| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
10.13 pm
Mr. Cawsey: I have some valued friendships on this side of the House, so I shall be brief. I want to say a few words on Third Reading because I missed Second Reading due to an unexpected hospitalisation. While I managed to wangle a discharge to get down here in time to vote, the House did not divide on that occasion, which only shows that one cannot rely on the Conservative party for anything these days.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) on all the work that she has done on the Bill. It is only through her determination that we have reached the stage that we are at today. I thank colleagues in the all-party group on animal welfare, which I have the honour to chair, for its support, and I am grateful for support not only in this House but in the other place. We hope that that means that the position looks good for the future.
Mink farms do not replicate the semi-aquatic environment that mink need to thrive. Mink are difficult animals, as all hon. Members have acknowledged. They are non-indigenous, and they can cause mayhem in the country. Conservative Members made much of recent escapes of mink and blamed animal rights groups for them. I agree with my hon. Friend the Minister that all escapes are to be condemned, but it is worth reminding ourselves that historically the feral population of mink came about as a result of poor husbandry on mink farms, not the activities of animal rights groups. So the fact that we have mink in the countryside now is the fault of neither one side nor the other. They are both responsible and all escapes should be condemned. The point is that the only way to prevent future escapes is to ensure that the Bill becomes law and that mink farms are abolished in this country.
The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) referred to the Bill as "an odious little Bill" several times. I disagree with him, although it would be wrong not to say that as he was speaking, the words "little" and "odious" were in my mind.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That was an unworthy remark, and I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it.
Mr. Cawsey: I withdraw it and apologise to the House.
The issue is whether we believe that animals should be kept soley and primarily for the value of their fur. I do not, and I believe that most hon. Members do not. The Bill has warm support in the House, and I hope that it will have support in the other place and that members of the British public will support us for passing it.
10.14 pm
Mr. Hogg: I oppose the Bill. It is quite wrong and I do not resile from my comment that it is an odious little Bill. I oppose it on principle and on grounds of detail. I shall deal first with the detail--I can do so quickly as I have already covered it; it concerns compensation.
Let us be absolutely plain about the matter. The compensation set out in the Bill is quite inadequate. There is an obligation on the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to produce a scheme--that he must do. However, the Bill includes no provision that any particular element of compensation should be incorporated in the scheme. For example, we have been talking about compensation for loss of income, but there is no mandatory obligation on the right hon. Gentleman or his colleagues to include such a measure in the scheme.
Let us be clear too that, subject to any consideration of Lords amendments, this is the last time that the House will discuss the compensation payable under the scheme because, as it will be introduced as a statutory instrument subject to the negative procedure, we simply shall not discuss it.
The scheme will be introduced by a Department operating within financial constraints, in the knowledge that there will be clawback under its budget. We can be sure that the scheme will be a mean one and that we shall have no opportunity whatever to expand on it. The measure is defective in detail because there is no mandatory requirement to include certain desirable elements in the compensation scheme. That is the first point.
The second point is not central, but it is of some importance; it is in regard to Europe. I have come to the view that we should not impose on British producers and farmers unilateral restrictions on grounds of welfare that are not matched by commensurate requirements elsewhere in the European Union. I know perfectly well that I was a member of a Government who did introduce such provisions. We introduced a range of unilateral measures--in respect of pigs, for example--that were not matched in Europe. That was a mistake. At the time, I made it clear that we should not do that again while I was a Minister. I am very much against imposing on UK producers requirements that are not matched in the EU, nor, indeed, outside the EU.
Those are minor points. My main point is that the Bill is wrong in principle. What is the justification for the Bill? We must ask ourselves that question. There are two possible justifications: the first is on welfare grounds; the second is that the practice is unethical, immoral and so on.
I shall deal first with welfare. I listened carefully to the Parliamentary Secretary. I read several of his observations in Committee. I have also read the speeches made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle). She argues the welfare cause rather more than it has been developed by the hon. Gentleman today. However, he made it wholly plain that the welfare arguments are not the crux of the matter. He said that the killing was unnecessary. It is to be banned because it is unethical.
If we were debating the issue on welfare grounds, I should have more sympathy. It is at least possible that mink cannot properly be kept in conditions of captivity. If that were so--if it were a proven fact--I should give serious consideration to a prohibition. However, that is not the case that is being put forward, because--I suspect--of the European dimension.
It could also be said that the animals can be kept only in certain prescribed conditions that might have the effect of making the business uneconomic. If that was the position, I would give that serious consideration too, because if the Bill had a genuine welfare foundation, it would be proper for the House to respond. But I do not actually believe that that is the position.
The position that I believe to be the case--and, to be fair to the Parliamentary Secretary, it is the position that he declared in his Third Reading speech--is that he regards the keeping of these animals for fur as immoral, unethical and improper. In other words, he is elevating his own moral judgment--and, to be fair, that of his hon. Friends too--and saying that because they deem it to be unethical and improper and immoral, it should be made illegal. That is where I really do part company from the hon. Gentleman, on the ground of principle. I believe profoundly in liberty, and in a free society people do have a right to do those things of which other people
disapprove. It is not a free society if the individual is allowed to do only that of which the majority approves. Within a free society one has a right to sin; one has a right to choice; one has a right to make these moral elections. We are being denied that right, and I say that that is profoundly--
Mr. Martlew: The right hon. and learned Gentleman obviously feels very passionately about this. Does he intend to divide the House on the matter?
Mr. Hogg: I will give an honest answer: no, I do not, because I do not have the troops. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton) may find that funny; I am answering the question. I do not intend to divide the House, because the troops are not here with which to divide the House. The point, none the less--[Interruption.] I can be accused of anything, but I cannot be shouted down. I propose to assert a principle.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Let me assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that he will have the help of the Chair in ensuring that neither he nor any other hon. Member will be shouted down in this House.
Mr. Hogg: We are at risk of losing a principle. In a free society, people do have a right to so order their affairs as to do that which they wish to do, unless there is a compelling reason against it. I ask, what is the compelling reason in this case? We know full well that many species and classes of animal are kept in unsatisfactory conditions or in conditions which are not natural, for the use of mankind. We keep chickens in battery cages.
Mr. Morley: I want to make it very clear to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that, in coming to a position of public morality, issues such as welfare and the impact on the environment are all part of taking into account the morality of a decision. Any kind of rearing system which has the effect of animals chewing off their own tails is questionable ethically and morally. How far does the right hon. and learned Gentleman take his position about the freedom of individuals? Is he arguing that people should have the right to use drugs, for example?
Mr. Hogg: The Parliamentary Secretary has given the game away, because if he wants to talk about the conditions of animals, he had better address the keeping of chickens in battery cages. [Hon. Members: "We are."] We are, but let me remind the hon. Gentleman how we are--
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |