| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham): Denmark, Finland, Italy and Spain have made observations and France has volunteered a detailed opinion about the Bill. When do the Government intend publicly to reply to those representations?
In the interim, will the Minister cease to advance the public morality argument, in the evident absence of a credible precedent for its use? Would not it be helpful in informing the debate if the Government published the legal advice they have received that apparently enables the Minister confidently to assert that the Bill conforms to the European convention on human rights?
Mr. Morley: I can certainly repeat that assertion. The hon. Gentleman may be aware that it is a convention that the Government do not publish their legal advice--a convention to which Conservative Governments have adhered in the past. The Government's response to the observations he mentioned is imminent, and we shall ensure that the European Union receives that response. While it is true that France submitted a detailed observation, including objections to the Bill, the hon. Gentleman did not mention that the Netherlands has made a submission that supports our position and backs our arguments. I stress that it is the Government's view that the Bill is compatible with the treaty of Rome and the European convention on human rights.
The Bill will make it a criminal offence, in England and Wales, to keep animals solely or primarily for slaughter for the value of their fur or for breeding progeny for such slaughter. It will provide a winding-down period extending at least until the end of 2002, and will allow the Minister to make a scheme providing for compensation for certain categories of loss. I understand
that the Scottish Executive will introduce legislation to ban fur farming in Scotland. Consultation in Scotland revealed unanimous support for such a measure.
Mr. Owen Paterson (North Shropshire): The Minister is responsible for ensuring that a raft of European Union and British law on the welfare of caged animals is properly enforced. How can it be that rabbit A, kept in one cage under those regulations, can be raised and slaughtered for its fur legally, but--if the Bill is passed--the keeping of rabbit B, in an adjacent cage under the same conditions and monitored by the Minister, would attract a £20,000 fine for the person responsible, if he or she were caught? How can that possibly be logical?
Mr. Morley: The hon. Gentleman takes a simplistic view of the matter, which is unfortunately not unusual. It is our intention to end the fur farming of all species in this country. Cases in which the animal is not farmed predominantly for their fur, but in which the fur or hide is a by-product, will not be affected by the Bill. If we argue that we are against the breeding of animals for fur on moral grounds, we cannot have exceptions for certain species. The legislation must apply to all species. In the past, some species farmed for fur have clearly been kept in conditions that were not acceptable under any welfare standards in the modern age. Other species could be farmed in the future in this country, unless we have such a prohibition in place. Therefore, there is a sound and logical argument for applying the Bill to all fur farming in the UK.
Mr. James Gray (North Wiltshire): The Minister will be aware that because of the current state of the sheepmeat market some sheep are kept specifically for the purpose of producing sheepskin. Will that be banned?
Mr. Morley: I am not aware that sheep are skinned in the production of wool. The skins are a by-product of the slaughter industry, and sheep are not kept predominantly for that purpose. Sheep have no bearing on the Bill.
At present, only mink are farmed solely or primarily for their fur in the UK. There are currently 13 licensed mink farms in England and none in Wales. Other animals which can be farmed for their fur include arctic fox, chinchilla, raccoon dog, sable and fisher.
It is not intended to prohibit the keeping of animals where the primary purpose is the production of meat, with fur production as a secondary purpose, as is generally the case, for example, with the farming of rabbits, as I have already stressed. Nor--in response to the point made by the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray)--will the Bill ban the production of fur or wool which can be clipped or shorn without slaughtering the animal, for example, the fur of angora rabbits or alpacas.
Mr. Gray: I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way a second time, and I am sorry that I did not express myself more clearly earlier. I was not referring to sheep that are shorn for their wool, but to the substantial number of sheep that are kept specifically to be slaughtered so that their skin can be used for such things as sheepskin coats. I hope that I have spelt that out sufficiently clearly for the Minister, who obviously did not understand me before. Will that practice be banned by the Bill?
Mr. Morley: I am not aware of any farmer who keeps sheep with the primary or sole purpose of producing
fleeces. Sheep predominantly are reared for meat. They are sent to slaughterhouses, and fleeces are a by-product. In that respect, they will not be caught by the Bill.The import and export of fur products will not be affected by the Bill, as they are outside its scope.
The Bill has seven clauses. Clause 1 creates a primary offence of keeping animals primarily for slaughter for the value of their fur, or for breeding progeny for such slaughter. Moreover, I can tell the hon. Member for North Wiltshire that a sheep farm set up for no other purpose than to produce fleece coats would certainly be prohibited by the Bill.
It is immaterial whether the keeper or another person carries out the slaughter. Clause 1 also creates the secondary offence of knowingly causing or permitting another person to keep animals for the prohibited purpose. Both offences can be committed by a company or an individual.
A person who keeps animals partly for slaughter for the value of their fur and partly for another purpose will be guilty of the offence only if slaughter is the primary purpose for keeping the animals. Under no circumstances that I know of does that happen in relation to sheep.
The definition of "value" is the commercial value of the fur. We anticipate that there will be relatively few cases in which a person is guilty of the secondary offence. An example would be where the director of an overseas company might have caused the company to have committed that offence. For both the primary and the secondary offences, the penalty on conviction is a fine not exceeding £20,000.
Clause 2 gives the court power to make an order for the forfeiture and destruction or other disposal of the animals following conviction for either the primary or secondary offence. A person claiming to have an interest in the animals may apply to the court to resist the making of a forfeiture order.
Clause 3 deals with the effect of a forfeiture order. It provides a right of appeal to the Crown court for anyone claiming to have an interest in the animals being forfeited.
Clause 4 gives a power of entry and inspection to enable the evidence of an offence to be gathered, and gives a power to enter premises to carry out a forfeiture order. Intentionally obstructing or delaying any person in the exercise of either power of entry will be an offence. The maximum penalty for such offences will be a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale, which at present is £1,000.
Clause 5 requires the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to make a scheme for paying compensation to fur farmers who incur losses as a result of the banning of fur farming. The clause also allows the National Assembly for Wales to make a compensation scheme.
Mr. John Burnett (Torridge and West Devon): The Minister will recall that he and I discussed compensation and other matters in relation to the original Bill. Will he elaborate on that point later in his speech?
Mr. Morley: I can deal with that point now. The original Bill was put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle). I pay
tribute to the work that she did in bringing the Bill forward and exploring many of the arguments. The original Bill did not provide for compensation for income forgone. When that Bill was being considered in Committee, I gave an undertaking that the Government would consider an amendment that would not rule out the provision of compensation for income forgone. Provision for potential compensation for income forgone has been made available as part of the detail of the Bill.
Mr. Burnett: Given the draconian nature of Bill, surely it is only fair that people should be compensated on an arm's-length basis? That means that they would receive the market price for a business sold as a going concern.
Mr. Morley: The Bill contains provision to set up a compensation scheme. There will, of course, be consultation with interested parties about the nature of the scheme, and about how it should be constructed. There will also be provision for independent arbitration, and a reference to the Lands Tribunal. I think that that covers the hon. Gentleman's point.
We are trying to be as fair as possible about this. That is why the Fur Breeders Association of the United Kingdom has written to the Government saying that although the abolition of fur farming would not of course be its preferred option, it wants the Bill to progress. There has been an element of doubt and uncertainty in relation to their members' businesses, which, it is quite right and proper, should be addressed as speedily as possible by the House.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |