Plenary, 30 Jan 2002

Meeting date: Wednesday, January 30, 2002

Official Report 374KB pdf

---

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

As there are no Parliamentary Bureau motions today, we will proceed to the next item of business, which is a debate on motion S1M-2353, in the name of Ross Finnie, on the general principles of the Fur Farming (Prohibition) (Scotland) Bill. I invite members who would like to take part in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons so that we can work out a speaking order. I call on Ross Finnie to speak to and move the motion.

One of the Deputy Presiding Officers told me that I would have to speak slowly if the time for the debate is to be taken up. However, on entering the chamber, I was encouraged to hear that the turnstiles had been closed an hour before. The security guard said that fur would not be flying this afternoon.

The business before us is a debate on the Fur Farming (Prohibition) (Scotland) Bill. The proposed legislation is designed to ban the keeping of animals solely or primarily for the commercial value of their fur. Most members will be aware that there are no fur farms in Scotland—the last closed in 1993. That is true in respect of mink, as mink fur farms can operate only under licence. Animals such as arctic fox, racoon and dog may be farmed for their fur, but since the announcement on 3 December 1999 that we intended to introduce a bill to ban fur farming in Scotland we have received no representations to indicate that any fur farms exist.

The fur farming industry in this country began in the late 1920s. Until controls were introduced in 1962, the industry was dogged by escapes from its farms. Mink have bred in the wild and, despite public expenditure and concerted efforts by the Scottish agriculture department during the 1960s, it was recognised that mink had become too well established and widespread to continue with an eradication programme. Escaped mink brought environmental damage to indigenous wildlife and damage to stock and to breeding birds.

The Executive's justification for introducing the bill rests on public morality grounds. I continue to believe in those arguments. Keeping an animal for no justifiable public benefit ought to concern the public. At the Rural Development Committee, I pointed out the stark contrast between doing that and breeding animals that provide food for the food chain.

I am grateful to the minister for giving way. I am interested in his argument concerning public morality. Of course, he is not so naive as to think that all cattle provide leather. In this country, much leather is provided from calves that are not bred for food, but are on farms to be used for leather. According to the minister's line of argument, he should be moving to banning those.

Not quite. Of course, I have not finished my line of argument—I was giving the principal reason for introducing the bill.

I listened with great care to what the Rural Development Committee debated and reported at stage 1 of the bill. I have not moved my ground on the moral argument, but I have taken cognisance of what has been sensibly proposed by the committee, which I proposed without the same emphasis. On animal welfare, the committee thought, in respect of the important conflict between the keeping of animals for fur farming and animal welfare problems, that fur farming,

"by definition and in certain specific practices, does involve unnecessary suffering for the animals."

That is a cogent argument. The committee went on to talk about the environmental impact of escaped fur farm animals. Again the committee accepted that the environmental impact problems extend beyond non-native species and again supported primary legislation for those reasons.

For those three principal reasons, I come before the Parliament to introduce the bill. We had fairly extensive consultation before reaching this stage and 86 organisations were approached, although the consultation elicited a fairly low level of response. Only two groups representing the fur trade objected to the proposals. Some of the views expressed in support of banning fur farming went beyond the principle of a ban. They raised issues that are mentioned in the committee's report.

I have indicated that the purpose of the bill is to ban the keeping of animals solely or primarily for the commercial value of their fur. Provisions included in the bill that follow on from that purpose cover the making and implementation of forfeiture orders if someone is convicted of an offence. Such orders will allow animals to be removed and destroyed. There is an entry and enforcement power, to allow authorised personnel to enter premises if it is suspected that an offence has been committed. A similar power is included to enable a forfeiture order to be carried out.

Finally, the bill provides for the establishment of a compensation scheme and for disputes over entitlement to compensation or the amount of compensation to be considered by the Lands Tribunal. Whether compensation regulations are made will depend on whether claims are submitted to the Executive. I stress—as I did in my opening remarks—that the Executive is unaware of any existing businesses that the bill would affect. The measure is an enabling measure, and we are required to put in place the necessary powers for a compensation scheme to comply with the European convention on human rights.

I thank the minister for giving way. I am interested in the minister's earlier comments on environmental effects and, in particular, the fact that various Governments have given up on the eradication programme for mink. Mink are still a nuisance in the country. Will the minister advise me as to what practices are used to hunt and kill mink?

Jamie McGrigor might be in a better position to explain that than I am. He seems to have suffered from that damage more than anyone else in the chamber.

I am not aware of what practices are employed to eradicate mink. I know that mink cause and have wrought considerable environmental damage, not being a native species. It is a matter of regret that we were unable to contain the expansion of mink, particularly in the north-west of the country.

I remind members that a ban on fur farming will take effect in England and Wales no later than 2003. Therefore, if we are persuaded by the argument and fail to introduce a bill outlawing fur farming in this session, there is the prospect that a fur farming industry in Scotland will be resurrected by default. That would be regrettable.

I refer to the point about the damage being done by mink. There is an eradication programme in the Western Isles, which would greatly benefit from the use of hounds. It has been shown in Iceland that that is the only way in which to eradicate mink. Iceland has dealt with the problem in that way.

Nonsense.

In case members did not hear that sedentary intervention, Mr Morrison said that that was nonsense.

I know that we are not short of time, but I do not think that even the Presiding Officer would wish us to enter into a debate that is yet to come. I know that there is a sense of anticipation of that debate—there will be an opportunity to discuss that matter further.

It would be perverse for us to pay compensation to fur farming businesses in one part of our territory only to allow them to relocate and start afresh elsewhere in the United Kingdom, and that could happen.

For those reasons, the bill is short and it is necessary. We advance three grounds for the bill: public morality, the particular issue of animal welfare and the environmental impact on other species. I commend the bill to the Parliament.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Fur Farming (Prohibition) (Scotland) Bill.

I welcome the bill and I support its general principles. Many of us think that we should stop there. The bill has taken up more than its fair share of parliamentary time. The bill deals with a hypothetical situation—

Is the member saying that he does not want to have a debate in which he will hear other issues and other views? Is there one view only on the matter?

The issue is the use of parliamentary time. We need to ensure that we match parliamentary time with the priorities of the people of Scotland. A question mark hangs over the length of the debate; I will move on to talk about that in a second.

This morning, the minister spent two hours giving evidence to the Justice 2 Committee on the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill. I am sure that he would rather concentrate on more important issues in the one and a half hours that are available for the debate which, as I said earlier, is on a hypothetical issue. If that were the case, many members would share his sentiments.

The people of Scotland did not wait 300 years for the establishment of the Scottish Parliament in order to pass legislation to ban things that do not exist. If the minister was stuck for ideas, he could have used today's legislative time to introduce a ban on tobacco advertising or, from his own portfolio, he could have introduced legislation to give tenant farmers the right to buy, as was discussed at the Justice 2 Committee meeting this morning. He could also have introduced legislation—for which it appears he does not have time—to do more to tackle wildlife crime in Scotland.

Is Richard Lochhead saying that he is content to have fur farming banned in England, but not in Scotland? If so, the SNP's position is perverse. Richard Lochhead pretends to support the principles of the bill, but that is political rhetoric. The reverse is true—he is content for the bill not to come before the Scottish Parliament and he wishes fur farming to be resurrected in Scotland.

The minister misses the point. The SNP is trying to convey that the people of Scotland have many pressing issues and they want them dealt with by the Scottish Parliament. We do not question the sentiments behind the legislation—as I have indicated, the SNP supports the bill—but we question the use of parliamentary resources and the time that has been allocated to the subject.

Will the member give way?

Will the member give way?

I will take a last intervention from Mike Rumbles.

Is the SNP saying that it would prefer a Sewel motion?

Of course the SNP is not saying that. The time that has been allocated to the bill could have been used to debate many other issues. We did not need to have one and a half hours devoted to a bill that the people of Scotland do not think is a priority. Perhaps, for once in his life, Mike Rumbles could pay attention to the priorities of the people of Scotland.

As the minister indicated, there were only 22 responses to the 86 letters that were sent out in the consultation period. That indicates a low level of interest in the bill.

Few people would argue with the Scottish Executive's stated moral objection, which is, and I quote from the Rural Development Committee's report,

"to the breeding of animals solely or primarily for slaughter for the value of their fur."

Many decent people share that moral objection. That is why the SNP, when faced with the bill, supports it and its general principles.

During the Rural Development Committee's deliberations, I was surprised to discover that the Executive, although it introduced the bill, does not know whether there are any fur farms in Scotland at the moment. That seems a bizarre state of affairs. Surely, good legislation should be based on good, accurate information.

Scotland has a widespread and varied agricultural industry. Many farmers rear animals for food. That purpose has a clear public benefit. The SNP shares the opposition to rearing animals simply for their fur to be enjoyed by a few people. That is especially the case when cruelty is involved, and that is the case with the way that mink and other animals are treated. I will quote again from the Rural Development Committee's stage 1 report:

"Respect for Animals, the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and others argued that fur farmed animals were essentially wild species, and not subject to the many generations of domestication of other livestock species. "

The Rural Development Committee's report goes on to say that those groups presented evidence

"to indicate that confining mink and other fur animals in a caged farming regime was cruel by definition, and resulted in distressed and self-injurious behaviour."

Fur farming is cruel and the SNP is happy to see that it does not happen in Scotland.

Another issue that was brought to the committee's attention was that of escaped fur farm animals. That has caused enormous difficulty in some parts of the country. In its submission to the Rural Development Committee, which is included in the report, Scottish Natural Heritage says that it supports legislation to

"prevent the establishment of further mink fur farms in Scotland. Feral mink present a very significant threat to ground nesting birds where the former are present and are also strongly implicated in the severe decline of the native water vole. In addition, introduced species generally are one of the most serious threats to biodiversity and the commercial keeping of any non-native animals for commercial fur production greatly increases the risk of both accidental and deliberate releases into the wild."

Will the member give way?

No, I would like to finish my speech.

The SNP supports this legislation for many reasons but, given the other pressing matters that the Scottish Parliament has to address, we question the Executive's priorities. We do not think that the agenda of this Parliament should be dictated by what happens in London. We question the time and resources that have been devoted to it, but we are happy to agree to the general principles of the bill, given that it has been laid before us.

Some months ago, I received an elaborate and expensively produced form from the Inland Revenue. Having got over the slight palpitations that such forms inevitably produce, I was reduced to a state of sheer incredulity when I discovered that it was a demand—complete with a tear-off slip that was to be returned, I was informed, without the aid of paper clips or other enclosures—for a cheque for the princely sum of £0.00.

I cannot think of a much better example of over-elaborate Government machinery being swung into action to achieve an end result of absolutely nothing. Today's debate on the Fur Farming (Prohibition) (Scotland) Bill is another fine example of that. A full Government bill, with all the weight of a parliamentary committee report behind it, has been introduced to ban an activity that does not even exist in Scotland. As the minister pointed out, there have been no fur farms in Scotland since 1993.

Does the member agree that one of the reasons for passing the bill is to close a loophole that might allow the activity to take place in Scotland in the future?

I welcome the fact that Elaine Smith has been restored to full health—we have not seen her in the chamber for some time.

I totally understand the reasons why the bill was introduced and I will deal with them presently.

There are two reasons why there have been no fur farms in Scotland since 1993: first, the economic circumstances for their successful continuation did not exist; and, secondly, public opinion—reinforced rather too often by illegal action—was firmly against them. The Conservatives would prefer that to remain the case and believe that market and social forces should be the factors that govern whether fur farms exist.

We are not entirely persuaded by the Executive's arguments that the legislation is necessary. The matter would have been more simply dealt with by means of a Sewel motion, which would have been entirely acceptable in this instance and would have allowed us to debate something more meaningful today.

Hear, hear.

I am delighted to hear the minister agreeing with that.

We are not persuaded that the arguments on welfare or moral grounds stack up in any overwhelming way. It is generally accepted by anyone other than the most prejudiced that if animals are not cared for in a welfare-friendly way, they will not produce the required product. That is every bit as true for animals farmed for their fur as it is for animals farmed for meat, wool or milk—there is no distinction. I suspect that even the Scottish Executive would agree with that. Therefore, the argument becomes a moral one. It seems to me that the Executive is indulging in cherry picking. It appears to be saying, "Okay, even though there is no fur farming, we'll ban it because we don't like it, but we're quite happy for other countries, even EU countries, to carry on with what we believe to be a morally outrageous practice." I have genuine difficulty in accepting the justification for a ban on moral grounds and find myself agreeing—not for the first time—with the Labour peer, Baroness Mallalieu, who 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.]

I cannot accept a welfare need for the bill and I have difficulty accepting a moral need for it. It is surely worth noting that, in Denmark—a country that I understand to be perfectly moral and welfare-friendly—fur is the third largest agricultural export and provides considerable rural employment. European fur farms provide a market for 365,000 tonnes of fish by-product, much of which comes from Scotland.

As always, I like to give the Scottish Executive credit where it is due and I compliment it warmly on its generous agreement to compensate the non-existent Scottish fur farmers for the loss of their non-existent businesses. What magnanimity the Executive is able to show when the bill that it will receive for compensation will be exactly the same as my recent income tax demand—absolutely nothing.

That is in sad contrast to the mean-minded decision of the Executive to oppose an amendment to the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill that would have compensated those who will lose their jobs and houses as a direct result of that bill's being passed. What is the difference? It is simple: no one in rural Scotland will be directly affected by banning non-existent fur farms; many in rural Scotland will be affected by the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill. Real people will lose their income and accommodation, but they, apparently, neither need nor deserve compensation.

The Fur Farming (Prohibition) (Scotland) Bill is a typically unnecessary piece of banning legislation. "If we don't like it, we'll ban it," seems to be the motto of the Executive. The Conservative party does not think that the Executive has presented its case for the bill with any degree of conviction.

Had even one fur farm still been operating in Scotland, the Conservatives would have opposed the bill, but the truth is that there is no such fur farm. Therefore, I will abstain at this stage of the bill's consideration and will neither oppose nor support the bill, because I consider it to be unnecessary on welfare and moral grounds and because the result of the bill could and should have been achieved by a Sewel motion.

Mr Monteith's and Ms Boyack's names are on the screen. Is that because you wanted to intervene or because you want to speak in the debate?

I am not speaking.

It is because I attempted to intervene.

That is helpful. I am afraid that the screens do not distinguish between the two.

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate. Although I would have been happy for the matter to be dealt with by a Sewel motion, it is still important and should be given time in the Parliament.

The bill should not be contentious because, as we have heard, there are no fur farms in Scotland, but we need the bill and we need to debate it, because it will close a loophole. England and Wales are banning fur farming. Fur farms exist there and the bill will prevent them from relocating to Scotland.

As a member of the Labour party, I support the bill also because it deals with a problem that may arise, not something that we are already in the middle of. I congratulate the Executive on taking steps to ensure that a problem is dealt with before it happens.

The Rural Development Committee examined the bill during our deliberations on the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill. In retrospect, that was quite an achievement, because the committee's work load was extremely heavy. In spite of that, the report that we produced on the Fur Farming (Prohibition) (Scotland) Bill examined all the issues. I pay tribute to the clerks for the work that they carried out on the report while they had another heavy work load.

I will comment on a number of issues. First, I will comment on the moral justification for the bill. There was considerable debate about the Executive's objection to the principle of breeding animals for their subsequent slaughter for the value of their fur, which is essentially a fashion accessory. I and other members do not believe that those who support fur farming provided sufficient evidence for it achieving any public benefit. The Executive is right to make a moral differentiation between rearing animals for food and rearing them for fashion. Leather and sheepskin are by-products of the farming industry.

On the point about food, mink are in fact eaten by human beings in China and they also provide an enormous amount of food for the fish farming industry.

We have heard comments from around the chamber that dogs, too, are eaten in China, but I will not ask the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body to ensure that dogs are on the Parliament restaurant's menu.

Leather and sheepskin are by-products of the farming industry. Once the animals have been slaughtered for their meat, it is right to use those by-products.

The Rural Development Committee's report makes it clear that there is more than a moral argument for banning fur farming. That argument should not be the sole justification for the bill, but should go hand in hand with other concerns, such as welfare.

The committee, again, received conflicting evidence on the welfare issue. The report makes it clear that those who are involved in the activity are subject to a regulatory framework, but that does not address concerns about the nature of the activity and the methods of slaughter. Committee members received submissions on commonly used slaughter methods and those appeared to be cruel and difficult to justify for the sake of fashion.

In its written submission, the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals said about mink:

"In the wild they are solitary, tend to travel long distances and use several den sites, and swim and dive regularly. Farm mink, on the other hand, are kept in small cages, cannot cover territory and cannot have access to water."

The European Council directive 98/58/EC concerning the protection of animals kept for farming purposes points out that animals kept for farming should have the freedom to express normal behaviour, adequate space and facilities and company of the animals' own kind. For that reason the welfare issues are extremely important.

Thirdly, I want to touch on the environmental issues. We are all aware of the damage that escaped mink can cause in the local environment to such creatures as ground-nesting birds and other creatures that live side by side with them. A lot of money has been invested in mink eradication programmes, which cost the taxpayer. We must ensure that, by outlawing fur farming in Scotland, those problems do not occur.

Scotland does not currently have fur farms, but I believe that the Executive is right to introduce the bill. If we do not pass the bill, we will create a loophole.

Can the member tell me how many representations the committee had, during its investigation, from potential fur farmers who would take advantage of the loophole?

We had few representations from fur farmers who stated that they wished to use the loophole to move their businesses north, but it would be difficult for them to say that they planned to move their businesses north when a ban was implemented in England and Wales, because they would accept compensation from the taxpayer, which they would then use to move their businesses to another part of the UK. It would be out of order for taxpayers in Scotland to pay compensation to people so that they could then move their businesses to Scotland.

We must close the loophole and ensure that the harmful practice of fur farming does not come to Scotland. Scotland can be proud of its commitment to welfare in farming—which the Rural Development Committee is aware of. The welfare commitment of farmers in our country is above and beyond that in other countries. To allow fur farming would damage that image. I am pleased that the Fur Farming (Prohibition) (Scotland) Bill is going through Parliament.

As a Liberal, I firmly believe that Parliament should not ban anything unless it is demonstrated clearly that the activity that we propose to ban is harmful. It was strange to hear the minister and Rhoda Grant talk about there being no public benefit in fur farming. It is strange that we should consider banning something because there is no public benefit in it, rather than consider banning it because it is harmful. I think that their argument is a big mistake.

I have no truck whatever with the Executive's so-called moral reasons for banning fur farming. If we are banning fur farming for moral reasons, we should ban the importation of fur. That is quite clear. We are not proposing to do that, so I can conclude only that the Executive's position is flawed and illogical.

The Executive's policy memorandum 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."

The first sentence of the Rural Development Committee report's conclusion reads:

"The Committee concludes that the Executive has not adequately justified the introduction of the Bill on moral grounds alone, and considers that a moral objection is, in itself, a weak basis for the Bill."

Therefore, I was pleased that the Minister for Environment and Rural Development outlined two other objections to fur farming.

I will support the bill on the straightforward ground that the evidence given to the Rural Development Committee made it clear that escaped animals cause great damage to the environment. It is on that ground alone that I will support the bill.

I will turn to the Executive's position on compensation for those whom the bill would affect. The Executive is not aware of any fur farms in Scotland but, to comply with the European convention on human rights, it is making provision for compensation. Indeed, the whole of section 5 is devoted to "Compensation for affected businesses". That is another example of completely baffling logic on the part of the Scottish Executive. The Executive opposed my amendments on compensation at stage 2 of the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill—the minister who was present at the Rural Development Committee meeting to which I refer is here now. Why did it oppose them? On the ground that compensation would cost money.

Have I got this right? I hope that the minister will correct me if I am wrong. In the Fur Farming (Prohibition) (Scotland) Bill, the Executive supports compensation for ECHR reasons when there is nobody to compensate, but it opposes compensation in relation to the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill, because it will cost money. Is the Executive saying that the ECHR applies to the former bill but not to the latter? That is simply an untenable position for the Executive to take. I would be most appreciative if, when winding up, the minister could draw a distinction between the two bills to explain that anomaly. I would be keen to find out the Executive's thinking, because I cannot fathom it out.

I hope that the minister is noting this: I would be happy to withdraw my stage 3 amendment to the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill on compensation if the Executive is able to come up with an alternative scheme, just like the one set out in the bill that is before us. I await the Executive's response with interest.

Sadly, this contribution will be short, because I am aware that the Presiding Officer seeks to allow as many members as possible to speak in the debate.

There are limits.

That aside, the issues surrounding the bill are complex and have already been developed to some extent by members. Some might suggest that I have developed a reputation in the Parliament in relation to small, furry animals, but I assure them that that is not the motivation for raising these subjects again. The concern is that the decision to introduce the bill has been made on what are, essentially, moral grounds. We must question whether those grounds are appropriate or adequate to lead us to proceed with the bill.

Welfare has been raised time and again and concern for the welfare of animals that are farmed for whatever purpose is entirely appropriate. However, if we were genuinely dealing with a welfare issue, welfare legislation would have been the correct approach. There is already a raft of welfare legislation, including the Mink Keeping Order 1997, the Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) Regulations 1995, the European Convention for the Protection of Animals kept for Farming Purposes, as amended in 1991, and the European Union directive on farm animal welfare. Those are all designed to ensure that mink—and any other animals—do not suffer cruelty.

We have been presented with the moral argument for supporting the bill, yet I suspect that the reason for the moral argument being pushed is simply that those who believe that fur farming should be banned are unwilling or unable to develop a constructive argument—on other, more secure grounds—in support of the bill.

The current tendency on the part of the Executive to move to ban things of which it disapproves is becoming increasingly obvious. It is something of an irony that we have arrived at a situation in which those who are currently in power seek to ban what they do not like, and do so on dubious grounds.

Conservative members have to represent the liberal views of the majority—

Will the member give way?

I am afraid that I am about to close.

I am relaxed about allowing an intervention.

I am on the verge of closing, but I will take an intervention from Sarah Boyack.

Is the member aware that in other European countries, such as Austria, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden and England, there are restrictions on fur farming? The issue is being discussed not only in Scotland, but across Europe.

We seem to be working on slightly different levels.

Different planets.

I am concerned that if we make decisions based on a strictly moral judgment, that morality will either be applied in other situations or be adjusted to apply to other situations in ways that could be damaging to the economy of Scotland. By accepting the notion that the bill is proposed largely or exclusively on moral grounds, we lay ourselves open, in the longer term, to further attacks on perfectly legitimate activities. That is why we are putting down a marker today that we are concerned about the judgment that lies behind the bill.

Will the member take an intervention?

Will the member give way?

I will take an intervention from Alasdair Morgan.

I am conscious that the member is in his last hour. [Laughter.] He talked about how liberal his attitudes are compared with those of the rest of us. Will we see those liberal attitudes again when we discuss the land access provisions of the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill?

We will have a serious and constructive debate on that subject when the opportunity arises and I will be happy, when required, to have that debate in another forum. Today we are talking about why the Fur Farming (Prohibition) (Scotland) Bill is said to be necessary.

I agree with Alex Johnstone's criticisms of the so-called moral basis on which the Executive has introduced the bill. However, in its report the Rural Development Committee stated:

"the Committee accepted that the environmental impact problems extend beyond non-native species, and therefore supports primary legislation for a total prohibition."

Does Alex Johnstone accept that escapees from fur farms would cause real damage if such farms were to become established in Scotland, and that we should ban fur farming for environmental reasons?

I am happy to accept the passage that the member has just cited as part of the report of the Rural Development Committee.

We agree with much that has been said in the debate, by members from more than one party. However, in the motives that lie behind the bill we see elements that, in the longer term, could endanger activity in rural Scotland that is currently perfectly legitimate. My main concern is that we risk setting a precedent for the future.

I call John Farquhar Munro, who has 13 minutes.

I thought that I should keep my speech brief, in the interests of more important debates later in the afternoon.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Might it be possible to ask Mr Munro to speak in Gaelic and then to provide us with a translation of what he said, so that he takes up the time that has been allotted to him?

That is possible, but we request a certain amount of prior notice so that we can make arrangements for simultaneous interpretation.

As members have said, we are not aware of the existence of a fur farming industry in Scotland and there is no need to start one now. Fur has no use other than to satisfy the needs of a very small market in the fashion industry. That is the only purpose of producing fur from mink. It is not as if mink are reared as a source of food, as one of our Tory colleagues said. He compared the situation with that regarding leather, which we take from the hide of cattle that are produced as a source of food for the population. It is an appropriate distinction to draw. One of the largest mink farms in Scotland was located in Appin. I would have thought that if the market had been sustainable and viable, the farm would have continued in existence.

If the bill is passed, there will be no fur farming industry in Scotland in future. That does not mean that Scotland has not already suffered from the escape of mink, about which we have heard many stories. Throughout the country, and in the Western Isles and on the west coast in particular, indigenous wildlife, nesting birds, fish and otters have been affected by mink. Mink directly compete with otters for food and habitat.

I welcome the moves that are being taken in the Western Isles to eradicate the problem, which has been mentioned. A significant cost—in excess of £300,000 a year—is involved in the project to eradicate mink from the Uists, Benbecula and South Harris. I draw attention to that point to demonstrate the significant future costs of attempting to control the problem of the proliferation of escaped mink in those areas. I understand that the campaign to eradicate the mink and to control the problem continues and that the Scottish Executive has allocated to it around £1.65 million over five years.

During the debate and elsewhere we have heard the different reasons why it is believed that fur farming should be prohibited in Scotland. Most members agree that it would make little sense to permit fur farming in Scotland, either now or in the future. We would only set ourselves up for the inevitability of more escapes or worse. For example, in the past few years there have been incidents in England of mink being released deliberately. Although I do not think that there have been deliberate releases of mink in Scotland, some smaller farms have abandoned their fur farming projects, which has allowed mink to escape into the wild.

If we pass the bill, we will not prevent those who want to purchase fur from doing so. The fur trade will continue, but that is a matter of personal choice. Nevertheless, if we pass the bill, we will make a statement about our attitude to fur farming and about where Scotland is and where we want to be. That is why I am prepared to support the general principles of the bill.

Let us consider the context of today's debate. The NHS is on the brink, transport is in chaos and farming is in crisis, yet today we are debating a bill to ban something else—this time, fur farming. The bill comes courtesy of the SNP, which decided not to support a Sewel motion on the subject and so to take up important parliamentary time. We now know where the SNP's priorities lie—banning fur farming is the No 1 priority, while independence for Scotland is priority No 13 or No 14 in the party's manifesto. The electorate will get a pretty good idea of where the SNP stands from that.

I strongly disagree with a number of the points about the moral argument that were made in the Rural Development Committee's report. Mike Rumbles articulated his objections well, but it is interesting to note that the bill was introduced by a Liberal Democrat minister. Ross Finnie has decided that fur farming is morally wrong but that using the skins of animals is not. Not only the fur but the skin is removed. My father worked in the shoe industry for 23 years and anyone who thinks that shoes, belts, boots and other leather goods are produced only from the hide of cattle that are culled for consumption is more than naive.

Many animals, in this country and abroad, are killed for their skins. If the minister wants to maintain that argument, I expect him to arrive next week wearing nothing made from animal products. He should bear in mind the need to be consistent. If he holds that moral belief, what representations did he make to Europe about the many European countries that continue to allow fur farming?

If we need to discuss a bill on animal welfare, why are we not discussing one that tightens up the welfare of all farmed animals and pets? The reason is that it is easier to ban.

On the environmental impact of the bill, banning fur farming will not do much to curb the current levels of mink. In fact, the reason why we have so many mink is that they were let out by the Animal Liberation Front. Let us remember that so many mink are out and about in the country because of the misguided people who, in the cause of animal welfare, decided that the mink would be better off in our environment. That is an important point.

There is no purpose whatever in introducing such a bill in Scotland. The welfare issue has not been proved. There is no threat of swarms of people coming up to open fur farms in Scotland. As was rightly pointed out, public opinion is such that few people want to wear fur. Artificial substitutes have decimated the market, which means that fur farming is not particularly economically viable. From what I can tell, nobody wrote to the Rural Development Committee to say that they would take advantage of the loophole.

We have a bill to close a loophole because of a threat that does not exist. The Parliament is now more content to ban things than it is to get on and discuss the problems in the health service and in education that are important to the electorate.

The bill shows where the Parliament's priorities seem to be and that is a great disappointment. I shall not back the bill.

It is clear that most members in the chamber, along with more than 70 per cent of the Scottish electorate, want a ban on fur farming in this country. Most of the evidence that the Rural Development Committee received supported the prohibition of fur farming.

I am interested in the member's sudden idea that the people should have what they want. If the member were in Westminster, would she support the return of hanging for capital offences?

As usual, the Tories try to muddy the waters. Today, we are talking about fur farming. Polls consistently show that 76 per cent of the population say that they want a ban on fur farming.

As far as we can tell, there does not seem to be any fur farming activity in Scotland. That is a fair point to make. However, there are three main reasons why the bill is important—it is not only the moral argument. First, the bill closes the loophole in the UK's overall position on fur farming. Secondly, the bill helps to safeguard the environment. Thirdly, the bill is grounded in the moral objection against the raising and killing of animals to meet the fickle needs of fashion and garment industries.

In England and Wales, the Labour party's manifesto commitment to end fur farming has been met by the passage through both Houses of Parliament of the required legislation which, I believe, takes effect from 1 January 2003. As has been explained, we know of no fur farms in Scotland, but those who are engaged in the activity south of the border must be tempted to consider moving to Scotland to continue their activities. The bill will prevent that from happening and will bring us into line not only with legislation in England and Wales but with similar legislation in Germany, Austria, the Netherlands and Sweden.

Let me return to the point that Ben Wallace made to Rhoda Grant. During our committee deliberations, I asked Robert Morgan of the British Fur Trade Association about the impact that a ban would have on his members. He said:

"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."—[Official Report, Rural Development Committee, 27 November 2001; c 2472.]

That answers Ben Wallace's question.

Environmental aspects are addressed by the proposed prohibition. In the Western Isles, escaped mink have caused havoc among the local fauna and extreme efforts have been made to exterminate them. In the south of England, where misguided animal liberation activists have intentionally and illegally freed captive mink, the predators have decimated local wildlife. I do not condone that activity but, if the farms from which the mink were freed were not there, the mink would not be roaming about.

I will quote from SNH:

"As introduced species are one of the most serious threats to biodiversity worldwide, SNH could not endorse the keeping of large concentrations of such non-native species for commercial purposes."

RSPB Scotland says:

"In the experience of RSPB Scotland, mink have regularly escaped from fur farms in the past, and have then become a considerable problem once in the wild, where they predate on biodiversity which has not evolved to deal with this alien predator. In the light of this experience, RSPB Scotland welcomes measures to prohibit the keeping of mink at fur farms in Scotland."

Finally, I turn to the moral ground. Animals farmed for their fur are seldom raised in the lap of luxury. They are kept confined in small cages. According to the SSPCA, it is unlikely that, over the 80 years during which mink have been farmed, they have adapted to the restrictions on their normal, far-ranging natural lifestyle. The same can be said of foxes.

The SSPCA says:

"In evidence to the Rural Development Committee, the British Fur Trade Association suggested that good physical condition (or at least sufficiently good condition to produce a saleable pelt) was an indicator of good welfare. However, many animals are productive despite living in farm conditions that are inimical to their welfare, battery hens being a prime example."

Their confinement has been observed to produce many cases of self-mutilation and killing of young. The slaughter of animals, which is usually by gas or electrocution, is done in such a way as frequently to cause unnecessary distress.

I could again quote the SSPCA. No, I could not, Presiding Officer, because I seem to have lost that particular quotation. I am trying to pad this out a bit and I have notes all over the place. I apologise for that. However, the SSPCA describes the way that animals are killed so that the pelts are saleable.

We are not talking about the raising and slaughtering of food animals, where the benefits outweigh the problem of the need to kill. Primarily, fur farming provides the raw materials, literally, for the fashion and garment industries. At the Rural Development Committee, pictures of minced mink on a plate were passed round, to make the point that it might become part of our staple diet. However, at the committee, I asked Mark Glover:

"How do you feel about the suggestion that was made earlier about eating mink? Will that happen in Britain?"

His answer was:

"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."—[Official Report, Rural Development Committee, 27 November 2001; c 2470-71.]

I really do not think that it will catch on in Britain.

No one will lose financially because of the bill. A compensation clause will not be needed as the industry does not exist in Scotland at the moment. As far as we know, the British Fur Trade Association has only one member in Scotland. A representative of the association, Robert Morgan, was invited to the Rural Development Committee and I asked him how many members there were. He said that there were 45 in Britain, but when pushed, he said:

"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."—[Official Report, Rural Development Committee, 27 November 2001; c 2471.]

There will not be a huge financial loss to anyone as a result of this bill.

The bill is necessary. The prohibition makes perfect sense. It will close the loophole created by Westminster legislation whereby fur farms could relocate to Scotland. That is a real possibility. The prohibition is based on the moral objection to the keeping or breeding of animals to exploit them solely or primarily for the value of their fur. As I have said, polls across the UK have shown that 76 per cent of the British population agree with a ban on fur farming. Escaped mink can cause considerable damage to indigenous wildlife, so the prohibition of fur farming is likely to have environmental benefits. Lastly, but perhaps most important, this bill fulfils a Labour pledge in the 1997 manifesto to ban fur farming. It is another example of Labour delivering on Labour's promises.

It seems odd to be summing up a debate about a bill that seeks to ban something that does not exist and to compensate people who also do not exist. It appears to be much ado about nothing. The other two half-hour debates this afternoon—on the Adoption and Children Bill and the Police Reform Bill—are on UK issues, which have been dealt with by Sewel motions. I see no reason why the Fur Farming (Prohibition) (Scotland) Bill should not have been dealt with in the same way.

My colleague Alex Fergusson has rightly drawn attention to the fact that the bill contains a section on compensation for fur farmers who might lose their living, yet if the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill is agreed to by the Parliament, there is absolutely no provision for people who will lose their living. We should spend more time discussing the plight of real people, who will lose real jobs, and compensation for those people, rather than waste time introducing legislation for compensation that will never be used or needed.

There is no justifiable reason for the introduction of the bill. The policy memorandum states that 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".

However, it does not say whose moral objection that is.

In June 2000, the European Commission recommended that the British Government should wait until the EU common rules on fur farming had been established. Over the past five years, fur sales in the UK have risen substantially and more and more fur is being sold through fashion retail outlets as well as specialist fur traders.

Mr McGrigor and the Tories have a different opinion from the rest of the Parliament on some issues. It might be that their view would be that of the majority in respect of fur farming. Surely it is an issue on which the Scots could have a different view from the English and it is correct to test the view of the Parliament rather than merely go along with the English proposition, as we do with Sewel motions.

I gather from the minister that it was the SNP's fault that we are not debating a Sewel motion this afternoon. However, I should point out that Mr Gorrie's argument appears also to apply to the other two debates.

Fur sales rose by 30 per cent in the 1999-2000 season, so it does not appear that the general public think that it is morally wrong to buy and wear fur. Do they really think that it is morally wrong that animals should be raised to produce the product?

Elaine Smith might want to learn that a poll carried out in December 2001 by Scottish Opinion for the British Fur Trade Association—after the Rural Development Committee had taken evidence on fur farming—found that 86 per cent of Scots supported farming for any purpose, provided that there was good animal welfare. I could well understand a ban on the ground of bad animal welfare, but the moral issue takes us into the realms of the specific political agendas of pressure groups, which might damage substantially other businesses and forms of farming.

My main argument against mink farming would be the legacy left to rural Scotland of escaped mink from previous farms. Those mink now damage wild fisheries, fish farms and colonies of ground-nesting birds. Both Richard Lochhead and Mike Rumbles raised that argument. It is a sensible argument, but like that based on animal welfare, it is about farming methods and practices rather than the necessity of a complete ban. We do not ban prisons because prisoners escape; we tighten up security.

At least there is a fairly reasonable chance of recapturing an escaped prisoner. As many members have pointed out, it is virtually impossible to eradicate mink once they have escaped.

I hope that Mr Morgan is not suggesting that we eradicate escaped prisoners. I have already said that the methods available for the eradication of mink would be helped greatly if hounds could be used, rather than having civil servants crawl around looking for mink droppings.

If damage is the issue, we should be debating SNH's declared intention, despite much evidence against it, to introduce the European beaver to the Highlands, which is an area that has never had beaver before. The beaver was killed out long ago in more southern areas, because it is a destructive pest to farms, forests, fisheries and waterways. If anyone wants proof of that, they should contact the environment ministers of Bavaria, Denmark and Norway, where beavers are a problem. SNH would be better using money to promote otter watching or an animal that is indigenous to Scotland that could give pleasure to thousands.

Issues that are damaging to Scotland should be debated, but fur farming is obviously not one of them. Fur farming is neither a moral nor a welfare issue here. It should have been dealt with by a Sewel motion instead of wasting an hour and a half of precious parliamentary time and much committee time, which could have been better used to debate issues of practical significance to the Scottish people.

I find myself in a rather alarming position today. First, Phil Gallie got up—I paraphrase him—and said, "Mink are a menace." I agree with Phil on that. Following the argument that we used to have in my logic and metaphysics class, mink are a menace, Phil Gallie is a menace, therefore Phil Gallie is a mink. If Phil Gallie is included, we should work towards eliminating mink that are loose in our communities.

Ross Finnie had an extremely entertaining morning, I presume, because he has come to the chamber a little friskier than usual. I hope that he gets as much out of further debates in committee on land reform as he clearly got this morning. He set out to tease SNP members on our attitude to the Fur Farming (Prohibition) (Scotland) Bill. However, at least that gives me the opportunity to quote myself—and there is no better authority. I see that Ross Finnie is yawning. Presiding Officer, would it be in order to cross the chamber and deal with him?

On 4 December I clearly indicated, as can be seen at column 2525 of the Rural Development Committee Official Report, the support of the SNP for the substantive proposals that are encapsulated in the bill. The Minister for Environment and Rural Development, Alex Fergusson and others made much of the fact that we are debating this issue at all, as did my colleague Richard Lochhead, and addressed the issue of Sewel motions. We should note that rather than Sewel motions being exceptional, we have had 31 Sewel motions but we have passed only 30 bills in this Parliament. Such motions are becoming the norm, and the Scottish Parliament is diminished because of it.

We have a principled attitude to Sewel motions. We oppose them, because we believe that all matters that affect Scotland, and which it is competent for us to debate, should be debated here. We also take the pragmatic attitude that when it is necessary and expeditious and in the interests of the people of Scotland, we will cede on occasion to Westminster if that progresses things.

Will the member give way?

In a minute.

In reality, it would have been much more interesting this afternoon to debate the substance of the Adoption and Children Bill or the Police Reform Bill than to debate fur farming. Nonetheless, we are debating fur farming.

Will the member give way?

The minister's colleague intervened first. I will come back to the minister.

Could Stewart Stevenson explain why it is not expeditious to agree to a Sewel motion for this bill?

He did that.

No, he has not explained that.

This Parliament should debate and decide on anything that it is competent for us to do. It is not our choice that we are spending 90 minutes on this subject. That is the key point.

An absolute nonsense is being perpetrated in the Parliament this afternoon. Richard Lochhead, the SNP spokesman, accused me indirectly of causing there to be an hour-and-a-half debate on a subject that does not deserve it. However, when this matter came before us, it was the SNP business managers who did not want there to be a Sewel motion on this bill. The only people responsible for the Parliament giving an hour and a half to the debate are the SNP members, and it is hypocrisy for Mr Stevenson to claim otherwise.

I thank the minister for his comment, but I return to the core principle that we are not debating important issues such as the adoption of children or police reform; we are debating fur farming in Scotland, which affects no one. The SNP would insist on debating everything. The principal position is perfectly clear and I suspect that even my colleagues in the Conservative party can understand that.

I shall move on and turn to Jamie McGrigor. He said that mink are eaten and that that is a legitimisation of farming for mink. I cannot help feeling that at the core of that argument is the idea that we should eat any living being.

Will the member take an intervention?

In a second.

I suggest therefore that perhaps Jamie McGrigor is advocating that we even approve of cannibalism as it is still practised in some parts of the world. I suspect that his moral argument does not stretch that far.

I am grateful to the member for giving way. Given his experience and large number of jobs, has Mr Stevenson got vast experience of mink farming? He seems to speak with such authority.

No, I do not have vast experience of mink farming, but I recognise that society, the world and our morals evolve over time. I suspect that my Conservative colleagues do not recognise that. My mother had a fox fur stole. Today that is entirely unacceptable and I oppose it. I confess that, 20 years ago, I bought my wife a mink coat. Today I would not do that. Morals have evolved.

The figures I quoted earlier show that, last year alone, demand for fur rose by 30 per cent through retail outlets and furriers. That completely contradicts what Mr Stevenson has just said.

My colleagues are saying, "Not in Banff and Buchan," and that is clearly true. I do note, however, that the Scottish Parliament information centre briefing gives the information that only 2 per cent of the population are in favour of farming exclusively for the sake of having fur.

Mr Stevenson said quite clearly that morals evolve. I agree with him. However, does he accept that, if we allow the bill to be introduced for what is primarily a moral argument, by allowing morals to evolve in that way we could threaten activities that are legitimate in rural Scotland today because morals might subsequently evolve to make those activities immoral to the Executive?

I think that the point that is being made is whether it is proper that we debate the evolution of morals, and I say that it is proper. It is clear that, according to the Parliament, the time of mink farming has passed.

I turn to the substance of the bill and ask whether it is necessary for the Parliament to proceed on the subject at all, or at the pace it has done it and with the urgency that it has shown. As a result of the English legislation, there is the danger that the fur farms could migrate to Scotland, but that danger is relatively remote. We have no indication that it is going to happen. Suppose that, after the English legislation had been enacted, we had heard that that migration was going to happen, how long would it have taken us to respond and to legislate? Would it have taken days or weeks? It would certainly not have been months if it was a matter of urgency. There is therefore no need to propose such a bill at the present time.

There is one interesting point about the bill and about the debate. There has been the most effective campaign in favour of the bill that I have ever seen. The campaign has achieved its objectives without a single picket outside Parliament, without a single letter to ministers, without a petition to Parliament. If only all campaigns could be so simple, we could do so much.

We have talked a bit about morals. I come from the position that mink are pests, as Phil Gallie said. They are a threat to the environment, and even if we gentlemen and ladies feel uncomfortable about the moral argument, the environmental argument is unassailable. John Farquhar Munro said that we have been unable to eliminate mink from the Western Isles. The Executive has put £1.65 million aside to do so.

The SNP will support the bill.

I call Ross Finnie to wind up the debate.

I am obliged, Presiding Officer.

I say to the SNP in the spirit of the Burns season and "Holy Willie's Prayer" that if ever two speeches from opening and closing spokesmen reeked of cant and hypocrisy, they did. It is outrageous for Richard Lochhead to berate the Executive for taking up an hour and a half of the chamber's time—a time that I did not set—because we wanted to debate the bill, when SNP business managers adamantly refused a Sewel motion when the issue was raised in the Westminster Parliament. You cannot have your cake and eat it. The SNP is responsible for bringing the motion to the chamber.

Let me finish. I will give way soon.

The proposition that we would have spent our time better discussing the evolution of morals, as Stewart Stevenson said, is a remarkable testament to the SNP's priorities.

The minister misses the point that the SNP wants the Parliament to put at the top of its agenda the priorities of the people of Scotland, not the priorities of the London Parliament, whether through Sewel motions or replicating legislation that is passed down there.

I respect the right of members to decide which motions to debate, but if the SNP's argument is that we could have dealt with the motion on the bill without taking up an hour and a half of the Parliament's time, it should not point fingers at me—it should look at the person who was responsible.

The Conservatives' position was slightly different, because, from time to time, their spokesman seemed to accept that a Sewel motion would be preferable. The logic of that position is that the spokesman was committed to the principle that legislation was necessary. However, after the Conservatives' spokesman established that position, several Conservative speakers deviated from that, and some did not want the bill to be passed. Of course, we had the usual difficulty with Jamie McGrigor. In his charming and inimitable style, he delivered a speech that he prepared four days ago. It bore no relation to the debate or to the points that the minister made in introducing the debate, but it was charming and helpful nevertheless.

Members ought to take care when we introduce an argument to the Parliament in debate. We made it clear that we have taken account of proceedings and that we introduce the bill not only on moral grounds, as we did initially, but because we have accepted the environmental argument that was put by the Rural Development Committee and the EU's Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare.

Will the minister give way?

I will give way to the late entrant.

At least some people turn up to hear your dulcet tones, Mr Mainwaring.

Does the minister accept my assurance that Mr McGrigor has never prepared a speech four days in advance? He takes due note of what happens during a debate before preparing his speech.

It must be the way he tells them.

Several Conservative members and Mike Rumbles advanced an argument about compensation. The argument that because one regime makes provision for compensation, another apparently comparable regime should also do so, is flawed. Not all legislation impacts on the person in the same way. We should consider that very carefully. The correct approach is to take each piece of legislation and examine its effect in relation to the ECHR considerations that every piece of legislation must comply with.

As regards the specific question about compensation, the advice that we had was that the degree of control that is to be exercised by the Fur Farming (Prohibition) (Scotland) Bill is greater than that of the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill. Against that test, fur farms, factories and businesses would inevitably be required to close, and any specialised equipment would become unusable.

Will the minister give way on that point?

I would be happy to take an intervention from the member once I have made my point, as he and other members have asked a very serious question.

As the control of use will have particularly severe consequences for such property owners, it is considered that the inclusion of compensation provisions is necessary. Irrespective of whether closures would happen, in presenting a bill for consideration by the Presiding Officer, we are required to investigate that test. We believed that a compensation provision was necessary to achieve that balance. However, it is important to stress that there is no automatic presumption in favour of compensation.

The effect of the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill is to control the use of land that is used for fox hunting. The effect on the businesses and persons who are involved in hunting is more indirect. There is an interesting but nevertheless important legal distinction to be drawn, which is that that bill does not result in the immediate expropriation of all the property under the control of those people or, indeed, all the property on which the bill impacts. I respect people who hold a different view, but I do not want them to assume that we simply come to conclusions on whether to include a compensation clause without taking serious legal advice.

The minister said that the legal advice that he received concerned a test to differentiate between direct and indirect loss to property owners. I am sure that he has read my amendment to the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill, which refers to direct loss and which follows precisely the argument that he has just made.

I think that I have made a rational and reasonable response to an important point. One must look carefully at the degree and exercise of control and at the way in which legislation would impact on that control. That is the distinction. We will return to this argument, but I want to assure all members that we do not come to conclusions about compensation on the basis that we may have to pay out money. I think that it was Alex Fergusson who suggested that that was the case, although I do not want to do him a disservice. I assure the chamber that we reach such conclusions on the basis of a rational examination of the legal issues.

It is accepted that a number of people will lose their jobs if the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Bill is passed as it stands at present. Does the member accept that the legal niceties to which he referred will mean very little to those who will, it appears, receive no compensation when they lose their jobs?

I ask members to keep to the Fur Farming (Prohibition) (Scotland) Bill. Although I agree that there is a principle to be debated, we should not stray too far from the bill that we are discussing.

I shall make a very brief response. I do not think that it is appropriate to get involved in discussing individual cases. Members must understand that, across a range of legislation, we must look carefully at the expropriation of assets, which is, after all, the fundamental principle upon which compensation can be pursued in any instance and across a range of issues. We must consider that and apply that test. That may not be of great comfort to some members, but it would be a dangerous precedent for a Government to indicate that there would be a provision for compensation without regard to the legal principles in domestic law or in relation to the ECHR.

I return to the task in hand. On balance, the vast majority of members support the principles of the bill, although I admit that they do so for different and varying reasons. It is unfortunate that we have had to devote so much time to it, but there is a risk.

Finally, of course people have not written to the Rural Development Committee to say that they are going to move their farming businesses north. What effect would that have other than to stiffen the resolve of any member who was rational enough to think about the matter to vote to ban it, even if they had originally thought otherwise? The proposition simply does not hold good.

Will the minister give way?

No. Ben Wallace was keen to move his business, but he may not be fortunate.

We have had a debate and there are moral, environmental and animal welfare reasons for the bill. Members have reached agreement and I hope that we can move quickly and vote for the bill at stage 1. I hope also that we can get through the other stages more quickly.