OFFENCES RELATING TO FUR FARMING (Hansard, 14 May 1999)

§ Mr. Forth
I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 1, line 10, leave out subsection (2).

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 6, in clause 2, page 1, line 22, leave out subsection (2).

§ Mr. Forth
On the face of it, this is a narrow point, but it has important implications and deserves a pause for thought. Clause 1(2) states: A person is guilty of an offence if he knowingly causes or permits another person to keep animals as mentioned in subsection (1). Clause 2 contains similar wording. Difficulties could arise over the interpretation and definition of those words. How far might the provisions go, and who may, inadvertently or otherwise, be caught by them?
It may be extreme to argue that people who purchase a product, such as fur, could, given the widest possible interpretation, be covered by the Bill. It is certainly possible that those who sell items containing fur might be covered. But what about people who are aware of fur farming, yet fail to report it? I am fairly sure of the motivation behind the phrasing used.

§ Maria Eagle
Let me reassure the right hon. Gentleman. The important words are "causes or permits". It is not enough that someone simply knows of fur farming. One would have to cause or permit it. The owner of the land involved or the business concerned would be covered. Living nearby and knowing of the existence of a fur farm would not be enough.

§ Mr. Forth
The hon. Lady is helpful, as ever. That gets neighbours off the hook, but does it help retailers? Is there a causal chain involving the commercial relationship between the consumer, the retailer, the wholesaler, the processor and anyone else involved? At what point in the chain does the Bill apply?

§ Maria Eagle
The right hon. Gentleman might remember that under contract law, the parties to the contract would be those doing the causing. No problem will arise over the chain of relationships from retailer back to fur farm.

§ Mr. Forth
Let me mention, at random, the tanner. He may well have a contractual relationship with the fur farmer, which would draw him into the Bill's ambit.

§ Mr. Paterson
It is an incredibly simple fact that London is the centre of the world fur trade; 60 per cent. of world fur is traded here. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) has referred to contracts, and London's fur traders have contracts all over the world for which they require animals to be kept exclusively for fur.

§ Mr. Forth
We may well wish to return to that point. My hon. Friend's knowledge of these matters is unsurpassed in the House and he may wish to elaborate on them. My own brief comments merely lay the ground.
I am trying to explore the dangers that might exist in the Bill. I am not as reassured as the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) intends me to be, because those with a contractual arrangement may well be caught in the net.

§ Mr. Maclean
Surely my right hon. Friend can go further on the provision relating to causing, if not permitting. If a large fur dealer has a valuable market for the product and seeks someone to produce furs that he 570 can sell, is he causing someone to do so? He is certainly encouraging someone to be in the business of fur farming, but is he technically or legally causing someone to do so?

§ Mr. Forth
I suspect that the hon. Member for Garston would offer the contractual answer to that point.
Later today, we shall consider the different species involved, an important matter that has not yet been discussed. Take rabbits, for example. Let us suppose that a fashion house, a fur house or a tannery discovered that for some reason—fashion, perhaps—rabbits were much in demand. Let us suppose that farmers went into the business of producing rabbits.
There is some doubt over the balance of value in the rabbit between its meat for eating and its fur for wearing, and that is where the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) becomes important. Under the terms of the clause, at what stage could it be said that someone might be inducing the farmer, who is not at this stage a fur farmer? We will return to that matter, too, as some difficult and tricky related points have not yet been teased out.
Let us suppose that the farmer responded to the attractiveness of the proposition. How far would the person who had made the offer be implicated? There would be a contractual arrangement. I do not know whether that would define the matter satisfactorily one way or the other. The danger is that the net may end up going much wider than the hon. Member for Garston intended, although I can see why the provision was included in the Bill.

§ Mr. Maclean
I apologise for the slightly late intervention, but I received a note from the French Ministry of Agriculture yesterday, which pointed out that the rabbit Orylag—the Rex rabbit—is found extensively in France because the fur is more valuable than the meat. The whole carcase is use—60 per cent. of the value is in the fur and 40 per cent. in the meat at the moment. Such farming is an alternative rural industry. The product is popular as farmers diversify. Sometimes the meat and sometimes the fur is more valuable. Therefore, there is a danger in the provision.

§ Mr. Forth
I hope that my right hon. Friend will share that note with me later, as the matter will become highly germane when we discuss the schedule of species. My right hon. Friend has made the problem even worse. He is talking about French and not merely British seduction. We are now into international territory. How could I possibly doubt that what he says is correct? I can see from here that he has a document in front of him and I bet that it is in French, so I may be prepared to give a loose translation to the House if the need arises, but not yet.
Now that we have flushed out the rabbits, there seems to be a distinct possibility that, given the value of rabbit pelts and the doubt that exists about the relative value of pelt versus meat—we know how much the French like their lapins—there is sufficient doubt about this part of the Bill for us to be worried. When the hon. Member for Garston replies to this short debate, which need not be too long as we have much more important matters to discuss—

§ Mr. Paterson
Does my right hon. Friend understand that there is a clear link if a fur trader in London gives an
571 order to another body, who may have had a fur farm in this country and who may have moved his production to Denmark, which is very likely to happen in one case? As the Bill stands, that person will be liable to a £20,000 fine. There is a clear causal link between the trader in London ordering so many thousand pelts and the farmer, who is not permitted to produce in England, but is doing so in Denmark. The contractual link is as clear as daylight.

§ Mr. Forth
All that this debate has proved is that the less I say on the subject the better. My hon. Friend knows infinitely more about it than I can ever hope to know. I am anxious to get on to some of the meatier aspects of the debate—I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border got that, as no one else did. This is an important matter, but I do not want to delay the House on it. I simply wanted to set the scene and to tantalise my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson), as I think I have. I will leave it at that.
To be truthful, I want to hear what the hon. Member for Garston has to say on the subject. The Minister may be tempted to his feet, although he is in a slightly churlish mood. However, he may be tempted to join us, to bring some joy to the debate and to help us out. With that, I am happy to move the amendment.

§ Maria Eagle
I am happy to try to reassure the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) about the permitting offence, if I may call it that. Both amendments would remove the permitting offences from the Bill. I am concerned that if those amendments are made, they will create anomalies that will, in effect, enable anyone who is fur farming in this country to structure his or her business to escape the provisions of the Bill.
As the Bill is drafted, the offence can be committed by a company or by a person. The person with the controlling interest in one of the businesses might, for example, cause or permit a member of his family to do the fur farming, which would be the only remaining offence if the amendment were accepted. That is certainly the structure of one or two existing businesses. Perhaps an owner of a business might employ someone to run the fur farm. If the amendments were agreed, the person who had been employed to run the farm could be prosecuted, but not the person who owned the business and was employing that person to do so. That would leave an unacceptable loophole.
The land and buildings on a farm might be not owned by the person operating the farm, but rented to him by an ex-fur farmer. If the Bill's aim is to ban fur farming, it is not appropriate to introduce loopholes that would allow it to continue as a result of not prosecuting people for the offence if they are not directly involved, but are causing or permitting it. The Bill is drafted to avoid easy loopholes. I know that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst disapproves of making such activity criminal, but if we are to have this legislation on the statute book, the last thing that we want is an easy loophole to enable people to flout the law.
I am not as concerned as the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst about the extent to which the provision may catch others who have some link with 572 the fur business, such as shoppers, neighbours and retailers. That is because one must knowingly cause or permit another person or company to establish and run a fur farm in this country before one is caught by the provision. It will not catch people who wander into a shop and buy a fur coat, or those in the London markets who buy fur from various sources, because they are not knowingly causing or permitting someone to commit a criminal offence.
I understand that the right hon. Gentleman does not want the offences created by the Bill to extend beyond what is intended, but I do not believe that the Bill as currently drafted does that. If his amendments were accepted, they would create a massive loophole which would prevent the Bill's main purpose from being implemented. I resist his amendments.

§ Mr. Maclean
I listened carefully to what the hon. Lady said, and agreed with some of it. I am not convinced about "causes". I accept the explanation of "permits". The provision does not extend to anyone who buys a fur coat, although that is the end of the chain. The fact that people wander into shops in London to buy fur coats is the reason why farmers in Holland, Denmark and America will keep mink. They do it for the benefit of no one but the consumer. Even on the most far-fetched legal interpretation, the consumer who buys the product, and thereby causes the farming to take place, does not legally cause it. Even my meagre law training 30 years ago tells me that.
I am not so sure about the international fur trade, the big London market and people in this country legitimately involved in the fur trade. The problem is that London accounts for 60 per cent. of the world fur market. It is huge and there are no plans to ban it. The world is going to continue producing furs. It will remain legal and legitimate, although many do not like it, except for farmers in Scotland, England and Wales who breed animals to supply the legal trade.
We do not have to look at Denmark. The danger is that someone heavily involved in the business will look at Northern Ireland. Nothing is being farmed there, but if I was a fur farmer in this country, I would be tempted to take whatever compensation the Government offer and set up business there because it is not covered by the Bill.
A fur trader in this country might say to someone who is operating a business in Northern Ireland, "If you go into fur fanning, I can get you a contract for 50,000 pelts a year. I am involved in the business; I will buy your supplies, if you go into business in Northern Ireland." That point is not far fetched, because Ministries of Agriculture are encouraging farm diversification schemes. I think that in this country, MAFF used to encourage a scheme for farmed rabbit meat. I am not sure if there is a subsidy, but we certainly have a farmed rabbit industry. I remember having to deal with the problems of Chinese viral haemorrhagic disease or something like that. That industry exists to farm animals for meat.
I have received a note from the diversification and marketing department of the French Agriculture Ministry encouraging people to stock a certain breed of rabbit—the Rex Orylag. When that rabbit is sold normally, the meat is worth 40 per cent., but the fur is worth 60 per cent.—depending on the market at the time. Currently, it could be perfectly legitimate for farmers to diversify into 573 rabbit farming in Northern Ireland, because some guy in this country could tell them that if they did so, he would take all the fur that they produced. That person would be encouraging someone else to produce fur, although he might not be causing the other person to do it.

§ Maria Eagle
Perhaps I did not express myself sufficiently clearly earlier. I reassure the right hon. Gentleman that the Bill applies to Great Britain. The primary offence is keeping mink, or any fur-bearing animal, solely or primarily for its fur, within the jurisdiction of Great Britain. In relation to the people for whom the right hon. Gentleman expresses concern, if the secondary offence were to come within the ambit of the Bill, those people would have knowingly to cause fur farming of some description to go on within Great Britain, otherwise no offence would be committed. We are not legislating for the rest of Europe; if the Bill proceeds, the House will legislate for Great Britain—not Northern Ireland. People would have knowingly to cause or permit an illegal activity to take place in Great Britain to fall under the ambit of the Bill. That deals with most of the points made by Conservative Members.

§ Mr. Maclean
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for making that point, which deals with the example that I gave. However, let us suppose that someone is caught illegally fur farming in this country—for example, by breeding those Rex Orylag rabbits—but that person says, "I was doing it because I was encouraged by Mr. Bloggs in the fur trade; he said he would take all the rabbit pelts I could get. We can sell them times 50 per cent. for the meat." Someone could encourage another person to take up that trade in this country. The excuse might be that rabbit meat is more valuable at a particular time, so the rabbits are not being bred primarily for their fur—although, of course, the fur is sometimes worth 40 per cent. and sometimes 60 per cent. Is that person causing someone else to go into that business? One person is certainly encouraging the other, but perhaps not causing the other to do so. Perhaps the hon. Lady would respond to that in a moment.

§ Mr. Paterson
My right hon. Friend has touched on the most important point. There are completely separate markets for fur and for meat. The price of fur has collapsed during the past year because of the slowdown in Russia and the far east. As he suggests, it could easily happen that a perfectly respectable rabbit farmer, who is mainly geared up to producing meat, finds that he is producing fur illegally, if the price of fur shoots up. He is then liable for a £20,000 fine as the Bill stands.

§ Mr. Maclean
I thank my hon. Friend for making that point; I had not realised that background point.
I shall conclude my remarks in case my hon. Friends want to speak. This is a small exploratory amendment. I understand the danger of removing the subsection and do not want to create a lacuna in the Bill by doing so. However, I wanted to explore my concerns about causes. I understand that, if a farmer tried to hide behind a company business and then contracted it out to someone else, that would be defined as causing the second person to take up the business, if it was done knowingly. I do not think that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) is correct in saying that employees would 574 be caught. If someone owns a business, but lets the employees run it, surely he would be caught. It would be not only the employees who were prosecuted, but the person running the business.
12.15 pm
Therefore, if we removed the subsection, a farmer who had built in complex, commercial constraints or clauses to put himself at arm's length from the business could claim to be exempt from the legislation by pretending that he had nothing to do with it, even though, in fact, he was causing it to be carried out. I agree that the word "causes" is necessary to catch such people. However, the hon. Lady is saying that, without the subsection, the legitimate owner would be able to get away, but his employees could be caught and prosecuted, whereas I thought that for reasons of vicarious liability, the owner could be caught if the employees were.
That brings me to the end of my comments on the subject of the word "causes". I am not entirely convinced by the arguments I have heard, but I shall hear what my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) has to say. Then, perhaps, we can conclude our debate on the amendment.

§ Mr. Paterson
I am rather concerned that the Minister has not answered the points about species that I made on Second Reading, but I shall return to that later.
On the question of fur and its value, it is necessary to understand the range of people who could be caught by the legislation as it stands. If the Bill is passed, it is likely that smaller producers will leave the business, but there is one clear case in which a fur farmer has a substantial business in this country and a substantial business in Denmark. It is likely that that fur farmer will keep his British business going as a company, although he will have to cease production in this country if he is to avoid a £20,000 fine. However, surely a clear link remains between his dealers in London, where 60 per cent. of the world trade in fur is carried out—we have been trading fur since the days of the Hudson's Bay Company—and his fur production in Denmark.

§ Maria Eagle
The hon. Gentleman misunderstands my earlier remarks—perhaps I did not make them clear enough, so let me try again. For the second offence—that of "permitting"—to be committed, the fur farming has to have been carried out within Great Britain, which defines the limits of the Bill's scope. If the fur farmer in the hon. Gentleman's example moves his production abroad, it is clear that he will not be caught by the permitting offence.

§ Mr. Paterson
I thank the hon. Lady for that helpful intervention, but it only shows how pointless the Bill is, because mink will continue to be produced for fur in another country. Where in the Bill does it say that it is strictly limited to production in the UK? To move on to the points raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), we have to recognise that London will continue to play host to the trade in fur produced on rabbit farms. As I have just explained, the markets for rabbit meat and rabbit fur move independently of each other and, although the price of rabbit fur is currently low because of problems in Russia 575 and the far east, the market could easily pick up. If it did, legitimate rabbit farmers with contracts in London would be swept into the scope of the Bill. That is not satisfactory.

§ Maria Eagle
That is not true. Mr. Paterson: Would the hon. Lady care to explain why not? Maria Eagle: I shall be happy to do so. The matter was dealt with on Second Reading. The offence is to farm animals solely or primarily … for the value of their fur". I made it clear on Second Reading that it is not my intention to catch people who produce fur as a secondary product, so a farmer who keeps rabbits primarily for their meat would not be caught by the Bill. The Bill covers only businesses of which fur is the primary product, so the hon. Gentleman need not worry quite so much. It will be for the courts and the prosecuting authorities to determine the primary purpose of the business, and they will consider that in a common-sense way.

§ Mr. Paterson
The hon. Lady is being naive. The rabbit farmer will want to add value to his rabbits; if the fashion for rabbit fur, and therefore the market for it, picks up, the main value of the rabbit will be derived from its fur, not from its meat. The hon. Lady puts legitimate rabbit farmers in real jeopardy of coming under the scope of her Bill, because fur will be the main object of production in some years, and meat in others. The Bill has not been properly thought through.

§ Maria Eagle
It is not naive—the matter was thought about when the Bill was drafted, and that is why the word "primary" is present. It would be for the prosecuting authorities and the courts, which always deal with such issues in a common-sense way, to identify the primary purpose of the business. In mink farming, it is fairly clear that the primary purpose of the business is to collect the commercial value of the fur—I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees on that. I made it clear on Second Reading that I did not intend the Bill to catch rabbit farmers whose primary purpose is meat production. That is why the word "primary" is in the legislation. The Bill must be interpreted by the prosecuting authorities and by the courts. I hope that, by making it clear that I do not intend rabbit producers to come within the Bill's ambit, I have assisted the courts in that regard.

§ Mr. Paterson
It is a fundamental issue. It is clear that the hon. Lady does not understand that, when rabbit fur is in fashion and that market is strong—possibly for five years—it is likely that rabbit farmers will derive their main income from fur rather than from meat.
Moving to a completely different species, I visited the Falkland Islands in November. The farmers there dump sheep carcases on the beach where they are eaten by seals and sea lions. All the value is in the wool and there is no market for the meat. That could happen with rabbit farms.

§ Maria Eagle
The Bill does not extend to the Falkland Islands or to wool. However, in those circumstances, it would be perfectly clear to the prosecuting authorities what the primary purpose of the business was.

§ Mr. Paterson
It is most unsatisfactory to leave it to magistrates in Devon or in some remote part of the United 576 Kingdom to wing this. We cannot expect them to read this debate and say, "Ah, when the hon. Lady drafted the Bill, she never expected the fur market to pick up and become the overwhelming reason for breeding rabbits." We cannot legislate in that way.

§ Mr. Maclean
Surely the point is that, because the cost of fur fluctuates in cycles every one, two or three years, farmers who legitimately produce rabbits primarily for meat—believe it or not, there is a huge market in rabbit meat—may discover that, if there is a change in the world fur market and an increase in fur prices, fur is more profitable. However, they would be prosecuted under the Bill if they breed rabbits for their fur. That is what I am concerned about.

§ Mr. Paterson
That is exactly my point. It is not good enough to pass legislation in the House and to expect magistrates to interpret it in the spirit that the Bill's promoter intended.

§ Mr. Morley
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, although it is not a large industry, rabbit farming is long established in this country. That is understood by those involved in rabbit farming and by the Ministry. Has a single rabbit farmer expressed concern to the hon. Gentleman about the Bill?

§ Mr. Paterson
No, they have not. At present, the primary function of rabbit farms is meat production. We cannot legislate in the hope that the circumstances will not change: the Bill must be clear and watertight. If the legislation passes unamended and magistrates interpret the Bill as it stands, a legitimate rabbit farmer who has raised rabbits for meat for many years but who turns to fur production when that market turns up may swing for a £20,000 fine. The Minister shakes his head. Under what circumstances would magistrates not impose the £20,000 fine? Will the Minister explain?

§ Mr. Morley
As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) has explained—I think ad nauseam—it would have to be demonstrated that the farm's primary purpose was the production of fur. It is irrelevant if, for the sake of argument, rabbit fur is worth more than the meat in a particular year—I am not sure whether that has ever happened—because the main consideration is whether the primary purpose of the business is fur rather than meat production. We have considered this issue very carefully, because the Bill does not seek to interfere with the sale of a by-product of meat production on rabbit farms.

§ Mr. Paterson
It is clear that the main intention of the Bill is to close the few mink farms remaining in this country. However, it could also encompass rabbit farms. If the value of the fur exceeds the value of the meat and that becomes the main purpose of the rabbit farm—

§ Mr. Morley
It has nothing to do with that.

§ Mr. Paterson
It is. If the Minister reads the Bill, he will find that clause 1 says:

§ Mr. Morley
That must be the primary purpose. [Interruption.]

§ Mr. Paterson
I am delighted to have a sedentary intervention from the promoter of the Bill and from the Minister. Would one of them like to explain the provision?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman has made his point about rabbit production, and he is beginning to repeat himself.

§ Mr. Paterson
I agree that I am repeating myself, but that is because I am not receiving a satisfactory answer.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is not receiving a satisfactory answer. I have no powers over that, but I have powers to ensure that hon. Members do not keep repeating themselves. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could move on.

§ Mr. Paterson
Certainly, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall move on to another concern.
I repeat the declaration of interest that I made on Second Reading. Although there is no direct link between the tanning industry and the fur industry, some materials do cross over under certain tariff headings. I spent my career in the leather industry before I came to the House, and I was the president of the European Tanners Confederation for a couple of years; I am still vice-president.
The Bill gives no cast-iron definition of "fur".

§ Maria Eagle
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Are we not considering amendments Nos. 5 and 6, or have I missed us moving on to the next group?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
The hon. Gentleman must address amendments Nos. 5 and 6.

§ Mr. Paterson
Absolutely, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Unless those amendments are made, anyone who buys from a producer whose primary product is fur can be caught out. No one has looked into the European Union tariff definitions of fur. Chapter 43 of those definitions was published in the Official Journal of the European Communities, L292, volume 41, on 30 October 1998. It states: Throughout the nomenclature references to 'furskins', other than to raw furskins of heading No 4301, apply to hides or skins of all animals which have been tanned or dressed with the hair or wool on. That is a broad definition. Heading 4301 applies to raw fur skins,
"including heads, tails, paws and other pieces or cuttings, suitable for furriers' use … other than raw hides and skins of heading No 4101, 4102 or 4103".
If amendments Nos. 5 and 6 are not made, anyone who places an order for those products, from animals that are raised exclusively for fur, will caught by the provisions of the Bill.

§ Maria Eagle
Only if the animals are farmed in this country. How many times must I say that to the hon. Gentleman before he hears me?

§ Mr. Paterson
Those animals are farmed in this country, as the hon. Lady will find out if she allows me 578 to refer to the lists of the animals concerned. I am most surprised that the hon. Lady did not take up this issue because I referred to it on Second Reading. She could have read the list and found that many of those animals could be produced in this country.
There is a fairly obscure demand by architects for cattle hides with hair on; they are known as hair-on hides.

§ Mr. Morley
The Bill relates to fur. There are no furry cattle.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. May I ask the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) what this has to do with amendment No. 5? He has lost me.

§ Mr. Paterson
It has everything to do with amendment No. 5. If a party places an order for hair-on hides, they will be encompassed by the Bill if that animal is produced only for the hide. I mentioned on Second Reading a Belted Galloway, which has a white stripe on a black background and looks marvellous on a wall. If that animal is produced specifically for its hide, the producer will be affected by the Bill. That is true of the producers of other species, such as certain rare types of sheep, including Carakul and Broadtail. They all count as fur under the European Union definitions. Therefore, if those sheep or cattle are produced, in this country, only for the fur—and it is defined as fur by the European Union—they are caught out. This is a desperately serious point.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. It may be a serious point, but I have heard the hon. Gentleman make that point before. As he has made the point, perhaps he will allow the promoter of the Bill to allay his fears or otherwise. That might be best.

§ Mr. Paterson
If the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) would allay my fears, I should be grateful.
Let us suppose that someone breeds an Astrakhan, Carakul, Persian, Indian, Chinese, Mongolian or Tibetan lamb, all of which could be bred in this country, where the meat is of no value and the fur is of exceedingly high value. Under heading 4302 13 00, the breeder of those very specialised rare sheep would be caught up by the Bill because, according to the European Union definition, it is fur.

§ Maria Eagle
The Bill is not about sheep, it is not about wool, it is not about cows, it is not about hide; it is about keeping animals where the primary or sole purpose is the value of their fur. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has not understood it. Perhaps he should go and read the Bill.

§ Mr. Morley
Perhaps he does not know what sheep are like.

§ Mr. Paterson
These are rather cheap sedentary interventions.
579 I am making a desperately serious point. People in a totally separate trade may be swept up by the provisions of the Bill. [Interruption.] I welcome you to your position, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Let me explain what you might have missed. As the Bill stands, a breeder of rare sheep—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst)
Order. Perhaps I should tell the hon. Gentleman that the Chair has a collective memory.

§ Mr. Paterson
Okay. Right. I shall make my comments very brief because I know that the hon. Member for Garston is looking at the clock.
As the Bill stands, a person will be fined £20,000 in a magistrates court if he has caused another person to raise an animal for its fur. We all agree with that.

§ Maria Eagle
In GB.

§ Mr. Paterson
In GB—anywhere in the United Kingdom.
There are certain breeds of sheep—I shall stick to sheep—which I named just now, whose wool, as some people call it, is defined as fur by the European Communities definition. Therefore those farmers will be committing an offence. I shall keep it simple for the Minister's sake. The value of the fur is the reason for raising the sheep, because if one wants to raise sheep for meat—

§ Mr. Morley
Fur?

§ Mr. Paterson
Yes. It is defined as fur in the European Union Official Journal of the European Communities. I have read out the list; the Minister would have heard if he had bothered to listen. It is a fundamental point. It will sweep in many innocent people who are not involved in mink farming—which, as I understand it, is the narrow focus of the Bill. That is why it is essential that the Bill is amended—either on species grounds or as proposed by amendments Nos. 5 and 6. [Interruption.] I am glad to see that the Minister is going to consult his advisers, who might be better informed than he is.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. There are only right hon. and hon. Members present in the Chamber. There should be no other references.

§ Mr. Paterson
I am glad to see that the Minister is taking inspiration from the wooden panelling near his left ear.
However, I am making a very serious point. It is quite possible to raise, for the value of their fur in this country, animals that are not mink, that are not kept in cages, but are kept in farms. Some them may be goats; some may be sheep. It is most important that the Minister addresses that point. I am disappointed that he did not do so after Second Reading.

§ Mr. Forth
It falls to me to say a few words to conclude this constructive and fascinating little debate. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson), who has drawn attention to 580 some important matters. I suspect that we will have an opportunity to return to some of the important themes that he raised when we debate a later group of amendments.

§ Mr. Morley
To try to avoid the risk of returning to any of those themes, I want to reassure the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) that, in relation to a very short discussion with the experts in the field of whether a sheep can be defined as furry, MAFF is quite content with the fact that we shall not have any problems in relation to the definition of fleeces. We are quite capable of telling fur from fleece, and a sheep from a fur animal, even if the hon. Member for North Shropshire is not.

§ Mr. Forth
In the context of that helpful comment, I will not get into elbows under any circumstances. We will probably return to this theme later in a rabbit sense, in which it may be much more relevant.

§ Mr. Maclean
Although MAFF, the Minister and those of us in this House may be able to tell the difference between a sheep and other animals that obviously have fur, the European Union has lumped them together in definitional terms, just as carrots have been reclassified as fruit and other things have been given weird classifications by the EC. That is the danger that my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) was talking about.

§ Mr. Forth
Indeed. Later we may want to explore the relationship between the Bill's effect in Great Britain—the UK will come in when we talk about grouping with Northern Ireland—and in Europe. We will then see who the real Europeans are. I suspect that we will see a fascinating juxtaposition, as we hear some uncharacteristic European noises from the Opposition Benches and some narrow British noises from the Government Benches. I hope that Labour Members will mind their words carefully, because they know what the Prime Minister said yesterday and what he thinks about these matters.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) because, typically and characteristically, she answered the points that I made thoughtfully. I was persuaded by her argument that, if our amendments were passed, they would cause unnecessary loopholes in the Bill. I would never want to be party to weakening the Bill in that way. Our last debate was about precisely the opposite, as is the next group of amendments.
For all those reasons, and, because I am anxious to save time and press on, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Mr. Maclean
I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 1, line 17, leave out '£.20,000' and insert
'level 5 on the standard scale or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months, or both.'.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 8, in page 1, line 17, leave out '£20,000' and insert
'level 5 on the standard scale'.

§ Mr. Maclean
The first amendment would give courts the option of imposing the standard level 5 fine and the 581 second would give them the option of the standard level 5 fine plus a period of imprisonment. One of the amendments, by necessity, would lower the maximum fine from £20,000 to £5,000, which is the highest fine that can be imposed on level 5 of the standard scale. The second amendment would give courts the option of imposing a custodial sentence in addition to, or instead of, a fine.
When I compared the Bill with other legislation with which I have been involved, I concluded that it is unusual for a specific sum to be included in legislation. More commonly, fines are prescribed with regard to levels on the standard scale. That avoids the need for changes to primary legislation when the scale is revised and saves the Government going through every piece of legislation raising the penalty from, say, £5,000 to £10,000. They bring in a general Criminal Justice Bill and simply raise the level of fines, which applies to thousands of Acts of Parliament in which the standard scale is imposed. It is therefore convenient to have a fine on the standard scale.
The other point concerns the level of the fine. The sum of £20,000 is fairly hefty and is usually imposed for corporate offences as opposed to those committed by individuals. The exception is gross environmental offences, for which huge fines of £50,000 are imposed. In special cases where one is guilty of allowing leakages from an oil tanker, one can get done for millions, and rightly so. Only in rare circumstances, however, and usually in respect of companies, are fines of that nature made, and fine-only punishment, as opposed to a court-ordered fine and a term of imprisonment, is normally available for such offences. Most fur farmers are individuals, not corporate entities, although there may be sole traders or partnerships. In those circumstances, the £20,000 penalty seems disproportionate and unsuitable.
Last week, we sent to the other place the Breeding and Sale of Dogs (Welfare) Bill, and its maximum penalty is three months' imprisonment and a fine of up to £2,500. Everyone agreed that that is sensible for such commercial activity—a lot of money is to be made by breeding and selling dogs, and more is to be made from mink farming.

§ Maria Eagle
I am sorry to make a slightly delayed intervention on the right hon. Gentleman's point about corporate identity, but the fur farmer who was recently found guilty of 15 counts of cruelty was prosecuted as a company—under his corporate identity rather than as an individual—so it is not unknown for existing businesses to have corporate identities. Perhaps a higher fine is appropriate.

§ Mr. Maclean
I hear what the hon. Lady says about that case. I do not know whether all 13 fur farms are corporate bodies; I suspect not, because that would be most unusual in any aspect of farming.

§ Mr. Desmond Swayne (New Forest, West)
I believe that the case to which the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) refers involves a constituent of mine, who was recently fined £5,000, albeit his costs took the total to about £20,000.

§ Mr. Maclean
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that information. It is always a source of grief to me that the costs of fighting cases are always greater than the 582 penalties imposed. I hope that the Treasury, rather than the prosecution and defence lawyers, will benefit from receiving the proceeds of that fine. I am not getting at the hon. Lady, but individual examples perhaps make bad law and I suspect that the majority of farmers are not corporate bodies.
This point had not occurred to me before: it should be possible for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the SVS, when investigating, to pin many offences, over a continuing period, on someone who has been convicted of a cruelty offence. Would keeping animals improperly be one offence? Could charges be made in respect of every single animal and over a long period? I am not sure whether such a provision applies in the Bill.
For example, would one offence have been committed by someone continuing to run a mink farm with 100 mink illegally for 100 days, or would offences have been committed in respect of all the mink over those 100 days? I will happily take advice on that from the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle). If a separate offence applies to each animal kept, and not merely one offence of being an illegal mink farmer is committed, the scale of fines could mount up.
I have little else to say, except that, on the one hand, the £20,000 penalty might be on the steep side, but, on the other, if this offence deserves a £20,000 penalty, why does not the Bill provide for a term of imprisonment? A term of imprisonment was provided for by the Breeding and Sale of Dogs (Welfare) Bill, and six months' imprisonment usually applies to level 5 fines on the standard scale. In those circumstances, a term of imprisonment would be perfectly satisfactory and ought to be included as an option for someone who breaks the law by continuing to run, or by starting, an illegal operation after the Bill comes into effect.
This is surely a matter of trusting the courts. If they have the power to impose a penalty and slap on a fine up to level 5 on the standard scale, they should also be able to impose any period of imprisonment.
12.45 pm
As my hon. Friends have said, some of these people may be men of straw and may not have much substance behind them. A period of imprisonment may be a greater deterrent than a fine that may not be paid. They may have so arranged their businesses that they are men of straw and have little assets.
I am happy for the hon. Lady to say that she wants a high penalty and will not accept a level 5 fine, but if she believes high penalties are essential, periods of imprisonments must also be essential. It is illogical to go for a high financial penalty that offenders may not pay, instead of having the deterrent of imprisonment.
There are obviously alternatives, and they cannot all be accepted. I seriously urge the hon. Lady and the Minister to accept the amendment that would impose a period of imprisonment.

§ Maria Eagle
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for making these amendments perfectly clear. We have not always had clarity from Conservative Members this morning, but he has made his points clear and I shall do my best to answer them.
583 The right hon. Gentleman is quite right that it is unusual for a fine to be specified in primary legislation, as it is in the Bill. I believe that a fine is the appropriate sanction. If the Bill were to be enacted, the law breaking would be for economic gain, so it seems highly appropriate to deter it by imposing a high level of fine.
Amendment No. 7 would impose a level 5 fine, which is £5,000 as the right hon. Gentleman explained. I believe that level 5 is not sufficiently high. A fur farmer could make a large economic gain by acting unlawfully, so a £5,000 fine may not be a sufficient deterrent to prevent him from continuing his unlawful business. That is why I thought that the fine should be at a higher level.
The amount of the fine is specified in the Bill so that it acts as a clear and obvious deterrent. The fine is clear from looking at the Bill. I know that that is unusual, but one would not anticipate the small businesses that the Bill makes unlawful to continue in great numbers, and one would not expect many people to be prosecuted for such an offence if the Bill does its job properly once it is enacted and once the industry is closed down.
It is important to include in the Bill the date on which the industry becomes unlawful and the level of fine. That is why I took the unusual step of specifying the amount of the fine as £20,000, rather than using one of the levels in the summary jurisdiction of the magistrates court.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether running a fur farm would count as one offence or whether a person would be guilty of separate offences. Each animal kept could constitute a separate offence, but given the way in which prosecutors work, it would be highly unusual for them to charge every offence. If a fur farm were operating with 100 mink, it would be highly unusual for prosecutors to charge 100 offences, although, technically, they would be separate offences. Normally, specimen charges are laid. For example, in the cruelty case that we referred to earlier, 15 specimen charges were made, although there were many more breaches than that. The prosecution went ahead on that basis, and the fur farmer was found guilty and fined. I would expect that approach to be taken.

§ Mr. Maclean
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. She is wonderfully courteous.
If specimen charges could be laid, there would be no difficulty imposing a £5,000 maximum fine on 10 specimen charges if there were more than 10 mink. That would tot up to more than £20,000 and imprisonment.

§ Maria Eagle
That would certainly be an alternative way of dealing with the issue. When I was considering the drafting of the Bill, that was a possible solution, but I do not think that it is preferable to the one in the Bill. I thought that it was important to make the penalty clear in primary legislation. That is why I specified the figure of £20,000: I wanted the fine to be on a higher scale than the present level 5.
The right hon. Gentleman has said during earlier stages in the Bill's passage that the provision is too inflexible and, given that there might be a period of rapid inflation, the fine might end up looking rather small and primary legislation might be required to change it. I consider that unlikely, but in any event a Criminal Justice Bill—we deal with many of those, and they often amend other legislation—could increase the fine.
584 I also do not believe that there are a vast number of people who would wish to establish illegal businesses. Of course the sanctions must be there, but I do not expect that they will have to be used extensively.
I accept that the amendments represent an alternative way of dealing with this issue, but, having considered such proposals at the time when the Bill was drafted, I decided against them, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will respect my judgment.
As for imprisonment, the magistrates courts provide for six months, but I felt that, as these are primarily economic offences, they should be dealt with in that context. The right hon. Gentleman may have forgotten momentarily that the Bill provides for another method of punishment, namely forfeiture, which would involve not just a fine but the loss of an economic asset. Imprisonment on top of that would surely be draconian.

§ Mr. Maclean
A £5,000 maximum fine plus forfeiture would exceed £20,000. The forfeiture would constitute the lower level of the economic penalty that 1 propose; imprisonment would be the other penalty.

§ Maria Eagle
The right hon. Gentleman is right. If there are two lawyers in a room, they will come up with two different ways of doing things.
I hope that it reassures the right hon. Gentleman to learn that I considered his approach, but—perhaps for reasons of style; I am a different sort of lawyer from him—decided against it. I hope that he will not press the amendment, although of course he is entitled to do so. I accept that his proposals are constructive, but I am not convinced that they represent a better way of doing things.

§ Mr. Forth
In a speech that was, as ever, courteous and considered, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) said—with total honesty and transparency—that this was yet another of those unbalanced things, and that, having considered all the options, she had finally plumped for the one in the Bill. We too considered the options, from our own perspective, and funnily enough—this theme has run through this morning's debate—we concluded that, if we had to have this Bill, we would have to ensure that it did what it set out to do. If, as some would say, we are dealing with grasping, unpleasant people doing very unpleasant things, I should have thought that we should err on the side of harshness when it comes to penalties.
I am slightly puzzled by the hon. Lady's insistence that, because she considers this to be an activity concerned with economic gain, the money side of the penalty is the more important side. What has happened to the issue of welfare? The Bill is supposed to include a welfare consideration somewhere. Surely, at best, it is concerned with the welfare of animals, although ever since Second Reading we have disagreed on the best way to approach that. My hon. Friends and I have made no secret of the fact that we would have preferred an approach more directly concerned with welfare; but that is now behind us.

§ Mr. Morley
I understand what the right hon. Gentleman is saying. There is a balance to be struck in looking at things such as imprisonment, but, on the point 585 about welfare, welfare legislation is in place and is separate from the penalty, which is in relation to breaking the terms of the prohibition.

§ Mr. Forth
I accept that, but if that welfare legislation were adequate and were being properly implemented, presumably, we would not have the problem with which the Bill seeks to deal, so there is a bit of a conundrum there.
The hon. Member for Garston said that some of the people would be wealthy and that, therefore, a large financial penalty would be appropriate. One can turn that argument on its head and say, if they were that wealthy, even £20,000 might not be sufficient to deter them, but I bet that six months in prison would not half concentrate their minds. Therefore, following her own logic, because some of these people may be well off as a result of their activities, we need the possibility of a term of imprisonment, rather than only the substantial fine that that the Bill imposes.
Let us look at the other end of the spectrum. The person may have virtually no money and therefore may not be able to pay the fine, whether it be £5,000 or £20,000. I would feel much happier if we had the alternative of the term of imprisonment available to us in the event of the fine not having an effect.
Therefore, we are left with a peculiar position. Whether the person is a very wealthy fur farmer, or someone who has been very unsuccessful and is merely making a living, the argument comes down heavily on the side of a term of imprisonment being available to the court. Time and again, I find myself in the odd, but pleasurable position of arguing for the Bill to be strengthened in an attempt to make it more effective. I am still at a loss to see why the hon. Member for Garston draws back from that.

§ Mr. Paterson
Considering the flaws that we recently flushed out on the matter of definition, I am most surprised by the turn that my right hon. Friend's argument is taking. He must now realise that many totally innocent people in a trade totally separate from the fur trade could be swept into this. The penalties are excessive in that regard.

§ Mr. Forth
I confess that that is a problem.

§ Mr. Paterson
It is a huge problem.

§ Mr. Forth
It is. We will examine the matter further in a few moments. I am trying to focus on penalties notwithstanding. Let us resolve the matter about sheep, rabbits, fur, wool, fleeces and arms and elbows later, and concentrate now on the merits of the clause, discuss what we think the proper penalties are and how effective they might be. Then we will go on, perhaps even under the next group of amendments, to talk about pelts, rabbits and all sorts of other fascinating things.
We are talking about what will be most effective in implementing the Bill. Our argument is simple. The hon. Member for Garston was generous enough to praise the clarity with which my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) had put the case. I cannot better it, but I want to reinforce our slight puzzlement that, in our efforts time and again to strengthen the Bill, we are being resisted. I would have 586 thought that the question of penalties is a relatively straightforward matter. It is one about which my right hon. and hon. Friends and I feel strongly.
I do not feel inclined—it will be for my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border to say because he moved the amendment—to accept what the hon. Lady says. I do not believe that £5,000 will be enough to deter a very wealthy farmer and that we should not make available to the courts a term of imprisonment. If that penalty was good enough to look after the welfare of puppy dogs last week, it is certainly good enough to look after the welfare of mink or any other fur-bearing species this week. I hope that our decision will be consistent with that taken last week and that the Bill will include a term of imprisonment.

§ Mr. Paterson
Following the unsatisfactory answers that we received on the matter of definition, and that we may receive on further clauses, talk of fines of £20,000 and imprisonment is excessive. The people who will be caught up in future will be innocent. We established in earlier debate that there are very few fur farmers left in this country—11, I think, and they will almost certainly go.
Those who will get caught up by the legislation will be innocent parties in another trade—the rabbit fanner who switches his production to fur, and so on. It will be an appalling burden for magistrates courts to have to decide such cases. I am not a lawyer, and I apologise to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) for my earlier comment disparaging lawyers. I have always found my dealings with them rather expensive, but it is a fine profession and I am sure that she is an excellent example of it.
As I understand it—the hon. Lady may correct me—the decision will be taken in magistrates courts, without recourse to jury. The only people likely to be swept up will be those involved in the rearing of animals that are not clearly defined—people from entirely different trades. I find any discussion of imprisonment excessive, and fines of £20,000 are out of order for the mainly innocent people who will be swept up.
How would the hon. Lady answer to some sheep farmer or rabbit farmer who was taken for £20,000 on the decision of a magistrates court, where he could not be represented by a proper lawyer—possibly someone of her standing?

§ Mr. Maclean
It falls to me to conclude the debate on this group of amendments. I disagree strongly with my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson). I know that perhaps only 20 of my colleagues agree with my general approach to the Bill. There is contention about the subject.
Some of us may take the view that the Bill is wrong in principle, or misguided, or that it should be approached by another route. However, if the measure goes through Parliament—the Commons and the other place—it will be become an Act of Parliament prohibiting an activity. The fact that I thought initially that it was misguided does not change my belief that the laws of this House must not be disobeyed by anyone.
587 One day people may be innocent, legitimate fur farmers. If the Bill goes through and turns them into criminals if they continue in business, I believe that the full force of the law should bear upon them afterwards.

§ Mr. Swayne
Hang them.

§ Mr. Maclean
My hon. Friend interjects from a sedentary position a suggestion that I consider too severe. There are quite a few people in this country whom I may have wished to see hanged, but people in the trade do not come into that category. My hon. Friend will not tempt me down that route.
If, after the Bill is enacted, people continue in an activity that has been made illegal by the House, irrespective of my views on the merits of making it illegal, the law must be obeyed. The financial penalty without the term of imprisonment is not as great a deterrent as the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) suggests.
The marvellous thing about this debate is that it is a matter of judgment. There is no great fundamental principle at stake in this part of the Bill or these two amendments. The hon. Lady was courteous and kind enough to say that she had considered our amendments carefully and in her judgment she had gone for one side.
I wish that the people who, my secretary tells me, have jammed my answering machine with death threats would listen to the debate that we have had this morning and hear the points of view expressed from all sides. They might then realise that although there might be some issues of principle between us, when the House of Commons debates matters such as fines, penalties and periods of imprisonment for those who break the law, there is not much between us.
I do not intend to push the amendment that lowers the £20,000 fine to level 5 on the standard scale, as that is not adequate. However, a period of imprisonment would act as a greater deterrent to some people than even the fine. Under my amendment, the fine would be level 5 on the standard scale and it would be possible for someone farming mink to be prosecuted for half a dozen offences. The hon. Lady said that multiple prosecution is possible, and in my experience, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is usually happy to bring several prosecutions, particularly in animal cruelty or welfare cases. The farmer could be prosecuted for farming 10, 20, 30 or 40 mink. Half a dozen specimen charges could be laid, with the level 5 fine of £5,000 applying to each. That means that a person could be fined £20,000, £30,000 or £35,000.
None the less, a term of imprisonment would act as a greater deterrent than just the fine. I would have level 5 on the standard scale, which could be applied to half a dozen cases, or 50, or 11 or 2,000. The fine could exceed the one proposed by the hon. Lady, and there would be forfeiture too. Imprisonment for up to six months would be a further deterrent.

§ Mr. Paterson
I am surprised that my right hon. Friend is taking the line also taken by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) in supporting these extremely severe penalties for people 588 whom I see as being innocent. Only complete idiots will carry on mink farming once the Bill becomes law, and the people swept up by it will be innocent people undertaking entirely separate activities. Surely, there should be a scale that reflects that fact.

§ Mr. Maclean
I disagree. Those people are innocent today, and they will remain innocent until 1 January 2001, or some other date if the hon. Member for Garston moves or agrees to an amendment. However, irrespective of the fact that what they are doing is legal today, if the House turns them into criminals, they must be punished properly. It does not matter that what they did was once not an offence. That point of principle should be accepted by every parliamentarian who believes in the rule of law.
I am sorry to disagree with my hon. Friend. The people to whom he refers are not criminals today, and nor is anyone involved in farming. But once this wrong-footed Bill, which approaches a welfare problem from entirely the wrong angle, is passed, the sanctions must apply. People should not continue an illegal activity. That must be a criminal offence, and the penalties proposed by the hon. Lady could be toughened up. I want to add a period of imprisonment so that we may be consistent with what we did last week on puppy dogs. We applied a three-month term of imprisonment then, and my proposals on the Bill would set a higher financial penalty and a six-month imprisonment term.

§ Mr. Forth
I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 1, line 17, at end insert—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this, it will be convenient to discuss new schedule 3—

§ Mr. Forth
On some measurements, the amendment might be described as one of the more important—if not the most important—of the amendments that we are considering today. It raises some crucial questions as to the general and specific approaches being taken to the matter in the Bill. The Bill has been cast in the most general terms. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) has pointed out that she did that deliberately and, typically, after much thought. However, as we have seen from today's worthwhile deliberations, that general approach has already given rise to some potential difficulties. At this point, perhaps we can consider some of those problems in their proper context.
At present, the Bill states simply that all fur farming will be prohibited. That begs the important question why there should be an indiscriminate measure. It also begs questions as to the relevance of particular species. That matter is the substance of the amendment and the schedule to which it refers. We can obviously hold different views on the matter; for example, one could take the view taken in the Bill—that there should be a blanket provision prohibiting all fur farming, regardless of the species involved. However, that raises some pertinent questions if one assumes that the motivational force behind the measure is one of animal welfare—surely the crucial assumption.
If the measure is genuinely about the welfare of the animals, and if one considers the arguments about why it is legitimate to raise an animal to eat but not to wear, we are immediately in difficulty. Although many powerful arguments have been made about mink because it is the only species raised for its fur in this country, the question is whether—if we are concerned about banning the raising of mink on welfare grounds—that would allow the possibility of raising other species, if a way could be found to do so within the welfare provisions. That is the first question.
There is a related question in respect of rabbits; that interesting issue arose during the progress of the Bill on Second Reading and in Committee. Rabbits are listed in the schedule and that usefully brings them into the debate. My right hon. and hon. Friends have already pointed out 590 that the issue about rabbits—quite apart from the welfare considerations to which we might return shortly—is whether the preponderance of value in a rabbit, depending on the type and, crucially, the state of the market at the time, was in its fur or its meat.
The issue has arisen in the French context. We have verification from France, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) alluded. I will not bore the House by reading it out; I think that I should probably be out of order if I read it out in the original French. As I recall the Standing Orders, languages other than English are not permissible in the Chamber. That gives me some relief.

§ Mr. Stephen Pound (Ealing, North)
But the right hon. Gentleman is speaking in Scottish.

§ Mr. Patrick Nicholls (Teignbridge)
That is not a language.

§ Mr. Forth
I am tempted to say—no, I shall not.
The point is that we have had verification, in French, from France, of that important point about rabbits. That in no way undermines the validity of the argument. I am prepared to believe some things in French—certainly this one. The verification relates to the question why, in the mind of the hon. Member for Garston, if it is acceptable and legitimate on animal welfare grounds to raise a rabbit to eat, it would not be legitimate to raise the same animal in the same circumstances if one were going to wear it. Surely, that goes to the heart of our debate on the amendment and the new schedule. I hope that the hon. Lady will be able to elaborate on that matter during the course of the debate.
From the start, I have never been clear about what those who support the Bill are trying to say. If they are trying to say that it is legitimate, on the grounds of animal welfare, to consider different species whose fur may be attractive or useful to different people and different cultures at different times and to make a judgment as to whether it is proper to raise those species for their fur, that approach would receive a great deal of support from Conservative Members—but that is not the approach that has been taken.

§ Mr. Hancock
If it will help the right hon. Gentleman, I should tell him that there is one hon. Member who holds that view and who would welcome his support. My view is that farming any animal for its skin should be banned and your support for that view will, I hope, persuade you to cut short your contribution so that we can get on—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman's comments have nothing to do with me and he must not use the term "you" unless he is directly addressing the Chair.

§ Mr. Forth
What a typical modern Liberal approach—reach for the ban. The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock), a member of the Liberal Democrat party, wants to ban an activity because he does not like it.

§ Mr. Nicholls
In his leather shoes.

§ Mr. Forth
The hon. Gentleman is indeed wearing leather shoes.
591 On the other hand, the modern Conservative party is genuinely liberal: we respect other people's points of view and we do not reach for the legislative ban every time we disapprove of something. As I have already reminded the House, I opposed a Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), a man whom I respect greatly and regard as a friend. His Bill would have banned something because he personally disapproved of it, so I opposed that Bill, just as I oppose the Bill before the House now.
The amendment and the new schedule address the question of whether it would be more appropriate to add a schedule to the Bill that identified the different species to which a ban should relate than to impose a blanket ban—a question that has given rise to some difficulty. Such a provision would admit the possibility of making judgments on the grounds of welfare. I keep returning to that point: if we are genuinely concerned about welfare, the approach embodied in the amendment and the new schedule must be the proper one to adopt.
The new schedule, if accepted, would be amenable to alteration, albeit by primary legislation rather than by regulation. On balance, I think that that is the proper approach: my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border and I could have made it a matter for regulations, but we took the view that, given the seriousness of the matter, it was right to fix it at this stage by listing the species in a new schedule to the Bill, while admitting the possibility of returning to the issue from time to time, on grounds of welfare, because of the way in which fashion and technology change and the market moves. All the different species that we put in our schedule are relevant in the context of the species that are known to have been farmed for fur in the past.

§ Mr. Paterson
I find the list that my right hon. Friends have produced somewhat arbitrary. Will my right hon. Friend tell the House the criteria according to which he drew up the list of species in the new schedule?

§ Mr. Forth
Given that we failed to consult our expert hon. Friend, I can easily imagine why he finds the list defective and I regret that. When we drew up the list, we took a view that, at this stage and given the state of current knowledge, the species listed were probably those that would fail to meet the welfare considerations that we understood motivated those who drew up the Bill.
However, I admit here and now that our schedule may well be defective in respect of our friend the rabbit. The rabbit gives me, and probably my hon. Friends, considerable problems in respect of the Bill, for the important reason that we have not yet established clearly why it might be possible and acceptable to raise a rabbit in certain conditions if the rabbit is to be eaten—which happens more frequently in France than in this country, although rabbit is still a delicacy here—but it would not be acceptable to raise that same rabbit in the same conditions, not to eat it, but to wear it in form of fur.

§ Mr. Hancock
Quite right.

§ Mr. Forth
My Liberal friend is desperate to ban something, somehow. He came to the Chamber desperate to ban something—

§ Mr. Hancock
You.

§ Mr. Forth
The hon. Gentleman wants to ban me now, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That is a typical Liberal approach. In this alleged bastion of free speech, a Liberal Democrat seeks to prevent me from speaking freely. That is a sad comment on the modern Liberal Democrat party. The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South will have to explain that as best he can.

§ Mr. Pound
It may be appropriate for me to inform the right hon. Gentleman that many hon. Members are at one with the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) in that view.

§ Mr. Forth
The sad truth is that there are not many. I count five Labour Back-Bench Members and two Liberal Democrats in the Chamber. I am delighted to say that there are the same number of Conservatives as Labour Members, even though the Conservative parliamentary party, sadly, has fewer members than Labour. The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) is stretching the truth when he refers to "many" Members. The Government's numbers have increased exponentially as another Labour Member has entered the Chamber. The massed ranks of six Labour Members of Parliament are keen to express their support for this measure.

§ Mr. Morley
Sixty-six voted.

§ Mr. Forth
It is true that 66 Labour Members out of 417 have taken the trouble to turn up to vote in both Divisions today.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The right hon. Gentleman has demonstrated sufficiently his numeracy skills. Perhaps he will return to the substance of his amendment.

§ Mr. Forth
I was enjoying that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I will move on.
We are talking about the relative merits of retaining the original wording of the Bill, which is a blanket provision. It does not allow for the possibility of raising animals in acceptable conditions for food or fur and offers no means of dealing with the difficult hybrid example of our friend the rabbit. We know from the experience of our French colleagues that it is possible that either rabbit fur or rabbit meat may be more valuable at any one time.
That causes us considerable difficulty in picking our way through the clauses of the Bill. I must admit, for the benefit of my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson), that I cannot claim that my amendment is all inclusive or totally comprehensive. However, it gives us an opportunity to tease out the mysteries of the rabbit, if not the relative merits on welfare grounds of including or excluding from the schedule different species at different times and in different conditions so as to raise them for their fur. That is the important point at issue and the House deserves to know the full details from the Bill's promoter and, if I can tempt him to the Dispatch Box, from the Minister. Until we are satisfied about such matters, we cannot make much progress.
593 The House will probably be relieved to know that I do not propose to go into great detail about the habits of each species, the amount of space that they are allowed under the current regulations and so on. I suspect that some of my hon. Friends are itching to assist the House with those details. I seek simply to set the scene broadly in introducing the amendment.
The fact remains—it chimes in with the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire—that we have not settled this difficult point. It proves the extreme value of the various deliberate proceedings in the House of Commons. We examined the Bill in Committee and raised points that have still not been dealt with—

§ Mr. Paterson
They were ignored.

§ Mr. Forth
That is regrettable. We now have an opportunity to re-examine those matters on Report and to involve different people in our discussions. Not all hon. Members who are present were members of the Committee. I was not invited to sit on the Committee. An hon. Member asked earlier why my hon. Friends were not members of the Committee; I was not even asked, and that is, perhaps, why I take particular interest in the Report stage.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. Back to the amendment, Mr. Forth.

§ Mr. Forth
I think that I have set the stage sufficiently to establish the philosophy behind the amendment, which raises important questions. I look forward to hearing what the Bill's promoter and the Minister have to say about it so that we can reach a judgment on it.

§ Maria Eagle
First, I reassure the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) that I am not one of those who wish to vote him into complete quietude, however amusing or tempting the idea may be at times. He is acting within the procedures of the House, and I have no complaints about him in that regard.
In speaking to the amendment and new schedule, the right hon. Gentleman has suggested an alternative provision to that in the Bill, but he and I differ in our opinions. He has said clearly that he is a libertarian and does not believe in prohibitions or bans. The Bill's long title says that it is a Bill to Prohibit the keeping of animals if the primary or sole purpose is to collect the commercial value of their fur". That is the principle behind the Bill, which was accepted on Second Reading, without a Division. The right hon. Gentleman was present on Second Reading when, if his principled opposition was that strong, he could have tested how strongly other Members felt about the Bill, but he chose not to do so.
I accept that the right hon. Gentleman's amendment and new schedule would be an alternative way of dealing with a ban. I accept also that he may have chosen the animals mentioned in new schedule 3 on the basis of animal welfare considerations, although rabbits do not fit that theory, and he may have chosen that animal for a different purpose. No doubt, we shall hear about that later.

§ Mr. Paterson
Will the hon. Lady give way?

§ Maria Eagle
I shall give way shortly, but I want first to set out my basic position.
594 The alternative suggested by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst is not as effective a way of achieving the Bill's purpose, as set out in the long title, as the current wording. His amendment would create potential loopholes. As the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) said, implementation of the Bill would always be dependent on which animals were listed in the schedule, which could be amended only by primary legislation. The inflexibility of having to legislate again was a reason why, earlier in our discussions, other amendments were tabled by the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean).
I hope that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst will accept that his new schedule could be viewed as somewhat inflexible, and contains omissions. For example, coypu is not included, although we have had a problem with coypu in this country in the past. Muskrat is not included, although that animal was the reason for the introduction of the Destructive Imported Animals Act 1932. Polecats are included, I believe, because they are fitch—I may be wrong about that. Lynx, however, are farmed in the US, but they are not on the list, although it is conceivable that they could be brought over here and farmed here.
Perhaps the most obvious omission from the list is the red fox, which, until recently, was farmed in this country for its fur. That practice was completely unlicensed because a licence was not necessary under existing legislation. That illustrates why the approach that I adopted—a blanket prohibition if it can be proved that the sole or primary purpose is to collect "the commercial value" of the fur—is a better way of achieving the objective in the long title of the Bill.
Given that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst did not divide the House on Second Reading, I am not for a moment suggesting that he is trying to undermine the Bill's primary purpose, but I fear that that would be the effect of the amendments if they were accepted.

§ Mr. Paterson
I was going to ask the hon. Lady whether she would answer the question posed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), as to why it is acceptable to her to keep a rabbit in a cage and kill it for meat but unacceptable to keep the same rabbit in the same cage for the same period and kill it for its skin. That seems to be the fundamental contradiction of the Bill, which I do not understand.

§ Maria Eagle
I am happy to answer that question, but I have answered it before at different stages, including during Second Reading, when I believe that the hon. Gentleman was present, so he might recall what I said.
My primary purpose in respect of the Bill has been to get rid of what I see as a cruel practice, where the thing that is produced is not necessary to life. Food is necessary to life. I accept that there are vegetarians among us, but I do not believe in compulsory vegetarianism. However, I do not consider that it is necessary, in any circumstances, for fur to be available for the use of
595 mankind, especially when the way in which it is obtained is demonstrably cruel and cannot be performed in accordance with present animal welfare standards.

§ Mr. Nicholls
Will the hon. Lady give way?

§ Maria Eagle
I was replying to an intervention. The hon. Member for North Shropshire is on his feet.

§ Mr. Nicholls
I thought that the hon. Lady had finished with that intervention and was being kind—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I think that we are getting into some confusion. I was prepared to take Mr. Paterson' s intervention as an intervention, to which the hon. Lady has now replied and has resumed her seat. Mr. Owen Paterson.

§ Mr. Paterson
That was a most interesting comment. I believe that it shows that the basis of the Bill is flawed. We must try to make the Bill work, along the lines that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) has suggested, without sweeping in many innocent parties whom she clearly does not intend to sweep into its remit.
My right hon. Friends the Members for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) and for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) have chosen to include in the new schedule a list of species. That seems a sensible idea. The problem is that the list is faulty. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst will not mind if I criticise it sharply. The list is arbitrary and capricious, and it does not encompass many of the species that have been farmed in Europe in recent years, and which could easily be farmed again in this country.
The first animal on the list is commonly known as the arctic fox—Latin name, alopex lagopus. The hon. Member for Garston rightly said that the red fox—vulpes vulpes—was not mentioned. Surely that is a major omission, because the red fox has been farmed for centuries. If my two right hon. Friends wanted to include fox production, it is a most extraordinary lacuna not to have mentioned the red fox.
I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border, who wrote the new schedule, has returned to the Chamber. Perhaps he will tell us why vulpes vulpes was missed off the list.

§ Mr. Maclean
I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker; I had to leave the Chamber for a moment. I did not want the schedule to list every animal that should be included. I wanted, if I caught your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to say why I included the animals in the list. I thought that I would try the Chair's patience if I had a list of 20 animals and then tried to justify the inclusion of each one. I picked the animals that are listed to give a sample of the schedule as a means of achieving a purpose. I admit that the schedule is not complete, and I can give examples of other animals that should be included.

§ Mr. Paterson
That is a most helpful intervention. It partly explains where my two right hon. Friends are coming from. I believe that their intentions are correct. I simply think that the mechanism is faulty.
596 The next animal on the list is the chinchilla—Latin name, chinchilla chinchilla. My right hon. Friends have missed out a grouping. For information, the chinchilla belongs to the order of rodents—rodentiae—which includes the porcupine, but the family of the chinchilla consists of two species, which should have been mentioned. There is the short-tailed chinchilla, chinchilla chinchilla; and the long-tailed chinchilla, chinchilla lanigera. The smaller, short-tailed chinchilla, the chinchilla chinchilla brevicaudata, and the larger short-tailed chinchilla, or king chinchilla, the chinchilla chinchilla chinchilla, are considered sub-species.

§ Mr. Morley
The hon. Gentleman seems to be making a case for supporting the Bill as it stands. The way in which it is worded means that those bureaucratic problems do not arise. Unlike some of his right hon. and hon. Friends, who have great skill in relation to wasting time, the hon. Gentleman has a great deal to learn, which includes not reading out long lists. I should have thought that he could have been a little more imaginative.

§ Mr. Paterson
I am most grateful to the Minister for advising me on how to advance my parliamentary career. I shall listen carefully to his interventions in future, but I shall take advice from my right hon. Friends who, as he rightly says, are very skilled in parliamentary ways.
I am making the simple point that my right hon. Friends have included in the list the name "chinchilla". I have rapidly given the Minister four or five other types of chinchilla that should have been included.

§ Mr. Forth
Can my hon. Friend help us—I know that he is an expert in these matters —by saying how attractive those different varieties are to the fur trade? Might there be a market for them, which would induce people to contemplate farming them?

§ Mr. Paterson
My discussions have mainly been with European fur traders, one of whom said that the British Government must be "in Disneyland". That is how the European fur traders consider our deliberations this morning. They think that the Bill is completely crazy. Independent scientists in Denmark and Holland see no welfare grounds whatever for the Bill, and the Europeans think that we are wasting our parliamentary time discussing it. It is as simple as that.
The list that my right hon. Friends have drawn up is potentially an effective way of removing the danger of sweeping innocents into the Bill. I am trying to illustrate the flaws in the list and show how it could be improved.
I find it amazing that, in her speech on the clause, the hon. Member for Garston showed that she did not know what a fitch was, yet here she is, in cahoots with her Front-Bench colleagues, grandly trying to sweep away a whole industry. For her information, a fitch is from the mustela putorius species and it is a polecat. Other polecats should have been on the list—[Interruption.]

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. Labour Members must not make sedentary comments.

§ Mr. Paterson
Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
597 Another type of (itch or polecat is the steppe polecat—the mustela putorius eversmanni. Then there is the ferret. The case of the ferret shows the nonsense of the Bill, because animals raised for fur are probably kept in much better conditions than many ferrets that are kept throughout the country for chasing rabbits. By the way, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am a great admirer of the ferret from my knowledge of Saki, which I am sure you have heard of.
To continue with the list—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. While the hon. Gentleman is pausing to sort out his notes, it might be helpful if I reminded him that the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) said in an intervention that the purpose of the amendment was to discuss the list as a means of dealing with regulation. It is not, therefore, an opportunity for the hon. Gentleman to go into minute detail on every single type of species that should be on the list.

§ Mr. Paterson
I take that point, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall end, therefore, with the animals mentioned on the list, the last of which is the rabbit. We have already had some discussions this morning about the rabbit, but mentioning one latin species on the list is totally inadequate. The only one mentioned is oryctolagus cuniculus, although there are some 80 varieties of domestic rabbit and about 30 breeds of rabbit.

§ Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome)
The hon. Gentleman purports to be an expert on this matter. There is only one species of rabbit—oryctolagus cuniculus. The others are sub-species or varieties. If he does not know what he is talking about, will he kindly not bore the House any longer by purporting to do so?

§ Mr. Paterson
I am charmed that the hon. Gentleman should join our deliberations after all this time; we have not seen much of him this morning. The "Encyclopaedia Britannica" says that there are 30 breeds and 80 varieties of domestic rabbit.

§ Mr. Swayne
It is undoubtedly the case that Isaac was unable to distinguish between his son Esau, who was a hairy man, and Jacob, who—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. That is quite enough.

§ Mr. Paterson
I am most grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for ending the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne).
The point is simple: the list is inadequate, although it is a mechanism that could make the Bill work better. The critical point—I refer to my earlier comments—is that there is no definition of a fur-bearing animal in the Bill. I have been mocked by the Minister and the Bill's promoter for using the definition used by European customs, which is in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
There will be no flexibility in the penalties imposed on those who contravene the Bill, and no flexibility at all has been provided by my right hon. Friends the Members for Bromley and Chislehurst and for Penrith and The Border. I have a very real fear that, in a remote part of England, 598 magistrates will be forced to make decisions on the basis of a flawed Bill containing no definition of a fur-bearing animal.
I should have thought that it is logical to suggest that a magistrate would go to the Official Journal of the European Communities for a definition of a fur-bearing animal. Other things may get swept into that definition. As I said earlier—I will refer to only one example, because I do not want to stretch this point—tariff heading 4302 13 00 states: Of lamb, the following: Astrakhan, Broadtail, Caracul, Persian and similar Iamb, Indian, Chinese, Mongolian or Tibetan lamb". I cannot make it clearer than that. That is an official European definition of a fur-bearing animal. As the Bill stands, those animals could be raised for their fur, because its value would exceed the value of the meat. They could be killed exclusively for their natural covering—the keratinous material. Some people may call it wool; the European Union calls it fur.
Unlike the promoter of the Bill and my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border, I do not have the benefit of a legal background.

§ Mr. Morley
May I, once again, reassure the hon. Gentleman that the EU uses a number of definitions? He is casting aspersions on the magistrates of Shropshire if he thinks that they cannot tell the difference between a sheep and a fur-bearing animal. That would be incredible. He ought to stick to the point and try to make some progress with it, bearing in mind that the Fur Breeders Association, the NFU and a great many interested people want the Bill to progress. They do not want him to waste time in this ludicrous way.

§ Mr. Paterson
I am not satisfied by that response. The fact stands that an animal could be raised for the value of its covering. The keratinous material, which the Minister calls wool—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The Chair will not be satisfied if the hon. Gentleman repeats that point. We are concerned with the new schedule and whether certain animals should be included in it—that, and that alone.

§ Mr. Paterson
Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was discussing the list of animals in the new schedule tabled by my right hon. Friends the Members for Penrith and The Border and for Bromley and Chislehurst, which I have already said is inadequate. It should also be made absolutely clear which bovine species are exempt. It would be possible to raise them in this country for the value of their fur.
One final item is also not clear—the question of slinks, which are young sheep that die in the womb or shortly after birth. It is possible that slinks could be caught up in the Bill's provisions unless the new schedule is improved.

§ Mr. Maclean
The amendment and the new schedule, and the concept and principle behind them, are important. I want to discuss some of the species in the new schedule and to deal with some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson). I think that he is right in some areas, but, if I may say so, wrong in some others.
599 We have proposed this new schedule because we think that it is a better way in which to deal with the problem than the hon. Lady' s general catch-all provision in clause 1, which states: A person is guilty of an offence if he keeps animals solely or primarily … for slaughter … for the value of their fur". Arguments have been made about keeping animals solely or primarily for the value of their fur, and we believe that that terminology can inadvertently cover some other animals.
One of the best examples of that is the rabbit—not the common rabbit, oryctolagus cuniculus, but more specialised rabbits, such as the Rex rabbit or Orylag, about which I have had information from the French. There is also the Angora rabbit. I can do no better than to quote from the "Encyclopaedia Britannica", which says: Rabbit fur, sometimes called lapin, is used in the fur industry and is also a primary source of fibre for the manufacture of felt. Rabbit flesh, which is delicately flavoured, is often eaten by man. About 30 breeds and almost 80 varieties of domestic rabbits are recognized … Among the better known breeds are the Angora rabbit, a long-haired rabbit kept mainly for its fur and meat, and the New Zealand rabbit, a breed kept for its meat and fur and also for show". Like other rabbits it is kept for laboratory use. Thankfully, that is not the subject of today's discussion.
The Angora rabbit and the Orylag have fur as opposed to any other covering, and they could inadvertently be caught by the terminology in the Bill. It may be legitimate and sensible to farm those rabbits. There may be no welfare problems at all. If there are welfare problems in keeping rabbits in cages, I hope that the hon. Lady and the Government will pursue the 2 million school children who keep rabbits in cages. If we need the terminology in clause 1, or in my new schedule, to deal with the welfare problem of keeping furry animals in cages, the Bill should not stop at animals such as mink: it should, on moral and ethical grounds, cover rabbits kept as pets.
I shall not go further down that road, because that concept should be discussed on Third Reading. Clause 1 deals with what the hon. Lady sees as the evil of keeping fur-farmed animals in cages, where it is not appropriate to keep them. She believes that their natural habitat cannot be recreated and they cannot satisfy their natural inclinations in farmed conditions.
The best way in which to ensure that the hon. Lady outlaws only the practice that she wants to outlaw—mink may be the prime consideration, as that is the only species of animal that is farmed in this country for its fur, although others have been—is not to use the broad catch-all terminology of "fur", which may inadvertently catch other animals, but to adopt the approach that I have suggested in the new schedule. Amendment No. 9 states that except where the context otherwise requires, any reference to 'animals' shall be a reference to any of the species of animal specified in the Schedule to this Act. The Minister has been slightly grumpy this morning. He should take a lesson from his hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) the promoter of the Bill. She has been courteous throughout our consideration of the Bill. All of us could learn a lesson from the hon. Lady's demeanour.
600 2.pm
Unless the strength of the Minister's Department has declined considerably in the last two years—which, admittedly, would not surprise me—I can vouch for the capability of the specialists to whom it has recourse to come up with a comprehensive catalogue of the species that need to be listed when the Department concludes that there is a possibility of their being farmed by British farmers, and that it would be impossible to meet essential welfare conditions if—in the opinion of the specialists and the Minister—they continued to be farmed. That would permit the farming of certain species in the case of which no harm to welfare would be involved. I assume that rabbits would be one of those species.
I do not know how many hundreds of thousands of farmed rabbits are being bred for their meat. The trade may have declined; I am not sure of the latest figures. In any event, although the Government may not be subsidising the trade, they carry out inspections and permit people to farm lots of furry rabbits for their meat, irrespective of the pet trade.

§ Mr. Vernon Coaker (Gedling)
Does the right hon. Gentleman not accept that the vast majority of people, sensibly and practically, see a difference between farming animals for food and farming them for their fur?

§ Mr. Maclean
I am not sure what has led the hon. Gentleman to that conclusion. I have seen no opinion polls—in any event, they may not be the best way of judging opinion, as the results depend on what is asked—or any comprehensive studies that suggest that. However, if people were asked whether it was more important for animals to be kept for essential food purposes or for women to be able to wear furs around their necks, no doubt most of them would say that food was more important.

§ Mrs. Linda Gilroy (Plymouth, Sutton)
I have here a document bearing the signatures of some 7,000 people, including 40 secured by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). There is significant support for the Bill throughout the country.

§ Mr. Maclean
rose—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. Before the right hon. Gentleman replies to the question, he should bear in mind that this is a Second Reading point. Let us return to the amendment.

§ Mr. Maclean
I am afraid that I cannot respond to either of the points that have been made, as they would lead me slightly astray.
Let me just say that my list does not contain 7,000 species. The Cumbria branch of the Women's Institute has secured 20,000 supporters, and I do not consider it very telling that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy) has managed to secure only 7,000, given that each of our constituencies contains 70,000 people.
There are ways and means of securing what the hon. Member for Garston wants, and I feel that my new schedule represents a better approach than the catch-all banning of fur. That is a broad-brush approach that would catch some species accidentally.
601 Let me make another point, which I do not think strays from what was said by the hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker). If it is wrong to keep furry animals in cages for non-food purposes, we should presumably consider banning pet animals altogether. Rabbits are kept in cages not for food purposes, but to give enjoyment to people who find them amusing as company. I know that rabbits and other pets can be kept in cages safely and well, and that there is no harm in that—although those who do not keep them well should be punished. But the Government are not trying to ban the keeping of thousands of rabbits in cages for food purposes—and I think that the food would be for animal consumption.

§ Mr. Morley
It is for human consumption.

§ Mr. Maclean
I thank the Minister.
I suggest that, if rabbits are currently being farmed in cages that are no doubt suitable and appropriate, providing the right conditions, they can also be farmed safely for fur. What is the moral difference? Certainly there cannot be a welfare difference. Angora rabbit must surely enjoy the same welfare conditions as an identical rabbit.

§ Maria Eagle
Does the right hon. Gentleman recall Second Reading, when I tried, as the promoter of the Bill, to make it plain that I did not wish to include rabbit?

§ Mr. Maclean
The hon. Lady may not wish to include rabbits. The Bill does not include the ordinary common or garden rabbit, of which there are millions too many. It does not include pet rabbits because they are not usually farmed for their fur. However, if people get into the business of farming Angora rabbits solely for their fur, will they be covered by the Bill?

§ Maria Eagle
indicated assent.

§ Mr. Maclean
The hon. Lady indicates that those people will be. If it is her view and that of the Government that Angora rabbits that are kept in cages will be banned because they are being farmed primarily for the value of their fur, will someone please tell me the moral, ethical and welfare difference between Angora rabbits in a cage that are bred for their fur, which is 60 per cent. of the profit, and other members of the family that have a different name and are of a slightly different style, which are being bred for their meat and whose fur is worth only 49 per cent. profit per rabbit? The animal with the slightly more expensive fur is banned and the other is not. I just do not understand that.

§ Mr. Forth
My right hon. Friend has possibly identified a serious flaw in the Bill even at this stage. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) said a moment ago that she told us categorically on Second Reading that she did not intend or envisage that her Bill would affect rabbits. She has now indicated that her Bill could affect rabbits, so we have a contradictory position. It appears then, under my right hon. Friend's analysis, that the Bill could be capable of doing something that the hon. Lady ruled out categorically on Second Reading.

§ Mr. Maclean
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. It has taken us some time in the debate to get to this point.
602 There is now a glaring inconsistency and a potential not loophole, but catch-all: the Bill can catch things inadvertently.

§ Maria Eagle
Just to clarify the point, I hope that I have not been inconsistent. The point that I have been trying to make is that I see a difference—I know that the right hon. Members for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) and for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) do not; perhaps they will accept my argument—between keeping animals in intensively farmed conditions for food, which is a necessary part of life, and for adornment, which is not necessary. I accept that the right hon. Gentlemen do not think that that is a sufficiently large difference to matter, but I do.

§ Mr. Maclean
I am grateful to the hon. Lady and I respect her view. She sees an ethical distinction between rabbits in a 2 ft sq cage that are reared for expensive titbits in restaurants and those other rabbits.
Rabbit is not a staple diet of the British population. The last time I had rabbit was downstairs in the Churchill Room of this building as an expensive starter. It is not an essential requirement of life. However, I do not see the distinction between keeping rabbits in a 2 ft sq, or 1.5 m sq cage—whatever the size is; I will not bore the House with the figures—merely so that we can have them as tasty nibbles in the Churchill Room of the House of Commons, and keeping other rabbits, identical in almost everything except their covering, in the same size of cages, fed and watered the same way to the same welfare standards. The latter would be illegal and liable to a £20,000 fine because we have determined that those rabbits are being kept purely for the adornment of women, or men. I see that, in the latest fashions, men are into fur as well. If the hon. Member for Garston takes that view, I can equally say that the bit of rabbit that people eat is not essential to our life style either, as we have ample food supplies of all other types available.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I think that I have been overgenerous with the current exchange. May I now nudge the debate back to the question that is at the heart of the amendment: whether there should be a schedule?

§ Mr. Maclean
I apologise. I was slightly tempted by the intervention of the hon. Member for Garston. I shall not be tempted by her again to stray into those areas.
The point about having a schedule is that it will deal effectively with the gap that we have identified in the past few minutes. The hon. Lady sees no ethical or moral distinction, but goodness me, is there not possibly a legal problem? Let us forget about the ethics of the matter for a moment, and look at the legality. When it comes to interpretation of clause 1, the court will merely have to decide whether the animal is kept primarily for its fur.
Someone may be farming the Angora rabbit or the Rex Orylag rabbit, a rabbit that is farmed in France primarily for its fur, which presents a more difficult problem. The fur of the Rex Orylag rabbit is at present worth 60 per cent. of the value of the whole rabbit, and the meat is worth only 40 per cent. Anyone who tried to farm that breed in this country would be caught by the hon. Lady's provision because the animal is kept primarily for the value of its fur-the meat is a secondary consideration.
603 However, the New Zealand rabbit is kept primarily for its meat. Fur is a secondary consideration at present, because of its value. If someone gets legal advice, or asks the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he would be caught by the measure if he farmed the New Zealand rabbit or any other rabbit whose meat is more valuable than the fur, the Minister and his advisers would say—not that MAFF should be giving such advice —that the legal advice was, "No, probably not."
The primary purpose of farming the animal in that case is not for fur, but for meat, which is worth 55 per cent. The fur is worth less. Let us suppose that the person starts farming the rabbits. As we now know, fur trade prices vary considerably. The market in Russia has collapsed, so fur is down. If the value of the meat from the New Zealand rabbit collapses so that the fur is worth more than the meat, the fanner will have to sell his rabbits for fur for one or two years until the trade recovers. He will have to sell the output of the farm for different reasons. He is growing the rabbits for meat, the meat price collapses, the fur price increases and he gets more value for the fur.

§ Maria Eagle
I may be able to assist the right hon. Gentleman to a degree. For the prosecuting authority or the court, it would be a matter of evidence as to what the primary purpose was. He is right about that, but his argument assumes that that would be determined purely on the basis of the relative price of the fur or the meat. If the person concerned could show that he had been in the meat business for years, that might also be a consideration. It would not just be a matter of the value of the fur, as opposed to the value of the meat. Can the right hon. Gentleman not see that?

§ Mr. Maclean
Clause 1(1) of the hon. Lady's Bill refers to animals being kept for slaughter … for the value of their fur, or … for breeding progeny for such slaughter. Her Bill makes it clear that the primary purpose is the value of the fur. Let us assume that someone is farming rabbits, with Government endorsement, primarily for the value of the meat, because at that point the meat is worth more than the fur, who then hits a period of a couple of years when the meat price goes down, or China gets its act together and swamps us with more rabbit meat, as it was doing a few years ago, before viral haemorrhagic disease struck, and the meat price collapses. He finds for a couple of years that he is selling his rabbits for their fur. The fur is worth infinitely more.
The hon. Lady says that in such a case, it will be up to the court. Hopefully, the person might win his case, but he might not. We cannot have legislation that makes him a criminal one year because the price is up, but not the next year because the price goes down. The concept of my schedule removes that problem. I am happy to put the judgment on the Minister's officials if the House passes a law stating that we do not want animals kept for the value of their fur. The concept may be wrong, but the schedule allows more flexibility, sense and certainty.
I have given some examples in the schedule, and I could have included a lot more. I could justify putting each of them on the list because of the British climate and the ways in which they could be farmed. I am not an 604 expert, so if I tried to make a complete list, the Minister would be able to say, "Your schedule is rubbish. You have missed out two things—the red fox and something else." I took those examples because all the fur animals listed have been farmed somewhere in Europe, and some have been farmed in the United Kingdom until quite recently.
Currently, mink is the only animal farmed in the UK. Fox used to be farmed, but there are no fox farms at present. Fitch used to be farmed, but they are no longer, although they are farmed in Finland. I shall not go into the details of all the types of chinchilla, but I have offered one example in my schedule. No doubt MAFF experts could add others. Chinchilla are farmed in Germany and Denmark, and there have been attempts to farm them here. I do not know why they failed.
2.15 pm
Rabbit is a different—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Kettle of fish?"] My hon. Friends may have argued that some funny species of sheep have fur, or at least that Europe says they do, but I shall not try to argue that any rabbit has scales.
Rabbits are in a different category. In Spain and France, they are farmed both for meat and fur, and the value of the fur is sometimes greater. With the exception of rabbit, which I included in the schedule deliberately in order to make this point, all the species listed fall under the European convention on the protection of animals kept for farming purposes. The Council of Europe has produced recommendations on fur farmed animals under that convention, and they contain welfare rules for supervision, housing, management, breeding and slaughter of fur animals. New scientific evidence adopted by the Council of Europe is also enshrined in the recommendations.
Adopting the schedule would give the Government a chance to specify the species that they did not want farmed for fur. Rabbit is the best example before us today, but the Minister, advised by his experts or by English Nature, may decide that other species, of which I am unaware, should not be included in the schedule because they ought not to be banned as they can be farmed in conditions suitable to their welfare. The Minister has sole charge of those welfare conditions.
Two approaches may be taken. I could have said that there are two ways to skin a rabbit, but that would have been inappropriate. We could adopt the restrictive method contained in the Bill, which might cause definitional problems over fur, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire has pointed out. Or we could adopt a schedule of the species that the hon. Member for Garston wishes banned. We could also build in some provision allowing the Minister to change the schedule by regulation by adding species or taking them away.
I urge the latter route on the hon. Member for Garston. She will receive plaudits from her colleagues and others for banning the animals that she does not wish to be farmed for fur, but I am sure that if the Bill passes in its present form, we shall have to return to say, "Oops, sorry, we made a bit of a mistake on fur and we caught rabbits or other species that have been determined by Europe to have fur." We may all think that those species have wool, but if the European Union decides that they are furry, that is that.
605 I have been a MAFF Minister, and I have argued similar points before over such things as milk, ice cream and cheese, and over whether carrots are fruit or vegetables. The Minister may say that we all know what sheep are, but if Europe decides that something is covered in fur, we could have a problem. The schedule provides an easy escape route for the Minister, and that is the sensible approach.

§ Mr. Forth
It is desperately disappointing that the Minister is not going to enlighten us further. I am tempted to divide the House to find out whether it is convinced of the arguments that my hon. Friends and I have made.

§ Mr. Morley
I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman's attention wandered earlier, but I contributed to the debate by saying that because of the anomalies in the schedule—there is an argument for having such a schedule, but there will always be anomalies and the drafting of the Bill deals with the problem satisfactorily—it would cause more problems, even given the opportunities to amend the legislation at a later date, than the Bill as it stands. The Bill is better drafted now than it would be with the amendment.

§ Mr. Forth
In a spirit of good will and co-operation, I accept that significant contribution as the Minister's considered response to the debate. So that we can make progress—we have already done so today and we will make further progress in a moment—I will not divide the House on the amendment. I am not convinced by what has been said and my right hon. and hon. Friends are obviously not convinced either. We have found a serious flaw in the Bill even at this late stage in our deliberations. However, to allow us to press on, on this occasion I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Division No. 176]	[1.8 pm
AYES
Paterson, Owen	Tellers for the Ayes:
	Mr. David Maclean and
	Mr. Eric Forth.

NOES
Austin, John	Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Bradley, Keith (Withington)	Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Breed, Colin	King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Buck, Ms Karen	Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Casale, Roger	Leslie, Christopher
Caton, Martin	Linton, Martin
Cawsey, Ian	Livingstone, Ken
Clelland, David	Loughton, Tim
Coaker, Vernon	McDonnell, John
Colman, Tony	McIsaac, Shona
Cousins, Jim	McNulty, Tony
Cranston, Ross	Morley, Elliot
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)	Naysmith, Dr Doug
Dowd, Jim	Olner, Bill
Drew, David	Plaskitt, James
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)	Pollard, Kerry
Efford, Clive	Pond, Chris
Fitzpatrick, Jim	Pound, Stephen
Flint, Caroline	Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Fyfe, Maria	Primarolo, Dawn
Gale, Roger	Ryan, Ms Joan
Gapes, Mike	Shipley, Ms Debra
Gardiner, Barry	Skinner, Dennis
Gerrard, Neil	Soley, Clive
Gordon, Mrs Eileen	Southworth, Ms Helen
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)	Swayne, Desmond
Hancock, Mike	Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)	Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)	Timms, Stephen
Hill, Keith	Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)	Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Vis, Dr Rudi	Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)
White, Brian	Tellers for the Noes:
Williams, Rt Hon Alan	Angela Smith and
(Swansea W)	Mrs. Linda Gilroy.

'Species of Animals—
Common name	Species
Arctic Fox	alopex lagopus
Chinchilla	chinchilla chinchilla
Fitch	mustela putorius
Mink	mustela vison
Raccoon Dog	nyctereutes procyonoides
Rabbit	oryctolagus cuniculus'.