| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Leigh: My hon. Friend takes a novel position for a Conservative--he is arguing for more public expenditure. Will he please explain why we should spend even more money to drive those people not out of business, but simply on to the continent, where there are 8,000 mink farms? How does he justify that, as a Conservative?
Mr. Swayne: I justify it on the simple principle that I enunciated at the outset: the great public good to be
achieved or the public evil to be avoided. I have summed that up in my arguments in respect of the distasteful, unpleasant and cruel nature of mink farming. I have made a value judgment about which is the greater of the evils involved. I heard what my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) said about compensation payable during the 1960s, although, given her looks, I am surprised that she has any recollection of those times. I am not sure whether she spent those days in suspended animation, because I have no recollection of generous compensation.
The Minister said that he will examine these issues. I urge him to consider carefully the case that will be made by the small number of fur farmers who will lose their livelihoods as a consequence of this measure.
Mr. Paterson
: How does my hon. Friend square that view with his earlier statement that he was supporting the Bill because he was being driven by a vexatious constituent, the NIMBY brigadier?
Mr. Swayne:
That is a monstrous suggestion. Undoubtedly, the attitude of people who live near mink farms is coloured by the proximity of the farm. That is entirely appropriate. It is understandable for someone to dislike a mink farm because of the smell and the nuisance, and as a result to take an interest in what goes on in the farm.
Mr. Owen Paterson (North Shropshire):
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), who always gives a colourful and punchy display. Unfortunately, I do not agree with his argument on this occasion. I join other hon. Members in heartily congratulating the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) on her good fortune in coming so high in the ballot. It reflects on the excellent governance of this country in the past 18 years that her priority is to close down 11 mink farms.
I should begin by declaring an interest. There has been some confusion between the leather industry and the fur industry. Before entering the House, I spent my whole career in my family's leather business, and I have declared my interest in the Register of Members' Interests. I am also the United Kingdom's delegate to COTANCE, which is the European confederation of tanners and leather dressers, and I was president of that organisation from 1996 to 1998.
In her excellent and well-explained introduction, on which I congratulate her, the hon. Member for Garston stated that the Bill excluded all skins or furs from animals that have been raised for meat. She is quite right, but my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) was slightly unclear
about the difference between skin products from animals raised for meat or milk production and those from animals whose skins are the end product in themselves.
The leather industry processes by-products of the meat, milk and wool industries. The skin and hide represent about 7 to 15 per cent. of the total carcase value. It is important that the House understands the difference between processing a by-product, which is a valuable service for the whole country, and raising an animal specifically for its skin. If the House will excuse the pun, there is a woolly area. Certain skins are anomalous. The harmonised customs tariff is in the Official Journal of the European Communities volume L292, and I should like to refer to two or three areas that should be tidied up if the Bill is to proceed, otherwise some people may unwittingly get caught.
The first point states:
A much more likely case that really does need tidying up is that of sheepskins. According to chapter 43 many sheepskins of rare breeds qualify as fur. Heading 4301 refers to:
In respect of the fur trade, I have something in common with the hon. Lady and the Minister in that I have never been to a fur farm. I have absolutely no connection with the fur industry. However, furs have been a trade commodity since the Chinese and the Phoenicians, since the Russians drove west to Siberia and since we fought it out with the French over the Hudson Bay Company in Canada. Fur is not just a luxury product; it is a fundamental commodity. I totally disagree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Clark), who is no longer in his place. Fur is part of a huge international industry that goes way beyond the requirements of luxury trade. If it is minus 20 deg or minus 25 deg in Novosibirsk, northern Norway or Urumchi, no one has yet devised a more suitable material for keeping out the cold than fur.
In the European Union it is estimated that the fur trade employs 175,000 people directly, plus a further 50,000 in supply trades. The total retail trade turnover of the EU in fur is estimated at more than $6 billion. It is a substantial industry that goes well beyond the small world of fashion.
Farmed furs are the mainstay of the fur trade, accounting for some 80 to 85 per cent. of the industry's turnover. In Britain, mink predominate as the main species. I find it extraordinary that we are debating the future of 11 British fur farms producing only100,000 mink pelts against world production of 26 million. We are talking about 11 fur farms out of 8,000 in Europe.
In Denmark and Holland they will be laughing all the way to the bank. They have more than half of world production, so if British production is closed down they will pick up the slack. Another fundamental point is that the sum of mink happiness will not increase because the same number of mink will be farmed. They will still be kept in the cages that Labour Members find abhorrent, but those cages will be in Holland, Denmark and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) pointed out, the Czech Republic, where they will not be subject to regulation and control by British vets and the British Government.
Several Labour Members have argued that mink are wild animals and live miserable lives. I find that hard to understand when the first symptom that an animal is unhappy or unhealthy is that its coat becomes dull. It is fundamental to the success of those enterprises that they produce healthy pelts to get the best value. I have yet to hear any evidence today that farmers are deliberately rearing unhappy or unhealthy animals. It defies all logic.
Mr. Gunnar Krantz, former chairman and chief veterinarian of the Swedish Federation of Animal Protection Societies, said:
"Throughout the nomenclature references to 'furskins' other than to raw furskins of heading No. 4301 apply to hides or skins of all animals which have been tanned or dressed with the hair or wool on."
There is a very small trade in bovine hides where the hair is left on, generally for use by interior decorators or architects. I admit that it is a long shot, but it is conceivable that someone might breed Belted Galloways that have wonderful skins that look very good for use by some abstruse New York architect and the skin might just be more valuable than the carcase of the beast.
"Raw furskins . . . other than raw hides and skins".
Heading 4301 10 00 refers to the skins
"of mink whole, with or without heads or tails or paws".
Virtually in the same category is heading 4301 30 00 which refers to the skins
"of lamb, the following: Astrakhan, Broadtail, Caracul, Persian and similar lamb, Indian, Chinese, Mongolian or Tibetan lamb, whole with or without head, tail or paws".
Under the Bill as drafted, if a farmer in Britain raised those species and the value of the skin was more than that of the carcase--I would be grateful if the hon. Member for Garston would listen as it is a deadly serious point--that person would be in breach of the law.
"Only a person who is interested in animals and who likes them becomes a fur farmer. The farmer who has no real interest in his animals or feeling for their welfare soon suffers himself, in the form of poor financial return."
Several hon. Members have said that the animals retain their wild characteristics, despite having been reared for 80 generations. If one walks into a fur farm, the wild animal runs away and to the back of the cage. Fur farmers whom I have talked to have told me that the animals come to the front of the cage because they look forward to being fed. Professor Knud Erik Heller of the Institute of Population Biology at the university of Copenhagen has said:
"From a scientific point of view, fur animals that have been domesticated for more than 10 generations must be considered as so far genetically removed from their ancestors that they have to be treated as fully domesticated subspecies. Irrespective of the present taxonomy of the animals it has to be realised that it would be disastrous to the welfare of the animals to go on treating them as wild animals in respect to legislation. The majority of farmed fur animals require the same status as all other commonly held animals in modern husbandry."
I quote another expert from Denmark, where there is a huge fur industry. Steffen Hansen, a doctor at the National Institute of Animal Science, said:
"significant behavioural and physiological changes achieved through domestication therefore make it unreasonable to make direct comparisons between farmed mink and their relations in the wild, when considering their welfare."
The House should pay attention to the opinions of those experts.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |