The Northern Ireland Assembly - Report on the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill

COMMITTEE for AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
FUR FARMING (PROHIBITION) BILL - COMMITTEE STAGE

In response to your letter of 21 May we have pleasure in enclosing BFTA comments on the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Northern Ireland Bill.

Agriculture in Northern Ireland, like the rest of the UK, is facing a tough time. In considering all aspects of this Bill, we hope the Agriculture & Rural Development Committee will want to study the success of fur farming elsewhere in Europe and the role it plays in maintaining viable rural communities.

London remains the world centre for fur buyers, with fur trading members of the BFTA responsible for buying the majority of the world trade in fur at primary level (as pelts). This represents a turnover of some £500 million a year for the UK. BFTA members are stakeholders in the world fur market and hence BFTA’s interest in fur farming in Europe and in this Bill.

We have sent you under separate cover a further 14 copies of the IFTF/EFBA paper The Socio Economic Impact of European Fur Farming. We hope that a copy of this will be distributed with the BFTA comments to members of the Agriculture & Rural Development Committee.

If you would like any further information, please do not hesitate to contact me.

1. The BFTA welcomes the opportunity to provide comments on this Bill to the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee of the Northern Ireland Assembly, because it feels there are good reasons why the proposed Bill should not be adopted.

The main purpose of this Bill as set out in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum is to "prohibit the keeping of animals solely or primarily for slaughter for the value of their fur".

A striking feature of the Bill is the fact that no adequate or justifiable explanation is given as to why it should be introduced. The Minister, Ms Rodgers stated at the second stage consideration that: " this is not a welfare issue but one of public morality". However, no case for this is made in the Bill or the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum nor are the wider implications for other sectors considered.

It might possibly be assumed that the general public have a "moral objection". However, over the past five years fur sales in the UK have continued to rise significantly year by year. This is due to the re-channelling of fur through fashion retail outlets, where earlier, sales were through specialist shops only. Sales of fur in the UK including fur trim for the 1999/2000 season increased by well over 30% compared to the previous season.

Do the general public think it is immoral to raise fur, but moral to buy and wear it?

Furthermore, an opinion poll carried out by Taylor Nelson Sofres plc in September 2001 found that 8 out of 10 people questioned in the UK support farming for any purpose providing there is good animal welfare. Only 3% of those interviewed disagreed strongly<$FThe Opinion Poll was carried out by Taylor Nelson Sofres plc in September 2001>.

The Northern Ireland Executive Committee is out of touch with public opinion on fur.

Fur farming compares very well to other farming sectors where animal welfare is concerned <$FScientific evidence has proven that the animal welfare on mink farms is at least as high as that on farms where the production aim is food. <I>Report on the welfare situation of farmed mink as compared to other farmed animals by the Animal Welfare Centre at the Veterinary Centre of the University of Utrecht,<I*> December 1999.>.

Research institutes, public bodies together with the fur sector have funded studies into the welfare of farmed fur animals in excess of Euro7.5 million.

European fur farmers encouraged in 1999 creation of the international and independent Fur Animal Welfare Research Committee (FAWRC) which reports annually to the Council of Europe’s Standing Committee on farm animal welfare.

The European Fur Breeders Association, EFBA has its own Code of Practice which incorporates all the Council of Europe’s recommendations with its own further ‘best practice advice’.

A recent EU scientific report into fur farming (The Welfare of Animals kept for Fur Production) does not have the support of the scientists who researched it. Claims of more ‘fiction’ than ‘science’ have been made against this report by six leading scientists in the field of animal welfare research who were part of the report’s original working committee.

In their protest letter to the EU Scientific Committee of Animal Health and Animal Welfare (SCAHAW) which adopted this report, the scientists state that ‘ the report is politically slanted against fur farming; large numbers of references have been removed and it contains several errors of fact or interpretation, some of which are potentially important for animal welfare and others which are so ridiculous that they compromise the report’s credibility’<$F<I>The Welfare of Animals Kept for Fur Production<I*> report<I> <I*>was adopted by the EU Scientific Committee of Animal Health and Animal Welfare in December 2001. Please see European Fur Breeders Association/International Fur Trade Federation Press Release enclosed.>

When the Bill is scrutinised, you may wish to probe more deeply to see what the substance is behind the justification to this Bill. There is no coherent explanation given for this in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum.

When the ban was passing through the legislative process in England and Wales, Baroness Mallalieu, a Labour Peer, said that:

"Shortly before the election in 1997, the Political Animal Lobby, a sister organisation of the International Fund for Animal Welfare, from which most of its funds were derived, made donations to a number of political parties, by far the largest of which was a sum well in excess of £1 million to the Labour Party. So it is that as this Parliament moves towards its closing stages somehow this Bill finds a place in the crowded legislative programme."

Could this have been the real reason for the ban? If so, the future of all animal farming and any sector which uses animals is likely to be bleak. The agenda of animal rights groups is the elimination of all animal use. A ban on fur farming (a small sector with only 11 farmers in England in 2000 and none in Northern Ireland) may seem hardly worth noticing, but it is just the start.

We believe that the real reasons behind the proposed ban, the precedent which it establishes, which would put other sectors using animals at risk, and the encouragement it gives to some powerful interest groups, need to be very closely considered.

2. The BFTA is a little surprised that the policy objective in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum states that it is necessary to prohibit fur farms in Northern Ireland to bring the law in line with that of England and Wales, and Scotland. This suggests that, whether correct or not, the law in Northern Ireland must follow English law. However, we assume that the Northern Ireland Assembly will wish to reach its own conclusions.

3. Commenting to the European Commission in December 1999, the European Farmers’ Organisations (COPA/COGECA) considered the proposed ban in England and Wales to be disproportionate. The European Commission itself recommended, in June 2000, that the British government should wait until EU common rules on fur farmed animals have been established.

4. There are no sound environmental protection reasons for bringing in a ban. Following a consultation undertaken by the Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries & Food in 1997, the Minister, Elliot Morley stated that:

"I have concluded that there is insufficient evidence to suggest that the existing arrangements for keeping mink significantly contribute to the problems caused by feral mink"

In his book The Mink, Dr Nigel Dunstone sums up the effect of feral mink on native fauna and domestic stock as follows:

Early worries concerning the impact of mink as a significant predator of native fauna and domestic stock, or as a competitor with native carnivores are largely without foundation. It can be seen that the relatively small size of mink, and hence their low energy requirements coupled with their low population density means they have little impact overall.

5. Farming in Northern Ireland and the whole of the UK is facing a very tough time. According to Northern Ireland’s Department of Agriculture and Rural Development’s (DARD) report Vision for the Future of the Agri-Food Industry<$F<I>Vision for the Future of the Agri-Food Industry<I*>, Department of Agriculture and Rural Development Northern Ireland>, "Northern Ireland has shared in the long term decline in agricultural employment and farm numbers..this decline accelerated in the late 1990’s as farm incomes fell sharply".

Fur farming is well regulated and accepted under EU law. It is an unsubsidised activity, which is doing well in other European countries (eg. Denmark, Finland, Norway). Rather than banning it as an activity, the Northern Ireland Assembly should be inviting its Agriculture and Rural Development Committee to study its success elsewhere in Europe.

Most of the world’s farmed fur is produced by European farmers. There are 6,000 fur farms in the EU.

The value of EU farmed fur (skin auction price value in 1999) was 625 million Euro.
The value of fur sales in EU in 1998/99 season was 3,385 million Euro (US$ 3,936 million).
The value of fur sales in EU in 1999/00 season estimated at 4,789 million Euro (US$ 5,568m).

Denmark is the world’s largest producer and exporter of mink skins - the staple raw material of the fur industry worldwide, while Finland is the world’s largest producer of fox pelts - another industry staple. Fur farming was worth 332 million Euro to Danish farmers in 1998 and fur is that country’s fourth largest agricultural export product after bacon, cheese and canned meat. In Finland the annual value of fur production at 250 million Euro is greater than that of beef.

Revenue from fur farming allows many farmers to supplement income from other agricultural activities. In this, fur farming contributes to maintaining viable rural communities. Fur farming also allows farming to remain economically viable in areas where climatic conditions limit the options open to farmers in terms of what they can produce and market profitably. In Finland an estimated 50% of fur farmers rely exclusively on fur farming for their incomes. Even where climatic limitations are not an issue, other factors can limit the alternative possibilities open to farmers e.g. quotas for products such as beef and milk.

Fur farming in the EU uses 647,000 tonnes of waste from the fishing and meat industries each year.

6. London remains the world centre for fur buyers, with fur trading members of the BFTA responsible for buying the majority of the world trade in fur at primary level (as pelts). This represents a turnover of some £500 million a year for the UK.

BFTA members are stakeholders in the world fur market and hence BFTA’s interest in fur farming in Europe and in this Bill.

7. Fur farming has been recognised as a legitimate activity both by the Council of Europe and the European Community. Only three years ago the Council of Europe adopted with the support of the UK Government, its revised recommendation on fur animals. Similarly, fur farming is regulated on EU level by Regulation 827/68, Directive 98/58 and Directive 93/119. Furthermore, as we have shown above the EU is on track to introduce EU wide rules specific to fur farming.

8. In view of the complexity of the issues raised by the proposed Bill and the fact that it is based on questionable and unjustifiable grounds, the BFTA hopes the Northern Ireland Assembly will closely scrutinise the whole question before reaching a final conclusion.

A report which is being described as "an authoritative work" does not have the support of the scientists who wrote it. Claims of more ‘fiction’ than ‘science’ have been made against the recent EU scientific report into fur farming by six leading scientists in the field of animal welfare research who were part of the report’s original working committee but who subsequently refused to accept the final version due to "changes and factual errors".

The report, "The Welfare of Animals Kept for Fur Production", was adopted by the Scientific Committee of Animal Health and Animal Welfare (SCAHAW) and "is unlike the report prepared in some crucial and major points."

The scientists (listed below) are outraged that this supposedly "authoritative work" can have so many "errors of fact or interpretation". In their protest letter to SCAHAW, they state that, "The report is politically slanted against fur farming; large numbers of references have been removed and it contains several errors of fact or interpretation, some of which are potentially important for animal welfare and others of which are so ridiculous that they compromise the report’s credibility."

Wim Verhagen, Chairman of the European Fur Breeders Association (EFBA), said, "SCAHAW has chosen to downplay the vast amount of studies showing positive aspects of welfare. European fur farmers are at the forefront of scientific research on animal welfare and have always embraced new scientific evidence which can improve our day to day practices in the interest of both the animals and the fur farmers, and will continue to do so. As long as we can agree with the European Commission on that, I am confident about the future. We always have been and will continue to be open for dialogue."

1. The six scientists who sent the letter of protest are: Dr Gerrit de Jonge (The Netherlands); Associate Professor Dr Vivi Pedersen (Denmark); Professor Bjarne O. Braastad (Norway); Dr Georgia Mason (England); Dr Teppo Rekila (Finland) and Dr Vet.Erik Smeds (Finland).

2. Fur farming is already regulated by EU Directive 98/58; Commission Decision of 17 December 1999; Directive 93/119; Regulation 827/68. Furthermore, the Council of Europe has adopted a Recommendation concerning fur animals, revised in 1999, and EFBA has adopted a Code of Practice, based on the Recommendation.

COMMITTEE for AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
FUR FARMING (PROHIBITION) BILL - COMMITTEE STAGE

CORRESPONDENCE FROM THE COMMITTEE TO:
THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT

Following the Department’s presentation on the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill at Friday’s meeting, Officials agreed to get back to Members on a number of issues raised during the meeting. Pending receipt of the official transcript, I would be grateful for advice from the Department on the issues below:

Officials agreed to consider the possibility of including provision within the Bill to introduce a deadline for compensation to fur farmers. The purpose of the provision would be to prevent businesses from GB, the Republic of Ireland, or elsewhere from setting up in Northern Ireland between now and the Bill’s enactment solely in order to claim compensation.

Members also asked officials to investigate the possibility of including provision to prohibit the removal of animals as soon as the court makes clear its intention to make a Forfeiture Order.

Officials agreed to provide the Committee with contact details of a London based lobby group who have expressed an interest in the Bill. See Paragraph 20 of the Department’s written submission.

Officials agreed to provide any available information on the number of licenses granted for mink or artic fox in Northern Ireland in the past. The Committee is aware that the last licenses may have been granted some time ago and the information may be hard to obtain.

The Committee has asked for the Department’s views on concerns raised by Mr Paisley Jnr that the proposed Bill might allow breeders to raise mink primarily for meat but sell their fur on as a ‘by-product’ of the meat industry in the same way as leather is a by-product of the beef industry.

The Committee would be grateful for clarification on 2 issues surrounding the prosecution of the secondary offence of ‘knowing, causing or permitting’

Officials have advised that the Department will decide when to prosecute for this offence and will judge each case as it stands. What will be the criteria on which the Dept will base its judgement?
Is there any way or indeed need to clarify who is likely to be subject to Clause 1(2) either within the Bill or the EFM.

An immediate response to point 3 would be greatly appreciated to allow consultation to begin. I would also be grateful if you could arrange a response to the remaining issues by Monday 10 June as the Committee will probably require officials to attend again and discuss their response on 14 June. Officials will, of-course want to carefully the examine the transcript when it becomes available for any other outstanding issues.

COMMITTEE for AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
FUR FARMING (PROHIBITION) BILL - COMMITTEE STAGE

LETTER FROM THE COMMITTEE TO:
THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT

At its meeting on Friday 7 June 2002, the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development considered a submission from Dr Lucinda Blakiston Houston, Chairman of the Council for Nature Conservation and the Countryside, regarding the Department’s proposals for the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill.

The Committee has asked me to obtain the views and comments of the Department on two issues raised by the Council:

In their submission, the Council sought clarification in relation to the definition of the term animal in Clause 2(1), which states ‘in respect of animals of a particular description ’.

Is there a need for clarification be included either in the Bill itself or within the Explanatory & Financial Memorandum?

The Council was concerned about the legal definition of the term ‘fur’ and whether this could be extended to the breeding of rabbits for their meat and to other domesticated animals whose hides may exceed the economic value of their meat.
Finally, the Committee noted that the Council referred to previous correspondence, particularly to comments made on 16 May 2001, about this Bill The correspondence in question appears to relate to the Council’s response to the Department’s initial public consultation exercise on the Bill and Members would be grateful if you could arrange to supply the Committee with copies of the full responses from CNCC, the Ulster Wildlife Trust and Newtownabbey Borough Council.

While I understand and apologise for the tight deadline, I wonder if it would be possible to provide a response on this matter along with a response to my email dated 27 May on the concerns raised by the Committee following their meeting with departmental officials on 24 May.

COMMITTEE for AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
FUR FARMING (PROHIBITION) BILL - COMMITTEE STAGE

I refer to your e-mail of 27 May to Gillian Elliott, Co-ordination Division, in which you outlined a number of issues raised by the Committee during their consideration of the Bill on 24 May.

The position on the points raised is set out below in the order of your e-mail. I have also included responses to two further points raised by Dr Paisley, set out at pages 30 and 32 of the Minutes of Evidence (questions 6 and 7). Additionally, following your request of 10 June comments are included on the points raised by the CNCC (questions 8 and 9).

1. Clause 5(1) – consider the possibility of including provision within the Bill to introduce deadline for compensation to fur farmers

This is properly a matter for inclusion in any scheme rather than in primary legislation. Clause 5 allows for a scheme to be proposed and outlines the issues it may deal with. A deadline for the payment of compensation to fur farmers would be dealt with in secondary legislation (Regulations) rather than as part of the Bill. There is nothing in the Clause as it stands that should provide a difficulty in indicating such a deadline in any Regulations which the Department may wish to make. It is likely that the deadline to be included in any Regulations would be 10 April 2001 – the date on which the public consultation letter on proposals to ban fur farming was issued. In that letter it was stated that ‘ no claims for compensation as a result of the ban will be considered for any business which has not submitted a licence application before the date of this letter’.

2. Clause 2(5) – consider the possibility of including provision to prohibit removal of animals as soon as the court makes clear its intention to make a forfeiture order

An amendment of the sort outlined above is likely to be unworkable in practice. This is not a case where, for example, a court announces what it is ‘minded’ to do and then has a later hearing. Rather, the court will simply make a ruling following hearing evidence given on all sides at that hearing.

There was only ever one licensed mink farm in Northern Ireland. The business operated from 1954 to December 1991. The Department introduced legislation in 1988 to regulate the keeping of arctic foxes because of an application received to carry out such farming. In the event the proposer never proceeded to establish such an enterprise.

It is the Department’s view that the Bill as proposed would enable a breeder to raise mink primarily for meat and sell the fur as a ‘by-product’. In such a case the breeder would have to establish to the Department’s satisfaction that there was a real market for such meat and that this was the primary purpose of the enterprise.

5. Clause 1(2) – on what basis will the Department decide to prosecute for the secondary offence of ‘knowingly causing or permitting another person‘ to keep animals etc

Any decision to prosecute for the secondary offence would depend on the circumstances of the case and the evidence available to the Department. The example quoted in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum indicates that a person who grants a tenancy of land for the purpose of enabling the tenant to carry on a fur farming business might be guilty of the offence of ‘permitting’.

6. Clause 4 – why is there no power of entry in relation to the secondary offence of ‘knowingly causing or permitting another person, .’

A power of entry for the secondary offence which would relate largely to seeking documentary evidence of involvement in a fur farming enterprise would not be a proper use of the power. Even if it were available it would probably be ineffective in that any documentation is likely to be in a dwelling house which, for ECHR reasons, cannot be made subject to powers of entry anyway. In the event that it became imperative to seek entry to ‘secondary ‘ premises that could be achieved through a court granting a search warrant to the police.

7. Clause 4(7) defines premises as excluding a private dwelling . Is it the case that animals could therefore be kept for their fur in such a private dwelling

This clause relates only to powers of entry. The offence at Clause 1(1) makes no reference to premises and it would therefore would still be an offence to keep animals for their fur in a private dwelling.

We do not consider that a definition of the word ‘animal’ is required. The word has the ordinary dictionary meaning and means any animal at all but in the context of the Bill the application is restricted to animals with fur. The reference in Clause 2(1) merely restricts the court’s powers of forfeiture to animals of the same description as those in respect of which the offence is committed.

9. Legal definition of fur and whether this could be extended to the breeding of rabbits for their meat and fur and to other domesticated animals whose hides may exceed the economic value of their meat

The Bill is not intended to prohibit the keeping of animals where the primary purpose is the production of meat, with fur production as a secondary purpose, as is generally the case with the farming of rabbits. If however it were proposed to farm rabbits primarily for their fur, the Bill would prohibit that. It is not intended to ban the production of fur or wool which can be clipped or shorn without slaughtering the animal (eg the fur of angora rabbits or alpacas). ‘Fur’ in our view does not extend to hide. To fall foul of the Bill a person has to keep animals solely or primarily for slaughter for the value of their fur. Sheep, cows, goats and pigs would not be covered by the Bill as they are slaughtered primarily for their meat and in any event are not fur bearing animals.

I trust the Committee will find the above information helpful in its scrutiny of the Bill.

COMMITTEE for AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
FUR FARMING (PROHIBITION) BILL - COMMITTEE STAGE

On clause 2, it would be unworkable to include provision as proposed where the court "makes clear its intention" to make a forfeiture order, but action short of a forfeiture order could be included where a person has been, for example, charged with, rather than convicted of, an offence. There are human rights issues so these might have to be accommodated but there is no reason why you should not go back to the Department on this.

It is preferable if the Bill makes express provision so that the scheme can specify a deadline after which no payments will be made – you are not asking the Department to introduce the deadline in the Bill; simple that it is beyond doubt that the scheme can specify a date. A proposed amendment could simply be:

COMMITTEE for AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
FUR FARMING (PROHIBITION) BILL - COMMITTEE STAGE

CORRESPONDENCE FROM THE COMMITTEE TO:
THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT

Following the meeting with the Committee on Friday 21 June, officials agreed to consider 2 issues regarding the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill and to attend this week’s meeting to discuss DARD’s response;

Clause 2(1) Mr Ford asked officials to consider making provision for the courts to make a forfeiture order to allow the removal of equipment used for the purpose of fur farming which could be of financial benefit to the breeder/owner.

Clause 5(3) The Committee advised officials that Assembly legal advice stated that it would be preferable for the Bill to make express provision so that any compensation scheme can specify a deadline after which no payments will be made either as a mandatory condition under Clause 5(3)(F) or as a permissive condition under a new Clause 5(4).

Again, the Committee would be grateful if officials could remain at the meeting to assist Members in the Clause by Clause consideration of the Bill, if required. The discussion is provisionally scheduled for 10.45 a.m. to 11.30 a.m.

COMMITTEE for AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
FUR FARMING (PROHIBITION) BILL - COMMITTEE STAGE

‘(4) The scheme shall provide that payments shall not be made under the scheme in respect of a business which was first carried on after a date specified in the scheme.’

I refer to the further issues raised by the Committee at last Friday’s meeting. The Department’s response on the two matters is as follows:-

Extending any forfeiture order to include equipment (cages) would require the Secretary of State’s consent. The SOS might be reluctant to agree on the grounds that inclusion of ‘equipment’ would mean that the NI Bill was going further than the legislation in the rest of the UK. There might also be difficulty in identifying which ‘equipment’ was particular to the fur farming business.

With regard to the inclusion of a date after which businesses would not be eligible for compensation, our advice is that such matter is best left for inclusion in the scheme. However if the Committee is minded to include a date then a date more current than 10 April 2001 (date of the public consultation letter) would be reasonable. As suggested by Mr Ford (page 16 of the transcript of the Minutes of Evidence of 21 June meeting), the date of 13 May 2002 (when the Bill was introduced) would probably be more appropriate.

Further to the question of extending the forfeiture order provision to equipment, our legal advice is clear that this would require SOS consent. This is because there would be an additional penalty on conviction. The Department does not wish to table an amendment on this matter. Our view is that the objective of the Bill will have been achieved by the provisions as currently set out in the Bill. We do not believe that there is any need to go beyond these.

The Following Extracts Were Received As Part Of Memoranda Which Are Published As Annexes To The Report. The Committee Agreed That They Need Not Be Published In The Report.

3. Farm Animal Welfare Council Press Notice – "Farm Animal Welfare Council Disapproves of Mink and Fox Farming" – 4 April 1989

4. The Welfare of Animals Kept for Fur Production – Report of the Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare – Adopted on 12-13 December 2001

5. The Welfare of Farmed Foxes Vulpes Vulpes and Alopex Lagopus In Relation to Housing and Management: A Review – A J Nimon and D M Broom – pages 223 - 248

6. The Welfare of Farmed Mink (Mustella Vison) in Relation to Housing and Management : A Review – A J Nimon and D M Broom – pages 205 – 228

1. The Socio-Economic Impact of European Fur Farming – European Fur Breeders’ Association and International Fur Trade Federation

The Stationery Office
(mail, telephone and fax orders only)
PO Box 29, Norwich, NR3 1GN
Telephone orders/General enquiries: 0870 6005522
Fax orders: 0870 6005533

The Stationery Office Bookshops
123 Kingsway, London,WC2B 6PQ
020 7242 6393 Fax 020 7242 6394
68-69 Bull Street, Birmingham B4 6AD
0121 236 9696 Fax 0121 236 9699
9-21 Princess Street, Manchester M60 8AS
0161 834 7201 Fax 0161 833 0634
16 Arthur Street, Belfast BT1 4GD
028 9023 8451 Fax 028 9023 5401
The Stationery Office Oriel Bookshop
18-19 High Street, Cardiff CF10 1PT
029 2039 5548 Fax 029 2038 4347
71 Lothian Road, Edinburgh EH3 9AZ
0870 606 5566 Fax 0870 6065588