| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Morley: May I, once again, reassure the hon. Gentleman that the EU uses a number of definitions? He is casting aspersions on the magistrates of Shropshire if he thinks that they cannot tell the difference between a sheep and a fur-bearing animal. That would be incredible. He ought to stick to the point and try to make some progress with it, bearing in mind that the Fur Breeders Association, the NFU and a great many interested people want the Bill to progress. They do not want him to waste time in this ludicrous way.
Mr. Paterson: I am not satisfied by that response. The fact stands that an animal could be raised for the value of its covering. The keratinous material, which the Minister calls wool--
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Chair will not be satisfied if the hon. Gentleman repeats that point. We are concerned with the new schedule and whether certain animals should be included in it--that, and that alone.
Mr. Paterson: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was discussing the list of animals in the new schedule tabled by my right hon. Friends the Members for Penrith and The Border and for Bromley and Chislehurst, which I have already said is inadequate. It should also be made absolutely clear which bovine species are exempt. It would be possible to raise them in this country for the value of their fur.
One final item is also not clear--the question of slinks, which are young sheep that die in the womb or shortly after birth. It is possible that slinks could be caught up in the Bill's provisions unless the new schedule is improved.
Mr. Maclean:
The amendment and the new schedule, and the concept and principle behind them, are important. I want to discuss some of the species in the new schedule and to deal with some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson). I think that he is right in some areas, but, if I may say so, wrong in some others.
We have proposed this new schedule because we think that it is a better way in which to deal with the problem than the hon. Lady's general catch-all provision in clause 1, which states:
One of the best examples of that is the rabbit--not the common rabbit, oryctolagus cuniculus, but more specialised rabbits, such as the Rex rabbit or Orylag, about which I have had information from the French. There is also the Angora rabbit. I can do no better than to quote from the "Encyclopaedia Britannica", which says:
The Angora rabbit and the Orylag have fur as opposed to any other covering, and they could inadvertently be caught by the terminology in the Bill. It may be legitimate and sensible to farm those rabbits. There may be no welfare problems at all. If there are welfare problems in keeping rabbits in cages, I hope that the hon. Lady and the Government will pursue the 2 million school children who keep rabbits in cages. If we need the terminology in clause 1, or in my new schedule, to deal with the welfare problem of keeping furry animals in cages, the Bill should not stop at animals such as mink: it should, on moral and ethical grounds, cover rabbits kept as pets.
I shall not go further down that road, because that concept should be discussed on Third Reading. Clause 1 deals with what the hon. Lady sees as the evil of keeping fur-farmed animals in cages, where it is not appropriate to keep them. She believes that their natural habitat cannot be recreated and they cannot satisfy their natural inclinations in farmed conditions.
The best way in which to ensure that the hon. Lady outlaws only the practice that she wants to outlaw--mink may be the prime consideration, as that is the only species of animal that is farmed in this country for its fur, although others have been--is not to use the broad catch-all terminology of "fur", which may inadvertently catch other animals, but to adopt the approach that I have suggested in the new schedule. Amendment No. 9 states that
Unless the strength of the Minister's Department has declined considerably in the last two years--which, admittedly, would not surprise me--I can vouch for the capability of the specialists to whom it has recourse to come up with a comprehensive catalogue of the species that need to be listed when the Department concludes that there is a possibility of their being farmed by British farmers, and that it would be impossible to meet essential welfare conditions if--in the opinion of the specialists and the Minister--they continued to be farmed. That would permit the farming of certain species in the case of which no harm to welfare would be involved. I assume that rabbits would be one of those species.
I do not know how many hundreds of thousands of farmed rabbits are being bred for their meat. The trade may have declined; I am not sure of the latest figures. In any event, although the Government may not be subsidising the trade, they carry out inspections and permit people to farm lots of furry rabbits for their meat, irrespective of the pet trade.
Mr. Vernon Coaker (Gedling):
Does the right hon. Gentleman not accept that the vast majority of people, sensibly and practically, see a difference between farming animals for food and farming them for their fur?
Mr. Maclean:
I am not sure what has led the hon. Gentleman to that conclusion. I have seen no opinion polls--in any event, they may not be the best way of judging opinion, as the results depend on what is asked--or any comprehensive studies that suggest that. However, if people were asked whether it was more important for animals to be kept for essential food purposes or for women to be able to wear furs around their necks, no doubt most of them would say that food was more important.
Mrs. Linda Gilroy (Plymouth, Sutton):
I have here a document bearing the signatures of some 7,000 people, including 40 secured by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). There is significant support for the Bill throughout the country.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. Before the right hon. Gentleman replies to the question, he should bear in mind that this is a Second Reading point. Let us return to the amendment.
Mr. Maclean:
I am afraid that I cannot respond to either of the points that have been made, as they would lead me slightly astray.
Let me just say that my list does not contain 7,000 species. The Cumbria branch of the Women's Institute has secured 20,000 supporters, and I do not consider it very telling that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy) has managed to secure only 7,000, given that each of our constituencies contains 70,000 people.
There are ways and means of securing what the hon. Member for Garston wants, and I feel that my new schedule represents a better approach than the catch-all banning of fur. That is a broad-brush approach that would catch some species accidentally.
Let me make another point, which I do not think strays from what was said by the hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker). If it is wrong to keep furry animals in cages for non-food purposes, we should presumably consider banning pet animals altogether. Rabbits are kept in cages not for food purposes, but to give enjoyment to people who find them amusing as company. I know that rabbits and other pets can be kept in cages safely and well, and that there is no harm in that--although those who do not keep them well should be punished. But the Government are not trying to ban the keeping of thousands of rabbits in cages for food purposes--and I think that the food would be for animal consumption.
Mr. Morley:
It is for human consumption.
"A person is guilty of an offence if he keeps animals solely or primarily . . . for slaughter . . . for the value of their fur".
Arguments have been made about keeping animals solely or primarily for the value of their fur, and we believe that that terminology can inadvertently cover some other animals.
"Rabbit fur, sometimes called lapin, is used in the fur industry and is also a primary source of fibre for the manufacture of felt. Rabbit flesh, which is delicately flavoured, is often eaten by man. About 30 breeds and almost 80 varieties of domestic rabbits are recognized . . . Among the better known breeds are the Angora rabbit, a long-haired rabbit kept mainly for its fur and meat, and the New Zealand rabbit, a breed kept for its meat and fur and also for show".
Like other rabbits it is kept for laboratory use. Thankfully, that is not the subject of today's discussion.
"except where the context otherwise requires, any reference to 'animals' shall be a reference to any of the species of animal specified in the Schedule to this Act."
The Minister has been slightly grumpy this morning. He should take a lesson from his hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) the promoter of the Bill. She has been courteous throughout our consideration of the Bill. All of us could learn a lesson from the hon. Lady's demeanour.
2 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |