| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Patrick Nicholls (Teignbridge): Given the interest that the Bill clearly generates and the desire of many hon. Members to speak, it may be helpful if at this stage I make a few remarks on behalf of the official Opposition. First--this will unite hon. Members on both sides of the House--I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) for the way in which she introduced the Bill. Anyone who has steered a Bill through the House knows that, even for Ministers, who benefit from help from the civil service, it is a daunting experience. For the hon. Lady to put everything together as she has is a remarkable achievement.
It seems to me that the main consideration today has to be the welfare of the mink--that is the beginning and end of the argument. If mink could not be farmed humanely, mink farming would have to go--despite the devastating effect that that would have on the livelihood of those engaged in it. It is as simple as that.
At one end of the spectrum are the people who say that all farming is ultimately immoral. That notion will probably appeal even to some hon. Members, but I do not think it will appeal to the majority. I certainly reject it.
The Bill is predicated on two assumptions. First, it assumes that, under the present law, even if properly enforced and observed, mink cannot be farmed humanely. Secondly, it assumes that it would be impossible to devise any system whereby mink could be farmed humanely.
I claim no special expertise in this matter. I come to the subject with a long-standing interest in animal welfare. I have read widely; I have received many letters; and I have made a point of visiting one of the country's leading fur farms to test at first hand what I have been told about the industry. I express my thanks to Michael Cobbledick for allowing me to visit him at his fur farm in Cornwall, for answering straightforwardly and unequivocally the questions that I put to him, and for allowing me free access to his farm. I understand the problems that the hon. Member for Garston may have had, given the demands on her time in putting the Bill together, but I wish that she had been able to visit as many fur farms as she wanted.
While I commend the hon. Member for Garston for the fact that she is still prepared to visit fur farms, that is a bit like saying that one is prepared to consider the possibility of a reprieve after the execution. That approach has a certain theoretical charm, but the hon. Lady will have missed an opportunity--whether or not fur farming should be abolished--of seeing for herself that to describe all fur farming and fur farmers as indulging in a barbaric practice may not be the way forward.
Mr. Gray:
Is my hon. Friend aware that the Minister was invited to visit a fur farm this time last year? He declined because he felt that it would not make much difference, as he knew what conditions on a fur farm were like already. Does that not stand in stark contrast to the approach of my hon. Friend, who has visited fur farms to find out what happens?
Mr. Nicholls:
Yes, it does. I had assumed that the Minister had visited fur farms, and we will find in due course whether that is the position. It will be surprising if he has not. I always enjoy debating with the Minister,
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley):
I have looked at the issue for many years and have visited fur farms privately. I was invited by Mr. Cobbledick and the Fur Breeders Association, who wanted to offer me an all expenses paid trip to Denmark. I thought that it would be inappropriate to accept that invitation.
Mr. Nicholls:
Not only would it have been inappropriate: the Minister would have been unable to accept under the rules of the House. I am sure that he would be able to see fur farms in this country, and that it would not take all expenses paid trips to do so. However, we may find ourselves being diverted into discussing who takes expenses-paid trips in helicopters. I am not quite sure that the Minister would want to do that.
On the evidence that I have seen, I have not been able to conclude that it would be impossible to conduct fur farming humanely. I was helped in considering the evidence by a Library paper produced by Stephen McGinness and Patsy Hughes, which many hon. Members will have seen. The paper says:
Mr. Andrew Dismore (Hendon):
Will the hon. Gentleman read another quote from the Library briefing, which says:
That conclusion from two impartial House of Commons researchers will surprise many people in the country. By the looks of it, it has surprised many Labour Members. Facts are sometimes surprising and, in this House, we should be guided by the facts.
Angela Smith (Basildon):
If the hon. Gentleman is so convinced that there are far more humane ways to rear mink for their fur, why have they not been adopted already?
Mr. Nicholls:
If the Bill is to succeed, it will be necessary to show not only that it is impossible to farm mink humanely under present conditions, but that mink cannot be farmed humanely in any circumstances.
I want the Minister to address the fundamental proposition that mink cannot be farmed humanely. I do not know whether this is a hand-out Bill from the Government or not. [Interruption.] There would be nothing wrong if it were. The Government have made perfectly clear in opposition and in government that it is their intention to outlaw fur farming. I do not know whether they intend to back the Bill today. I see the Minister nodding his assent. This is a reasonable opportunity for the Government to address the fundamental proposition--can mink be farmed humanely or not?
There are those who will justify on an almost theological basis their desire for abolition: the sort of people who believe that their genuine and sincere conviction is sufficient justification to use this Parliament to impose that conviction on others, and who believe that any reference to science--unless, of course, that science supports their predetermined conviction--is heartless equivocation. I reject that approach--as, I hope, does the Minister.
We have an existing framework of law. Again, that surprises many of those who have written to me, who believe that, in some curious way, fur farming is outside the ambit of present law. There is a substantial body of European and domestic law dealing with fur farming. There is the European Union directive on farm animal welfare, adopted in 1998; the Mink Keeping Order 1997; the Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) Regulations 1999; the European convention on the protection of animals kept for farming purposes of 1991; the Mink Keeping Regulations 1975; the Mink Keeping (Amendment) Regulations 1998; and the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 1968.
Fur farmers already have a substantial body of law with which to comply. Clearly, that does not mean that the law cannot be reformed. However, it does mean that fur farming cannot legally be carried out in the cruel and capricious way that many of those who have written to me clearly believe it is.
Mr. Gareth R. Thomas (Harrow, West):
Will the hon. Gentleman respond to the comments of the Farm Animal Welfare Council in 1989, as referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle)? The council said that fur farming does not meet all the basic welfare needs of what are essentially wild animals. Will he say why there has been no reform to drive up welfare standards?
Mr. Nicholls:
There has indeed, and I will come to that perfectly fair point in my speech.
Mr. Peter Atkinson (Hexham):
We hear allegations that mink farms are hell-holes. Does my hon. Friend agree that if that were the case, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food--which inspects such farms regularly--would have been failing in its duties?
"The scientific evidence for animal welfare and fur farms remains in its infancy. There is, however, little support for the claim that it would be impossible to provide good welfare for captive mink."
I telephoned Mr. McGinness, and he was content that I should relay his response to the House. He told me that, in its first draft, the paper said that there was no support for the claim that it would be impossible to provide good welfare for captive mink. On reflection, however, he took the view that, as he could not logically prove that no evidence existed at all, it would be more accurate to say that there was little evidence.
"There is solid evidence of shortcomings in the current standards of welfare and that some methods of killing fur-bearing animals are inhumane"?
Mr. Nicholls:
Of course there is some evidence of people falling short of the present law, and I shall deal with that in a moment. If the hon. Gentleman--who is, as I recall from previous exchanges, a distinguished lawyer--is going to turn round and say that because some people may fall short of the standards of a profession, that profession should be abolished, he will not have a profession to return to after the next election, when he will need one. That was not quite as good a point as the hon. Gentleman may have thought.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |