| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that information. It is interesting, if not directly related to the amendments.
The point at issue is that we are depriving people of their livelihood and therefore need a Bill that is utterly fair and clear. Unless it is, there will rapidly be a challenge in the European Court of Human Rights. That is all the more likely if, having drawn attention to the point, the Minister is not crystal clear in his answer. I have no doubt that when the European Court considers whether such a case should be brought before it, it will look carefully at the
account of this debate, how the matter was raised, precisely what was said, and the Minister's reply. I look forward with interest to the Minister's reply, and to his response to the amendments on compensation.8.15 pm
Mr. Hogg: I begin with an apology for arriving late. I was attending the puppy show of the Blankney foxhounds. I wanted to do so in order to show my support for fox hunting. When I saw the puppies and reflected that, if a Bill on fox hunting is ever passed, they will not live their natural lives, I felt absolute outrage.
It is entirely right that the House should press the Minister on exactly what is meant in the Bill. My approach is a somewhat narrow one. I begin by asking myself what we are discussing--it is the forfeiture and disposal order. That relates exclusively to the order that will be made by a court on conviction. Therefore, the question that we need to address is what meaning the court will attach to the phrase "other disposal"? The fact that mink farmers might or might not release their animals into the wild is nothing to do with the clause. The only question is what it means for the court.
The principal forfeiture and destruction order is fairly clear. It is the ability to order the death of the animals. That is not very obviously in the interests of animal welfare. Indeed, hundreds of thousands of mink will no doubt be put down as a result of the Bill if it is enacted. I do not understand how that can be justified in animal welfare terms, but I shall address that matter on Third Reading.
What does the phrase "other disposal" mean? Clause l(l) determines that the offence is keeping animals for certain specified purposes. It follows that, if a person is keeping an animal of the kind in question other than for those specified purposes, he or she is not committing an offence. Therefore, the phrase "other disposal" is put there to enable the court to make an order disposing of the animals by entrusting them to a person or groups of persons who can hold them otherwise than in breach of clause 1.
I suppose that what is being contemplated is that a court might wish to make an order directing that the animals be held by a zoo, or that somebody might apply for the animals to be entrusted to them to hold them as pets, and in those circumstances an offence would not be committed. Or, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) said, they might be exported to some country outside the United Kingdom. Those are theoretical options.
We are entitled to say to the Minister that we want to know what is envisaged by the phrase "other disposal". There is a theoretical justification for giving courts such latitude. It may well be that it is sensible to give the animals to a zoo, but it would be helpful for us to be told what is contemplated by the phrase "other disposal". At the moment, other than exporting the animals, giving them away as pets, entrusting them to a zoo or using them for animal experimentation--another possibility on which I should like to hear the Minister--it is difficult to see what is the scope of the phrase, so let us have some guidance.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: My right hon. and learned Friend has thought of another possibility--that the animals might
be given away as pets. Given what I have said about their viciousness, would not a court be acting somewhat irresponsibly if it were to consider that, because mink are wholly unsuitable for that purpose?
Mr. Hogg: I agree with my hon. Friend, but the Bill does not preclude that happening. The Bill is thoroughly bad and I shall say so on Third Reading, but if we are to have it, it is difficult to see why anything other than a destruction order is available to the court. The phrase "other disposal" admits of too much uncertainty and does not give sufficient clarity to the courts. I hope that the amendments will be accepted and that the phrase will be removed. I doubt that it has an effective purpose and I suspect that it produces a lack of clarity, which we would regret.
My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) referred to the dangers of the escape of such animals into the wild. As anyone who knows anything about the countryside knows full well, that is a serious point. If the court makes an order for "other disposal"--not a destruction order but another disposal order--that increases the prospect of the animals escaping into the wild. If, for example, the court makes an order enabling a third party to keep the animals otherwise than for the purposes in clause 1, which is perfectly lawful, who is to say that the animals will be safely contained in their new home? They might escape. Or if, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold said, the order is for export elsewhere, the animals might do a bunk on route, so we will find ourselves faced with escaped animals.
If I am honest, I am bound to say that this is an odious little Bill. It is political correctness run mad, and I hope that the other place kicks it out. Despite its being an odious little Bill, we must give it serious consideration because it is before the House, but the points made by my hon. Friends on the amendment are sound.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: Would my right hon. and learned Friend, who is much more qualified than I am in this respect, care to comment on the last point that I made in my speech--that we need to pass clear legislation in the House, otherwise the challenge in the European Court of Human Rights will be all the greater?
Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend has a point, but I am rather surprised that the Bill is compatible with the European convention on human rights. I observe that there is a declaration of compatibility, but the Parliamentary Secretary will know full well that article 1 of the first protocol--
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are considering the amendments to the Bill, not the Bill in its entirety. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is now dealing with the merits of the Bill.
Mr. Hogg: I was responding to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I should have stopped the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) then.
Mr. Hogg: I should not have given way to my hon. Friend, but it was an enticing question.
I can understand the theoretical purpose for the other disposal order. There may be a theoretical cause for it. The Minister must amplify the theoretical cause with illustrations. Giving the animals to a zoo, transporting them abroad or allowing people to hold them as pets in circumstances not in breach of clause 1(1) are theoretical possibilities, but they are pretty bad ones. In truth, the only appropriate order is a destruction order. If I have the good fortune to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall speak on the matter on Third Reading, but I am bound to say that this is a pretty awful Bill.
Mr. Morley: The debate was not entirely illuminating. The provisions are simple, and the answers to some of the questions are straightforward. The intention is to give the courts the discretion to deal with the disposal of animals, depending on the circumstances of each case.
Most hon. Members have focused on mink, and they are right that humane destruction would be the most appropriate way of dealing with mink in the circumstances that we have considered. In answer to the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson), any destruction would be carried out in accordance with current regulations, which already govern the humane destruction of mink. There will be no change to that.
The hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) was a little confused. We are considering the time when the Bill is in force, and people who deliberately break the law by keeping animals to farm their fur. We are not discussing existing fur farmers, who have a period in which to wind down their business, and will carry on in the usual way under current regulations, which safeguard the welfare of mink.
The only realistic option for mink is probably humane destruction, but other species may be caught by the provisions, and other options may exist for them. It is therefore appropriate to give the courts some discretion to deal with each case on its merits. They will be advised by Ministry officials from the state veterinary service or the Farming and Rural Conservation Agency about the most suitable option. Some organisations or groups might wish to take the animals.
Hon. Members asked about chinchilla, which could possibly be farmed for fur. Chinchilla can make suitable pets. Their case would depend on the number of animals and the availability of disposal. It is appropriate that the courts should be able to exercise their discretion so that the individual merits of each case are considered.
I remind Conservative Members that one of the problems with the Dangerous Dogs Act 1989, which the previous Administration introduced, was that it was too narrow. That Act gave the courts no discretion, or any way of taking individual circumstances into account. Destruction of the animal was the only option available under the Dangerous Dogs Act. We all know the problems that that caused, and why the legislation had to be amended to include the sort of discretion for which the Bill provides. Under the Bill, courts can consider each case on its merits and determine the most appropriate course of action.
It would not be appropriate to export mink that were seized under a forfeiture order. Humane destruction is clearly the most appropriate option in such circumstances.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |