|
COMMITTEE FOR AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
Report on the
Fur Farming (Prohibition)
Bill
(Continued) 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. The meeting ended at 11.22 am. MINUTES OF EVIDENCE
Friday 7 June 2002 Members present: 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. MINUTES OF EVIDENCE
Friday 21 June 2002 Members present: Mr Savage (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Dallat
Mr Ford
Mr Kane
Mr McHugh
Mr M Murphy Witnesses: 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? Clause 2 (Forfeiture orders) 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. Clause 3 (Effect of forfeiture orders) 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. Clause 4 (Powers of entry and enforcement) 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. Clause 5 (Compensation for existing businesses) 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. Clause 6 (Short title and commencement) 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.
TOP
<< Prev Next >>
|
