§ 3.18 p.m.
§ LORD HILTON OF UPTONMy Lords, I beg to move that the Mink (Importation and Keeping) Order 1967, a copy of which was laid before your Lordships' House on October 31, be approved. It may be for your Lordships' convenience if we consider this Order and the similar Order about coypus together. These two Orders renew for a further five years from January 1, 1968, powers which expire on December 31, 1967, to prohibit the importation into and the keeping of coypus and mink in Great Britain except under licence.
Neither of these animals is native to this country, but both have been introduced and during the past 40 years bred here in captivity for their fur. It is not surprising that some have managed to escape from time to time, and they have been able to adapt themselves to the conditions here and breed successfully in the wild. It is now well known that both of these animals have destructive habits, mink threatening damage to poultry and fresh-water fisheries, while coypus cause damage to river banks and to agricultural crops, particularly sugar beet. It was for the purpose of bringing these potentially serious pests under control that Orders were made in 1962 under the Destructive Imported Animals Act 1932. Designed as a defence against the muskrat, this Act wisely made provision for the powers it granted to my right honourable friends the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State for Scotland to be extended by Orders to any other "non-indigenous mammalian species with destructive habits".
My Lords, these powers enable the Ministers not only to prohibit or regulate the importation and keeping of such ani- 16 mals but to take steps to destroy any found at large. In the case of mink and coypus they have been used since 1962 to reduce the risk of further escapes from fur farms and to seek out and destroy any found living in the wild. I am glad to say that since the introduction of controls there have been relatively few escapes, and where they have occurred the animals have usually been recovered. As the result of a successful co-ordinated drive in East Anglia, wild coypus are now mainly confined to a small area around the Norfolk Broads, but total eradication of these unwanted animals is unlikely to be achieved. It is therefore essential to keep up the pressure against them all the time, and here I must pay tribute to the local drainage authorities and rabbit clearance societies which, with the support of farmers and others, are in the forefront of this battle. Wild mink are found in most counties in England and Wales and in many parts of Scotland. They are being trapped systematically by trappers employed by the Government and others, and, while their control presents problems, we cannot afford to relax our efforts, because of the damage they could do if they were allowed to establish themselves in large numbers.
I hope I have said enough to convince your Lordships of the importance of renewing these two Orders so that the Ministers will be able to continue their measures against coypus and mink living in the wild and their enforcement of Regulations to prevent escapes. There is no desire to place obstacles in the way of the fur breeding industry. There are virtually no imports of coypus now but a licence would be needed to import any. Regulations prescribing the manner in which mink and coypu are to be kept in Great Britain and the precautions to be taken to prevent their escape will also be renewed. The renewal of these Orders has the support of the National Farmers' Unions and the Nature Conservancy and there has been consultation with the Fur Breeders' Association about the proposed keeping regulations. I hope that your Lordships are satisfied that the powers of the 1932 Act should continue to be exercised for a further five years in respect of coypus and mink. I beg to move.
§ Moved, That the Mink (Importation and Keeping) Order 1967, be approved.—(Lord Hilton of Upton.)
17THE EARL OF MANSFIELDMy Lords, the noble Lord has very correctly described the menace that both these animals can be and the fact that as far as mink is concerned the menace exists in many areas. Will the noble Lord be good enough to say whether this system of licensing carries with it any rights or duty of inspection by the Ministry of Agriculture or the Department of Agriculture for Scotland of the premises in which these animals are kept? When the coypu gets away he is not really so very difficult to destroy; but the mink, whose habits are not so far removed from the stoat, is much more difficult. It is a menace not only to poultry and fish but to all wild life. I would suggest that there ought to be some measure by which all installations at which either of these varieties are kept are inspected by Ministry officials. Furthermore, would the noble Lord say whether any penalty follows the keeping of either of these animals without due regard to their not being able to escape—and if not why not?
§ LORD HILTON OF UPTONMy Lords facilities are available for Ministry inspectors to inspect where these animals are kept; but I think it is true to say that these inspections are carried out mainly where it has been discovered that some of them, especially mink, have escaped. I agree with the noble Earl that it would be an advantage if inspections were carried out more frequently; but the Ministry inspectors have a pretty difficult job to carry out now. I will certainly bring the noble Earl's suggestion to the attention of my right honourable friend.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELDMy Lords, would the noble Lord answer the question whether there are any penalties which follow on a person allowing, through sheer carelessness or neglect, either of these animals to escape?
§ LORD HILTON OF UPTONMy Lords, so far as carelessness is concerned it comes in a very different category from that of the escape of either of these animals by other means. So far as licensing and inspection are concerned, I may say that premises are inspected before a licence is granted and occasionally during the five years, if there is any reason for another visit. I must get the information 18 regarding fines from my right honourable friend and let the noble Earl know.
§ LORD SOMERSMy Lords, we quite understand the necessity for the renewal of these Regulations. I wonder whether the noble Lord could tell the House whether there are any Regulations regarding the slaughter of these animals and whether they fall under the humane slaughter provisions of any Act.
§ LORD HILTON OF UPTONMy Lords, there are regulations; and, so far as I know, these animals are in both cases killed by gassing rather than by an inhumane method.
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.