with an order that includes an immediate moratorium on the keeping of mink--there is not a single reason why that could not be done tonight, because we are not talking about compensation to existing farms or about any great difficulties--or if the Minister will give the House an assurance that from now on no further licences will be issued to mink or fox farms, we will support the Government. He can do that. There is no financial or legal difficulty about it. If the Minister would bring forward an order that included both that and the phasing out of the keeping of fur animals in farms of this kind, the Opposition would co-operate with the Government in getting that order through as quickly as possible. I want it put on the record that we shall vote against the order only if we do not get the assurance that this sort of fur farming will be phased out. If we vote against the order, it will not be because we do not want to see strong regulation, but because we want to see both regulation and the ending of this farming, which is odious, unnecessary and just part of a luxury trade. It fulfils no useful purpose in terms of economic employment in this country or of the welfare of the animals concerned. There is an opportunity tonight for the Minister to give an assurance that, at long last, something will be done about this matter and standards will be set that other European countries will follow.
11.36 pm
Mr. Soames : I will try to confine myself to points that have been raised by hon. Gentlemen tonight, as they would expect.
I start with the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), who spoke with a good deal of knowledge and experience on this matter, and particularly raised the question of the Isle of Wight, which the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) also raised. They asked why mink keeping is not banned on the Isle of Wight. The answer is that there is a mink farm currently in operation on the Isle of Wight. It was there prior to the last review of the mink-keeping arrangements
Column 814
and the conditions of its licence are especially stringent to prevent escapes. No escapes have been reported, so there is no justification for banning mink-keeping on the island.At the same time, the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe made a perfectly valid point about why English Nature recommended that mink farming be banned on the Isle of Wight. It is true that it did recommend that it should be banned, but that was because it was under the false impression that there were no farms currently in operation on the island. That is the definitive reason why they were not banned.
The hon. Gentleman then went on to ask for a ban and managed to drag in a bit of good solid class warfare about people wearing mink coats, and all the rest of it, but perhaps I can just deal with the sensible point that he made about the Farm Animal Welfare Council. In a statement made in April 1989, the Farm Animal Welfare Council--as I have already said, a body to whose views the Ministry of Agriculture and Her Majesty's Government attach the highest importance--expressed its disapproval of fur farming, and many hon. Members, I am sure, share that view. However, it did not recommend that the practice be stopped.
At about this time, the Council of Europe was working on its welfare recommendation, which was adopted a year later. We expect that recommendation to be used as the basis for a Community standard. The Government's policy regarding the welfare of fur animals is that we will press for the highest standards to be adopted on a Communitywide basis.
The Farm Animal Welfare Council's statement recommended research into housing and behavioural requirements of the mink and fox. It recommended that pelting sheds be sited away from enclosures to prevent distress caused by the release of scent during pelting, and that the state veterinary service should monitor fur farms on a regular basis. Several hon. Members felt that the state veterinary service should inspect every year. I have taken that on board, and will consult my right hon. Friend the Minister and others to see what steps can be taken.
The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe called for a moratorium on new mink farms. Under our present regime we might encounter some legal difficulties, on the ground that it would be unreasonable to refuse a licence to a new farm that could meet the same requirements as existing farms. On the basis of the mink's destructive habits, I must say that a ban on mink keeping is not justified. The security arrangements are adequate in preventing escapes, so that is not a relevant argument.
The hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) made a knowledgeable and robust speech, as would be expected of someone who actually understands a little about the countryside. He spoke at length, and with knowledge, of the feral mink ; his angling interests have ensured that he is kept well informed--and he knows that I share his enthusiasm for that. It is true that mink are easy to catch, and if the hon. Gentleman would like to accompany me one day I shall show him how to do it. He is right : it requires both time and effort, as well as some expertise. I am not aware-- and neither is my Department--of the existence of feral kangaroos and wallabies in this country, although I have no doubt that the suggestion will comfort those who drive home late at night having drunk too much. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West made a passionate and knowledgeable speech about a subject on
Column 815
which he plainly feels strongly. He mentioned sightings of escaped mink, as have many other Opposition Members. There is no point in their banging on at me ; none of those sightings, save one, has been reported to the Ministry of Agriculture. We are unable to act unless members of the public make a report to us. [Interruption.] There is no point in the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) citing a report in an evening paper ; that is no good to us. We need sightings to be reported to the regional service centres so that we can take the necessary action.It is quite untrue to say that we are insufferably complacent. We regard this as an extremely serious matter, and we acknowledge the strength of feeling expressed by many of our citizens. It is in our interests to ensure that a disagreeable business is conducted honourably and properly. I look forward to seeing the hon. Member for Newham, North-West shortly to discuss the situation at Swalesmoor, and to examine at greater length the photographs that he has already shown me. I apologise for standing him up today.
The hon. Gentleman also made an important point about the sighting of escaped farm mink. Reports of sightings have been made by individuals and organisations, and have been investigated, but they have failed to confirm the origin of the mink, and to highlight any deficiency in the security of mink farms that needs to be addressed. It is extremely difficult for the lay person to distinguish between wild and farmed mink--as it is to distinguish between a weasel and a stoat : as the House will know, a weasel is weasily identified, but a stoat is stoatally different. [ Hon. Members :-- "Oh."] I think it is rather a good joke, actually.
The hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Tyler) mentioned eradication. The Department mounted an eradication campaign ; it cost about £20,000 a year, was operated for five years and was ultimately found to be entirely unrealistic. We take the question of the capture of wild mink very seriously, but, at the end of the day, it is up to individual landowners to ensure that their land is free of mink. I wholly endorse the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) about the folly of voting against the order : that would only ensure that a large population of mink were released into the wild, which would be extremely unsatisfactory.
I shall be happy to arrange for a discussion between the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) and Scottish Natural Heritage. If he wishes to come and discuss it with me, I shall be happy to oblige. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) has shown great interest in the matter : again, it comes down to individual landowners--
It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, Mr. Deputy Speaker-- put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted Business) :--
The House divided : Ayes 252, Noes 188.
Division No. 98] [11.45 pm
AYES
Adley, Robert
Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Alexander, Richard
Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Amess, David
Ancram, Michael
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Ashby, David
Aspinwall, Jack
Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
| Next Section
| Home Page |