§ Mr. YeoTo ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what definition he uses of public morality in his policy on banning fur farming in this country. [126862]
§ Mr. Nick Brown[holding answer 19 June 2000]: "Public morality" is not susceptible to an absolute definition: it inevitably involves subjective judgment. The expression is relevant to consideration of the proposed ban under Community law. The European Court of Justice 301W has held that in principle it is for each member state to determine in accordance with its own scale of values the requirements of public morality in its territory.
In the Government's view, fur farming is not consistent with a proper value and respect for animal life. Animal life should not be destroyed in the absence of sufficient justification in terms of public benefit. The Government believe that the rearing of animals solely or primarily for slaughter for their fur fails this test. The position of fur farming is quite distinct from that of food production. Where the primary purpose of keeping an animal is the production of food, that purpose provides a sufficient public benefit to justify breeding the animals for slaughter. This is so even where the production of fur or hide is a secondary purpose of keeping the animal.
For the reasons set out, the Government believe that a total ban on fur farming is justified.