I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: New clause— Authorised or appointed persons—

'Persons authorised or appointed under sections 3 or 4 shall be veterinary officers of the State Veterinary Service.'.

Amendment No. 1, in clause 3, page 2, line 21, leave out subsection (3).

Amendment No. 4, in page 2, line 24, leave out from 'order' to end of line 31 and insert

'it shall order that the forfeited animals shall become the property of the appropriate authority and be dealt with in accordance with section (appropriate authority responsibility for forfeited animals) below.'.

Amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 24, after 'may' insert 'in particular'.

Amendment No. 10, in page 2, line 27, leave out 'other disposal' and insert

'disposal by other such means as the appropriate authority may specify in regulations.'.

Amendment No. 3, in page 2, line 31, at end insert—

'() make such provision as the court considers appropriate in relation to the operation of the order pending the making or determination of any appeal or application relevant to the order.'.

Amendment No. 11, in page 2, line 31, at end insert—

'(d) where the offender demonstrates that he is incapable of paying the required sum to the court, or keeping the animals himself, make suitable arrangements for the animals to be kept in a proper condition.'.

Amendment No. 12, in page 2, line 31, at end insert—

'() Where the court orders an offender to make a payment in accordance with subsection (c) above, it shall take into consideration the cost of keeping the animals concerned in compliance with such regulations regarding animal welfare as applied to fur farming prior to the coming into force of sections 1 to 4 of this Act.'.

Amendment No. 13, in page 2, line 31, at end insert—

'() Any person appointed under subsections (a) or (b) above shall possess such qualifications or meet such criteria as the appropriate authority shall specify in regulations.'.

The first group of amendments is extremely important. New clause 3 provides a variation on new clause 2, should that prove unacceptable to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) or the Government. Amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 3 have, of course, been tabled by the hon. Lady herself.

Amendment No. 4 is technical, giving the authority to introduce new clause 2, which would replace clause 3(4), which deals with the effect of forfeiture orders. It would provide that animals subject to a forfeiture order should be dealt with by qualified veterinary officers under a prescribed procedure.

The Bill does not prescribe by whom a forfeiture order should be carried out. It is possible that the convicted mink farmer himself could be charged by the court with responsibility for the destruction or other disposal of the animals. It is perhaps more likely that responsibility would be given to a third party. The court may decide that the mink farmer who has broken the law should not be responsible for looking after the animals. The courts might, quite rightly, not trust the farmer who has broken the law.

Whoever is appointed by the court should be suitably qualified in the welfare and handling of the species concerned. We are not dealing with ordinary, run-of-the-mill farm animals, for which there are a range of welfare codes and for the keeping of which a certain skill is required. Those skills may be possessed by hundreds of thousands of farmers up and down the country who would be capable of looking after each other's sheep, cattle, horses or pigs. When it comes to fur farming, however, those skills will not be so widely transferable or available, and only some of the 13 fur farmers or others previously involved in the business will be suitably qualified.

Much play has been made of the dangers that mink pose to wildlife if they are released. Everyone agrees that mink require experienced handling. Not only are there Government welfare codes for the farming of animals, particularly for fur farming and for mink, but the Mink Keeping Order 1998 was designed to ensure, irrespective of welfare considerations, that mink do not escape into the wild.

It is vital that any person nominated by a court to be responsible for forfeited animals is experienced in keeping species such as mink, and aware of the mink keeping regulations and capable of complying with them. The person must also have facilities to feed and water mink properly, deal with their health problems and keep them safely and securely.

The Bill has two grave dangers, particularly as compensation arrangements are not yet clear, despite the best endeavours of the hon. Member for Garston—I pay tribute to the work that she has done with the Government to try to clarify compensation rules—and the fact that there may be a commitment to something better in the future. One danger is that some mink farmers may say, "To blazes with it," and that some of the mink that are forfeited may be released into the wild. Also, as we will no doubt be told today, there is a danger that, if the Bill is not enacted in its present form immediately, animal rights terrorists will take action against mink farmers and release mink.

If the right hon. Gentleman wants to take notice of what fur farmers think, will he take into account the fact that the Fur Breeders Association of the United Kingdom, which represents all the farmers, wants the Bill to proceed, as does the National Farmers Union, which represents 10 fur farmers?

I note exactly what the hon. Lady said. I believe that the NFU has said that, if compensation arrangements are adequate, it will not stand in the way of the legislation. The NFU rightly sees it as its duty to protect the financial interests of its members. However, I am not certain from the letter from the NFU a couple of days ago, which I think we all received, that it is convinced that the compensation arrangements are fully spelled out and agreed. One part in big black type stated that the farmers want compensation for loss of income.

At the moment, everyone is saying that we should allow the Bill to go to another place and hope that the compensation arrangements will then be clarified. However, this is also a matter of principle. The industry may say that it is fed up because it is being attacked by animal rights terrorists every day—one farmer telephoned me recently to say that he had had 300 attacks—and is happy to go out of business, provided that the Government give compensation. I do not see why my constituents should pay through their taxes, via the Government, for someone to go out of business voluntarily because of this ban.

My right hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Garston underestimate the fact that the entire European fur farming industry is watching us this morning. I have talked today to Mr. Helge Olsen of the European Fur Breeders Association and to Mr. Knud Vest, who is vice-president of that association—

Order. The hon. Gentleman is not going to get away with that in an intervention.

I understand what my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) is saying, although it is possibly not a valid comment at this point in the debate. We may be able to discuss it when we debate the merits of abolishing fur farming. I think that 50,000 mink are farmed in England, but 30 million are farmed worldwide, and about 60 per cent. of European production is in Denmark. That production will continue.

The new clause would ensure that responsibility for animals that are subject to a forfeiture order is clear. With the best will in the world, Labour Members will, I think, agree that, although the provisions of new clause 3 are adequate, they are not as clear as those in my new clause 2. The new clause would make the provisions clear and would ensure that those charged with looking after animals were suitably qualified. The provision is important, given the likely length of the process from forfeiture order to final disposal. I am not sure how many lawyers are present this morning, but, even if there were many, I am sure that the House would agree that lawyers do not move quickly—normally, it is dead slow and stop. Even if lawyers acted quickly, the time taken for normal arguments in court to get and to oppose the forfeiture orders and to reach what the hon. Member for Garston calls "final disposal" once the legal case is settled could be lengthy. Considerable costs could be incurred for the proper upkeep of animals during that period, which an offender who had been deprived of his livelihood could have real difficulty in meeting or be reluctant to meet.

The new clause would ensure that the welfare of the animals was properly protected pending their destruction or disposal. That is wholly in keeping with the thrust of the Bill. The opening sentence of the new clause states:

"the appropriate authority shall arrange for qualified veterinary officers of the authority".

I phrased the new clause in that way because I am trying to give flexibility to the Government and the hon. Member for Garston. The appropriate authority would be the Agriculture, Environment and Fisheries Department for Scotland and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in England. In Wales, it would probably be the Welsh Office Agriculture Department or the Welsh Assembly.

Under the new clause, suitably qualified veterinary officers appointed by the authority would

"take possession of the animals and convey them into authority custody as soon as is reasonably practical."

It is important for qualified veterinary officers to be in charge. I believe that mink farms are inspected by qualified Government veterinary officers—I think that the State Veterinary Service regularly inspects them. I believe that Professor Spedding's committee, the Farm Animal Welfare Council, recommended that there should be more inspections by vets of the SVS and that, when mink have come to the end of their farm life and are to be killed for fur, the SVS is present to ensure that the method used is humane and carried out correctly. Therefore the SVS already has a role.

I have tabled an alternative new clause to state that the veterinary officers shall be from the SVS, but new clause 2 is more general, stating

"veterinary officers of the authority",

in case, for whatever reason, the Government say that they cannot bog the SVS down with such duties as it has other things to do.

The Government use veterinary officers on a licensed or contractual basis—for example, to carry out meat hygiene and other inspections. MAFF already has a well-tried system whereby the Government employ or contract in veterinary officers to do their work for them. The new clause would give the Minister flexibility to use his own people or qualified veterinary officers working for the appropriate authority in each of the three countries to which it is proposed that the Bill should apply.

The new clause also states that the officers should

"take possession of the animals and convey them into authority custody".

It would not be acceptable for veterinary officers to be responsible for the welfare and safety of the animals if they were left at the farm that was operating illegally and from which they had been forfeited. I accept that there is merit in not conveying animals willy-nilly around the country, and I do not envisage that happening. I am talking about merely one conveyance from a farm that has been closed down or forfeited to SVS or some other property that can be managed, controlled and easily inspected by the veterinary officers appointed by the authority.

If the animals were not conveyed into Government or veterinary officers' property, other much more complicated arrangements would have to be made whereby the vet could have daily access to them. There would have to be someone there all the time to guard them to ensure that they were looked after properly, because the farmer concerned might wash his hands of them, saying, "You have forfeited my animals."

I have been following my right hon. Friend's remarks closely. With which professional bodies has he consulted as to the practicability of the new clause?

I have not been in detailed consultation with any professional body on the practical applicability. I happily admit that that one aspect—conveying the mink from the farm to authority property—is the least desirable of all the humanitarian and welfare provisions that I have included in the new clause. The remaining provisions of new clause 2 would satisfy Government and private vets and welfare organisations because the animals would be kept in better conditions than those that would have existed on the farm. The animals should be moved from the farm being closed down to State Veterinary Service, Government or Veterinary Laboratories Agency property.

The conveyance of live mink is not the easiest thing. The Government face a choice of two evils. We either leave the animals in the farm that has been closed down, possibly in the care of the farmer who was operating illegally and hope to goodness that he will look after them well—knowing fine that he is going out of business, so why should he care a stuff?—or convey them to a secure property to be tended by Government veterinary officers.

Who would pay for the secure facility that my right hon. Friend described and its subsequent operation and security, bearing in mind his earlier concerns about who would pay the compensation associated with the measure?

My right hon. Friend should consider the provisions in the Bill and in my new clause 2(4), which states:

"The appropriate authority shall have the right to recover from the person against whom the order was made the full costs of keeping the forfeited animals from the time the order was made until their final destruction or disposal."

My right hon. Friend may argue that, if that involves one of those who may go bankrupt, we will not get the money anyway. I would not get it under my new clause; nor would the Government under their provisions. There is always a risk that the cost might not be recovered from the person going out of business. That implies no special weakness in my new clause, which is tighter on recovering full costs. At least mine would ensure that the animals would be properly, humanely and securely tended. If the State Veterinary Service or other vets appointed by the Government are in charge, you can bet your bottom dollar that things will be done properly. I have tremendous respect for the way in which they work. There is a danger that the costs may not be recovered from whomever tends the animals.

The animals should be conveyed into appropriate authority custody. The Minister may say that it is neither good nor easy to move mink. I accept that, but to leave them in the place closed down with the person who has been put out of business is an equal evil, and I think that conveyance is slightly better.

New clause 2 also uses the phrase

"as soon as is reasonably practical."

That speaks for itself. I accept that facilities might not immediately be available in MAFF property to hold the animals, but there must be facilities somewhere. Some farms have gone out of business; it may be possible for the Government to hire appropriate land and facilities under MAFF control. I am not sure whether facilities are still available at Weybridge. The Minister can correct me if I am wrong, but 1 think that 11 or 12 veterinary investigation centres are left; there is certainly one a few miles from my home which has been wonderfully expanded. They do not have housing facilities for mink, although they have some for other animals. It should be possible for the Government to take possession of the animals as soon as reasonably practicable.

It may not be appropriate to mention rabies control, but the Government have contingency plans and facilities for it. Perhaps some of those would be suitable if animals have to be forfeited by someone who is farming illegally.

New clause 2(2) states:

"The forfeited animals shall be housed in compliance with such regulations regarding animal welfare as applied to fur farming prior to the coming into force of sections 1 to 4 of this Act."

That should be self-evident. There is a loophole on forfeiture in the Bill that has not been considered. If the Bill goes ahead and mink farming becomes illegal, what will happen to the regulations and licensing provisions currently in force? The Minister extended the licensing requirements in 1997 for three years, rather than for five as before. They will run out, and he may have to make a further order extending them for one or two years.

If the licensing requirements are no longer applicable because people have gone out of business or accepted compensation, but we find someone farming fur, what are the welfare considerations for the animals? If the Government or veterinary officers take possession, we might not need detailed regulations, because I would expect Government-appointed officers, or any vet, to look after animals with welfare and security considerations in mind. However, if the Bill stays in its present form, and the person appointed to keep the animals until final disposal is the fur farmer himself or a third party, what welfare conditions will apply? The welfare regulations would have fallen. We cannot have welfare regulations relating to animals no longer farmed. The security and licensing conditions could have fallen because the Government cannot extend the conditions of mink licensing if such licensing no longer exists.

I accept that my drafting is inadequate—I stopped being a lawyer before I got totally corrupted. I missed out security considerations. I merely suggest that the forfeited animals, whoever looks after them, must be kept in the same welfare conditions that apply now or, better still, the new conditions suggested by the Council of Europe. Europe is moving to higher cage standards and Britain would be following if the industry was not under threat.

Before my right hon. Friend tackles the highly relevant European angle, does he agree that it is bizarre that clause 3(4) states:

"Where the court makes a forfeiture order, it may … impose requirements on any person in relation to the keeping of the animals concerned pending their destruction or other disposal"?

If that person was the fur farmer himself, there is an in-built illogicality because he would have little or no interest in complying with any reasonable provisions on animal welfare.

Clause 3(4)(b) is not the same as my provision for compliance with all current animal welfare regulations and licensing conditions. If that is the Bill's intention, I would be happier if it was spelled out whether existing regulations or Council of Europe regulations were involved.

New clause 2(3) states:

"The appropriate authority shall keep records of the animals forfeited, including records of their health status and mortality rates."

It is a simple point, and I would expect veterinary officers to do that in any case.

Another point is that, if someone who has been farming illegally is being put out of business and that has been argued over in court, it is vital that the Government or the vets who are looking after the animals have records so that they can defend themselves from claims that the animals they took over were healthy at the time and did not die off before their final disposal.

10 am

It may be that other records should be kept; for example, records of health status, including medicines given, and evidence of tail biting and the general health of the animals when they are forfeited. There should be monitoring of the animals throughout their time in the place where they are kept after forfeiture—wherever that may be. There should also be a record of animals that die; without going to the expense of a post-mortem, it might be obvious to any vet why an animal died. If the cause is not obvious, I do not suggest that there should be a post-mortem analysis. However, under the provision, there would be records of any animals that have died so that, at the end of the period, qualified veterinary officers are able to present a record to the court or to anyone who may make a challenge. The officers should be able to show which animals they took over, the state of the animals at the time, how they were looked after, the ones that died for various reasons, and those that remained at the end of the period, pending ultimate disposal. Those points speak for themselves, but I think that they are sensible.

A further point is that of cost. The new clause states:

"The appropriate authority shall have the right to recover from the person against whom the order was made the full costs of keeping the forfeited animals from the time the order was made until their final destruction or disposal."

That provision is better and tougher than the requirement under clause 3(4)(c), which would

"order the offender to pay such sum as the court may determine in respect of the reasonable expenses of carrying out the order"—

and of keeping the animals

"pending their destruction".

It should be the full cost. If the Government have appointed veterinary officers, those officers should be able to recover their full costs.

Furthermore, if the Government have not taken action through their veterinary officers or the SVS, who would be the other person? If it were the owner himself, surely he would have a vested interest in minimising his costs in looking after the animals. If it were a third party, who might be known to the owner, that third party might also be in the mink farming business. I am not sure whether the Government could find any other third parties—who were not vets—who would know much about looking after mink. That third party might be a friend of the farmer, or might know him, and could come to an agreement with him to minimise the costs of looking after the animals. They might cut corners on welfare and try to do it on the cheap. That solution would not be satisfactory to the hon. Member for Garston or to the House.

If the matter is undertaken by the Government, we all know that it will not be done on the cheap. We may be talking about looking after animals, but I know that it will be done well. I have no criticism of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on that score; I think that its veterinary officers are superb and that any other vets whom it appoints will be equally good. We can be certain that welfare and security standards will be maintained and that there will be an entitlement to the recovery of the full costs of maintaining those standards, plus any other vets' bills, health bills and the cost of final disposal—whatever that may be.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) may be right. When trying to recover those costs from the person who has been put of business, it may be found that he has no money; admittedly, he may have some land or some assets, but the bank may already own those—as banks own most of our property. If the person has no money, that is a risk that we must take in trying to recover the costs. However, the hon. Member for Garston also takes that risk; her provisions suggest that the costs will be recovered from the person concerned. I am slightly more vicious in wanting to recover more costs than the Bill currently envisages, and in wanting to recover the full costs because the animals will be maintained by qualified veterinary officers.

The final provision under the new clause states:

"The appropriate authority shall retain the forfeited animals until there is no further possibility of the order being set aside and shall then submit to the court a report setting out—

(a) how it intends finally to dispose of the animals;

(b) the costs incurred by the authority."

I have already covered in detail the latter point relating to costs incurred, so I will not go over that again. However, it makes sense to make a little report to the court on that matter. Such a report should not be bureaucratic or extensive, but it should be published somewhere. I did not want to propose that there should be a report to the Secretary of State, because his officers might have to prepare it. If a report is submitted to the court, there is a chance to see whether the costs are legitimate or gold-plated. We need to be able to see what was done in a simple, little report on the financial situation and on how it is intended finally to dispose of the animals. We might discuss that point under another amendment.

When we refer to the disposal of the animals, we are of course being slightly euphemistic; we need to know whether the animals will be humanely killed—as normally happens—usually by inhalation, rather than by lethal injection, captive bolt or other means. However, the animals might not be destroyed for the value of their fur; they might be exported. The meaning of "disposal" is not quite certain; we need to know what is meant by that—for example, half a dozen mink might be sent to a farm zoo and others might be sent somewhere else. I assume that disposal of the animals is equivalent to destruction. In the case of mink, it would be useful to kill them humanely and to use the pelts if they are any good. That is what I think "disposal" should mean, but the court should get that little report in case something else happens to the mink.

As a matter of information, there are only three legal ways of killing mink: by carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide or lethal injection. Nothing else is legal.

However, a more important point is that the most likely scenario, if these farms are to be closed down, is that the mink will be transported to existing farms in the vast European industry in Denmark and Holland. Under the new clause, I am not sure how the costs of such transport would be met. It is extremely likely that farmers will move the animals. Indeed, one of the farmers in the south-west already has a much bigger farm in Denmark. There was a case in Austria in which the chap moved over the border to the Czech Republic.

Order. I shall not tell the hon. Gentleman again. Interventions must be brief. He should not make a speech during an intervention.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire made a correct point during the first part of his intervention. There are only three methods of destruction for mink, as described in the regulations: lethal injection, carbon monoxide or carbon dioxide. However, that is not necessarily disposal. I think that the hon. Member for Garston shook her head when it was suggested that the animals might be exported—I am not sure whether she shook her head, but she will speak for herself. Perhaps export is not envisaged. Although some farmers may close down and take compensation for loss of income, I suspect that, if some of the animals are immature or have not reached the age or stage at which they should be destroyed for the value of their fur, they may be disposed of by being exported. Denmark has 60 per cent. of European production and Holland has extremely good, new welfare regulations on mink.

It is possible that final disposal is not death—well, it is for all of us eventually. In the context of the Bill, however, final disposal might not be lethal injection by the Government, MAFF veterinary officers or the person concerned. I simply say that the court should know what happens to the mink that have been forfeited. The court might not worry about other mink, but, if the court has appointed a person to look after forfeited mink, the court needs to know what on earth happened to those mink. Were they killed for their fur, exported, stuck in a zoo or did something else happen to them?

Listening to my right hon. Friend's excellent analysis, it occurred to me that there is something slightly peculiar about a Bill that starts out as a welfare provision, but ends up by mandating—

Order. We are not discussing the Bill in its entirety; we are discussing the new clause.

I accept your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The new clause attempts to make that part of the Bill more sensible and toughens it up.

I have said enough on new clause 2. I shall touch briefly on new clause 3, which I propose to the hon. Member for Garston and to the Government as an alternative to new clause 2. Because of the nature of the subject, I accept that, even if Labour Members like some parts of new clause 2, they or the Minister might not want to accept it—even in principle or in spirit, so that they could clean it up later. The hon. Lady might think that some parts of new clause 2 are sensible, but I point out that, if she and the Government cannot accept that new clause, new clause 3 is a much simpler method of trying to achieve the same thing.

Before my right hon. Friend moves on, I should like him to answer my question. If the animals are to be exported to large farms in Europe, which is by far the likeliest scenario, how does he envisage the costs of that being borne in terms of the new clause?

It depends who does the exporting—actually, in terms of the new clause, it would not depend on that. If the animals are forfeited, the person who takes them, whether that is a veterinary officer or the SVS, may decide that disposal of the mature animals shall be by lethal injection, or by carbon monoxide or carbon dioxide poisoning, so that the value of their fur can be obtained. That would deal with some of the animals, but I do not think that the Government—if the Government were in charge—could do that. If the Bill is passed prohibiting the farming of animals solely for their fur, the Government cannot order animals forfeited, kill them and so obtain the value of their fur; the animals would have to be destroyed—killed and incinerated or disposed of by some other means.

With young animals, the Government may decide that the best thing to do is to kill them humanely, or to export them overseas. I do not know what they will decide. If the Government are in charge, I think that, for practical or political reasons, they will decide that they cannot sell off forfeited mink or export them to another country where they would be kept in cages—it is simply not good politics. Therefore, I think that the Government will probably have to kill all the animals and dispose of the carcases by incineration, dumping or some other legitimate method.

However, if the person responsible for disposal of the animals is not the Government, but a third party, that third party might conclude that it is perfectly sensible and legitimate to sell all the animals to an overseas operation, or to sell off the young or immature animals that can be raised to maturity and their value then obtained. I do not know who will decide what, but I believe that there is a lacuna in the Bill on that point.

In new clause 3, I offer an alternative to new clause 2. It states that the persons to whom clauses 3 and 4 refer—the person who is "authorised in writing", the person who is "appointed by the court", the person who has authority to enter the premises, or the person who will be in charge of the forfeited animals—shall be not just any old veterinary officer, but a veterinary officer of the SVS. The Minister will be able to confirm how many such officers there are—I am not trying to make a political point about their numbers. I know that they are spread around the country and have access to all parts of England and Wales, and that Scotland has a similar service under the Agriculture, Environment and Fisheries Department of the Scottish Office. The aim of new clause 3 is to ensure that only suitably qualified persons are given responsibility for entering premises for inspection purposes and for carrying out forfeiture orders. That offers a sensible alternative to new clause 2, and I shall say no more about it, even though there is a lot more that I could say.

At this point, I should have liked to comment on the substantial amendment that the hon. Member for Garston has not yet moved, but, for the sake of time and because it be unfair to comment on the amendment before the hon. Lady has had a chance to move it, I shall move on. Instead, I shall comment briefly on some other alternative amendments that stand in my name and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth).

Amendment No. 10 would provide that disposal of animals that are the subject of a forfeiture order must be carried out in an appropriate way. I suspect that, in the overwhelming majority of cases, disposal of mink will be by means of destruction, because other means of disposal are not appropriate. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire has pointed out, methods of killing legitimately used in respect of other farm animals—for example, captive bolt—are not used for mink; as he says, there are only three legal methods of killing mink.

Again, I am trying to obtain clarification on the matter of disposal. Do the hon. Member for Garston or the Government envisage disposal being achieved by any means other than destruction? The Bill refers to "destruction or other disposal", but I am working on the assumption that, in every case, destruction will be used.

In respect of mink, disposal will be by destruction, but the Bill deals with all other fur-bearing animals that may be farmed, so a different method of disposal may be used in respect of other animals.

I see the hon. Lady's point: in the case of mink, destruction or death by one of the three legitimate methods would be appropriate, but if someone were in the business of fox farming—I realise that there are currently no fox farms—it might be appropriate to dispose of those animals by sending them to a zoo or wildlife enclosure, or by some other acceptable means.

I am not sure whether export or removal overseas would ever be acceptable, if only because one of the Bill's main faults—a fault that we can discuss at length on Third Reading, but not now—is that it relates only to Britain, but will not make the slightest difference to Europe or the rest of the world. It would not be acceptable for the Government to ban the farming of animals in this country and then deliberately to export them overseas, even though the effect would be the same either way: the number of animals overseas would increase, because production would increase to make up for the slack caused by the ban here.

My amendment No. 10 would improve the Bill, because it would permit

"disposal by other such means as the appropriate authority may specify in regulations."

Following the hon. Lady's intervention, my comments on the amendment can be brief. The amendment would give the Minister a power to make regulations in the event that farming of, say, arctic fox or some other animal were to crop up in this country. We are concerned about some of the more valuable fur rabbits that are sometimes farmed, especially in France, where at most times the fur is worth more than the meat. Under the Bill, the hon. Lady and the Minister would have a problem if someone in Britain were to start farming rabbits primarily for their fur. My amendment would provide a regulatory power to deal with farming of different sorts of fur-bearing animals which are farmed in Europe and elsewhere in the world and which might crop up in this country.

10.15 am

Amendment No. 11 would close a potential loophole in the Bill by providing for animals to be kept safely, should circumstances arise where the offender cannot afford to meet the costs of doing so. Although I am opposed to some aspects of the Bill and to some of the concepts it embodies, I recognise that it is designed to prevent unnecessary cruelty. If that is the intention behind it and if it is to be enacted, it is important that its forfeiture provisions should not give rise to cruelty by permitting circumstances to arise in which no proper provision is made for the upkeep of animals that are the subject of a forfeiture order, pending their destruction or disposal.

If a fur farmer is operating illegally and the Government order him to forfeit the animals and do not take them into state custody, but instead impose a court order on the farmer to continue to look after them properly, my concern is to ensure that the Bill provides sufficient powers to spell out suitable arrangements so that the animals are kept in a proper condition. I have tried to make such provisions in one way, through the new clause stating that all the current welfare regulations shall be observed, but the amendment suggests taking a more general power.

Amendment No. 12 speaks for itself. It is another alternative amendment, offered because I am aware that the Government—for various reasons, including, perhaps, political ones—do not want to admit that they could ever accept a new clause that I had proposed, supported by one of my right hon. Friends. However, if the Government or the hon. Member for Garston cannot swallow my new clause, I ask them to consider amendment No. 12, which takes one part of my new clause, or drafting a better legal version of it. The intention behind the amendment is obvious, although I acknowledge that it should contain reference to security and licensing conditions. I urge the hon. Lady and the Minister to think carefully about the amendment, or about coming back with something similar, but better.

Amendment No. 13 states:

"Any person appointed under subsections (a) or (b) above shall possess such qualifications or meet such criteria as the appropriate authority shall specify in regulations."

That gives the Government another alternative. My new clauses propose the appointment of veterinary officers or state veterinary officers. My amendment suggests that fur farmers or some other third party in charge of animals must be properly qualified. I would like them to have a veterinary certificate or qualification but, if they do not, the Government should specify some minimum regulation or qualification that the person in charge of the animals must possess. If a person is farming fur illegally, it is not good enough to impose a court order that says, "You are farming illegally so we will confiscate your animals, but you can look after them for the next six months until we sort out the final appeal." We must come to a better arrangement than that. That is a loophole in the Bill. If a third party is involved, he or she should be properly qualified. This issue was raised in Committee and some of my right hon. and hon. Friends may wish to allude to the Committee's considerations. However, I shall not do so at this stage.

I have taken some time to discuss the two proposed new clauses and the amendments. I think it is one of the largest and most important group of amendments and new clauses before the House today. Although I am concerned about some aspects of the Bill and its approach to dealing with a welfare problem, that is a matter for another day. I believe that new clause 2 or new clause 3 merits inclusion in the Bill, and I have explained this morning how they would improve welfare standards.

If the Government are determined to ban the keeping of animals for fur in this country, they must recognise that the Bill as drafted is full of loopholes. That is not the fault of the hon. Member for Garston, as she has had a short time in which to draft the Bill and she has been negotiating with the Minister and other interested parties in an attempt to improve it. In the short time available, it is enormously difficult for an hon. Member—

If the right hon. Gentleman believes that there are deficiencies in the Bill, should he not have served on the Committee and addressed those matters there, rather than trying to talk out the Bill today?

The hon. Lady does herself a disservice by making those incorrect and slightly churlish remarks. My point is that circumstances have changed since the Bill came out of Committee. One of my colleagues served on the Committee that considered the Bill and moved these amendments. I do not think the hon. Member for Garston would have wanted 20 Conservative Members of Parliament with an interest in these matters serving on the Committee.

I suspect that the hon. Member for Garston will announce today that she has progressed further down the compensation route. However, circumstances are changing constantly on a daily basis. Even if I and all my right hon. Friends with an interest had served on the Committee, we could not have dealt with all the important issues—although, to be fair, my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) addressed this loophole in Committee. The Government may wish to do something else about compensation, we have spotted some loopholes and it is important to deal with such matters on Report.

The hon. Lady will not accept all the amendments—I hope that she will not because some are contradictory. However, I hope that she and the Minister will acknowledge that there is some merits in new clause 2 and new clause 3, which I believe is vital. If the Government will not accept them, perhaps they will acquiesce to one or other of the amendments that attempt to toughen up the Bill's welfare aspects.

For the information of the House, I intend to speak only to my amendments and the Minister will address the group of other amendments and new clauses—it is a division of labour that will speed up our deliberations.

My amendments refer to an issue that arose in Committee. Their purpose is to ensure that the circumstances in which the animals can be destroyed or disposed of are not unduly restrictive. The court must be able to deal with the different situations that it may face. Clause 3 prevents the destruction or disposal of animals subject to a forfeiture order until there is no further possibility of the order being set aside. There are several lawyers in the House today—of whom I am one—and it has occurred to me that that relevant length of time could be inordinate. I gave an undertaking in Committee to reconsider clause 3(3). I have concluded that it should be removed and replaced with a discretion exercised by the court.

I have appeared as an advocate in many courts and I am confident that the court will use any discretion that it is given by the House sensibly on a case-by-case basis in a way that is appropriate to the particular circumstances. Under the existing clause, the animals might not be destroyed straight away—even if there were no third party interests—if a further appeal was possible. For that reason, I propose to delete clause 3(3) and to insert a discretion for the court to make a proper order in the relevant circumstances. I do not believe there will be any problems with the measure, and I commend the amendments to the House.

I represent a rural constituency where wild mink are becoming an increasing problem. They cause terrible damage to the environment: water rats and many ground-nesting birds have been eliminated by wild mink. Unless the transfer of farmed mink is thought through carefully, there is a danger that large numbers of them will be released accidentally or carelessly. I do not think the changeover has been thought through properly.

There were two catastrophic releases of mink last year by animal rights activists in Hampshire and in Staffordshire. Those incidents were animal welfare disasters and the mink suffered terribly. Many returned to the farm the following evening to be fed, many were run over and many died because they could not survive in the wild. However, some did survive, and that will lead eventually to an ecological disaster, affecting ground-nesting birds, water rats and voles. It is most important to work out carefully the Bill's technical details because the moment it is passed—

Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot talk about the Bill in its entirety; he must address specifically the new clause before us or the other amendments grouped with it.

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The new clause seeks to clarify who is responsible for the welfare of the mink because mink farmers will have no reason to bother at all. It is not clear how solid the compensation will be. There is also a danger—this is a serious point—that animal rights activists will view the legislation as a triumph and might break into mink farms.

Order. I must keep at the hon. Gentleman. The title of the new clause is

"Appropriate authority responsibility for forfeited animals".

That is what the hon. Gentleman must concentrate on: he must speak to the new clauses and to the amendments before us.

I thought that I was. I am talking about the animals which will be transferred to the responsibility of another authority as soon as the Bill is passed. New clause 2(2) states:

"The forfeited animals shall be housed in compliance with such regulations regarding animal welfare as applied to fur farming prior to the coming into force of sections 1 to 4 of this Act."

There is a raft of current European and national regulation on fur farms. I am not sure how my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), who moved the new clause, views the continuation of the regulation. From the moment when responsibility for the animals is transferred from mink owners, they will no longer have any interest in looking after them.

I am bemused by the hon. Gentleman's comments. Is he suggesting that mink owners are so irresponsible that they would release their mink into the wild? Surely they would not.

No, I am suggesting that human beings will look to their self-interest. Some mink farmers are being terrorised at the moment.

They are looking to their own self-interest, and they are in favour of the Bill, which the hon. Gentleman is now attempting to talk out.

Well, we may come to who is in favour of the Bill and who is not later, but I do not want to provoke you again, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so I shall return to the subject in hand, which is new clause 2, which states:

"such regulations regarding animal welfare as applied to fur farming prior to the coming into force of sections 1 to 4 of this Act"

will apply.

The Mink Keeping Order 1998 enables the keeping of farm mink in the UK under licence and imposes strict conditions on the caging of mink and the security of mink farms.

Desperate.

The hon. Lady says, "Desperate." I am worried about a large number of domestic mink being released. I have seen the damage on the Welsh borders caused by wild mink. If the Bill's introduction is not properly handled, many mink will, irresponsibly, be released. That is a genuine danger.

I am amazed by the hon. Gentleman's assumption, because the Bill phases out mink farming. It gives mink farmers several years to settle their affairs, receive their compensation and leave the industry. That is why they are in favour of it. That process will not happen overnight. The Bill will not completely phase out mink farming until 2002.

The hon. Lady underestimates the precarious nature of many of those farms. They are under threat. Many of them are in suburban areas.

The Bill offers compensation to those who are under threat, which is why it is supported by the Fur Breeders Association and the National Farmers Union. It is right that those issues are examined democratically on Report, but hon. Members know that there are ways of doing so and making progress with the Bill. No progress is being made, and people will conclude that the delay is the result of deliberate actions by Conservative Members.

That is rather an unhelpful contribution. As I said, I come from an predominantly rural area where mink are a major problem. The Minister must realise that fur farmers will have their income taken away, so they will be looking to their future and their first priority will not be the welfare or security of the mink. That is what I am worried about.

The hon. Gentleman obviously misses the point of the Bill. Has he spoken to any mink farmers who have said to him that the minute the Bill becomes law, they will release their mink into the wild as an act of vengeance on the public for supporting the Government in passing the legislation? What evidence is there to support what he is saying?

I have visited a mink farm and spoken to several farmers. I have also spoken to several European farmers in the industry, to whom I may refer later. I have no evidence that the farmers will act irresponsibly, but there is a great deal of evidence that members of the animal rights movement and the Bill's supporters outside the House would act irresponsibly. That is a real danger.

The new clause deals with the forfeiture to be imposed on people who illegally continue, or begin, to farm after the Bill's introduction. Their animals would be liable to be forfeited. In those cases, we will be dealing with someone who is irresponsible and who is breaking the law. I am concerned that my new clause should ensure that the person who is appointed to look after those animals is suitably qualified and does not let them escape into the wild. The welfare regulations must apply in those cases.

Yes, but is my right hon. Friend aware of the onerous burden of regulation that is currently imposed on farmers?

Yes, I am aware of it. I did not refer to regulations in detail, but I mentioned some of them. My new clause simply contains a broad catch-all stating that all the regulations currently in force should apply in the case of forfeiture. Although I did not read out all the regulations, I think that they should all be included.

My right hon. Friend should understand just how extensive those regulations are. I have mentioned the Mink Keeping Order 1998, which is particularly concerned with security and is absolutely vital in ensuring that mink do not escape. Most of the other regulations relate to the standards of welfare for mink on the farms.

The main one is the European Union directive on farm animal welfare, which has been in force since 1998. That improved conditions on mink farms by laying down general provisions on the welfare of all farm animals and harmonising standards for EU countries. It is based on the European convention for the protection of animals kept for fanning purposes. The convention's definition of a farm animal is

"any animal kept for the production of food, wool, skin or fur."

That is one of the regulations that would apply under new clause 2(3) in the name of my right hon. Friend.

Another, the terms of which are in some ways more onerous, is the European convention for the protection of animals kept for farming purposes.

Order. Once again, I must say to the hon. Gentleman that he is talking about regulations introduced in connection with other legislation. The Bill would enforce those regulations, but he cannot speak about them in detail; he must speak to the new clause before us. We know what those regulations are because they are already on the statute book.

I am just not convinced that my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border knows the extent of those regulations.

Order. The hon. Gentleman need not worry about his right hon. Friend; I shall worry about his right hon. Friend.

We are discussing my right hon. Friend's new clause, which imposes severe burdens and responsibilities on another body. I accept your point, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall briefly mention the Mink Keeping Regulations 1975 and the Mink Keeping (Amendment) Regulations 1998 without going into their detail. The broad provisions of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968 are also relevant.

My point is that onerous responsibilities are imposed by European and domestic law on those who look after mink. I am not convinced that my right hon. Friend has thought through his new clause or that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) has worked out the detail of who will take responsibility for mink when the Bill comes into force. Forfeiture could go wrong, and that would, as I have said, lead to a serious disaster in the countryside where I live. I should like a serious reply from the Minister and the hon. Lady, because they have not thought that through.

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that 10 of the 11 remaining mink farmers want to leave the industry? They will leave before the date on which the industry will become unlawful if the Bill is passed. That date is 2002. That would leave one mink farmer, who is, I am told, a very responsible man. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman should be so concerned.

Well, that reveals the great gulf between the urban interest that the hon. Lady represents and the rural interest that I represent. There is a terrible lack of understanding of the current impact of wild mink and of the devastation that they will cause if the phasing out of the industry is not handled correctly.

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that there are already feral mink populations outside almost every fur farm? The Bill would not remove feral mink from the country.

I am not suggesting that. I am suggesting that they are already a menace and cause damage. We do not want to add one more domestic mink to their number, even if the poor thing were unlikely to survive.

If the hon. Gentleman accepts that there are already feral mink outside mink farms because they have escaped or been released for whatever reason, does not he accept that if there were no mink farms in the country, there would be far less chance of mink escaping?

It is very unfair on the mink farmers to suggest that. All the mink that have been released have been released because of terrorists—

The hon. Gentleman is wrong. He should get his facts right.

I am glad to see that consensus politics has broken out this Friday morning. I do live in a rural area, and I have seen the damage that feral mink cause. To answer the hon. Lady's first intervention—she interrupted me before I could complete my answer—there have been no irresponsible releases by mink farmers. The recent releases have been caused by animal rights activists.

My hon. Friend is not right. In the early days, before the mink keeping orders were invented by MAFF, most of the escapes were accidental and the result of farmers' incompetence. In recent years, the mass escapes have all been caused by animal terrorists.

We are now definitely straying away from new clause 2, so we must get back to the new clause and the accompanying amendments.

I entirely agree with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I am afraid that I shall leave the interventions for the moment.

The new clause requires:

"The appropriate authority shall keep records of the animals forfeited, including records of their health status and mortality rates."

That is a thoroughly sensible suggestion, which I hope will be endorsed by the hon. Member for Garston.

The new clause also states:

"The appropriate authority shall have the right to recover from the person against whom the order was made the full costs of keeping the forfeited animals from the time the order was made until their final destruction or disposal."

I am not at all happy with that, because I consider that much the most likely route for disposal is export.

The hon. Member for Garston suggested that the only disposal route would be extermination. As she sees it, all the mink on these farms will be put down. Is that statement correct? That is what I understood from one of her interventions. The industry in this country is now tiny. Those mink farmers that exist have good contacts with the enormous industry in Denmark and in Holland, and almost certainly they would want to export the mink.

I am not sure about three aspects. First—I do not think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border gave me a clear answer when I intervened on him—who will pay the costs of transport? Secondly, if the animals are exported, at what point will responsibility for the mink pass to the new owner? Thirdly, who is responsible for the welfare of the animals in transit? I hope that the third point is covered by the new clause, but I do not think that my right hon. Friend had thought that through.

If the Bill passes, the industry will not become unlawful until the end of 2002. Between now and then, most of those who are in the industry will choose to leave it—they have told me so. They will dispose of their mink as they wish. Clauses 2 and 3 deal with forfeiture, and will come into effect only after the industry has become unlawful. It is highly unlikely that they will ever be used, so the hon. Gentleman's concerns have little foundation.

It is a dangerous basis for legislation to pass on a wing and a prayer and with the words, "It is highly unlikely". Magistrates will have the power to impose fines of £20,000 on someone, in a court of law, on the basis of laws that we pass in the House. The hon. Lady should think through the consequences for the magistrates involved. We cannot simply pass laws, saying "It is unlikely to happen", and hope that the magistrates wing it when the problem comes along. We should debate such problems today and thrash them out. I am pointing out some of the practical problems that may arise from the Bill, and which are not entirely remedied by new clause 2. I am trying to be practical by looking ahead.

New clause 3 takes a different route, trying to solve the original problem. It reads:

"Persons authorised or appointed under sections 3 or 4 shall be veterinary officers of the State Veterinary Service."

I believe that the new clause would impose unnecessary restrictions on the discretion of Ministers and the courts, and make the whole business even more complicated. It is most unlikely that either would authorise an inappropriate person to carry out inspections or enforce or carry out orders, but it brings us back to the fact that mink need specialist care.

10.45 am The existing mink farmers have been in the business for 30 or 40 years. A farmer that I talked to in the south-west, who has the biggest operation, really knows how to look after mink properly. Will a state veterinary officer—who, in a rural area, is probably more interested in cattle, horses and pigs—know exactly what is best for the welfare of mink? I believe that my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border may hang too much on the skills of state vets. However, it is an interesting route, and the new clause tries to address the original problem.

Amendment No. 10 provides that disposal of the animals which are subject to a forfeiture order must be carried out in an appropriate way. There are only three legal ways of disposing of animals if they are to be killed—gassing by carbon monoxide, gassing by carbon dioxide, and lethal injection. There is no other option.

At Second Reading, some wild and incorrect statements were made about electrocution. The putting down of mink is probably one of the most humane elements of the business. The entire operation takes 15 to 30 seconds. The animals are unconscious in 15 seconds and dead in 30 seconds. They are put down in the yard where they live—no transport is involved, as for other farm animals.

I hope that the hon. Member for Garston endorses the fact that disposal must be correctly carried out. Farmers tell me that mink on farms live in reasonable contentment, and that they are put down by skilful people who know how to handle them. People who are not used to handling mink could make the last few hours or days of their lives fairly traumatic. What is intended to be an animal welfare Bill may turn out to be the opposite.

Amendment No. 11 would insert the words:

"where the offender demonstrates that he is incapable of paying the required sum to the court, or keeping the animals himself, make suitable arrangements for the animals to be kept in a proper condition."

Effectively, it provides for the court to make necessary arrangements for the animals to be kept in the correct conditions while awaiting destruction. That seems to me eminently sensible, but I should like to know how it would work if the animals were to be exported. We cannot proceed on a wing and a prayer, like the hon. Member for Garston, in the hope that that is unlikely to happen. We must know how things will work when the animals are exported.

Being cynical, I am not sure that the measure will work, because it is very easy to prove that one is skint. If the burden is on the person to pay, he will rapidly be able to prove that he lacks the resources, and cannot pay. My right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border is being naive. We are talking about people whose livelihoods will be destroyed. Everything that they have built up over 30 or 40 years will be taken away from them in one blow. I understand that they are all middle-aged. They are unlikely to have time to rebuild their lives. They will jolly well do their best not to pay. My right hon. Friend is naive in thinking that they will stump up. I believe that they will turn themselves upside-down and work it out with their accountants to prove that they are incapable of paying. My right hon. Friend has not thought that out.

Amendment No. 13 states:

"Any person appointed under subsections (a) or (b) … shall possess such qualifications or meet such criteria as the appropriate authority shall specify in regulations."

My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter), who is, sadly, not present, tabled a similar, sensible amendment in Committee but, unfortunately, it did not succeed.

The Bill does not say who should carry out the forfeiture order. We have repeatedly brought pressure to bear on that subject. If the Minister intends to speak on this group of amendments, I should like him to say what the timetable will be and exactly where the responsibilities will fall. The only people who really understand how to look after mink are the farmers, and the handover of responsibility is crucial. [Interruption.] Would the Minister like to intervene? I did not quite hear his sedentary muttering.

indicated dissent.

I return to what I said at the beginning. As I live in a rural area, I am gravely concerned about the environmental consequences. Although my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border has done his best in going through the various new clauses in an attempt to improve this flawed Bill—

Given that my hon. Friend lives in a rural area, he will have come across the State Veterinary Service, which consists of highly professional vets in the employment of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Does he agree that if the person appointed by the appropriate authority is from the SVS, many of his fears will have been allayed? Is not that amendment more meritorious than others that I have recommended?

Yes, I have great admiration for the State Veterinary Service and its knowledge. However, the fur farmers are immensely skilled. They have long years of experience and know exactly what are the nutritional requirements of those animals. Much more importantly, they can recognise symptoms. Yesterday, one of them described an animal welfare film that he had seen and said that he could immediately diagnose what was wrong with the animal in the film. Much as I admire the SVS, and although I totally agree that there should be an overriding body with veterinary knowledge, I feel that the best people to do that job are the mink farmers. The problem is that there is absolutely no incentive in the Bill to see the job done properly. I entirely agree that someone must be made responsible.

The amendments proposed by the hon. Member for Garston give the courts discretion to decide whether an animal should be destroyed or disposed of, pending appeals or other applications, and to make decisions in relation to forfeiture and other orders specified in the Bill. As I said earlier, my concern is that this is not just a domestic matter. European fur breeders are watching our proceedings this morning carefully to see what happens. They have told me that it is highly likely that they will pursue this matter through the courts to the heights of European jurisdiction.

Order. Once again, the hon. Gentleman is straying from the new clause under consideration. I have told him about that before. He must not do that.

I am referring to amendment No. 3, which states: "make such provision as the court considers appropriate in relation to the operation of the order pending the making or determination of any appeal or application relevant to the order."

I really am trying to stay in order. If this matter is taken to the European Court—you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may share my opinion of lawyers—it will take an inordinate time. An appeal could run for several years. I talked to those concerned this morning—I gave their names earlier and need not repeat them. They are deadly serious because they regard this as the thin end of the wedge, to use a hackneyed phrase. They have told me that they will probably defend one of the larger fur farmers in this country.

We are not talking about a little domestic industry that can be rubbed out and compensated by the Government gaily throwing a few million pounds at it; we are entering a major battle on the European mainland. Those are serious industries in Denmark, which is the largest producer with some 11 million mink out of a world production of some 26 million, and in Holland. There are some 8,000 farms in Europe, and they will not let this matter go lightly.

The hon. Member for Garston, and perhaps also the Minister, have underestimated quite how much they have taken on. It is interesting to note that they have not telephoned those Europeans. This morning I talked to the chairman and vice-chairman of the organisation concerned, but neither the hon. Lady nor the Minister has done so. We could become involved in a very lengthy European wrangle in the courts, arising from the terms of an appeal under amendment No. 3. No one has really thought the matter through.

indicated dissent.

The Minister is shaking his head. I hope that when he sums up he will give me satisfaction on this point.

Well sit down then.

We have plenty of time. I am trying to point out the practical problems in the Bill, which will arise because the hon. Member for Garston has not had the courtesy, or rather has not taken the time, to ring the head of the organisation that runs the industry in Europe. That is bizarre.

It is amazing that the Euro-sceptic wing of the Tory party now wants us to be ruled by Europe. We are legislating for this country, which is what my Bill does.

My hon. Friend is following the Prime Minister.

Yes. I think that the inscription on the medal that the Prime Minister received yesterday reads "Peace and Murder".

The hon. Lady fails to understand that this industry is already covered by European legislation—she did not like me reading out all the European legislation that covers it—so she is already party to it. There is a genuine case, on the grounds of proportionality—

What?

It is quite clear that the hon. Lady has not discussed this. I am making a fundamental point. She will embroil the United Kingdom Government in a lengthy and expensive court case, which could be taken to the heights of European jurisdiction. Moreover, I think that we would probably lose. The European fur farmers have much more to lose than the 10 or 11 left in this country, who have been terrorised. We are talking about a significant European industry, which produces 11 million pelts a year in Denmark alone. The hon. Member for Garston mocks, but I may have touched on something fundamental here. I am concerned that she has not thought out the ramifications of the Bill and the length of time that a court case such as that proposed in amendment No. 3 would take.

I did not want to criticise the hon. Member for Garston because she has been kind and courteous in discussing this Bill with my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and me, but she is wrong to say that we can legislate solely for this country, as though this issue were removed from what is happening in Europe. This industry is already covered by the EU directive on farm animal welfare. I do not particularly like that, because I think that we could do it better on our own, nevertheless we are covered by it.

If we make this gesture in legislation today, it will make not the slightest difference to the welfare of mink in Europe and the world; it will simply mean that more mink will be farmed.

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right.

The new clause would allow a court to order the destruction or disposal of animals before an appeal was sought. Those appeals would take a long time. Has the Minister given any consideration to the contravention of European law, and to the fundamentals of the treaty of Rome and free trade, on which basis those in Europe believe that they have a case?

I shall respond briefly to the points that have been made. We had quite a long debate on these issues in Committee, when the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) raised the matter in a constructive manner in an attempt to get answers as part of the democratic process of scrutinising legislation, which is right and appropriate. Some hon. Members who have spoken this morning have not done that.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) for the way in which she has dealt with this Bill and involved welfare groups, fur farmers, myself and the Ministry, and hon. Members who represent fur farmers in their constituencies. As part of those discussions, the Government have said that we are prepared to consider concessions in relation to compensation and other aspects of the Bill. However, those concessions are significant and it will require time to draw up the appropriate amendments. We are not, therefore, in a position to advise on amendments at this stage. That will have to be done when the Bill reaches the other place.

If the Bill does not pass its Report stage, those concessions cannot be made. I can give no guarantee that we shall return to the matter at a future date.

I heard what the Minister said and I am a bit surprised by it. This measure was a commitment in his party's manifesto. We are now more than two years into the life of the Government, and the Minister is saying that unless we let the Bill, with all the bits that he cannot tell us about, through to another place today, it may fail. Surely there has been time for the Minister to give the House of Commons a Bill with the vital compensation provisions worked out in advance. Instead, he asks us to trust the other place to do that, when his party clearly does not trust it.

There will be an opportunity to discuss compensation later, so I do not want to be drawn into that. Suffice it to say that the Bill contains compensation provisions and, as a result of helpful and pragmatic discussions with the National Farmers Union and others, we are prepared to accept some of the points that were raised in Committee and to broaden the scope of that compensation. However, there will be no opportunity to achieve that if the Bill does not progress, which would greatly disadvantage the fur farmers.

I must emphasise that the fur farmers want the Bill to progress. Many of them are in some financial difficulties because of the state of the market, so we have an opportunity to assist them. The Bill meets a number of criteria in a pragmatic way.

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, as ever. He said that he is prepared to accept points that were made in Committee; if that is the case, why have neither the Bill's promoter nor he sought to amend the Bill in the House to take account of those points and put everyone's mind at rest?

In some cases, as a matter of interpretation, the Bill would not need amending in that respect. In other cases, some of what we are prepared to concede following discussions requires careful thought and drafting. We do not have the opportunity to do that at this stage, but there would be such an opportunity in the democratic process if the Bill returned to the House of Lords, which would give hon. Members the chance to review it in its final form.

I am suspicious that certain Members of the House have no intention of allowing the Bill to go through its democratic process. That is for others to judge, but it is possible to give the Bill proper and appropriate scrutiny at this stage, and to do that briefly and succinctly. Hon. Members could receive the assurances that they want and allow the Bill to progress, but, if experienced Members of the House do not want that to happen, the danger is that people outside the House will draw their own conclusion that a minority quite arrogantly want to frustrate the democratic process and all the work and proper consultation that has been done on the Bill.

I am concerned about the Minister's remarks. He seems to be suggesting that if the Bill does not conclude all its stages today—he admits that it needs substantial amendment and says that the House cannot make a final judgment on it—there is no prospect of it becoming law in future. Surely this is a Government measure. Surely it is in his hands, once he has completed his consultation, to reintroduce it immediately in the next Session of Parliament. With the Government's in-built majority, no one in any corner of the House could stop it.

That is not what I said at all. The Government have made it clear that they are committed to the ending of fur farming as soon as is practicable and have been considering all ways of achieving that. Given that there is consensus between those people who are directly affected by it, the private Member's Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Garston is an adequate vehicle for doing that.

I have mentioned extra aspects in the Bill which the Government do not think are strictly necessary, but, in the spirit of good will and negotiation, we have been prepared to extend our consideration as part of the democratic process and the scrutiny of the Bill. I would hope that hon. Members will support that and not frustrate it at this stage by wasting time, but that is for others to judge.

We do not think that new clause 2 is necessary. It would mean that the Ministry would have to take possession of minks, subject to a forfeiture order, until there is no possibility of the order being set aside. Fur farmers keeping mink after a forfeiture order was issued would still be subject to animal welfare legislation. There would be no change in that, so there would be no advantage in transferring custody of the animals to the Ministry or to some other site. A site can be properly regulated because those powers already exist, so a transfer would lead to an unnecessary call on public funds. I strongly advise against accepting the new clause.

New clause 3 would mean that only vets of the State Veterinary Service could enter a fur farm to check for an offence or to issue a forfeiture order. I certainly concur with the praise that has been lavished on the SVS, which is an excellent organisation, but it is not appropriate to restrict the provision simply to SVS vets. Other bodies and other offices of MAFF, such as the Farming and Rural Conservation Agency, are involved.

Other vets, who could be directed by the courts, might also be involved. The courts have the power to appoint an appropriate person, and they are likely to appoint someone who has the necessary skills. The keeping and destruction of mink following the issue of a forfeiture order will still be subject to animal welfare legislation. That would apply to any person appointed by the court to carry out the order, whether he was a member of the SVS or not.

I certainly concur with the arguments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Garston in respect of her amendments. Amendments Nos. 4, 10 and 11 to 13 would ensure that the forfeited animals were kept under the same welfare standards as applied before forfeiture. I emphasise that, after forfeiture, the mink would still be subject to existing animal welfare legislation. That applies equally to whoever is keeping the animals under the forfeiture order and therefore there is no need for the amendments.

I am rather astonished by some of the Minister's remarks, not least because he is sitting on the Front Bench from which more than 20 private Members' Bills have been obstructed in this Session of Parliament. This sanctimonious humbug from the Minister about there being something precious and special about private Members' Bills and him being the custodian of them is utter nonsense. If he consulted some of his colleagues on the Front Bench, they would confirm that more than 20 private Members' Bills have been obstructed by the Government this Session.

The Minister said another astonishing thing: "Let the House of Commons not fulfil its duty in completing its proper scrutiny of the Bill, but allow the Bill to go to the other place." The Government complain that they do not have political control in the other place, but instead the Minister says that, somehow, he will guarantee that unspecified improvements will be made there. That stretches credulity way beyond breaking point, so let us hear no more nonsense and humbug; let us get on with considering the Bill and forget all this cheap politicking in which the Minister has been indulging.

I want to return to the provisions of clause 3, which the Minister barely touched on and which is the subject of amendments that we are considering. The more that I listen to the debate, the more that my initial anxieties are strengthened. When I first read clause 3, it occurred to me that, perhaps uncharacteristically, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle)—who is normally assiduous in these matters and who could, with her fine legal brain, normally be expected to see all the strengths and weaknesses of such a provision—has been unable to deal with the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) and my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson), despite all the help that she has had from the interest groups, from those who want to get their hands on the money and from the Minister.

Paradoxically, the points made by my right hon. Friend and by my hon. Friend have to do with the welfare of the animals involved. It seems that all Labour Members are worried about is getting taxpayers' money into the pockets of the farmers whom they are in the process of putting out of business. We have heard that over and over again this morning. They say, "It's all right; the people whose businesses will be ended by the Bill have said that that is fine, as long as we give them enough taxpayers' money." The only argument that is put to us concerns how much money is involved. That is hardly a highly principled point of view. It is a point of view that I concede, not one I share, nor one that I find at all convincing.

I do not agree that the role of the House is to devise legislation that puts people out of business and then gives them taxpayers' money in compensation. That is not how I see it.

Order. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman was mentioning these matters in passing, but it looks as though he is about to go into detail on compensation.

No.

The right hon. Gentleman says no; I am pleased to hear that, because I should like to hear about new clause 2, which refers to forfeited animals.

As ever, I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As you know, acquainted as you are with the running order, there will be a debate on compensation later. Compensation will probably be the main debate of the day: this is just an appetizer. I do not want to fire my ammunition now. I want to keep it for later when we get round to discussing compensation.

You are quite right, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the new clause is about forfeiture and what follows on from that. My worries evolve from clause 3(4). We are talking about the court making a forfeiture order and the ethos and the environment surrounding that. As Labour Members have said, the circumstances may be usual, but they are certainly potentially stressful. Someone will be subject to a court forfeiture, something that is always rather intimidating in itself. Under clause 3(4), the court will appoint a person to carry out the order and impose requirements on that person. It also refers to the "destruction or other disposal" of the animal, which is key to the consideration of this whole matter.

My hon. Friends and I are worried that the Bill is not sufficiently precise to guarantee the highest possible standards of protection for the animals. We think that that would be relatively simple to achieve, and that is the burden of our amendments. To expect the court to be sufficiently omniscient and infallible to appoint an appropriate person is not adequate in the context of the Bill. The hon. Member for Garston has told us from the start that she is concerned about animal welfare. That is why she is supported by as many as seven Labour Members in the Chamber today. Regrettably, no Liberal Democrats are present. Those Labour Members, all seven of them, want to express their support for the Bill and their desire to improve animal welfare. Yet my hon. Friends and I have found an important loophole in clause 3.

The nature of the person who will carry out the order, or on whom the requirements will be placed, was the subject of an interesting debate in Committee. The issue was raised mainly by my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter), but the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker), who is regrettably not here today, also expressed some views on it. In Committee, the hon. Member for Lewes said that points had been legitimately raised. He went on to talk in a Liberal Democrat way about belts and braces, and then he asked whether the promoter of the Bill would

"return later if necessary to incorporate the amendments' provisions"—

that is the amendments that were being discussed in Committee. The hon. Lady said:

"I shall raise that with the Ministry and find out whether it has spotted any such loophole. I would not want such a loophole to remain, but I am not convinced that it exists, which is why I do not intend to accept the amendments today. However, I certainly undertake to return to the matter later during the Bill's passage if there is a problem."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 31 March 1999; c. 26.]

We have been at pains to try to persuade the hon. Lady that there is a problem. That is the whole point of these proceedings, on which the Minister poured such scorn. He did not seem to think that we should be having these proceedings. That is typical of Ministers in this Government: they do not want the House of Commons to spend much time considering legislation. They would rather that it was whizzed through, provided that they agree with it—not the 20 Bills that the Minister and his hon. Friends have killed, but those that he wants. That is a matter for the Minister, but the hon. Lady, in her typically reasonable way, said that she would consider those matters and return to them if necessary. We are trying to persuade her to do that. She has not yet been persuaded, but I hope that she still can be, because we are trying to strengthen her Bill. We are trying to make the provisions more feasible and workable. It was in that spirit that we tabled the amendments.

11.15 am

We are worried about the nature of the person carrying out the order and on whom the requirements will be imposed. We are also concerned about disposal. The Bill refers to the "destruction or other disposal" of the animals. It is an irony that a measure that is supposed to be so concerned about the welfare of animals ends up dealing with their disposal or destruction. That is a sad fact.

People who support this measure and want to impose their views on others through this prohibition legislation express concern that animals should be raised for their fur. The Bill provides that those very same animals will be destroyed or disposed of, which hardly strikes me as a giant step forward, but that is a matter on which each of us must make our own judgment.

With the amendments and new clauses, we want to be as satisfied as we reasonably can be that disposal or destruction will be carried out in a way that is acceptable even to those who say that they support the Bill and want to see it carried through properly. Amendment No. 10 would provide that disposal would be by

"such means as the appropriate authority may specify in regulations."

I would have thought that that was completely non-contentious. Rather than the Bill making no comment, it would be more reassuring to those who support the Bill's aims and objectives to have that form of words.

It is fascinating that the right hon. Gentleman is proposing more regulations. He usually argues that there is too much legislation, especially secondary legislation, but, all of a sudden, he wants more.

It is because I am the genuine animal welfare enthusiast. It is not me who is talking about destruction and disposal: the hon. Lady is. I am saying, in a humane sort of way, that, if we are going to do this—I have made it clear from the start that I do not want to do it, because I do not share her view—

If the right hon. Gentleman is opposed to the principle of the Bill, why did he not vote against it on Second Reading? He could have divided the House.

We did not want to waste time; we wanted to press on, and that is a matter of record.

The hon. Lady should be prepared to make a distinction. It is perfectly possible for some of us to be unhappy with the philosophical basis of the legislation, with the rush to ban and prohibit, with the desire by a group of people in the House and outside to impose their views on others. I do not like that. Earlier this week, I opposed another Bill, from my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), which sought to ban something of which he disapproved. The hon. Lady is right, that is not where I come from, but we are no longer discussing the principle of the Bill. Mr. Deputy Speaker would be the first to tell me if I attempted to do so.

The Bill, having been through Committee, is now on Report, when the House of Commons has the opportunity to examine again, reflectively and properly, the detail of it to see whether it can be improved. The new clauses and amendments are an attempt by my right hon. and hon. Friends to improve the Bill. We are no longer debating the principle of the Bill; we are having an important discussion of its detailed provisions. The issue of disposal is simple. Do we accept the current wording, or do we want to pin it down more accurately and helpfully by adding the words

"disposal by other such means as the appropriate authority may specify"?

Amendment No. 11 deals with a different aspect. It states that

"where the offender demonstrates that he is incapable of paying the required sum to the court, or keeping the animals himself'

he is required to

"make suitable arrangements for the animals to be kept in a proper condition."

An important point has worried me right from the first time I saw the Bill. There is a paradox built into it. It stems from a desire for prohibition and provides a mechanism to ban the raising of animals for their fur. Clause 3 deals with forfeitures, and it rather peculiarly implies that there is at least the possibility that the very same person who has committed the offence will keep the animals.

My hon. Friends and I feel that, in the event of such a person being driven out of business and, perhaps, being no longer capable of functioning, with the result that suitable alternative arrangements had to be made, it would be our responsibility to ensure, as far as we reasonably could, that the animals were looked after properly. We feel that circumstances might arise in which animals would suffer as a result of a measure that is designed primarily for their protection.

Clause 3 is full of such weaknesses. We want—not unreasonably, I think—to zero in on the possibility of the financial incapacity or incapability of the keeper of the animals. We suggest that the Bill should go further than the mechanisms for which it already provides, and include a provision for the making of suitable arrangements for the animals to be kept in proper conditions.

I should have thought that that was totally uncontroversial. Indeed, I should have thought that it would improve the Bill. Here again, we have a paradox: the Minister himself has said that he thinks that parts of the Bill could be improved. The record will show that he was prepared to accept that; yet neither he nor the Bill's promoter saw fit, between the Committee stage—during which many of these matters were teased out—and Report stage to present a series of helpful, positive and uncontroversial amendments. Apart from two or three amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Garston herself, with which I shall deal shortly, we have nothing.

I do not know whether the Minister is prepared to put his faith in the House of Lords; but it is astonishing, is it not, that a Minister in a Government who have said repeatedly that they distrust the House of Lords, that, as it is currently composed, it is offensive and unacceptable and that they regret the Government's lack of control over it should now say, "Trust the House of Lords. Trust us, the Government. Do not worry, House of Commons; speed the Bill on its way here, and we will sort it out in the House of Lords." That is the most astonishing argument that I have heard in a long time, even from those on the current Government Front Bench. Let us hear no more of it: we are tabling amendments, here in the House of Commons, to improve the Bill. I hope that it is not too late to persuade the hon. Lady to accept them.

Amendment No. 12 states:

"Where the court orders an offender to make a payment in accordance with subsection (c) above, it shall take into consideration the cost of keeping the animals concerned in compliance with such regulations regarding animal welfare as applied to fur farming prior to the coming into force"

of clauses in the Bill. That, too, strikes me as uncontroversial. We are attempting to put beyond doubt the need to ensure, as far as we possibly can, that the animals are looked after properly in what we all acknowledge would be difficult, stressful circumstances. Goodness knows, the circumstances are stressful enough for some people now; we can only begin to imagine how much more stressful they would be if the Bill were enacted. We must take whatever measures we reasonably and properly can to secure the welfare of the animals.

As ever, my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border spoke about new clause 3 in a knowledgeable and experienced fashion. It is clear from what Labour Members have said—including the hon. Member for Garston and, I think, the Minister—that they do not expect a large number of people or, probably, animals to be affected by this part of the Bill. Earlier, my right hon. Friend was challenged about whether enough members of the State Veterinary Service, or enough facilities, would be available. I think that that question answers itself: it is unlikely that a large number of farms and animals will be involved.

Of course, we do not know that for sure. It is, I suppose, possible—although unlikely—that more farms could come into being, that farms might change their nature or even that farms might start dealing with different animals between now and the enactment of the Bill. Farms might spring up in Northern Ireland, for example.

I assure my right hon. Friend that one thing has not changed. In the event of an outbreak of disease among, for instance, pigs in Yorkshire, or a rabies outbreak—which we have not experienced yet—the State Veterinary Service will have the capacity to be flexible, to move around the country and to home in on problem areas. If we assume that there will not be farms of this kind all over the United Kingdom, and that there will be only a few instances of forfeiture, it should be possible for the service to deal with those instances.

I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's knowledge of those matters. That was certainly my assumption, and I do not consider it unreasonable.

I do not agree with earlier criticisms of my right hon. Friend by those who suggested that there would not be enough veterinary officers. We are legitimately trying to nail this down really firmly: new clause 3, which is a perfectly reasonable measure, seeks to reassure all who are worried that professionals will be involved.

I shall not dwell at length on new clause 2, because my right hon. Friend dealt with it more than capably. Let me say simply that it goes into more detail—rightly, in my view—in an attempt to ensure that the mechanisms provided for allow no possibility of forfeiture procedures "slipping through", or being carried out inappropriately. The forfeited animals must be housed in compliance with the regulations, proper records must be kept, and—this is particularly important—

"The appropriate authority shall have the right to recover from the person against whom the order was made the full costs of keeping the forfeited animals from the time the order was made until their final destruction or disposal."

As was said earlier, that may not always be possible. As we have freely admitted, in some circumstances, the persons involved may well be in, or near to, a state of insolvency or bankruptcy, given the nature of the business involved. Nevertheless, I think it right for us to try to protect the taxpayer in this way. Notwithstanding the criticisms made earlier by the hon. Member for Garston, I try to be consistent in one regard: I try to keep my eye on the taxpayer, especially when the taxpayer's pocket is being raided by small groups with an interest in extracting money from him.

Finally—this, too, is important—new clause 2 states:

"The appropriate authority shall retain the forfeited animals until there is no further possibility of the order being set aside and shall then submit to the court"

a report concerning the disposal, or destruction, of the animals and the costs involved. I consider that an appropriate way of ensuring that the process is completed in a way that is acceptable to all of us who have the animals' welfare at heart.

That brings us rather neatly to the hon. Lady's amendments. In her typically reasonable way, she admitted that she had made an unbalanced judgment. Her Bill had started out on the basis of one presumption; she had reflected subsequently, and come to a different conclusion. That illustrates a number of things. It illustrates the eminent reasonableness of the hon. Lady; it reflects her legal expertise and experience; and it demonstrates that, in a Bill such as this—contrary to what the Minister said—it is possible and, indeed, proper for not just the promoter but others to reflect during each stage, from Second Reading through Committee to Report, and then present amendments.

I want to reiterate—the right hon. Gentleman can check what I said on the record—that I have made it clear that it is right and proper, as part of the democratic process, that such Bills should be examined properly, that questions should be asked and, of course, that people should receive answers. However, I repeat: much of that matter has been dealt with in Committee. I have already given assurances in relation to the points that he is repeating. The conclusion that people outside the House will draw is that some people are motivated by individual arrogance, rather than the proper democratic process of such Bills going through all their stages.

The Minister must be talking about his colleagues because it is his colleagues on the Front Bench who have obstructed more than 20 private Member's Bills in the current Session. I will send the Minister, so that he knows what is going on, a Hansard showing one of his colleagues speaking at enormous length on a measure two or three weeks ago, which regrettably knocked out a worthy measure towards the end of the day. He is not here every Friday. Some of us are, as you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will verify. The Minister has not managed to make it on many Fridays, so he is not too familiar with the process.

On the point about the Minister not being here every Friday, one perhaps would not expect it. Will the Minister give a guarantee that he will sit here for five minutes after 2.30 pm today and watch his Front-Bench team kill a dozen Bills on today's Order Paper without any debate?

Order. Now that that point has been made, we can get back to the new clause.

I was praising the hon. Member for Garston when I was rudely interrupted by the Minister. My praise is not yet finished, she will be embarrassed to hear. She has tabled amendments; I accept them as that. Therefore, I find it that much more difficult to judge one way or the other about them. The problem is that what they say is that, before the legal process is completely exhausted, the court may intervene and do something terribly final and irreversible, even though there may be further processes to be undergone.

In a sense, I should like to defer to the hon. Lady's legal knowledge, judgment and experience on the matter, but it leaves me with an uneasy feeling. I am not a lawyer. Therefore, I do not know how much precedent there is for such a thing, but I would have thought that, if one were going to err one way or the other in a matter such as we have in amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 3, probably we should err on the other side: the position where she was originally. That would be my preference, but, again, I am giving an unbalanced view because I can see the arguments both ways.

What makes me uneasy is the thought that, perhaps unnecessarily, the court may feel obliged to intervene, and to make a final disposition, before the whole process has been completed. Under the heading of compensation in clause 5, we will come—I do not want to anticipate it—to the role of the Lands Tribunal and the alternatives. I mention that in this context only because I think that even the hon. Member for Garston would accept that the legal process can be lengthy and often seem interminable. In that regard, I can understand her desire perhaps to intervene, to interpose and so on, but, in this case, the balance of judgment should be the other way. That is why I am reluctantly not prepared to accept amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 3, but I accept that it is a difficult one to judge.

There we have it. We have a complicated series of measures. I do not know whether this is the stage at which you want an indication of those measures on which we would wish to divide the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that we should like to divide on one or two of the different amendments in the group. We will be guided by you as to when that indication should be given. I simply flag up at this stage that we think that it is appropriate for there to be a couple Divisions on key elements of the Bill, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border will give that indication when you tell us that it is appropriate.

There are important matters here. I hope that the House will accept that we have tried to improve the Bill within the context of today's debate and the Report stage. I hope, in that regard, that we will be able to make a success of it, to strengthen the Bill and to move on.

We have had an excellent debate, which is sensibly coming to a conclusion, on a large group of new clauses and amendments, with some important points of principle in it. I have two or three minutes of remarks to make; that information may spare hon. Members from taking precipitate action to close the debate.

I apologise to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle). I made in all sincerity a jibe about lawyers. I meant it, but I did not know that she was a lawyer. I had not done my homework and checked her background. It was my jibe about getting out of the legal profession before being totally corrupted. I did not aim it at the hon. Lady. She has been very kind and courteous.

I have heard what the hon. Member for Garston and the Minister have said. I am not convinced that their arguments are correct. The Minister has said, "We had some suggestions in Committee that we will want to work on, and deal with, in another place." Without straying into generalities, let me say that I find it unconvincing that the Government are now relying on the hon. Lady, able though she is, to deal with, and to put through, a measure

that was in the Labour party manifesto—not a key election pledge, but an important pledge. The Government cannot come before the House today with amendments to make the Bill leave this place as perfect as it can be. We are asked to accept assurances roughly along the lines, "I know that there are faults and the Bill is not quite right, but we will sort it out in the House of Lords."

I repeat: the proposal for amending the Bill in the House of Lords is not because the Government consider the Bill is faulty; we consider it perfectly adequate. The amendments are to reflect the discussions and negotiations that have properly taken place with interest groups to try to take into account their concerns, broadening the scope of compensation in particular, but dealing with one or two other things. It does not have to be done, but the discussions are in relation to what they feel would be more appropriate in terms of their circumstances.

I am grateful to the Minister for making that point, but I do not accept that it is a valid distinction. He says that it does not have to be done, but that the Government are going to take into account the concerns of those groups. He will amend the Bill in the House of Lords to deal with financial matters and compensation, matters that are usually primarily of concern to the House of Commons.

Order. These points are being mentioned in passing, but we must keep to the new clause, which the right hon. Gentleman tabled.

I am sorry. We can deal with compensation later. Nevertheless, there are measures that the Minister is refusing to accept: new clauses 2 and 3, or some of the other amendments. There may be things to be done in another place. If the measure does not succeed today, the Minister seems to be saying that that is the end of it. It is not.

We are months away from a new Session. I do not think that the Ministerial Committee on Legislation has yet approved the legislation for next Session. The Minister can conclude his negotiations and his consultations, take on board the improvements that we have suggested, if he will not vote for them now, and then introduce better legislation to deal with the matter.

I say to the Minister—if I can do so without straying—that we passed in the House last week the new, improved puppy dogs Bill—the Breeding and Sale of Dogs (Welfare) Bill—which I blocked last year. We now have an infinitely better Bill. We managed to do it this time.

I say to the Minister in relation to the new clauses: please accept them today, or accept the spirit of them. If he cannot accommodate them today, so that I and my right hon. and hon. Friends are not satisfied, and the Bill does not complete all its stages today, he can come back with Government legislation next year, with all the discussions completed.

I am sorry that the Government and the hon. Member for Garston will not accept the suggestions. I would not wish to waste the time of the House by voting on all the measures, but there are some alternatives. I hope that, with your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it will be possible to vote on new clauses 2 and 3 and amendment No. 3. I hope that the Minister will accept my amendments, or we may have to vote.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it permissible to divide on new clause 3, which is an alternative to new clause 2?

No, I shall not permit a vote on new clause 3.

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

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

On the face of it, this is a narrow point, but it has important implications and deserves a pause for thought. Clause 1(2) states:

"A person is guilty of an offence if he knowingly causes or permits another person to keep animals as mentioned in subsection (1)."

Clause 2 contains similar wording. Difficulties could arise over the interpretation and definition of those words. How far might the provisions go, and who may, inadvertently or otherwise, be caught by them?

It may be extreme to argue that people who purchase a product, such as fur, could, given the widest possible interpretation, be covered by the Bill. It is certainly possible that those who sell items containing fur might be covered. But what about people who are aware of fur farming, yet fail to report it? I am fairly sure of the motivation behind the phrasing used.

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

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

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

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

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

We may well wish to return to that point. My hon. Friend's knowledge of these matters is unsurpassed in the House and he may wish to elaborate on them. My own brief comments merely lay the ground.

I am trying to explore the dangers that might exist in the Bill. I am not as reassured as the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) intends me to be, because those with a contractual arrangement may well be caught in the net.

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

I suspect that the hon. Member for Garston would offer the contractual answer to that point.

Later today, we shall consider the different species involved, an important matter that has not yet been discussed. Take rabbits, for example. Let us suppose that a fashion house, a fur house or a tannery discovered that for some reason—fashion, perhaps—rabbits were much in demand. Let us suppose that farmers went into the business of producing rabbits.

There is some doubt over the balance of value in the rabbit between its meat for eating and its fur for wearing, and that is where the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) becomes important. Under the terms of the clause, at what stage could it be said that someone might be inducing the farmer, who is not at this stage a fur farmer? We will return to that matter, too, as some difficult and tricky related points have not yet been teased out.

Let us suppose that the farmer responded to the attractiveness of the proposition. How far would the person who had made the offer be implicated? There would be a contractual arrangement. I do not know whether that would define the matter satisfactorily one way or the other. The danger is that the net may end up going much wider than the hon. Member for Garston intended, although I can see why the provision was included in the Bill.

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

I hope that my right hon. Friend will share that note with me later, as the matter will become highly germane when we discuss the schedule of species. My right hon. Friend has made the problem even worse. He is talking about French and not merely British seduction. We are now into international territory. How could I possibly doubt that what he says is correct? I can see from here that he has a document in front of him and I bet that it is in French, so I may be prepared to give a loose translation to the House if the need arises, but not yet.

Now that we have flushed out the rabbits, there seems to be a distinct possibility that, given the value of rabbit pelts and the doubt that exists about the relative value of pelt versus meat—we know how much the French like their lapins—there is sufficient doubt about this part of the Bill for us to be worried. When the hon. Member for Garston replies to this short debate, which need not be too long as we have much more important matters to discuss—

Does my right hon. Friend understand that there is a clear link if a fur trader in London gives an

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

All that this debate has proved is that the less I say on the subject the better. My hon. Friend knows infinitely more about it than I can ever hope to know. I am anxious to get on to some of the meatier aspects of the debate—I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border got that, as no one else did. This is an important matter, but I do not want to delay the House on it. I simply wanted to set the scene and to tantalise my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson), as I think I have. I will leave it at that.

To be truthful, I want to hear what the hon. Member for Garston has to say on the subject. The Minister may be tempted to his feet, although he is in a slightly churlish mood. However, he may be tempted to join us, to bring some joy to the debate and to help us out. With that, I am happy to move the amendment.

I am happy to try to reassure the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) about the permitting offence, if I may call it that. Both amendments would remove the permitting offences from the Bill. I am concerned that if those amendments are made, they will create anomalies that will, in effect, enable anyone who is fur farming in this country to structure his or her business to escape the provisions of the Bill.

As the Bill is drafted, the offence can be committed by a company or by a person. The person with the controlling interest in one of the businesses might, for example, cause or permit a member of his family to do the fur farming, which would be the only remaining offence if the amendment were accepted. That is certainly the structure of one or two existing businesses. Perhaps an owner of a business might employ someone to run the fur farm. If the amendments were agreed, the person who had been employed to run the farm could be prosecuted, but not the person who owned the business and was employing that person to do so. That would leave an unacceptable loophole.

The land and buildings on a farm might be not owned by the person operating the farm, but rented to him by an ex-fur farmer. If the Bill's aim is to ban fur farming, it is not appropriate to introduce loopholes that would allow it to continue as a result of not prosecuting people for the offence if they are not directly involved, but are causing or permitting it. The Bill is drafted to avoid easy loopholes. I know that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst disapproves of making such activity criminal, but if we are to have this legislation on the statute book, the last thing that we want is an easy loophole to enable people to flout the law.

I am not as concerned as the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst about the extent to which the provision may catch others who have some link with the fur business, such as shoppers, neighbours and retailers. That is because one must knowingly cause or permit another person or company to establish and run a fur farm in this country before one is caught by the provision. It will not catch people who wander into a shop and buy a fur coat, or those in the London markets who buy fur from various sources, because they are not knowingly causing or permitting someone to commit a criminal offence.

I understand that the right hon. Gentleman does not want the offences created by the Bill to extend beyond what is intended, but I do not believe that the Bill as currently drafted does that. If his amendments were accepted, they would create a massive loophole which would prevent the Bill's main purpose from being implemented. I resist his amendments.

I listened carefully to what the hon. Lady said, and agreed with some of it. I am not convinced about "causes". I accept the explanation of "permits". The provision does not extend to anyone who buys a fur coat, although that is the end of the chain. The fact that people wander into shops in London to buy fur coats is the reason why farmers in Holland, Denmark and America will keep mink. They do it for the benefit of no one but the consumer. Even on the most far-fetched legal interpretation, the consumer who buys the product, and thereby causes the farming to take place, does not legally cause it. Even my meagre law training 30 years ago tells me that.

I am not so sure about the international fur trade, the big London market and people in this country legitimately involved in the fur trade. The problem is that London accounts for 60 per cent. of the world fur market. It is huge and there are no plans to ban it. The world is going to continue producing furs. It will remain legal and legitimate, although many do not like it, except for farmers in Scotland, England and Wales who breed animals to supply the legal trade.

We do not have to look at Denmark. The danger is that someone heavily involved in the business will look at Northern Ireland. Nothing is being farmed there, but if I was a fur farmer in this country, I would be tempted to take whatever compensation the Government offer and set up business there because it is not covered by the Bill.

A fur trader in this country might say to someone who is operating a business in Northern Ireland, "If you go into fur fanning, I can get you a contract for 50,000 pelts a year. I am involved in the business; I will buy your supplies, if you go into business in Northern Ireland." That point is not far fetched, because Ministries of Agriculture are encouraging farm diversification schemes. I think that in this country, MAFF used to encourage a scheme for farmed rabbit meat. I am not sure if there is a subsidy, but we certainly have a farmed rabbit industry. I remember having to deal with the problems of Chinese viral haemorrhagic disease or something like that. That industry exists to farm animals for meat.

I have received a note from the diversification and marketing department of the French Agriculture Ministry encouraging people to stock a certain breed of rabbit—the Rex Orylag. When that rabbit is sold normally, the meat is worth 40 per cent., but the fur is worth 60 per cent.—depending on the market at the time. Currently, it could be perfectly legitimate for farmers to diversify into rabbit farming in Northern Ireland, because some guy in this country could tell them that if they did so, he would take all the fur that they produced. That person would be encouraging someone else to produce fur, although he might not be causing the other person to do it.

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

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

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

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point; I had not realised that background point.

I shall conclude my remarks in case my hon. Friends want to speak. This is a small exploratory amendment. I understand the danger of removing the subsection and do not want to create a lacuna in the Bill by doing so. However, I wanted to explore my concerns about causes. I understand that, if a farmer tried to hide behind a company business and then contracted it out to someone else, that would be defined as causing the second person to take up the business, if it was done knowingly. I do not think that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) is correct in saying that employees would be caught. If someone owns a business, but lets the employees run it, surely he would be caught. It would be not only the employees who were prosecuted, but the person running the business.

12.15 pm

Therefore, if we removed the subsection, a farmer who had built in complex, commercial constraints or clauses to put himself at arm's length from the business could claim to be exempt from the legislation by pretending that he had nothing to do with it, even though, in fact, he was causing it to be carried out. I agree that the word "causes" is necessary to catch such people. However, the hon. Lady is saying that, without the subsection, the legitimate owner would be able to get away, but his employees could be caught and prosecuted, whereas I thought that for reasons of vicarious liability, the owner could be caught if the employees were.

That brings me to the end of my comments on the subject of the word "causes". I am not entirely convinced by the arguments I have heard, but I shall hear what my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) has to say. Then, perhaps, we can conclude our debate on the amendment.

I am rather concerned that the Minister has not answered the points about species that I made on Second Reading, but I shall return to that later.

On the question of fur and its value, it is necessary to understand the range of people who could be caught by the legislation as it stands. If the Bill is passed, it is likely that smaller producers will leave the business, but there is one clear case in which a fur farmer has a substantial business in this country and a substantial business in Denmark. It is likely that that fur farmer will keep his British business going as a company, although he will have to cease production in this country if he is to avoid a £20,000 fine. However, surely a clear link remains between his dealers in London, where 60 per cent. of the world trade in fur is carried out—we have been trading fur since the days of the Hudson's Bay Company—and his fur production in Denmark.

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

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

That is not true. Mr. Paterson: Would the hon. Lady care to explain why not? Maria Eagle: I shall be happy to do so. The matter was dealt with on Second Reading. The offence is to farm animals

"solely or primarily … for the value of their fur".

I made it clear on Second Reading that it is not my intention to catch people who produce fur as a secondary product, so a farmer who keeps rabbits primarily for their meat would not be caught by the Bill. The Bill covers only businesses of which fur is the primary product, so the hon. Gentleman need not worry quite so much. It will be for the courts and the prosecuting authorities to determine the primary purpose of the business, and they will consider that in a common-sense way.

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

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

It is a fundamental issue. It is clear that the hon. Lady does not understand that, when rabbit fur is in fashion and that market is strong—possibly for five years—it is likely that rabbit farmers will derive their main income from fur rather than from meat.

Moving to a completely different species, I visited the Falkland Islands in November. The farmers there dump sheep carcases on the beach where they are eaten by seals and sea lions. All the value is in the wool and there is no market for the meat. That could happen with rabbit farms.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It has nothing to do with that.

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

That must be the primary purpose. [Interruption.]

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

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

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

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

Certainly, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall move on to another concern.

I repeat the declaration of interest that I made on Second Reading. Although there is no direct link between the tanning industry and the fur industry, some materials do cross over under certain tariff headings. I spent my career in the leather industry before I came to the House, and I was the president of the European Tanners Confederation for a couple of years; I am still vice-president.

The Bill gives no cast-iron definition of "fur".

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

The hon. Gentleman must address amendments Nos. 5 and 6.

Absolutely, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Unless those amendments are made, anyone who buys from a producer whose primary product is fur can be caught out. No one has looked into the European Union tariff definitions of fur. Chapter 43 of those definitions was published in the Official Journal of the European Communities, L292, volume 41, on 30 October 1998. It states:

"Throughout the nomenclature references to 'furskins', other than to raw furskins of heading No 4301, apply to hides or skins of all animals which have been tanned or dressed with the hair or wool on."

That is a broad definition. Heading 4301 applies to raw fur skins,

"including heads, tails, paws and other pieces or cuttings, suitable for furriers' use … other than raw hides and skins of heading No 4101, 4102 or 4103".

If amendments Nos. 5 and 6 are not made, anyone who places an order for those products, from animals that are raised exclusively for fur, will caught by the provisions of the Bill.

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

Those animals are farmed in this country, as the hon. Lady will find out if she allows me to refer to the lists of the animals concerned. I am most surprised that the hon. Lady did not take up this issue because I referred to it on Second Reading. She could have read the list and found that many of those animals could be produced in this country.

There is a fairly obscure demand by architects for cattle hides with hair on; they are known as hair-on hides.

The Bill relates to fur. There are no furry cattle.

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

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

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

If the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) would allay my fears, I should be grateful.

Let us suppose that someone breeds an Astrakhan, Carakul, Persian, Indian, Chinese, Mongolian or Tibetan lamb, all of which could be bred in this country, where the meat is of no value and the fur is of exceedingly high value. Under heading 4302 13 00, the breeder of those very specialised rare sheep would be caught up by the Bill because, according to the European Union definition, it is fur.

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

Perhaps he does not know what sheep are like.

These are rather cheap sedentary interventions.

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

Order. Perhaps I should tell the hon. Gentleman that the Chair has a collective memory.

Okay. Right. I shall make my comments very brief because I know that the hon. Member for Garston is looking at the clock.

As the Bill stands, a person will be fined £20,000 in a magistrates court if he has caused another person to raise an animal for its fur. We all agree with that.

In GB.

In GB—anywhere in the United Kingdom.

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

Fur?

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

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

I am glad to see that the Minister is taking inspiration from the wooden panelling near his left ear.

However, I am making a very serious point. It is quite possible to raise, for the value of their fur in this country, animals that are not mink, that are not kept in cages, but are kept in farms. Some them may be goats; some may be sheep. It is most important that the Minister addresses that point. I am disappointed that he did not do so after Second Reading.

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

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

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

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

Indeed. Later we may want to explore the relationship between the Bill's effect in Great Britain—the UK will come in when we talk about grouping with Northern Ireland—and in Europe. We will then see who the real Europeans are. I suspect that we will see a fascinating juxtaposition, as we hear some uncharacteristic European noises from the Opposition Benches and some narrow British noises from the Government Benches. I hope that Labour Members will mind their words carefully, because they know what the Prime Minister said yesterday and what he thinks about these matters.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) because, typically and characteristically, she answered the points that I made thoughtfully. I was persuaded by her argument that, if our amendments were passed, they would cause unnecessary loopholes in the Bill. I would never want to be party to weakening the Bill in that way. Our last debate was about precisely the opposite, as is the next group of amendments.

For all those reasons, and, because I am anxious to save time and press on, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 1, line 17, leave out '£.20,000' and insert

'level 5 on the standard scale or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months, or both.'.

With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 8, in page 1, line 17, leave out '£20,000' and insert

'level 5 on the standard scale'.

The first amendment would give courts the option of imposing the standard level 5 fine and the second would give them the option of the standard level 5 fine plus a period of imprisonment. One of the amendments, by necessity, would lower the maximum fine from £20,000 to £5,000, which is the highest fine that can be imposed on level 5 of the standard scale. The second amendment would give courts the option of imposing a custodial sentence in addition to, or instead of, a fine.

When I compared the Bill with other legislation with which I have been involved, I concluded that it is unusual for a specific sum to be included in legislation. More commonly, fines are prescribed with regard to levels on the standard scale. That avoids the need for changes to primary legislation when the scale is revised and saves the Government going through every piece of legislation raising the penalty from, say, £5,000 to £10,000. They bring in a general Criminal Justice Bill and simply raise the level of fines, which applies to thousands of Acts of Parliament in which the standard scale is imposed. It is therefore convenient to have a fine on the standard scale.

The other point concerns the level of the fine. The sum of £20,000 is fairly hefty and is usually imposed for corporate offences as opposed to those committed by individuals. The exception is gross environmental offences, for which huge fines of £50,000 are imposed. In special cases where one is guilty of allowing leakages from an oil tanker, one can get done for millions, and rightly so. Only in rare circumstances, however, and usually in respect of companies, are fines of that nature made, and fine-only punishment, as opposed to a court-ordered fine and a term of imprisonment, is normally available for such offences. Most fur farmers are individuals, not corporate entities, although there may be sole traders or partnerships. In those circumstances, the £20,000 penalty seems disproportionate and unsuitable.

Last week, we sent to the other place the Breeding and Sale of Dogs (Welfare) Bill, and its maximum penalty is three months' imprisonment and a fine of up to £2,500. Everyone agreed that that is sensible for such commercial activity—a lot of money is to be made by breeding and selling dogs, and more is to be made from mink farming.

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

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

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

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that information. It is always a source of grief to me that the costs of fighting cases are always greater than the penalties imposed. I hope that the Treasury, rather than the prosecution and defence lawyers, will benefit from receiving the proceeds of that fine. I am not getting at the hon. Lady, but individual examples perhaps make bad law and I suspect that the majority of farmers are not corporate bodies.

This point had not occurred to me before: it should be possible for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the SVS, when investigating, to pin many offences, over a continuing period, on someone who has been convicted of a cruelty offence. Would keeping animals improperly be one offence? Could charges be made in respect of every single animal and over a long period? I am not sure whether such a provision applies in the Bill.

For example, would one offence have been committed by someone continuing to run a mink farm with 100 mink illegally for 100 days, or would offences have been committed in respect of all the mink over those 100 days? I will happily take advice on that from the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle). If a separate offence applies to each animal kept, and not merely one offence of being an illegal mink farmer is committed, the scale of fines could mount up.

I have little else to say, except that, on the one hand, the £20,000 penalty might be on the steep side, but, on the other, if this offence deserves a £20,000 penalty, why does not the Bill provide for a term of imprisonment? A term of imprisonment was provided for by the Breeding and Sale of Dogs (Welfare) Bill, and six months' imprisonment usually applies to level 5 fines on the standard scale. In those circumstances, a term of imprisonment would be perfectly satisfactory and ought to be included as an option for someone who breaks the law by continuing to run, or by starting, an illegal operation after the Bill comes into effect.

This is surely a matter of trusting the courts. If they have the power to impose a penalty and slap on a fine up to level 5 on the standard scale, they should also be able to impose any period of imprisonment.

12.45 pm

As my hon. Friends have said, some of these people may be men of straw and may not have much substance behind them. A period of imprisonment may be a greater deterrent than a fine that may not be paid. They may have so arranged their businesses that they are men of straw and have little assets.

I am happy for the hon. Lady to say that she wants a high penalty and will not accept a level 5 fine, but if she believes high penalties are essential, periods of imprisonments must also be essential. It is illogical to go for a high financial penalty that offenders may not pay, instead of having the deterrent of imprisonment.

There are obviously alternatives, and they cannot all be accepted. I seriously urge the hon. Lady and the Minister to accept the amendment that would impose a period of imprisonment.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for making these amendments perfectly clear. We have not always had clarity from Conservative Members this morning, but he has made his points clear and I shall do my best to answer them.

The right hon. Gentleman is quite right that it is unusual for a fine to be specified in primary legislation, as it is in the Bill. I believe that a fine is the appropriate sanction. If the Bill were to be enacted, the law breaking would be for economic gain, so it seems highly appropriate to deter it by imposing a high level of fine.

Amendment No. 7 would impose a level 5 fine, which is £5,000 as the right hon. Gentleman explained. I believe that level 5 is not sufficiently high. A fur farmer could make a large economic gain by acting unlawfully, so a £5,000 fine may not be a sufficient deterrent to prevent him from continuing his unlawful business. That is why I thought that the fine should be at a higher level.

The amount of the fine is specified in the Bill so that it acts as a clear and obvious deterrent. The fine is clear from looking at the Bill. I know that that is unusual, but one would not anticipate the small businesses that the Bill makes unlawful to continue in great numbers, and one would not expect many people to be prosecuted for such an offence if the Bill does its job properly once it is enacted and once the industry is closed down.

It is important to include in the Bill the date on which the industry becomes unlawful and the level of fine. That is why I took the unusual step of specifying the amount of the fine as £20,000, rather than using one of the levels in the summary jurisdiction of the magistrates court.

The right hon. Gentleman asked whether running a fur farm would count as one offence or whether a person would be guilty of separate offences. Each animal kept could constitute a separate offence, but given the way in which prosecutors work, it would be highly unusual for them to charge every offence. If a fur farm were operating with 100 mink, it would be highly unusual for prosecutors to charge 100 offences, although, technically, they would be separate offences. Normally, specimen charges are laid. For example, in the cruelty case that we referred to earlier, 15 specimen charges were made, although there were many more breaches than that. The prosecution went ahead on that basis, and the fur farmer was found guilty and fined. I would expect that approach to be taken.

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. She is wonderfully courteous.

If specimen charges could be laid, there would be no difficulty imposing a £5,000 maximum fine on 10 specimen charges if there were more than 10 mink. That would tot up to more than £20,000 and imprisonment.

That would certainly be an alternative way of dealing with the issue. When I was considering the drafting of the Bill, that was a possible solution, but I do not think that it is preferable to the one in the Bill. I thought that it was important to make the penalty clear in primary legislation. That is why I specified the figure of £20,000: I wanted the fine to be on a higher scale than the present level 5.

The right hon. Gentleman has said during earlier stages in the Bill's passage that the provision is too inflexible and, given that there might be a period of rapid inflation, the fine might end up looking rather small and primary legislation might be required to change it. I consider that unlikely, but in any event a Criminal Justice Bill—we deal with many of those, and they often amend other legislation—could increase the fine.

I also do not believe that there are a vast number of people who would wish to establish illegal businesses. Of course the sanctions must be there, but I do not expect that they will have to be used extensively.

I accept that the amendments represent an alternative way of dealing with this issue, but, having considered such proposals at the time when the Bill was drafted, I decided against them, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will respect my judgment.

As for imprisonment, the magistrates courts provide for six months, but I felt that, as these are primarily economic offences, they should be dealt with in that context. The right hon. Gentleman may have forgotten momentarily that the Bill provides for another method of punishment, namely forfeiture, which would involve not just a fine but the loss of an economic asset. Imprisonment on top of that would surely be draconian.