| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Paterson: That is exactly my point. It is not good enough to pass legislation in the House and to expect magistrates to interpret it in the spirit that the Bill's promoter intended.
Mr. Morley: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, although it is not a large industry, rabbit farming is long established in this country. That is understood by those involved in rabbit farming and by the Ministry. Has a single rabbit farmer expressed concern to the hon. Gentleman about the Bill?
Mr. Paterson: No, they have not. At present, the primary function of rabbit farms is meat production. We cannot legislate in the hope that the circumstances will not change: the Bill must be clear and watertight. If the legislation passes unamended and magistrates interpret the Bill as it stands, a legitimate rabbit farmer who has raised rabbits for meat for many years but who turns to fur production when that market turns up may swing for a £20,000 fine. The Minister shakes his head. Under what circumstances would magistrates not impose the £20,000 fine? Will the Minister explain?
Mr. Morley: As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) has explained--I think ad nauseam--it would have to be demonstrated that the farm's primary purpose was the production of fur. It is irrelevant if, for the sake of argument, rabbit fur is worth more than the meat in a particular year--I am not sure whether that has ever happened--because the main consideration is whether the primary purpose of the business is fur rather than meat production. We have considered this issue very carefully, because the Bill does not seek to interfere with the sale of a by-product of meat production on rabbit farms.
Mr. Paterson: It is clear that the main intention of the Bill is to close the few mink farms remaining in this country. However, it could also encompass rabbit farms. If the value of the fur exceeds the value of the meat and that becomes the main purpose of the rabbit farm--
Mr. Morley: It has nothing to do with that.
Mr. Paterson: It is. If the Minister reads the Bill, he will find that clause 1 says:
- "A person is guilty of an offence if he keeps animals solely or primarily . . . for slaughter . . . for the value of their fur".
Mr. Paterson: I am delighted to have a sedentary intervention from the promoter of the Bill and from the Minister. Would one of them like to explain the provision?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has made his point about rabbit production, and he is beginning to repeat himself.
Mr. Paterson: I agree that I am repeating myself, but that is because I am not receiving a satisfactory answer.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is not receiving a satisfactory answer. I have no powers over that, but I have powers to ensure that hon. Members do not keep repeating themselves. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could move on.
Mr. Paterson: Certainly, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall move on to another concern.
I repeat the declaration of interest that I made on Second Reading. Although there is no direct link between the tanning industry and the fur industry, some materials do cross over under certain tariff headings. I spent my career in the leather industry before I came to the House, and I was the president of the European Tanners Confederation for a couple of years; I am still vice-president.
The Bill gives no cast-iron definition of "fur".
Maria Eagle:
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Are we not considering amendments Nos. 5 and 6, or have I missed us moving on to the next group?
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
The hon. Gentleman must address amendments Nos. 5 and 6.
Mr. Paterson:
Absolutely, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Unless those amendments are made, anyone who buys from a producer whose primary product is fur can be caught out. No one has looked into the European Union tariff definitions of fur. Chapter 43 of those definitions was published in the Official Journal of the European Communities, L292, volume 41, on 30 October 1998. It states:
Maria Eagle:
Only if the animals are farmed in this country. How many times must I say that to the hon. Gentleman before he hears me?
Mr. Paterson:
Those animals are farmed in this country, as the hon. Lady will find out if she allows me
There is a fairly obscure demand by architects for cattle hides with hair on; they are known as hair-on hides.
Mr. Morley:
The Bill relates to fur. There are no furry cattle.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. May I ask the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) what this has to do with amendment No. 5? He has lost me.
Mr. Paterson:
It has everything to do with amendment No. 5. If a party places an order for hair-on hides, they will be encompassed by the Bill if that animal is produced only for the hide. I mentioned on Second Reading a Belted Galloway, which has a white stripe on a black background and looks marvellous on a wall. If that animal is produced specifically for its hide, the producer will be affected by the Bill. That is true of the producers of other species, such as certain rare types of sheep, including Carakul and Broadtail. They all count as fur under the European Union definitions. Therefore, if those sheep or cattle are produced, in this country, only for the fur--and it is defined as fur by the European Union--they are caught out. This is a desperately serious point.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. It may be a serious point, but I have heard the hon. Gentleman make that point before. As he has made the point, perhaps he will allow the promoter of the Bill to allay his fears or otherwise. That might be best.
Mr. Paterson:
If the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) would allay my fears, I should be grateful.
Let us suppose that someone breeds an Astrakhan, Carakul, Persian, Indian, Chinese, Mongolian or Tibetan lamb, all of which could be bred in this country, where the meat is of no value and the fur is of exceedingly high value. Under heading 4302 13 00, the breeder of those very specialised rare sheep would be caught up by the Bill because, according to the European Union definition, it is fur.
Maria Eagle:
The Bill is not about sheep, it is not about wool, it is not about cows, it is not about hide; it is about keeping animals where the primary or sole purpose is the value of their fur. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has not understood it. Perhaps he should go and read the Bill.
Mr. Morley:
Perhaps he does not know what sheep are like.
Mr. Paterson:
These are rather cheap sedentary interventions.
I am making a desperately serious point. People in a totally separate trade may be swept up by the provisions of the Bill. [Interruption.] I welcome you to your position, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Let me explain what you might have missed. As the Bill stands, a breeder of rare sheep--
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst):
Order. Perhaps I should tell the hon. Gentleman that the Chair has a collective memory.
Mr. Paterson:
Okay. Right. I shall make my comments very brief because I know that the hon. Member for Garston is looking at the clock.
As the Bill stands, a person will be fined £20,000 in a magistrates court if he has caused another person to raise an animal for its fur. We all agree with that.
Mr. Paterson:
In GB--anywhere in the United Kingdom.
"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."
That is a broad definition. Heading 4301 applies to raw fur skins,
"including heads, tails, paws and other pieces or cuttings, suitable for furriers' use . . . other than raw hides and skins of heading No 4101, 4102 or 4103".
If amendments Nos. 5 and 6 are not made, anyone who places an order for those products, from animals that are raised exclusively for fur, will caught by the provisions of the Bill.
12.30 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |