Previous SectionIndexHome Page


Mr. Moss: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those details. The Government have completely ignored the NFU's recommendations.

The Government do not intend to introduce regulations. They hardly bother to justify their actions by reference to the welfare of mink on those farms. They know only too well that conditions are not wholly unacceptable; many farms are operating on lines identical to those of their European competitors. However, if there was an overriding animal welfare case for more stringent regulations and tighter controls, those measures would find acceptance on this side of the House, with the NFU and--I suspect--with fur farmers.

Why do the Government not take that road? One cannot but conclude that they are hung up on some warped ideology and skewered on the peg of political correctness.

The Bill is poorly drafted. Despite warnings during proceedings on the private Member's Bill last year, it is still not clear whether other farmers could inadvertently be caught by its provisions. There is a potential problem for farmers who breed rabbits for both meat and fur; they could find themselves on the wrong side of the law, if--when the value of the fur exceeded that of the rabbit meat--they could be accused under clause 1 of keeping animals


That problem could be overcome if the measure specified the species of animal to which it applies, rather than introducing a generalised catch-all. One is left feeling puzzled as to why the Government have not tried to rectify that anomaly.

15 May 2000 : Column 48

Not only is the Bill poorly drafted, it is conceptually and legally flawed. Its conceptual flaw is that no reasoned justification has been given--although the Minister had ample opportunity to give one in his opening remarks. Its legal flaw is that it appears to run counter to European Union legislation.

A most telling contribution to the debate, and to discussion of fur farming in general, lies in an illuminating and interesting memorandum, dated 7 December 1999, from the legal experts of COPA--the Committee of Agriculture Organisations in the European Community--and COGECA--the General Committee for Agricultural Co-operatives in the EU--on the legality of national welfare measures from an EC perspective.

The key legal position is set out in Council directive 98/58/EC, which aims to establish common minimum standards for the protection of animals kept for fur farming. Under the directive, a member state can apply stricter provisions for the protection of animals kept for farming purposes within its own territories, but that opportunity is limited--this is the important point--by articles 28 and 29 of the EC treaty, as well as by the general principles of Community law; for example, the principles of proportionality and non-discrimination as defined by the Court of Justice.

Articles 28 and 29 refer to changes in the national production of certain products, including a ban that would influence trade between member states and could thus be construed as having an effect equivalent to quantitative restrictions. As for non-discrimination--one of the fundamental principles of Community law--comparable situations should not be differently treated unless the difference is objectively justified. The Commission's memorandum states:


Perhaps the most telling judgment in the memorandum is that which refers to proportionality. In the view of its authors:


Furthermore, the authors point out:


Those are truly damning indictments. There can have been few, if any, Second Readings of a Bill on which the Minister involved has given such a totally unsatisfactory and poorly reasoned justification for legislation as that given by the Minister today.

Maria Eagle (Liverpool, Garston): If I have caught the tenor of the hon. Gentleman's remarks correctly, he seems to be suggesting that the Opposition will oppose the Bill. Will he explain why, in the previous Session when I was the Member in charge of a Bill that was almost exactly similar, the Opposition did not oppose it?

Mr. Moss: The hon. Lady will have to wait until the end of the debate to find out what will happen. In the main, we oppose the Bill, but we shall not vote against its Second Reading; there will be a free vote.

Mr. Nicholls: My hon. Friend, whose researches have obviously been legion, will recall that, when I was the

15 May 2000 : Column 49

Opposition spokesman on this subject, I said that the previous Bill's supporters had to answer a number of questions. To the best of my knowledge, those questions have yet to be answered. Is that not the answer to the hon. Lady's point?

Mr. Moss: My hon. Friend's point is well made.

Last year, on the Second Reading of the previous Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill, which was promoted by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle), the Minister spoke of the Government's determination to end fur farming, primarily on animal welfare grounds. The Government's emphasis now, in justifying this Bill, has been on the grounds of public morality. They have said--the Minister reiterated these points today--that they remain


and that


However, as I have pointed out by quoting from the Commission's memorandum, the public morality line--lifted, it would seem, by a rather desperate Government from article 30 of the EC treaty--would certainly be challenged, and would most likely fail, under the tests of non-discrimination and proportionality. As my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) pointed out, Finland, Italy, Spain and Denmark have written to the Commission about the Bill and sent in their observations, while France, as the Minister confirmed, has submitted a detailed opinion. Because a detailed opinion has been sent, it is my understanding--perhaps the Minister could confirm this when he winds up--that the Government cannot approve the Bill until June. Meanwhile, they are obliged to respond to that French detailed opinion. The Minister confirmed that the Government have not done that yet, so it may help us to know when the Government propose to ask for the detailed opinion from France.

So that there is no doubt as to what is covered in directive 98/58/EC, I make it clear that its definition relates to all animals


However, the memorandum to which I referred earlier points out:


The Minister's own advisers and the other civil servants in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food must have serious reservations about the Bill. If they are so confident that it conforms to European law, why did they think it necessary to notify the Commission about it? Why was it also deemed necessary to include in the Bill a statement from the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on his interpretation of the European convention on human rights? That is certain to be tested in court, as the Bill appears to breach a fundamental right guaranteed under protocol 1, article 1, which states:


15 May 2000 : Column 50

In light of the Minister's failure to address those legal questions, we--along with the National Farmers Union--call on the Government to publish the legal advice from which they concluded that the proposed ban was compatible with EU law.

Given the sheer weight of that legal opinion from the EU, one is horrified and perplexed by the Government's attitude. Why are they blindly pressing ahead with the Bill, which was not a manifesto commitment, although it was mentioned in Labour party dispatches? It will not influence the wearing of fur--which, apparently, is now on the increase--or affect fur farming elsewhere in the EU. The Bill will simply hand an increased market share of fur production and trade to our EU competitors. As I have said, it has already provoked a reaction from other fur-producing countries, which are now committed to taking the Government to the European Court.

If the Bill is passed, compensation to producers--to which I shall return later--will entail a cost to the taxpayer. Sums ranging from £500,000 to £5 million, which could be much better spent on other Government services, will be involved. What are the Government's priorities? What is one to make of a Government who set as a priority for parliamentary time a Bill that will, on the spurious grounds of public morality, rob of their livelihoods 13 innocent farmers who are operating legally--especially as regards EU law?

The issue is no longer one of animal welfare. The living conditions of mink on fur farms are not in question. The Bill demonstrates the Government's fixation with presentation, which they put above substance, and with populism, which they put above the rights of minorities.


Next Section

IndexHome Page