---

Mr. Gordon Prentice: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gummer: No. I have only 10 minutes, and I want to complete my argument. If we turn to any other method, we shall increase the cruelty.

We are hearing an unreal argument from Labour Members, especially in their references to rodents. Obviously many of them have not read the incomparable works of Richmal Crompton. "Just William" once asked a very important question. He asked, referring to a bird lover, "Why does she not have a rat table and a rat bath, and why is there no rat fancying, and what about a rat sanctuary?" The Bill's supporters do not care about the rats: rats can be torn apart, because rats do not provide the same attraction in advertisements or raise the same amount of money. There is no great movement for the protection of rats.

This is not an issue of cruelty; it is an issue of sentimentality. The Bill's supporters are presenting a sentimental view of the world of nature. Tennyson was much closer to the truth when he spoke of

"Nature, red in tooth and claw"

than was the hon. Member for Worcester. As a lifelong opponent of abortion, I felt that the comments about the pregnant fox come ill from the Labour party, which in successive Fridays voted to protect the fox one week and to kill babies the next. That is the sort of morality that we are talking about. It is a morality that allows--

Mr. McNamara: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the right hon. Gentleman to refuse to give way and then to make the most reprehensible statements, which some of us take as a personal affront? We do not need lectures from someone who served in a Government who allowed experiments on embryos.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for the occupant of the Chair.

Mr. Gummer: I am glad to acknowledge that the hon. Gentleman at least takes an honourable view and votes

28 Nov 1997 : Column 1219

honourably on abortion, but the Labour party in general takes this curiously opposed view. It is a morality that would be inconceivable at any other time in history.

In a civilised society, we have to accept things that we do not particularly like. I do not like ritual slaughter, which is a disgraceful way in which to kill animals. When I was the Minister responsible, I allowed it. I tried to make it as uncruel as it could be, but I allowed it because I believe that, in a civilised society, we allow people to do things that we do not approve of ourselves. That is the mark of a civilised society.

Toleration is not about allowing people to do things that we do not much care about. If we do not much care, for example, about the way in which people behave sexually, it is not tolerant to allow them to behave in any way they like. That is merely apathy, acceptance and neutrality. It is tolerant, and it is the mark of a civilised society that we should be tolerant, when we allow people to do things that we may not wish to do, but which we accept are not things that people should be locked up for. There are many things about which we feel in that way and, in our tolerant civilised society, we have sought to allow.

I ask the Labour party--it is largely that party that supports the Bill--to remember that much of what the Bill says is unconnected with reality in the countryside. It asks us to stop doing something which needs to be done and which, if it is done in the way in which it would like, would be much more cruel. It suggests that those people who do it in that way would not be locked up, although they were more cruel, but those who wanted to do it less cruelly would be locked up. It suggests, too, that we should protect some mammals because they are popular with the public, but not others because the public do not like them.

11.2 am

Mrs. Llin Golding (Newcastle-under-Lyme): I shall confine my remarks to the subject of mink.

Mink are one of the nastiest, most destructive animals in this country. I fish. I talk to many anglers and many river keepers and they all tell me of the damage that is being done by mink. They swim like fish, burrow like rabbits and climb trees like monkeys. Mink kill for the sake of killing, and have no natural enemies.

I have raised many times the question of what is being done to control the animal. The previous National Rivers Authority told me:

"The control of mink has in fact always been a responsibility of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, not of NRA".

So I wrote to MAFF and it said:

"It is entirely at the discretion of individual landowners/occupiers to decide whether they wish to control mink on their land."

No one wants to take responsibility.

I wrote to the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. It hopes that something will be done. It accepts that many birds are destroyed by mink and says that the problem is perhaps out of control. It says that some investigations should be held into the problems of mink. It hopes to keep them out of areas where they are not present, but it does not know any way in which to control them.

The chairman of a local Labour party, who is also concerned about mink, sent me a copy of a leaflet from the Game Conservancy Trust. It says:

28 Nov 1997 : Column 1220

"any attempt to eradicate them from the mainland is not likely to succeed. However eradication may be possible on islands of a conservation interest such as the Isle of Lewis . . . we need mink studies to assess the ongoing loss to waterfowl, fish and other prey groups.


Gamekeepers should give more attention to mink control in many lowland areas".

Angela Smith (Basildon): Does my hon. Friend accept that mink hunting is a totally inefficient way in which to control mink and that, in effect, by hunting mink, the otters' habitat is being destroyed? We already have a grave problem in relation to otters.

Mrs. Golding: I am glad that my hon. Friend raises that question. I have a whole list of the number of the mink killed by mink hunters and they seem to be doing a good job in controlling mink. Often, they identify where otters are and keep the mink packs away from them.

Angela Smith rose--

Mrs. Golding: I shall not give way again. I have only 10 minutes.

Let us consider this vicious creature that the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) is so intent on protecting and conserving. A MAFF leaflet from the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service says:

"Fish are usually an important part of the diet; both game and coarse fish are eaten.


Birds are taken at all times of the year, particularly those on the nest and young. Waterfowl such as ducks, moorhens and coot are taken most frequently, although mink living near the coast will feed on seabirds and waders."

Mr. Ian Cawsey (Brigg and Goole): Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mrs. Golding: No.

The leaflet continues:

"Fish are killed by biting the backbone between the head and the dorsal fin.


Mammals and birds are killed by a bite in the neck, usually near the base of the skull.


In a fresh kill it is sometimes possible to see the punctures, about 8 mm apart, made by the mink's canine teeth."

Some mink escaped from a mink farm. The Halifax Evening Courier says:

"Woman tells of savage attacks on her ducks and chickens"

by mink. An RSPCA officer said that the situation was extremely dangerous and

"Having this number of mink running wild in the countryside is a major problem.


I've watched them eat ducks and chickens, and they present a real danger to other animals."

Someone else said:

"I have had two guinea pigs killed. One was killed outright and one was left with its face disfigured, and had to be put down, it was horrible."

In another case, a lady said that she witnessed an horrific attack by a mink on a cat:

"There was nothing I could do to make it let go and it was heartbreaking."

That is the animal that the Bill will protect.

28 Nov 1997 : Column 1221

Scientific reports are often quoted. The Scottish Association for Marine Science laboratory in Argyll did a detailed report on the long-term effects of north American mink. It says:

"In the years 1989-95, feral North American Mink caused widespread whole-colony breeding failures of Black-headed Gulls, Common Gulls and Common Terns at colonies on small islands in a study area along 1000 km of mainland coast in west Scotland. After one or more years of such failure, most of the affected breeding sites held no birds or greatly reduced numbers."

It goes on to say:

"the disappearance in the late 1980s of 50-100 pairs of Common Gulls from traditional breeding sites on the small islands in Loch Lomond and the contemporaneous disappearance of the large colony of Black-headed Gulls from nearby Endrick Mouth in Loch Lomond . . . occurred within ten years of the first records of mink predation of breeding birds in that area."

There is much more in the report and my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester should read it to find out the effects of mink.

Where traps have failed, hunts are being called out to help gamekeepers, farmers, water bailiffs and fishery managers. East Dorset county council was so concerned that it also called out the region's hunt, which managed to eradicate many mink. One of my local fishery managers tells me that he estimated that he had lost more than £1,000-worth of fish in a little over two years to mink. They do not eat them all; they just kill them. They bite lumps out of them and leave many fish damaged. They tear bits off them. Mink are vicious creatures. He says that they come into the fishery by way of a stream, the banks of which are decimated of wildlife. He said that he would welcome mink huntsmen if he had a pack of hounds near where he lives.

What are we to do? Should we throw up our hands and abandon our countryside to the mink? We should not. We should maintain people with the knowledge that will help to control them. If the Bill is passed, who will deal with this destroyer of our native life? People mention traps. They are important, but they cannot be used everywhere. For example, they are ineffective in tidal waters and a danger to farmyard animals. They have to be checked and freshly baited every 24 hours.

Mink are an ever-increasing menace to our native wildlife and to legislate against a proven form of control of this vicious animal is totally unacceptable. The Bill has many flaws, but its greatest is that in setting out to protect wildlife it does much to destroy it.

---