| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Maclean: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for making that point, which deals with the example that I gave. However, let us suppose that someone is caught illegally fur farming in this country--for example, by breeding those Rex Orylag rabbits--but that person says, "I was doing it because I was encouraged by Mr. Bloggs in the fur trade; he said he would take all the rabbit pelts I could get. We can sell them times 50 per cent. for the meat." Someone could encourage another person to take up that trade in this country. The excuse might be that rabbit meat is more valuable at a particular time, so the rabbits are not being bred primarily for their fur--although, of course, the fur is sometimes worth 40 per cent. and sometimes 60 per cent. Is that person causing someone else to go into that business? One person is certainly encouraging the other, but perhaps not causing the other to do so. Perhaps the hon. Lady would respond to that in a moment.
Mr. Paterson: My right hon. Friend has touched on the most important point. There are completely separate markets for fur and for meat. The price of fur has collapsed during the past year because of the slowdown in Russia and the far east. As he suggests, it could easily happen that a perfectly respectable rabbit farmer, who is mainly geared up to producing meat, finds that heis producing fur illegally, if the price of fur shoots up. He is then liable for a £20,000 fine as the Bill stands.
Mr. Maclean: I thank my hon. Friend for making that point; I had not realised that background point.
Therefore, if we removed the subsection, a farmer who had built in complex, commercial constraints or clauses to put himself at arm's length from the business could claim to be exempt from the legislation by pretending that he had nothing to do with it, even though, in fact, he was causing it to be carried out. I agree that the word "causes" is necessary to catch such people. However, the hon. Lady is saying that, without the subsection, the legitimate owner would be able to get away, but his employees could be caught and prosecuted, whereas I thought that for reasons of vicarious liability, the owner could be caught if the employees were.
That brings me to the end of my comments on the subject of the word "causes". I am not entirely convinced by the arguments I have heard, but I shall hear what my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire(Mr. Paterson) has to say. Then, perhaps, we can conclude our debate on the amendment.
Mr. Paterson:
I am rather concerned that the Minister has not answered the points about species that I made on Second Reading, but I shall return to that later.
On the question of fur and its value, it is necessary to understand the range of people who could be caught by the legislation as it stands. If the Bill is passed, it is likely that smaller producers will leave the business, but there is one clear case in which a fur farmer has a substantial business in this country and a substantial business in Denmark. It is likely that that fur farmer will keep his British business going as a company, although he will have to cease production in this country if he is to avoid a £20,000 fine. However, surely a clear link remains between his dealers in London, where 60 per cent. of the world trade in fur is carried out--we have been trading fur since the days of the Hudson's Bay Company--and his fur production in Denmark.
Maria Eagle:
The hon. Gentleman misunderstands my earlier remarks--perhaps I did not make them clear enough, so let me try again. For the second offence--that of "permitting"--to be committed, the fur farming has to have been carried out within Great Britain, which defines the limits of the Bill's scope. If the fur farmer in the hon. Gentleman's example moves his production abroad, it is clear that he will not be caught by the permitting offence.
Mr. Paterson:
I thank the hon. Lady for that helpful intervention, but it only shows how pointless the Bill is, because mink will continue to be produced for fur in another country. Where in the Bill does it say that it is strictly limited to production in the UK?
To move on to the points raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), we have to recognise that London will continue to play host to the trade in fur produced on rabbit farms. As I have just explained, the markets for rabbit meat and rabbit fur move independently of each other and, although the price of rabbit fur is currently low because of problems in Russia
and the far east, the market could easily pick up. If it did, legitimate rabbit farmers with contracts in London would be swept into the scope of the Bill. That is not satisfactory.
Maria Eagle:
That is not true.
Mr. Paterson:
Would the hon. Lady care to explain why not?
Maria Eagle:
I shall be happy to do so. The matter was dealt with on Second Reading. The offence is to farm animals
Mr. Paterson:
The hon. Lady is being naive. The rabbit farmer will want to add value to his rabbits; if the fashion for rabbit fur, and therefore the market for it, picks up, the main value of the rabbit will be derived from its fur, not from its meat. The hon. Lady puts legitimate rabbit farmers in real jeopardy of coming under the scope of her Bill, because fur will be the main object of production in some years, and meat in others. The Bill has not been properly thought through.
Maria Eagle:
It is not naive--the matter was thought about when the Bill was drafted, and that is why the word "primary" is present. It would be for the prosecuting authorities and the courts, which always deal with such issues in a common-sense way, to identify the primary purpose of the business. In mink farming, it is fairly clear that the primary purpose of the business is to collect the commercial value of the fur--I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees on that. I made it clear on Second Reading that I did not intend the Bill to catch rabbit farmers whose primary purpose is meat production. That is why the word "primary" is in the legislation. The Bill must be interpreted by the prosecuting authorities and by the courts. I hope that, by making it clear that I do not intend rabbit producers to come within the Bill's ambit, I have assisted the courts in that regard.
Mr. Paterson:
It is a fundamental issue. It is clear that the hon. Lady does not understand that, when rabbit fur is in fashion and that market is strong--possibly for five years--it is likely that rabbit farmers will derive their main income from fur rather than from meat.
Moving to a completely different species, I visited the Falkland Islands in November. The farmers there dump sheep carcases on the beach where they are eaten by seals and sea lions. All the value is in the wool and there is no market for the meat. That could happen with rabbit farms.
Maria Eagle:
The Bill does not extend to the Falkland Islands or to wool. However, in those circumstances, it would be perfectly clear to the prosecuting authorities what the primary purpose of the business was.
Mr. Paterson:
It is most unsatisfactory to leave it to magistrates in Devon or in some remote part of the United
Mr. Maclean:
Surely the point is that, because the cost of fur fluctuates in cycles every one, two or three years, farmers who legitimately produce rabbits primarily for meat--believe it or not, there is a huge market in rabbit meat--may discover that, if there is a change in the world fur market and an increase in fur prices, fur is more profitable. However, they would be prosecuted under the Bill if they breed rabbits for their fur. That is what I am concerned about.
"solely or primarily . . . for the value of their fur".
I made it clear on Second Reading that it is not my intention to catch people who produce fur as a secondary product, so a farmer who keeps rabbits primarily for their meat would not be caught by the Bill. The Bill covers only businesses of which fur is the primary product, so the hon. Gentleman need not worry quite so much. It will be for the courts and the prosecuting authorities to determine the primary purpose of the business, and they will consider that in a common-sense way.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |