Fur Farming (Prohibition) (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1
Agenda item 2 is evidence on the Fur Farming (Prohibition) (Scotland) Bill at stage 1. Members should have with them copies of the written evidence that has been submitted to the committee and a copy of the bill and the accompanying documents. Time is slightly limited, so I ask members to keep their questions as concise and focused as possible. In calling members to ask questions, I will bear in mind the issues that we must cover in our stage 1 report.
I welcome today's witnesses, particularly Mark Glover who has just arrived—I am sorry to put you in the firing line so quickly, but thank you for joining us. Mr Glover is the campaigns director of Respect for Animals. Robert Morgan is the executive officer of the British Fur Trade Association. We are also joined by Ross Finnie, the Minister for Environment and Rural Development, and Frances Reid, the bill team leader from the Scottish Executive. I am grateful to you all for attending; I know that some of you have come a considerable distance to be with us.
We would like to hear brief introductory remarks from the witnesses—anything that is in addition to the written evidence that has been submitted. We will then have time for questions from members of the committee. I invite Mr Glover from Respect for Animals to begin with a brief opening statement that will help to stimulate discussion.
Mark Glover (Respect for Animals):
Thank you. I apologise for being late—I am late because of the trains.
The bill that has been made law in Westminster has been well received. From our point of view, the good news is that there is now a maximum of three fur farms left in England. All the remaining fur farms in the United Kingdom are in England. Because of the compensation package, a number of such farms have shut down during the past year. There were then only three left, but I believe that at least one of those has subsequently closed down.
That is extremely good news from the animal welfare and environment points of view. As members will be aware, mink have been a devastating introduction in relation to fauna in Scotland. It is worth emphasising that mink exist in Scotland and the UK because of fur breeders. Mink were a breeding species in the UK as early as the 1950s, way before any of the insane deliberate releases with which we are familiar took place.
The only other thing that I have to say is that I hope that the bill becomes law quickly, because it is part of a Europe-wide movement. From our point of view, the good news is that other countries in the European Union are also considering taking action on the issue. Before the end of the year, it is likely that the Swedish Government will introduce a bill to ban fur farming, as will the Netherlands. The Netherlands is the second biggest mink breeder in the world and both those countries are following the UK's lead. We hope that they will introduce laws that are based on ethical considerations.
Thank you for those brief remarks. The briefer the remarks, the more time we have for questions.
Robert Morgan (British Fur Trade Association):
It is a privilege to be invited to give evidence to the committee. I am the executive officer for the British Fur Trade Association. Our members are fur traders and the majority of the fur pelts that are traded in the world are purchased by our members in London. We are therefore direct stakeholders in fur farming in the EU and elsewhere.
I have brought two supporters with me and there is a good reason for that. On my left is Mike Cobbledick who was a fur farmer in Devon and is now a successful fur farmer in Denmark. On my right is Professor Leif Lau Jeppesen, who is associate professor of animal behaviour from the zoological institute at the University of Copenhagen.
Why are my supporters here? It is because they represent two main strands of our case. The first strand is the rural development case for fur farming. Mike Cobbledick has asked me to say that he would like to invite the convener and any other members to visit him in Denmark. You would have a first-hand view of how a product for a niche market is developed and sold. There are international fur auctions in Copenhagen. In Denmark, mink fur is the fourth highest agricultural export after bacon, cheese and canned meat. It is worth $350 million as an export. Mink farming also plays an important role in Denmark because it makes for viable rural communities. In Denmark, mink farmers are often arable farmers who also farm mink. The mink bring the profit that makes the farmers' operations viable.
The second strand to our argument is animal welfare. That is why Leif Lau Jeppesen is here. An opinion poll that an independent company conducted showed that in the UK, including Scotland, eight out of 10 people support farming for any purpose provided that there is good animal welfare. The public feels passionately about animal welfare and fur farmers feel passionately about animal welfare, because they need to look after their animals to produce good fur. Animal welfare is a key aspect; it is to do with public morality. That is why we have invited Professor Jeppesen. He stands for independently judged animal welfare.
Before I finish, I give the committee three new facts to think about. In the EU as a whole, 365,000 tons of fish by-products are used to make feed primarily for mink and other farmed-fur animals. Much of that comes from the Scottish fishing industry. If the Parliament allows fur farming to remain legal in Scotland, it will send an important signal to other Governments in the EU, which will mean that the fur farming industry in the EU will be maintained. It will also mean that valuable fish by-product exports will be maintained.
My final point is that mink is now being prepared, cooked and eaten, not in the UK, but in China. I have some pictures of mink meat being prepared, which I can show to committee members. Am I allowed to do that?
Absolutely.
I have pictures of mink meat being prepared for human consumption in China. That is at an experimental stage, but it means that mink are being reared not only for their fur, but for their meat. That potentially puts mink farming on the same footing as rabbit farming, which is not under threat. Alternatively, it puts mink farming on the same level as sheep farming. After all, we kill sheep for their meat, but we can still use the skin for sheepskin. In China, mink will be on the same level as those products. That takes away from the points that have been made by people who express the public morality argument. I have not dwelt on the public morality argument because there will be questions, through which I can deal with the issue more fully.
I ask the committee to reassess the bill, rather than to follow blindly the course that Westminster has taken. There is good reason to delay any decision. An EU scientific committee will report on fur farming at the end of the year. That is an important step towards specific EU legislation on fur farming. I ask the committee to delay the bill until the report has been produced.
I will be pleased to answer questions.
Thank you very much. I am glad that you brought only photographs of minced mink—samples might have been more than the committee is ready for at this stage.
I am keen to offer the Minister for Environment and Rural Development the opportunity to come in, but I am aware that he might not wish to do so at this stage.
I do not have much to add at the moment. The bill is fairly self-explanatory as far as we are concerned. There has been no fur farming in Scotland since 1993. We are unaware of any pressure, wish or desire for any fur farming. Although there was not a huge number of respondents to the consultation process that we carried out before introducing the bill, the respondents did cover a fairly large cross-section of society and there was among them unanimous support for the bill.
Fur farming is prohibited in England. Given the circumstances and the question of controlling the border, we do not believe that there is any sense in permitting the practice to reappear by cross-border transfer.
The bill is being introduced on the grounds of morality. I am not sure that a current experiment in China on eating mink meat necessarily overturns the evidence that we have received, which distinguishes such activity from other forms of agriculture.
Thank you. I will throw the meeting open to members.
Mr Glover—just to clarify the situation—do you support the bill on purely moral grounds? I assume that you are not questioning the welfare of animals that are kept for fur farming purposes.
We most certainly are. The arguments are twofold. Such animals are not suitable for farming—particularly factory farming—conditions. They are not like any other form of farm animals. To bring sheep into the equation is simply not a fair comparison. The animals in question have been bred in captivity for significantly less than 100 years. Other forms of farm animal have been domesticated over thousands of years.
The Farm Animal Welfare Council described mink as essentially wild animals. I will not go through all the arguments, but mink are solitary, carnivorous, territorial animals—they are not like other farm animals. The evidence clearly shows that keeping them in small, barren wire cages creates a lot of problems for them. They mutilate themselves and behave stereotypically, such as by running up and down the cages. Farmed foxes are prone to cannibalism—frequently they eat their young. There is a strong animal welfare argument.
The ethical dimension arises from consideration of the end product. No one needs a fur coat and no one needs the fur trimmings that are increasingly common on garments in this country. The ethical argument—which is increasingly accepted—is that to raise an animal under cruel circumstances for such a trivial product is not justifiable.
I return to the opinion poll that the fur trade representative mentioned. A different result might have been obtained in that poll if the word "fur" had been mentioned. As the public said that they accept farming where animal welfare conditions are satisfied, that automatically rules out fur farming in our minds. I suspect that it also rules it out in the minds of the great majority of the public.
You feel that caged mink are essentially wild animals. Two, three or four years ago—I cannot remember—a large number of mink were let out of a mink farm in the south of England. Most of them were recaptured quickly because they were completely unable to adapt to the wild. Surely the argument that they are essentially wild animals does not hold water, because they do not adapt to the wild when given the chance to do so.
I feel that the press distorted that situation. A large number of mink were let out of their cages, but there was a perimeter fence that not many mink got through. Once they were out, most of the mink were caught by large numbers of Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food officials and others, who ran around the countryside with nets and guns and so on. Many of the mink were run over. Most would not have survived, but the biology of the mink has a lot to do with that. Mink are highly territorial and in the area into which they were released there were established mink with established territories. Therefore, the new recruits to that population would have experienced extreme difficulty in finding new territories and surviving in the wild.
Do you wish to respond, Mr Morgan?
Keeping animals for fur is as ethical as keeping animals for their leather or their wool. A mink does not wake up in the morning knowing that it will be killed for fur any more than cows realise that they will be steaks or chops. I reiterate the point about animal welfare—that is the key issue. A 1999 report on the welfare of farmed mink compared to other farmed animals, by the animal welfare centre at the veterinary faculty of the University of Utrecht, shows that animal welfare on mink farms is at least as high as that on farms where the production aim is food. A University of Oxford researcher called Georgia Mason also makes the point that the animal welfare of farmed mink is good when compared with other animals.
In our written submission we declared that in many ways the consultation process was rather superficial. For example, it followed the words of the Westminster consultation in talking about fisher farming—but there is no such thing. It is ridiculous to ask the committee to ban fisher farming when such farming does not exist.
Another example is that the North of Scotland Water Authority, in its response to the Scottish consultation, appears to accept a ban on mink farming. We wrote to NOSWA to challenge that. We said, "Look, if you're worried about mink escapes, the thing to do is to have proper fencing. If there is a break-in by eco-terrorists or animal rights people, they should be apprehended and punished. Just because there might be a problem, there is no need to ban something." I have given the committee a copy of NOSWA's written response to us, which said that providing that there is good practice—which there is—it is not asking for a ban.
I have a question first for Mr Glover and then one for Mr Morgan.
I want to explore a bit further the wearing of fur, which Mr Glover mentioned. I do not know of any friends or relatives who wear real fur, although in my granny's day it was clearly a status symbol. What evidence do you have that the public objects to fur farming? Some of the committee's evidence seems to indicate that there is a revival in wearing fur. Can you expand on what you say in point 4 of your submission of 7 November, which is that you are
"assuming that … information on the cruelty of fur farming … is not required."
Could you expand on the cruelty aspects?
First, I will talk about the growing popularity of fur—
I am asking Mr Glover this question because it relates to respect for animals. I will then ask you a different question, Mr Morgan.
The fur trade is worldwide, as you have seen from the facts in my written submission. It is a colossal business that is worth about $10 billion a year. The fur trade puts an awful lot of money into trying to convince the press and the public that fur is back. Every year press releases are put out saying that fur is back and I have even seen in evidence that has been submitted to the committee the suggestion that fur sales in this country are up by 30 per cent. I note that no reference is included for that figure, so I am not quite sure what it is based on.
There is a public perception that there is more fur on sale than there has been in the recent past. That might be true of fur that is incorporated into collars and cuffs on coats and into trimmings. That is largely because of the efforts that the fur trade's marketing people have put into convincing designers that they should incorporate fur into their garments and persuading the media and the public that fur is back. However, sales of full-length fur coats continue to decline and the few fur shops that remain in the United Kingdom continue to close as demand falls.
There is clear objective opinion-poll evidence to show that more than three quarters of the public—76 per cent of the population—want fur farming to be banned. That figure has been consistent for more than 10 years. The statistics on fur wearing show that about 4 per cent of people in the United Kingdom own a fur garment. I suspect that many people, when they go into a department store or a clothing store and see fur on a collar, find it hard to believe that it is real fur—they think that it is fake fur. When we have challenged members of staff in shops and asked them what sort of fur is on a garment, they say often that it is not real, but fake, fur—although patently it is real. They are not able to tell the difference, and they certainly are not able to tell what type of fur it is. Elaine Smith highlights a problem in the perception of what is real and what is not, and what is on sale and what is not. I am not sure whether that answers fully the question; I will return to it if you wish.
On cruelty, all objective scientific research and reviews of the research have concluded that the welfare of animals in fur farms is not good. I sent the committee a copy of a report by the Farm Animal Welfare Council. Not only did it issue a statement saying that for animal welfare reasons it disapproved of fur farming, but it went on to describe mink and fox as essentially wild animals. The council said that the conditions in fur farms do not meet even the basic behavioural and physiological needs of those animals. It went further by issuing a letter to the then Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food saying that it was not even prepared to get involved in discussions about codes of conduct for rearing those animals, which it would normally do for all other farm animals. The reason for that—as it said in the letter—is that it did not want to give to the fur farming industry the stamp of approval that such codes of conduct would imply.
That was back in 1989. All the research that has been carried out since then confirms that position. As I said, the level of cannibalism in fox farms is appalling. The levels of self-mutilation and stereotypical behaviour are significant in all fur farms. Basically, keeping a wild animal in those conditions is akin to keeping a dog or a cat in a tiny wire cage for its entire life. Most people would accept that that is cruel. In some respects, keeping a mink or fox in such conditions is worse, because they are still wild animals.
How do you feel about the suggestion that was made earlier about eating mink? Will that happen in Britain?
No. In the 15 or so years that I have been involved in this issue, I have seen some publicity attempts by the fur trade, but that one takes the biscuit—although that is probably the wrong thing to say.
Could I ask—
Is it the same question for Robert Morgan?
No, it is a different question, but Mr Morgan might wish to respond to the previous question—that is up to him. I am interested in how many members Mr Morgan's organisation represents, and in how many of those are in Scotland. What impact do you think the proposed ban on fur farming will have in Scotland, given that we have received evidence that there are no fur farms in Scotland? What impact could the ban have on your industry and your members?
We have 45 members, including retailers. All the retailers in Scotland are members of our association. We represent fur traders and retailers.
Are those 45 members in Scotland?
No, the British Fur Trade Association has 45 members.
How many of those are in Scotland?
I think that there is one member in Scotland. I cannot think of any more than that. Our members are not fur farmers, they are fur traders and retailers. We represent the market and the marketing.
So is the fur farmer whom you have brought along not one of your members?
He is a fur farmer in Denmark. We represent Britain.
Is he a member of your organisation?
He is a member of the European Fur Breeders Association. We are associated with that organisation, but as I said in my opening statement, I represent the British Fur Trade Association. We are stakeholders in fur farming worldwide because we are involved in selling the products.
What possible impact could a ban in Scotland, where there are no fur farms, have on your industry or your members, particularly your one member in Scotland?
It is perhaps not for me to say, but we consider it wrong for the Scottish Parliament to pass a bill that has no fundamental justification or has inadequate justification. We feel that we must show up the bill for what it is. That is our first interest in coming to the committee.
There are many positive reasons for the committee to examine fur farming in other European Union countries—for example, in Denmark—to see how farmers form part of the rural community because they derive a profit from fur farming. If the Parliament continues to allow fur farming in Scotland, it is possible that you could re-establish fur farming in Scotland. That is our interest.
You have one member at the moment in Scotland and there are no fur farms in Scotland. Given the ban in England and Wales, do you envisage, if we were not to ban fur farming in Scotland, an influx of fur farmers or the growth of the fur farming industry in Scotland? Is that what you are saying?
I am saying that we have invited the Rural Development Committee to consider another country—Denmark—to see niche marketing and to consider whether you would like to reintroduce fur farming. Perhaps you would like to introduce some other product for a niche market in the world market.
In my written submission, I circulated an article in which Jim Reed, the chief executive of the United Kingdom Agricultural Supply Trade Association said that Scottish farming was in a very difficult position and should consider new products in the future. He suggested that niche marketing was one of the only possibilities for Scottish agriculture.
Mink farming is completely unsubsidised. It is not subject to intervention. I cannot look into the future, but we believe that there will be pressure from Brussels and the World Trade Organisation to reduce the subsidies that are available to farmers.
We are saying that the committee should come to Denmark, find out how a product is developed for the world market and consider whether that product could be developed in Scotland once again. You might draw other conclusions.
We have a strong case for trying to get the committee to consider the bill carefully. As I have said in my written evidence, there is as much substance to the argument of moral objection as there is material for the emperor's new clothes.
Ross Finnie was right to say that there are no fur farms in Scotland. I am not sure that he was right in saying that there has been unanimous support for the bill. I have a letter in front of me from the National Farmers Union of Scotland, which states that the NFUS is not aware that any of its members is involved in fur farming. In consequence, it has no comments to make. It seems to me that the NFUS is neutral, which is entirely different from supportive.
From listening to the evidence so far, it seems to me wrong in principle for the Parliament simply to nod through any piece of legislation without fully considering its impact and its possible future impact were there to be an export of the fur farming trade to countries such as Scotland from Denmark, as Mr Morgan has suggested.
I understand from information that the committee was given that there are 6,000 fur farms in the EU and 290 in EU applicant countries. I also understand that there are 170,000 full-time employees in the fur sector and that, for countries such as Denmark, fur is a hugely valuable product; it is the third or fourth most valuable export product.
I would like to hear more evidence about animal welfare. Mr Glover has made some serious allegations, but Mr Morgan has not really dealt with them. I would like to ask Mr Morgan and the minister more about animal welfare issues. Does the minister accept that the situation is as Mr Glover has stated and that it is impossible to have well-regulated fur farming—I believe that several EU directives regulate the industry already—and that the activity is cruel per se and must end? Alternatively, does the minister consider that if fur farming were properly regulated—as the EU is currently considering—it should not be banned and we should not close our minds on the issue?
Mr Ewing is right. We should not allow bills to go through on the nod and that is why we are here. There is no controversy on that point.
More important is one's view on animal breeding. I take the view—as does the Executive—that there is an argument about the justification for public benefit in breeding animals. The argument that I support and that the Executive is proposing in the bill is that breeding for food and food purposes provides sufficient justification for public benefit. We are not persuaded that breeding for the purposes of fashion or cosmetics is a sufficient reason. It is a fairly simple distinction. That is why the policy memorandum makes it clear that we are introducing the bill on the ground of public morality and not on the ground of animal welfare.
That is helpful in setting out the reasoning behind the bill. Has the Executive reached a view on animal welfare issues? You have said that that is not the primary purpose of the bill, but does the Executive consider it possible to conduct fur farming in a way that is not cruel?
That presupposes that one has arrived at the conclusion—
I am asking you, minister.
One still has to answer the fundamental question as to whether it is right and proper to breed animals for a purpose that does not produce a justification of public benefit.
Let us say that one takes the view that it is not wrong per se to breed animals for fur. We wear wool and our shoes are made of leather.
Those are by-products.
Let us assume that one takes the view that it is not wrong per se to breed animals for fur—or fashion as you put it, which is slightly pejorative—and as sources of clothing or apparel. Anyone holding that view would also want to be responsible about animal welfare. Does the Executive consider it possible to conduct fur farming in a way that avoids cruelty? It is a fair question.
That may be possible but it presupposes that one's answer to the first question is that breeding animals for such purposes is not itself cruelty.
I thank the minister for that answer, which seems to be candid.
I have read out figures for the money and jobs involved—those figures may or may not be inflated, but fur is plainly a worldwide market that is important to many EU states. As the Minister for Environment and Rural Development do you not feel hesitant about banning an activity that is regarded—perhaps because of different social mores or views—in other EU states, including modern, civilised countries such as Denmark, as something that should be allowed? Are you not reluctant to close off an avenue that could be used for diversification, which is a main plank in the forward strategy for agriculture?
No. My position is clear. I take Mr Ewing's point, but it depends on my disregarding public morality in coming to a view on whether I regard fur farming as a suitable means of progressing the economy in Scotland. I have made my position quite clear and the Executive's position is clear: we do not regard the breeding of animals purely for fashion or cosmetic purposes as sufficient justification for public benefit.
I draw a distinction between that and the question of the public benefit to be derived from breeding animals for the purpose of providing food. In breeding those animals, I accept that there might be by-products that are used for other purposes. However, the primary purpose is for the production of food, which has a justifiable public benefit. Therefore, I am not about to go down the road of arguing that some other form of activity would provide some income when it is wholly opposed to what I believe to be morally justifiable.
Of course, I gave the matter consideration before introducing the bill.
Does Mr Morgan have any comments on the matters I have raised with the minister, and the minister's responses?
Yes, I have several points to make. With reference to animal welfare, fur farming is approved by the Council of Europe, just like other types of farming. The reason why the Council of Europe approves of fur farming is that the state of animal welfare in the farms is acceptable. I have already quoted from a paper that shows that the animal welfare on mink farms is better than in most other types of animal farming. If the committee would like us to write to the convener with further details, we can do that. The other suggestion is to ask the minister and the committee to come and look at Mike Cobbledick's fur farm and judge how good the animal welfare is on that farm.
A fur farmer must produce good pelts. The way to produce good pelts is to keep the animal happy. If you have a dog or a cat you will know that, if its fur begins to deteriorate, that is a sign that there is something wrong with the animal and it is the same with mink. It is in the farmer's commercial interests to treat the animals well.
It has been stated that fur is a luxury. However, many things that we consume and aspire to consume are luxuries. Deer, pheasant and salmon are readily accepted but are also luxuries. It is like introducing a test for expensive makes of car and saying that it is immoral to buy a BMW or a Rolls-Royce but it is okay to buy a Ford or a Fiat.
Mark Glover raised a point about the UK market for fur garments and fur trim. The reason why the market has increased so much—albeit from a small base—is that fur is now being rechannelled through retail outlets whereas historically it was sold only in specialist fur shops. Now people can go to fashion boutiques to buy a scarf or pair of boots and find fur items available—fur trim as well as fur jackets and various other items made of fur. The market has undoubtedly increased and I have explained why that is.
We have shown that mink is being used for human consumption in China. It is quite legitimate to use China as an example. Mike Cobbledick attends fur auctions and knows where his products are being sold. Some 50 to 60 per cent of the world's fur is being bought for China. China and Hong Kong are major manufacturers of fur garments. The fur goes there to be made into garments, which then come back to Europe—to Italy, France, Spain and, to a lesser extent, the UK. In China, there are entrepreneurs who buy fur for themselves, for their wives or their girlfriends. It is a growing market.
In Russia and northern China, fur is a necessity as they are cold countries. Of course, fake fur can be used, but it probably does not have the same thermal properties and is not as efficient as fur. If fake fur is used, petrochemicals have to be used. People should beware of burning a fake-fur coat as the material is very toxic—please be careful.
Does that answer some of the questions?
It does, thank you.
Before I come to Jamie McGrigor, Mike Rumbles has a consequential question.
My question follows on from Fergus Ewing's question. I direct it to the minister because I assumed that the Executive's reasons for wanting to pass the bill were driven by the damage that mink escaping from fur farms in the past have done to our environment.
I was rather surprised when I read through the policy memorandum to the bill, which states:
"The Bill is grounded on a moral objection to the keeping of animals to exploit them solely or primarily for the value of their fur or for breeding progeny for such slaughter."
I was further surprised to hear the minister say several times that banning an activity is justified because there is no public benefit. We should be talking about banning an activity because there is public harm, not because there is no public benefit. That was a strange remark to make.
From what I have heard and what I have read, I am not sold on the so-called moral objection to fur farming. Correct me if I am wrong, minister, but the morality seems to be that it is okay to eat animals, but not to wear them. I find that logic odd. If that is the logic that the minister is expounding to us today, surely paragraph 4 of the policy memorandum is not worded sufficiently strongly. The Executive wants to ban fur farming in Scotland, but it does not want to ban fur imports.
We do not have to express every argument in terms of both the positive and the negative. If I am expressing the view that there is no public benefit, I could equally have said that I think that there is a public disbenefit from breeding animals for purely cosmetic purposes. One can play both sides of that tune.
We are concerned about the considerable damage that occurs when mink escape from farms, but it is difficult to codify an approach to that damage. We have to think through what codification can be expounded simply as our principal objection. People can take the view that they do not draw any distinction between the purposes for which animals are bred or they can have no view on that. That is part of what the debate is about. I think that there ought to be a good reason for breeding animals. There ought to be a public benefit justification. If there is not, then there is public disbenefit. We have not progressed the bill on any other grounds.
Mike Rumbles's latter question related to imports.
I do not understand the logic. If you feel that there is public harm in having fur farms, there must be public harm in importing fur.
We get into a difficult area in terms of our ability to ban a trade within the EU. We would have serious difficulties if we tried to do that. The moral position is that we would want to do it. However, in terms of the scope of the bill, our concern—if you support the view that that kind of exploitation is not justified in the public interest—is the potential exploitation of Scotland simply because of the obvious difference but lack of a barrier between Scotland and England. I accept that you would wish to go further but I do not think that it is competent so to do.
It was just my first point.
I understand the logic of that, Mike.
As somebody who was a candidate in the Western Isles, and a farmer and manager of fisheries on the west coast, I consider so-called wild mink or feral mink, all of which originally escaped from fur farms, to be a tremendous pest. Having said that, there is no reason why the mistakes of individuals in the past should be used to ban something. The mink eradication scheme Hebrides—MESH—is trying to eradicate mink from the Hebrides. I understand that the Hebrides would not come into the equation because the islands are outside the mink jurisdiction—fur farming is already banned in the islands. What guarantee could you give that things will be better in future regarding escapees? The mink has been very dangerous to ground-nesting bird colonies in Scotland.
I appreciate that this is a separate Parliament and, quite rightly, you want to make judgments in the Scottish context. However, I sometimes have to refer to a debate that took place in Westminster. Following the consultation exercise that he took as Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Elliot Morley said:
"The Government have now concluded that there is insufficient evidence to suggest that the existing arrangements for keeping mink significantly contribute to the problems caused by feral mink."—[Official Report, House of Commons, Ninth Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, 11 December 1997; Vol 5, c 3.]
Jamie McGrigor asked me specifically about the context of Scotland and the islands. I appreciate that there are valuable nesting birds on some of the islands. If fur farming were to be reintroduced to Scotland it would not take place on Lewis or any outlying islands. It is already illegal to farm fur on all Scottish islands except one—I do not remember which island, but it is not Lewis. The existing mink-keeping regulations stipulate strict conditions for keeping the mink fenced in. In England—the same would go for Scotland—the fences are regularly inspected once a year. There are penalties for a fur farmer who does not follow the law in that respect.
The area where we ask for more vigilance relates to break-ins at fur farms in the past by what we would call eco-terrorists. They have let the mink loose, but it is not done for animal welfare—it is of no animal welfare benefit for mink to be let loose. A domesticated mink cannot easily fend for itself in the wild because it has been domesticated for many more generations than was the case when mink were first released in Scotland. If mink are let loose, they are not done any favours, because they die pretty quickly. I hope that answers the specific point. We know about MESH—Mike Cobbledick has told me that he knows somebody who is a specialist in that area. He is prepared to write to Mr McGrigor with further advice if that is required.
Mr Glover, what do you think about people who break into mink farms and let the animals out?
Thank you for offering me the opportunity to respond on that point. I think that releasing mink from those farms into the countryside is a bad thing to do. It is regrettable that it has happened in the past few years. It is important to point out that no one has been arrested in connection with releasing the animals. I was talking to police in Hampshire yesterday in connection with a related matter and they told me that they are open-minded about who might have released the mink. The bottom line is that whoever has released the mink is a criminal and, from a campaigning point of view, their actions have held back progress on the issue. The motives behind any releases of mink have to be questioned.
When an attempt was made to open a mink farm in Orkney, a public inquiry was held. The final report of the inquiry said that the most likely causes of escape from the farm were storm damage, human error and failure to maintain the protective equipment. There are several examples of mink escaping after a storm has blown a tree on to a mink farm. Although it is convenient for the fur trade constantly to talk about animal liberationists and eco-terrorists, there are many factors involved in the release of mink into the environment.
In Denmark, there are 2,000 mink farms and, in Finland, there are many fox farms. Both those countries are pretty modern and politically correct. If a poll were conducted there, would we find that 75 to 76 per cent were in favour of a ban? Was your poll a UK poll? Why is the feeling different in progressive countries such as Denmark and Finland? Is there anywhere in Europe where fur farming has been banned?
The polls in the UK have been consistent for a number of years since the start of the campaigns to show the truth of what goes on in fur farms. The public in the UK are well-educated about the conditions in fur farms whereas, I fear, the public in Denmark and Finland are not. Animal welfare organisations in those countries are only starting to highlight the cruelty that exists in fur farms.
As for the situation elsewhere in Europe, I can say that the Northern Irish Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development, Brid Rodgers, will soon introduce a bill to ban fur farming in Northern Ireland, in line with the Westminster ban and, I hope, the Scottish Parliament bill. In Sweden, which is a major producer of fur and has 190 farms that breed around 1.5 million mink a year, a proposal to ban fur farms will be introduced to Parliament before the end of the year—
I am sorry to interrupt, Mr Glover, but you made those points in your opening statement, although Mr McGrigor did not hear them. I am not blaming you for repeating them. Members will see the figures if they read the Official Report.
I apologise, convener.
If I may add to what I said before, Austria has already effectively banned fur farming—it is banned in each of Austria's regions. Italy has introduced a measure that will effectively ban fur farming there. The initiative is not simply UK-based.
I do not want to start a tit-for-tat argument—
I would rather we did not.
Words such as cruel have been used. We have shown the status of animal welfare on mink farms, and we have tried to show that there is no real substance to the moral objection to fur farming. When committee members try to probe the real reason for the moral objection argument, we find that there is none. To say that fur farming is cruel is emotive; it is an expression of personal feelings. Fur animals reared on farms are said by scientists to have among the best welfare of any domesticated farm animals.
We have also heard that fur is, apparently, unnecessary. I have already dealt with the question of cold-weather climates, but the question of whether fur is unnecessary or not is a matter of personal opinion. It is not for Governments to intervene and say what is and is not necessary, and to ban what they deem not to be necessary. If there is harm done, that is a different matter.
When the English Government at Westminster introduced the fur farming ban, strong objections were voiced by four European Union member states, including France and Spain. Denmark also objected. It is not true that fur farming is banned in Austria. Representatives of the Austrian Government approached one fur farmer who, as far as I know, happened to be the only fur farmer in Austria. The Government offered to buy him out and bribed him. It gave him very big—or at least comparatively big—compensation. He took the money and moved his fur farm 9km away, over the border. He now has a thriving fur farm in the Czech Republic. What moral gain was there in that case?
I wish to quote Baroness Mallalieu, a Labour peer, who debated this matter in the House of Lords. Forgive me from quoting something that was said in Westminster. The baroness said:
"Ultimately, what is the moral difference between rearing an animal to eat it or to wear it? Mr Morley says that there is one, but to the animal there is none."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 19 July 2000; Vol 615, c 1138.]
This may not be much comfort to you, Mr Morgan, but I can assure you that, when it comes to definitions of cruelty to animals, this committee has experience like no other in the Parliament, as our next agenda item will show. However, I thank Mr Morgan for those comments.
You mentioned a case of a fur farmer moving across a border, Mr Morgan. Is there not a danger that, if fur farming is increasingly banned in western Europe, it may be pushed into areas where animal welfare may be almost non-existent, at least in comparison?
I acknowledge that point, but it is important that we have asked a Scottish parliamentary committee to consider all the positive reasons for fur farming. There are a lot of fur farms in other EU countries. There are moves afoot in certain political parties to try to ban fur farming, but it is not a fait accompli. Why should we deal with speculation? There is no country apart from England and Wales where fur farming has been banned. Certain political parties in certain countries may want to ban it, but that is pure speculation. We should consider what the justification for the bill is. I am repeating myself, but that is the point that I particularly wish to make.
I wish to return to the issue of animal welfare. What, in the opinions of Mr Glover and Mr Morgan, is the difference between the farming of a herbivorous herd animal that has been domesticated over centuries and selectively bred for the purpose and the farming of a wild carnivore that, in all probability, is not a pack animal and finds it difficult to live in an area where there is a high population density of the same species?
You have almost made the argument. Mink and foxes—particularly mink—are solitary animals. In the wild, they go to great lengths to avoid each other. They scent-mark and defend territories. They have evolved to be solitary. In a mink farm, they are crammed together in their thousands within sight, smell and sound of other mink. That is a stressful experience for them.
To confine an inquisitive, highly active animal such as a mink in a tiny, barren cage is, by definition, cruel. It is not like other forms of farming and mink are not like other forms of farm animals, as the results of their confinement show. The rapid, stereotypical pacing—which, when it is seen in a zoo, is distressing and is recognised as a measure of poor animal welfare and cruelty—is commonplace in fur farms. The sight of mink mutilating themselves and foxes eating their own cubs indicates that there is a real problem that cannot be overcome simply by increasing cage sizes or through the other trivial kinds of measures that are discussed by the fur trade. There is an inherent, severe problem.
Mink are almost completely domesticated animals. It would not be legal to farm them if they were wild animals. Mink in the wild live on their own to protect their food source, but we are talking about animals that have been bred on farms over many generations and are used to farm conditions. The reverse applies. When mink are let loose from a farm, few of them can survive. Increasingly, they cannot even find their own food. It is wrong to portray them as wild animals.
I feel that we have not had an explanation of the huge conflict between the evidence that we have received from Mr Glover and Mr Morgan. Perhaps that is because Mr Morgan is representing the trade—he is not a farmer representing farmers—and is therefore not in a position to tell us exactly what goes on at farms. Mr Morgan can correct me if I am wrong.
For me, the key issue is whether, as Mr Glover states, the mink are kept in small cages and suffer from the repetitive behaviour that we have heard about or whether Mr Glover is misleading us and exaggerating. Do you accept that part of his evidence, Mr Morgan? What is your view on his suggestion that there is widespread cannibalism among foxes that are farmed? I would not oppose the bill if I felt that Mr Glover's evidence was correct.
There seems to be a huge gulf between the two sets of evidence, and I would like to hear what the farmers have to say in response to Mr Glover's allegations, which are serious and have been described graphically. Can you help us in that respect, Mr Morgan?
Yes, of course I can. It matters what members of the Rural Development Committee think, but it does not matter what Mark Glover thinks. It is what scientists think that is important. The Council of Europe has a process for producing recommendations—guidelines—for all sorts of agricultural activities. Mink farming and other types of farming come under the remit of the Council of Europe. The Council of Europe discusses with scientists and others the type of housing that mink need, the type of food that they need and all that sort of thing. It is quite right for members of the public to question mink farming, but surely the ultimate judgment must be based on science, not on emotion.
We have heard the word cruel used more than once. Cruel is an emotive, personal expression of feelings; it does not mean anything very much. If the Council of Europe has certain recommendations on fur farming, and provided that those are followed by the farmers, that is fine. The cages are well-ventilated and there is no problem of cruelty. We can write to you further on that subject if that is what you wish. It seems to me that, if the Council of Europe says that fur farming is correct as long as it follows the guidelines, that is fine.
The minister said earlier that the activity of mink and other types of fur farming produced no public benefit. The Parliament is therefore being asked to ban it. When I pressed him, he talked not about benefit but about disbenefit. I want to press the minister on that point, as it is important. Does the minister believe that fur farming causes harm and that it should be banned? I take the view that we should be in the business of banning things only if they are thought to be harmful. I would appreciate the minister using that terminology in his response.
We are talking not solely about mink farming, but about fur farming. We are concentrating on mink largely for the reason that was raised by Jamie McGrigor, which is that mink are a destructive species. As was pointed out, other environmental considerations have to be taken into account. In Scotland, we have some control over that. The range of species, all of which are not natural, that live in Scotland include mink, fox, racoon and sable—it is not appropriate to farm them.
I cannot answer Fergus Ewing's question because, in so far as we have not had such a farm in Scotland, the only regulations that we have are the Mink (Keeping) Regulations 1975. The regulations specify the nature of the cages and enclosures in which the mink are kept, including the height of and the materials used for the cages. I am unable to reply, save only to say that fur farming is a caged regime. I do not know if that helps, but that is where we are. Given the current state of animal welfare, the regulations are quite old and we may have to look at them.
I can only say to Mr Rumbles that our position is that there is no advantage in promoting actively the fur farming of those species. That applies in particular to the destructive mink, because we do not have farms from which there is no risk of escape. As was alluded to earlier, there are regulations to prevent escape in areas where it is dangerous to the environment. In the Western Isles, because of previous incidences, it is clear that that is the case. In the round, I do not see the argument for promoting fur farming in Scotland.
On that note, we will draw the session to a close. I am grateful to all the witnesses for giving their time this afternoon. For the witnesses' information, we take the written and oral evidence and draw up a stage 1 report based on the general principles of the bill. I hope that members are content to look at a draft of that report next week. Are we agreed?
Members indicated agreement.
I repeat my thanks to the witnesses. Mr Morgan, in particular, has come a long way and we are grateful to him for doing so. I also thank Mr Glover and the minister for attending today.
We will now take a five-minute break.
Meeting adjourned.
On resuming—
I thank members for coming back so promptly.