Orders of the Day — Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill

House of Commons, 5 March 1999.

Maria Eagle (Labour, Liverpool, Garston)

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time. Before making my introductory remarks, I should make a declaration of interest. Since 1 January 1999, I have received staff assistance from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and Respect for Animals in preparing the Bill and dealing with issues arising directly from my choice of subject for my private Member's Bill. I am grateful for my good fortune—at least, many say that it is good fortune, although over the past few days I have been wondering quite how good it is—in coming so high in the private Members' ballot and so having a chance to present my Bill to the House. Like all those who have had the same opportunity, I spent many difficult hours deciding how to use it. Finally, I decided to deal with a small matter. Fur farming is no longer a massive industry in this country, but it is one that is controversial in many ways: many object to it and believe that it perpetrates cruelty to the animals involved. My Bill would prohibit fur farming in this country. Fur farming has been going on in Great Britain for 70 years. It began in this country in 1929 and still exists here, albeit in a small way. There are now 11 fur farmers and 13 fur farms remaining, all in England. That represents a precipitate decline in numbers over the past 30 years or so, as, back in the 1960s, there were 700 fur farms. As far as the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and I are aware, the only animal still farmed in this country is mink. Mink are not indigenous to this country, but are natives of north America. Fur farming is the intensive breeding of essentially wild animals, mink in this country and other animals elsewhere, although until recently fox, too, was farmed in this country. Because the animals have to be kept and bred intensively, they are kept in relatively small cages and are unable to exhibit their natural behaviour. They live relatively short lives in some distress prior to being slaughtered for their fur.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

I am sure that the House will be keen to learn when the hon. Lady last visited a mink farm, how many times she has visited mink farms and how much time she has spent studying mink.

Maria Eagle (Labour, Liverpool, Garston)

I have arranged to visit two farms. Since I decided to take up the Bill, I have had some difficulty in arranging to visit a farm.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

None?

Maria Eagle (Labour, Liverpool, Garston)

If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I shall complete my answer. Then, if he wants to intervene again, he can.

John Austin (Labour, Erith and Thamesmead)

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Maria Eagle (Labour, Liverpool, Garston)

I shall finish answering the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) and then give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Mr. Austin). I had an arrangement to visit one farm, although it took me some time to get through the obstruction of the British Fur Trade Association, which controls access to mink farms. Since taking up the Bill, I have attempted to visit mink farms and I asked the BETA to allow me to visit two. It offered a visit to only one farm—a farm in the west country, to which visitors are always taken—and I made it clear that I should be happy to visit that farm. However, the association would not allow me to visit any other farm. I said that I would visit the farm that the trade association wanted me to visit, but only if I was allowed to visit another. I am happy to say that an arrangement has, at last, been made. I was due to visit one of the farms on Tuesday, but, because of the sudden onset of what I assure the hon. Gentleman was a rather painful medical condition, I had to cancel the trip. However, I hope to rearrange it as soon as possible, and I have every intention of visiting at least two of the remaining farms. That is not a bad percentage, given that there are only 13 fur farms left. Now, I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead.

John Austin (Labour, Erith and Thamesmead)

I was merely going to make the point that, although I had never been to South Africa, that did not make it impossible for me to conclude that apartheid was an obscene evil. Has my hon. Friend, like me, never seen bear baiting, but would agree that it is an obscene spectacle?

Maria Eagle (Labour, Liverpool, Garston)

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. I want to be reasonable: I recognise that my Bill would make unlawful something that until now has been lawful in this country, and I realise that that, in itself, is draconian. I recognise that I have an obligation to visit fur farms, so I have done my utmost to do so. However, I agree with my hon. Friend that it is perfectly possible to conclude, without having seen it, that that sort of rearing of wild animals is not acceptable. I believe that, but I assure the hon. Member for North Wiltshire that I shall visit fur farms.

Alice Mahon (Labour, Halifax)

I do not believe that my hon. Friend will be invited to the Swalesmoor fur farm in my constituency, which prosecuted Lynx in 1989. The farm was described as a hell-hole, and from what I saw of the conditions there for mink, that description was absolutely correct. The mink were living in their own filth and were self-mutilating. Unfortunately, Lynx lost the court case because, I understand, the judge had a fondness for hunting. The fur farm is a hell-hole, and it still exists. Because of the violent methods that are used at the fur farm, I am sure that my hon. Friend would not be welcome if she tried to visit.

Maria Eagle (Labour, Liverpool, Garston)

In view of what my hon. Friend says, I may attempt to visit that fur farm, and I should be happy if she could facilitate a visit. Certainly, the British Fur Trade Association, which represents the farmers, has been unable to facilitate that visit, although I have been attempting for some time to go there.

Desmond Swayne (Conservative, New Forest West)

May I warn the hon. Lady to strengthen her stomach—indeed, to go with an empty stomach—when she visits a mink farm? I have visited such places. In respect of what was said by the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon), it is worth noting that many convictions have been secured against the keepers of mink. However, no matter how far access to fur farms for the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) has been restricted by the British Fur Trade Association, access to the mink farm in my constituency has not been restricted far enough, and disastrous consequences have followed for the natural fauna surrounding it.

Maria Eagle (Labour, Liverpool, Garston)

The hon. Gentleman is referring to the fur farm in his constituency that was one of those that suffered from the release of mink, however it was perpetrated. I appreciate his concern, and I shall refer further to the effect of the release of mink. First, however, I come to the long title of the Bill, which explains as fully as possible precisely what is to be prohibited if the Bill becomes law. The Bill's purpose is: To prohibit the keeping of animals with a view to their slaughter solely or primarily for the commercial value of their fur; and for related purposes. The question of whether the animals are being kept solely or primarily for the commercial value of their fur would be a matter for the courts, and it could be dealt with on the basis of evidence before the courts. I do not seek to define what is kept primarily for that purpose; it is a matter for the courts to decide. Clause 1 establishes the offence. Clauses 2 to 4 bestow necessary powers on the courts so that they may make the legislation effective. The main purpose of my Bill is to allow the Minister, should he so wish, to establish a scheme under which compensation could be paid to existing fur farm businesses that would have to close if the Bill were enacted. We are speaking of small numbers of fur farms. As I have said, only 13 remain, and there are only 11 farmers. However, my Bill provides for compensation, as I hope its opponents will note. I do not believe that it is legally necessary to compensate, but it would be preferable to do so. That is why the provision is in the Bill, and I am grateful that the Government have been persuadable on compensation.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

The hon. Lady touches on compensation, saying that it is preferable that it should be paid. Would she answer two points? First, if that is her view, why is the obligation to pay compensation not mandatory? Secondly, losses are defined so as to exclude loss of income. In other words, businesses may receive some compensation, but the main loss that they will suffer—revenue—is put outside the compensation regime.

Maria Eagle (Labour, Liverpool, Garston)

I understand those points. There are arguments on both sides of them. They are suitable points for the Committee stage, should the Bill succeed in obtaining a Second Reading. I am sure that those points will be raised in Committee by the Bill's opponents. As a mere newish Back Bencher, I found that obtaining the Government's agreement to having a money order for a private Member's Bill was a sufficiently difficult task without my laying down the law about figures. As the Member promoting the Bill, it is not for me to decide on the precise compensation. The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) can see that the clause sets out a methodology by which to work it out. The Bill also allows for negotiation between the parties over what should be compensated for, and allows for an independent appeals process so that farmers who are dissatisfied about the final determination may appeal to an independent body—the Lands Tribunal. An independent decision can therefore be made on what compensation they should be paid. I thank the Government for their support in introducing the Bill. It is unusual to allow private Members' Bills to spend Government money, and it was not easy to get the Government to agree to that. I am glad to have their agreement, as compensation is a vital part of the Bill. In due course, when orders are laid, if the Bill becomes law, I trust that the matter will be dealt with amicably and that farmers who lose their businesses will be satisfied. I have every expectation that that will be the case. In order to define what the Bill is about, I should say something of what it is not about. There has been hysteria among some opponents of the Bill who have sought to suggest that it is the thin end of a wedge that will affect a much wider range of farming. That is not my intention. The Bill is not about banning fur as a by-product. It is not intended to bring about, and nor will it, the banning of the use of fur where fur is a by-product of, for example, food production. Where rabbits, for example, are produced for food, the Bill will not prohibit that. The Bill is not about banning the production of skins as a by-product of food production. It has been suggested that cattle hide and leather might be banned as a result of the Bill, but that is simply nonsensical. Where animals are produced primarily for food, nothing in the Bill will prevent the use of their skins or fur as a by-product. The Bill is not about prohibiting the wearing, purchase, sale or trade of fur. It will not prohibit other elements of the fur trade. What the Bill does seek to prohibit is the cruel exploitation of what are essentially wild animals for an unessential luxury item—their fur. Opponents of the Bill will doubtless tell me that others would go further than I do, and that is true. Many supporters of the Bill would like other elements of animal husbandry to be changed. They may wish to see fur banned. Those are matters for them—the Bill is not intended to go along that path. The Bill is not the thin end of a dangerous wedge. It is narrow in its scope and application. It is a simple, straightforward Bill with simple and obvious objectives. That makes it suitable for the private Member's Bill procedure. I should be foolish indeed to seek to ban the entire fur trade by way of a private Member's Bill. It would require far too many clauses, and opponents would be able to stop me in my tracks. I aim simply to end a barbaric practice that is already in severe decline. Public opinion is with me, and it has been so for some time. In the latest opinion poll commissioned by the RSPCA, 74 per cent. of those questioned thought that fur farming should be banned. Opposition Members who are disinclined to support my Bill may think that I am pursuing a populist measure, but they should note that 86 per cent. of those questioned thought that the wearing of fur was unacceptable, and I do not seek to ban that.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

Is the hon. Lady saying that legislation can, or should, be justified by opinion poll ratings? Is she prepared to allow that principle to be extrapolated to other issues? If she is, we may explore the idea further later this morning.

Maria Eagle (Labour, Liverpool, Garston)

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention, even if no one else is, and I understand his point. I do not seek to justify the Bill on the basis of opinion polling; I am merely calling to my aid, as one point in my speech, the latest opinion polling. My overwhelming concerns in introducing the Bill, which I am about to discuss in more detail if hon. Members will forgive me, are animal welfare considerations. Mink, which are farmed in this country, are still essentially wild, not domesticated. They prefer to live alone in the wild and are territorial, ranging over territories between 1 to 3 km wide. They are known to keep a number of dens on their territories and to move between them. They are semi-aquatic animals with semi-webbed feet and therefore like to spend much of their time playing and hunting in water. It is impossible, in farm conditions in this country or any other, for mink to display their natural behaviour while being kept in small, barren cages. I remind the House that the cages in which mink are typically kept measure merely 90 cm by 30 cm by 30 to 40 cm. Those cages often hold more than one mink. Being kept in that way makes it impossible for mink display their natural behaviour. They react by being stressed.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

Will the hon. Lady accept that to call mink a wild creature is to overlook the time that they have been held in those conditions? Many generations have been held in captivity and the genetic pool has changed between the existing generation and the wild creature. Will the hon. Lady further accept that her point about creatures exercising their natural tendencies also applies to chickens, which are kept in battery cages, and many of us find that as objectionable as anything that she has described?

Maria Eagle (Labour, Liverpool, Garston)

The right hon. and learned Gentleman makes a point that I had anticipated. Those who do not object to the fur trade argue that mink in captivity are no longer wild. However, there is evidence on both sides of the argument. Mink have been farmed in this country for only 70 years. While there may have been 70 generations of mink in that time, the right hon. and learned Gentleman should consider how long other animals in this country have been domesticated. It has taken thousands of years to breed the typical domesticated animals that we see on farms.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

The domesticated pig is very different from the wild hog.

Maria Eagle (Labour, Liverpool, Garston)

I am interested in the fact that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is able to joke about himself—that is a very endearing feature. It is not possible to be certain that animals that have been farmed for only 70 years are domesticated. One need only consider what occurs when they escape or are released. They become feral extremely quickly and are perfectly able to survive in the wild. They immediately revert to their natural behaviour. Some of the mink that have been released in the past couple of years have been found, within a day or two, three or four miles away from the farms. They have attacked and killed, as is their nature, local wildlife. There is a great deal of evidence that mink kept in captivity are still wild. There is clear evidence also that mink in captivity display a far higher level of stereotypical distressed behaviour than other animals—including chickens, which the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham mentioned—that are kept in confined conditions. That is why I say that mink are still effectively wild. Until recently in this country, we farmed fox. Most people would not argue that the fox is domesticated, and when foxes were kept in captivity they displayed an even greater incidence of stereotypical behaviour associated with stress and distress.

Nick Palmer (Labour, Broxtowe)

Does my hon. Friend agree that most geneticists believe that it is not possible to change an animal's genetic make-up and instinctive behaviour by imposing on particular generations a certain behaviour pattern or even physical changes? Under Stalin, Lysenko tried to propagate the belief that it was possible, and it was very widely discredited after that.

Maria Eagle (Labour, Liverpool, Garston)

My hon. Friend's point is interesting, but if he will forgive me I will stick to the subject of breeding animals. The animals are bred for their fur and its different colours rather than to try to make them more docile. In any event, if it is possible to domesticate an animal, I do not believe that it can be done in only 70 generations. I am not alone in suggesting that mink kept on farms suffer worse welfare problems than other, domesticated animals. The Farm Animal Welfare Council, which advises the Government on technical and welfare issues, said in 1989: Mink (and fox) have been bred in captivity for only about 50–60 generations"— as I said, it is now about 70 generations— and the Council is particularly concerned about the keeping of what are essentially wild animals in small barren cages. The Council believes that the systems employed in the farming of mink and fox do not satisfy some of the most basic criteria which it has identified for protecting the welfare of farm animals. The current cages used for fur farming do not appear to provide appropriate comfort or shelter, and do not allow the animals freedom to display most normal patterns of behaviour. In my view, it would not be possible to provide sufficiently improved conditions on farms to justify retaining fur farming in this country. The industry has been declining precipitately, perhaps even more so since the Farm Animal Welfare Council made that statement in 1989. Since then, the number of farms has fallen from 61 to 13. Since 1980, the UK market for fur has declined by 99 per cent. Many owners of fur farms have already gone out of business. Now is the time to deal with the remaining 13 farms, pay proper compensation to those farmers and end the practice.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

The hon. Lady is right to say that fur farming in the United Kingdom has declined hugely in recent years, but is she not aware that the use of fur and its farming around the world has significantly increased in that time? As recently as this morning, The Daily Telegraph reports that fur, particularly mink, is the latest fashion accessory. Is not the hon. Lady concerned that her Bill might drive fur farming offshore and thereby reduce the standards in which mink are kept in overseas fur farms?

Maria Eagle (Labour, Liverpool, Garston)

I do not know how my measure would reduce existing standards anywhere else. I recognise the hon. Gentleman's implication that I cannot legislate across the world or even across Europe, but only in this country, as I seek to do. In addition to the statement by the Farm Animal Welfare Council, I have a letter dated 8 February from Professor Broom, referring to his study called, "The welfare of farmed mink and foxes in relation to housing and management." He said: Based on all the research to date I conclude that the welfare of mink and foxes is always poor in the cages at present in use on fur farms in the UK. Many of the needs of the animals are not met. I have presented such scientific information on several occasions at the Council of Europe Standing Committee on the Convention for the Protection of Animals Kept for Farming Purposes. The fur farmers show no signs of making significant changes to their cages. They could not afford to do so in the current economic climate. That is why my Bill will end the practice and compensate farmers. It would be most unfair to require much higher standards of welfare when it is evident that farmers are unable to invest in the industry because of its precipitate decline.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

rose—

Maria Eagle (Labour, Liverpool, Garston)

I must get on, but I will give way.

Ann Winterton (Conservative, Congleton)

I am most grateful. Before the hon. Lady leaves the issue of animal welfare, will she say whether she has consulted, in any way, shape or form, the veterinary profession which is the profession most interested in and responsible for animal welfare? For example, has she consulted the British Veterinary Association or the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons?

Maria Eagle (Labour, Liverpool, Garston)

I have had letters from veterinary organisations, but I am afraid that I do not have them with me. I shall have to drop the hon. Lady a line to give her details of what those letters said. I have also had discussions with vets who regularly visit fur farms, especially vets attached to the RSPCA. I know that they have concerns similar to the ones that I have expressed, but I accept that some vets might not. I have no problem with that; I realise that there are arguments on both sides. I accept that some vets may believe that the current situation is acceptable; I do not, and there are many vets who do not. I must now get on with my speech so that others have a chance to speak in this debate. Several minor arguments have been put to me to as to why the Bill should not proceed. One is that it would have a severe effect on employment. I have been trying, through the British Fur Trade Association, to find out how many people are employed on the remaining fur farms, but I have not had a satisfactory answer. I have been sent some figures which suggest that, across Europe, there is an average of four employees per farm. I do not believe that there are that many per farm in this country. However, even if there were four per farm, we would be talking about 44 jobs. It is always regrettable when people lose their livelihood, but, in this case, I believe that it is acceptable to lose a small number of jobs in order to put an end to this cruel practice. I have also been told that the Bill would have a major economic impact on the areas around the farms. A figure of £1 million has been quoted to me by the British Fur Trade Association in respect of a particular farm in the west country. I was told in a letter that that figure is based on the cost of a blue iris pelt being £47. My information is that at the latest auction at the Copenhagen fur centre in February this year, the price of a female blue iris pelt was not £47 but US$24.5, or £15.30; and male pelts sold for US$33, or £21. I therefore take the figures that I have been given in respect of the Bill's general economic impact as unproven. I shall not be ungenerous. I accept that there will be an economic impact on the farmers, which is why the Bill contains provisions for compensation. Farms have other impacts on their local areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) referred to the experience in her local area. I shall read to the House a letter from Brigadier Tynan in support of the Bill. He is the chairman of the Crow Hill and district residents association and has a fur farm very close to his own property. He states: Apart from the main thrust relating to cruelty there is a secondary aspect which may be helpful in discussion. My house is about 400 yards from a mink farm and there are several other properties in this residential area which are very much nearer. May I tell you that an abominable fetid stench emanates from the farm, especially when the mink population is at its peak as the slaughtering time approaches. Believe me, this disgusting smell is unique and quite different from the 'honest farmyard smell' which we all know. Brigadier Tynan goes on to say that the discarded food and other by-products—I am being polite—on the site are breeding grounds generating myriads of flies which infest the area in the late Spring and Summer. To my certain knowledge, this considerable nuisance and potential health hazard has been the subject of complaint for many years. It has been pursued regularly and energetically by the District Council with limited and unenduring success. This official activity, resulting in the imposition of fines in the Magistrates Court on no fewer than three occasions, has not had any significant lasting effect. One assumes that the local council prosecuted under the nuisance provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990—a different kind of prosecution. In other words, these farms are not universally liked by people who have the dubious pleasure of living nearby. I shall read from a letter sent by Professor Harris, chairman of the Mammal Society. He also supports the Bill. He writes: The Mammal Society works to protect British mammals, halt the decline of threatened species, and advises on all issues affecting British mammals. We promote conservation and other policies based on sound science. The Mammal Society is very concerned about mink farming in Britain. Mink are wild animals, not domesticated, and the welfare argument against the continued farming of this species are clear. We are further concerned about the potential impact of this species on British wildlife. Mink have played a major contributory role in the dramatic decline of the water vole (the population has declined by approximately 95 per cent. this century), and their impact on breeding populations of birds, especially sea-birds on off-shore islands which previously had no terrestrial predator. He concludes: Without an end to mink farming, further escapes … are inevitable, and this will compound the problems already posed by free-living mink. There are environmental impacts when mink are released deliberately or when they escape. They establish feral populations and threaten our indigenous wildlife, something which should concern the House. Because I have taken several interventions, I have detained the House for long enough. I do not wish to use up all the time allocated for this debate, but want to leave enough time for other to speak. As we approach the new millennium, it is up to the House to set the standards that we want for the next one, and to set the parameters within which society should operate—that applies equally to ourselves and to animals. I hope that the House will take this opportunity to say, as the Farm Animal Welfare Council did some 10 years ago, that keeping wild animals in small barren cages simply to obtain an unessential luxury product is unacceptable. It is not necessary to believe that animals have rights in order to believe that human beings have obligations towards them. Let us put an end to the cruel barbaric practice of fur farming and take this opportunity to do it. I commend the Bill to the House.

Patrick Nicholls (Conservative, Teignbridge)

Given the interest that the Bill clearly generates and the desire of many hon. Members to speak, it may be helpful if at this stage I make a few remarks on behalf of the official Opposition. First—this will unite hon. Members on both sides of the House—I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) for the way in which she introduced the Bill. Anyone who has steered a Bill through the House knows that, even for Ministers, who benefit from help from the civil service, it is a daunting experience. For the hon. Lady to put everything together as she has is a remarkable achievement. It seems to me that the main consideration today has to be the welfare of the mink—that is the beginning and end of the argument. If mink could not be farmed humanely, mink farming would have to go—despite the devastating effect that that would have on the livelihood of those engaged in it. It is as simple as that. At one end of the spectrum are the people who say that all farming is ultimately immoral. That notion will probably appeal even to some hon. Members, but I do not think it will appeal to the majority. I certainly reject it. The Bill is predicated on two assumptions. First, it assumes that, under the present law, even if properly enforced and observed, mink cannot be fanned humanely. Secondly, it assumes that it would be impossible to devise any system whereby mink could be farmed humanely. I claim no special expertise in this matter. I come to the subject with a long-standing interest in animal welfare. I have read widely; I have received many letters; and I have made a point of visiting one of the country's leading fur farms to test at first hand what I have been told about the industry. I express my thanks to Michael Cobbledick for allowing me to visit him at his fur farm in Cornwall, for answering straightforwardly and unequivocally the questions that I put to him, and for allowing me free access to his farm. I understand the problems that the hon. Member for Garston may have had, given the demands on her time in putting the Bill together, but I wish that she had been able to visit as many fur farms as she wanted. While I commend the hon. Member for Garston for the fact that she is still prepared to visit fur farms, that is a bit like saying that one is prepared to consider the possibility of a reprieve after the execution. That approach has a certain theoretical charm, but the hon. Lady will have missed an opportunity—whether or not fur farming should be abolished—of seeing for herself that to describe all fur farming and fur farmers as indulging in a barbaric practice may not be the way forward.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Minister was invited to visit a fur farm this time last year? He declined because he felt that it would not make much difference, as he knew what conditions on a fur farm were like already. Does that not stand in stark contrast to the approach of my hon. Friend, who has visited fur farms to find out what happens?

Patrick Nicholls (Conservative, Teignbridge)

Yes, it does. I had assumed that the Minister had visited fur farms, and we will find in due course whether that is the position. It will be surprising if he has not. I always enjoy debating with the Minister, and he will say in due course how he has been able to reach a conclusion—if he has reached one—without seeing one particular part of the evidence.

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

I have looked at the issue for many years and have visited fur farms privately. I was invited by Mr. Cobbledick and the Fur Breeders Association, who wanted to offer me an all expenses paid trip to Denmark. I thought that it would be inappropriate to accept that invitation.

Patrick Nicholls (Conservative, Teignbridge)

Not only would it have been inappropriate: the Minister would have been unable to accept under the rules of the House. I am sure that he would be able to see fur farms in this country, and that it would not take all expenses paid trips to do so. However, we may find ourselves being diverted into discussing who takes expenses-paid trips in helicopters. I am not quite sure that the Minister would want to do that. On the evidence that I have seen, I have not been able to conclude that it would be impossible to conduct fur farming humanely. I was helped in considering the evidence by a Library paper produced by Stephen McGinness and Patsy Hughes, which many hon. Members will have seen. The paper says: The scientific evidence for animal welfare and fur farms remains in its infancy. There is, however, little support for the claim that it would be impossible to provide good welfare for captive mink. I telephoned Mr. McGinness, and he was content that I should relay his response to the House. He told me that, in its first draft, the paper said that there was no support for the claim that it would be impossible to provide good welfare for captive mink. On reflection, however, he took the view that, as he could not logically prove that no evidence existed at all, it would be more accurate to say that there was little evidence.

Andrew Dismore (Labour, Hendon)

Will the hon. Gentleman read another quote from the Library briefing, which says: There is solid evidence of shortcomings in the current standards of welfare and that some methods of killing fur-bearing animals are inhumane"?

Patrick Nicholls (Conservative, Teignbridge)

Of course there is some evidence of people falling short of the present law, and I shall deal with that in a moment. If the hon. Gentleman—who is, as I recall from previous exchanges, a distinguished lawyer—is going to turn round and say that because some people may fall short of the standards of a profession, that profession should be abolished, he will not have a profession to return to after the next election, when he will need one. That was not quite as good a point as the hon. Gentleman may have thought. That conclusion from two impartial House of Commons researchers will surprise many people in the country. By the looks of it, it has surprised many Labour Members. Facts are sometimes surprising and, in this House, we should be guided by the facts.

Angela Smith (Labour/Co-operative, Basildon)

If the hon. Gentleman is so convinced that there are far more humane ways to rear mink for their fur, why have they not been adopted already?

Patrick Nicholls (Conservative, Teignbridge)

If the Bill is to succeed, it will be necessary to show not only that it is impossible to farm mink humanely under present conditions, but that mink cannot be farmed humanely in any circumstances. I want the Minister to address the fundamental proposition that mink cannot be farmed humanely. I do not know whether this is a hand-out Bill from the Government or not. [Interruption.] There would be nothing wrong if it were. The Government have made perfectly clear in opposition and in government that it is their intention to outlaw fur farming. I do not know whether they intend to back the Bill today. I see the Minister nodding his assent. This is a reasonable opportunity for the Government to address the fundamental proposition—can mink be farmed humanely or not? There are those who will justify on an almost theological basis their desire for abolition: the sort of people who believe that their genuine and sincere conviction is sufficient justification to use this Parliament to impose that conviction on others, and who believe that any reference to science—unless, of course, that science supports their predetermined conviction—is heartless equivocation. I reject that approach—as, I hope, does the Minister. We have an existing framework of law. Again, that surprises many of those who have written to me, who believe that, in some curious way, fur farming is outside the ambit of present law. There is a substantial body of European and domestic law dealing with fur farming. There is the European Union directive on farm animal welfare, adopted in 1998; the Mink Keeping Order 1997; the Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) Regulations 1999; the European convention on the protection of animals kept for farming purposes of 1991; the Mink Keeping Regulations 1975; the Mink Keeping (Amendment) Regulations 1998; and the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 1968. Fur farmers already have a substantial body of law with which to comply. Clearly, that does not mean that the law cannot be reformed. However, it does mean that fur farming cannot legally be carried out in the cruel and capricious way that many of those who have written to me clearly believe it is.

Gareth Thomas (Labour, Harrow West)

Will the hon. Gentleman respond to the comments of the Farm Animal Welfare Council in 1989, as referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle)? The council said that fur farming does not meet all the basic welfare needs of what are essentially wild animals. Will he say why there has been no reform to drive up welfare standards?

Patrick Nicholls (Conservative, Teignbridge)

There has indeed, and I will come to that perfectly fair point in my speech.

Peter Atkinson (Conservative, Hexham)

We hear allegations that mink farms are hell-holes. Does my hon. Friend agree that if that were the case, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—which inspects such farms regularly—would have been failing in its duties?

Patrick Nicholls (Conservative, Teignbridge)

Yes, and it would mean that the system was breaking down. This picks up on the point made by the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), who suggested that, because the law had been broken, abolition should automatically take place. There is no doubt—it is evident to anyone who has visited a fur farm—that if the law were properly observed and enforced, as it should be, it would be quite impossible in law for hell-holes to exist. If the present law were observed, I see no reason why barbaric practices should be able to take place. The Minister may wish to address that matter. If it is the Government's contention that the present law is not adequate to deal with some of the outrages about which we have heard, one wonders why it has taken so long for action to take place. What are the arguments for the proposition that mink cannot be farmed humanely? There are two, and the hon. Member for Garston, to her credit, addressed both. First, it is said that mink are essentially wild. Secondly, it is said that mink are aquatic animals, condemned to live out their existence in a water-free environment. I will address both, briefly. Clearly, mink were once wild—indeed, all farm animals were at one time wild. However, the proposition is whether they can be considered wild now. There is some authority for that view, albeit from the continent—although I see nothing particularly wrong with that. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is twitching a bit, but this is not a day for him and me to share our European prejudices. In his paper, "Re the zoological status of farmed fur animals", written in June 1993, Professor Knud Erik Heller of the Institute of Population Biology in Denmark said: From a scientific point of view, fur animals that have been domesticated for more than ten generations must be considered as so far genetically removed from their ancestors that they have to be treated as fully domesticated species. In a paper entitled "Production conditions, behaviour and welfare of farmed mink", Dr. Steffen Hanson of the National Institute of Animal Science in Denmark says: Significant behaviour and physiological changes achieved through domestication therefore make it unreasonable to make direct comparisons between farmed mink and their relations in the wild, when considering their welfare. I note in passing the reference to 10 generations. I understand that, in this country, we are into the 80th generation. Perhaps most interesting of all was the report by Professor P.R. Wiepkema who, in a submission to the Dutch Government at their request on the implications of fur farming, said: Mink have unmistakably gone down the path of domestication. They display the majority of characteristics of domestic animals: they are not shy. They are inquisitive, sometimes even hand tame, and they grow and reproduce without any great problems. In summary, he says: Mink kept on the farm can be considered as domestic animals. I have handled mink and ferrets, and I must tell the hon. Member for Garston that she would be safer handling mink than ferrets.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

My hon. Friend has quoted studies undertaken in Denmark and Holland. Does he accept that, for many years, the Governments and Parliaments of Denmark and Holland have shown themselves to be as sensitive to animal welfare issues as has this House?

Patrick Nicholls (Conservative, Teignbridge)

That is my understanding. It is interesting and informative to refer to academic studies. There is nothing wrong with being a campaigning organisation, be it the Farm Animal Welfare Council or any other, but when we are trying to reach a conclusion it is more relevant to consider academic evidence on both sides of the argument than simply to say that a campaigning organisation, with great sincerity, happens to believe that something is wrong.

Maria Eagle (Labour, Liverpool, Garston)

The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting speech, which inclines me to think that the official Opposition may oppose the Bill. Do they intend to do so?

Patrick Nicholls (Conservative, Teignbridge)

The official Opposition will not oppose the Bill, but we believe that fundamental questions must be answered before the Bill is passed. I am presenting the arguments in this way because, given the rational way in which the hon. Lady has introduced the measure—in contrast to some of those who purportedly support her—I believe that the assertion that there is a case to be made will appeal to her. Ultimately, whether the Bill is successful will depend on Ministers' attitude, so I believe that Ministers must answer some questions.

Desmond Swayne (Conservative, New Forest West)

My hon. Friend will appreciate that some of us are sceptical of academic studies, as we were of a certain Bateson report. Does he accept that it is incredible to expect a chicken or cow to escape and live in the wild as mink populations do? We now have feral mink populations in the countryside.

Patrick Nicholls (Conservative, Teignbridge)

My hon. Friend may have more experience than I do about what happens to cows and chickens when they escape into the wild; I do not know. Certainly if their wings and beaks—

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

Order. I thank the hon. Member for returning to address the Chair.

Patrick Nicholls (Conservative, Teignbridge)

I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Obviously, some animals are better equipped for returning to the wild than others, but today we are discussing mink, not whether we should release or prevent the husbandry of chickens and cows. Academic evidence exists that casts doubt on whether mink are wild. My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) approaches academic evidence with scepticism, as he should, but academic evidence cannot simply be dismissed if it does not fit one's predetermined views.

Andrew Dismore (Labour, Hendon)

The hon. Gentleman quoted some of the academic ideas that support the keeping of mink. Perhaps he would comment on whether there has been academic research on killing methods. The Library research paper suggests that there is no humane method of killing mink. It deals with gassing and the possible stresses and traumas that that causes mink. It deals with the possibility of drugging the animals before they are killed and refers to the significant stresses, difficulties and cruelty that that may cause. Have any of the academic studies addressed the final solution for mink—the way that they are killed and the cruelty involved?

Patrick Nicholls (Conservative, Teignbridge)

The hon. Gentleman has obviously reached a conclusion. He is entitled to do so, and doubtless he will argue in his speech that it is impossible to kill mink humanely. I have not read the evidence that supports that proposition. If there is evidence that supports that proposition conclusively, that will be an end of the matter. The hon. Gentleman's remarks would be better made to the Minister because if, uniquely among farm animals, it is impossible to kill mink humanely, one wonders how they can be killed at all under the present law. I believe that the hon. Gentleman comes from an urban background. If he thinks that the killing of animals, for food or fur, is an attractive process whereby animals can be laid to sleep in a way that is completely undistressing for them or for those who must take part in that process, he should visit a slaughterhouse.

Andrew Dismore (Labour, Hendon)

I grew up in east Yorkshire, which is not known for its great urban sprawl; it is the heart of farming country. However, may I quote to the hon. Gentleman the Library research paper on the need to kill the animals without spoiling their pelts? This means that killing methods have be employed other than those accepted as humane for food animals such as cattle and sheep.

Patrick Nicholls (Conservative, Teignbridge)

If the hon. Gentleman takes the view that it is impossible to kill mink humanely, he will support the Bill. However, he should ask the Minister why, if it is impossible to kill mink humanely, the process is taking place at the moment.

Patrick Nicholls (Conservative, Teignbridge)

I give way to the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock).

Mike Hancock (Liberal Democrat, Portsmouth South)

On the hon. Gentleman's many visits to mink farms, did he witness the mink being killed? If so, I should be grateful if he would describe to the House what he saw.

Patrick Nicholls (Conservative, Teignbridge)

I have visited only one mink farm and I was not there when the mink were harvested, so I cannot give any information about that. However, the fact that I made that one visit probably distinguishes me from many of the hon. Members who are now seeking to intervene.

Ian Cawsey (Labour, Brigg and Goole)

It does the hon. Gentleman credit that he visited a farm. Many of his arguments are about whether mink are domesticated, and he seems to have concluded, "mink—not as bad as you think." He says that academic research might back up that claim, but does he accept that when mink escaped—and there were mink escapes last year—there was not much evidence that they had become domesticated? I believe that the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) would agree that when mink returned to the wild, they showed all their natural wild tendencies.

Patrick Nicholls (Conservative, Teignbridge)

They certainly showed some of their vicious tendencies, because that is in their nature. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman goes ferreting very often, but it is commonly accepted that ferrets are domesticated animals, and they are difficult and can be vicious. I said that the two arguments that are advanced for the proposition that mink cannot be farmed humanely are first, that they are wild—I have pointed out such evidence as is available to support that proposition—and secondly, that they are aquatic and that therefore they cannot be suitable to be held in captivity. In his report, Professor Wiepkema said, on the question whether mink should be provided with swimming water: In close connection with their supposed wild nature it is often postulated that farmed mink need swimming water. It should be apparent from point 2.2 that feral mink intensively use the waterside (and the water) as a foraging area, but also may leave it at their own initiative. This opportunistic foraging behaviour leads me to the conclusion that swimming and fishing water is agreeable to the mink, but presumably not crucial. There are also no indications from the limited research done so far that mink, outside of their foraging behaviour, need water. He summarises: On the farm swimming or fishing water is not an absolute necessity for mink.

Angela Smith (Labour/Co-operative, Basildon)

Given the hon. Gentleman's remarks about mink swimming, will he comment on the point made by Robert Morgan of the British Fur Trade Association, who said: If mink"— presumably in captivity— had access to swimming water, then they would get wet and probably get cold and die.

Patrick Nicholls (Conservative, Teignbridge)

I am not here for the British Fur Trade Association. I am here to put the proposition to the House—I think that it is a fair one—that the Bill deserves to succeed if it can be shown that mink cannot be farmed humanely under present conditions and that it is impossible to devise humane conditions in which they could be. I have set out the evidence for those two propositions. Having said that, could the position of mink be improved? Of course, the answer to that is yes. The conditions of any farm animals can certainly be improved. Professor Wiepkema's report to the Dutch Government now forms the basis of new progressive standards being introduced in Holland in line with the revised Council of Europe recommendation on fur farming.

Gareth Thomas (Labour, Harrow West)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Patrick Nicholls (Conservative, Teignbridge)

I have given way at least once to the hon. Gentleman and I must make some progress before I do so again. I want to hear how the Minister answers this aspect of the debate. It seems that a number of points are emerging. First, such scientific evidence as there is specifically rejects the proposition that mink cannot be farmed humanely. Secondly, there are already pan-European measures in place to secure the welfare of mink. Thirdly, the British fur trade has apparently committed itself to raising standards. Fourthly, following the Dutch initiative, those improvements are in hand. In November 1997, when talking in the House about fur farming and mink farming in Europe, the Minister said that the Government would be working with the Council of Europe to ensure the adoption of the highest possible standards consistent with scientific evidence and expert opinion. I think the Minister was right to say that. We will need to know whether he believes that Holland and virtually the whole of the European Union are wrong and are conniving at an inherently cruel practice that cannot take place except in certain circumstances of cruelty.

Gareth Thomas (Labour, Harrow West)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that specific point?

Patrick Nicholls (Conservative, Teignbridge)

I give way for a third time to the hon. Gentleman, but that is it.

Gareth Thomas (Labour, Harrow West)

To help the hon. Gentleman, this is the second time that he has given way to me. The hon. Gentleman has made much of Professor Wiepkema's advice to the Dutch Government. Will he acknowledge that that advice has been criticised by many international scientists already on the basis of the conclusions at which Professor Wiepkema arrived?

Patrick Nicholls (Conservative, Teignbridge)

That may or may not be. I am saying that we need to examine the scientific evidence and to take it into account. If we in this place are to do our job properly, we should consider the available evidence and not legislate by assertion. If the hon. Gentleman has examined the evidence both for and against and has come to a certain conclusion, that is a matter for him. I do not think that the Minister could convincingly say that the evidence does not matter because the public are against mink farming. Politicians have a duty to inform debate as well as to follow it. The proposition, "I am their leader, I must follow them," is no more attractive now as a basis for legislation than it was when that remark was first made. Given the Minister's commitment in November 1997 to examine the evidence, we would like to know what he has made of the farms that he has visited. He has said that he has visited them in his private capacity, and I commend him for so doing. Perhaps he can draw on that experience and tell us what he found when he visited the farms. If the Minister can establish that only abolition and not reform can secure the welfare of mink, clearly the Bill should succeed. If he has come to that conclusion, that has certain implications. If the Minister has concluded that mink farming is inherently and inevitably cruel, what representations has he made to the rest of the European Union? Given that Andrew Turnbull, the outgoing chairman of the Standing Veterinary Committee, which effectively oversees fur farming in the European Union, is himself a senior vet in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, what does Mr. Turnbull feel about these matters? If the Minister simply ignores the weight of the evidence because it is popular to do so, the interests of animal welfare will not be served. If we abolished fur farming in this country against the evidence, what credibility would the Minister have in the European Union when he wanted to argue for an increase in standards for mink in the EU? The Minister will lose his ability to make that case from a position of principle.

Alan Clark (Conservative, Kensington and Chelsea)

As my hon. Friend knows, I hold him in high esteem, particularly on account of his often pungent comments on conformity with the European Union. I am a little surprised to find him taking the position that we must be extremely cautious in case we in any way deviate from what is European practice, and inviting the Minister to try to conform with what is being established in Brussels.

Patrick Nicholls (Conservative, Teignbridge)

The Minister will be in a far harder position than I am when he has to talk about speaking to his friends in Europe. That is not something that would cause me any hardship. However, Europe does have some uses. I have put a perfectly fair proposition to the Minister. The cause of animal welfare goes wider than national boundaries and there is a case to be made in Europe. To re-establish my credibility with my right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Clark), let me make it clear that I believe that the House should settle this issue for better or for worse. I believe that we will hear from the Minister in due course that he cannot go as far as many of his hon. Friends would like, because the House has lost the ability to deal with these matters—but I shall return to that. How will the Minister explain to the public that although fur farming could become illegal in the United Kingdom, fur trading and the manufacture of items out of fur will not—I shall cheer my right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea up—because our present relationship with Europe will make that impossible? How will the Minister justify the argument that there is a moral difference between farming for food and farming for fur and leather, when neither is essential for human life? Does the Minister not realise that, queueing up behind this measure, will be those who, in relation to animal husbandry in general, have an altogether darker and more sinister agenda? I have asked questions and I hope that I have dealt with these matters in some detail. I have taken interventions because it is clearly a serious issue and because I commend the hon. Member for Garston on the way in which she has introduced the Bill. Again, let me make it absolutely clear that the official Opposition have no intention of impeding the Bill's passage. However, whether the Bill is entitled to become law—not on a wave of assertion or on a wave of sincere emotion—depends on the answering of a central proposition, which is whether mink can be farmed humanely. It is my responsibility to ask that question from the Opposition Dispatch Box and it is the Minister's responsibility, in due course, to satisfy the House as to the reply.

Angela Smith (Labour/Co-operative, Basildon)

First, on behalf of many hon. Members on both sides of the House, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) for bringing the Bill forward. I am grateful to have the opportunity to debate the matter in the House. Society changes, and attitudes to animal welfare have changed substantially over the years. We have far more information on, and knowledge about, wildlife and animals than we had 50 or 100 years ago. Attitudes to fashion also change. Most of us would regard it as considerable progress that we have moved on from when, within the Palace of Westminster, Henry IV boasted of wearing a fur robe made from the skins of 12,000 squirrels and 80 ermine. Perhaps the mink would regard it as progress that, today, it takes about 60 mink to make a fur coat. Mink may also regard it as progress that, as my hon. Friend said, because demand for pelts is falling, the price paid for them is falling drastically. At last month's Copenhagen fur centre, the price of most mink skins had fallen to $21 from $30 last year. The industry is dependent on the whim of fashion and the fluctuations of the marketplace. The lives and conditions that mink live in are dependent on the whims of the fashion market. The Bill is not about the wearing of fur. Instead, it is a challenge to the cruelty of the farming of wild animals for their fur. It is those wild animals that are ultimately fashion victims. Public and political awareness has been heightened by the tireless work of campaigners, who have exposed the conditions in mink farming through video footage and photographs, and we should pay tribute to them. Many of us do not have the strong stomach of my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and other hon. Members who have visited fur farms to see the conditions at first hand. I make no apology, and no excuses, for not wanting to visit a fur farm. That video footage and those photographs clearly illustrated how awful fur farming is. They brought into sharp focus the secret side of a business that many of us had not seen, and that is a discredit to Britain. I recently saw film of mink being caught in their cages, having their heads bashed, and then being stuffed into a box to be gassed. I am well aware that emotional and ethical questions arise. I am sure that any hon. Member would feel emotional, having witnessed such scenes. Few people could fail to be moved by the sight of mink panicking in tiny wire cages. However, as the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) argued, my views and those of other hon. Members are not enough to justify the banning of fur farming. Therefore, perhaps on this issue only, I endorse the advice of the British Fur Trade Association, which stated: science, not emotions, should take the lead in setting animal welfare standards". We should examine the scientific reasons why mink should not be farmed for their fur.

Alice Mahon (Labour, Halifax)

Does my hon. Friend agree that some farms operate in a state of secrecy? Last year, at one such farm in my constituency, a Channel 4 team was prevented from filming from outside—two of the crew members were beaten up, the video was taken away and the camera was wrecked. It is sometimes difficult to get into the real hell-holes.

Angela Smith (Labour/Co-operative, Basildon)

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. One wonders why mink farmers are so averse to such publicity and to having their farms filmed. If we compare conditions in the wild and those in captivity, we can see why fur farming is so inappropriate. In the wild, mink swim for about 60 per cent. of their waking hours, hunt live quarry, climb and dive, and travel between two to five dens, which are sometimes as much as 2 km apart. Male territories never overlap, and they will fight to the death to defend their territories. Compare that with conditions in a fur farm, where, in rows of small wire cages—often just 38 cm wide, 30.5 cm high and 61 cm long—the mink are entirely deprived of opportunities to engage in their natural behaviour. In fur farms, mink may spend a quarter of their waking hours performing endless repetitive motions, going round and round in their tiny cages. They mutilate themselves through pelt and tail biting, they cannibalise other mink, and the mortality rate among young minkkits—is extremely high. They are confined, in the words of a leading mink expert, Dr. Nigel Dunstone, to a life of "sedentary torture". Is all that an exaggeration? Are the facts hyped up by those who oppose mink farming? Not according to a Cambridge university report, which stated that stereotypical behaviour is an ever present feature of farm mink behaviour. As we have heard from several hon. Members, the Government's Farm Animal Welfare Council announced under the previous Government: mink (and fox) have been bred in captivity for only about 50–60 generations and the Council is particularly concerned about the keeping of what are essentially wild animals in small barren cages. The council's chairman made clear his views and those of the committee. He stated: We have decided against drawing up a Welfare Code for mink and fox farming to avoid giving it the stamp of approval which a Government-backed Welfare Code would imply. We should take those comments seriously. The conditions in which mink are kept would be illegal if they were in a zoo, but at least if they were in a zoo, that would expose the animals' conditions to intense public scrutiny. The Zoo Licensing Act 1981 specifies that mink be provided with space and furniture sufficient to allow such exercise as is needed for the welfare of the particular species. Where in a fur farm do we see nesting boxes, pools and branch-work to aid natural behaviour? Where is the recommended 40 sq m pool? Where are the natural soil, sand and gravel, and the hollow logs and rocks that would at least represent an attempt to create a natural environment? Nowhere in a mink farm do we see such facilities. The opponents of the Bill have failed to mention the inhumane conditions in which mink are transported within the United Kingdom. We hear little about that, so I shall give the House an example. On 21 December last year, mink were transferred from Coneyheugh farm in Northumberland to Woodview farm in Devon—a journey of more than 10 hours. The 800 mink were left on the lorry overnight before being unloaded. Another batch of mink was delivered just last Sunday, 29 February. Overseeing the arrival of the mink was a MAFF vet. He stayed for just seven minutes. We should remember that the mink is a wild animal and is not used to captivity.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

All animal lovers would be concerned if the conditions that the hon. Lady describes occurred normally. Does she agree that one of the good things about mink fanning, in this country and elsewhere, is that the mink are bred and farmed in the same place as they are slaughtered—in other words, there is no transportation of mink to slaughterhouses, as is the case for all other farm animals?

Angela Smith (Labour/Co-operative, Basildon)

I am sure the hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to hear that I do not agree that it is better for mink to be kept in small cages and slaughtered on site. I have not dreamed up the events that I described. That transportation of mink happened. Does it matter whether it happens every day of the week or not? It happened, it is wrong and it should not be allowed to happen, but the law allows it to happen.

Peter Atkinson (Conservative, Hexham)

The owner of Coneyheugh farm is a constituent of mine. When he moved those mink, they were moved with the full approval of MAFF. As the hon. Lady rightly said, a MAFF vet was present. My constituent cannot be blamed if the vet left after seven minutes. He did everything exactly by the rule book.

Angela Smith (Labour/Co-operative, Basildon)

The hon. Gentleman makes my point. The rules allowed that to happen. Many Labour Members and some of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues find that wrong. Humane conditions should be provided. Some people treat mink simply as a product. They are farmed for maximum profit for a frivolous reason—for fashion. The term "fur farm" is totally misleading. Livestock farms give the impression of animals roaming over open spaces and fields and the production of food. A better term for mink farms would be "fur factories". That is the one group of factories that I want to see closed down for ever.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

May I congratulate the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) on the way in which she introduced the Bill. I have come to a conclusion that is quite different from hers, but I recognise that she has produced arguments that are rational and moderate in their tone, and I congratulate the hon. Lady on the approach that she adopted. I oppose the Bill, both in general terms and for particular reasons. I shall start from two general propositions, which the House would do well to acknowledge. The first is that one should be very slow to use the criminal law to impose one's own moral views on the community as a whole. In many other contexts, hon. Members would largely agree with that proposition. It is certainly a view that permeates the debate on abortion, and it was manifest in the debate on homosexuality on Monday. One should be slow to use the criminal law to impose one's own moral standards. The second point is a related one, but is also important. The House needs to be cautious about trampling on the rights of minorities. In a constitution such as ours, the rights of minorities are not firmly entrenched. It may well be that the European convention incorporated into the United Kingdom's domestic law will have a beneficial effect in that respect, but the defence of minority rights depends on the restraint of right hon. and hon. Members in this place. Therefore we have an obligation, when we are considering the criminal law, to look strictly at the consequences of what we are about. We must ask ourselves whether we are unduly constraining the rights of minorities. I accept that neither of those propositions is absolute, but they are a guide as to how right hon. and hon. Members should legislate. The first question that I have asked myself—I hope that other right hon. and hon. Members will also do so—is whether fur farming is in principle wrong. I stress "in principle". Let us not for the moment discuss whether it is humane. That is a different but extremely important issue. Is it in principle wrong? The hon. Member for Garston raised a number of arguments that depended on the inhumane method of husbandry. One of her principal contentions, which is also to be seen in the early-day motion, is that fur farming is, in principle, wrong. She argued, for example, that fur is not an essential requirement, implying that if it is not essential, it is right to prohibit fur farming. That is the question which we must consider. It is important to remind ourselves that, although many people in this country may believe that wearing fur is wrong, that is not the conventional view in many countries whose standards in this regard are no different from our own. If one goes to the countries of central Europe—or, indeed, many of the countries of western Europe in winter—one finds that many people, and often the majority in richer areas, wear fur coats. One has only to go to Scandinavia, Switzerland, Germany or Austria to find that wearing fur is a common practice. That is relevant to the debate because if it be true that in many civilised countries many, if not most, people think that wearing fur is a perfectly acceptable practice, one should be cautious about concluding that it is so unacceptable in principle that we should make it criminal.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

rose—

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

Not the wearing of fur, but the breeding.

Angela Smith (Labour/Co-operative, Basildon)

I offer assistance to the right hon. and learned Gentleman; he seems to be under a misapprehension. The Bill would not stop the wearing of fur, but it would stop mink fur farming in this country.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

The hon. Lady does not do justice to my case. It flows from the assertion being made that fur farming is an unessential luxury business.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend does not rest his argument entirely on the proposition that, if people on the continental mainland wear and approve of fur, that is okay. I hope that he does not accept that, even if most people in this country disapprove of fur farming, that would justify prohibiting it. He is not saying that, is he?

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

No. My right hon. Friend is entirely right about this. I pointed to the different views which one finds abroad to reinforce my real caution about seeking to impose one's moral standards by the criminal law. Millions of people in countries no different from our own take a profoundly different view on this issue. That should make one cautious about having a sense of confidence in one's own moral standards. My right hon. Friend made another important point, which relates to the second issue that I mentioned—minority rights. It also relates to fox hunting. I do not mind if 95 per cent. of the population are against fox hunting; I am in favour of preserving people's right to hunt foxes, because that is the nature of democracy.

David Drew (Labour/Co-operative, Stroud)

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

No. I will make a little progress, but I will give way if the hon. Gentleman wants to intervene later. That is the proposition from which I started. I then asked myself, as all hon. Members need to do, "What is the difference in principle between farming creatures for fur and farming animals for leather?" Looking around the Chamber, I see that hon. Members, in large numbers, are wearing leather shoes, have leather handbags or are wearing leather braces. I also see a briefcase or two and leather watch straps.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

Leather seats.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

We are all sitting on leather seats; you look particularly elegant on yours, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We could pop you on nylon and you would look just as nice. We could sit on velvet and we would be just as comfortable. We do not need leather, so we need to ask ourselves at this juncture, what is the difference in principle between rearing animals when the primary purpose is to enable us to wear belts and rearing animals to enable us to put fur scarves around our necks?

Maria Eagle (Labour, Liverpool, Garston)

I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way. As ever, he is making a well argued contribution. I attempted to address his point in my remarks; my Bill is aimed at the keeping of animals where the primary purpose is farming for fur. Most hon. Members have no objection to fur or skins as by-products of food production, and nor do I. That is the difference.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

There is a difference, but it is not conclusive. Many animals are reared where the primary purpose is the use of what the hon. Lady refers to as by-products. Skins are a by-product of many animals reared for food, and that involves the tanning process and so on. However, the primary purpose in respect of a range of other animals is provision of leather of a specialist kind for a variety of luxury, or even non-luxury, goods. Man-made fibre could be substituted for all those goods. Standing back from all this, my conclusion is that there is no difference in principle between farming animals for fur and farming animals for the provision of leather, for example. That takes me to a much more difficult question: what is the proper approach to adopt? The proper approach is that which is advocated by my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls). We should be asking ourselves whether it is possible to breed those animals in humane conditions. If it were impossible to do so, and the evidence was conclusive on that point, I would favour prohibition, but we must ask whether the systems of husbandry are acceptably humane. That approach has been taken to veal calves, to sows and, increasingly, to chickens. We concluded that the use of veal crates was an unacceptable practice. We do not need to eat veal—there are plenty of alternatives to it—but we did not conclude that we should ban the keeping of veal calves. We decided that the loose pen system was the proper way to rear veal calves. The same is true of sows. The House decided many years ago that the proper approach was not to prohibit pig keeping—that would be monstrous—but to prohibit the use of close tethering and close stalls. I am deeply concerned about battery cages for chickens. I have visited many battery cage farms and found those visits deeply distasteful. I say, en passant, to the hon. Member for Garston that much of what she said about the frustration of natural instincts could be said, with equal force, in respect of chickens in battery cages. Chickens go in for all the practices that she referred to in respect of mink. My conclusion is, not that we stop rearing chickens, but that we set about asking the question whether they ought to be reared in a wholly different way. That is the proper approach.

Maria Eagle (Labour, Liverpool, Garston)

I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way a second time. Is he aware that improved animal welfare, such as he suggests, has been introduced in Hessen in Germany? The result is that there are no fur farms. Such improvements are not economically viable. He would put people out of business by stealth whereas my Bill accepts that improving standards is not economic and that compensation should be paid to those who would lose their business.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

The hon. Lady makes a fair and an unfair point, and I believe that what she describes has happened in one of the lander. She is right that such standards can be required of fur farmers so that the process is made uneconomic.

Patrick Nicholls (Conservative, Teignbridge)

Tough.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

My hon. Friend says tough; I was going to say, "Hard cheese," but it is the same thing. If we conclude that the requirements are necessary, but the consequence of those requirements is that the farmer goes out of business, I say, "Hard cheese," and my hon. Friend says, "Tough." We agree with those consequences, but we approach the matter in a different way. We have not decided that such farming is wrong in principle, but that, in order to make it tolerable, the farmer has to comply with a range of standards. If that cannot be done, he goes out of business.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

My right hon. and learned Friend mentioned pig farmers. Is he aware that a number of pig farmers in my constituency have gone out of business because of the abolition of tethers and stalls, and that they received no compensation of any kind because they were unable to live up to the welfare standards that the Government demanded? Precisely the same would apply to mink farmers: if they were unable to live up to those standards, they would go out of business. Hard cheese, as he says.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I shall come to the matter of compensation, because it is one of the specific points that I want to address. To round up what I have been saying on this point, I believe that this practice should not be prohibited because of principle. We should ask ourselves whether it is intolerably inhumane or whether we can impose requirements that would make it acceptable. If we could make it acceptable, that would be the way forward. There is much evidence to suggest that it may be possible to impose acceptable standards. It is interesting that the Farm Animal Welfare Council in its 1988–89 report, although it identified shortcomings, did not say that the practice was inherently so inhumane that it should be prohibited. In Holland, the report of Professor Wiepkema—I apologise if I have mispronounced his name—made a number of recommendations that have been implemented, especially regarding the size and nature of cages. It is important to remind ourselves—as I did in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge—that Holland and the Scandinavian countries have high animal welfare standards and are sensitive to these issues. We must not disregard what they think is proper, because they are alert to these matters.

Desmond Swayne (Conservative, New Forest West)

My fear is that my right hon. and learned Friend, in his pursuit of a more humane way of fur farming, will create another, quite different, danger. I contend that a more humane form of fur farming would be less secure, and would give rise to a larger feral population that would be a greater danger to our ecology.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

That is a perfectly proper concern. My hon. Friend is a good advocate for the New Forest, and he is right to raise that issue. If the requirements of animal husbandry and ensuring a sufficiently humane regime were such that the animals could not be securely kept, the licence would not be issued. As my hon. Friend knows, the licensing regime takes account of security. If the consequences of improving animal welfare were such that the creatures could not be kept securely, the practice would have to stop. I would live with that, as I would regard it as a proper conclusion.

Phil Sawford (Labour, Kettering)

The right hon. and learned Gentleman is trying to make serious points about whether fur farming is correct in principle. I am not sure whether the issue of minority rights—very few people run fur farms—or the fact that many people wear fur necessarily establishes the principle. One of his key points is that there is no difference between leather by-products used for clothing and seats and the fur-farming industry. For me a significant difference is the cosmetic nature of what is essentially a fashion accessory. Is there not a key difference between leather and fur products?

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I disagree in principle. The hon. Gentleman is making a value judgment. He is entitled to live up to his moral judgment: I am not asking him to wear crocodile skin. It is his moral judgment, and it may be perfectly proper. I am not criticising it. However, he should not use the criminal law to impose his value judgment on others. The Bill does not prohibit the wearing of fur, but in a sense it is the same principle, because it prohibits the breeding of fur creatures based on a moral judgment such as the hon. Gentleman is making. That is why I think it is wrong.

David Drew (Labour/Co-operative, Stroud)

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, and then I shall make progress.

David Drew (Labour/Co-operative, Stroud)

If we took the right hon. and learned Gentleman's logic on minority rights to its natural conclusion, we would allow people to arrange dog fights or bull fights. Why do we not have an opinion on that?

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

The hon. Gentleman has forgotten what I said when I began my speech. I said that there were two important propositions: that we should not impose our own moral standards by the criminal law; and that we should have regard for minorities. However, I said that they were not absolutes: they were an important guide to legislation. If I were a Spaniard, I would not prohibit bull fighting. I would, however, prohibit dog fighting. Although this point is slightly at a tangent, there is a difference, because the bull fighter—by which I mean the human—stands a considerable risk.

Alan Clark (Conservative, Kensington and Chelsea)

No he does not.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I should like to see my right hon. Friend in the ring. I know what the bull would do to him.

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

Order. Tempting though some of those images may be, we should return to mink farming.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

All I can say is that if my right hon. Friend were too close to the bull's horns, he might have cause to regret it. The central issue is that the proper approach is not to prohibit on grounds of principle, but to ask ourselves whether the methods are inhumane, and if they are to make them more humane. If that cannot be done, it is proper to accept the consequences.

Mike Hancock (Liberal Democrat, Portsmouth South)

When the right hon. and learned Gentleman was the head of the service that is responsible for this matter, did he visit fur farms, and if so, what was his opinion of them? Were they run properly and were the animals looked after humanely? If they were not, his comments today beg the question why was not more done by fur farmers to achieve the improvements that the right hon. and learned Gentleman now suggests should be made?

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

That is a perfectly fair criticism of my regime. I focused on that question when I was thinking about the Bill. I asked myself whether, when I was Minister, I directed my attention to the matter of welfare in fur farming. The honest answer is that I do not think that I did. I accept that criticism, but it does not go against the principle. It merely means that I did not do that which I now think I ought to have done, and that is a different point.

Mike Hancock (Liberal Democrat, Portsmouth South)

Why have the fur farmers not done it?

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

They may now make improvements as a consequence of the hon. Lady's Bill, but that does not go to the main issue. The hon. Gentleman is merely arguing that the people who should have addressed the problem previously did not do so, and not that the problem cannot be addressed, which is a difference issue.

Peter Atkinson (Conservative, Hexham)

Perhaps I can help my right hon. and learned Friend. The fur farmer in my constituency would have been delighted to make such improvements, but the difficulty was that the Labour Opposition had a commitment to abolish fur farms. As my constituents could read the political runes fairly well, they did not think it wise to spend many hundreds of thousands of pounds on modernising their farm, but they are prepared to do so.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I am glad to hear that the runes were disproved to the extent that my hon. Friend was returned. I want to move away from that point, although I accept that criticism can be directed at me as the then Minister. I did not address this issue, and I rather regret that I did not. Compensation is an important issue, and it is raised in the hon. Lady's Bill. The extent to which compensation should be paid when a person's business is totally destroyed or prohibited as a consequence of legislation is an important principle. It arises much more frequently than we think, because many bits of legislation either impose intolerable costs—my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) referred to pig farming—or prohibit an activity. Governments and the House have been ambivalent towards compensation because of the substantial cost implications. For example, the trading profits of gun dealers were excluded, and my hon. Friend was wholly right when he said that the substantial costs of improving standards imposed on pig farmers have not been allowed for in any direct payment. On balance, I believe that compensation should be paid, but that we should not be discussing a governing principle of this kind in the context of a Back-Bench Bill.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

My right hon. and learned Friend may recall that the same issue arose in a recent debate about the possible replacement of the long-standing quarantine arrangements. If my memory serves me correctly, the Government resisted any suggestion that owners of quarantine kennels should be compensated if they lost their livelihoods as a result of a Government decision. In that context, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that if the Government support today's Bill, that will mark a distinct shift of direction and may establish an interesting precedent?

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

My right hon. Friend raises an important issue. I should like to have taken action on quarantine when I was Minister and I broadly agree with the Government's present position. However, I remain of the view that compensation should not be paid in those circumstances, or at least it is not self-evident that it should be paid as the kennel farmers had been on notice for a long time that there might be a change in the regime. I find compensation an extremely difficult issue. It is so important that it is undesirable that it should be addressed in the context of today's Bill or any other Back-Bench measure.

Patrick Nicholls (Conservative, Teignbridge)

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that there is a distinction between compensation in respect of the owners of quarantine kennels and firearms dealers—and this point will endear me to neither—in that at least there is a possibility of further, albeit restricted activity, whereas if the Bill becomes law fur farming will be illegal and it will be impossible to diversify and use the facilities for anything else?

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

Yes. There will be a limited use for the kennels even if we substantially change the quarantine laws. The same does not apply to gun dealers, however—at least not to the same extent—as they were primarily hand gun dealers. Some were also supplying other guns, but broadly speaking they were hand gun dealers so their businesses went out of the window. Today's Bill would impose total prohibition. If it is right in principle that compensation should be paid, it is far from evident that it should not extend to loss of income, which is after all the major loss. However, the Bill excludes loss of income from any compensation that is payable. That worries me a great deal, albeit from a different side of the argument. We should also bear in mind some important parliamentary points. The ability to pay compensation is not an obligation; it is within the discretion of the Minister. Therefore, the Minister would be able to pay out public money without any authority from the House. He or she would be able to make payments under a scheme that had not been positively ratified by the House. The hon. Member for Garston is shaking her head, but she is wrong. She will be aware that statutory instruments that are subject to negative procedure are seldom debated in the House. So we are talking about compensation in a context about which I have real doubts, which excludes as a subject for compensation the main head of loss, namely loss of income, which would be paid entirely at the discretion of the Minister and which in all probability would never be considered by the House. That strikes me as a pretty offensive procedure and I am against it. In conclusion, having spoken for longer than I had intended, I congratulate the hon. Lady on the way in which she presented her Bill. She has done it well; she deserves applause from the House and I hope that she will get it. However, I hope that she will not get our votes as I do not believe that the principle that underlies her argument is a sound one. We should be asking whether or not the standards under which the animals are kept are sufficiently high. If they are not, we should seek to improve them and if the consequence of that proper process is that fur farmers go out of business, so be it. However, that is a different approach and I commend it to the House.

Gareth Thomas (Labour, Harrow West)

I join the House in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) on her good fortune in the ballot and on her excellent presentation of the Bill. In the spirit of today's debate, I also pay tribute to the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg). Although I disagreed entirely with his views, I found his speech interesting and thoughtful. For many years, fur was a popular accessory for those who sought to portray themselves as sophisticated and fashionable. Indeed, the fur of dead mink was a regular raw material for the fashion collections paraded on the catwalk. Harrods, Selfridges and the Hudson Bay Company would all religiously advertise, promote and joyously count the sales of expensive fur clothes. We owe a considerable debt to the work of the RSPCA, the World Society for the Protection of Animals and other animal welfare organisations, together with some of the more enlightened members of the fashion industry, for the fact that fur has become a much less economically rewarding product. Only 4 per cent. of the population in Britain wear fur and the number of mink factory farms has substantially reduced. Specialist fur retailers are in decline—the Hudson Bay Company has left Britain and Harrods, Selfridges and many other retailers no longer stock fur. The Bill is extremely welcome as it will finally kill off the remnants of a sick and discredited domestic industry in Britain. It will also send important signals to the international fur trade that there is simply no place in decent, modern society for fur farming—an unnecessary industry that is completely indifferent to the animals that it exploits. Mink farming is cruel and vicious at many levels. As we have heard many times already in this debate, mink are essentially wild animals. They defend semi-aquatic territories of up to 22 acres in the wild. They hunt, swim, explore and patrol their territories using aggression and scent marking. According to recent research, they sometimes make journeys of up to 4.3 km, yet on fur farms a typical cage is no longer than a person's arm. It does not allow access to water and is designed purely for the benefit and ease of the fur farmer. Recent studies of mink have highlighted their natural and instinctive response to water and to a stimulating, extensive and diverse environment. One cannot help wondering what quality of life such lively and intelligent animals can possibly enjoy by being forced to spend their short lives in small wire cages. The conditions in which mink are kept lead to stereotypical behaviour which includes tail biting, self-mutilation, running to and fro along the floor of the cage, sometimes on two legs, rising up and down on their hind legs, moving their heads and forelegs, circling, sham feeding, rising up and head circling. Scientists at Cambridge university recently concluded that such stereotypical behaviour by mink is an indication of stress. Indeed, certain forms of stereotypical behaviour are likely to derive from attempts by the mink to escape their cages—evidence that their physical conditions are completely inadequate. While the levels of such behaviour vary—one study shows 70 per cent. of animals demonstrating such behaviour and 10 to 20 per cent. showing signs of self-mutilation—all scientific evidence has concluded that it is an ever-present feature among farm mink. In 1979, the Farm Animal Welfare Council—the Government's scientific and technical advisers—stated that fur farming does not meet all the basic welfare needs of what are "essentially wild animals". My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Angela Smith), in an extremely helpful intervention, pointed out that, as a Government body, the Farm Animal Welfare Council has refused to draw up a new code of conduct for fur farming precisely to avoid it being seen to be given any form of Government approval. Fortunately for the fur trade, its appalling treatment of those animals has not impacted on the individual value of a mink pelt. Mink are killed after the winter moult when the fur is in prime condition and does not reflect the animals physical condition. The hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) travelled fairly widely in looking for research to suggest the contrary of what I have outlined. He made much reference to Professor Wiepkema's advice on mink to the Dutch Government. I re-emphasise the point that his advice on mink has been heavily criticised, not least by a number of international scientists in a report that was compiled by Frank Wassenberg, a member of a leading Dutch animal protection organisation. In that report, Dr. Georgia Mason criticised Professor Wiepkema's statement that there were no indications that swimming water was necessary for mink, because there was no data on how hard mink would work for access to water. Recently, she has published further research demonstrating the importance of water to mink. What clinched my support for a ban on fur farming was the way in which the animals were killed. The main method for killing mink in Britain is by gassing. However, gassing with carbon dioxide or carbon monoxide does not prevent considerable distress and discomfort. Death requires the mink handler to place the mink individually in a killing box, which, as they are not tame and may struggle, requires the handler to grip each mink extremely firmly. That in turn leads to most of the animals demonstrating the behavioural signs that come with fear and terror: screeching, defecation and urination. One account of the death of mink by gassing described the mink running so fast up and down its death cage that it was impossible to keep track of where in the cage it was—proof of the terrible distress that it was suffering in death.

Alan Clark (Conservative, Kensington and Chelsea)

I am following the hon. Gentleman's speech with great attention and I agree with practically everything that he has said. In describing the killing process, will he also express his contempt, which is widely shared, for the euphemism that was deployed by my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) when the mask slipped for one minute and he referred to "harvesting," which is an ad man's euphemism for the process that the hon. Gentleman has described? What is interesting is that that term conceals the innate guilt and distaste that is felt by everyone who is associated with the process.

Gareth Thomas (Labour, Harrow West)

The right hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point. I join him in his condemnation of that term. Because mink are semi-aquatic, they are capable of holding their breath for lengthy periods, extending the distress that they experience during the death period. Other forms of killing mink that have been used include neck breaking and electrocution. Perhaps I should describe that process. Electrodes are clamped to the animal's mouth and inserted into its rectum. An alternative method is by lethal injection.

Peter Atkinson (Conservative, Hexham)

Which mink farm in the United Kingdom uses the method of execution that the hon. Gentleman has just described?

Gareth Thomas (Labour, Harrow West)

When the Bill is passed, no mink farm will be able to use such methods because there will be no mink farms about.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

Will the hon. Member give way?

Gareth Thomas (Labour, Harrow West)

I am coming to the end of my remarks, so I will not. On the method of death, we do not require anyone in this country to have any training for that grisly task. The fur farming industry in Britain cannot say that it has not been warned that a ban on fur farming is coming. The 1989 view by the Farm Animal Welfare Council gave a strong hint that action would be forthcoming. Ministers have been clear on the issue, too. In opposition, our intention to ban fur farming could not have been clearer. Written questions since the general election from hon. Members have produced ministerial responses that have reconfirmed the Government's intent to support a ban on fur farming. Indeed, when the new Mink Keeping Order was approved in November 1997, the Government confirmed again in writing the intention to ban fur farms. The Bill allows time for fur farms to wind down their activity. It gives time for employees to find new work and allows compensation to be paid. Ample notice has been given of our intent to ban fur farming. The overwhelming majority of public opinion expects and wants a ban on fur farming. Now is the time for the House to deliver exactly that.

Mike Hancock (Liberal Democrat, Portsmouth South)

I join other hon. Members in congratulating the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) on the successful way in which she has presented the Bill and her success in coming so high in the ballot. She now has a good chance of getting the Bill through the House. She is undoubtedly doing a great service for a number of people in this country—me included—who have long held the view that legislation was long overdue and in the public interest. I hope that the House will get behind the hon. Lady. I hope that the official Opposition will join in supporting the Bill. A number of their obvious concerns over the matter have been allayed by hon. Members, not least the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas), who eloquently and positively explained the reasons why the overwhelming majority of the British public are against those farming practices and the way in which the animals are killed. I share with other Members the distaste for the suggestion that "harvesting" mink in that way was something of a corn-keeping exercise. That was completely distasteful. I am sure that the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) will live to regret the use of that word, as I am sure many people in the fur-farming industry will.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

In giving way, the hon. Gentleman is braver than the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas), who refused to give way on that point. The hon. Member for Harrow, West, whom the hon. Gentleman is now praising, used emotive language in talking about electrocution of mink. He made some highly charged remarks, but he should know that, of the 15 mink farms that were surveyed by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food some years ago, 14 used gassing and one used barbiturates. There is no evidence that electrocution of the type described, or breaking of necks, is used in the UK.

Mike Hancock (Liberal Democrat, Portsmouth South)

The hon. Gentleman is wrong. I have seen film taken in mink farms in this country and documentary evidence that proves that the practice has been carried out. He has made a number of interventions on that and other issues affecting mink. He made the point when he attacked the hon. Member for Garston just minutes into her speech, criticising the fact that she appeared not to have been to a mink farm. He has not been to another planet, but on animal-related issues he talks as though he has. Hon. Members should bear that in mind when considering his interventions. [Interruption.] You are laughing. The hon. Member needs—

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

Order. First, the hon. Gentleman should remember that he is addressing the Chair; secondly, it might be helpful if the debate did not descend into personal criticisms. We should concentrate on the subject matter.

Mike Hancock (Liberal Democrat, Portsmouth South)

When someone puts himself above the parapet like the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) has and says some outlandish things to other hon. Members, he should be able to take it a bit.

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

Order. My strictures were not directed simply to the hon. Gentleman; I was speaking to the House as a whole. It is best that we deal with the subject matter rather than personalities.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

rose—

Mike Hancock (Liberal Democrat, Portsmouth South)

I will allow the hon. Gentleman to get the point off his chest.

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

Perhaps I can clarify my position as the hon. Gentleman has made some strange remarks about it. I strongly support the Bill, will not seek to divide the House and will vote in favour of it if the House divides, but I will do so because, in Committee, we will be able to examine some of the welfare issues about which I am still concerned. For the hon. Gentleman to suggest that I am against the Bill is incorrect.

Mike Hancock (Liberal Democrat, Portsmouth South)

The hon. Gentleman could have given a clearer indication of that by not pursuing some of the points that he has, but I welcome the suggestion that he is wholeheartedly behind the Bill and will do all he can—

James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire)

Not wholeheartedly,

Mike Hancock (Liberal Democrat, Portsmouth South)

Not wholeheartedly, but the hon. Gentleman supports the Bill. The information that we have been sent shows that the lobby advocating fur farming has come up with four key issues. Those of us who have followed the issue with great interest over the past 20 years have heard them before. The first argument is that the measure is an infringement of the individual's right to conduct business and that fur farmers are law-abiding. The response to that is that people do not have the right to do lots of things that are considered inhumane. For that reason alone, there is reason—it is time—for the decision to be taken. We have progressed as a society and become more intolerant of many inhumane practices, which are legion. Over the past 100 years or so, we have successfully passed laws to end many of those practices. Our attempt to ban fur farming, once and for all, is the latest example of the progress that we are trying to make. The second argument—which was made by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg)—is that fur farming is no different from normal legal farming. The rebuttal to that argument is that, in most cases, other animals are farmed for food to be used for the common good, not for something that is regarded as a luxury item. When that fact was pointed out earlier in the debate, the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) said, "Here we have the class battle." It is no such thing, and it was nonsense for her to have said that. I am sorry that she is not in the Chamber to hear my reply. Farm animals are domesticated, not wild. I cannot believe that anyone could reasonably suggest that a mink is anything other than a wild animal. Generally, all parts of farm animals are used. Very little of animals that are reasonably described as farm animals and that are used for food is not used in one way or another. Perhaps, in time, our society will evolve out of meat farming, although that is probably a long way off. Undoubtedly, however, that evolution will eventually come. The third argument is on the rights of fur breeders. The hon. Member for Garston has more than justified her position by providing in her Bill for fur farmers to be compensated for the loss of their business. In all conscience, surely we must admit that loss of those businesses is a small price for the United Kingdom, as a community, to pay in ending a practice that undoubtedly unnecessarily tortures and kills animals. The fourth argument against the Bill pursued by those who advocate continuing the trade is that the Government should regulate the industry, to prevent animal abuse, rather than ban it. We have already had that opportunity, have we not? The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham himself told us that he felt that, when he led on the issue for the previous Government, he had neglected addressing the issue. He chose not to do so. The farmers have had the opportunity to deal with the issue, but they have neglected to do so. Therefore, there cannot be any reasonable excuse for us not now to take on the issue. The four key arguments levelled against the Bill are easily and remarkably quickly despatched. Sadly, it is a lot quicker to dispose of them than it is to dispose of the animals that those people continue to torture. The dimensions of the cages in which the animals are held are not much larger than the Dispatch Box. Do advocates of fur farming honestly believe that those are proper conditions in which to keep any animal—especially an animal that should develop and flourish—for any longer than a few minutes? It cannot be right to keep animals in such conditions. I cannot believe that even the most hardhearted hon. Member would want to go home and tell his or her children that he or she is in favour of animals-100,000 of them every year in the United Kingdom—being caged in such conditions for long periods, simply so that they can be put to death and more than 1,000 fur coats made, so that people can prance around feeling that they look a little more attractive than they might in a man-made alternative. It is not reasonable for the House to allow the trade to continue. The consequences of our vanity is around for us all to see. For centuries, we have used and abused animals to satisfy our own vanity. But there is no excuse for us to continue exercising that right, if it is a right. I am disappointed that the Council of Europe did not take a much harder line on the issue. I represent the United Kingdom Parliament in the Council of Europe, and I am disappointed that the United Kingdom did not fight harder to ensure that the community of Europe took a more forceful line on the issue. Many of the arguments that hon. Members made today on the scientific evidence can easily be rebutted. For every argument in favour of continuing fur farming, there are many more arguments against it. We have to consider carefully payments supporting some of the research programmes, especially the exercise in Scandinavia and in Denmark. The scientific evidence in that exercise was produced not without solicitation, but often at the specific request of those whose only interest was to ensure continuation and justification of the trade. It cannot be right, and must not be thought to be right, to allow animals to be so mistreated and abused. I am disappointed that 13 fur farms are still operating in the United Kingdom. I only wish that we had been able, long ago, to force those farmers to reconsider their futures. Like many people, I was hoping that the campaigns against wearing and farming fur that have been fought in the past 20 or 30 years would have been sufficient for farmers to realise that they should change to alternative ways of making a living. I share the view expressed by the hon. Member for Garston that fur farming creates nowhere near the number of jobs that the industry claims. I agree with her appraisal that the industry provides about 50 jobs. Hon. Members who have, like me, visited fur farms will know that that employment figure is realistic. I am glad to say that both the farms that I visited closed long ago. I have also stood outside other farms, which are still operating, and never saw anywhere near the number of employees that has been suggested coming out of them. We have to be extremely careful, of course, about how we use legislation. Nevertheless, the hon. Member for Garston was right to promote the Bill and to use the public opinion statistics on the matter. On issues such as fur farming and fox hunting, the public have made their feelings known, and they expect the House, for a change, to respect and respond to those demands. I am disappointed that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) has left the Chamber. At least I do not think that he is here. Today, he has moved his seat three times already—I had better ensure that he is not here, as I should not comment on him in his absence—[Interruption. He is a man who many hon. Members have found it very difficult to avoid, although those who have done so have found their effort well rewarded. It is very disappointing for some of us that he has chosen to exercise his rights in the House to frustrate many good pieces of private legislation.

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

Order. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has remembered what I said in my previous ruling.

Mike Hancock (Liberal Democrat, Portsmouth South)

I had a slight lapse there, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and apologise to you and to the House for it. I feel that those points should occasionally be made, but I shall vigilantly remember your ruling. I should hope that the House will today give the Bill a fair wind and wish it well. I hope that there will not be a vote, and that the Bill will move uncontroversially to its next stage. In Committee, I hope that hon. Members who are concerned about the Bill will vent their concerns. I am sure that, in his reply, the Minister will give a very steady steer in telling us how the Government might respond to some of the points. I am sure also that the Government will take on board all the very interesting and well-made arguments on the issue. Nevertheless, I believe that the Bill very precisely identifies, clarifies and answers many of the concerns. For those reasons alone, I believe that the Bill is worthy of support. I believe that it is worth supporting also because it is about time that the United Kingdom rid itself of a trade that does so much harm to the nation's character and causes so much distress and inhumane treatment to the animals concerned.

Jane Griffiths (Labour, Reading East)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) on her success today in introducing the Bill. Like many other hon. Members on both sides of the House, I find it incredible that, this year—the final year of a century in which we have seen unparalled acceleration in development of science, technology, civil rights and animal welfare, which are all vital ingredients of a civilised society—the House should have to draw its attention to a practice that is more congruent with an uncivilised society lacking development in those spheres. Nevertheless, the House is no stranger to debating the merits of practices—or traditions, as their apologists weakly claim them to be—that belong to the dustbin of history. One has only to look at the fine Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) in the previous Session. Like that Bill, today's Bill commands the support of the majority of our fellow citizens: the people whom we are here to represent and in whose name we legislate. The Bills are similar, in that they recognise that our attitudes towards animal welfare reflect on the integrity of our society, but I hope that is where the similarity ends, because, in the previous Session, the Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs) Bill fell, at the hands of a small number of hon. Members who employed some of the more outdated procedures of the House in their hell bent pursuit of thwarting the wishes of the majority. Now is not the time to discuss the merits of some of our parliamentary procedures, but perhaps it is the time, as we stand on the eve of a new millennium, to suggest to last year's culprits a new millennium experience: the experience of accepting the overwhelming arguments against fur farming and recognising the overwhelming support that those arguments enjoy. Perhaps I may be called democratically naive for accepting the will of the people.

Desmond Swayne (Conservative, New Forest West)

The hon. Lady does not help her cause by drawing a parallel between the Bill and the Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs) Bill, for they are entirely different.

Jane Griffiths (Labour, Reading East)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. The millennium has generated many problems in computing and information technology—problems that may touch all our lives—but I believe that it also presents us with another set of challenges, some symbolic and some more tangible. The Government are making great progress in meeting the tangible challenge of modernising Britain, transforming it into a country equipped for the 21st century, with improvements in the economy, the health service, education and other aspects of our national life. The symbolic challenge is for Britain to enter the 21st century as a country with moral integrity, and that integrity is at least partly based on the humane treatment of animals. The Bill would take us one step closer to achieving that integrity. At present, thousands of mink are kept in unacceptable conditions for the sake of a luxury product. Those conditions severely limit the extent to which the animals can behave naturally, and that is cruelty. The Bill is supported by the RSPCA, the country's defenders of animal welfare, yet the British Fur Council is foolish enough to have published in the national press disingenuous photographs purporting to show the hands of an RSPCA inspector holding a healthy mink from a fur farm. People will not be conned by that. Even if the pictures told a true story, it is worth noting that the RSPCA has no powers of entry to fur farms; inspectors can visit them only with permission and view only what they are shown. The majority of people in this country want an end to fur farming. Last Saturday in Woodley, a part of my constituency that I cherish greatly, as it is always a reliable barometer of public opinion, more than 600 people in three hours approached me to express support for such a ban. I believe that the Government are minded to support the Bill. I give it my unreserved support and call on last year's democratic bandits to vote with the people.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I congratulate the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) on promoting the Bill and I pay tribute to the animal welfare organisations, and the RSPCA in particular, that have given freely of their services to back it. I am delighted to be one of its sponsors. It has wide cross-party support, as it should. I am not naturally one to advocate banning things, be it as an emotional kneejerk reaction to furry animals or as a pandering to populist opinion polls. I am certainly not in favour of banning foods or supplements that individuals choose to consume, or of the nanny-state attitude that is so much a hallmark of the Government, trying to tell us how to run every aspect of our lives every hour of the day—

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

But—

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

—but—I am pre-empted—in the case of fur farming in the United Kingdom, we have the last vestiges of an industry that has virtually banned itself. There are 13 farms run by only 11 licensed farmers, producing 100,000 pelts a year from 130,000 mink, accounting for less than 1 per cent. of world production. As the hon. Member for Garston said, the number is down from 600 farms early in the century, and 68 in 1982, to almost nothing.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

My hon. Friend and I are fellow Conservatives and share many values. Does he agree that one of the finest attributes of Conservative thinking is that we always protect minorities from oppression, however small they may be, because they have a right to state their view and carry out what up to now has been a perfectly legitimate activity?

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

That is a perfectly legitimate point, but there is a minority of child killers, and we do not necessarily support them. There must be a cut-off point for common sense to come into the argument.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

Child killers break the criminal law, the civilised common law that has been established for centuries to protect other human beings. Fur farmers do not kill or oppress human beings and, as Conservatives, we should surely protect their minority interest.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

There must be a cut-off point. There is a wide choice of perfectly legitimate pursuits for people to follow. The majority of people engaged in the industry favour the Bill, because they want to get out of the business, and the Bill is rather a good way of affording them an opportunity to do so. My hon. Friend is advocating protecting a minority who do not want protection. We often hear that the Labour party is the party of the many, not the few. I agree with my hon. Friend that it has been up to Conservative Members to stand up for the minorities whom the Government are unduly attacking, but this is a different matter. I am not pandering to a populist issue, but neither am I taking a primarily moral stance, although there may be a valid moral case. I believe that the current practice is just plain unacceptable, and that making it remotely acceptable in the United Kingdom would prove wholly unviable economically, for practical and sensible reasons. I am hard pressed to see how rearing mink or other animals in cages can possibly conform to the terms of the European convention on protection of animals, although I concur with my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), in that is not the sanctuary that I would normally seek in matters European. The convention says: Freedom to display most normal patterns of behaviour is a requirement in animal welfare.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is up to a combination of the European Commission and the national Government concerned to ensure that something conforms to a European convention? How does he make the leap from non-compliance with a convention or directive to an outright ban?

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I am not recognising a European recommendation or directive as an overriding source, but merely using it as an example of how the practice does not fit with what is considered appropriate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge said, animal welfare standards, like pollution, do not respect national boundaries. If we can set precedents, as we did on the use of veal crates, we should do so, to encourage better animal husbandry on the continent. We can take a stance and press for better practices among our European neighbours. The semi-aquatic mink, which is accustomed to roaming and defending areas of river bank up to 2.5 miles long, is not encouraged to exhibit its natural behaviour on a fur farm, where it is not in its natural habitat. On farms, mink are typically kept in long rows of barren cages in open-sided sheds and fed with dollops of paste. A typical cage is 70 cm by 45 cm by 40 cm—I use the metric unit purely because I did not have time to convert into proper imperial measures. It is not surprising that there are so many reports of disturbed behaviour among farmed animals. The Government's scientific advisers have said that fur farming does not meet all the basic needs of those animals. They say that it is impossible to recreate a mink's natural free-roaming environment in fur farms, where those wild animals have no opportunity to express natural behaviour such as swimming, diving and climbing, and that results in serious welfare problems. The Farm Animal Welfare Council was set up by the Conservative Government in 1979 to advise on welfare of farm animals—another successful animal welfare measure for which, most unfairly, the Conservative Government gained little credit. The council reported on fur farming on several occasions and stated: The Council believes that the systems employed in the farming of mink do not satisfy some of the most basic criteria which it has identified for protecting the welfare of farm animals. As the hon. Member for Garston said, the German state of Hessen prohibited the use of cages in 1996 and required climbing facilities, access to water and other measures. Now, there are no fur farms in Hessen, because it is not economically viable to breed the animals for fur in acceptable conditions—the farmer cannot make a living from it. If it were economically viable, farms in this country would have adjusted years ago—they certainly cannot deny having seen the writing on wall. For many years, it has been clear that animal welfare measures should be taken, but the industry has done nothing. Now—especially given the current slump in auction prices for fur—most fur farmers favour the Bill because it would allow them to get out of the business altogether.

Maria Eagle (Labour, Liverpool, Garston)

The hon. Gentleman is probably not aware that, this morning, I did an interview on BBC Radio Stoke with the chairman of the Fur Breeders Association of the United Kingdom, who spoke overtly for all the farmers. He said that neither he nor they opposed the passage of the Bill: although they regretted it, they saw the writing on the wall and wanted to co-operate in implementing the legislation. They were more concerned about proper compensation, which is fair enough.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I am not at all surprised by those comments. I fear that I am not a regular listener to Radio Stoke, but I am sure that the many people who are benefit greatly from it. I support the Bill because it is simple: it has only seven clauses and seeks solely to end the farming of fur in the UK after a realistic winding-down period. It includes mechanisms to pay due compensation, which is a matter that should be closely examined in Committee, because it might prove to be a major bone of contention which will need thrashing out. The Bill does not in any way pass judgment or impose restrictions on the wearing of fur or on the trading of fur. It does not make provision regarding the capture of animals for fur in the wild; nor does it make any attempt to restrict the import of fur. It is not an attempt to further some sort of ideological class-war terrorism against fur-wearing fat cats, who will be entitled to continue to wear fur, if they so choose.

Teresa Gorman (Conservative, Billericay)

I have a fur coat.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

That may be so, but I would never describe my hon. Friend as a fur-wearing fat cat. Any of the features or omissions that I have described would be creditable and credible in current or future legislation. The hon. Member for Garston has gone out of her way to make the Bill acceptable, practical and simple, so as to allay the fears and concerns of many hon. Members. It could be said that one may not object to the Bill because it was a Labour election commitment to ban fur farming. In that case, it is a shame that, yet again, as with so many of the animal welfare pledges that Labour made before the general election, the Government have not produced the goods, but have instead relied on a Back Bencher to bring the measure before the House. I have received a great deal of post on the subject, almost all of it in favour of backing the Bill. I was happy to be able to write back saying, "Not only am I backing the Bill, but I am sponsoring it, hope to speak on it and will vote for it, if I am given the opportunity to do so." However, a number of people have said that they feel that they have been let down by the Government on animal welfare issues, because the Government have not delivered and their promises turned out to be hot air. There might be a modicum of justification for fur farming if it produced some sort of essential foodstuff that provided sustenance, but it does not. Fur farming exists purely to produce a luxury item for which there are many artificial alternatives, or for which the buyer should be prepared to pay a higher market price, if that enabled animals to be reared in conditions that take proper account of their welfare during their lifetime, rather than in the current conditions, which have been described as a fate worse than death. As the RSPCA has said, its opposition to fur farming is based on the knowledge that it causes considerable suffering to produce an unnecessary luxury product. Even if, as one of the bullet points being touted by the British fur industry states, there is a law in Russia requiring people to wear fur hats in temperatures below minus 20 deg C, that law should be changed to allow a different sort of hat to be worn by the good burghers of Russia, Siberia or anywhere else. In any case, even the Labour Government have not become nanny enough to introduce the compulsory wearing of headgear in this country—at least, not yet, but there is plenty of time for them to do so. Last week, I took part in a radio programme with a representative of the British fur industry, who described in detail, with great relish and glee, his recent visit to a fur farm. He said that he had found mink that were relaxed, inquisitive, lively, even cheerful". I think that one of the rather fairyland phrases he used was: Mink all lined up in their little cages. I do not know which mink farm he visited, but it struck me that, when he drove up the M1, he must have taken the turning marked "Fantasy Island", because his is not the sort of description that one readily associates with a mink farm, on which animals live in wire cages.

Maria Eagle (Labour, Liverpool, Garston)

Is that gentleman Mr. Robert Morgan, who in the Daily Mail the other morning described the Bill as a threat to the bacon butty?

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I cannot remember the name; it was not Mr. Robert Morgan, but it appears that he has bedfellows who also make seriously fatuous statements. The man I met went on to challenge the case made by those who support the Bill, that fur is an unnecessary luxury item, by asking what the difference was between farming for a luxury item and buying an expensive luxury steak derived from an animal reared solely for its meat. For a start, I would not expect to buy a steak produced from a steer kept in a wire cage 70 cm by 45 cm by 40 cm; and when I pay up for the best sort of steak, it is because it typically comes from an animal reared in conditions that are as natural as possible, and if the meat bears the RSPCA "freedom foods" badge—which we should all look out for in our supermarkets—I can be certain that the animal had been so reared.

Teresa Gorman (Conservative, Billericay)

The phrase "luxury item" has come up more than once in the debate. Does my hon. Friend agree that, if people are determined to own fur—we all crave some luxury, whether it is a fur, a Porsche or a Ferrari—they will attain it by shooting animals in the wild? People who want mink will still have it. The humane raising of animals for which there is a demand and a market is a sensible alternative that conservationists advocate for animals threatened by extinction because of hunting. The corollary is that, if we provided humane conditions, the rest of the Bill would be negated.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I got a little lost during my hon. Friend's intervention. The point is that the Bill would in no way ban people who legitimately hold licences from shooting mink in the wild. It is purely about mink and other animals that are kept in small cages on fur farms. While we are on the subject of luxury items, my hon. Friend may be interested to know that a well-known underwear retail store is currently advertising fake-fur-trimmed knickers that she can buy quite cheaply. My point is that there are alternatives to fur, but I shall give my hon. Friend the details of the store, the prices and the available colours after the debate.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

Lend her yours.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

Indeed, I could lend her my own. Let me return to food labelling. Following the excellent action taken by the then Conservative Government, who received little credit for it, British veal no longer comes from wholly unacceptable veal crates. There are many practical reasons to end fur farming in the United Kingdom. My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) is understandably obsessed with the New Forest and the havoc wreaked there by the disgraceful actions of some lunatic so-called animal liberationists who released mink from a farm in his constituency; those actions have annoyed the brigadier who writes prolifically to my hon. Friend, and we have heard from the brigadier many times this morning. When mink escape or are released, they wreak havoc in the wild. They are not native to this country, and in Hampshire they have attacked wild and domestic animals and birds. They can spread diseases such as Aleution disease and distemper. An Oxford university study has blamed mink for the virtual disappearance of water voles from most English rivers over the past 15 years. The animals that we seek to support through the Bill are not really very nice. Serious questions have been raised about killing practices, and I shall not repeat what other hon. Members have said. However, no qualifications or training are required in the United Kingdom for those who carry out the killing, and that may require consideration. Compensation costs will not be considerable because the remaining industry is minimal, and the Treasury will not pay much attention to the costs. In 1997, legal opinion from a counsel used by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food concluded that no legal bar existed to banning mink farming immediately without compensation. As with many other matters, I should much prefer to use properly scrutinised primary legislation to bring that about rather than relying on the secondary regulations that the Government use all too often, even in matters of taxation. The Bill could end up helping to bail out a dying industry. Some 60 per cent. of world trade in fur pelts is done through London. Fur traders do not believe that they will be negatively affected by the ban proposed in the Bill. The fur farming industry cannot legitimately be described as a traditional country pursuit, although that case has been put forward by opponents of the Bill. Mink were introduced here only 70 years ago; they are not native to this country. The demise of fur farms, and the affect that it would have on unemployment, would have no serious impact on rural economies; it is unlike the serious case that I could make on the impact that the end of fox hunting would have. There is a conflict between welfare and profit. Quasi-genetic modification practices currently produce rare colours on the fur of mink that can fetch higher prices and that can be manipulated through careful breeding. Such breeding programmes concentrate on the colour of the pelt regardless of all else, and rare colours may be linked to poor physical conditions experienced by the animals. For example, the white pelt is produced by a line of congenitally blind mink. "Made in Britain" is not a phrase of which I feel proud when it is applied to fur. It would be hypocritical to legislate merely to tinker with welfare standards when, to all intents and purposes, the fur industry is crying to be put out of its misery from a long, slow, uncomfortable and lingering death. As long as we can get right the compensation packages, the Bill will benefit everyone, not to mention the animals that are forced to exist—they do little more than that—in wholly unacceptable conditions. This is a good little Bill; it is straightforward, realistic, centrally focused and achievable. It deserves our support.

Peter Atkinson (Conservative, Hexham)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) on the way in which he weaved a course between supporting the Bill and being rude about the Government. Apart from that, I disagree entirely with his remarks, because, like so many other hon. Members who have spoken in favour of the Bill, he confuses a personal moral issue with one of welfare. It is all very well for people to say that they want to ban this practice because they disapprove of people wearing unessential luxury fur coats—a view reflected by my hon. Friend and Labour Members who are in favour of the Bill—but that is not necessarily my judgment or that of other hon. Members. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) said, it is wrong to use criminal law to impose one's views on other people. It is utterly wrong to call fur farmers a minority in a dying trade and cite that as a reason to use the Bill to kick them and wipe them out. They are indulging in what, up to now, has been a perfectly legal operation and the Conservative party should therefore support their minority interests. That is why I am a Conservative and why I fundamentally disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham. The hon. Member for Reading, East (Jane Griffiths), who has just left the Chamber, spoke of moral integrity in terms that I translate as moral tyranny. The difficulty with opinion polls is that they produce many figures. The fact that they may say that 74 or 84 per cent. of the public are against fur fanning is not a reason to impose moral tyranny on people who are practising a trade that is perfectly legal. Those people should look to this House to defend them in their activities. The hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) made an inordinate number of utterly wrong and untrue allegations about the conditions in mink farms. He said that mink were executed with electrodes. That is completely illegal. The killing of mink in this country is covered by the Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) Regulations 1995, which were introduced by a Conservative Government and which specifically forbid the use of any methods other than the legal ones. When mink are killed on fur farms, vets from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food have to be present to ensure that it is done properly. When the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) intervened very early in the debate and mentioned hell-holes, she was referring to institutions that are regularly visited by MAFF inspectors. Those inspectors are involved when mink are transported around the country and when they are killed. Mink farms in this country are carrying out their duties according to existing law. The mink farm at Coneyheugh in my constituency has been run by the Harrison family for nearly 30 years. I have visited their 5-acre site and I have spoken to Mr. Harrison several times. Some of my hon. Friends might find the smell of the farm a little unpleasant but the husbandry satisfies current rules and regulations. I declare an interest—perhaps I should have done so earlier—in that I am a consultant to the Countryside Alliance and a member of the National Farmers Union and the Country Landowners Association. I believe that some mink farmers are members of the NFU. The family who run the farm in my constituency have been subjected to a campaign of terrorism for many years. I am surprised that no one has yet mentioned what the farmers have had to put up with from the animal rights activists, who make their lives an absolute misery. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham said, that is one reason why some mink farmers want out. My constituents have had their house burgled and their children spat on. They have had pickets outside their property day and night, on weekends and weekdays. People have broken into their premises and threatened the family's security.

Maria Eagle (Labour, Liverpool, Garston)

I take this opportunity utterly to condemn such activity, which is completely unacceptable. However, does the hon. Gentleman accept that there have been prosecutions for violent offences on both sides of the issue and that it is not only animal rights activists—or animal liberation activists, as they are known—who perpetrate unlawful acts, but mink farmers and their employees? There has been wrongdoing on both sides.

Peter Atkinson (Conservative, Hexham)

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that intervention. I did not wish to imply that she was in favour of such action, and I am glad that she joins me in condemning it. Some people engaged in mink farming have been involved, but I am talking about those who have been subjected to a campaign of terrorism and harassment for several years. It is no wonder that sometimes their patience snaps and they attempt to protect themselves and their property. That is not an excuse for what they have done but, having seen at first hand the conditions in which they are forced to live, I can begin to understand it. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham holed the Bill below the waterline when he rightly identified that this should not be an issue of moral principle—it is a welfare issue. He cited a great deal of evidence, which I shall not repeat, to the effect that if we introduced the standards imposed in Holland, Denmark and other mink-farming countries, we should then have the conditions that would satisfy most experts. The Farm Animal Welfare Council has been prayed in aid by several hon. Members who support the Bill. The council disapproves of the way in which mink are currently kept, but has also said that, with more research, it would be possible for mink to be kept in confinement. We should be moving in that direction. My constituent, who, as I said, is a serious mink farmer with a 5-acre site, made it perfectly clear that he would have invested the money necessary to bring his farm up to the Dutch standard, but when he heard the Labour party, then in opposition, say that it would ban mink hunting in its entirety—I mean mink farming, but, sadly, mink hunting, too—he was naturally reluctant to invest. At the time at which he would have been prepared to make that investment, the price of mink pelts was extremely high and the trade extremely profitable, so he would have had the necessary money.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

It is said that mink cannot be farmed humanely because they are naturally wild animals. On the other hand, the National Farmers Union says that they have been farmed for more than 80 generations, and the mink now being farmed are therefore domesticated. Will my hon. Friend explain how it is possible to ensure that mink are farmed humanely, just as we have done with pigs and veal?

Peter Atkinson (Conservative, Hexham)

It is perfectly possible. As my hon. Friend says, mink have been bred in captivity for more than 80 years. One of the techniques of breeding is always to breed from the most docile animals. During those 80 generations, we have therefore encouraged a docility in the breed, which would not be there in the wild. When mink escaped or were released by animal rights activists, it was noticeable that at feeding time many went back to where they knew they belonged because they were domesticated and, apart from a few lucky ones, incapable of surviving out there in the wild.

Desmond Swayne (Conservative, New Forest West)

It is a mistake to believe that mink are bred for docility. They are bred for their pelts, not their docility. Last summer, our experience in the New Forest was that a voracious wild animal had been let loose on our natural fauna. One might as well expect a mink to inherit a wooden leg as to inherit docility.

Peter Atkinson (Conservative, Hexham)

I see that docility is not something that was bred into my hon. Friend. I do not accept his point. I was talking about a particular strain in mink as well as their pelts. My hon. Friend is being disingenuous.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

If my hon. Friend is saying that mink can be so Pavlovian in their behaviour that they come back at feeding time, why have fur farmers not seized upon the opportunity for free-range mink to encourage better welfare standards?

Peter Atkinson (Conservative, Hexham)

This point is in danger of descending into farce. Larger cages that allow greater movement would satisfy the concerns of many of the opponents of mink farming. It would be possible, no doubt, to provide those if farmers invested. If they cannot invest, hard cheese—as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham said. A similar Bill, passed in Austria, illustrates the futility of what we are trying to achieve today. There was one fur farm in Austria, which the Austrian Government decided they wanted to close. They compensated the farmer at a rate, which the Minister will recall, of £380 per breeding female; a lot more than he proposes. The farmer in Austria said, "Thank you very much" and closed down his fur farm, then moved 30 miles across the Czech border and opened another. Effectively, we are proposing to close 13 fur farms in this country—businesses which should be run to strict MAFF standards. We will replace the 100,000 mink pelts a year from English fur farms with pelts from other fur farms. Some will come from Holland and Denmark, where the mink are well brought up, but many will come from countries in eastern Europe such as Lithuania, where conditions are intolerable by comparison. We are giving comfort to those who rear mink in a poor environment at the expense of those who provide a better environment—which, in future, could be improved still further. That is illogical. The same happened when the previous Conservative Government decided to ban tethers and stalls in the pig industry. I was one of the few Conservative Members—my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) may have been another—who did not agree. That was not because I did not want to see higher welfare standards in the pig industry, but because I wanted those standards on at least a Europe-wide basis. As a result, the cost of our pork has gone up, and all the people who said in the opinion polls that they wanted to abolish tethers and stalls are now choosing to buy cheaper pork from Denmark, which still uses tethers and stalls. If we are to improve the welfare standards of mink by making sure that the conditions are right, we want our Minister to go to Europe to campaign for better conditions for fur farming. He cannot do that—he would be going there naked—if fur farming were abolished. The explanatory note states that, overall, the compensation will be £400,000—an average of something under £40,000 per farm. I know that that will not be the figure per farm, as the amount will change according to the size of the farm. However, my constituent, who has a 5-acre site, will have costs of £20,000 or more to remove and clear the site. He will lose all his income, and he will have to pay redundancy costs for the three full-time staff he employs in addition to the members of his family who work on the farm. He will have no money left out of the compensation. He will be lucky to sell his property. This is a bad Bill, and it does not address the question of welfare. That is why I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls). In passing, I believe that it is wrong for Ministers and Governments to take over private Members' Bills which attack the liberties of our citizens and involve the expenditure of public money. That has happened before—it happened when the Conservatives were in power, and it is happening now. However, I wish to place on record that I think it is wrong. This is not the right forum in which to propose such legislation.

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) on the way in which she moved the Bill, and on the detailed way in which she has addressed the issue. We have had discussions during the preparation of the Bill, and I and my officials have been most impressed by the way in which she grasped the issues, made proposals and understood the points. Hon. Members will not be aware that my hon. Friend has been unwell this week, and it is a great tribute to her commitment that she was able to speak as she did. The Government have made a pledge to end fur farming as soon as practicable, and we have been seeking the most appropriate way to do so. We shall support the Bill, and we wish it every success in its passage. The majority of the points that hon. Members have made are fair and reasonable, and they deserve an answer. I shall try to answer them. I was disappointed in the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton), who made some good points but could not resist a partisan attack on the Government. We, as a Government, are proud of our commitment to animal welfare and proud of what we have achieved in 18 months. I challenge the hon. Gentleman to name a Government who, in 18 months, have done as much to improve animal welfare. Some people want us to do more and to work faster. We must work within the restraints of Government. We cannot deliver everything that we want in the first year; we must act within the parliamentary process, and that takes time. We would have delivered more were it not for the activities of some Conservative Members, who have delayed and frustrated a range of animal welfare measures introduced by hon. Members. If the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham wants to make political points, that is my response. The history of fur farming is not a happy one. Over the years, a variety of animals bred for their fur have escaped. Mink is the well known one and has become established; coypu is another. Other exotic species have escaped from fur farms and become established in the wild, with undesirable results for our country's biodiversity and ecology. It is not just fur animals; the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) mentioned wild boar. We have wild boar living in the wild, and they are causing problems in Kent. The Government are addressing that issue. The hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) vividly described the devastation that arises when mink escape or are released from whatever source, and the resulting costs—which fall on the Government, because in all the recent escapes the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has made staff available to try to round up mink, to trap them and to try to minimise the damage to the environment. That cost falls on the taxpayer.

Alan Clark (Conservative, Kensington and Chelsea)

I do not want the Minister to slide on past and ignore the accusation that he made at the start of his speech—that some of my hon. Friends had frustrated measures that he has brought to this place and has now, presumably, abandoned. It is notorious in the animal welfare world that many of the manifesto pledges that the Labour party made have so far been ignored, and yet, on the basis of those pledges, they derived much support—traditional support—at the general election. Which measures were frustrated, and why did the Minister not use the very substantial majority—

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

Government measures.

Alan Clark (Conservative, Kensington and Chelsea)

Which Government measures were frustrated, and why did not the Minister use the substantial majority that he commands in the House to push them through?

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

One measure that springs to mind is the Bill to regulate puppy farming introduced by one of my hon. Friends, which was frustrated by Opposition Members. The other, of course, was the Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs) Bill, which was also frustrated by Opposition Members. It is no use hon. Members saying that they were not Government Bills. There is the process of finding Government time, and we must live within the restraints of time that is made available.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

rose—

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

I do not want to be diverted. People will judge for themselves in due course.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister specifically mentioned Government animal welfare measures that had been frustrated by my Conservative colleagues. He has so far failed to list a single Government measure.

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

That is not a point of order but a point of argument, and I hope that it is a point of argument that will be confined, because we are dealing with this particular Bill.

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

I understand that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The measures which were frustrated to which I referred were ones that we supported as a Government. Perhaps I should make that clear if Conservative Members want to be absolutely accurate. The Government will be judged in due course on what we have done and achieved in relation to animal welfare, as will those hon. Members who have opposed what the Government had been trying to do. Other Members on both sides of the House will also be judged accordingly. Public consultation on mink farming was started in August 1997. The response was overwhelming opposition to fur farming and an overwhelming desire to see it ended. As part of the consultation, it became clear that the way to end fur farming would have to be through primary legislation. It cannot be done through secondary legislation, contrary to what the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham suggested. It is our advice that that is not the position. We announced as a Government on 30 July 1998 that primary legislation would be required and that that process would be adopted. All fur farms have been informed of that in writing, and particularly when the Mink Keeping Order was renewed. There are heavy demands on the Government programme. Many Bills are due to go through Parliament. It takes a while before Government time is made available for any Bill. In that respect, we are very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Garston for introducing the Bill. It means that we can make some progress, and there are many people who want to see that progress made. The Bill's provisions have been well outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Garston. One of the key issues is that of compensation, which has been mentioned by several hon. Members. We take the issue seriously and we understand the arguments. We accept that there is a case for compensation. We have listened to the points that have been made by hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson), on how that compensation should be paid. When I had a meeting with hon. Members who represent mink farmers in their constituencies, I made it clear that I would reflect on what they had said about such things as buildings and the effect on those who work for mink farms if mink farming comes to an end. I repeat that I will reflect on the points that have been made. They certainly could be addressed in Committee.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

There are two points about compensation on which I think the House would like the Minister's views. First, why is he excluding compensation for loss of revenue, profit or income? Secondly, are we not as a House facing the problem that the Bill provides only the opportunity for compensation? It does not provide for the certainty of compensation. Consequently, the House is not being asked to approve or disapprove a particular compensation regime. In reality, we never will be, so we are giving the Minister a discretionary power that can be exercised without any subsequent parliamentary procedure because the negative procedure is very uncertain.

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

It is fair to say that the details of compensation would be put before the House after the Bill went through its passage successfully. It is true that the present proposal is to use the negative statutory instrument procedure. However, I am prepared to reflect again on the point made by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham on scrutiny of the details of the compensation arrangements. I do not want to be unreasonable and I shall give some thought to the matter. I say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman—in my notes I have included his point on income—that no Government Bill for any sort of compensation could provide any open-ended commitment on income that could or could not be forgone in future. That is just not possible and it is not done. It is not the way in which any sort of Government compensation scheme would operate.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

Of course. No hon. Member could ask the Minister to give a blank cheque. However, the Minister will know that, for example, in personal injury cases the courts have a mechanism for formulating or calculating damages to be awarded for loss of income. There are procedures that can readily be adapted to the situation that we are discussing if the principle of future revenue loss is to be accepted as right.

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

To a certain extent, we have accepted the principle of income loss. Generally, mink breeding is on a three-year cycle and given the phase-out date that is proposed in the Bill, it may be that one year's cycle in relation to the sale of pelts will be denied to the mink farmers. We are prepared to deal with that. I hope that that goes some way towards meeting the right hon. and learned Gentleman's point. The details will be addressed after the Bill has been passed.

Owen Paterson (Conservative, North Shropshire)

The Minister has obviously worked closely with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) on the preparation of the Bill. I note that there is no statement in the Bill to the effect that it is compatible with recent European human rights legislation. Has he calculated the potential cost to the British taxpayer if one of the fur farmers took his case right to the top in the European courts?

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

The explanatory notes state that the Bill is compatible with legislation under the European convention on human rights. That point has been taken into account in the drafting of the Bill and in the Government's attitude to it. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that we are confident that the Bill addresses the matter. The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham knows that as a strict legal principle, the Government are not obliged to give compensation for the effects of any measure that they introduce. This is a private Member's Bill. In the past, private Member's Bills have contained enabling powers to make compensation. They do not usually specify figures. To be fair, we have accepted the principle of compensation in this case. That was not the case when the right hon. and learned Gentleman was the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. He closed down the head-deboning industry without offering any compensation whatever. Legally, he was well within his rights, which I accept. The Bill addresses the issue in a way that it is not strictly obliged to do.

Teresa Gorman (Conservative, Billericay)

On compensation, is it not a fact that the Government argue that they could not take back into national ownership industries such as British Rail because of the cost of compensation, which would be too expensive? The Government therefore accept the principle.

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

The hon. Lady is confusing the acquisition of assets with the Bill's impact on people's livings. Those are two different issues. It is proposed in the Bill that the ban will take effect from 1 January 2002. That is to allow a reasonable winding-down period so that the companies concerned can make arrangements. When the Mink Keeping Order was last renewed, it was renewed for three rather than five years, in recognition of the fact that the Government intended to take steps to phase out fur farming. If some farmers choose to go to the end of the phase-out date, the order may have to be extended to that date. That action will be taken to ensure that mink farms are still regulated. Perhaps I should explain to the House the purpose of the Mink Keeping Order. Some groups are badly informed and think that if the order was not renewed, fur farming in the United Kingdom would end. That is not so. If we had not renewed the order, mink keeping in this country would simply have been deregulated. The order deals with the security of the mink farms. It does not cover welfare issues. If the order had not been renewed, we would not have the power to stop new mink farms being set up in areas where they may have had enormous environmental consequences, such as offshore islands, which are covered by the order. I wanted to clarify the position. Some people think that by renewing the Mink Keeping Order, we were going back on our pledges. That misunderstanding was shared by some of those who wrote to the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham. We will keep the order in place as long as mink farms exist in the UK. The Government wholeheartedly condemn attacks on mink farms, people who release mink into the wild and people who abuse and intimidate those who are going about a legal trade. We may have our concerns and our disagreements about it, but the trade is legal. There is no justification for such irresponsible behaviour as releasing mink into the wild, whoever is behind it. The consequences for the mink and for wildlife are enormous. Such actions abuse the welfare of those animals and are based on anarchy and ignorance. We certainly have no truck whatever with that. Time and attitudes in respect of all kinds of farming—not only mink farming—have moved on. Although I absolutely accept the point made by some hon. Members that public opinion should not in itself dictate policy or policy making, by the same standard none of us, as elected Members and representatives of the people, can ignore public opinion and the different trends within society.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

The Minister will remember the great campaign, fuelled by public opinion, to ban stalling and tethering. He has earned some credit with the farming community because he has told it that he has learned the lesson, in respect of battery hens, about acting unilaterally. My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) has mentioned the impact on that industry. There are only 13 mink farms in this country and 8,000 in Europe. If we ban those farms, and if we attack the industry in the same way that we have attacked the pig industry, will not they simply move to Europe? What is the Minister's response to that?

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

I shall come to those points in a moment; I intend to address them. The wearing of fur was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and others. The Bill is not about banning the wearing of fur. That is a moral choice for people to make. People increasingly decide not to wear fur, which is one reason why the fur industry is declining in this country. It is perfectly reasonable to argue about justification in respect of phasing out fur farming, and the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham and the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) raised that matter from the Opposition Benches. I have met and consulted the Fur Breeders Association on a number of occasions, in opposition and as a Minister, and I have visited fur farms in Denmark privately, when on holiday. I did not go in and was not shown around, but I had a look at the farms, which are at the top end of the scale in terms of modernity and being well run. However, I noticed that, even on those farms, many of the animals displayed stereotypical behaviour, which suggested that they were under stress—an issue that has been mentioned by many academic reports on fur farming. As I said in opposition, the Fur Breeders Association offered to fly me out, at its expense, to look at those farms. I would rather not do that. There are difficulties with taking support from different lobbying organisations; I have never done that, and I will not. I would much rather act privately. I have stood watching hunts in the crowd, with the hunt supporters and with the hare coursing supporters, so that I can see what goes on and can gain knowledge of the arguments. Those matters are not for this debate, but, in many cases, my concerns about and disgust with some of these activities have been reinforced. I have also looked at different farming systems—officially as a Minister and unofficially as an individual—even to the extent of making sure that the French sheep had ear tags, in compliance with European Union regulations, while I was on holiday in France, although my family think that that is taking it a bit far. I am not convinced that fur farms in this country benefit the animals, but the argument concerns whether fur farming is acceptable or whether it could be made acceptable by changing the law and the regulations. I shall address those points. The question whether any kind of animal rearing system is acceptable to the Government relates to the advice that we receive from our independent advisers. Our principal independent adviser is the Farm Animal Welfare Council, which laid down five absolutely basic criteria with which any kind of animal rearing system must comply—the five freedoms, as they are called. For the information of the House, the five freedoms are freedom from hunger and thirst; freedom from discomfort; freedom from pain, injury and disease; freedom to express normal behaviour; and freedom from fear and distress. Fur farming could comply with some of those basic freedoms. Animals could certainly be kept free from hunger and thirst, and there are regulations in respect of that. Other issues, such as discomfort, pain and injury, and fear and distress, are debatable from both sides of the argument. However, one of the crucial basic freedoms that is not debatable is freedom to express normal behaviour. That key issue should be addressed, and there have been some detailed studies. Some hon. Members asked about the attitude of other countries. It is true that, although we may take steps to ban fur farming in the United Kingdom, it would not be banned in other countries. Austria has taken measures to ban fur farming there, and I do not doubt that other countries will follow suit. That problem should not deflect us from dealing with this moral and welfare issue. There is also a practical matter to be considered. This country is an island, and the problems of animals escaping into the wild could have been avoided if such farms had not been established. As long as fur farming goes on, there will be the risk of animals escaping. As an island, it is to this country's advantage to ban such practice. I accept that that should have been done a long time ago, because some of these species are now well-established in the wild. Unlike coypu, which was eradicated, although it was difficult and expensive, it would probably be all but impossible to eradicate mink. The Council of Europe has discussed the issue of improving cage standards on mink farms. Everyone agrees that current standards, which are applied in this country, are not acceptable. We took part in those discussions, and we made it clear that we believed that fur farming is unacceptable. I can tell the hon. Member for Hexham that Austria took part in those discussions even though it has taken steps to ban fur farming. Banning fur farming in this country would not preclude us from giving our opinion on standards, because we are entitled to do so as part of the democratic process. Even with the Dutch standards, which are an improvement on those applied in this country, despite the use of the new cages there is still a problem of animals expressing stereotypical behaviour.

Peter Atkinson (Conservative, Hexham)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for meeting my colleagues and I the other day. I was churlish to forget to thank him for the hour that he gave us, and for promising to consider compensation in more detail. Austria banned fur farming, but with the money that they were given some farmers set up shop 30 miles away in Czechoslovakia, which has far lower standards of supervision than those in Austria, so where is the benefit?

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

We are applying new standards in the Council of Europe, which goes beyond the countries of the European Union and covers eastern Europe. What happens in other countries should not deter us from taking decisions about what we and the people whom we represent want. My hon. Friends the Members for Basildon (Angela Smith) and for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas), the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock), my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East (Jane Griffiths) and the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham referred to the impact on mink. They are right and I agree with their analysis. Many detailed studies have been carried out in support of both sides of the argument. The question is whether fur farming can be made acceptable for the future. Mink are solitary animals, and in the wild they have wide ranges and have access to water. Many scientists believe that they should have access to water, although some hon. Members argued the contrary. It is difficult to provide that access in a system of commercial rearing. No system so far proposed can meet those standards. If we went for higher standards, it would undoubtedly squeeze most, if not all, fur farmers out of business. It is strange that some Conservative Members were arguing that we should follow that path, and that, instead of taking a clear decision with a phase-out period and a compensation package, we should raise standards and bankrupt the people involved without paying any compensation. That does not seem a fair way in which to deal with this problem compared with the proposals in the Bill. As has been said, the chairman of the Fur Breeders Association and the fur farmers with whom I discussed the Bill want to be clear about the future. If fur farming is to end, they want a phase-out date and compensation arrangements. They want to know what is happening so that they can plan for the future. The Bill meets all their concerns, so it came as no surprise to me that although the Fur Breeders Association would prefer not to have such a Bill, it is prepared to accept it. Many scientific studies argued against fur farming and cast doubts over the conditions in which the animals are kept. Other vets and scientists put alternative views and suggested that the cages could be redesigned and made acceptable. Some of those arguments were also disputed by the scientific and veterinary profession. The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham was inconsistent in his argument as he said that battery cages were unacceptable and created animal welfare problems. Hens have been bred from jungle fowl for a very long time—no creatures are more domesticated—yet they still exhibit natural behaviour such as scratching and dust bathing. However, the five freedoms do not apply to battery cages. The Government have adopted a consistent approach. That is why we are arguing in Europe for the phasing out of battery cages in the long term.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

The Minister is quite right. However, in the short term he and many of his hon. Friends are eating eggs produced by the battery system. Therefore, I find his disparaging approach difficult to understand.

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

Consumers can choose whether they buy free-range or battery-produced eggs. There is no such choice in respect of fur—people cannot buy free-range mink fur. We are taking a consistent approach to the criteria. Although there are issues to be addressed in respect of welfare standards and alternative conditions, other European countries support our proposal and the European Parliament has voted for a 10-year phasing-out of battery cages. Some scientists argued against the abolition of veal crates, sow stalls and tethers. There will always be arguments about the pros and cons of phasing out certain practices, however the right decision was taken. The European scientific and veterinary committee reached similar conclusions in respect of veal crates, sow stalls and tethers and in due course those practices will be phased out in Europe.

Owen Paterson (Conservative, North Shropshire)

Following my earlier intervention, my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) and I have gone through the Bill and the explanatory notes very carefully, but we can find no reference to any European human rights legislation, so the Bill may be committing the British taxpayer to substantial legal expenses in Europe. Is it not a futile gesture? The total sum of mink happiness will not be increased as the same number of mink will be farmed. The industry will simply move abroad to Czechoslovakia or the Slovak Republic where conditions will be worse than they are here.

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

I assure the hon. Gentleman that his point about the European Court of Human Rights is certainly being addressed. If it is not mentioned in the explanatory notes to the Bill, I am happy to write to him to confirm that the issue is being addressed. We are not committing the Government to such challenges. Any Bill that the Government support and that ultimately may become Government legislation has to bear that in mind. I have dealt with the point on other countries. What other countries do should not dictate what we do in this country. The Government have been consistent in applying the same standards to any animal-rearing system. In Committee, we will examine the issues that have been raised in the debate to find out whether they are being dealt with, but the important thing is that there is a clear case against fur farming on welfare and moral grounds. It is a dying industry. The trends are against it. The Bill is a fair package that reflects overwhelming public concerns and the legitimate concerns of fur farmers. It would not be in the interests of fur farmers to oppose the Bill, which would lead to further uncertainty and fly in the face of the overwhelming concern of the people whom we represent. The Government support the Bill. We are prepared in Committee to address the reasonable and fair points that hon. Members have raised, but, as we approach the next millennium, such rearing systems are no longer acceptable in a modern and compassionate society.

Alan Clark (Conservative, Kensington and Chelsea)

The House of Commons has a long, remarkable and honourable tradition of debating animal welfare issues, usually at the behest of Back Benchers. Indeed, many years ago, I made my maiden speech in this place in support a private Member's Bill, introduced by the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), which would have outlawed hare coursing. I am glad to be a sponsor of the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill and to congratulate the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) on its concise and lucid quality, which is in marked contrast—I see him sitting beside her—to the Bill in the name of the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster). That was so ludicrously ill-drafted, penal and repressive that I spoke against it, although I had looked forward to it with high expectation. If Back Benchers draft their measures properly and get the sympathy and support of the House, much good can come of them. I say in parenthesis that I am somewhat apprehensive, although I support the principle, of the Right to Roam Bill because it is in the name of the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), who, whenever I hear him, is usually recommending to the House that one or other Tory Member should go to prison, and whose general attitude to social issues is down-market Leninist, as far as I can make out. He is the worst possible person to promote a Bill that has, in principle, much to be said for it and that should enjoy the support of the whole House. However, it remains to be seen what happens to that Bill. I will not repeat many of the arguments that we have heard already; I do not want to take the House's time on that. I say simply that I, many hon. Members and many of the people who have written to us on the topic hold the view that man has a duty of care to all living creatures, consistent only with his own survival on the planet. For example, where it is necessary for man to survive by eating animals, we have a duty to control and to regulate as far as we can, and to make as humane as possible the process by which they are put to death. Where man is advised, or believes, that medical science will be advanced by experimentation—a precept about which I am exceedingly doubtful—it is equally necessary for proper regulation to surround the process. But, here we have a case where animals are being bred simply for adornment. It is purely a commercial and profit-oriented activity.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

What is wrong with that?

Alan Clark (Conservative, Kensington and Chelsea)

I recognise the voice of my right hon. Friend, who is not in his usual place—I do not know why; he usually sits next to me. I will tell him what is wrong with that. It is gratuitous cruelty, inflicted on other living creatures for a purpose that is totally unconnected with man's survival on the planet. It is thus in breach of a feeling that I hold in conscience—I know that I am not alone in that. We should do our best to eliminate such cruelty.

Crispin Blunt (Conservative, Reigate)

I have not been able to follow the argument being made by my right hon. Friend on the equivalence—or lack of it—of breeding for meat and farming for fur. He is a vegetarian and takes all sorts of funny supplements to make up for the absence of meat in his diet, and he has survived perfectly well to whatever age he is. If he does not have to eat meat, meat must not be required for man to survive. His argument could therefore be used to advocate banning not only fur farming but meat farming.

Alan Clark (Conservative, Kensington and Chelsea)

It could not. My hon. Friend—whose forensic skills are usually at a high level—makes a ridiculous and inconsistent argument. He knows perfectly well what I am saying. However, he did mystify me by saying that my diet includes all sorts of strange supplements. I am not aware of them. I should like to put it on record that—unless people are lacing my food and drink—I am not "on" anything at all. [HON. MEMBERS: "Viagra?"] I thought that there might be some reference to that, and have literally lost count of the number of times that I have been asked that question. The answer is no, because I am far too cowardly; not for any other reason. I do not know what my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) meant in his assertion, but am very happy to deny it. I have not taken even an aspirin for at least seven years.

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.