Mink Keeping

HC Deb 08 December 1992 vol 215 cc794-818 10.15 pm

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nicholas Soames)

I beg to move, That the Mink Keeping Order 1992, a copy of which was laid before this House on 25th November, be approved. The order is made under the Destructive Imported Animals Act 1932. It is concerned with ensuring that mink are kept securely under arrangements designed to prevent escapes. The Act itself provides for the keeping of non-indigenous species of mammals to be either prohibited or controlled by licence on the basis of their destructive habits. It does not provide for the keeping of mink to be prohibited for any other reason.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)

What about ferrets?

Mr. Soames

The hon. Gentleman is wrong. This order is not concerned with ferrets, a much-loved national institution, particularly on the Labour side of the House.

The order replaces existing controls for Great Britain which expire on 31 December. If the order were not to be approved, the result would be, not a prohibition on mink keeping, but the absence of any controls on the keeping of mink, including the crucial security requirements.

I hope that it is clear that the welfare of mink is not a subject relevant to the mink keeping order and therefore not relevant to this debate tonight. However, I understand and appreciate that the welfare of fur animals is a subject about which many hon. Members quite rightly have concerns and on which they receive a considerable amount of correspondence, most of which, regrettably, ends up on my desk. I should therefore make the Government's position on welfare quite clear.

In April 1989 the Farm Animal Welfare Council, to whose advice the Government attaches the first importance, published a statement on the welfare of mink and fox, the two species farmed for their fur in this country. While expressing its disapproval of the current methods of fur farming, the council did not recommend that they should be stopped. In August this year the council confirmed that it has not changed its position on this difficult matter. At about this time, the Council of Europe——

Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West)

The Minister just mentioned the Farm Animal Welfare Council. In its report it said that the systems employed did not satisfy some of the most basic criteria for protecting the welfare of farm animals, so what conclusion may be drawn from that? Surely that no mink should be kept for farming purposes.

Mr. Soames

The hon. Member is correct in believing that the council concluded that it did not approve of this sort of farming, but it did not feel that there was sufficient evidence to ask for it to be banned. If I may, I shall come to that matter in more detail later.

At about this time, the Council of Europe was also examining the question of fur farming. In 1990, it adopted a welfare recommendation on fur-bearing animals under the convention for the protection of animals kept for farming purposes.

That recommendation lays down general requirements for the welfare of all fur species. The requirements cover such things as the need for sufficient numbers of stockmen, inspections and general provisions for enclosures in which the animals are kept and management practices. Those requirements are supplemented by appendices laying down more specific details for each type of fur animal.

The European Commission said that it will use that recommendation as the basis for a welfare directive that will set standards for the keeping of fur-bearing animals throughout the Community. However, I am the first to acknowledge that that recommendation from the Council of Europe will not alter significantly the husbandry practices currently used. The Council of Europe, as with the Farm Animal Welfare Council before it—to follow the point made by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks)—found a lack of scientific evidence on which to base requirements for change.

That does not mean that sensible standards cannot be set that improve on the Council of Europe recommendation. It is the Government's clear intention to press for the highest-possible welfare standards for fur farming to be adopted on a Community-wide basis when the Commission's proposals are negotiated in Brussels.

Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South)

Does not the Minister agree that, while waiting for the EEC to produce a directive, the Government should take action to ensure that mink farms are maintained at a decent standard? My information is that the standards on some farms are appalling.

Mr. Soames

The hon. Gentleman is right. We should and do maintain high standards. The state veterinary service and ADAS inspect fur farms every year to ensure not only that the husbandry is correct but that the animal welfare standards are right. I know that the hon. Gentleman is a positive supporter of Europe, and will agree that in such instances it is better to achieve a pan-European initiative rather than forge ahead alone.

Mr. Andrew Bowden (Brighton, Kemptown)

Does my hon. Friend the Minister agree that we are dealing with sentient animals and that it is absolutely obscene to keep them in barren, grotty, small cages? Will he explain why he is not prepared to recommend that mink keeping and mink factory farming should be phased out as quickly as possible?

Mr. Soames

My hon. Friend has a fine record on animal welfare issues, but he ought to know that we are not debating that matter tonight. The debate centres instead on the security required for the keeping of mink. Many people hold views similar to those of my hon. Friend, and we will listen very carefully to them.

Mr. Peter Hardy (Wentworth)

The Minister will confirm that the standards in the Council of Europe report, which I hope will be emulated by the Community at an early date, could serve as the minimum. Nothing in the report prevents the Government from improving on those standards, which were aimed at countries whose standards are perhaps even worse than those found in this country.

Will the Minister, before he sits down, address the question of the adequacy or otherwise of the security requirements? Over the years, a substantial number of mink have escaped, but nobody appears to have been brought to book.

Mr. Soames

I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. He has done an enormous amount of animal welfare work in the Council of Europe, for which we are very grateful. I shall deal with the security issue at some length, if I am allowed to make progress with my speech.

The hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) is right to say that the standards implied by the Council of Europe are minimum standards and there is nothing to stop the Government building on them. In fact, other Community countries are considering doing precisely that. We shall watch with care what transpires.

Mrs. Alice Mahon (Halifax)

The Minister will be aware of the Swalesmoor farm in my constituency and of the problems which it created for me as a constituency Member of Parliament—and which I was not allowed to mention in the recent court case. Apart from the smells, and so on, a major problem was that the farm was not secure and the animals escaped. They wiped out indigenous animals in whole areas. I appealed to the Minister and to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and went through the whole system, but it seemed that no one had any responsibility for ensuring that that hell hole of a farm adhered to the odd regulation that did exist. I know that the Minister has seen the photographs and needs no convincing of what a mess that place was. I know that we will get a fairer hearing in this Chamber than we did in the recent court case.

Mr. Soames

The hon. Lady has considerable experience in this matter because of her constituency interest, but I have to say that the allegations about mink escapes in this country are very much overdone and I have to take issue with the hon. Lady on that point.

Mr. Brian Wilson (Cunninghame, North)

This is perhaps an appropriate point at which to ask the Minister why the Isle of Arran, in my constituency, is excluded from the general prohibition on mink keeping on the islands, in precisely the same way as some 20 years ago. Because a mink farm was established on Arran and the mink escaped, there is a problem already with mink there. It seems to me extremely odd logic to say that, because there are wild mink which people are trying desperately to get rid of, the problem should at some future date be compounded by allowing another mink farm on Arran, whereas it would be impossible on every other Scottish island.

Mr. Soames

It is certainly not an act of personal spite on my part towards the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have a high regard, but I intend to come to the Scottish question a little later. As it is a very important matter, we feel that we should deal with it separately.

Farmed fur animals are protected in the same way as other farmed livestock by the general provisions of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968. This makes it an offence to cause unnecessary pain or unnecessary distress to any livestock on agricultural land. In addition, the Protection of Animals Act 1911 makes it an offence to cause unnecessary suffering to any captive or domestic animal. It also requires the killing of fur animals to be undertaken with great care and all possible humaneness.

Officers of the state veterinary service monitor fur farms, as they do all other livestock farms, to check on compliance with legislation. When visiting fur farms, they use the Council of Europe recommendations as a guide for their inspections. The Mink (Keeping) Order 1987 prohibits absolutely the keeping of mink on all offshore islands of the United Kingdom which have neither mink farms nor a wild population, and in the Scottish highlands where the same situation exists. The keeping of mink elsewhere is permitted only under licence.

The new order continues the policy which has been adopted by successive Governments since 1962. It seeks to, and does, balance the interests of a small sector of farming activity with the need to protect other farmers and wildlife from the very substantial potential damage which escaped mink could cause.

This order renews the existing powers to control mink for a further five years. Mink will continue to be subject to the provisions of the Mink Keeping Regulations 1975, as amended. These lay down stringent requirements covering such matters as the cages or containers in which mink must be kept, the buildings or enclosures containing the cages and, very important, the perimeter fence surrounding the housed mink.

I now come to the point raised by the hon. Member for Wentworth about the detail of security arrangements. It may be helpful in discussing this order if I draw hon. Members' attention to just how detailed these requirements are. Mink must be kept in cages or other containers constructed to prevent escape within an enclosure or building which also satisfies the legislation. Enclosures must be bounded by a guard fence made of wire netting or welded mesh of a specified gauge and mesh size. It must be at least 1.2 metres high above ground level. The base of the fence must be buried in the ground to a depth of at least 300 mm and turned outwards at the bottom at right angles for at least 150 mm, or be embedded in a trench of the same depth at the bottom of which is a foundation at least 150 mm deep of either concrete or consolidated hardcore of brick or concrete rubble or similar solid and durable material.

Mr. Tony Banks

This is all very interesting, and I am sure that if every farm complied with the regulations there would be no escapes. I have a catalogue of photographs of Swalesmoor—I have shown them to the Minister—which make it clear that all the regulations that the Minister has talked about are being blatantly ignored, yet Swalesmoor is given a licence by his Department. It is all very well for him to give us assurances; in reality, they simply do not apply to places such as Swalesmoor. What is he going to do about it?

Mr. Soames

The hon. Gentleman may say that it is all very well, but I am dealing with the order, as the House expects me to. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to make his own speech—and I have no doubt that he will be called—we shall deal with the points that he raises.

As I have already said, it is a grossly exaggerated assumption that mink farms are constantly experiencing escapes. That is simply not true. The hon. Gentleman was good enough to show me the photographs to which he refers, and he knows very well that I was not happy with what I saw. If he makes his own speech, I shall deal with his points later.

Mr. William Ross (Londonderry, East)

The Minister said that the fence should be buried and turned outwards. Surely it should be turned inwards, that being the side from which the mink would normally be coming. A fence should be turned outwards to keep rabbits out of a plantation, so surely it should be turned inwards to keep mink in.

Mr. Soames

The British mink is a crafty little varmint. We put up fences to fox him. Anyway, that is what it says in the brief, and I am not prepared to gainsay the admirable advice given by excellent officials in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

At the top of the fence there must be flat sheet metal, at least 300 mm deep, attached to the inside of the wire netting and to any fence placed inside the enclosure, to form a continuous baffle leaving no gap between the wire and the sheet metal. These stringent requirements are designed to ensure that, even if mink manage to escape from their cages or containers and evade the cage traps which must by law be set in each building or enclosure where mink are kept—and the House should know that mink are extremely easy to catch—they will be unable to escape into the countryside through, under or over the guard fence.

Thirty years ago, when licensing was introduced to this country, there were about 700 mink farms. In 1987 there were only about 62, with 100,000 mink. Now there are only 27 establishments, with approximately 47,000 mink. Standards of security are high. Mink farmers are obliged under the terms of their licences to report escapes to the Ministry's regional service centres.

Mr. John Gorst (Hendon, North)

May I ask my hon. Friend, in all seriousness, whether his statistics give us any idea how many mink are not under lock and key?

Mr. Soames

Let me reply, in all seriousness, that the country already has a substantial feral mink population. Mink are a pest, and it is therefore extremely important for farms to maintain a high standard of security. The technical details that I have read out are not a matter for levity, as the Opposition consider them, but a serious matter which should command the assent and support of the whole House.

Standards are high. As I have said, the terms of their licence oblige mink farmers to report escapes. In the five years since the latest review, only one report of an escape has been received from a mink farmer. [Laughter.] It is all very well for the House to mock, but this is a serious matter. The House should listen with care and attention to the origin and nature of that mink break-out. The escape was occasioned by the storms of 1989, not by lax security. Despite all the allegations, there has been no confirmed evidence presented to my Department of unreported escapes from specific farms. Nevertheless, there is a serious potential for long-term and short-term damage from escaping mink. The continuation of licensing, with an inspection at least annually, ensures that mink farms give priority to physical security. That is the point to which the hon. Member for Newham, North-West rightly attaches such importance.

There is one small change from the previous order which affects Scotland and has been approved by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. The change is to include Harris, Lewis and associated small islands as an area of the country where there is a total ban on the keeping of mink.

The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) asked why Arran was excluded. There is a natural feral population of mink on Arran—as one would expect from the hon. Gentleman's constituency—so there is no point in applying the regulations. As we do not believe in applying regulations except where they are necessary, the hon. Gentleman will understand the sense of the order.

Mr. Eric Clarke (Midlothian)

I am a keen angler and have been fishing in some remote parts of Scotland—the southern uplands, around my own area and the highlands. As I see it, there are no natural mink; they have been imported and they are ecological disasters. I am serious; I am not laughing because I see ducklings and a host of other animals and birds slaughtered by the score. The mink are vicious, but nobody seems to take responsibility for them unless they interfere with game birds. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh".] This is when Conservative hon. Members start getting interested. The best way to cure the problem is to stop them being kept under present conditions.

Mr. Soames

The hon. Gentleman makes a serious point, and I share his interest in angling. It is true that the feral population of mink in this country can and does cause considerable damage. There are proper methods for trapping them, but I do not think that I can deal with the hon. Gentleman's point during the debate on the order. However, I should be happy to discuss it with him on another occasion. I agree that mink are a serious problem for anglers.

Mr. Graham Riddick (Colne Valley)

Does my hon. Friend agree that the most effective and humane way of killing mink in the wild is to hunt them with hounds such as the West Yorkshire mink hound? If many Opposition Members had their way, such hunting would be banned.

Mr. Soames

It would be a bad day if it were banned, but, although I am a keen supporter of mink hounds, I do not think that even the greatest proponent of mink hunting would claim that they are a very effective method of controlling mink. They nevertheless fulfil an important role in the countryside and their right to do so 'will be defended to the end by the Government.

In 1970——

Mr. Wilson

rose——

Mr. Soames

I must get on. Would the hon. Gentleman please—oh, very well then.

Mr. Wilson

It is not unreasonable to ask the Minister to deal with the issues because I believe that he is making a factual error. The circumstances of Harris, Lewis and Arran are the same. On Harris and Lewis irresponsible people opened mink farms 20 or 30 years ago and the rest of the community has been left with the problem. On Arran there was a mink farm 20 years ago. I have just phoned Arran and was told that its one benefit was that it got rid of the rats—which no doubt explains my presence! The benefit for the community of saying that there would never be another mink farm there would be undoubted. There may also be an indigenous population. However, surely that is splitting hairs. The problem in Arran is identified as the fact that there was a mink farm there which left the legacy of wild mink.

Mr. Soames

The hon. Gentleman, who is an expert on surface rodents, seems to see the issue in black and white and without a fine regard for the truth. In Harris and Lewis, there is the Harris and Lewis mink control group. It is attempting to raise funds to carry out a programme of trapping. The initial proposal was for a three-year programme costing more than £65,000. However, the group is having difficulty raising funds and is now planning a reduced programme.

We have taken this step for Harris and Lewis because Scottish Natural Heritage has asked us to do so. We are anxious to help our friends in Scottish Natural Heritage and in the Scottish Office on any occasions when we can. If the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North wishes us to consider matters on Arran, we shall be happy to do so. I look forward to having a discussion with him to that end.

In 1970, there were about 70 mink farms in Scotland alone. By that time, mink farming in Harris and Lewis had ceased for some years. In 1987, when the previous review was carried out, eight farms operated in Scotland. Now only two hold licences. Given the passage of time and the greatly reduced number of licences, it seems right now to prohibit mink keeping in Harris and Lewis. As I have said to the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North, during consultation the proposal was put to us by Scottish Natural Heritage in support of efforts being made locally. That course of action has also been warmly endorsed and recommended by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds.

I apologise for detaining the House for so long. I can confirm that the issue of licences, at the discretion of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, will be exercised with the greatest care. Requests for licences from new establishments will be considered in principle before applicants incur expense in preparing for mink farming. If it is appropriate, additional controls over and above those specifically laid down in mink keeping legislation will be contained in any licence issued. A licence will be refused if there is real doubt that it is possible to reduce the risk at a particular site to acceptable levels.

The Act provides for the revocation of licences and we expect licensees to take their obligations extremely seriously. Annual inspections will ensure that they do so. I ask the House to approve the order.

10.42 pm

Mr. Elliot Morley (Glanford and Scunthorpe)

The Minister has mentioned that the debate is on the order and not on the issue of welfare or on the prohibition of keeping think. I protest that, unlike the consultation in 1987, this consultation did not give the option of the banning of mink. The consultation offered was simply the choice of continuing with the Mink Keeping Order or ending it. Faced with such a choice, most organisations would naturally support the maintenance of the order. What we should be discussing is the prohibition of mink farming and of Arctic fox fur farming.

The order has been inadequate over the years and has been poorly applied. The intention of the order, as the Minister said, was to prevent escapes of animals covered by the Destructive Imported Animals Act 1932. In that sense, the order has been a failure. So many mink have escaped over the years that I am surprised that there is not a line of ferret-faced predators listening to the debate behind the Minister—[HON. MEMBERS: "There is."] I will not be drawn on that.

It is important that the order is considered not only in terms of how it applies now, but in terms of how it will affect conservation issues and welfare issues. Can the Minister explain why the Isle of Arran, which has been mentioned, and the Isle of Wight have not been covered by the prohibition? There is no established feral mink population on the Isle of Wight. There is one mink farm, although I am not sure whether that still operates. The mink farm on the Isle of Wight was established without permission and permission was granted retrospectively. The farm is very near the Newtown site of special scientific interest which has a range of important ground-nesting birds.

The Minister made it clear that he has accepted the advice of Scottish Natural Heritage in respect of the isles of Harris and Lewis. However, he is ignoring the advice of English Nature which recommended to the Government that there should be no keeping of mink on the Isle of Wight. I hope that the Minister will deal with that point.

In respect of the Isle of Arran, I must confirm what my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) said. There is no difference between the isles of Harris and Lewis, where there are feral mink populations and eradication programmes, and the Isle of Arran. It would be a great help if the Minister made it clear that no mink farms would be established on the Isle of Arran in future. Eradication programmes could remove the problem of mink in that area in future.

Mr. Bowden

The hon. Gentleman referred to not establishing new mink farms in a particular area. Does he agree that it is absolutely essential that there are no new mink farms anywhere? While my hon. Friend the Minister told us about the great reduction in numbers, something which we all welcome, the sooner all mink farms have gone, the better.

Mr. Morley

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is Labour policy that mink farming should be ended at the earliest opportunity.

When we talk about the welfare implications of mink, I wonder why the Minister ignores the findings of the Farm Animal Welfare Council in relation to mink keeping. He quoted from the council's findings, but the House may be interested to hear what the council had to say about the keeping of mink and fox: Mink and fox have been bred in captivity for only about 50 to 60 generations and the Council is particularly concerned about the keeping of what are essentially wild animals in small barren cages. The Council believes that the systems employed in the farming of mink and fox do not satisfy some of the most basic criteria which it has identified for protecting the welfare of farm animals. The current cages used for fur farming do not appear to provide appropriate comfort or shelter, and do not allow the animals freedom to display most normal standards of behaviour. That is a powerful indictment of fur farming from the Government's own advisory body.

With regard to the time scale for domestication, mink have been kept for about 60 years in terms of intensive farming. Dogs have been kept for 12,000 years and chickens for 4,000 years. However, even after 4,000 years, chickens have not adapted to intensive, battery conditions. Solitary animals such as mink, which are clearly much wilder than chickens, are expected to be reared in such conditions.

We recognise the need for registration and the need for the order. However, the argument is that, even as they stand, the regulations have not been effective. I understand that not one mink farmer has been prosecuted under the regulations. It comes as no surprise to the House to learn that there has been only one report of escaped mink since 1987, as it is not in the interests of mink farmers to admit that mink have been escaping. There is an analogy in that respect with trout farms. The Minister will be aware of current court proceedings instigated by anglers over the difficulty in getting trout farms to admit that rainbow trout have escaped into rivers. It is hardly surprising that mink farmers do not admit that there have been escapes.

There are two basic arguments against the keeping of mink and Arctic fox and they are on conservation and welfare grounds. On conservation grounds, we have already established that the effect of escaped mink on wild mammals and bird species has been disastrous. In certain parts of the country, water voles have been completely wiped out by feral mink.

Mink farms also result in diseases such as aleution disease and distemper which can be transmitted to other animals, notably otters. When mink escape and settle into a suitable habitat, they can establish themselves and live in reasonable harmony with the existing ecology. However, if escapes continue to occur, the escaped mink displace the feral population, with potentially disastrous consequences, and attack domestic stock.

It is clear that, as long as mink farms are allowed to continue in this country, escapes will continue. I have seen the photographs of Swalesmoor farm near Halifax, which have been mentioned. Those photographs clearly show mink running loose within the farm. A number of people who live adjacent to the farm confirmed on numerous occasions that mink had been running loose in the area and attacking farm stock. The photographs show that the fur farm in question is in a poor state and undoubtedly is a miserable place in which to rear any animal of this type. A shed with more than 4,000 mink in it had not been inspected by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for three to four years, whch demonstrates that the Mink Keeping Order in its present form is not necessarily enforced effectively.

That brings me to the welfare considerations of keeping mink. Wild mink are solitary animals. In the wild they normally have a territory which is two and a half miles long. In farm factory conditions they are forced to live in unnatural intensive conditions in cages which are 24 in long, 15 in wide and 12 in high. Respected animal behaviourists such as Dr. Desmond Morris have said that: Because of the intensive keeping of animals like mink, the result of this degree of confinement is that animals exhibit all the typical reactions of wild creatures to a restrictive and deprived environment. They perform stereotyped patterns of movement and various forms of self-mutilation. These are clear signs that the captive animals are under stress. That is from a report entitled "Mink Factories", which was published jointly by Lynx and Compassion in World Farming. I could also refer to the Farm Animal Welfare Council and its findings on the keeping of animals.

I argue that the keeping of mink in their present form is in breach of articles 3 and 4 of the European convention on the protection of animals kept for farming purposes. There are five main principles in terms of keeping animals: first, freedom from thirst, hunger and malnutrition; secondly, appropriate comfort and shelter; thirdly, the prevention or rapid diagnosis and treatment of injury, disease or infection; fourthly, freedom from fear; and, fifthly, freedom to display most normal patterns of behaviour. I argue that the second, third and fourth criteria are not met in the keeping of mink.

As articles 3 and 4 of the European convention deal with the natural behaviour of animals and seek to ensure that they are given the opportunity to display natural behaviour, it is clear that mink farming breaches that convention. Given that overwhelming evidence, how can the Minister justify the continuation of fur farming in the United Kingdom? The Minister referred to the Council of Europe report. It is clear that if that report evolves into a directive, it is unlikely that the mink farms in this country will be able to meet such a directive.

I draw the Minister's attention to early-day motion 143 which calls for an end to the keeping of mink. That motion has been signed by 226 hon. Members, including many of the Minister's hon. Friends who are sitting behind him. Fur farming is reviled by the public, as the mail bags of many hon. Members show only too clearly.

I also draw the attention of the Minister to a recent survey which found that 78 per cent. of the public opposed fur farming. Fur is clearly out of fashion, because people rightly reject the infliction of such stress and misery on animals for the sake of the vanity of a few people. That view is reflected in both the decline in the number of farms—to which the Minister referred—and the decline in the price of pelts.

Given the decline in the number of mink farms in Britain, is it not time to act? Is it not time that the Minister took the opportunity not merely to cut out the consultation on the option of banning mink farms but to introduce an order that bans them?

While mink farms exist, they must be properly regulated. The Opposition have tabled an amendment calling for the phasing out of mink farms at the earliest opportunity. I appreciate that our procedures did not allow such an amendment to be selected for debate. We argue that the order does not go far enough. Unless we receive assurances from the Minister tonight, first, that there will be a moratorium on all new fur farms, in the sense that the Minister will refuse to issue new licences, and, secondly, that existing fur farms will be phased out as soon as possible, we shall have no option but to vote against the order, not because we do not want fur farms to be regulated but because we want an order that will bring about the end of the vile and inhumane exploitation of animals for no real or useful purpose.

10.55 pm

Mr. William Ross (Londonderry, East)

As the House will have noted, the order applies only to Great Britain. However, we have feral mink in Northern Ireland and, like other hon. Members, I have an interest in the matter.

I listened with care and attention to what was said by both Front-Bench spokesmen. The debate deals with not only the welfare of farmed mink but the problems associated with escaped feral mink. The Minister talked about a natural feral population. By definition, feral populations cannot be natural. They are the descendants of escaped mink. As the Minister said, they pose a threat of substantial damage.

It is clear from the experience of those who live in the countryside that escaped mink have caused considerable damage in all parts of the United Kingdom and even further afield. We should not allow that to continue because the feral mink do not simply die out; they breed and live in the wild. Their numbers are constantly increasing. In some areas they have increased to the point at which the population is stable. The population can be stable only at the expense of the local indigenous species, which we in Britain want to maintain.

No one has mentioned so far that the order is descended from the Destructive Imported Animals Act 1932. As the Minister will be aware, that Act covered only musk rats. All the other animals covered by subsequent orders were added at a later stage. The list of animals covered by orders is long. The 1932 Act was followed by the Northern Ireland legislation in 1933. The list is long and all the species included are species that none of us would love.

The list includes the grey squirrel, which was included by an order in 1937. Non-indigenous rabbits were included in 1954. The Coypus (Prohibition of Keeping) Order was introduced in 1987. I am sure that the Minister will have looked at that order in preparing for the debate and will have noted that it placed an absolute prohibition on the keeping of those animals in Great Britain. That species has vanished from the countryside—or at least I hope that it has disappeared because it caused considerable damage in the east of England. The Mink (Keeping) Order 1987 has lasted for the past five years.

The 1932 Act referred to non-indigenous animals. But I suggest that we should not close our minds to the wider difficulties of bringing other non-indigenous creatures within the scope of the legislation. The intention of the original Act was to license the keeping and to prohibit the importation of the animals. The Act also laid down another duty, which at least shows that our predecessors had some concern about the animals—a duty to destroy escapees—or it took refuge in the old parliamentary device of saying "may" take the necessary steps to destroy them. Those steps could be taken directly by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, or by the council in whose areas the escapees existed but, as far as I can tell, that has never been done.

From what the Minister and other hon. Members have said, it is plain that there are many escapees, which have bred, and that there is a stable population of these vicious and destructive animals.

One of the Minister's comments should not be quickly forgotten. He said that mink were easy to catch and I have also been told that by one of my relatives who lives in Canada, and has caught them with a trap line. They are obviously easy to catch there too. If that is so, why have no consistent and assiduous efforts been made to wipe out what is, by all accounts, a destructive animal? It should not be all that difficult—all that it would take is time, effort and a bit of money. It would pay rich dividends and, for the good of all our indigenous species, it is long overdue.

Many other species have been introduced into this country and released, and are having an unfortunate effect on indigenous species, for example, catfish, rainbow trout and farmed salmon. As the Minister will recall, fish were dealt with fairly comprehensively throughout the United Kingdom by changes in the law some years ago. Those changes were wise, very welcome and have done some good.

I am sure that, like myself, the Minister reads country magazines that deal with wildfowling and shooting. If he has not noticed it with his own eyes I am sure that his officials will have drawn to his attention the problem caused by various types of geese, which are hybridising and will cause the most enormous damage and difficulties. That problem should be dealt with.

Furthermore, I believe that there are populations of escaped kangaroos and wallabies in England. Those are not the sort of animals that one would normally think of as traditional in the English countryside.

A large number of different species of deer have been running loose in this country for a long time—some are useful and others are not.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris)

Order. The hon. Gentleman is getting rather wide of the subject. Will he return to mink, please?

Mr. Ross

I have just come to the end of my list, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I am grateful that you allowed me to go so far. If you had allowed me a moment more, I would have said that some unwelcome plants have also been introduced, but I shall leave those.

Some animals are more acceptable than others and we can live with some of them. I suppose that we can live with almost any strange creatures, provided that they are present only in small numbers, but that is not true of mink or other destructive animals, which should be destroyed. We can do that only by killing each and every one. That might not sit happily with some folk, but it is a fact of life that if we do not destroy them, they will do further immense damage to our indigenous species and will interbreed with closely related creatures—God knows where it will end.

All such animals are a factor in changing the ecology of our countryside. I hope that the Minister will consider my comments and will start down the road of eliminating them.

I intervened in the Minister's speech because I thought that, in the middle of the hubbub, he had missed something. He was reading out the technical specifications for burying wire underground to keep in mink and I believe that he said that the wire should be bent outwards. If that is the specification, and if it is not a misprint in his brief, then the specification is wrong. If it is bent outwards, the mink will simply dig out under it, whereas if it is bent inwards, the mink will not know, if it digs out, how to get back. I think I see the Minister nodding in assent, so I assume that there was a mistake in his brief. If there was not a mistake, I hope he will change the regulations.

11.5 pm

Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West)

I know that the Minister has some sympathy for the arguments that are being advanced about the welfare of mink, but we had expected him to be rather more robust with his officials in terms of the assurances that he blandly read out from his brief—assurances that do not seem to match the reality of the situation.

The Minister said in reply to me that there had been one case of an escaped mink. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) asked in an excellent speech, in which he covered most of the salient points, how can one expect mink farmers to report that some of their mink have escaped? It is like a speeding motorist going to the police and turning himself in. It might be an act of Christian charity and show respect for the law, but it would also be stupid in view of the penalties that would follow. So it is not satisfactory for the Minister to say that, because there has been only one reported case, that must mean that no other mink have escaped.

There was a litany of eye-witness evidence surrounding the case that Lynx presented in court regarding Swalesmoor. Many people in the vicinity of Swalesmoor testified to the number of times that they had had to send for the farmer from Swalesmoor to recapture mink that had escaped from his farm. It is true that they are easy to catch. That is because they have been half domesticated and their spirit is broken by the appalling conditions they must endure at Swalesmoor and, I am sure, at other fur farms.

It is nonsense for the Minister to say that mink have not escaped from Swalesmoor and elsewhere. My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) said that one was seen in the middle of Halifax and had to be captured by environmental health officers from the local authority. Was that the one escaped mink that ended up on the records of the Minister's Department? My hon. Friends and I found the Minister's speech insufferably complacent in many respects and we expect him, after this debate, to toughen up his approach to his officials and his attitude towards the practices of some of the appalling mink farms.

The Minister said we were not debating the issue of mink and animal welfare. I do not see how one can avoid that issue, given the conditions at some mink farms. I find fur farming obnoxious and unacceptable and I regard the wearing of mink fur—other than by natural mink in the wild—to be naff and vulgar. People who go round wearing mink have more money than taste.

The Minister mentioned the Farm Animal Welfare Council, which drew attention to the fact that the systems employed in the farming of mink and fox—including white Arctic fox—do not satisfy some of the most basic criteria for protecting the welfare of farm animals. That should lead one logically to the conclusion that we should phase out all mink farms. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe pointed out, the original consultation paper leading up to the 1987 measure——

Mr. Soames

rose——

Mr. Banks

Let me finish the sentence, Minister. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is active and eager, but I would appreciate being allowed to complete the sentence.

One would have thought, under the circumstances, that the phasing out of mink fur farms would have been natural, and it has not been explained why the option of phasing out was included in the consultation paper leading up to the 1987 measure but was somehow excluded from the 1992 consultation process.

Mr. Soames

It may be convenient for the hon. Gentleman to know that neither the Ministry of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food nor any of its agencies has ever received any report of escaped mink from Swalesmoor.

Mr. Banks

I find that incredible.

Mrs. Mahon

My local Evening Courier contains photographs of a mink that escaped and was caught in the centre of town. Most of the population was shocked and horrified because the environmental health officers clubbed it to death. There have been numerous such reports. Many complaints have been made to the local council and I am pretty sure that they have been reported to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

Mr. Banks

I am beginning to feel sorry for the Minister because his civil servants must be either incredibly stupid or entirely negligent. It is apparent from all the evidence in the locality of Swalesmoor that numerous escapes have been reported. The Minister should stop simply taking assurances from his civil servants and start investigating in greater detail precisely what is going on on the ground.

It is difficult for us to accept the fact that the order excludes the Isle of Wight, which has a licensed mink farm, although it is currently free of feral mink. Lynx, the organisation which has done so much to draw the attention of the public and the House to the conditions within those appalling hell holes of factory farms, has made it clear that the Isle of Wight mink farm should be closed. It is in the immediate vicinity of Newtown harbour nature reserve, which is a site of special scientific interest and an internationally important site for nesting and migrating birds. Should any of those mink escape, the damage that they would do to that reserve is incalculable. It is amazing that the Minister is prepared to run such a risk in respect of the Isle of Wight.

Opposition Members have made it clear that there have obviously been escapes in the past, otherwise there would not be feral mink populations in various parts of the country. Minks have been escaping since 1929. I agree with the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) who said that the minks should be killed. I must admit that I feel a bit sorry for them, but, because of the destruction that they wreak on other species, a humane trapping programme should be adopted and the mink humanely destroyed.

Mr. Harry Cohen (Leyton)

Will my hon. Friend comment on the Prime Minister's crusade against bureaucracy and red tape? Does not that mean that mink farms should be prohibited rather than licensed? With licensing, either there will be no inspection, in which case there will be much cruelty and the hell holes to which my hon. Friend referred, or the Minister is way out of line with the Prime Minister's requirements, because much costly bureaucracy will be involved.

Mr. Banks

The Minister is trying to suggest that my hon. Friend's facial hair is a false mink beard. I assure him that it is natural and flourishing feral hair on Harry's face.

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. I would not mind if that bureaucracy was working. The Minister has given us all the assurances which his civil servants wrote. He must test the issue for himself, not simply take assurances that clearly do not match reality. I have shown him the enormous album of photographs from Swalesmoor. If these are the result of annual inspections by his civil servants and inspectors, he should sack the damn lot of them because they are clearly taking their money under false pretences.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe said, the inspectors managed for a number of years to miss a shed containing thousands of mink. It takes a very myopic inspector to miss a shed of such dimensions that it can enclose thousands of mink, but the Minister's inspectors managed to do so. What action did the Minister take against those civil servants who are clearly not doing their job? The pictures that I have show the sort of conditions that inspectors are prepared to accept when licensing the farms. The conditions are disgusting and unacceptable, and the Minister must change them.

My hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe said that the mink is a wild, semi-aquatic animal, whose normal territory is anything up to 2.5 miles. The animals we are talking about are kept in rows in wire mesh cages that are 24 in long, 15 in high and 12 in wide. Mink normally avoid each other's company except at mating times because they protect their own territories. Given the amount of stress that they are under, it is no wonder that they go in for self-mutilation—they are bored. They are placed in conditions that are so unnatural they are totally obscene and unacceptable.

The order should be about the welfare of those animals. The state in which they are kept is unacceptable in this day and age. Why are we keeping them in such appalling conditions? Is it so that prune-like little old women and flashy, spivvy types can wear mink coats? There is no justification for that. Individuals' vanity is paid for by obscene suffering by animals.

We shall vote against the order, but the Minister must start checking the facts. I know him to be a reasonable person, and when he has checked the facts for himself, he might share some of the anger that I feel tonight. Then he will go into his Ministry and start tearing up his speech in front of the civil servants who wrote it, and tell them to get out and start earning their money.

Several hon. Members

rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse)

Order. The Front Bench teams have said that, with the leave of the House, they wish to begin the wind-up speeches a t 11.30 pm.

11.17 pm

Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall)

It is clear that there is widespread concern throughout the House and in many parts of the country about the continuation of mink farming, not least in the agriculture community, where it is regarded as a potential time bomb that is ticking away in the rural parts of the country.

As has been mentioned, at the time of the 1987 order, there was full consultation on a three-way choice: continuation or renewal, lapse of the order, or total prohibition. The agriculture community expected to be consulted on the options in the run-up to the current order, but they were not. They should have been.

Why did the Ministry remove the obligation to report the presence of mink at large in 1987? That obligation existed before 1987, but has not existed for the past five years and the system has been greatly weakened as a consequence. That is why so many hon. Members tonight have expressed their concern at the Swalesmoor case and others. Surely the Minister should give us an explanation as to why that case was not referred to his Ministry, rather than the other way round.

Mrs. Mahon

The Swalesmoor case has been referred to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I have done so at least twice. I have received unsatisfactory replies stating that nothing can be done about it. There must be a file on the Swalesmoor case gathering dust somewhere within the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

Mr. Tyler

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that contribution, as she has made my argument for me. Under the present system it is left to the breeders to report an escape. With great respect to the hon. Lady, it should not be left to a Member of Parliament to draw the problem to the attention of the Ministry—that is not our function; I was not trained for that job when I was elected to the House. At present, the breeders are the only people obliged to report an escape. Who has ever heard of a poacher going to see the gamekeeper and saying, "Gamekeeper, sir, I want to report that I have been poaching this evening." That is ridiculous.

Mr. William Ross

If the hon. Gentleman looks at the relevant Act, he will see that there is a legal obligation on the owners to report escapes.

Mr. Tyler

Under the Wildlife and Countryside Act, if owners do that they will put themselves outside the law. So the law is making an ass of itself. It is important to clarify it as soon as possible.

Are we really to believe that as of 9 June this year there had been no reports of escapes from registered farms in the previous 12 months? That is patently untrue. The feral population is increasing; that cannot be happening by natural breeding alone.

The Minister gave the impression that the annual inspections in these fur prison camps were an effective parade and that it was possible to check on precise numbers—and that any animal escaping would be immediately identified, like some prisoner of war. That is absurd: the system is not working.

The escapees from this artificial captivity are especially dangerous to the fragile ecological balance in the natural habitat. Wildlife is suffering. Feral mink can cause chaos and ecological disaster.

If there were some sudden change in the tactics of the Animal Liberation Front and it let loose large numbers of captive animals into the wild, that would cause great damage.

We greatly regret that the House is not being given the chance to vote on the amendment. At the same time, we should acknowledge that eradication of mink in the wild is probably now impossible. It is important not to treat the mink as a scapegoat for all the problems of the delicate balance in the wild. English Nature says: The mink is now too well established in Britain for eradication to be an option, so conservation action should focus on creating those conditions which best enable vulnerable prey to cope with mink predation in the future. That means that we will have to be even more careful about allowing this activity to continue. We should work steadily on a planned programme of the run-down and eventual prohibition of all mink farming. The massive increase in such farming which still might occur would be extremely dangerous, and any more escapes to the wild would cause great damage.

I was interested to hear the Minister say that mink are very easy to catch. I understand that a great many different techniques are used to catch them. I am not sure which one the Minister recommends as easy, but since a large number of mink in some parts of the country are still doing great damage, the Minister should concentrate his attention on advancing the parallel development of improved methods of eradication—at the same time as running down and prohibiting the farms.

Both the Council of Europe and the Farm Animal Welfare Council have pointed the way: their expert advice is available to all Members, many of whom support it. Tonight the Minister has a responsibility to assure the House that he will ensure that this trade is stopped and the problems with which it is connected are removed.

11.23 pm

Mr. Peter Griffiths (Portsmouth, North)

The large number of signatures appended to the relevant early-day motion shows that the strength of feeling expressed by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) is shared by Members of all parties. The aim of most of our constituents is the elimination of fur farming.

I would have hoped that we might vote on the amendment tonight. That is not possible, but it is the reason I and others are speaking. To vote against the order would be a disaster. If by some mischance it was defeated, it would not lead to the abolition of controlled mink farming in this country; it would mean that mink farming could proceed without any control whatever. Farms would be able to be set up without the restrictions and controls that the Minister described. Competition would put out of business immediately those who were attempting to conform to the order. The result of that would certainly not be the humane slaughter and disposal of the present stock of mink, but escape to the wild would be facilitated as the cheapest possible option.

I want to see an end to fur farming in this country. My hon. Friend the Minister may not be able to give us an assurance about that tonight, but until that happy day comes we need some control of these animals and the order must therefore be supported.

11.25 pm

Mr. Brian Wilson (Cunninghame, North)

I shall certainly speak briefly so as to let other hon. Members in. My interest arises only because of the reference to my constituency in the order. I do not criticise the Minister for flippancy, but things were said that require the record to be straightened.

The hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) made the point that there is no such thing as a natural mink population and, therefore, the Minister was unintentionally misleading in suggesting that there was. The parallel between Lewis and Harris, and Arran in my constituency, is precise in that both have mink populations because there were farms in those islands 20 to 30 years ago when people were crazy enough to open those farms in agricultural communities and then to allow those creatures to escape. We have lived with these problems ever since. I do not think that in the real world anyone will open a mink farm on Arran; there are ways in which it would be blocked if anyone made such a ludicrous proposal.

However, I gather from the Minister's remarks that exclusion from or inclusion in this order is a reflection of the steps taken to eradicate the existing problem. That is what I want to set straight.

The Minister said that mink are easy creatures to catch. I did not know about that, but I am prepared to take the word of hon. Members here who know a great deal about the subject. If that is the case, it is surely unforgivable that local groups in these communities and crofters and farmers have been suffering the problems for years without the little bit of support and expertise necessary to get rid of the problem once and for all.

On Arran for many years it was impossible for people to keep hens because of the mink population. I know that that has also been the case in the Western Isles. There the problem spread. The mink were swimming from Harris across to North Uist and establishing a presence in a different group of islands where there had been no mink farming.

I shall end now so that others may speak. Surely if a little bit of money and a little bit of expertise are needed, on the basis of this debate that should be forthcoming. I shall certainly be raising the possibility with Scottish Natural Heritage on behalf of Arran and any other communities that continue to labour under this unfortunate and unnecessary affliction.

11.28 pm

Mrs. Llin Golding (Newcastle-under-Lyme)

I am very concerned about the fact that nothing seems to be done about destroying the mink that are in the wild. Nobody has mentioned that in my part of the country some lunatics broke into a farm and released all the mink into the wild and ever since we have had a problem in north Staffordshire and the surrounding area. I have written to the National Rivers Authority which said that it had always been the responsibility of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I wrote to the Minister and he said that it was entirely at the discretion of individual landowners or occupiers to decide whether they wished to control mink. Nobody is taking responsibility. Mink roam for at least a mile when they are breeding and can move at least 30 miles after the breeding season is over.

In north Staffordshire and the surrounding areas, there are reports of the destruction of wildlife. Despite what some people say, mink are not often seen. However, people do see fish killed by a bite through the backbone, between the head and the dorsal fin; and mammals and birds killed by a bite in the neck—usually near the base of the skull. In the case of a fresh kill, sometimes it is possible to see punctures about 8 mm apart, made by the mink's canine teeth.

Those are nasty, vicious and destructive creatures. I want to know who will take responsibility for getting rid of them before they destroy all our wildlife.

11.30 pm

Mr. Peter Hardy (Wentworth)

Hon. Members have already commented about sordid stalags, and I want the Minister to make it clear that Britain can provide standards higher than those recommended in the Council of Europe report. It would be extremely useful if we did so at this stage, since a number of member states permit cruel and barbaric practices. We want to see their standards raised, and it could be helpful if we could point to higher standards in Britain.

The Minister referred also to security. I believe that there have been no prosecutions for any fault or failing under the previous arrangements. Will the Minister make it clear to the remaining fur farmers that standards will be properly supervised, and that there will be no hesitation in bringing prosecutions should faults of the kind described to the House occur? There can be no excuse for the sort of cases to which reference has been made.

I hope that in the short time that remains before we can see an end to the wearing of furs produced in such odious circumstances the Government will ensure the standards are a great deal higher than they have been over the past 30 years.

11.32 pm

Mr. Morley

I hope that the Minister has noted that not one hon. Member who has spoken during this short debate supported the keeping of mink or the Minister's claim that the order will be effective in preventing the escaping of mink.

We know that mink have escaped in every area where there have been mink farms. They have been established as a breeding species in the wild since 1957, and escaped mink are found around every mink farm, or the site of every former mink farm.

I accept that there is a legal obligation on mink farm owners to report escapes, but in reality not only are they reluctant to do so for obvious reasons—they will face prosecution—but when there are escapes, because there is a feral population in the wild, the mink farm owners invariably say that the mink are feral mink and not from their own farms.

That is certainly what happened in Halifax. The farmers did not report the matter to MAFF. When the local population see the mink, they understandably complain directly to the farm. That accounts for the lack of official complaints—and to suggest that that means that there have been no escapes is disingenuous.

I hope that when the Minister replies he will explain, as I asked him to do at the start, why the option to consult on the banning of mink was denied during the consultation period. I hope that he will also explain why it was that, although the advice of Scottish Natural Heritage was accepted, that of English Nature was not, in the case of the Isle of Wight. I hope that it has nothing to do with the fact that there are no grouse moors on the Isle of Wight.

Will the Minister give an assurance that the state veterinary service will inspect every existing mink farm annually, as recommended by the Farm Animal Welfare Council, and that the service will be able to do that despite the Government cutbacks that it has suffered?

I hope that the Minister will acknowledge an argument that has been clearly made in the debate: that fur farming in this country does not meet either welfare standards recommended by the Government's own advisers or the recommendations of European committees. I hope that he will also acknowledge that 226 hon. Members have signed an early-day motion calling for an end to this type of intensive farming.

The hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths), expressed concern about voting against the order. I will give an assurance if, by any chance, the order is defeated tonight. If the Government will come back to the House with an order that includes an immediate moratorium on the keeping of mink—there is not a single reason why that could not be done tonight, because we are not talking about compensation to existing farms or about any great difficulties—or if the Minister will give the House an assurance that from now on no further licences will be issued to mink or fox farms, we will support the Government. He can do that. There is no financial or legal difficulty about it. If the Minister would bring forward an order that included both that and the phasing out of the keeping of fur animals in farms of this kind, the Opposition would co-operate with the Government in getting that order through as quickly as possible.

I want it put on the record that we shall vote against the order only if we do not get the assurance that this sort of fur farming will be phased out. If we vote against the order, it will not be because we do not want to see strong regulation, but because we want to see both regulation and the ending of this farming, which is odious, unnecessary and just part of a luxury trade. It fulfils no useful purpose in terms of economic employment in this country or of the welfare of the animals concerned. There is an opportunity tonight for the Minister to give an assurance that, at long last, something will be done about this matter and standards will be set that other European countries will follow.

11.36 pm

Mr. Soames

I will try to confine myself to points that have been raised by hon. Gentlemen tonight, as they would expect.

I start with the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), who spoke with a good deal of knowledge and experience on this matter, and particularly raised the question of the Isle of Wight, which the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) also raised. They asked why mink keeping is not banned on the Isle of Wight. The answer is that there is a mink farm currently in operation on the Isle of Wight. It was there prior to the last review of the mink-keeping arrangements and the conditions of its licence are especially stringent to prevent escapes. No escapes have been reported, so there is no justification for banning mink-keeping on the island.

At the same time, the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe made a perfectly valid point about why English Nature recommended that mink farming be banned on the Isle of Wight. It is true that it did recommend that it should be banned, but that was because it was under the false impression that there were no farms currently in operation on the island. That is the definitive reason why they were not banned.

The hon. Gentleman then went on to ask for a ban and managed to drag in a bit of good solid class warfare about people wearing mink coats, and all the rest of it, but perhaps I can just deal with the sensible point that he made about the Farm Animal Welfare Council.

In a statement made in April 1989, the Farm Animal Welfare Council—as I have already said, a body to whose views the Ministry of Agriculture and Her Majesty's Government attach the highest importance—expressed its disapproval of fur farming, and many hon. Members, I am sure, share that view. However, it did not recommend that the practice be stopped.

At about this time, the Council of Europe was working on its welfare recommendation, which was adopted a year later. We expect that recommendation to be used as the basis for a Community standard. The Government's policy regarding the welfare of fur animals is that we will press for the highest standards to be adopted on a Communitywide basis.

The Farm Animal Welfare Council's statement recommended research into housing and behavioural requirements of the mink and fox. It recommended that pelting sheds be sited away from enclosures to prevent distress caused by the release of scent during pelting, and that the state veterinary service should monitor fur farms on a regular basis. Several hon. Members felt that the state veterinary service should inspect every year. I have taken that on board, and will consult my right hon. Friend the Minister and others to see what steps can be taken.

The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe called for a moratorium on new mink farms. Under our present regime we might encounter some legal difficulties, on the ground that it would be unreasonable to refuse a licence to a new farm that could meet the same requirements as existing farms. On the basis of the mink's destructive habits, I must say that a ban on mink keeping is not justified. The security arrangements are adequate in preventing escapes, so that is not a relevant argument.

The hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) made a knowledgeable and robust speech, as would be expected of someone who actually understands a little about the countryside. He spoke at length, and with knowledge, of the feral mink: his angling interests have ensured that he is kept well informed—and he knows that I share his enthusiasm for that. It is true that mink are easy to catch, and if the hon. Gentleman would like to accompany me one day I shall show him how to do it. He is right: it requires both time and effort, as well as some expertise. I am not aware—and neither is my Department—of the existence of feral kangaroos and wallabies in this country, although I have no doubt that the suggestion will comfort those who drive home late at night having drunk too much.

The hon. Member for Newham, North-West made a passionate and knowledgeable speech about a subject on which he plainly feels strongly. He mentioned sightings of escaped mink, as have many other Opposition Members. There is no point in their banging on at me; none of those sightings, save one, has been reported to the Ministry of Agriculture. We are unable to act unless members of the public make a report to us. [Interruption.] There is no point in the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) citing a report in an evening paper; that is no good to us. We need sightings to be reported to the regional service centres so that we can take the necessary action.

It is quite untrue to say that we are insufferably complacent. We regard this as an extremely serious matter, and we acknowledge the strength of feeling expressed by many of our citizens. It is in our interests to ensure that a disagreeable business is conducted honourably and properly. I look forward to seeing the hon. Member for Newham, North-West shortly to discuss the situation at Swalesmoor, and to examine at greater length the photographs that he has already shown me. I apologise for standing him up today.

The hon. Gentleman also made an important point about the sighting of escaped farm mink. Reports of sightings have been made by individuals and organisations, and have been investigated, but they have failed to confirm the origin of the mink, and to highlight any deficiency in the security of mink farms that needs to be addressed. It is extremely difficult for the lay person to distinguish between wild and farmed mink—as it is to distinguish between a weasel and a stoat: as the House will know, a weasel is weasily identified, but a stoat is stoatally different. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I think it is rather a good joke, actually.

The hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Tyler) mentioned eradication. The Department mounted an eradication campaign; it cost about £20,000 a year, was operated for five years and was ultimately found to be entirely unrealistic. We take the question of the capture of wild mink very seriously, but, at the end of the day, it is up to individual landowners to ensure that their land is free of mink.

I wholly endorse the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) about the folly of voting against the order: that would only ensure that a large population of mink were released into the wild, which would be extremely unsatisfactory.

I shall be happy to arrange for a discussion between the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) and Scottish Natural Heritage. If he wishes to come and discuss it with me, I shall be happy to oblige. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) has shown great interest in the matter: again, it comes down to individual landowners——

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted Business ):—

The House divided: Ayes 252, Noes 188.

Division No. 98]	[11.45 pm
AYES
Adley, Robert	Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)	Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Alexander, Richard	Ashby, David
Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)	Aspinwall, Jack
Allason, Rupert (Torbay)	Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Amess, David	Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Ancram, Michael	Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

Baldry, Tony	Gillan, Cheryl
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)	Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Bates, Michael	Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Batiste, Spencer	Gorst, John
Beggs, Roy	Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)
Bendall, Vivian	Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Beresford, Sir Paul	Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Biffen, Rt Hon John	Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas	Grylls, Sir Michael
Booth, Hartley	Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)	Hague, William
Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia	Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Bowis, John	Hampson, Dr Keith
Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes	Hanley, Jeremy
Brandreth, Gyles	Hargreaves, Andrew
Brazier, Julian	Harris, David
Bright, Graham	Haselhurst, Alan
Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)	Hawkins, Nick
Browning, Mrs. Angela	Hawksley, Warren
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)	Hayes, Jerry
Burns, Simon	Heald, Oliver
Burt, Alistair	Heathcoat-Amory, David
Butcher, John	Hendry, Charles
Butler, Peter	Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Butterfill, John	Horam, John
Carlisle, John (Luton North)	Hordern, Sir Peter
Carrington, Matthew	Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Carttiss, Michael	Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Cash, William	Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Channon, Rt Hon Paul	Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Chaplin, Mrs Judith	Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Chapman, Sydney	Hunter, Andrew
Clappison, James	Jack, Michael
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)	Jenkin, Bernard
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey	Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Coe, Sebastian	Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Congdon, David	Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Conway, Derek	Key, Robert
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)	Kilfedder, Sir James
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)	King, Rt Hon Tom
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John	Kirkhope, Timothy
Couchman, James	Knapman, Roger
Cran, James	Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)	Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)	Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Davis, David (Boothferry)	Knox, David
Day, Stephen	Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Deva, Nirj Joseph	Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Devlin, Tim	Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James	Legg, Barry
Dover, Den	Leigh, Edward
Duncan, Alan	Lidington, David
Duncan-Smith, Iain	Lightbown, David
Dunn, Bob	Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Durant, Sir Anthony	Lord, Michael
Dykes, Hugh	Luff, Peter
Eggar, Tim	MacKay, Andrew
Elletson, Harold	Maclean, David
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)	McLoughlin, Patrick
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)	Madel, David
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)	Maitland, Lady Olga
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)	Malone, Gerald
Evennett, David	Marland, Paul
Faber, David	Marlow, Tony
Fabricant, Michael	Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Fenner, Dame Peggy	Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)	Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Fishburn, Dudley	Merchant, Piers
Forman, Nigel	Milligan, Stephen
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)	Mills, Iain
Forth, Eric	Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman	Moate, Roger
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)	Monro, Sir Hector
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)	Moss, Malcolm
Freeman, Roger	Needham, Richard
French, Douglas	Nelson, Anthony
Gale, Roger	Neubert, Sir Michael
Gallie, Phil	Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Gardiner, Sir George	Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Gill, Christopher	Norris, Steve

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley	Streeter, Gary
Oppenheim, Phillip	Sweeney, Walter
Page, Richard	Sykes, John
Paice, James	Tapsell, Sir Peter
Patnick, Irvine	Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Pawsey, James	Taylor, John M. (Solihull)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth	Thomason, Roy
Pickles, Eric	Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Porter, David (Waveney)	Thurnham, Peter
Powell, William (Corby)	Townend, John (Bridlington)
Rathbone, Tim	Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)
Richards, Rod	Tredinnick, David
Riddick, Graham	Trend, Michael
Robathan, Andrew	Trimble, David
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)	Twinn, Dr Ian
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)	Viggers, Peter
Ross, William (E Londonderry)	Walden, George
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)	Walker, Bill (N Tayside)
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela	Waller, Gary
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard	Ward, John
Sackville, Tom	Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim	Waterson, Nigel
Shaw, David (Dover)	Watts, John
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)	Wells, Bowen
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian	Wheeler, Sir John
Shersby, Michael	Whitney, Ray
Sims, Roger	Whittingdale, John
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)	Widdecombe, Ann
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)	Wiggin, Jerry
Soames, Nicholas	Willetts, David
Speed, Sir Keith	Wilshire, David
Spencer, Sir Derek	Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)	Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)	Wolfson, Mark
Spink, Dr Robert	Wood, Timothy
Spring, Richard	Yeo, Tim
Sproat, Iain	Young, Sir George (Acton)
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Stephen, Michael	Tellers for the Ayes:
Stern, Michael	Mr. James Arbuthnot and Mr. Tim Boswell.
Stewart, Allan

NOES
Adams, Mrs Irene	Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Ainger, Nick	Corbyn, Jeremy
Allen, Graham	Cousins, Jim
Alton, David	Cox, Tom
Ashton, Joe	Cryer, Bob
Austin-Walker, John	Cunliffe, Lawrence
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)	Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Barnes, Harry	Darling, Alistair
Barron, Kevin	Davidson, Ian
Battle, John	Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Bayley, Hugh	Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Beith, Rt Hon A. J.	Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Bennett, Andrew F.	Denham, John
Benton, Joe	Dixon, Don
Berry, Dr. Roger	Dowd, Jim
Betts, Clive	Dunnachie, Jimmy
Blunkett, David	Eagle, Ms Angela
Boyce, Jimmy	Eastham, Ken
Bradley, Keith	Enright, Derek
Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)	Etherington, Bill
Burden, Richard	Evans, John (St Helens N)
Byers, Stephen	Fatchett, Derek
Caborn, Richard	Flynn, Paul
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)	Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)
Campbell-Savours, D. N.	Foster, Don (Bath)
Cann, Jamie	Fraser, John
Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)	Fyfe, Maria
Chisholm, Malcolm	Galbraith, Sam
Clapham, Michael	Galloway, George
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)	Gapes, Mike
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)	George, Bruce
Clelland, David	Gerrard, Neil
Clwyd, Mrs Ann	Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Coffey, Ann	Godman, Dr Norman A.
Cohen, Harry	Godsiff, Roger
Connarty, Michael	Golding, Mrs Llin
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)	Graham, Thomas

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)	Morley, Elliot
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)	Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)	Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Grocott, Bruce	Mudie, George
Gunnell, John	Mullin, Chris
Hall, Mike	Murphy, Paul
Hanson, David	O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Hardy, Peter	O'Hara, Edward
Heppell, John	Olner, William
Hill, Keith (Streatham)	Parry, Robert
Home Robertson, John	Pickthall, Colin
Hood, Jimmy	Pike, Peter L.
Hoon, Geoffrey	Pope, Greg
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)	Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Hoyle, Doug	Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)	Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)	Primarolo, Dawn
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)	Purchase, Ken
Hutton, John	Quin, Ms Joyce
Illsley, Eric	Raynsford, Nick
Ingram, Adam	Redmond, Martin
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)	Reid, Dr John
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)	Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Jamieson, David	Roche, Mrs. Barbara
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)	Rogers, Allan
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)	Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)	Rowlands, Ted
Jowell, Tessa	Sedgemore, Brian
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)	Short, Clare
Khabra, Piara S.	Simpson, Alan
Kilfoyle, Peter	Skinner, Dennis
Kirkwood, Archy	Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Leighton, Ron	Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)	Soley, Clive
Lewis, Terry	Spearing, Nigel
Livingstone, Ken	Spellar, John
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)	Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)
Loyden, Eddie	Steinberg, Gerry
Lynne, Ms Liz	Stevenson, George
McAllion, John	Strang, Dr. Gavin
McAvoy, Thomas	Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Macdonald, Calum	Tipping, Paddy
McKelvey, William	Turner, Dennis
Mackinlay, Andrew	Tyler, Paul
McMaster, Gordon	Warden, Gareth (Gower)
McWilliam, John	Watson, Mike
Madden, Max	Wicks, Malcolm
Mahon, Alice	Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)	Wilson, Brian
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)	Winnick, David
Maxton, John	Wise, Audrey
Meale, Alan	Worthington, Tony
Michael, Alun	Wray, Jimmy
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)	Wright, Dr Tony
Milburn, Alan	Young, David (Bolton SE)
Miller, Andrew
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)	Tellers for the Noes:
Moonie, Dr Lewis	Mr. Jon Owen Jones and Mr Jack Thompson.
Morgan, Rhodri

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved, That the Mink keeping Order 1992, a copy of which was laid before this House on 25th November, be approved.