Rural Development Committee, 04 Dec 2001

Meeting date: Tuesday, December 4, 2001

Official Report 359KB pdf

---

Fur Farming (Prohibition) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

Item 3 on our agenda is stage 1 consideration of the Fur Farming (Prohibition) (Scotland) Bill. Members will have received a paper from the clerk and a private paper with an analysis of the evidence that we received last week. Do members have any comment to make on those papers before we draw up a draft stage 1 report for consideration next week?

As I said at last week's meeting, we have to be careful. If we are to ban something, it is not good enough simply to say that the practice promotes no public benefit; we must be able to find out whether the practice is causing harm in some form or another. The minister said to us last week that the Executive is

"concerned about the considerable damage that occurs when mink escape from farms".—[Official Report, Rural Development Committee, 27 November 2001; c 2476.]

We also heard, in written evidence from the Scottish Landowners Federation, that

"banning the keeping of mink and other species for fur in England and Wales without a carefully controlled ‘exit strategy' could have serious implications for other species, if feral populations become established."

I am content to proceed with the bill on the ground that fur farming causes damage to indigenous species and our local environment, but I am not at all convinced by the Scottish Executive's moral justification for the ban.

I would like us to delay our report until the European Union's scientific report on fur farming has been published and assessed. I would also like to see more evidence from Denmark, where there are 2,000 fur farms, before we ban something for no specific reason.

The problem with delaying our report is that we have been presented with a timetable by the Scottish Executive. That is why we have to consider the bill today.

I am sorry, but I still stick by my comment that our report should be delayed. I think that Ross Finnie said last week that he was not prepared to ban fur farming just because of some argument about mink coats. Fur farming has continued in other, forward-thinking, European countries without any problem. Simply to ban it before all the evidence can be heard would be wrong.

We all take the view that we would wish any activity that is cruel to animals to cease. We have spent a great deal of time discussing that principle in relation to Lord Watson's Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill. Last week, in response to a question that I asked, the minister said that fur farming was not necessarily cruel. He said that the moral justification for the bill was that it was morally wrong to farm animals purely for their fur. There is a question about the definition of "solely or primarily" in section 1 of the bill, with which we need to get to grips. How will the distinction be made, for example?

I would like to see more evidence about what fur farming involves. The information that we have had so far has been extremely limited. My position is that, if fur farming is cruel, it should not continue. However, if, as the minister last week admitted might be the case, fur farming is not cruel, we should hear much more evidence about it.

I understand that an important and detailed report is being prepared at EU level, against the backdrop of three or four regulations that regulate the industry in the EU countries. It would seem odd if we were to fire ahead, regardless of the fact that that substantive body of work is being done and will be available soon. At the very least, it would be sensible for the committee to ask the Executive the reasons for disregarding that work and pressing ahead now. Perhaps it is right to press ahead, but it would seem sensible, given that the EU report will be published at the end of this year, to take that report into account before we prepare our own report at stage 1.

I agree with everything that has been said about animal welfare. I would never support mink farming if the animal welfare was not correct. Would not it be a good idea for the committee to conduct a fact-finding tour to fur farms in Denmark? How can we make a decision without finding out what goes on in fur farming?

With due respect, we do not need a fact-finding mission to find out exactly what fur farming means.

We would establish whether the animal welfare was good or bad and we would understand why a country that is extremely politically correct and forward-thinking has 2,000 fur farms when Scotland has none.

Delaying would serve no purpose. We have no fur farms in Scotland—that came across loud and clear in last week's evidence; in fact, we were searching so far for evidence that we invited someone whose organisation represents only one company in Scotland. To delay is just to put off the inevitable. We have no fur farms and we would not be affecting anybody's livelihood—we should proceed quickly with the bill.

We have a bill in front of us that is unsatisfactory in certain respects, but which, in essence, seeks to preserve the status quo. I am not often accused of advocating the status quo, but on this occasion I believe that there would have to be proof that there was sufficient benefit to the Scottish economy for us to say, "We want to encourage fur farms." We would also need to be satisfied about our welfare concerns.

If, however, we do not pass the bill, we will have the difficulty that, by default, there will be migration of banned fur farming activities from south of the border into Scotland, which would change the status quo without our having taken a definite decision that that is what we want to do. On this occasion, I find myself more inclined to accept that the bill should go through—although it is a little unsatisfactory—to preserve the status quo. If the EU finds that we should do more work on the subject, so be it—let us come back to the subject later.

On Rhoda Grant's point, I know well enough that there are no fur farms in Scotland. However, there used to be about 350 such farms, which closed for economic reasons. The economic balance could easily change to make fur farming profitable here again. I do not see the point of banning something that does not exist here anyway. Fur farming could be animal-welfare friendly and be of benefit to the Scottish economy. We are meant to be actively seeking new industries in Scotland.

Point 4 of the paper says that we could consider a draft stage 1 report at our meeting on 18 December. If we were to agree to do that, would that be one way of moving forward today?

I had intended to make that point once members had finished the discussion.

We all want to move forward as quickly as possible. Pleasant though it appears, when we are marooned in this committee and dealing with our work load, I do not entirely agree with the invitation to make an extended trip to Denmark. As Alasdair Morrison said, that may not be entirely necessary. I agree; a trip to Denmark is unnecessary. If we were to stravaig over to Copenhagen for a day and sample the joys there, I wonder how that would be interpreted.

Some evidence about what fur farming involves would help. We have had little evidence, other than that from the body that alleges that fur farming is inherently cruel. If that body is right, I want fur farming to be banned, but I would like further evidence.

We could pursue Elaine Smith's idea by writing to Mr Robert Morgan, who gave evidence last week and is in touch with many fur farmers. We could invite those people to submit evidence about what fur farming entails and to answer some of the serious allegations that have been made, and have those responses by 18 December. If we had that further evidence, I hope that we could proceed with our report. Taking no evidence from the people whose work we might ban would be a bit foolhardy and would set a dangerous precedent.

I see no problem with that; it would be quite helpful. Last week, it was argued to us that fur farming cannot be inherently cruel because an animal that is treated cruelly does not perform. I have great difficulty with the Executive's moral justification for the bill, but I can accept other reasons for it.

I suggest that we write to Mr Morgan, from whom we took evidence last week, and invite him to submit written evidence. We can produce that with a draft stage 1 report on 18 December. If the committee has further misgivings, it can include them in the draft report.

Is that the only further evidence that we want? Last week, we also took evidence from Respect for Animals. Perhaps we should ask Mark Glover whether he wishes to add anything.

I am slightly concerned about Mr Morgan of the British Fur Trade Association adding to his evidence. Rhoda Grant mentioned that his organisation has only one member in Scotland. I, too, asked him about that and I do not think that he said that his organisation had more than one member in Scotland. Asking for more evidence is fair enough, but we cannot ask only one person. We must ask for other evidence.

Fergus Ewing talked about cruelty. I wonder whether the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals wishes to have an input.

I have no difficulty with that. Are members content that we ask the witnesses from whom we heard last week, plus the SSPCA, whether they have anything to add? The clerk has just told me that the SSPCA was asked previously for written evidence and made no comment, but there is nothing to stop us from asking it again.

In case the clerks do not know, I point out that Mr Morgan was accompanied last week by a gentleman who used to farm fur in England. He seemed a gentleman who might be willing to give evidence and whose name and details I am sure that Mr Morgan has. I think that his name may have been mentioned during last week's meeting.

That is correct. His name was mentioned, but it would be up to Mr Morgan to include that gentleman's evidence along with his own.

Is the committee content that we ask for that written evidence, to be received before our meeting on 18 December, and that we finalise our draft report at that meeting? The stage 1 debate must take place before the end of January, so our time is limited. We will try to voice any concerns that we continue to have in our final report. Does the committee agree to consider the draft stage 1 report on the bill in private on 18 December?

Members indicated agreement.