| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Owen Paterson (North Shropshire): My right hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Garston underestimate
the fact that the entire European fur farming industry is watching us this morning. I have talked today to Mr. Helge Olsen of the European Fur Breeders Association and to Mr. Knud Vest, who is vice-president of that association--
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The hon. Gentleman is not going to get away with that in an intervention.
9.45 am
Mr. Maclean: I understand what my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) is saying, although it is possibly not a valid comment at this point in the debate. We may be able to discuss it when we debate the merits of abolishing fur farming. I think that 50,000 mink are farmed in England, but 30 million are farmed worldwide, and about 60 per cent. of European production is in Denmark. That production will continue.
The new clause would ensure that responsibility for animals that are subject to a forfeiture order is clear. With the best will in the world, Labour Members will, I think, agree that, although the provisions of new clause 3 are adequate, they are not as clear as those in my new clause 2. The new clause would make the provisions clear and would ensure that those charged with looking after animals were suitably qualified. The provision is important, given the likely length of the process from forfeiture order to final disposal. I am not sure how many lawyers are present this morning, but, even if there were many, I am sure that the House would agree that lawyers do not move quickly--normally, it is dead slow and stop. Even if lawyers acted quickly, the time taken for normal arguments in court to get and to oppose the forfeiture orders and to reach what the hon. Member for Garston calls "final disposal" once the legal case is settled could be lengthy. Considerable costs could be incurred for the proper upkeep of animals during that period, which an offender who had been deprived of his livelihood could have real difficulty in meeting or be reluctant to meet.
The new clause would ensure that the welfare of the animals was properly protected pending their destruction or disposal. That is wholly in keeping with the thrust of the Bill. The opening sentence of the new clause states:
Under the new clause, suitably qualified veterinary officers appointed by the authority would
I have tabled an alternative new clause to state that the veterinary officers shall be from the SVS, but new clause 2 is more general, stating
The Government use veterinary officers on a licensed or contractual basis--for example, to carry out meat hygiene and other inspections. MAFF already has a well-tried system whereby the Government employ or contract in veterinary officers to do their work for them. The new clause would give the Minister flexibility to use his own people or qualified veterinary officers working for the appropriate authority in each of the three countries to which it is proposed that the Bill should apply.
The new clause also states that the officers should
If the animals were not conveyed into Government or veterinary officers' property, other much more complicated arrangements would have to be made whereby the vet could have daily access to them. There would have to be someone there all the time to guard them to ensure that they were looked after properly, because the farmer concerned might wash his hands of them, saying, "You have forfeited my animals."
Mr. Michael Jack (Fylde):
I have been followingmy right hon. Friend's remarks closely. With which professional bodies has he consulted as to the practicability of the new clause?
Mr. Maclean:
I have not been in detailed consultation with any professional body on the practical applicability. I happily admit that that one aspect--conveying the mink from the farm to authority property--is the least desirable of all the humanitarian and welfare provisions that I have included in the new clause. The remaining provisions of new clause 2 would satisfy Government and private vets and welfare organisations because the animals would be kept in better conditions than those that would have existed on the farm. The animals should be moved from the farm being closed down to State Veterinary Service, Government or Veterinary Laboratories Agency property.
The conveyance of live mink is not the easiest thing. The Government face a choice of two evils. We either leave the animals in the farm that has been closed down, possibly in the care of the farmer who was operating
illegally and hope to goodness that he will look after them well--knowing fine that he is going out of business, so why should he care a stuff?--or convey them to a secure property to be tended by Government veterinary officers.
Mr. Jack:
Who would pay for the secure facility that my right hon. Friend described and its subsequent operation and security, bearing in mind his earlier concerns about who would pay the compensation associated with the measure?
Mr. Maclean:
My right hon. Friend should consider the provisions in the Bill and in my new clause 2(4), which states:
The animals should be conveyed into appropriate authority custody. The Minister may say that it is neither good nor easy to move mink. I accept that, but to leave them in the place closed down with the person who has been put out of business is an equal evil, and I think that conveyance is slightly better.
New clause 2 also uses the phrase
It may not be appropriate to mention rabies control, but the Government have contingency plans and facilities for it. Perhaps some of those would be suitable if animals have to be forfeited by someone who is farming illegally.
New clause 2(2) states:
"the appropriate authority shall arrange for qualified veterinary officers of the authority".
I phrased the new clause in that way because I am trying to give flexibility to the Government and the hon. Member for Garston. The appropriate authority would be the Agriculture, Environment and Fisheries Department for Scotland and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in England. In Wales, it would probably be the Welsh Office Agriculture Department or the Welsh Assembly.
"take possession of the animals and convey them into authority custody as soon as is reasonably practical."
It is important for qualified veterinary officers to be in charge. I believe that mink farms are inspected by qualified Government veterinary officers--I think that the State Veterinary Service regularly inspects them. I believe that Professor Spedding's committee, the Farm Animal Welfare Council, recommended that there should be more inspections by vets of the SVS and that, when mink have
come to the end of their farm life and are to be killedfor fur, the SVS is present to ensure that the method used is humane and carried out correctly. Therefore the SVS already has a role.
"veterinary officers of the authority",
in case, for whatever reason, the Government say that they cannot bog the SVS down with such duties as it has other things to do.
"take possession of the animals and convey them into authority custody".
It would not be acceptable for veterinary officers to be responsible for the welfare and safety of the animals if they were left at the farm that was operating illegally and from which they had been forfeited. I accept that there is merit in not conveying animals willy-nilly around the country, and I do not envisage that happening. I am talking about merely one conveyance from a farm that has been closed down or forfeited to SVS or some other property that can be managed, controlled and easily inspected by the veterinary officers appointed by the authority.
"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."
My right hon. Friend may argue that, if that involves one of those who may go bankrupt, we will not get the money anyway. I would not get it under my new clause; nor would the Government under their provisions. There is always a risk that the cost might not be recovered from the person going out of business. That implies no special weakness in my new clause, which is tighter on recovering full costs. At least mine would ensure that the animals would be properly, humanely and securely tended. If the State Veterinary Service or other vets appointed by the Government are in charge, you can bet your bottom dollar that things will be done properly. I have tremendous respect for the way in which they work. There is a danger that the costs may not be recovered from whomever tends the animals.
"as soon as is reasonably practical."
That speaks for itself. I accept that facilities might not immediately be available in MAFF property to hold the animals, but there must be facilities somewhere. Some farms have gone out of business; it may be possible for the Government to hire appropriate land and facilities under MAFF control. I am not sure whether facilities are still available at Weybridge. The Minister can correct me if I am wrong, but I think that 11 or 12 veterinary investigation centres are left; there is certainly one a few miles from my home which has been wonderfully expanded. They do not have housing facilities for mink, although they have some for other animals. It should be possible for the Government to take possession of the animals as soon as reasonably practicable.
"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."
14 May 1999 : Column 540
That should be self-evident. There is a loophole on forfeiture in the Bill that has not been considered. If the Bill goes ahead and mink farming becomes illegal, what will happen to the regulations and licensing provisions currently in force? The Minister extended the licensing requirements in 1997 for three years, rather than for five as before. They will run out, and he may have to make a further order extending them for one or two years.
If the licensing requirements are no longer applicable because people have gone out of business or accepted compensation, but we find someone farming fur, what are the welfare considerations for the animals? If the Government or veterinary officers take possession, we might not need detailed regulations, because I would expect Government-appointed officers, or any vet, to look after animals with welfare and security considerations in mind. However, if the Bill stays in its present form, and the person appointed to keep the animals until final disposal is the fur farmer himself or a third party, what welfare conditions will apply? The welfare regulations would have fallen. We cannot have welfare regulations relating to animals no longer farmed. The security and licensing conditions could have fallen because the Government cannot extend the conditions of mink licensing if such licensing no longer exists.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |