The Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development is a Statutory Departmental Committee established in accordance with paragraphs 8 and 9 of Strand One of the Belfast Agreement and under Assembly Standing Order No 46. The Committee has a scrutiny, policy development and consultation role with respect to the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development and has a role in the initiation of legislation. The Committee has 11 members including a Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson and a quorum of 5.

• to consider and advise on Departmental budgets and Annual Plans in the context of the overall budget allocation;
• to approve relevant secondary legislation and take the Committee Stage of relevant primary legislation;
• to call for persons and papers;
• to initiate enquiries and make reports; and
• to consider and advise on matters brought to the Committee by the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development.

The membership of the Committee since its establishment on 29 November 1999 has been as follows:

Dr Ian Paisley (Chairperson)
Mr George Savage (Deputy Chairperson)

* Mr Dallat replaced Mr Denis Haughey on the latter's appointment as a Junior Minister.

** Mr Doherty replaced Mr Mick Murphy with effect from 1 July 2002.

Mr Murphy replaced Mr Francie Molloy with effect from 4 February 2002.

ANNEX 1 Paper provided by Department of Agriculture
& Rural Development: 24 May 2002
ANNEX 2 Summary of Written Submissions to the Committee
ANNEX 3 Written Submission by the Council for Nature Conservation & the Countryside
ANNEX 4 Written Submission by Compassion in World Farming
ANNEX 5 Written Submission by the National Trust
ANNEX 6 Cover letter to Submission from Respect for Animals
ANNEX 7 Cover letter to Submission from the British Fur Trade Association
ANNEX 8 Email correspondence from the Committee to the Department of
Agriculture and Rural Development: 27 May 2002
ANNEX 9 Letter from the Committee to the Department of Agriculture and
Rural Development: 10 June 2002
ANNEX 10 Response from the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development: 14 June 2002
ANNEX 11 Letter from the Northern Ireland Assembly Director of Legal Services: 19 June 2002
ANNEX 12 Email correspondence from the Committee to the Department of
Agriculture and Rural Development: 24 June 2002
ANNEX 13 Email correspondence from the Department of Agriculture and
Rural Development: 27 & 28 June 2002

APPENDIX 4 List of Unpublished Memoranda

1.1. The Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill was referred to the Committee for consideration in accordance with Assembly Standing Order 31(1) on completion of Second Stage on 21 May 2002.

1.2. The Minister for Agriculture and Rural Development (the Minister) made the following statement under Section 9 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998:

1.3. The Bill will create a primary offence of keeping animals solely or primarily for slaughter for the value of their fur or for breeding progeny for such slaughter and create a secondary offence of knowingly causing or permitting another person to keep such animals.

1.4. It will give the court powers to make an order for the forfeiture and destruction or other disposal of the animals in the event a person is convicted of either the primary or the secondary offence and provide a right of appeal to the courts for any person claiming to have an interest in animals subject to a forfeiture order.

1.5. The Bill confers a power of entry and inspection to enable the gathering of evidence and a power to enter premises to carry out a forfeiture order.

1.6. The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development has stated that there are no known businesses relating to fur farming in Northern Ireland. However, in order to ensure the Bill complies with the European Convention on Human Rights, provision will be made to enable the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development to make a scheme to pay compensation to farmers who incur losses as a result of the ban on fur farming.

1.7. Finally, the Bill would prevent businesses, which could no longer operate in Great Britain, the Republic of Ireland or elsewhere from relocating to Northern Ireland.

2.1. The Committee had before it the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill (NIA 08/01) and the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum that accompanied the Bill.

2.2. The Committee considered the Bill on 24 May and 7, 21 and 28 June. Minutes of Proceedings of the Committee relating to the Bill are included in Appendix 1 of this Report. Minutes of Evidence relating to the Bill are included in Appendix 2.

2.3. On 24 May 2002, the Committee discussed the policy and principles of the Bill with officials from the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. A paper provided by the Department to facilitate discussion is included in Appendix 3, Annex 1.

2.4. Following the discussion, the Committee asked officials to further consider and respond on the following issues:

• The need for clarification that the Bill addresses the issue of public morality;
• The need for clarification regarding the criteria upon which the Department will base its decision on whether to prosecute a person for the secondary offence under Clause 1(2);
• The need to include provision within the Bill to prohibit the release or removal of animals subject to a forfeiture order by a person charged with either the primary or secondary offence under Clause 1;
• The need to include 'powers of entry' in relation to the secondary offence of knowingly causing or permitting another person to keep animals solely or primarily for their fur;
• Whether animals could be kept for their fur if they were kept in a private dwelling which, under Clause 4, is exempt from the Bill's 'power of entry' provisions;
• The need for provision within the Bill to introduce a deadline for compensation to fur farmers. The purpose of the provision would be to prevent businesses from Great Britain, the Republic of Ireland or elsewhere from relocating to Northern Ireland prior to the Bill's enactment solely in order to claim compensation under Clause 5 of the Bill;
• Whether the proposed Bill might allow breeders to raise animals, such as mink, primarily for their 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.

2.5. In order to assist in its consideration of the purpose and detail of the Bill, the Committee consulted with organisations and bodies it considered might have an interest in the Bill. The Committee received substantial submissions from Respect for Animals, the British Fur Trade Association and the Council for Nature Conservation and the Countryside. Compassion in World Farming and the National Trust wrote to the Committee to indicate their support for the Bill but did not comment on the detail of the Bill.

2.6. A summary of the written submissions to the Committee, the submission from the Council for Nature Conservation and the Countryside, the letters from Compassion in World Farming and the National Trust, together with covering letters from Respect for Animals and the British Fur Trade Association are included in Appendix 3, Annexes 2 to 7. Full copies of all submissions received by the Committee are lodged in the Northern Ireland Assembly library.

2.7. As a result of the consultation exercise, the Committee sought the views and comments of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development on two issues raised by the Council for Nature Conservation and the Countryside regarding:

• The need to clarify the legal definition of the term fur and whether it could be extended to the breeding of rabbits for their meat or to other domesticated animals whose hides may exceed the economic value of their meat; and
• The need for clarity, either within the Bill itself or within the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum, in relation to the definition of the term animals in Clause 2(1) which states; 'In respect of animals of a particular description'.

2.8. On 21 June 2002, the Committee met with officials to discuss the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development's response on the two issues raised during the public consultation exercise and on the seven areas of concerns raised by the Committee following its meeting with officials on 24 May 2002. Copies of the Committee's correspondence dated 27 May and 10 June 2002 to the Department and a copy of the Department's composite response dated 14 June 2002 are attached at Appendix 3, Annexes 8 to 10.

2.9. In addition, Members and officials discussed advice provided by the Assembly Director of Legal Services [Appendix 3, Annex 11 refers], which supported Committee concerns that there may be a need to establish, or to confirm the existence of, an offence of releasing animals, such as mink, into the wild. The Committee considered such an offence may be necessary as release could have serious environmental implications and could happen as a result of breeders trying to prevent their conviction under the primary offence. Officials confirmed that an offence already existed under Article 15 Of the Wildlife (Northern Ireland) Order 1985.

2.10. During the discussion, officials offered to include clarification of the moral principal behind the Bill's introduction in the final Explanatory and Financial Memorandum. The Committee agreed that this should be included.

2.11. In its response dated 14 June 2002 and at the meeting on 21 June, the Department confirmed that there was nothing in the Bill that would make it difficult to impose a deadline for compensation to fur farmers to prevent relocation to Northern Ireland solely to claim compensation. However, the Assembly legal advice indicated that it was preferable for the Bill to make express provision so that any compensation scheme can specify a deadline after which no payments will be made. This could be done under 5(3) as a mandatory condition of the scheme or under a new Subsection 5(4). Members asked officials to further consider this matter and they agreed to do so.

2.12. Members also asked officials to consider a further issue raised by Mr. Ford regarding the need to make 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/keeper. This would be in addition to, or as an extension of, the forfeiture order relating to the removal and destruction of animals. A copy of the Committee's email to the Department is attached at Appendix 3, Annex 12.

2.13. Members agreed that they were content that the letter dated 14 June from the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development and responses given orally on 21 June 2002 dealt effectively with the remainder of the Committee's concerns and that there were no other issues that they wished to raise regarding any of the Bill's Clauses or provisions.

2.14. On 28 June 2002, the Committee met with officials to discuss the Department's response to the two outstanding issues relating to the Bill:

• The need to make 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; and
• The need for express provision for any compensation scheme to specify a deadline either as a condition under Clause 5(3)(f) or under a new Subsection 5(4).

Copies of the Department's three responses are included at Appendix 3, Annex 13 to this Report.

2.15. The Department advised that it did not wish to table an amendment to extend provision for a forfeiture order to allow the removal of equipment on the grounds that it would create an additional penalty on conviction, which would require the Secretary of State's consent. The Department stated that the Secretary of State might be reluctant to give his consent as such a provision would extend Northern Ireland law beyond that in the rest of the United Kingdom. The Department further stated that there might be difficulty in identifying which equipment was particular to the fur farming business. The Department went on to state its view that the objective of the Bill would be achieved through the current provisions and that there was no need to go beyond these.

2.16. The Committee did not accept that the need to obtain the Secretary of State's consent, or his possible reluctance to extend Northern Ireland law beyond that in the rest of the United Kingdom, were acceptable reasons not to proceed with the proposed amendment. The Committee believes that the public good, and not administrative considerations or alignment with the other administrations in the United Kingdom, should be the primary factor in introducing and implementing Northern Ireland legislation.

2.17. However, the Committee accepted the Department's concerns that there might be difficulty in identifying which equipment was particular to the fur farming business. The Department's concerns were reflected and expanded upon in separate verbal advice provided by the Assembly Director of Legal Services that there were significant implications if an amendment to extend provision for a forfeiture order to equipment was to proceed:

• There are human rights issues surrounding the removal of property from an individual and the need to balance the general interest of the community against the right to enjoy property;
• The keeper of the animals may not necessarily be the owner of the equipment. For example, the equipment may have been obtained by hire purchase and establishment of ownership or third party rights over equipment would be complex and may have significant resource and legal implications;
• A system for dealing with seized equipment regarding its storage and disposal or sale would have to be established and, again, may have significant resource and legal implications;
• The provision of a forfeiture order relating to equipment would require subsequent and significant amendments to the Bill's provisions regarding the appeals procedure and powers of entry;
• The provision of a forfeiture order relating to equipment may suggest the subsequent creation of an offence relating to the provision of equipment that could be used in the commission of the primary offence.

2.18. The Committee considered the significant resource and legal implications against the possible benefits of a forfeiture order relating to animals and equipment and, given the reported absence of fur farms in Northern Ireland, members agreed that they were content not to proceed with an amendment.

2.19. Finally, the Committee and officials considered the need for express provision within the Bill for any compensation scheme to specify a deadline either as a condition under Clause 5(3)(f) or under a new Subsection 5(4).

2.20. In its initial email dated 27 June, the Department stated that the inclusion of a date after which businesses would not be eligible for compensation was best left for inclusion in any Scheme. However, the Committee did not require the inclusion of a date within the Bill but wanted express provision within the Bill so that any compensation scheme could specify a deadline. On further explanation of this point, the Department was able to reconsider its response. Subsequently, the Department agreed to put forward an amendment to Clause 5 in line with the Committee's wishes. The amendment would create a new subsection (4) with the following wording: -

2.21. The Committee welcomed the Department's proposal to amend Clause 5 but noted the official's advice that, due to time constraints, the Minister had yet to formally approve the amendment. Members agreed that, subject to the Minister's approval, the Committee was content for the Department to table the proposed amendment and, should the Minister decline to table the amendment, to table a Committee amendment in line with the Department's email correspondence of 27 June 2002.

3.1. On 28 June 2002, the Committee carried out a detailed Clause-by-Clause consideration of the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill.

3.2. The Committee agreed to advise the Assembly on each Clause as follows:

4.1. The Committee is content that the Minister for Agriculture and Rural Development will table the amendment to Clause 5. Subject to the Minister tabling this amendment, the Committee does not propose to table any amendments of its own to the Bill.

Ian RK Paisley
Chairman

The Committee considered a draft Bill and Explanatory & Financial Memorandum to prohibit the keeping of animals solely or primarily for slaughter for the value of their fur. The Bill will bring the law into line with that in England and Wales and with that proposed in Scotland. Members deliberated on the way forward and timescale for consideration of the Bill.

Resolved: Members agreed the proposed timetable for consideration of the Bill and agreed to consider possible consultees at next week's meeting.

Resolved: That the Chairman should reflect the Committee's broad support for the principles of the Bill during the Second Stage debate scheduled for Monday 21 May 2002.

Members deliberated on the principles of the bill. A member queried whether the principles of the Bill were, in fact, made completely clear in the explanatory memorandum.

Resolved: That letters be sent to an agreed list of consultees. Lisburn Cow Hides, the British Fur Association and the USPCA to be added to the list.

Resolved: That the Chair should reflect the Committee's discussions during the debate on the Second Stage of the Bill.

Resolved: That a press release be issued inviting any other submissions regarding the Bill.

Department officials, Johnston Given and Margaret Hood, joined the meeting at 10.32 a.m. The officials answered members' questions on the subjects of prosecution, compensation, the principles of the Bill, the European context and the possibility of amendments to the Bill.

Resolved: That the officials would supply the Committee with further information on the Bill and would attend a future meeting to discuss this issue further.

Members noted a request from Newtownabbey Borough Council to extend the deadline for submissions to 11 June 2002.

Resolved: That the Committee agreed to extend the deadline to 11 June 2002.

Members noted that responses had been received from 'Respect for Animals' and 'Compassion in World Farming' and that a submission had been sought from 'Central Lobby Consultants'.

Members considered substantive submissions from 'Respect for Animals', the British Fur Trade Association and the Council for Nature Conservation and the Countryside and noted the submissions from Compassion in World Farming and the Natural Trust, both of which supported the Bill.

Resolved: That clarification should be sought from DARD on the wording "animals of a particular description" in clause 2(1) and that the question of the need for the Bill to include a legal definition of fur be raised with DARD.

Resolved: That there was no need to take oral evidence.

Resolved: That full submissions be lodged in the Assembly Library and that only covering letters and relevant extracts should be printed along with the Committee's report.

Department officials Mr Johnston Given and Ms Margaret Hood attended the meeting at 10.47 a.m. to discuss DARD's response to areas of concern or interest highlighted by the Committee regarding the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill. Mr Given made an opening statement in relation to questions posed at a previous meeting.

The officials answered members' questions regarding possible prosecutions, compensation, powers of entry, and the effect of forfeiture orders. Members then sought to conclude their evidence taking on the Bill.

Clause 1 - Members agreed there were no further issues for discussion.

Clause 2 - Members raised the issue of forfeiture of equipment as part of the proposed forfeiture order. Officials agreed to consider this point and inform the Committee of the outcome.

Clause 3 - Members agreed there were no further issues for discussion, although the outcome of the issue on Clause 2 may have a knock-on effect.

Clause 4 - Members agreed there were no further issues for discussion.

Clause 5 - Members raised the issue of a possible amendment to make specific provision in the Bill for DARD to include a cut-off point for compensation in subsequent subordinate legislation. Officials agreed to seek legal advice and inform the Committee of the outcome.

Clause 6 - Members agreed there were no further issues for discussion.

Long Title of the Bill - Members agreed there were no further issues for discussion.

The officials agreed to seek advice on the points raised by the Committee and to report back to members on or before the meeting on 28 June 2002.

The officials offered to include clarification of the moral principle behind the Bill's introduction in the final Explanatory and Financial Memorandum. Members agreed that DARD should do so.

Department officials Mr Johnston Given and Ms Margaret Hood attended the meeting at 10.50 a.m. to respond to the Committee on the two outstanding issues from the meeting of 21 June 2002.

Mr Given informed the Committee that in Clause 2(1) he believed there was no need to make provision for the courts to make 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. Under Clause 5(4) the Department were willing to make an amendment in relation to the need for express provision for any compensation scheme to specify a deadline after which no payments will be made.

Members deliberated over these two issues and were content with the response from the officials. Members also considered advice obtained from the Assembly's Director of Legal Services. The Committee then proceeded to carry out a clause by clause consideration of the Bill.

Clause 1 - Offences Relating to Fur Farming. The Chairman gave an outline of the effects of this clause.

Question put and agreed:

"That the Committee is content with the Clause".

Clause 2 - Forfeiture Orders. The Chairman gave an outline of the effects of this clause.

Question put and agreed:

"That the Committee is content with the Clause".

Clause 3 - Effect of Forfeiture Orders. The Chairman gave an outline of the effects of this clause.

Question put and agreed:

"That the Committee is content with the Clause".

Clause 4 - Powers of Entry. The Chairman gave an outline of the effects of this clause.

Question put and agreed:

"That the Committee is content with the Clause".

Clause 5 - Compensation for Existing Businesses. The Chairman gave an outline of the effects of this clause.

Question put and agreed:

"That the Committee recommends to the Assembly that Clause 5 be amended as outlined by the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development in its e-mail correspondence dated 27 June 2002, namely: in page 3, line 36, insert":

'(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' - [The Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development.]

Resolved: That the Committee would support the amendment if tabled by the Minister or if not tabled by the Minister, would table it as a Committee amendment.

Clause 6 - Short Title and Commencement.

Question put and agreed:

"That the Committee is content with the Clause".

Long Title

Question put and agreed:

"That the Committee is content with the long title".

The draft report into the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill was brought up and read paragraph by paragraph.

Title page was read and agreed.

Committee remit and table of contents pages were read and agreed.

Paragraphs 1.1 - 1.7 were read and agreed.

Paragraphs 2.1 - 2.2 were read and agreed.

Paragraphs 2.3 - 2.4 were read and agreed.

Paragraphs 2.5 - 2.7 were read and agreed.

Paragraphs 2.8 - 2.13 were read and agreed.

Paragraphs 2.14 - 2.17 were read and agreed.

Paragraph 2.18 was read, amended and agreed. The paragraph now reads:

The Committee considered the significant resource and legal implications against the possible effects of a forfeiture order relating to animals and equipment and, given the reported absence of fur farming in Northern Ireland members agreed that they were content not to proceed with an amendment.

Paragraphs 2.19 - 2.21 were read and agreed.

Paragraphs 3.1 - 3.2 were read and agreed.

Paragraph 4.1 was read and agreed.

Resolved: That the Report be the Report of the Committee and that the Committee orders it to be printed.

Resolved: That the minutes of evidence of meetings on 24 May 2002, 7 June 2002, 21 June 2002 and 28 June 2002 should be printed with the report.

Resolved: That lists of published and unpublished memoranda are approved and memoranda are to be included in the report according to these lists.

Resolved: That extracts from the Committee's Minutes of Proceedings relating to the report should be reported.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley (Chairperson)
Mr Savage (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Armstrong
Mr Bradley
Mr Dallat
Mr Douglas
Mr Ford
Mr Kane
Mr McHugh
Mr M Murphy
Mr Paisley Jnr

Mr Johnston Given ) Department of Agriculture
Ms Margaret Hood ) and Rural Development

1.

The Deputy Chairperson: The Committee wel<->comes Mr Given and Ms Hood from the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. As you know, the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill stands referred to the Committee following completion of its Second Stage in the Assembly this week.

2.

The Committee Stage is a detailed scrutiny of the Bill's provisions and will consist of three phases. The first phase, starting today, consists of policy briefing and evidence taking so that we can decide on possible areas for amendment. The Committee has sent letters to an agreed list of bodies asking for their views. A press release has also been issued, offering other interested parties an opportunity to make a submission. Once the first phase has been completed, we will move to formal clause-by- clause scrutiny and then produce a report.

3.

The Committee will now hear your statement and then ask questions.

4.

Mr Given: I presented the Committee with a paper earlier this week. I do not have much to add.

5.

The Labour Party pledged some years back to introduce a Bill to prohibit fur farming. A private Member's Bill to ban it fell by the wayside, so the Government picked it up, and an Act was passed for England and Wales, where fur farms existed. Scotland followed, although it does not have any fur farms, and we are now doing the same.

6.

The Deputy Chairperson: Paragraph 13 of your written submission says that the decision to prosecute for the secondary offence of knowingly causing or per<->mitting the keeping of animals for a prohibited purpose will be discretionary. What will be the criteria and who will decide when to prosecute?

7.

Ms Hood: Are you referring to the explanatory memorandum or to the paper that was sent earlier?

8.

The Deputy Chairperson: I am referring to the explanatory memorandum.

9.

Mr Given: The Department will investigate if it believes that someone is, by proxy, allowing such practices to take place.

10.

The Deputy Chairperson: Is it possible that people here are running fur-farming businesses that you do not know about?

11.

Mr Given: It is possible, but it is hard to believe that such practices would not have come to our attention in one way or another over the past 20 years. If such businesses existed we would have been told because there are enough people around the country from the Department and the rest of the public sector for such activity not to be noticed.

12.

The Deputy Chairperson: In many parts of the country, there are small businesses that very few know about. What would be your approach if you found that such a business had been around for a long time?

13.

Mr Given: It would depend whether it had to be licensed - for mink or Arctic foxes. It is possible that the business could deal in fur-bearing animals that had not already been legislated for. Until this Bill becomes law, nothing can be done about such cases.

14.

The Deputy Chairperson: Can you close a business that has been in operation for 15 to 20 years?

15.

Mr Given: At the moment, it could be stopped if it was dealing with mink or Arctic foxes, because it would be operating without a licence. Beyond that, nothing could be done.

16.

The Deputy Chairperson: Paragraph 20 mentions a lobby group in London that has been in constant contact with the Department about progress on the proposed Bill. Can you give us contact details of that group so that we can ask it to make a written submission to the Committee?

17.

Mr Given: I cannot tell you off the top of my head, but the information can be made available.

18.

Ms Hood: I may have details of the lobby group. It has not been in contact since it found out that the Bill was going through the Assembly.

19.

The Deputy Chairperson: Is the Bill proposed for Northern Ireland an exact replica of the GB Act, and, if not, what are the differences?

20.

Mr Given: I am not aware of any significant differences.

21.

Ms Hood: The principles are exactly the same, but the GB Bill contains compensation clauses because fur-farming businesses existed there. Our Bill just has an enabling power to create a compensation scheme.

22.

The Deputy Chairperson: Are the fur-farming businesses in GB licensed?

23.

Ms Hood: GB had only mink farms. There were 13 licensed mink farms when the Bill came into effect in December 2000. I understand that there are no longer any such businesses in GB.

24.

Mr Armstrong: Which animals can be used for fur production?

25.

Mr Given: I had not thought of it in those terms, but it would be any animal that was produced, bred and slaughtered for its fur rather than for food. I may not have described that well.

26.

Mr Armstrong: It is not just foxes and mink.

27.

Ms Hood: There are others, including the muskrat, which is also known as the musquash, the chinchilla, and the fisher. The most common are the mink and the Arctic fox. There must have been Arctic foxes in Northern Ireland in 1988, as there was an Order on how to keep them.

28.

Mr Armstrong: Are animals going to be named in the Bill, or will it be a broad spectrum?

29.

Ms Hood: No.

30.

Mr Given: It will be a broad spectrum.

31.

Mr McHugh: It is difficult to ask the right questions to ensure that everything is covered. Members have questioned the need for a compensation clause in the Bill. How can we prevent people from temporarily moving from the South to the North and starting up farms? Will we be safe from that? How long would it take people to start up a new business and get compensation? We do not want to pay out any money. It only takes a legal technicality for that to happen.

32.

Then there is the moral issue. Why are we allowing fur to be sold? Could there be any free-range mink running free and then being trapped?

33.

Mr Given: I am not sure about free-range mink, and catching them would be difficult. Fur farmers would be carrying on a fur-farming business, and that would come within the ambit of the Bill.

34.

The Bill cannot tackle the sale of fur. That is an issue for others. If we accept the public morality argument, we should promote the Bill and show that the practice of fur farming is not a proper thing to do in the United Kingdom. There are a few fur farms in the Republic and further afield, and I do not know if their legislation will go further. We can only spread the gospel of prohibiting the production of fur, and then the sale of fur will be less of an issue.

35.

Setting up fur farms in the interim is possible. The Department will be telling farmers that fur farming is to be prohibited shortly and that no fur farms will be allowed.

36.

Mr McHugh: Would they need a licence?

37.

Mr Given: They would need a licence for Arctic fox and mink. Problems might arise if they started something else. In the absence of legislation we can only say that we are legislating to ban the practice and make it clear that no compensation will be given to anyone who sets up a fur farm. That would be a technical and legal point, and I hope that it does not come to that.

38.

The Deputy Chairperson: One issue arises from the report's information pack, which all Members received. London seems to be the centre of the fur trade. It is big business there, providing employment for many in clothing industries, et cetera. Will they not lobby strongly to try to retain fur farming? It is a major industry in the Netherlands, and we are part and parcel of Europe. Legislation affects all parts of Europe, as we know from beef and so on. It is free trade.

39.

Mr Given: This is past the post in England and Wales; the legislation is in force. Whatever lobbying was done was overcome. The Act is in place.

40.

The Chairperson: However, you would have to agree that the fur trade is a big business in the Netherlands. We are all part and parcel of Europe now. We can stop it here in some areas -

41.

Mr Given: Sure, but if we stop it and present the right arguments, the European Commission may agree. It may take a while, but I hope that the practice will be banned across Europe.

42.

The Deputy Chairperson: Conversely, we could introduce legislation that might not stand up in Europe.

43.

Mr Given: That is correct and a chance that we must take. However, there is a public morality argument in the Treaty of Rome that we are setting our sights on as the basis on which we can bring this legislation into force.

44.

Mr Paisley Jnr: I want to speak about organically raised mink. It must make a person feel better to know that her coat used to run around. If you shot one of those animals, there would not be much left of it. You would probably have to kill five times as many to make a coat. Getting to the serious point of the proposed legislation, is this a morality Bill or an animal welfare Bill? I am looking at paragraph 3 of your paper as I ask that question.

45.

Mr Given: The Government across the water based their arguments on public morality, that it was not right to rear animals and kill them solely for their fur. It is reasonable to take wool or other material off a food-bearing animal and use that for clothing and so on. To that extent, it is not a welfare Bill. I do not know the standards that are required for keeping mink in England, but obviously standards exist. I am not aware of any cases in which those standards have been breached, though it may well have happened. Some people say that you must keep the animals in relatively small cages, and that is not acceptable on welfare grounds. Compassion in World Farming is advancing that argument in the Republic.

46.

Mr Paisley Jnr: It is interesting to hear what the Labour Party did in England, but we are talking about what the Executive or the Minister here intend to do. Is this morality or animal welfare legislation?

47.

Mr Given: It is an issue of public morality. There is no welfare issue.

48.

Mr Paisley Jnr: It is definitely not a welfare issue?

49.

Mr Given: We are banning something that we do not have, so we have never had a welfare problem. I am not sure why that thinking exists.

50.

Mr Paisley Jnr: Your paper says that the ban is sought on grounds of public morality rather than animal welfare, although that too is a consideration. Then you give some instances of the reasons why animal welfare is a consideration. I want to be absolutely clear: is this a welfare or a morality issue? I will come to the point of my question in a moment.

51.

Mr Given: It is a morality issue.

52.

Mr Paisley Jnr: That is definite?

53.

Mr Given: Welfare will only arise down the line.

54.

Mr Paisley Jnr: It was spelt out clearly in the debate in the House on 21 May that this was nothing to do with animal welfare. The Minister's own words were:

"this is not a welfare issue".

55.

Mr Given: Animals are slaughtered every day for food. There is a welfare argument there.

56.

Mr Paisley Jnr: We are not slaughtering mink -

57.

Mr Given: If you were keeping mink and slaughtering them for their fur, there would be a welfare consideration. Welfare standards would have to be set.

58.

Mr Paisley Jnr: There is nothing in the Bill that addresses welfare issues. It is a morality Bill.

59.

Mr Given: That is correct.

60.

Mr Paisley Jnr: It is important to know the nature of the Bill. A few matters arise from that, and because we are not concerned with animal welfare, I shall set some of them aside. You have answered my Colleague's question about specifying animals. You say that you are not interested in specifying animals, that you want the Bill to be a broad brush, making it illegal to raise an animal for its coat. Would that apply to goats?

61.

Ms Hood: No.

62.

Mr Given: Not if they were being slaughtered for their meat.

63.

Mr Paisley Jnr: If I became an entrepreneur and decided to create mink steak, could I raise them for that meat and sell the by-product of their fur?

64.

Mr Given: I do not like the thought of that at all, although I imagine that you could.

65.

Mr Paisley Jnr: I could.

66.

Mr Given: I think you could. I would like to take advice on that question.

67.

Mr Paisley Jnr: I would like to hear that advice, because it is an interesting matter. It might not taste nice, but the value of the fur might make up for the lack of sales of the meat.

68.

In an answer to Mr Savage, you said that selling would become less of an issue. If we succeed in banning the raising of animals solely for fur, we might persuade the rest of Europe that what they are doing is morally wrong. I think that is a fair reflection of what you said. However, 164,000 people are employed in the fur industry in Europe. There are over 6,000 businesses and 129,000 retail outlets, so it is unlikely that a ban here will have a dramatic impact. It might make the product even more exclusive than it is now, more desirable and, therefore, more costly. That could be the result of our good and moral intention.

69.

Mr Given: Is that a reason for not banning it on the grounds of morality? That is the intention of the Bill.

70.

Mr Paisley Jnr: No. I am saying that the hope that it might make Europe take a moral stand is a vain hope.

71.

Mr Given: There is only a little hope of that. I am not saying that the Bill will transform Europe, but we must do what we think is right. It may be that the Commission will take the matter up in due course. It may take many years, but that does not make it unreasonable for us to take that step.

72.

Mr M Murphy: I believe that the mink meat referred to by Mr Paisley Jnr is a delicacy in Japan. How can we overcome that? Has a licence to farm mink ever been granted here?

73.

Mr Given: I think so. However, I have not been able to research that.

74.

Mr M Murphy: Can we get that information?

75.

Mr Given: I do not know. We can try.

76.

Ms Hood: We would be going back a long time, to the late 70s.

77.

Mr Given: We have been trying to find out, but we have not found the file.

78.

Ms Hood: I believe that it was valuable. I presume that a licence must have been granted at some time.

79.

Mr Given: Mr Paisley asked whether mink could be considered a delicacy. I do not know, but stranger things have happened. He suggested that the sale of the meat might become unnecessary because the fur is so valuable. If it came to the bit, we might have to learn to live with it.

80.

Mr Paisley Jnr: Do you mean if it came to the bite?

81.

Mr Given: We might have to legislate again. If the majority of the income generated by an animal came from the sale of its fur that might not constitute proper food farming.

82.

Mr Paisley Jnr: Companies, such as the Lisburn Hide Company Ltd, cannot export beef, so its true market value is not known. If your information is true, the legislation could impact on companies that sell the by-products of animals, such as the hide, at a good price. If the hide became more valuable than the original product, that could put those companies out of business.

83.

Mr Given: Can you explain that further?

84.

Mr Paisley Jnr: You said that if a company were to raise mink on the pretence that it was for its meat, even though it was for its fur, it would meet the requirements of the Bill. You say that the law would need to be amended to ban the raising of mink for meat if the animals' meat was not the main source of income. A result of the devastating BSE ban is that beef is not sold for its true value. However, companies such as the Lisburn Hide Company trade hide for a good price, so those companies would be badly affected if that loophole were closed.

85.

Mr Given: I do not know what I could do about that. Cattle and sheep are killed for food. If it is decided that mink can be killed for food, the fact that its by-product is valuable is irrelevant. I am not sure how the desired end result could be achieved.

86.

Mr Paisley Jnr: Neither am I. There is a problem with morality legislation.

87.

Mr Given: I hope that that problem does not arise.

88.

Mr Douglas: You said that welfare was not an issue; however, it is so on the mainland, where mink farming is commonplace. In the 1960s, the farming community here considered seriously the possibility of mink farming. The industry did not take off because mink, if they escape from farms, can have a serious impact on the welfare of birds and other animals. That is a problem on the mainland. I am not opposed to people wearing fur or fur farming, but I am concerned about the harm that mink can cause.

89.

Mr Given: The welfare of other animals is a wider issue. I was referring to the welfare of the mink, but I take your point, and I have read about that problem.

90.

The Chairperson: Clause 1(2) creates the sec<->ondary offence of causing or permitting another person to keep animals for their fur - for example, a person who grants a tenancy of land. Would a person who buys the animals for slaughter, or who is involved in the slaughter, be subject to subsection 2? Does it apply to someone who buys the animals after they have been slaughtered?

91.

Ms Hood: Buying is slightly different from being involved in the raising and keeping of animals. The Department is trying to address that in the Bill. The Department has no control over what is bought in a shop; it is trying to stop fur farming at the source.

92.

The Chairperson: Could subsection 2 apply to someone who buys fur?

93.

Mr Given: That would be going too far. The crux of the subsection is that it can be applied either to someone who allows fur farming to take place, or who is involved in it. The Department could not take it any further. It targets the person who is involved in fur farming, or who allows it to happen.

94.

Mr Paisley Jnr: Is that consistent? Although it may not be an offence to kill an elephant, and to possess, or to sell, its ivory in the country in which it was reared and killed, it may be so in many other countries. The clause deals with the same principle. If, according to the legislation, it is illegal to raise and kill an animal for its fur, surely it should be an offence to sell it. It should also, therefore, be an offence for the daddy of them all - the buyer - to purchase the product that is creating the demand for animals to be killed in the first place.

95.

Mr Given: Those are a range of downstream offences - being in possession and selling.

96.

Mr Paisley Jnr: That is why, perhaps, "morality legislation" does not work. Perhaps animal welfare issues should be addressed separately in a different Bill.

97.

Mr Given: The Bill is intended to prohibit the keeping of animals, and does not address those downstream offences.

98.

The Chairperson: The Committee must deal with the Bill. It cannot change it, because it is at Second Stage. That might not have been the case had the Committee been consulted earlier; however, it must deal with what is on the table now.

99.

There is a conflict between morality and animal welfare. The Government seem to say that there is a moral question. The response to that moral question is similar to the Labour Party's receiving money from the publishers of atrocious photographs, but rejecting funds from Gallagher's on the grounds that it makes tobacco. To enter the realm of morality is to tread on dangerous ground; to try to legislate on grounds of morality leads one on to even more dangerous ground.

100.

Mr Given: Despite the labels that are put on the exercise, its purpose is merely to stop people from keeping animals for the production of fur.

101.

The Chairperson: Clause 2(5) permits a person who claims to have an interest in the animals to apply to the court in order to resist the issuing of a forfeiture order. That implies that those suspected of owning animals for fur farming would be notified, in advance, of the court's intention to issue that order. Is the Department not concerned that that will allow the owner/breeder time to remove animals from the premise before the order is enforced?

102.

Mr Given: I do not think so. There is always a risk that people will remove the animals, but the person will still ultimately be guilty of the offence of keeping them, irrespective of whether they are still there.

103.

The Chairperson: Should there not be a provision to prohibit the removal of the animals as soon as the court announces its intention to make such an order? If the court rules to make an order, should that not be the time from which the animals' removal might constitute a breach? That would avoid premises being found empty.

104.

Mr Savage: That is important.

105.

Mr Given: So you wish to make the removal of the animals an offence once a forfeiture order is in place?

106.

Mr Savage: Someone might have been operating a business in Northern Ireland for some 10 or 15 years, without the Department's knowledge? How could it stop him? Will he be deemed to have been trading illegally for 15 years? That point is very important.

107.

Mr Given: He may not be trading illegally.

108.

Mr Savage: No, but that will be the case once the Bill is enacted.

109.

Mr Given: If such traders exist, we will certainly have to examine compensation arrangements, because their businesses will be closed under the new law.

110.

Mr Paisley Jnr: Might the Department consider an amendment to clause 2(5) to prohibit removal of the animals once the court has announced its intention to make a forfeiture order?

111.

Mr Given: We would be happy to consider an amendment if the Committee so wishes. Obviously, one would need more time to reflect.

112.

Mr Paisley Jnr: Perhaps you could return to report your considered view.

113.

The Chairperson: Clause 4 allows entry into premises to investigate the offence of keeping animals. Is there no power of entry for the secondary offence of knowingly causing or permitting the commission of that crime?

114.

Mr Given: Clause 4 relates to the premises on which the animals are kept. Are you interested in the right to enter any other premises?

115.

The Chairperson: I am interested in why there is no power of entry for the secondary offence of knowingly causing or permitting animals to be kept.

116.

Mr Given: A power of entry would not help, since, in the circumstances you mention, I assume you would be looking for records. You could not enter the person's private dwelling anyway.

117.

The Chairperson: So there is no possibility of inspecting records or correspondence that might provide evidence of causing or permitting the keeping of animals?

118.

Mr Given: Once you start on the premises where fur farming is being carried out, you can probably move on. It would be a question of the police securing a court order to seize records, whether kept on the premises or elsewhere.

119.

The Chairperson: It seems a little loose, with ways of evading responsibility.

120.

Mr Given: Are we back to the question of morality?

121.

The Chairperson: 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?

122.

Mr Given: Yes, in theory I assume that that would be the case.

123.

The Chairperson: That is a very substantial loophole, and I should think it needs re-examining.

124.

Mr Paisley Jnr: It is like growing your own clothes.

125.

Mr Given: You are still not allowed to keep the animals. The fact that the definition of premises does not include private dwellings does not mean that you can keep fur-bearing animals.

126.

The Chairperson: Yes, but who could enter to check if someone is keeping them?

127.

Mr Given: Someone would be bound to let us know if that were going on.

128.

The Chairperson: Clause 5(1) allows for a compensation scheme that will pay for losses incurred as a result of the Bill's enactment. Will any of the 13 businesses in England and Wales be able to relocate to Northern Ireland between now and the Bill's enactment and be compensated for their losses?

129.

Mr Given: I was asked that question earlier. In theory, that is probably true. Having accepted the morality argument, part of the purpose of the Bill is to avoid the relocation here by people from England or elsewhere. If the Bill becomes law, that point will be legally interesting. One could tell anybody trying to relocate here that the practice is banned, or will be banned shortly, that fur farms will not be licensed in Northern Ireland, and that we would not be interested in compensating anybody. Doubtless lawyers could argue for a considerable time about how that would work in practice.

130.

Mr McHugh: I am still interested in organic mink. Does the Department know how many mink or fox are in the wild? Before the introduction of the bounty scheme for foxes, there were fur-faming operations across the border that were almost as big as factories. Under the provisions of the Bill, could people continue to trap mink? The lifting of the bounty on foxes would have a detrimental effect on the welfare of other wildlife, including any mink that escape, because there are so many foxes.

131.

Mr Given: Are there?

132.

Mr McHugh: Yes.

133.

Mr Given: I do not know how many are in the wild in Northern Ireland.

134.

Mr McHugh: The number of foxes is phenomenal.

135.

Mr Given: They are not causing the same problems as they did 20 or 30 years ago.

136.

Mr McHugh: If they are not hunted and trapped, they must eat animals such as duck, pheasant and other wild birds. Given that impact on the countryside, could trapping as part of a fur business continue? Some are happy to do that.

137.

Mr Given: That would be a small-scale business. You might call it a business, but it would be at the low end of a business operation.

138.

Mr McHugh: Would those who keep a couple of those animals as pets be bound to release them?

139.

Mr Given: The animals are slaughtered for their fur, and if people do that, they will be running an illegal business under the new legislation.

140.

The Chairperson: Can the Bill be amended to the effect that once it is announced that the legislation will proceed, there will be a deadline beyond which nobody can start a business?

141.

Mr Given: The legislation has already been introduced. I am unsure of how such an amendment could be tabled. I take the point, and I am happy to consider it.

142.

Mr Ford: Given that you must make a compen<->sation scheme in accordance with the European Con<->vention on Human Rights (ECHR), it is reasonable that you should state on the record that any such scheme would not include compensation for anybody who established businesses subsequent to the introduction of the Bill. Otherwise, every member of the Committee could rush out and establish a fur-farming business.

143.

Mr Given: I would be happy to state that, and we established that point in April. The policy paper that went out to all and sundry states:

"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."

144.

Mr Paisley Jnr: Does that mean that a fur farmer must have a licence from the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development?

145.

Ms Hood: That is the case for the fur farming involving certain animals, such as mink and Arctic fox.

146.

Mr Paisley Jnr: So, fur farming could not be added on to an existing business without a licence being obtained?

147.

Ms Hood: No.

148.

The Chairperson: Mr Given, will you consider the many points that the Committee has made today and advise us later of whether you intend to make any of the recommended changes?

149.

Mr Given: Yes.

150.

The Chairperson: The Committee must consult with other interested parties, but it wanted to discuss the matter with departmental officials first. Mr Given, would you keep in touch with the Clerk of the Committee and arrange to return to explain which matters you shall take on board, and why. It has been stated that no compensation will be made to parties who begin fur farming in Northern Ireland before the enactment of the Bill; it is important that that statement stand up in law.

151.

Mr Given: No doubt the Clerk of the Committee will remind me of any points that I may have missed.

152.

The Chairperson: We will give you a complete transcript of today's proceedings, which may help.

153.

Mr Savage: For the purposes of the Bill, do rabbits fall into the category of fur-bearing animals? I dined at a top restaurant in Europe recently - not at my own expense, I may add - [Interruption].

154.

The Chairperson: This is on the record.

155.

Mr Savage: One of the top delicacies on the menu was squirrel. In Northern Ireland, the grey squirrel has become a pest, and if nothing is done about it there will be no red squirrels left. There must be a grey area here. We must get the matter right, and the Committee will one day have to make a decision on it.

156.

The Chairperson: I would be very chary about eating squirrels because of the information that I have read about them. They are vermin carriers.

157.

Mr Given: The judgement is that if an animal is being produced primarily for food, its fur can be used as a by-product; otherwise, it cannot be used. The issue is not black and white; it is grey.

158.

Mr Savage: That concerns me.

159.

Mr Given: I am not sure how that can be dealt with.

160.

Mr Savage: I am not sure, either. Someone will have to make a decision, some day.

161.

Mr Given: The Department dealing with the Act will have to judge whether the animals are produced primarily for food or fur. The case for closing the enter<->prise or not would be based on that judgement. We would have to leave the outcome to the good judgement of the courts.

162.

Mr Armstrong: What is your definition of "farming"?

163.

Mr Given: That question is too hard to answer.

164.

Mr Armstrong: In the light of recent changes, agricultural farmers are wondering how they are defined.

165.

Mr Given: Fur farming is a production business.

166.

Mr Armstrong: Some European countries are discussing the production of food along the canals, at ports and around multi-storey buildings. Is this the direction that farming is taking? Will it soon be carried out without land and agricultural holdings?

167.

Mr Given: That may well be, but if the farmer is in the business of producing fur, he will not be allowed to operate.

168.

Mr Armstrong: Fur production has nothing to do with farming.

169.

Mr Given: It is a production.

170.

The Chairperson: It is a business.

171.

Mr Douglas: The paper that we received states that fur is perceived as a luxury item, whereas meat is a key foodstuff. Beef cattle have been used for centuries but mink, for example, have been used only in the last hundred years. That is a good argument.

172.

Mr Given: In the next 1000 years or so beef or sheep might no longer be eaten.

173.

The Chairperson: There would be no more scrapie, other than scraping the bottom of the barrel. The Committee may have further questions when you return with your final recommendations on what can be done with the suggestions that it made. Thank you very much.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley (Chairperson)
Mr Savage (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Armstrong
Mr Bradley
Mr Douglas
Mr Ford
Mr Kane
Mr Murphy
Mr Paisley Jnr

174.

The Chairperson (the Rev Dr Ian Paisley): We are considering responses to consultation, which are all contained in your document files. The Committee Office has provided a summary comparing the implications on respect for animals and the British Fur Trade Association. A copy of the submission of the Council for Nature, Conservation and the Countryside has also been distributed to members.

175.

We must look at the submissions in the context of possible amendments to the Bill. We have not heard of any amendments, but perhaps members of the Committee will put some. We must also decide the way forward, including options laid out in the summary paper. It states that we need to consider whether we want those people who gave us representations to be examined by the Committee.

176.

We had a fairly long canter over this field at the last meeting, and clarified our views on it. Whether it is a question of morality or expediency is not our business; we are not going to dissect the motives of those who sponsored the Bill.

177.

The summary document notes that economic considerations relating to respect for animals have not been raised. As regards the British Fur Trade Association (BFTA), it notes that the fur trade represents a turnover of over £50 million a year for the UK, with BFTA members responsible for buying the majority of world trade at primary level as pelts. Fur sales have grown in the UK over the past 5 years due to a re-channelling of fur through fashion outlets. Sales of fur, including fur trim, increased by well over 30% in the UK in 1999-2000. The summary also refers to the IFTF (International Fur Trade Federation)/EFBA (European Fur Breeders' Association) paper 'the Socio-Economic Impact of European Fur Farming'.

178.

The arguments put in the representations that have been made to us are for or against the Bill, rather than about the wording of the Bill. It is like a second reading in that respect, rather than a Committee Stage where phrases are added or deleted.

179.

The Committee Clerk: Chairman, I would bring one thing to the Committee's attention. In the submission from the Council for Nature, Conservation and the Countryside, Dr Lucinda Blakiston Houston refers to her comments of 16 May 2001. We have established that those comments were made to the Department as opposed to the Committee, and given what the council goes on to say, the Committee may need to see those comments. The council mentions clause 2(1) and the wording

"in respect of animals of a particular description",

and asks whether that is clarified anywhere. Members may be minded to pass that on to the Department and ask for it to be included in its response. The Department owes the Committee a response about other issues from the previous session.

180.

The Chairperson: Are we agreed that we send that letter on and ask the Department to answer it while considering its answer to previous representations?

181.

Members: Yes.

182.

The Committee Clerk: The council is also concerned about the legal definition of fur. This coincides somewhat with an issue raised by the Committee last time, as the council wants to know if this would extend to the breeding of rabbits for meat and fur, or to other domesticated animals.

183.

The Chairperson: Also hides, and pigskin?

184.

The Committee Clerk: Precisely.

185.

The Chairperson: Is pigskin regarded as fur?

186.

Mr Armstrong: It all depends on its age.

187.

Mr Savage: I see that fur farming uses 647 million tonnes of waste from the fish and meat industries each year. That is a significant way of getting rid of waste. Is that the figure for Great Britain?

188.

The Chairperson: No, I think it is for the European Union.

189.

This letter needs an answer from the Department. We can back it up with our request for an answer.

190.

Do you have any idea when they are going to reply to our other briefs?

191.

The Committee Clerk: The Department is aware that their officials are due back again on 21 June. They know that they need to reply in advance of that date.

192.

The Chairperson: We now come to the ethical part of the debate. The summary document notes that on these grounds, the Bill can be welcomed "whole<->heartedly", because

"fur farming is morally indefensible as it involves an inherently unacceptable element of cruelty to produce a frivolous product for which there are many alternatives."

As regards the British Fur Trade Association (BFTA), the document states that

"No case (for public morality) [is] made in the Bill or in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum nor are the wider implications for other sectors explored. The BFTA state that they believe that the real reason behind the GB Act was a £1 million donation made to the Labour Party by the Political Animal Lobby."

193.

Was that right? The document goes on to say that

"The BFTA express surprise that the policy objective in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum (which states that it is necessary to prohibit fur farms in Northern Ireland to bring the law in line with that in GB) suggests that the law in Northern Ireland must follow English law."

194.

There are two sides to the matter. One is an ethical argument; the other economic.

195.

The last time we discussed this matter, the attitude was that if we had had a strong ethical approach, we should never have let the Bill get so far. The Bill is now on its way, and there is no way to stop it. I have not had much correspondence about the matter. Usually, a big issue like this, with great conviction behind it, leads to an overwhelming amount of letters. I do not know whether other Members have been lobbied about the matter.

196.

Mr Douglas: We went through this matter at length and work has been done behind the scenes. I am not sure that it is all that important. There are other more serious matters that we should spend our time on. The fur farming Bill is going to happen anyway. I have no great difficulty with it.

197.

The Chairperson: We certainly had a fair canter over the matter. I do not think that we can add much to that. There was no great opposition from anybody on the Committee.

198.

Mr Armstrong: I agree with Mr Douglas that we should move on to more serious matters.

199.

The Chairperson: Does the Committee wish to take oral evidence from any of the consultees that have provided written submissions?

200.

Mr Ford: We have enough evidence in writing. We have no need to take oral evidence when the mind of the Committee seems to have been determined by the written evidence that we have received.

201.

Mr Savage: I have been reading about foxes in the document. They are increasing in number. Do you remember when there was a bounty?

202.

The Chairperson: You took the tongue of the fox into the police station.

203.

Mr Savage: Foxes are not scarce.

204.

The Chairperson: Those foxes are not in the wild; they are foxes that are being kept for their fur, which is another issue.

205.

We do not want to put all the information into the Committee's report. It is a waste of money to include copies of every submission that we receive in the report. The Committee could make its main submission and lodge copies of the other representations in the Assembly Library.

206.

Mr Ford: Our staff could adequately prepare a two- or three-page summary, which is all that we require. They have already done that, although other represent<->ations that have agreed with the purposes of the Bill, but have not spelt it out in detail, have not been included. Those should be added in.

207.

The Chairperson: We should lodge them in the Assembly Library in case anyone wants to consult them. However, it would be a waste of public money to publish all the submissions. Nobody will read them anyway. We shall move to the next item of business.

208.

Mr Douglas: We should acknowledge the research and work that has been done by our staff. Though the issue was important, was felt that we should not spend much more time on it, and because the relevant information was available, it was easy to deal with it quickly. I express my thanks.

209.

The Chairperson: We have heard from everyone we wanted to write to us, and their propositions are before us. Only one proposition has yet to arrive, and that is from Newtownabbey Borough Council, which could not reply in time.

210.

Mr Ford: The Committee is to have a further meeting with the Department on 21 June. It is hoped that that will not be a long session. Will it be possible to complete the clause-by-clause scrutiny of the Bill to allow the staff to get it printed over the summer? Given the potential legislative programme, we ought to be able to get a Bill like that out of the way.

211.

The Committee Clerk: Chairperson, you have raised a few items with the Department, which has yet to reply to them. They may require consideration of an amendment. On the other hand, as with the Dogs (Amendment) Bill, the Committee may agree with the Department's rationale that there is no need for an amendment for those items of business. Until that is known, it is impossible to say.

212.

Mr Ford: A limited number of points remains to be discussed; there should be limited discussion on them.

213.

The Chairperson: That is up to the Committee.

214.

The Committee Clerk: It should be possible to finish taking evidence and to go through the Bill clause- by-clause at the same session. The Committee can then agree that it is content with the clauses or recommend amendments to them.

215.

Mr Ford: We should set that today as our aspiration, unless complexities arise when the Committee meets the Department on 21 June. This business could be completed and signed off by the summer.

216.

The Committee Clerk: A report must be signed off, but that could be done on 28 June.

217.

The Chairperson: All Members are agreed on that.

Mr Savage (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Dallat
Mr Ford
Mr Kane
Mr McHugh
Mr M Murphy

Mr J Given ) Department of Agriculture
Ms M Hood ) and Rural Development

218.

The Deputy Chairperson: I remind Members to ensure that their mobile phones are switched off.

219.

I welcome Mr Johnston Given and Ms Margaret Hood from the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. We are here to go through the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill.

220.

Mr Given: Several questions have been asked recently, and we could clarify those if you like. I have made a note of them. For example, we were asked what would happen if the animals were to escape or be let out. It is an offence under article 15 of the Wildlife (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 to allow any species not native to Northern Ireland to escape or be released into the wild.

221.

The Deputy Chairperson: It is an offence to release them into the wild?

222.

Mr Given: Yes. They could escape, and there could always be an argument as to whether they escaped or were released, but that is for the courts to decide. It would result in a level three fine of £1,000.

223.

The Deputy Chairperson: Members, we are going through the Bill clause by clause. We come to clause 2. The Committee asked for clarification regarding the criteria on which the Department would base its decision on whether or not to prosecute the secondary offence, and that is in the minutes of evidence of 24 May 2002.

224.

In its response, the Department says that any decision to prosecute the secondary offence would depend on the circumstances of the case and the evidence available to the Department. The Department highlights the example, given in the explanatory and financial memorandum, of a person who knowingly grants tenancy of land to a fur farmer. The Committee may wish to decide if it is content with the Department's explanation. Members may wish to ask the Department to expand on the current explanation contained in the explanatory and financial memorandum regarding those likely to be subject to clause 1(2). Before we move on, do members have any questions?

225.

Mr Given: You would need to treat the secondary offence on its merits, and a decision to prosecute would largely depend on the extent of the secondary person's involvement. You will have dealt with the primary offence, which is the main one. It is hard to say what kind of situation might give rise to prosecuting the secondary offender. If he were very clearly in charge of the operation, you would probably prosecute him, but if he had merely leased the land to someone, perhaps without even knowing the purpose, you might think twice about it.

226.

Mr McHugh: I was wondering what benefit there might be in that. I cannot see, for example, how you would be able to charge someone living in England who had leased land in Northern Ireland. I doubt the practicality of doing so.

227.

Mr Given: It would be difficult.

228.

Mr McHugh: What is the purpose of the stipulation? Is it to prevent someone from -

229.

Mr Given: It gives you scope. It allows you, if there is someone involved apart from the primary person, to investigate the situation and decide on prosecution. It is a backstop.

230.

Mr Ford: Perhaps I might return to Mr Given's original point regarding the Wildlife (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 and the offence of releasing animals. Does that provide adequate protection against the possibility that someone's negligence may allow animals to escape into the wild, even if they are not actively released?

231.

Mr Given: Yes. In my opinion, the offence of releasing animals would be equivalent to negligence allowing their escape. I hope that a court would take the view that negligence in not keeping animals in would be tantamount to release.

232.

Mr Ford: I hope so too, but I am not certain that a court would necessarily agree. Is there a case for including in this Bill a specific mention of negligence, as distinct from the release mentioned in the 1985 Order?

233.

Mr Given: The 1985 Order says that

"1) Subject to the provisions of this Part, if any person releases or allows to escape into the wild any animal which-

(a) is of a kind which is not ordinarily resident in and is not a regular visitor to Northern Ireland in a wild state; or

(b) is included in Part I of Schedule 9,

he shall be guilty of an offence."

234.

Mr Ford: So you think that the wording "allows to escape" is adequate?

235.

Mr Given: Yes.

236.

Mr McHugh: To some extent this question is almost hypothetical, since we are not supposed to keep such animals. However, are there standards for the cages? If you erect something that does not meet the standards, might you expect that animals will escape? Is that checked?

237.

Mr Given: One of the existing Orders certainly lays down standards, but that will ultimately be part of the evidence.

238.

The Deputy Chairperson: Are members content with the information that Mr Given has provided us with in regard to clause 1?

239.

The Deputy Chairperson: This clause gives the courts the power to make an order for the forfeiture and destruction or disposal of animals in the event that a person is convicted of either the primary or secondary offence. Are members content with the explanation furnished by the Department?

240.

Mr Ford: The forfeiture order, as proposed, seems to refer to the animals concerned. Is there not also a case for a forfeiture order regarding equipment?

241.

Mr Given: That is a good point. The animals are the key to the forfeiture order. We are trying to prohibit fur farming, and if the animals are disposed of, there will not be any fur farming.

242.

Mr Ford: People would still have the equipment, which would have a financial value. Including the equip<->ment in the forfeiture orders would be an additional disincentive to anyone to break the law.

243.

Mr Given: In other words, no one should be able to benefit in any way from this business, including, for example, by selling the equipment.

244.

Mr Ford: There should be no possibility of a sale of the equipment to someone in this jurisdiction, or another jurisdiction where fur farming may be legal.

245.

Mr McHugh: The equipment should be im<->pounded.

246.

Mr Given: The order clearly applies only to the destruction or other disposal of the animals. Are you suggesting that any equipment associated with the business should also be disposed of?

247.

Mr Ford: It would be logical to include the equipment that was specifically used for fur farming. I am not talking about the general forfeiture of all equipment on the premises. However, cages used for mink, for example, should be included in the forfeiture order.

248.

Mr Given: I have no problem with taking that matter back to the Department and discussing it with lawyers.

249.

Mr M Murphy: People would have to be compensated for the removal of that equipment.

250.

Ms Hood: Yes. Presumably people would receive compensation.

251.

Mr Ford: That would depend on the Regulations that you make regarding compensation.

252.

Mr McHugh: Yes. People should be compensated only for a business that was established before the Bill.

253.

Mr Ford: There should be no compensation for activities that have been deemed illegal.

254.

Mr M Murphy: Is fur farming illegal at present?

255.

Mr Given: No. Any scheme for compensation will apply to businesses that did not require to be licensed and that were in operation prior to the introduction of the legislation. However, we do not believe that there are any such businesses.

256.

The Deputy Chairperson: Has anyone contacted the Department to say that there are any such businesses? Are you satisfied that there are none?

257.

Mr Given: None has been brought to my attention. I would be surprised if any such operations existed but had not come to the Department's attention, given the number of departmental officials who travel around the countryside with the Ulster Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (USPCA ) and others.

258.

The Deputy Chairperson: Is the Committee content with clause 2?

259.

Mr Ford: I am happy with the clause, subject to what we have just discussed.

260.

Mr Given: Does the Committee wish me to reconsider that?

261.

Mr Ford: That would be useful.

262.

The Deputy Chairperson: Is the Committee content with clause 2, subject to that amendment? The Committee may need to wait for an amendment. It depends on the answer that Mr Given provides when he appears before the Committee again.

263.

Mr Given: Presumably, the Committee could propose an amendment at that stage.

264.

The Deputy Chairperson: The Committee will need to wait to see what you say next time.

265.

Mr Given: I will talk to lawyers and advise the Committee, which can then decide whether to propose an amendment.

266.

The Deputy Chairperson: Clause 3 deals with the effect of forfeiture orders and provides a right of appeal. No concerns were raised about this clause. Are Members content with clause 3?

267.

Mr Ford: There is a potential knock-on effect from the matter I raised with regard to clause 2. There is no problem with clause 3 as it stands, but if clause 2 were amended, a consequential amendment to clause 3 would be required.

268.

The Deputy Chairperson: OK.

269.

The Deputy Chairperson: Clause 4 confers a power of entry and inspection to enable the gathering of evidence, and a power to enter premises to carry out a forfeiture order. Are members happy with the response from the Department? OK.

270.

The Deputy Chairperson: Clause 5 deals with compensation for existing businesses. Members have seen the response from the Department.

271.

Mr Ford: Some of us have asked how compen<->sation becomes payable. My understanding is that there is nothing to prevent me from establishing a fur farm tomorrow and claiming compensation from the Depart<->ment when the Bill goes through. The Bill should contain a cut-off date, possibly the date the Bill was introduced. The Committee's legal advice is that there should not be a date, but the suggestion is that there should be a reference in clause 5(3) to the effect that the Regulations should specify the latest date in respect of which payments will be made. That must be more explicitly spelt out.

272.

Mr Given: The purpose of this clause is to set the framework for any compensation scheme. The clause gives the Department adequate cover to do whatever it wishes with regard to setting start dates or end dates. It is not usual to put the date in the Bill as Mr Ford suggests.

273.

Mr Ford: I appreciate that it is not usual to put the date in the Bill, but surely it is reasonable to specify that the Regulations shall prescribe a date. That makes it clear that there is no intention to provide open-ended compensation to anyone who jumps on the bandwagon now.

274.

The Deputy Chairperson: What is in place to prevent someone from starting a fur farm business today and then claiming compensation?

275.

Mr Given: The Department would tell the applicant that the consultation letter that was sent out to everybody on 10 April 2001 specified that no compensation was payable to anyone who went into business after that date. Clause 5(3)(b) says that any compensation scheme shall "specify the businesses in respect of which payments are to be made". It could, for example, specify "a business being in operation before 10 April 2001" - the date that the Department is likely to use - so there is no need to go any further.

276.

Mr McHugh: So no one will get a licence to start a fur farm.

277.

Mr Dallat: Providing a date almost invites people to start a fur farm before that date. The advice that the Committee has been given is professional and should be used.

278.

The Deputy Chairperson: The Agriculture Depart<->ment has asked for legal advice, and there is some conflict of opinion. The advice to the Committee is to specify a date before which a business must have been in operation in order to qualify for payments. There must be clarification.

279.

Mr Given: There are two dates in question. If there were to be a compensation scheme, the Department would make it applicable to people who were in operation before 10 April 2001. In any scheme, a closing date, on or before which those who qualify for assistance must apply, is also specified. The cover is in place to do both of those things.

280.

Mr McHugh: We do not need to add.

281.

Mr Given: Lawyers are like doctors; they differ.

282.

Mr Kane: Therefore, David, your new venture will go out of business.

283.

Mr M Murphy: The Committee is not asking the Department to include a deadline in the Bill. It is beyond doubt that the scheme can specify a date. The proposed amendment would be to specify a date after which payments cannot be made.

284.

Mr Given: Are you referring to a date, having introduced the scheme -

285.

Mr M Murphy: That is the advice that the Committee was given.

286.

Mr Given: No claims will be entertained after a certain date. The point is that the Department may never introduce a scheme.

287.

The Deputy Chairperson: Are there two dates?

288.

Mr Given: The Bill will provide sufficient cover to allow for two dates: a date before which applicants must have been in operation in order to qualify for compensation, and a date by which people must apply in order to receive payment. However, if nothing comes out of the woodwork, the Department may not establish a scheme.

289.

The Deputy Chairperson: The Committee is trying to safeguard itself -

290.

Mr McHugh: David could start a scheme.

291.

Mr Given: I would rather he did not.

292.

Mr Ford: With respect, that is not an answer. Clause 5(3) contains five proposals that the Department's scheme may never do. The Committee merely wants to add a sixth proposal that the Department may never do, but which is there to provide cover for the cut-off point of 10 April 2001.

293.

Mr Given: If 10 April 2001 is the correct date, are you talking about that date or the end date?

294.

Mr Ford: I am talking about what you defined this morning as 10 April 2001: the date on which you informed people that there would be no payments to anyone going into business after that date. At the moment, the Committee is aware of the Department's belief that the various parts of clause 5(3) give adequate cover. You referred to 10 April 2001 as the date that was given to those who might be affected by the cut-off point. The Committee feels that another subsection should be included to enable the Department to make it clear that 10 April 2001 has legal standing. The Department believes that it is covered; the Committee is not sure of that. I do not see why the Department would worry about having a belt as well as braces.

295.

Mr Given: I will refer that point to the Depart<->ment's lawyers.

296.

The Deputy Chairperson: Are you happy with that, Mr Given?

297.

Mr Given: I am happy with almost anything at the minute.

298.

The Deputy Chairperson: Members want to be sure that they have received adequate legal advice.

299.

Mr Given: I will take that on board and talk to the Department's lawyers to determine what they think about the inclusion of that date. As Mr Ford said, it would copperfasten the date that is already in the public arena.

300.

Mr Ford: It is in the public arena, but it has no legal authority.

301.

The Deputy Chairperson: That covers clause 5.

302.

The Deputy Chairperson: Clause 6 contains the title of the Bill and provides for the legislation to come into operation on 1 January 2003. No specific issues have been raised.

303.

The Committee has asked for the Department's views on the Chairperson's concerns that the proposed Bill might allow breeders to raise mink primarily for meat, and sell their fur as a by-product, in the same way that leather is a by-product of the beef industry.

304.

Mr Given: We replied to that. The Bill, as proposed, would enable a breeder to raise mink primarily for meat and sell the fur as a by-product. The breeder would have to establish, to the Department's satisfaction, that there was a market for such meat and that that was the primary purpose of the enterprise.

305.

Mr McHugh: We are talking about the animal being mink; there are larger furrier animals that would be more valuable.

306.

The Deputy Chairperson: We await your answers on the possible amendments, Mr Given, and that will close the matter.

307.

Mr Given: I have received correspondence asking that the principle of the Bill be enunciated in the Bill. That is not proper. As the lawyer says, "the principle is not relevant to the legal proposition". However, it could be included in the explanatory and financial memorandum, which is ultimately published as notes to the Act when the Bill is enacted. If Members felt that that would be helpful, we could add something in. For example, the explanatory and financial memorandum states at paragraph 3 that

"The purpose of the Bill is to prohibit the keeping of animals solely or primarily for slaughter for the value of their fur. The Bill would bring the law into line with that in England, Wales and Scotland."

A form of words such as

"The Bill, which would bring the law into line with that in England, Wales and Scotland, is being promoted on the grounds that fur farming is not consistent with proper value and respect for animal life."

308.

could be used if members felt it was appropriate. The issue was mentioned in a fax or e-mail that I received. We can arrange that further down the line, if required.

309.

The Deputy Chairperson: Thank you, Mr Given and Ms Hood for your contributions. Do members have any further questions?

310.

Mr McHugh: Does Mr Given have any answers for questions that we have not asked?

311.

Mr Given: That is what I have just done - which is always foolish.

312.

The Deputy Chairperson: Thank you.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley (Chairperson)
Mr Savage (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Armstrong
Mr Bradley
Mr Douglas
Mr Ford
Mr Kane
Mr McHugh
Mr Molloy

Mr J Given ) Department of Agriculture
Ms M Hood ) and Rural Development

313.

The Chairperson: Welcome Mr Given and Ms Hood from the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. The Committee would like to deal with the proposals made last week, which you have replied to. We would also like to discuss the Committee's proposal for additional penalties on conviction, such as the seizing of equipment, and why the Department has decided not to move forward on that.

314.

Would you make a statement on that matter, and if the Committee is content with it we will move to the clause-by-clause consideration of the Bill.

315.

Mr Given: Two issues were raised last week. The first concerned the forfeiture order and the proposal to include equipment. The second concerned the question of including some reference to when payments may be made under the scheme mentioned in clause 5.

316.

The Department considers that clauses 2 and 3 are sufficient for the purpose of the Bill, which is to stop fur farming. We do not think it necessary to extend the forfeiture order to include equipment. It would be difficult to agree a definition of the word "equipment". For instance, would it include cages, or a barn? Our legal advice is that such an extension to the legislation would be an additional penalty on conviction and would require the Secretary of State's approval. Our legal advisers tell us that he would be reluctant to give such approval because such a provision is not included in legislation applying to other parts of the United Kingdom.

317.

Mr Ford: On a point of principal, I do not accept the view that the Secretary of State's reluctance should be a reason for this legislature not to do what it thinks is best for Northern Ireland. I am not persuaded by that argument.

318.

The Assembly Director of Legal Services has identified potential knock-on practical difficulties that probably go beyond the significance of this Bill, and I would be happy to accept the view that the Committee should not push for forfeiture of equipment at this stage. However, I am not deeply persuaded by the Department telling us that we should not do the best for Northern Ireland just because something is not happening in England, Wales or Scotland. The Committee should flag that as a point of principal in all its work.

319.

The Chairperson: All Committee members would agree that this is a devolved Government. Whether the Secretary of State is so senseless that he does not see what we see as good sense is no reason for us not pressing ahead with our good sense and thus not leaving ourselves in the hands of his folly. This hidey-hole that you have found, Mr Given, is not a good hidey-hole - I am being jocular.

320.

We do not think what you have said makes for good argument. We believe that if what we are saying is right then we should argue the point with the Secretary of State. If the argument is then lost; so be it. As my colleague, Mr Ford, said, the reason for not pursuing the matter is because of the information given by our legal adviser about the difficulties that would arise, not because we have any respect for the brains and talent of the Secretary of State or that he would not accept it because it is not done in the remainder of the United Kingdom.

321.

The main difficulty would arise in trying to prove ownership.

322.

Mr Ford: In fairness to Mr Given and Ms Hood; they flagged up some practical difficulties also.

323.

Mr Given: My primary point was not about the Secretary of State.

324.

The Chairperson: I think we have come to agree<->ment about the matter and we agree to proceed with only the amendment to clause 5.

325.

Mr Given: I was absent for part of the week; however, Ms Hood had been working with the legal people to produce the amendment. If the Committee is satisfied with it, we will arrange for the Bill to be amended accordingly.

326.

The Chairperson: Are you giving an undertaking that the Minister will move the clause as amended?

327.

Mr Given: No. However, I do not envisage any difficulty.

328.

The Chairperson: The Committee would expect that this would be a matter for the Department and that the Minister would move the amendment.

329.

Mr Given: I do not foresee any difficulties. I will persuade the Minister that it is a good idea.

330.

The Chairperson: I do not think that this should come from the Committee. We are agreeing this amend<->ment on the undertaking that the Minister will move it.

331.

Mr Ford: I am happy with the amendment; however, I would raise one point with Ms Hood about her email dated 27 June. It states that I suggested that rather than 10 April 2001, the date of the original letter, that the date of 13 May 2002 would be more appropriate. The transcript of last week's meeting shows that I suggested that the date should be the one on which the Bill was introduced. It was only a minute or two later that Mr Given pointed out that the letter was sent out on 10 April 2001. I am not arguing for the date the Bill was introduced rather than the date that the notification was sent. When I made my suggestion, I was unaware that the letter had been sent on 10 April 2001. I do not believe that 13 May 2002 should be the cut off date.

332.

Mr Given: The amendment will not stipulate a date.

333.

Mr Ford: I want it on the record for when the Committee considers the regulations that you may make that I am not arguing for 13 May 2002 on the basis that you wrote to people on 10 April 2001.

334.

Mr Given: The legal advice is that given the time that has elapsed, the date of introduction of the Bill might be a more appropriate date to use. The matter can be looked at if and when such a scheme is created.

335.

Question proposed: That the Committee recommend to the Assembly that the clause be amended as follows: in page 3, line 36, insert

"(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." - [The Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development.]

336.

Mr Ford: Would the Committee Clerk advise us if it is proper for us to be content with a clause if the Minister is to move an amendment suggested by officials? Failing that, the Committee would have to move the amendment.

337.

The Chairperson: Yes.

338.

Mr Ford: It is quite clear, but is it proper?

339.

The Chairperson: Yes. It would then be the responsibility of the Minister. The Committee has said that it would pursue the matter. I feel that having discussed the mater with the officials and agreed the wording of the amendment that it is now the Minister's responsibility.

340.

Mr Ford: The issue is whether the Committee Clerk can write a proper report on the Committee's deliberations on this matter.

341.

The Committee Clerk: Yes. The Chairperson will put the question in such a way that the Committee will be recommending to the Assembly that the clause, as amended, as directed by the Minister through the email from Ms Hood dated 27 June, be accepted. That recom<->mendation would stand whether or not the Minister tables it.

342.

Mr Given: That is a persuasive argument for me to get it done.

343.

The Chairperson: That is the end of our consider<->ations. Thank you for your help. I understand that Mr Given is retiring. I would like to give you my good wishes. We are sorry that we will not be seeing your smiling face and your increasing halo. We trust that you will have a very happy retirement and that you will be re-tyred to run faster and smoother.

344.

Mr Given: Thank you very much.

Paper provided by the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD) - 24 May 2002 ANNEX 1

Summary of written submissions to the Committee ANNEX 2

Written submission by the Council for Nature Conservation & the Countryside - 5 June 2002 ANNEX 3

Written submission by Compassion in World Farming - Ireland - 24 May 2002 ANNEX 4

Written submission by the National Trust - 29 May 2002 ANNEX 5

Cover letter to submission from Respect for Animals - 27 May 2002 ANNEX 6

Cover letter to submission from the British Fur Trade Association - 30 May 2002 ANNEX 7

Correspondence from Committee to DARD - 27 May 2002 ANNEX 8

Letter from Committee to DARD - 10 June 2002 ANNEX 9

Response from DARD - 14 June 2002 ANNEX 10

Letter from the Northern Ireland Assembly Director of Legal Services - 19 June 2002 ANNEX 11

Correspondence from Committee to DARD - 24 June ANNEX 12

Correspondence from DARD - 27 June 2002 ANNEX 13

24 May 2002

1. The Department believes that a ban on fur farming should be introduced for the same reasons as prohibition is being taken forward elsewhere in the UK, namely that fur farming is not consistent with a proper value and respect for animal life.

2. In England and Wales the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Act 2000 received Royal assent on 23 November 2000. The ban will come into force on 1 January 2003 under the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Act 2000 (Commencement) Order 2001. From that date it will be illegal in England and Wales to keep animals solely or primarily for slaughter for the value of their fur. A Bill to ban fur farming in Scotland received Royal Assent on 11 April and will come into operation on 1 January 2003 by means of a commencement order.

3. The ban is being sought primarily on grounds of public morality rather than animal welfare although that too is a consideration.. Killing of animals is not right or wrong per se but animal life should not be destroyed in the absence of a sufficient justification in terms of public benefit. The Department believes that the rearing of animals solely or primarily for slaughter for their fur fails this test and that fur farming can not therefore be justified.

4. The position of fur farming is quite distinct from that of food production. Where the primary purpose of keeping an animal is the production of food, that purpose provides a sufficient public benefit to justify breeding the animals for slaughter. This is so even where the production of fur or hide is a secondary purpose of keeping an animal.

5. The ban on fur farming may be challenged by fur farmers on the grounds that it infringes the right to the peaceful enjoyment of property and possessions guaranteed under Article I of the First Protocol to the ECHR. Any interference with the use of property must achieve "a fair balance" between the general interest of the community and the individual's right to the enjoyment of possessions. In GB the government was satisfied that a winding-down period of at least 2-3 years, together with the payment of compensation to existing fur farmers put out of business by the ban, would minimise the risk of a successful challenge. (In Northern Ireland although there are no known fur farms, provision to make a compensation scheme is included in the Bill in order to satisfy any ECHR considerations.)

6. There is also a risk that the Bill could be challenged under Article 28 of the Treaty of Rome which bans quantitative restrictions on imports and measures having equivalent effect to such restrictions, subject to the exceptions in Article 30. Article 30 permits exceptions to the prohibitions under Article 28 on a number of grounds, including those of public morality and the protection of animal life.

7. The proposed ban would arguably come within the scope of Article 28, as a ban on fur farming in the UK would have the indirect effect of hindering potential imports from other Member States of mink intended for fur farms in this country. It is considered that by virtue of Article 30 of the EC Treaty, the ban is lawful under EC law, being justified on the grounds of public morality.

8. The Bill will not repeal the Destructive Imported Animals Act (NI) 1933. It will therefore still be possible to issue licences to permit the keeping of fur bearing animals for the purposes of exhibition in a zoo etc or other exceptional purposes.

9. The Bill creates a primary offence of keeping animals solely or primarily for slaughter for the value of their fur or for breeding progeny for such slaughter. The offence can be committed by a company or by a person. It does not matter whether the slaughter will be carried out by the keeper of the animals or by another person.

11. The Bill makes it an offence knowingly to cause or permit the keeping of animals solely or primarily for the prohibited purpose.

(i) where a director of a company causes the company to keep animals for their fur;

(ii) where a family arrangement exists which amounts to an informal partnership by which profits of the business are channelled to a person other than the keeper; and

(iii) where a landlord grants a tenancy to enable the tenant to carry on a fur farming business.

12. It is anticipated that there would be relatively few cases where a person would be guilty of a secondary offence. However, in some cases the keeper may be abroad or have died. For example, in the case mentioned at 11(1), the company may be an overseas company, and the enforcement of fines against an overseas company may give rise to difficulties.

13. It may be argued that a landlord who does no more than turn a blind eye to his tenant's business and fails to take any action to prevent it should not be caught but even then, the landlord will not be blameless. The decision to prosecute will be a matter for discretion.

14. Mink are native to North America but have been kept for fur in Great Britain since the late 1920s. Escapes from mink farms led to the current feral population, with mink recorded as breeding in the wild in the late 1950s. Mink are semi-aquatic carnivorous mammals, which in the wild are a pest and pose a threat to wildfowl, sea bird colonies and vulnerable mammals such as water voles. There used to be fur farms in Northern Ireland up until, it is believed about twenty years ago. It is not believed that there is any sort of fur farm in Northern Ireland now.

15. The keeping of mink for their fur is controlled by the Mink (Importation and keeping) Regulations (NI) 1976 which intended to ensure that mink are kept in secure conditions. The keeping of arctic fox is controlled under the Arctic Foxes Order (NI) 1988. Both sets of legislation were made under the Destructive Imported Animals Act (NI) 1933.

16. The Destructive Imported Animals Act (NI) 1933 is not concerned with animal welfare or moral issues. It is solely concerned with prevention non-native species from causing damage to the environment because of their destructive habits.

17. In addition to licences to keep mink or arctic foxes for commercial reasons, "special" licences to keep mink or other fur species for exhibition, or other exceptional purposes are permitted under the Destructive Imported Animals Act (NI) 1933. These will be unaffected by the proposed Bill to ban fur farming.

18. Even though there are no known fur farms operating in Northern Ireland, provision to make a compensation scheme has been included in the Bill in order to satisfy any ECHR issues which might arise.

19. A public consultation paper on the proposal to ban fur farming was issued in April 2001. 83 bodies and individuals received copies. It was also made available on the DARD web site and was publicly advertised in the main Northern Ireland papers. Only 8 responses were received, five of which contained substantive comments, which all supported the proposals.

20. There has been little if any public concern expressed about fur farms by the NI public. However there has been quite a concerted campaign by GB residents to ensure that Northern Ireland follows suit and introduces a ban in Northern Ireland so as to prevent GB businesses transferring to Northern Ireland. A lobby group based in London has constantly been in touch to ask what progress is being made on introducing a Bill in Northern Ireland.

5 June 2002

Thank you for your letter of 21 May in connection with the above proposed legislation.

Council reiterates its earlier comments of 16 May 2001 and would further add that Mink already regarded as a significant factor in the decline of the common scoter may also be implicated in the decline of other ducks and breeding waders some of which are priority species under the Biodiversity action plan.

In our last communication, Council requested clarity in the term animal and notes that 2.1 states 'in respect of animals of a particular description'. Is this clarified elsewhere in the Bill? Council is also concerned about the legal definition of fur and whether this would extend to the breeding of rabbits for meat and fur or to other domesticated animals such as sheep, cows, goats, pigs whose hides in some cases could be of greater economic value than the meat.

Council is concerned at farming of introduced species in that as escapees in the wild they could have an injurious environmental impact.

I trust these comments are helpful.

DR LUCINDA BLAKISTON HOUSTON
Chairman

24 May 2002

Compassion in World Farming - Ireland is pleased that the Northern Ireland Assembly is now considering the above Bill. On behalf of our many supporters in Northern Ireland who would welcome an end to the factory farming of animals for their fur, we urge the Assembly to pass the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill as soon as possible.

MARY-ANNE BARTLETT
Director

29 May 2002

Thank you for your letter of 21 May. The National Trust remains supportive of the purpose of Bill. We have no comment to make upon the proposed text.

HUGH DEVLIN
Head of Environment & Estates

27 May 2002

Many thanks for your letter of 21 May as well as for giving Respect for Animals the opportunity of submitting our views on the proposed fur farm ban.

We welcome the bill wholeheartedly on behalf of our members in Northern Ireland who have supported a call for an end to fur factory farming for many years.

Our strong view is that fur farming is morally indefensible as it involves inherent and unacceptable animal cruelty to produce a frivolous product for which there are many alternatives. The ethical case against fur farming is clear and I enclosed a pre-publication copy of a document we are soon to have printed on the subject.

The fact is that fur farming is both inherently cruel and presents an unacceptable and unnecessary threat to the environ<->ment. Mink have been described as a 'houdini' species and escapes from fur farms are almost inevitable even under the best of circumstances.

An interesting insight into the background to the unnatural and unwelcome presence of mink in the wild was given during a debate by the Rural Affairs Committee of the Scottish Parliament (28 November 2000). MSP Alex Fergusson said: 'I come from an area in which there used to be a mink farm. When mink farming became unprofitable, the owner simply opened the doors of his cages and let the mink go.'

Whilst there are no fur farms currently operating in Northern Ireland at the moment there could not be a better time to ban them and to ensure that the threat they represent does not return.

The animal welfare arguments against fur farming underpin the ethical argument and are overwhelming and conclusive. The majority of the remainder of this submission is devoted to the welfare arguments, as there is now so much material available which backs our case.

Many of the concerns that Respect for Animals have been expressing for many years have recently been confirmed by the European Union's prestigious Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare (SCHAHAW).

I have enclosed the Conclusions and Executive Summary of the SCHAHAW report which says, unambiguously, that 'current husbandry systems cause serious problems for all species of animals reared for fur'. The report provides a damning indictment of fur factory farming referring to:

• high levels of stereotyped behaviour displayed by animals in fur factory farms - a sure sign of poor welfare;
• mink kit mortality of up to 30%;
• self-mutilation among both mink and fox;
• high levels of infanticide amongst fox kept in fur factory farms.

Mink and fox are inherently unsuited to intensive farm conditions. They are still essentially wild animals and keeping them in small barren wire cages is cruel.

The fur breeders have had ample opportunity to try to provide better accommodation but they have failed to do so. The fact is that they cannot. Their farms are constructed in accordance with the owners' needs and convenience and ignore the animal's most basic requirements.

Mink cages are never more than the length of a persons arm, for instance, and for fox they are as long as a grab - a particularly stressful way of handling such an animal.

The killing methods used to despatch animals on fur farms are unacceptable and have evolved, once more, to accommodate the needs of the operators.

The facts concerning the cruelty of fur farming have been accepted by a number of Governments which have already taken steps to ban it. All fur farming is now effectively banned in England and Wales, Scotland, Austria and Italy where the intensive conditions are now being phased out. Fox farming is already being phased out in Sweden and the Netherlands and both countries have given firm indications that mink farming is also to be banned.

The two main scientific papers on the welfare of farmed mink and fox are:

• The Welfare of Farmed Mink (Mustela vison) in relation to Housing and Management: A Review. A J Nimon and D M Broom. Animal Welfare 1999, 8: 205-228.
• The Welfare of Farmed foxes Vulpes vulpes and Alopex lagopus in Relation to Housing and Management: A Review. Animal Welfare 2001. 10: 223-248.

I have enclosed copies of both papers for your convenience.

Both papers have been peer reviewed and appear in a recognised scientific journal. The authors are members of the Cambridge University Animal Welfare Information Centre at the Department of Clinical Veterinary Medicine, University of Cambridge. D M Broom is Professor of animal welfare at that department.

The conclusions of the two main papers include the following:

'Farmed foxes have a considerable degree of fear, both of humans and in general'. The barrenness of the cages in which they are kept is a 'significant problem for the foxes' and 'farmed foxes can have substantial reproduction problems.' (Conclusion ii, 2001, pp 241-242).

In fact Nimon and Broom say: 'Killing and injury of cubs is a common problem on fur farms.' (p239, 2001). This form of cannibalism is probably due to the inability of the foxes to live in the types of social groups found in the wild. A proportion of 'low status' vixens seems likely to kill and mutilate their young and the keepers cannot identify these individuals.

'There is clear evidence that the welfare of farmed foxes in the typical bare, wire-mesh cages is very poor.' (Conclusion ii, 2001, p242) In addition: 'Increases in the size of the barren cage, without a consequent increase in the complexity of the environment, do not appear to benefit farmed foxes.' (Conclusion v, 2001, p242).

'The incidence of abnormal behaviours in farmed silver foxes is cause for serious concern. The killing and injury of cubs (tail removal, biting) by their mothers has been reported as a common problem on fox farms....' (Conclusion xi, 2001, p242).

The Welfare of Farmed Foxes paper has as a final conclusion that 'the desirable major improvements in welfare will be difficult to achieve.' (Conclusion xii, 2001, p 243).

'There is considerable evidence of poor welfare in mink kept in the most widely used cages under normal management procedures.' (conclusion xii, 1999, p223).

This conclusion is based on the observed 'high level and pervasiveness of stereotypes among farmed mink, and the incidence of fur chewing and even self-mutilation of tail tissue,..' (conclusion iii, 1999, p 222). The distressing, repetitive forms of behaviour which include rapid pacing up and down placing feet in exactly the same position every time, head bending etc are known as stereotypes and are a clear indication of poor animal welfare. These forms of behaviour are found on all fur farms. 'Fur chewing' and 'tail biting' are also expressions of frustration and therefore of poor welfare and are conditions well known to fur breeders. References to them are to be found in all fur breeding textbooks.

I have enclosed copies of photographs showing examples of self-mutilation.

Once again it is concluded that simply increasing the cage size on its own is not a solution. (Conclusion vi, 1999, p222). The fact is that these types of animals are highly inquisitive, active and semi-aquatic in their nature and their needs cannot be satisfied in intensive farm conditions.

The Farm Animal Welfare Council reached the same conclusions back in 1989 when it issued a statement in which it expressed its disapproval of mink and fox farming. Having thoroughly examined the evidence it said that 'the systems employed in the farming of mink and fox do not satisfy some of the most basic criteria which it has identified for protecting the welfare of animals.' (our emphasis). FAWC described animals kept in fur farms as 'essentially wild', reflecting the fact that, unlike animals such as pigs and cows which have been domesticated over a period of many thousands of years, mink and fox have been bred in captivity for less than 100.

FAWC sent a letter to the Parliamentary Secretary at MAFF with the statement which underlined how seriously it felt about the situation. It wanted to 'give a clear warning' that it did 'not see fur farming as an acceptable alternative enterprise as currently practised.' It went on to explain that it had decided against drawing up a 'Welfare Code' for mink and fox farming - as was its normal practice under these circumstances - 'to avoid giving it the stamp of approval which a Government backed Welfare Code would imply'.

The FAWC documents are enclosed and provide a clear and conclusive criticism of fur farming from an independent and authoritative source.

During 1998 the assertions that fur farming caused welfare problems was challenged by the British Fur Trade Association which complained to the Advertising Standards Association (ASA) about a leaflet produced by Respect for Animals. One complaint concerned the statement in the leaflet that:

'The fact is that these barren conditions (in fur factory farms) drive intelligent, inquisitive animals such as mink and fox to stereotyped behaviour, self mutilation and cannibalism.'

The ASA reviewed extensive and expert evidence from both sides and after prolonged consideration refused to uphold the complaint concluding that Respect for Animals had 'adequately supported the claim that those types of behaviour could be caused by factory farming'.

The main methods used to kill animals on fur farms are gassing (for mink) using carbon monoxide (CO) and carbon dioxide (CO2) and electrocution (for fox). Others methods used include: lethal injection, neck breaking and clubbing.

Since the animals destined to be killed are all despatched as soon as possible after their winter's moult, large numbers are slaughtered within a short period. Once more the owners' convenience determines how the practice operates rather than the welfare of the animals.

Gassing of mink is mostly carried out in a 'killing box' in which many mink are placed at one time. The box will normally have been filled with either Carbon monoxide (CO) or Carbon dioxide (CO2) supplied from a cylinder or, in the case of CO, often from a petrol engine. I have enclosed a photograph that shows a killing box where the exhaust pipe of the engine propelling the contraption is connected to the box.

There are a number of problems associated with the common methods used to kill animals on fur farms.

Mink, being semi-aquatic, are adapted to hold their breath for long periods and it has been shown that they are also aware of high concentrations of carbon dioxide. It may be that they actually detect a lack of oxygen in the air and so gassing is a particularly inappropriate way of killing them. Experiments have shown that mink are indeed averse to CO2. Cooper and Mason<$FDetermination of the aversion of farmed mink (Mustela vison) to carbon dioxide. J Cooper, G. Mason, M Raj., The Veterinary Record. September 26, 1998.> reported that 'mink detected and avoided high concentrations of carbon dioxide, and that if mink are to be killed humanely, less aversive techniques should be used.' They found that mink sneezed and coughed in the presence of CO2 and made 'rapid reflex withdrawals' from the experimental tunnel.

Research on the use carbon monoxide provided by an engine (a method commonly used on fur farms) concluded that 'Mink forced to inhale filtered exhaust gases showed excitation and considerable convulsions during a phase of decreased consciousness.'<$FEuthanasia of mink with carbon monoxide. E. Lambooy, J A Roelofs, N. van Voorst., The Veterinary Record. 13 April, 1985.> In fact the researchers noted that animals placed in a box with filtered exhaust gases 'moved nervously, became extremely excited and showed convulsions for a period of 12 seconds' (average).

Even worse, further research shows that mink exposed to 100% carbon monoxide took, on average, 64 seconds to lose consciousness.<$FEuthanasia of mink (Mustela vison) by means of carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide and nitrogen. Hansen, N. E., Creutzberg, A. & Simonsen, H.B. (1991), British Veterinary Journal 147, 140-146.>

No wonder the killing of animals on fur farms takes place well out of the public gaze and one can only guess at the suffering that takes place inside the 'killing boxes'.

In fact the only time slaughter has been filmed in the UK, the evidence obtained led to the conviction for cruelty of the person carrying it out. Video taken by Respect for Animals during 1997 was used by MAFF to prosecute a person employed at the mink farm at Crow Hill in Hampshire. The charges arose from his actions during the slaughter. Mink were seen panicking and biting and struggling with the accused as a result of which he hit them and slammed them against the killing box and floor. In his defence he said that the frantic animals bit him because they 'knew what was coming'.

Electrocution of fox is usually carried out using electrodes clamped to the animal's mouth and inserted in the rectum. The animals are caught and held in a neck clamp. Its efficacy depends upon the state of charge of the battery that is the usual source of power.

Since foxes on fur farms generally live in a chronic state of fear, handling them causes acute stress. Being caught with tongs around their necks and then having their tails grabbed, to be suspended whilst electrocuted is a terrifying experience. This method cannot be described as humane, however quickly death comes to end the terror.

Fur is an unnecessary product yet its production involves unacceptable levels of animal suffering. The ethical case against fur farming is very strong and was not addressed by the SCAHAW report which confined itself to the animal welfare aspects of fur farming. The clear inference to be drawn from the SCAHAW report confirms Respect for Animals' view that mink and fox are not suitable animals to be reared under farm conditions.

The enclosed document (The Ethical Case Against Fur Farming) argues the moral case authoritatively.

Thank you, once again for giving Respect for Animals the opportunity of commenting on the proposed ban. We would be very happy to provide further information should the Committee require (either in written on verbal form).

We urge the Northern Ireland Assembly to introduce a ban on fur farming as per the proposed bill as soon as possible.

MARK GLOVER
Director

30 May 2002

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.

ROBERT MORGAN
Executive Officer

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:

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:

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

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.

3. More information on: www.iftf.com or www.efbanet.com

27 May 2002

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.

10 June 2002

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.

14 June 2002

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.

3. Licences granted for mink/fox farming

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.

4. Keeping of mink for meat

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'.

Further points arising from the transcript which we have noted are:-

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.

8. CNCC raised the question of a definition of 'animal'

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.

19 June 2002

I refer to your note of 18 June.

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:

"(f) Specify a date after which no payments will be made".

I am happy to discuss.

24 June 2002

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.

27 June 2002

As discussed the Department is willing to amend Clause 5 as follows:-

There would be a new subsection (4) with the following wording:-

'(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.'

The existing subsections 4 and 5 would of course have to be re-numbered.

27 June 2002

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.

28 June 2002

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.

1. A selection of photographs

2. The Ethical Case Against Fur Farming - Pre-Publication Copy

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

Published by TSO Ireland and available from:

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

You can now order books online at www.tso.co.uk

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

The Stationery Office's Accredited Agents
(see Yellow Pages)

Printed in Northern Ireland by The Stationery Office Limited
© Copyright Northern Ireland Assembly Commission 2002