MINK AND COYPUS (Hansard, 7 December 1967)

§ The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Mackie)
I beg to move, That the Mink (Importation and Keeping) Order, 1967, a copy of which was laid before this House on 31st October, be approved. I would suggest, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it would be convenient to discuss at the same time the following Order:
That the Copyus (Importation and Keeping) Order, 1967, a copy of which was laid before this House on 31st October, be approved.
One thing which can be said about the House of Commons is that if one does not like one bit of business but waits for the next, one will find that it is bound to be different, and one could not have a greater difference than that between double taxation and the destruction of Imported animals.
These Orders renew for a further five years from 1st January, 1968, powers which expire on 31st December, 1967, to prohibit the importation into and the keeping of coypus and mink in Great Britain except under licence.
Coypus and mink which escaped from fur farms, mainly before 1962, are continuing to breed in the wild. Coypus are now largely confined to a small area in the Norfolk Broads, as a result of a co-ordinated drive conducted by the Ministry between 1962 and 1965, but unless they are firmly controlled they could again overrun large areas of East Anglia and cause damage to river banks and farm crops. I should like to take this opportunity of paying tribute to the local drainage authorities and rabbit clearance societies which, with the support of farmers and others, are working hard to hold the line.
Wild mink are present in over half the counties of England and Wales, and in many parts of Scotland. They kill poultry and they kill freshwater fish. We are making considerable efforts to bring under control these animals living in the wild, and, despite their uneven distribution, just over 1,000 were trapped in Great Britain during 1966, and a similar number is expected to be trapped 1822 this year. I hope that the House will agree that it is essential to continue these efforts, and to regulate the keeping of captive coypus and mink so as to minimise the risk of escapes.
There are at present only 32 holders of licences to keep coypus, all in England and Wales, but there are some 330 licensed mink keepers, of whom over 50 are in Scotland. Escapes from mink farms do occur, but they are relatively rare, and the animals are usually recovered.
The Destructive Imported Animals Act, 1932, empowers the Minister and the Secretary of State jointly to prohibit or regulate the importation and keeping of non-indigenous mammals with destructive habits, and to take steps to destroy any found at large. It was designed as a defence against the muskrat, but wisely made provision for its extension by order to other destructive alien animals.
If the House approves the renewal of these two Orders we propose to renew the present regulations authorising the importation of mink provided that they are kept so as to prevent their escape, since we have no wish to place unnecessary restrictions on the fur breeding industry. There are virtually no imports of coypus now, but a licence would be required to import any. Regulations under the Act will also be made again to prescribe the manner in which coypus and mink may be kept in Great Britain and the precautions to be taken to prevent their escape. The draft regulations have been the subject of consultation with the Fur Breeders' Association.
The National Farmers' Union and the Nature Conservancy have been consulted, and support the renewal of these Orders. In England and Wales the power to destroy coypus and mink found on land will be delegated to county agricultural executive committees.
I hope that, with these remarks, the House will see the need to continue the controls specified in the two Orders.

§ Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine (Rye)
When the question of these Orders came before the House on 10th July, 1962, there were 16 speeches made from the two sides. It may comfort the hon. Gentleman if I assure him that it seems 1823 unlikely that there will be quite so much said tonight. He may take some credit for that, inasmuch as it appears that the Orders are receiving approval. Otherwise, there would be more hon. Members present to have something to say about them.
In the debate in 1962, there was one rather important contribution made by the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. John Mackie), which, perhaps, has not received careful consideration from the Joint Parliamentary Secretary. He took the opportunity to tell his right hon. Friend the Member for Workington, now the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture, that he had missed an important point, which the hon. Member for Enfield, East went on to expound in these terms. … so far in the debate tonight no objection has been raised to the spending of taxpayers' money because those engaged in a luxury trade have allowed the brutes to escape to the detriment of agriculture. I protest most strongly at the fact that spokesmen of neither Front Bench have raised this point. I would tax those engaged in this luxury trade for allowing their animals to escape."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th July, 1962; Vol. 662, c. 1287–8] I felt that I should not be doing my duty if I did not at least draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to that speech, which took him about three minutes to deliver.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture at that time, now Lord Inglewood but then the hon. Member for Westmorland, said that the Order would cost £20,000 a year for two years, and "then we could look at it again". He went on to say that he hoped that, "after two years, we should see substantial progress". Two years later, in July, 1964, we all had our minds on rather higher things, perhaps, than coypus and mink, but I should like the hon. Gentleman to tell us why there has not, apparently, been a review at the end of the two years. Could it be that the measures which are being taken have not been as successful as was then hoped? The hon. Gentleman has told us that these animals are breeding over widely scattered areas in England, Wales and Scotland.
According to my information, there are eight men employed full time by his Ministry in dealing with this problem. May we have an assurance that these men 1824 are winning the battle? Or do the figures give cause for anxiety? If it should be that the populations of mink and coypus in the country are not being kept down, in due course, or fairly soon, perhaps, they will come to be regarded as fauna of this country and have to be treated in the same way as rats. That could mean that the occupiers or owners would be responsible for getting rid of them, and it would probably mean that the Ministry would have to give grant aid.
First, then, is the Ministry taking the matter seriously? What action does the Minister propose to take if the figures do not give encouragement in the coming months?
Second, what about notifications by occupiers under the Destructive Imported Animals Act, 1932? Is the Minister receiving the notifications he would like? Has he an indication of how many notifications are made under that Act? This could be an important contribution to the battle for control of both animals.
Third, a word about licences. I understand that the proposal is that the licence fee will be trebled this year and in the subsequent year it will again be doubled. This is a fairly substantial increase in licence fees. If they have remained at the original figure since 1962, why has the Minister suddenly decided that there must be these substantial increases during the next two years?
Lord Inglewood said during the last debate that the purpose of the licensing system is to enable us to know where the animals are being kept …".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th July, 1962; Vol. 662, c. 1301.] that the code was being followed and that there was proper fencing. Is it that costs are going up for the Ministry? Is that the justification for the steep increases in the licences?
Of the mink produced in this country 85 per cent. go for export and the price since last year has dropped by 30 per cent. The President of the Board of Trade is helping the Fur Breeders' Association in preparing evidence on behalf of the mink breeders for submission to the American Tariff Commission. The President of the Board of Trade is encouraging mink breeders to export and it would appear that the Parliamentary Secretary and the Ministry are doing 1825 just the opposite and discouraging them by steeply increasing the cost of the licences. Subject to assurances on these three points, I have no hesitation in commending the Orders to the House.

§ Mr. John Mackie
I will be brief in reply. The remarks that the hon. Member for Rye (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine) made about what I said in 1962 shows how careful one must be when saying things in Opposition. The hon. Member need be much less careful because he has little chance of getting across to this side of the House. The reason that there was no review after two years was the reason he gave. We were preoccupied with other things in the Ministry and we did not get around to it.
I assure the hon. Member we are managing to contain coypus and the campaign in the Norfolk area was successful. The total cost was £70,000 but we thought that it was worth it. Now it has mainly been left to the rabbit clearance societies to deal with the matter and they are containing them well. We must continue this battle, because they could become a menace again.
We have a job in dealing with mink because they are spread over wide areas while other huge areas have none. In areas where they are prominent we have killed quite a few. We think that we are containing them and this is why we want the licence put up so that we can see that the conditions for keeping mink are observed so as to avoid escapes. We have no reason to think that we are not getting notifications from the public about escapes and mink infestations. Generally speaking, because of the danger and damage that they do, we get notification quickly.
These days everybody tries to cost things and charge people what they cost. Because of the risks we have to make a number of visits to see that the conditions of licences are being carried out. We have costed the operation and we find that it costs roughly £6 a licence to carry out inspections and so on. We felt that it was hard to push up the fee straight away from £5 for five years, which is £1 a year, so we are pushing it up next year to £3 a year and it will go up to £6 the year after.
1826 I said in 1962 that mink was a luxury trade and we see no reason why mink farmers should not be able to meet this figure. I do not think that it will have any effect on the export effort, although I will in no way belittle that. It is moving towards £1 million and is around £780,000 to £800,000. This is a substantial sum from a small business like mink farming and we do not want to inhibit the fur trade.