| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Julian Brazier (Canterbury): Does not the hon. Gentleman see an inconsistency between admitting that legislation on fur farms is already in place and has led to convictions in some cases, and supporting a Government who allow the free import of meat from many parts of the world, including other parts of Europe, where animal welfare standards are abysmal?
Mr. Steinberg: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. I only wish that the Government had the power to prevent such meat from coming into the country. We do not have that power, but we have the power to prevent mink farming. That is within our jurisdiction. If he wants to introduce a private Member's Bill to stop the imports that he describes, I shall support him vigorously.
Mink farmers have had the entire 20th century to meet the standards, and have not done so. That answers the hon. Gentleman's point. Under existing legislation, convictions for cruelty still take place. Clearly, that legislation has not worked.
Mr. Gray: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. It is a tragedy that many people in Britain are cruel to their pet dogs. Plainly, the legislation to prevent cruelty to pet dogs is not working. Would he argue that we should ban the keeping of pet dogs, because some people are cruel to them?
Mr. Steinberg: I would certainly ban some people from keeping pet dogs. Again, if the hon. Gentleman wants to do something about that, I shall support him. I entirely agree that there are many people in this country who are irresponsible and should not be allowed anywhere near a dog, let alone be allowed to keep one.
Every chance has been given to stop cruelty to mink, without success. The end product is by no means a necessity. It is not a by-product of a farm that is producing food or fulfilling any useful need. I cannot support the continuance of what might be described as vanity farming, considering all that the animals go through so that what some people consider a superior item of clothing can be produced.
Over the years, there have been many campaigns on the issue, with many memorable slogans. Perhaps the one that most people remember is that fur coats are worn by beautiful animals and ugly people--a powerful statement, but perhaps a little unfair. It should say ugly, naive and uninformed people, but the general point is strong.
As for compensation, I have heard the argument that there should be none, as fur farmers have exploited the animals for long enough and made enough money out of it not to be compensated. However, I do not accept that. If the ban is successful, there is a legitimate need to
compensate those who will lose their livelihood as a result of the legislation. All fur farmers are entitled to compensation, but it will not be automatic. The Bill should make it automatic.I understand that some kennel owners wanted compensation after the introduction of the passports for pets scheme, but were unsuccessful on the grounds that that was only part of their business. For some fur farmers, that is their entire business. Compensation will help them to get out of the industry or to diversify into some other form of farming or trade.
For many people in this country, fur farming is an awful, unnecessary trade. However, those who undertake it are currently entitled to do so by law. They should therefore be reimbursed accordingly. I understand that even the Fur Breeders Association wants the law sooner rather than later, because the current uncertainty makes life hard for those who are left in the business.
I hope that hon. Members will support the Bill. It is said that the extent to which a country is civilised can by judged by its treatment of animals. In many ways, we should be ashamed of ourselves. Let us consider my part of the country. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals recently conducted a survey, which found that some people in the north-east of England treated animals disgracefully. I wish that we could stop all cruelty.
Tonight we have a duty to show an example and make it clear that animal cruelty cannot be condoned in any form, regardless of where it takes place. I am confident that hon. Members will support the Bill vigorously, and that it will not be long before we are back again to abolish another obscenity--fox hunting. We are a civilised country; I presume we are a civilised House. Let us prove that by walking through the Lobby together tonight and ending the awful, unnecessary trade of fur farming.
5.31 pm
Mr. Norman Baker (Lewes): I welcome the fact that the Government have finally found a slot in their timetable to discuss the Bill. I introduced a measure to outlaw fur farming in the 1997 Session. It was vetoed by the Labour Whips, allegedly because it was badly drafted. However, they made no attempt to improve it.
We are considering an issue that affects few people in this country. Mink were first introduced to the United Kingdom by fur farmers in 1929. Forty years later, there were more than 600 farms. However, several high-profile campaigns and a clear change in the public mood meant that, by 1982, there were only 68 farms. Now there are only 13.
Public disquiet is not felt only by animal welfare "terrorists" as the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss), the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman, rather unwisely and unfortunately called them. The majority of the public--75 per cent. in the most recent MORI poll--believe that fur farming should be banned. We must take that view into account. The Farm Animal Welfare Council, which is the advisory body to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, condemned fur farming and refused to issue guidelines for the welfare of the animals.
Our debate is not about the fate of 13 individuals or fur farms. Thirteen is such a small number that the Treasury should be able to find sufficient compensation for those farmers. I hope that the Bill will provide for proper compensation. The farmers are currently undertaking a legal activity, which they will be unable to continue when the Bill is passed. They should therefore be compensated.
The debate is about when it is right to ban a legal activity. Parliament should be careful before taking such a step. We are considering when it should be right to impose such a ban. That gives rise to genuine philosophical divisions, not necessarily on party lines. The Minister made an interesting distinction, which I have not heard him make previously, between animals that are reared for food production and those that are reared for what he described as non-essential production. On that basis, the Government should introduce a Bill to ban fox hunting and other forms of hunting. If that is the Government's basis for outlawing fur farming, we must ask why they are not introducing a measure to ban hunting. If they want to be consistent, they should. They have not done so, but if they do, I imagine that those who run hunt kennels will be compensated. Our approach to such matters should be consistent.
Mr. Hunter: I, too, am fascinated by the Government's argument, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman could widen his thoughts. Why should a distinction be drawn between what is essential and non-essential only in farming? For example, I am tempted to say that homosexuality is non-essential, so why do not the Government ban homosexuality?
Mr. Baker: The Bill does not have 28 clauses, so I shall sidestep that intervention, which takes us a long way from fur farming. I am sure that you would rule me out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I attempted to deal with that point.
The genuine debate is about the extent to which animals have rights. People talk about animal rights or animal welfare, but they are not quite the same. Animals have rights and we, the human race, have to ensure that our behaviour does not remove their basic freedoms. I fully respect the fact that that is not the view of other hon. Members.
Mr. Bercow: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that rights are always and everywhere the converse of obligations?
Mr. Baker: I think that I would, if I fully understood the legal term that the hon. Gentleman uses, but rights apply to those who are in charge of a situation and to those who are subject to it. Therefore, our role--and subsequently that of the courts--is to balance that. If we accept that animals are not the same as agricultural goods, we have to deal with them differently.
Animals were defined as agricultural goods in the treaty of Rome, but that definition was subsequently changed so that they are now classed as sentient beings. I am very glad about that change, which was the result of pressure from a range of people, including members of my party. Animals should not be regarded in the same way as potatoes, so it was unfortunate that the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire suggested that animals are possessions. That is out of line with EU definitions.
We should recognise that animals can feel and that they suffer if certain basic requirements are not met. They are not the same as inanimate possessions, so we are in different territory, which is why it is right to consider banning activities that are detrimental to animals and why I favour a ban, even though it is not the natural Liberal inclination to ban things. This is a difficult conundrum, but it is clear that such a ban is justified.
I have mentioned public perception. The latest poll shows that, as well as 75 per cent. of British people thinking that fur farming should be banned, only 4 per cent. ever wear fur and 85 per cent. think that the trapping of animals for fur should be banned. We should take account of public opinion, and it is clearly on one side of the argument.
The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire made some interesting points on the legal position and I hope that the Minister will reply to those genuine questions.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |