| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Paterson: Yes. It is defined as fur in the European Union Official Journal of the European Communities. I have read out the list; the Minister would have heard if he had bothered to listen. It is a fundamental point. It will sweep in many innocent people who are not involved in mink farming--which, as I understand it, is the narrow focus of the Bill. That is why it is essential that the Bill is amended--either on species grounds or as proposed by amendments Nos. 5 and 6. [Interruption.] I am glad to see that the Minister is going to consult his advisers, who might be better informed than he is.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There are only right hon. and hon. Members present in the Chamber. There should be no other references.
Mr. Paterson: I am glad to see that the Minister is taking inspiration from the wooden panelling near his left ear.
However, I am making a very serious point. It is quite possible to raise, for the value of their fur in this country, animals that are not mink, that are not kept in cages, but are kept in farms. Some them may be goats; some may be sheep. It is most important that the Minister addresses that point. I am disappointed that he did not do so after Second Reading.
Mr. Forth:
It falls to me to say a few words to conclude this constructive and fascinating little debate. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson), who has drawn attention to
Mr. Morley:
To try to avoid the risk of returning to any of those themes, I want to reassure the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) that, in relation to a very short discussion with the experts in the field of whether a sheep can be defined as furry, MAFF is quite content with the fact that we shall not have any problems in relation to the definition of fleeces. We are quite capable of telling fur from fleece, and a sheep from a fur animal, even if the hon. Member for North Shropshire is not.
Mr. Forth:
In the context of that helpful comment, I will not get into elbows under any circumstances. We will probably return to this theme later in a rabbit sense, in which it may be much more relevant.
Mr. Maclean:
Although MAFF, the Minister and those of us in this House may be able to tell the difference between a sheep and other animals that obviously have fur, the European Union has lumped them together in definitional terms, just as carrots have been reclassified as fruit and other things have been given weird classifications by the EC. That is the danger that my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) was talking about.
Mr. Forth:
Indeed. Later we may want to explore the relationship between the Bill's effect in Great Britain--the UK will come in when we talk about grouping with Northern Ireland--and in Europe. We will then see who the real Europeans are. I suspect that we will see a fascinating juxtaposition, as we hear some uncharacteristic European noises from the Opposition Benches and some narrow British noises from the Government Benches. I hope that Labour Members will mind their words carefully, because they know what the Prime Minister said yesterday and what he thinks about these matters.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) because, typically and characteristically, she answered the points that I made thoughtfully. I was persuaded by her argument that, if our amendments were passed, they would cause unnecessary loopholes in the Bill. I would never want to be party to weakening the Bill in that way. Our last debate was about precisely the opposite, as is the next group of amendments.
For all those reasons, and, because I am anxious to save time and press on, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Maclean:
I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 1, line 17, leave out '£20,000' and insert
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 8, in page 1, line 17, leave out '£20,000' and insert
Mr. Maclean:
The first amendment would give courts the option of imposing the standard level 5 fine and the
When I compared the Bill with other legislation with which I have been involved, I concluded that it is unusual for a specific sum to be included in legislation. More commonly, fines are prescribed with regard to levels on the standard scale. That avoids the need for changes to primary legislation when the scale is revised and saves the Government going through every piece of legislation raising the penalty from, say, £5,000 to £10,000. They bring in a general Criminal Justice Bill and simply raise the level of fines, which applies to thousands of Acts of Parliament in which the standard scale is imposed. It is therefore convenient to have a fine on the standard scale.
The other point concerns the level of the fine. The sum of £20,000 is fairly hefty and is usually imposed for corporate offences as opposed to those committed by individuals. The exception is gross environmental offences, for which huge fines of £50,000 are imposed. In special cases where one is guilty of allowing leakages from an oil tanker, one can get done for millions, and rightly so. Only in rare circumstances, however, and usually in respect of companies, are fines of that nature made, and fine-only punishment, as opposed to a court-ordered fine and a term of imprisonment, is normally available for such offences. Most fur farmers are individuals, not corporate entities, although there may be sole traders or partnerships. In those circumstances, the £20,000 penalty seems disproportionate and unsuitable.
Last week, we sent to the other place the Breeding and Sale of Dogs (Welfare) Bill, and its maximum penalty is three months' imprisonment and a fine of up to £2,500. Everyone agreed that that is sensible for such commercial activity--a lot of money is to be made by breeding and selling dogs, and more is to be made from mink farming.
Maria Eagle:
I am sorry to make a slightly delayed intervention on the right hon. Gentleman's point about corporate identity, but the fur farmer who was recently found guilty of 15 counts of cruelty was prosecuted as a company--under his corporate identity rather than as an individual--so it is not unknown for existing businesses to have corporate identities. Perhaps a higher fine is appropriate.
Mr. Maclean:
I hear what the hon. Lady says about that case. I do not know whether all 13 fur farms are corporate bodies; I suspect not, because that would be most unusual in any aspect of farming.
Mr. Desmond Swayne (New Forest, West):
I believe that the case to which the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) refers involves a constituent of mine, who was recently fined £5,000, albeit his costs took the total to about £20,000.
Mr. Maclean:
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that information. It is always a source of grief to me that the costs of fighting cases are always greater than the
This point had not occurred to me before: it should be possible for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the SVS, when investigating, to pin many offences, over a continuing period, on someone who has been convicted of a cruelty offence. Would keeping animals improperly be one offence? Could charges be made in respect of every single animal and over a long period? I am not sure whether such a provision applies in the Bill.
For example, would one offence have been committed by someone continuing to run a mink farm with 100 mink illegally for 100 days, or would offences have been committed in respect of all the mink over those 100 days? I will happily take advice on that from the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle). If a separate offence applies to each animal kept, and not merely one offence of being an illegal mink farmer is committed, the scale of fines could mount up.
'level 5 on the standard scale or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months, or both.'.
'level 5 on the standard scale'.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |