House of Commons
Friday 14 May 1999
The House met at half-past Nine o'clock
PRAYERS
[Madam Speaker in the Chair]
NOTICES OF MOTIONS
Energy Conservation (Housing) Bill
Motion made,
That the Energy Conservation (Housing) Bill be referred to a Second Reading Committee.--[Mr. Efford.]
Hon. Members:
Object.
Energy Efficiency Bill
Motion made,
That the Energy Efficiency Bill be referred to a Second Reading Committee.--[Mr. Efford.]
Hon. Members:
Object.
Orders of the Day
Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill
As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
9.34 am
Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The sequence in which the groups of amendments and clauses appear is perhaps not unusual, but it may be difficult to deal first with clause 3, then clauses 1, 2 and so on. I ask for clarification on the points at which Divisions may be taken, particularly should there be requests for Divisions on different items from a group. At which point would you wish such requests to be made? I should like to be clear that I understand the sequence.
Madam Speaker: I want to be as helpful as I can regarding Divisions. After the first debate and Division, the Chair can judge the progress that has been made and determine, helpfully to the House I hope, the Divisions to be taken afterwards. I should like to hear some of the debate first before determining where Divisions should fall after the first one.
New Clause 2
Appropriate authority responsibility for forfeited animals
'--(1) Where a court makes an order under section 2, the appropriate authority shall arrange for qualified veterinary officers of the authority to take possession of the animals and convey them into authority custody as soon as is reasonably practical.
(2) The forfeited animals shall be housed in compliance with such regulations regarding animal welfare as applied to fur farming prior to the coming into force of sections 1 to 4 of this Act.
(3) The appropriate authority shall keep records of the animals forfeited, including records of their health status and mortality rates.
(4) The appropriate authority shall have the right to recover from the person against whom the order was made the full costs of keeping the forfeited animals from the time the order was made until their final destruction or disposal.
(5) The appropriate authority shall retain the forfeited animals until there is no further possibility of the order being set aside and shall then submit to the court a report setting out--
(a) how it intends finally to dispose of the animals;
(b) the costs incurred by the authority from forfeiture to anticipated disposal.'.--[Mr. Maclean.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
9.35 am
Mr. David Maclean (Penrith and The Border): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: New clause 3--Authorised or appointed persons--
'Persons authorised or appointed under sections 3 or 4 shall be veterinary officers of the State Veterinary Service.'.
Amendment No. 1, in clause 3, page 2, line 21, leave out subsection (3).
Amendment No. 4, in page 2, line 24, leave out from 'order' to end of line 31 and insert
Amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 24, after 'may' insert 'in particular'.
Amendment No. 10, in page 2, line 27, leave out 'other disposal' and insert
Amendment No. 3, in page 2, line 31, at end insert--
Amendment No. 11, in page 2, line 31, at end insert--
Amendment No. 12, in page 2, line 31, at end insert--
Amendment No. 13, in page 2, line 31, at end insert--
Mr. Maclean:
The first group of amendments is extremely important. New clause 3 provides a variation on new clause 2, should that prove unacceptable to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) or the Government. Amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 3 have, of course, been tabled by the hon. Lady herself.
Amendment No. 4 is technical, giving the authority to introduce new clause 2, which would replace clause 3(4), which deals with the effect of forfeiture orders. It would provide that animals subject to a forfeiture order should be dealt with by qualified veterinary officers under a prescribed procedure.
The Bill does not prescribe by whom a forfeiture order should be carried out. It is possible that the convicted mink farmer himself could be charged by the court with responsibility for the destruction or other disposal of the animals. It is perhaps more likely that responsibility would be given to a third party. The court may decide that the mink farmer who has broken the law should not be responsible for looking after the animals. The courts might, quite rightly, not trust the farmer who has broken the law.
Whoever is appointed by the court should be suitably qualified in the welfare and handling of the species concerned. We are not dealing with ordinary, run-of-the-mill farm animals, for which there are a range of welfare codes and for the keeping of which a certain skill is required. Those skills may be possessed by hundreds of thousands of farmers up and down the country who would be capable of looking after each
other's sheep, cattle, horses or pigs. When it comes to fur farming, however, those skills will not be so widely transferable or available, and only some of the 13 fur farmers or others previously involved in the business will be suitably qualified.
Much play has been made of the dangers that mink pose to wildlife if they are released. Everyone agrees that mink require experienced handling. Not only are there Government welfare codes for the farming of animals, particularly for fur farming and for mink, but the Mink Keeping Order 1998 was designed to ensure, irrespective of welfare considerations, that mink do not escape into the wild.
It is vital that any person nominated by a court to be responsible for forfeited animals is experienced in keeping species such as mink, and aware of the mink keeping regulations and capable of complying with them. The person must also have facilities to feed and water mink properly, deal with their health problems and keep them safely and securely.
The Bill has two grave dangers, particularly as compensation arrangements are not yet clear, despite the best endeavours of the hon. Member for Garston--I pay tribute to the work that she has done with the Government to try to clarify compensation rules--and the fact that there may be a commitment to something better in the future. One danger is that some mink farmers may say, "To blazes with it," and that some of the mink that are forfeited may be released into the wild. Also, as we will no doubt be told today, there is a danger that, if the Bill is not enacted in its present form immediately, animal rights terrorists will take action against mink farmers and release mink.
Maria Eagle (Liverpool, Garston):
If the right hon. Gentleman wants to take notice of what fur farmers think, will he take into account the fact that the Fur Breeders Association of the United Kingdom, which represents all the farmers, wants the Bill to proceed, as does the National Farmers Union, which represents 10 fur farmers?
Mr. Maclean:
I note exactly what the hon. Lady said. I believe that the NFU has said that, if compensation arrangements are adequate, it will not stand in the way of the legislation. The NFU rightly sees it as its duty to protect the financial interests of its members. However, I am not certain from the letter from the NFU a couple of days ago, which I think we all received, that it is convinced that the compensation arrangements are fully spelled out and agreed. One part in big black type stated that the farmers want compensation for loss of income.
'it shall order that the forfeited animals shall become the property of the appropriate authority and be dealt with in accordance with section (appropriate authority responsibility for forfeited animals) below.'.
'disposal by other such means as the appropriate authority may specify in regulations.'.
'( ) make such provision as the court considers appropriate in relation to the operation of the order pending the making or determination of any appeal or application relevant to the order.'.
'(d) where the offender demonstrates that he is incapable of paying the required sum to the court, or keeping the animals himself, make suitable arrangements for the animals to be kept in a proper condition.'.
'( ) Where the court orders an offender to make a payment in accordance with subsection (c) above, it shall take into consideration the cost of keeping the animals concerned in compliance with such regulations regarding animal welfare as applied to fur farming prior to the coming into force of sections 1 to 4 of this Act.'.
'( ) Any person appointed under subsections (a) or (b) above shall possess such qualifications or meet such criteria as the appropriate authority shall specify in regulations.'.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |