Vol. 599 No. 5
I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
This is an Act to prohibit the keeping of animals solely or primarily for slaughter for the value of their fur. I wish to share time with Deputies Eamon Ryan, Cuffe, Ferris, Finian McGrath and Cowley.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
Private Members' time performs an important function in the House. It gives the Opposition an opportunity to do many things. Mainly, it is used to keep the Government in check by raising motions of concern and making the Government answer for the policies it pursues. However, it has a secondary and more important aspect in that it allows Opposition Members to present legislation which they would present if they had the opportunity to do so in Government. The House has the opportunity to give full consideration to such legislation.
More often than not the Green Party has chosen to introduce legislation when it has had Private Members' time in the House. This is the eighth occasion it has had this opportunity since the general election in 2002. On only one occasion did we choose not to present a Bill in the House and on that occasion we moved a most justified vote of no confidence in the then Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. He remains in the Cabinet and is now wreaking havoc in another Department, which we also oppose.
Nevertheless, a putative legislative programme from the Green Party and what it would like to implement should it be given the opportunity after the next election of participating in Government is seen in the seven Bills it has presented to date. There was a waste management Bill, a national transport authority Bill, a planning and development Bill relating to social housing, a broadcasting Bill which dealt with children's advertising, another planning and development Bill which dealt with open spaces and rights of way and a community development Bill.
The Bill before the House seeks to put into law the important principle that the practice of fur farming is inconsistent with ethical agricultural behaviour. It is presented now because, fortunately, fur farming remains a nascent industry in this country. It involves six farms that breed mink and one farm that also breeds arctic foxes for no other reason than the animals should be killed and their pelts sold.
The Bill does not seek any prohibition on the sale or distribution of fur. Consumers make those choices and, generally, they do not choose fur. Several chain stores have already made a decision not to stock such products. There was an incident in Dublin Airport a number of weeks ago where two such garments were made available for sale. They were immediately withdrawn because of public reaction. The most recent opinion poll conducted in Ireland showed that almost two thirds of voters believe fur farming is a practice which is inconsistent with normal agricultural practices and should be discontinued at the earliest opportunity.
As this Bill deals with a point of principle, we hope the Second Stage debate will give all Members an opportunity to accept it as a general principle and allow it to proceed to Committee Stage, where amendments can be made to improve it. There are restraints on Opposition Members to propose legislation that would impose a direct cost on the State. As a result, legislation such as this needs to proceed to Committee Stage, where amendments can be put forward by the Government to strengthen it. Other Members might argue that they agree with the principle of the Bill but would like some form of time mechanism put in place. That is something we are willing to discuss and examine critically on Committee Stage.
One of the stronger selling points of this legislation is that similar legislation is already in force in Britain and Northern Ireland and in countries such as Austria, where public debate and parliamentary representatives have chosen this route. In the past, there has been a reluctance in this House to pass innovative legislation. That stage has now passed, however, with the introduction of the smoking ban. We have shown that we no longer need to wait for hundreds of countries to pass certain legislation before we decide to react. We can be leaders in the global debate on this issue. I hope the Government will look favourably on the Bill.
My colleagues will discuss the economics of this issue. It involves a small number of farms, employing a small number of people. The legislation in the United Kingdom, which was a government Bill, provided for a compensation package to be paid to those who engaged in what was, prior to the legislation being passed, a legitimate business practice. Again, if the Government favours allowing this Bill to proceed to Committee Stage, the Green Party would be prepared to accept such a provision. However, the economics in terms of the value of fur farming to the Irish economy will be undermined by later contributors.
Another reason for introducing this Bill is the ramifications of the existence of this industry for the practices it facilitates under the wider heading of animal welfare. Huge issues relating to the economy, hunger, poverty and wealth disparity are the bread and butter issues of politics. Animal welfare issues tend to be put on the back burner. However, their importance to the public is often higher than members of the political system are prepared to admit. Animal welfare issues rate highly with the Green Party. That is the reason, on one of the rare opportunities we have to introduce legislation in the House, we have chosen to argue for this Bill.
Animal welfare considerations are the focus of groups which have campaigned long and hard for this legislation. These groups include Compassion in World Farming and the Alliance for Animal Rights. The same debate has taken place in other countries and groups who were successful in those debates are offering their advice on how legislation was passed in those countries and why such legislation should be on the Statute Book in Ireland.
The support we are seeking is an acknowledgement that, in principle, the concept that animals that are not part of the food chain should be kept in cages that are little bigger than their body size is an unacceptable agricultural practice in the 21st century. Not only should we try to get rid of this practice, we should encourage the diversification of agricultural practices, given that there are wider issues to be discussed in the context of CAP reform, under which there is a need to move towards other agricultural practices. The Green Party says they should not include fur farming practices, either now or in the future. We must discuss how those engaged in agriculture can better meet the needs of agriculture itself, the wider needs of the Irish economy and particularly the opinions of Irish society.
This is not a small Bill. One need only imagine 150,000 creatures. Would they fit in cages in this building? Would they fit into the House as they are about to be slaughtered? These 150,000 untamed creatures are kept in cruel conditions and are killed and sold for roughly €10 each. These creatures are living in what can only be cruel conditions for this supposed economic return. I will be interested to hear the Government's argument on this — it is a pity the Minister for Agriculture and Food is not here to argue the point; I hope she will be here tomorrow evening. It may well argue that it provides jobs, but it is clear that the number of jobs is limited — maybe about two to three people on each farm and some seasonal workers who have the woeful task of slaughtering these animals. This is not clever, profitable or right. People argue that we can do this in a way that is less cruel by having larger cages. I am told that in catching a mink or a fox, one can only have a cage as long as one's arm. If it is bigger than that, it is impossible to catch and kill the animal. That will always be uneconomic and wrong.
This is occurring in those parts of the country that are most economically disadvantaged, thanks to the Government. We have just had a debate about the huge imbalance in the development of this country. We all want to see jobs in farming. The Green Party and farmers will be united in the future in developing our resources. Instead of grabbing into a cage to get an animal, we will be lifting wood off the ground as fuel. We will be using the great tourist resources in the west and will be seen abroad not as an environmental pariah, as is the case at present, but as a country that stands for certain moral and ethical issues.
Green economics are about quality, not quantity. We should not just make economic decisions on the level of profit, on the cost and the sales. Those issues are important, but the green movement believes that economics need to be broadened. We have to make qualitative decisions and put that on the balance sheet. We can look at the issue of fur farming and refer to the cost, the jobs and the balance sheet, but we cannot ignore the fact that this activity is immoral, unethical and wrong. There will be a universal response to the Bill from this side of the House, that this is not moral, ethical or correct. The immorality of the practice outweighs any of the other figures the Minister might have. The Minister may argue that if we do not develop this industry, it will go east where there are poorer standards. That is part of the globalised race to the bottom, where we allow manufacturing on the basis of the lowest regulations.
On this side of the House we do not believe in such a race to the bottom. It is about time we legislated for certain moral and ethical certainties. Sometimes it is very difficult to show where the qualitative line is set, but on this issue, in this Bill it is perfectly simple. The correct decision is to legislate for what the people of this country want. We must take the right line and stop this barbaric practice.
This Bill is about compassion and concern for animals. There is a moral duty on humans to speak out for animals. Animals suffer pain, stress and boredom. The green movement has been characterised by concern for wider envrironmental issues. These environmental concerns have their roots in religious thought. That thought is in the preachings of Saint Francis and in the tenets that underlie the practice of Buddhism. In many religions, there is a concern for walking gently on this Earth and showing respect for all living creatures. International movements such as Greenpeace had their roots in concerns about international whaling and the killing of seal cubs in Canada. All these concerns are about having regard to animals that do not have a voice.
The concerns that have been expressed about mink and foxes are real. These are wild animals that do not have a long history of being kept in captivity and they show that stress and boredom. It appears there is unnecessary cruelty by putting wild animals in cages. There is a trend in Europe towards not allowing animals to be kept in captivity. In Austria, the Netherlands and, more recently, the United Kingdom, the practice of keeping foxes and mink has been outlawed. It is about time we joined the group of nations that have banned such activity.
A 2001 report by the European scientific committee on animal welfare examined the welfare of animals kept for production. It stated that there are serious problems for all species of animals reared for fur. It found deficiencies concerning cages and management methods, the training of farmers and responsible persons, breeding programmes and handling practices. Such concerns are addressed in this Bill. It is crucial that we give voice to those concerns and that we move towards ending this unnecessary and cruel practice.
The farming lobby argues that the animals are fine if one observes the colour and quality of their pelt. However, the animals are usually killed just after molting so the condition of the fur is not a true test of the conditions in which these animals live. The mink and the fox are killed at eight months, just after their first molt. At this time, their first winter coats have appeared and they are in prime condition. Therefore, the condition of the coat is not a fair benchmark of whether the animals are well kept. Due to the breeding and in-breeding among mink, mutations have occurred. Species of mink are being bred and are completely deaf in captivity because we are looking for a particular colour of fur. That is cruel and is unacceptable. We should look carefully at the conditions that apply. It is wrong that we allow these animals to be kept in captivity.
It is time we considered change. There have been periods of change in animal welfare going back to the 19th century in Ireland. What was seen as normal practice then is seen as cruel today. This Bill represents a quantum change in the treatment of animals, and such changes can continue in the future. The legislation in this area stems from 70 years ago. We must give voice to the concerns in this area. There are many campaigning organisations that support us in our efforts.
I wish to indicate my support, and that of my party, for this Bill. Sinn Féin also supported the extension of the British ban on fur farming when it was voted on in the Northern Assembly. I commend Deputy Boyle and the Green Party for having taken this initiative, which I welcome. It is unacceptable that what are essentially wild animals should be reared and killed simply to supply the demand of a relatively small number of people for clothes made from their hides. Apart from the fact that such items represent an expensive luxury, which is of no benefit to anyone and can easily be replaced by synthetic materials, there is also a question over the treatment of the animals concerned. They are kept in cramped conditions and are killed in a cruel manner to ensure their pelts are not damaged. The common practice is to gas or electrocute them.
A circular on this matter brought home to me the conditions in which mink are held in particular. As Deputy Eamon Ryan said, small cages are employed for breeding and storage. It says an awful lot about society as well as the people who are involved in the fur farming industry. In addition, it says much about the conscience of those who use animal furs for their own status and benefit.
The argument that fur farms provide a valuable economic asset does not stand up. The value of exports is around €1.5 million and few people are employed by such farms. Therefore, the argument that fur farming provides employment or is of great benefit to the economy is false. It is estimated that, worldwide, less than 2,000 people are employed full-time on farms that raise animals as part of the fur industry. The small size of the contribution that sector makes to the economy does not outweigh the negative aspects of the trade, especially when up to 50 animals might be killed to provide enough fur for just one coat to satisfy the insatiable demands of upper class people for status.
When a country such as Sweden, which was one of the leading suppliers of furs, could ban fur farming in 2000, there can be no economic argument in favour of its retention in this country. The higher-value end of the market is obviously in the production of items made from fur. That has been estimated to be worth over £10 billion a year but I am sure the companies involved would have little difficulty in moving to new areas of production involving the use of synthetic materials if that demand existed.
Undoubtedly, there is a demand for animal fur and two or three years ago there was a significant rise in sales in Britain. Fashion commentator, Judith Watt, explained this as the consequence of a backlash against those campaigning to ban fur. According to Ms Watt, such people were buying fur because they were "bored with being politically correct". That would appear to be a poor excuse, however, and does not speak highly of the mentality of those concerned. It might also go some way towards supporting the feeling of many that people who wear expensive animal furs are more interested in making a statement about their perceived social status, than about anything else.
It is difficult to defend the raising and killing of any animal to contribute to that sort of thinking. Some will argue that the wearing of animal fur is an intrinsic part of human culture and obviously it was at a time when our ancestors had no other choice. However, that is hardly a valid argument in favour of the use of fur for expensive luxury items that can now be supplied by other materials.
It is also argued that raising animals for their pelts is no different than raising animals for food or the production of leather. The difference, of course, is that in the latter case the animals concerned are domesticated and produce essential items for most people. Fur coats do not serve the same purpose. It is a flawed argument not to make the distinction between animals used in the food chain and others that are used uniquely to cater for a perceived social status.
The conservative philosopher, Roger Scruton, claims that objections to fur farming are no different from those made against raising animals for food. There are people who will consistently argue that both are wrong but most of us can make the distinction. Mr. Scruton also claims that objections to fur farming are based on a dislike for the sort of people who are likely to wear furs. Perhaps he is correct but such a dislike is based on weighing the misery of a captive wild animal against the frivolous luxury enjoyed by people who have many other outlets through which to pursue pleasure.
There is substantial evidence that, despite the claims of those involved in the industry, wild species bred in captivity for their fur do not become domesticated. This applies to mink, which is the species that has been used longest for this purpose. Research by a zoologist from Oxford University, Ms Georgia Mason, found that even after 70 generations had been bred in captivity, the offspring of captive mink still have exactly the same instincts as wild mink.
Animals that were, for whatever reason, released from fur farms into the wild in my region, the south west, caused havoc. They have done enormous damage to indigenous species and that damage is continuing. That will be attested to by any fisherman who has witnessed the result of activities of mink that escaped from fur farms or were released into the local habitat by failed fur farms. Yet mink are kept closely confined in small cages where they become extremely aggressive as a result of not being able to enforce their natural territorial limits and being away from the water in which they spend most of their lives in the wild.
I call on all Deputies to support this Bill to bring an end to what is an unnecessary trade in which the harm done to the animals involved far outweighs any economic benefits or any enjoyment of the produce of that misery.
I thank the Cheann Comhairle for the opportunity to speak on the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill 2004. I support the legislation because it is based on compassion and care for animals. I commend the Green Party for having brought the Bill before the House and I urge all Deputies to support this important, progressive and caring legislation. Fur farming is already banned in Northern Ireland, Britain and Austria. It should now be banned here due to the suffering involved for animals. Scientific studies have shown that foxes and mink kept in cages on fur farms do suffer. There are currently six mink farms and one fox fur farm operating in this country. Together they account for the deaths of approximately 153,000 animals annually.
I urge all Deputies to support the Bill. Fur farming is unique in the realm of intensive animal husbandry because foxes and mink are farmed simply to produce a non-essential fashion material. Fur farming is unlike other kinds of farming because foxes and mink are essentially wild animals. While other farm animals, such as cattle and pigs, have been domesticated over thousands of years, mink and foxes have only been bred in captivity for the past century. Moreover, selective breeding has been for fur characteristics, rather than for domestication. Farmed foxes and mink are not herd or flock animals. Unlike other farm animals, mink and foxes are basically solitary creatures, which means they are not well adapted to living on farms in close proximity to hundreds of other mink or foxes.
Fur farming produces a non-essential fashion material. Farming to produce a frivolous fashion material cannot be compared to farming for food. Fur farming raises serious ethical questions. Scientific studies have shown serious welfare problems arising from fur farming. The European Commission's scientific committee on animal health and animal welfare on the welfare of animals kept for fur production, published a report in 2001, detailing serious welfare problems found on typical fur farms. These include stereotypical behaviour, animals biting their own fur, sometimes to the point of self-mutilation, fox cub infanticide and fox fearfulness of humans. The report concludes that current husbandry systems cause serious problems for all species of animals reared for fur.
The Council of Europe standing committee's recommendation concerning fur animals is outdated and inadequate. In the absence of an EU directive on fur farming, fur breeders generally use the Council of Europe recommendation as a basis for fur farm conditions, for example, cage sizes. However, the recommendation is based on outdated research. In particular, it predates the comprehensive scientific committee report and, therefore, cannot address problems raised in this later report. Adherence to the standards laid down in the recommendation has not resolved and will not resolve the animal welfare problems on fur farms.
There is no economically viable, humane alternative to intensive fur farm conditions. Zoo conditions, which would be the minimum acceptable standard for essentially wild animals, would not be economically competitive and therefore do not represent a practical alternative. Fur farming is not of major value to the Irish economy, nor is it a major employer — that is the real world. Approximately 153,000 pelts are produced annually with an export value of €1.56 million according to Department of Agriculture and Food figures. Each farm employs approximately two or three people full-time with extra staff working during the short slaughter season.
Fur farming is publicly unpopular. Two out of three people are against and support a ban on fur farming. It is illegal in the North of Ireland, Britain and Austria, and is being phased out in Italy, the Netherlands and Sweden, which I strongly support. It is unlikely the EU will bring in legislation on fur farming for the foreseeable future. However, member states can and have put in place their own national legislation to prohibit fur farming. I ask the Government to stand up and be counted.
Mink farming risks damage to the environment, particularly from escapees that must compete with the relatively stable existing mink population for territories and food. Prohibiting fur farming would represent a major step forward in furthering high animal welfare standards in Ireland.
To consider the detail of the Bill, sections 1(a) and 1(b), which deal with offences relating to fur farming, create the offence of keeping animals solely or primarily for slaughter for the value of their fur or for breeding for such slaughter. Section 1(2) makes it an offence for a person to knowingly cause or permit another person to keep animals where the purpose is to do so solely or primarily for the value of their fur. I strongly support these sections.
Serious issues have been raised in this debate. I have outlined my clear opposition to fur farming. I urge all Members to support Deputy Boyle and the Green Party on this important issue and to vote for this important, compassionate, caring and, above all, sensible legislation.
I congratulate the Green Party, in particular Deputy Boyle, on introducing this important Bill. I also congratulate Compassion in World Farming and Respect for Animals for bringing this issue to the fore. This is the way we should proceed. We have power over dumb animals, which gives us responsibility. While we may choose to close our eyes to many world issues such as deprivation, poverty and famine, we should deal with this issue.
As noted by many speakers, this issue concerns wild animals that are not meant to be confined. Some wild animals are kept in zoos but fur animals are kept for one reason — slaughter for their fur. It is hard to justify how we, as a humane society, could continue to condone this cruel practice. As pointed out, the cages in which these animals are reared are very small, just large enough to take a person's arm. It must be a very cruel existence for a dumb animal under our control and in our power. It cannot be morally justified.
It was stated that 1,500 arctic foxes were due to be killed this year and 140,000 animals altogether per year will be killed for their fur. There has been a ban on fur farming in the UK since 2003. As it is said to be a growing industry in Ireland, it is obvious that having been banned in the UK, including in Northern Ireland, the industry has been driven south to this country. Here it will continue to grow and prosper, if one can use that word, so long as it is legal. While departmental regulations exist, they do not hinder what is a horrible industry.
"Morning Ireland" this morning graphically described how the fox is electrocuted by attaching electrodes to both its ends after a lifetime in a tiny cage. This cannot be justified. Given the mental and physical stress these animals suffer, they must live a terrible life. While foxes are electrocuted, mink are suffocated with carbon monoxide gas. These animals are semi-aquatic and used to surviving for some time under water so their death must be particularly cruel and slow.
The majority, some 64% of the Irish population, want to see an end to this cruel practice. Some might say we will drive it elsewhere if we ban it here but, while this may be true, it must be banned altogether. Fur farming is practised in some of the countries that recently joined the EU. However, a ban would spread the message that the practice is cruel and improper. It gives the wrong message to society in that those who are cruel to animals may be cruel to human beings also. Respect for life should be engendered in our children and through our schools. This practice takes away from respect for all animal life. Moreover, it is done in the name of fashion, an unnecessary application because fur can be produced artificially. The false fur industry will prosper if no real fur is available. The justification for fur farming is perverse and something fashion can do without.
The pelts are exported so we do not get any advantage from processing. The owners are probably people who have come to Ireland because they have been hunted from other countries. They escape a clamp down in their own countries to operate here. Serious animal welfare problems are associated with this practice. As was pointed out, there is no way it can be carried out in a more humane fashion because it concerns wild animals. It is good that the UK, including Northern Ireland, banned fur farming in 2003 and I hope we will follow this example, as have Austria and Italy.
The intention on the farms is that mink and foxes would be mated once a year and give birth in spring or summer. The cubs are reared until they are about six months old and then slaughtered.
I wish to share time with Deputies Brady and O'Connor.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I congratulate Deputy Catherine Murphy and wish her every success representing the people of Kildare North.
The Government is opposed at this time to the introduction of a ban on fur farming. The Government considers fur farming to be a legitimate farming activity in this country, a view that is shared among the vast majority of member states of the European Union. While there is no specific national legislation in place relating to fox farming, the particular legislation relating to the licensing of mink farms is the Musk Rats Act 1933 and the Musk Rats Act 1933 (Application to Mink Order) 1965. Under the Musk Rats Act 1933 (Application to Mink Order) 1965, the keeping of mink is prohibited except under licence from my Department. Licences, which must be renewed annually, are issued under this legislation only if the applicant, following an inspection, is found to be fully compliant with a number of key conditions. In addition, in common with all agricultural enterprises, licensed farms must comply with the animal health and welfare requirements pertaining to their particular sphere of activity.
The Department of Agriculture and Food has statutory responsibility for the welfare and protection of farmed animals through the Protection of Animals kept for Farming Purposes Act 1984 and the European Communities (Protection of Animals kept for Farming Purposes) Regulations 2000, SI 127/2000. In addition, the Council of Europe has made recommendations regarding animals kept for fur farming. The regulations for the protection of animals kept for farming purposes make up a general piece of animal welfare legislation and apply to many types of farming systems throughout the country, including cattle, sheep and pigs, as well as the animals kept on fur farms. The on-farm welfare inspections carried out by the Department veterinary inspectors include assessment of the animals, the facilities provided and the management practices employed. It is essential that the animals be cared for by a sufficient number of staff who possess the appropriate ability, knowledge and professional competence. Adequate care and attention must be provided to all animals on farms.
In fur farming husbandry systems, the animals must be inspected frequently to safeguard their welfare. Owners are obliged to keep records of any medicinal treatments given and of the number of mortalities found at each inspection. Buildings and equipment must be safely constructed and comply with certain standards for the animals. Adequate amounts of appropriate food and water must be provided at acceptable intervals. In addition, fur farms are obliged to comply with the methods and conditions for slaughtering fur animals as laid down in the regulations for the protection of animals at time of slaughter.
In June 1999, the standing committee of the European Convention for the protection of animals kept for farming purposes adopted a recommendation concerning fur animals. The recommendation applies to all animals kept primarily for their fur. It sets out guidelines for the stockmanship and inspection of fur animals, the enclosures, housing and equipment, management, breeding, slaughter and minimum space requirements. Licensed fur farms are inspected by the Department to assess compliance with the Council of Europe recommendations concerning fur animals and also Council Directive 98/58/EC concerning the keeping of animals kept for farming purposes. These inspections have to date found that all of the licensed fur farms in this country have been operating in compliance with current legislation. Inspections by the Department have also found that the slaughter methods employed by the licensed fur farms are permitted under the Sixth Schedule of the European Communities (Protection of Animals at time of Slaughter) Regulations 1995.
The six fur farms licensed to operate in this State provide valuable employment in rural areas across the country. I understand that some 80 full-time workers and 85 seasonal workers are employed by the industry. The industry generates significant exports and has invested considerable sums in bringing their facilities up to a standard that satisfies the Department of Agriculture and Food. The Department is satisfied that they meet these requirements.
As regards animal welfare generally, all animals must be treated in an appropriate and responsible manner. Increasingly, consumers and citizens alike want improved animal welfare standards and an appropriate legal framework to ensure their legitimate expectations are honoured. I recognise that animal welfare can be an emotive issue. While there is a broad consensus on the need to ensure that animals are properly cared for, there are divergent views on how this is best done. We have all seen evidence of veterinary, cultural, religious, economic, social and other considerations featuring in the ongoing exchanges. From time to time, we have seen very polarised positions adopted on particular aspects. This is not helpful.
As with most issues, the best prospects for progress and positive development lie in trying to identify as much common ground as possible and building on that. As far as animals kept for farming purposes are concerned, it has consistently been my view that adherence to high standards and commitment to further improvement is best secured by demonstrating to all involved that there is a strong correlation between legitimate economic interests and the welfare of the animals. Moral and ethical considerations are of great importance but to achieve real progress it is necessary to deal realistically also with economic, social and other considerations.
Primary responsibility for the care of all animals rests with farmers and other keepers of animals. In this regard, farmers and keepers are by and large pragmatists and realise that the best way to remain in business is to ensure their animals are properly treated. Farmers are the traditional custodians of animal welfare conditions and have over the years demonstrated their commitment in this area. Furthermore, they realise that there is little prospect of a long-term future for the business if the general public is not satisfied that legitimate sensitivities in relation to the welfare of animals are not taken into account by operators in the sector. The CAP has long recognised this.
Welfare of animals is governed by a wide range of EU and national legislation, much of which has been enacted in the past 20 years. A number of very important legislative initiatives have been undertaken in this area. These include provisions on animal welfare contained in the protocol annexed to the treaty and provisions concerning the protection of animals kept for farming purposes, as well as measures aimed at improving the welfare conditions of transported animals. Community legislation has also brought about major improvements in the standards governing the rearing of veal calves, specifically the harmonisation within the European Union of the size of the crates used in production of such calves. In 1999, the Community introduced new rules in order to improve the welfare of hens kept in battery cages and other rearing systems. More recently, in 2001, the European Union adopted rules to improve the welfare conditions of pigs, laying down provisions intended to provide them with proper surroundings, facilitating their natural behaviour and social interaction. New tighter animal welfare conditions applying in respect of transporting animals and the granting of export refunds on live animals have also been adopted.
It is also worth noting that the recent reforms of the Common Agricultural Policy will lead to a strengthening of the position of animal welfare in the agricultural policy of the EU. The cross-compliance requirements of the reform require that farmers respect basic animal welfare rules to benefit from the new single farm payment. Furthermore, the reformed CAP will focus on quality rather than quantity, with even greater emphasis on good animal husbandry. There has therefore been a constant updating in the Community's rules, which have brought about a significant push for improved animal welfare standards.
Here, we have been particularly proactive regarding animal welfare. In particular we have transposed all welfare legislation into national law and we were to the forefront in developing a regulatory framework for approving seagoing vessels for transporting animals. The livestock trade accepted that strict compliance with these requirements was entirely consistent with its economic interests, on the basis that if the welfare of animals being shipped was compromised during such journeys, the economic return and the future of the trade would be jeopardised. Farming organisations, transporters and shipping companies all bought into this regime because they realise there is little prospect of future business if concerns about animal welfare are not addressed.
We also have in place a farm animal welfare advisory council which includes representatives from farm organisations, animal welfare groups, the veterinary profession, animal transporters and others with an interest in animal welfare. This council provides a forum in which interests with opposing views have the opportunity to meet, discuss each other's positions and reach consensus on animal welfare issues which can inform public policy in the area. The forum has completed over two years of work and with the commitment of all its participants it is beginning to make a real contribution to progress in this area. The degree of consensus attained would have a bearing on the council's capacity in influencing the formulation of policy at both national and European level. Included in the work programme of welfare issues for discussion was the subject of fur farming. The council heard a number of submissions from parties who have a particular interest in and knowledge of the area. Following discussions on the subject the chairman concluded that the council could not take an absolute stance on fur farming.
A key aspect of any system of rules is the aspect of enforcement. It is essential that the monitoring arrangements in place are effective. It follows that detecting and dealing with abuses in a timely manner is of paramount importance. It is also important that meaningful sanctions are applied to persons responsible for animals who do not meet the required standards.
I am aware that the UK introduced a ban on fur farming from 2003. Likewise, I am aware of the views of bodies such as Compassion in World Farming and Respect for Animals. My colleague, the Minister for Agriculture and Food, Deputy Coughlan, recently met representatives of both organisations and had detailed presentations and an exchange of views with them on fur farming and other animal welfare issues.
In considering the approach to fur farming, the following considerations arise. While fur farming has been banned in the UK and Austria, most other member states currently allow farming of some animals for fur production, although some ban farming of certain species; fur farming is a legitimate business activity and provides employment in disadvantaged rural areas where alternative employment prospects are minimal; the industry does not receive any State support; the fur industry is fully aware of animal welfare requirements; the Department monitors fur farms to ensure compliance with the relevant standards; the IFBA monitors fur farms; fur farms in Ireland have displayed a willingness to comply with the requirements of the Department; and a ban on fur farming would mean that Ireland's market share would be taken up by another fur producing country and, therefore, the ban would not serve any practical purpose.
I am aware that the scientific committee on animal health and animal welfare produced a report on the welfare of animals kept for farming purposes in response to a request from the European Commission. The report contains scientifically based recommendations on how the welfare of fur animals can be improved. It presents a list of areas where future research is desirable. While there is a recognition in the European context that there is room for improvement in certain areas of animal welfare in fur farming, ongoing research is required to assist the development of enhanced welfare standards. The Department will fulfil its role in monitoring the implementation of these advances and expects the industry to play its part in moving forward and meeting its obligations.
While I note the points made by the proponents of this Bill, I am not favourable to the approach being adopted in terms of an outright ban. The correct approach is that of appropriate licensing and control procedures. What we are talking about here is an intensive farming activity. The animals farmed on Irish mink farms represent in some cases 80 generations of breeding and accordingly they are not typical of the mink one would find in the wild. The enterprises engaged in mink farming in this country are subject to various inspections carried out by the agricultural inspectorate and the veterinary inspectorate of my Department on an annual basis. The findings of these inspections indicate that these animals are housed in secure conditions, they are well cared for and disease is not a problem. The methods of slaughter employed by these licensed fur farms comply with European requirements.
Whether we like it, fur is a product that is much in demand. It is a product for which a premium price is achievable, depending on the quality of product. The proposed ban would result in an annual loss of almost €2 million in export earnings to the Irish economy. Inevitably, a ban on fur farming in Ireland would mean that Ireland's market share would be rapidly taken up by another fur producing country, most likely within the European Union. This shows that a prohibition as proposed in this Bill, even if deemed meritorious in its own right, would serve no practical or useful purpose.
In light of the foregoing and given that licensed fur farms operating in this country meet current national and EU requirements, there is no reason that what is a legitimate farming activity, which is permitted in the vast majority of EU member states, should be banned. Accordingly, I am not prepared to proceed to ban fur farming at this time. I am, however, prepared to keep the position under ongoing review in light of developments. In particular, I will consider introducing a provision in the forthcoming legislation on animal health and welfare which would require the extending of a licensing requirement to all enterprises engaged in farming animals for their fur.
I record my strong support for the Minister's position on this matter. The history of fur farming can be traced back to 1866 in the United States of America. It is a well established and highly regulated industry and gives valuable permanent and casual employment in some of the most disadvantaged areas of this country.
A considerable amount of research has been undertaken into different aspects of fur farming. Research results have in many instances been incorporated into law and farm practices that benefit animals farmed for their fur in areas such as housing, disease prevention, nutrition, husbandry, breeding and selection. Fur farmers are very conscious of the importance of continuing with this scientific research for two key reasons, first, fur farmers wish to ensure that farming systems continue to have a high standard of animal welfare and, second, they want to ensure that any new rules or regulations governing the sector will have a sound scientific basis.
The European Union is not just a producer of fur, but also a leading consumer of high quality finished fur garments which are much in demand in the EU fashion industry. Trade in fur is a truly international industry and the production of fur pelts stretches right across the world. Some 70% of global mink production took place in Europe in 2002. The world's largest fur auction houses are located in Copenhagen, Helsinki, Oslo, St. Petersburg, Seattle and Toronto.
Denmark is by far the world's largest producer and exporter of mink skins. Fur farming was worth €514 million to Danish farmers in 2002 and fur is that country's third largest agricultural export product after bacon and cheese. Fur farming is also important in central and eastern European countries such as Latvia, Poland, Lithuania and Estonia. In Poland the production figure for mink skins was 600,000 in 2002. I inform the House of these facts so as to show that Irish fur breeders make up merely a small part of a much bigger European and international market.
We must remember that one of the core values of the European Union is the internal market and removal of barriers to trade. I ask Members to consider fur as a product in the same way as they might view beef. For example, if Irish fur farmers are in a position to produce fur for sale on the international market without any subsidy or financial assistance and in compliance with the many and various animal health and welfare requirements, it seems manifestly unfair that they should be prevented from doing so. When one thinks about it, it seems inherently unjust that Irish farmers should not have the same opportunities to earn a living as their counterparts in other EU member states.
The demand for fur is increasing. World production of mink pelts was estimated to be in the region of 40 million in 2004, a considerable increase over previous years. Ultimately, the finished product is transformed into fur garments and worn by people throughout the world, from New York to Beijing.
Having listened to the various speeches and the business case made in this House, I have no doubt this Bill should be opposed. I will certainly vote against it.
I am delighted to have the opportunity to contribute to this important debate. We care deeply about animal welfare in Ireland and this is a sensitive and topical subject. Ireland has been to the fore in promoting animal welfare within the European Union. As a nation, we can justifiably take pride in the advances that have been made in animal protection standards.
I refer to a number of these initiatives. The European Community has been active on animal welfare for more than 20 years. A number of important initiatives have been undertaken. These include, in particular, the provisions on animal welfare contained in the protocol annexed to the treaty and provisions concerning the protection of animals kept for farming purposes, as well as measures aimed at improving the welfare conditions of transported animals.
The role of the Department of Agriculture and Food in live exports is to promote and maintain an environment in which the trade can continue in an economic and sustainable manner with due regard for the welfare of animals. The key elements in this are the preservation of the animal health status of Ireland, the maintenance of the international reputation of our veterinary certification regime and the application of a welfare regime that protects the welfare of animals being exported. This latter element is manifested through the inspection and approval of vessels for the carriage of livestock at sea, subject to a comprehensive set of statutory requirements introduced in 1995. New tighter animal welfare conditions applying in respect of the granting of export refunds on live animals have also been introduced. These new roles involve reinforced checks at exit points from the EU and at the place of unloading in third countries and the application of severe penalties where breaches are identified.
The questions most frequently raised in the pigmeat sector concern environmental protection and animal welfare. Animal welfare, in particular, has been at the forefront of discussions over the future of this sector, with the result that, in the past few years, our requirements in this respect have been continually upgraded to include measures such as minimum standards for living space and a minimum weaning age to supporting a higher level of training and competence among the stockmen in charge of the animals.
Tribute should be paid to the Minister. She has taken on this job and is impressing many, not only in rural settings but also in urban areas.
Including Tallaght.
Yes, there are farmers in Tallaght.
The Minister would look well in pink wellies there.
There is a small rural community in Bohernabreena, Tallaght. I would be happy to bring Deputy Naughten to meet the farmers there.
I applaud the work of the Minister's predecessor, Deputy Walsh, whom even Fine Gael admitted was a great Minister. I am also happy to applaud the work of the Minister of State and I am always asking him to visit Tallaght to launch initiatives.
Animal welfare standards are not defined at international level, except in conventions of the Council of Europe. The Council, which has 45 member countries, has been to the forefront of promoting animal welfare within the framework of various conventions and through specific recommendations. The recommendations concerning the keeping of fur animals, with which Ireland fully complies, date from 1999. I welcome that 166 members of the world animal health body based in Paris have signed up to a resolution that animal welfare deserves to be considered as part of the development of international standards and guidelines. I also welcome that the Doha 2001 conclusions of the World Trade Organisation place non-trade concerns, including animal welfare, firmly on the agenda of future agricultural negotiations.
I refer to the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy agreed in Luxemburg in 2003. Under the decoupled support system, the emphasis shifts from quantity towards protection and enhancement of the rural environment and livestock welfare. Instead of being linked to numbers of animals or production levels, as was previously the case, it will be fixed according to a historical reference period and dependent on farmers meeting mandatory standards under cross-compliance. Impact assessments have concluded this system not only encourages more environmentally friendly production with the extensification of beef and sheep production but it also secures basic animal welfare standards and allows a more efficient transfer of funds to farmers.
I admire the work of Deputy Boyle, with whom I laboured in other lives. I am always pleased to welcome his work and I am impressed by some of his efforts. However, the Bill does nothing to improve the lot of animals generally. It will most likely shift production to fur producing countries with little or no statutory controls or welfare standards. We must raise international awareness of the need to treat animals in the most humane way. It is paramount that those contributing to the animal welfare debate participate in a positive and constructive manner rather than point scoring. It behoves all of us to work through existing international agencies with a view to improving animal welfare standards.
Efforts have been made by a number of organisations to bring legitimate concerns about animal welfare to the attention of Members, which is fair enough. Deputy Boyle referred to the importance of Private Members' business in providing an opportunity to raise the important issues of the day. The Opposition might wonder at times about the attitude of the Government to such debates but backbench Members of all persuasions have an opportunity to debate the issues of the day.
Fur farming is an important issue. I am always careful with my mail to ensure I look after representations I receive. Deputy Naughten might expect that I only read mail from Tallaght, Greenhills, Templeogue, Brittas and Firhouse.
Is it Firhouse or Furhouse?
The Deputy has good rural connections in Doon, County Limerick.
I read all my mail every day and when organisations, irrespective of whether they are based in my constituency, go to the trouble of bringing issues to my attention I am happy to examine them and I will continue to do so. We are privileged to be public representatives and we should look at the horizon a little beyond our own constituencies. I am happy to do so.
I appreciate that organisations have gone to the trouble of making representations to us to bring animal welfare concerns to our attention. I am trying to figure out what to do with the little animal I was given but it is sitting on my desk.
It might prick the Deputy's conscience.
It has helped me to focus on this issue. I am opposed to the mistreatment of animals and I expect the Minister and the Government will examine the legitimate concerns raised in the debate regarding animal welfare. The assurances given by the Minister of State are fair enough.
I compliment Deputy Boyle on his work in this regard. It is important that pressure should be maintained to improve animal welfare standards. It is only in that way that improvements in animal welfare will be secured. That is something to which we would all sign up.
With the agreement of the House, I wish to share time with Deputies Hayes and Twomey.
I understand that six enterprises are licensed by the Department of Agriculture and Food to keep mink. Based on 2003 figures, data provided by the CSO indicate that the value of exports of raw mink skins from this country is approximately €1.6 million. I understand that there is a single fox-rearing enterprise in the country. I am glad to acknowledge that the Minister of State, Deputy Browne, has stated that he will see this issue regulated. It is unacceptable that it has not been regulated hitherto.
The regulations covering mink farms require the Department of Agriculture and Food to license them. However, the licensing conditions are aimed mainly at protecting the environment from escaped mink rather than at issues regarding the welfare of farmed mink. I will refer to two reports examining mink welfare. In 1997, the University of Cambridge Animal Welfare Information Centre published a comprehensive literature review outlining the welfare of animals raised for their fur. It concluded that there was enough scientific evidence to show that the current level of welfare for mink on fur farms was not adequate. Mink are denied a range of behaviours on farms that would be available to them in the wild. Good welfare may be possible in the context of the captive environment, but there has been no estimation of the economic consequences of such enrichment and the effects that this might have on the feasibility of fur farming. The main thrust of the report is that if mink farming is to continue, a radical rethink of housing is urgently required.
A further report by the EU scientific committee on animal welfare in 2001 examined the extent to which species used for fur production can be regarded as domesticated. It concluded that these species, in comparison with other farm animals, have been subjected to relatively little active selection, except with respect to fur characteristics. Some research would indicate that those animals that have been responsive to breeding programmes are the ones with fearful behaviour rather than the contrary, and that should be looked into. There is a limited amount of selection for tameness and adaptability to captive environments.
Regarding the welfare of mink, the report concludes that there is an average kid mortality rate of 20%. In experimental conditions, farm mink showed strong preferences for the opportunity to swim, something not available to them in the captive environment. The report states that the typical mink cage impairs mink welfare because it does not provide for those important needs.
It is important to put in context, in light of those reports, the number of pelts produced per annum in this country — approximately 140,000 out of a total international production of 40 million. We are, therefore, a minor player in the overall scheme of things. It seems clear that to introduce adequate regulation to address the shortcomings in the current housing conditions would in all probability make fur farming completely uneconomic. Furthermore, the current regulations do not achieve their target of protecting the environment from the potential escape of mink.
Mink farms are a potential reservoir for the release of wild mink into the environment. They are savage animals, alien to our country, which will kill for the sake of it and not merely to feed. They are vicious and extremely prolific. They cause massive environmental problems and are disastrous to wildlife. They kill fish and waterfowl and prey on smaller mammals. They ravage birds' nests even though they are high off the ground. They have been reported to have attacked dogs and in one case even humans. They are also said to have attacked lambs, especially when very young. There are great problems in some parts of the country with wild mink. Many of those mink were released by accident, but others deliberately. There have been examples in the UK of alleged animal rights activists releasing mink into the environment, causing massive damage.
Another aspect has been the closure of farms. In 1999 there was a report in a local newspaper that wild mink had been ravaging the Kerry countryside since the closure of two mink farms in Waterville had resulted in the escape of the fast-breeding, ferocious animals. In west Cork, where mink farms also closed, there was an increase in the wild mink population. That population has a massive impact on fish and wildfowl stocks. As a consequence, it could have a substantial effect on the angling and shooting industries, which are a critical element in this country's tourism sector. We should develop and promote those industries since they bring employment to many of the disadvantaged communities of which the Minister of State spoke that have not benefited from tourism or economic development. I ask the Minister to examine the issue of wild mink. The problem has been ignored to date. If we want to protect and develop our tourism industry, especially in the shooting and fishing areas, we must consider this problem.
Fine Gael is intent on raising the bar when it comes to the politics of farming and food. It is only with fresh vision that Ireland can fully engage with the realities and challenges of making farming viable after decoupling. It must be more commercial and consumer-oriented so that we can compete and win on the global food market. Fur farming, however, is not part of the long-term vision for agriculture. If we want a reputation for high quality food production and high value returns, fur farming is not the way forward.
While we support the broad thrust of this Bill, we want significant changes made on Committee Stage. We are opposed to the immediate outright ban proposed in the Bill. A stay of at least seven to ten years on implementing the measures contained in the Bill should be introduced. It is imperative for several reasons. First, one cannot simply shut down the industry overnight. That could lead to the deliberate release of captive animals, with a disastrous impact on wildlife throughout the country. In the early 1960s, there were 24 fur farms in this country. Regulations were introduced in 1965, after which nine remained in business. At that point, there was a dramatic increase in the wild mink population. We cannot allow that to happen again. It is important that we adopt a structured approach. We must work with those currently in the business to wind down their operations and develop alternative enterprises that will not only benefit them but also the communities in which they are located.
It must be noted that the Department of Agriculture and Food originally promoted fur farming as an alternative enterprise. There is an onus on it to develop alternative enterprises with Teagasc. There is also a need to provide alternative employment for the staff involved. The Minister of State, Deputy Browne, mentioned the 80 full-time and 85 seasonal staff involved, many in unemployment blackspots. One example is the two farms in County Donegal, one in Glenties and one between Ardara and Killybegs. Some 30 full-time jobs are involved in that business. Those people cannot simply be thrown on the scrap heap. While it is important to examine animal welfare regulations, sometimes we forget that humans have rights too. We cannot simply abandon those people. It is critically important that we address that matter.
It is important in the interim that no new licences are issued for mink farming. We must immediately put regulations in place for fox farms because they must come under regulation. I ask the Minister for Agriculture and Food, Deputy Coughlan, to consider seriously what has been presented tonight.
I am very pleased at the opportunity to say a few words on this Bill. I admire many of the Green Party's policies regarding a cleaner environment, recycling, carbon tax and many other areas. Its members certainly stick to their agenda and fight very hard. However, I am extremely concerned about this issue. I come from a rural constituency. I have a love of animals and a love of the land and I am aware of what is important to people living in rural communities. Everybody is opposed to the mistreatment of animals, regardless of the side of the House they are on or the part of the country in which they live. I listened to the many contributions to the debate this evening but my blood boiled when I heard Deputy Ferris talk about mistreatment of animals. I was annoyed to hear Deputy Ferris make those comments because of the parallel to the position of the McCartney sisters and the treatment of their brother in Northern Ireland. I will say no more.
I am extremely concerned about the agenda behind this debate. The live export of animals from this country has created huge buoyancy in our economy. For many years agriculture in rural Ireland depended on the live export of our animals. I heard spokespersons talk about the cruelty inflicted on those animals but on several occasions I visited ports to see the terrible treatment that was supposed to be meted out to them as they left this country. I went to Waterford, which is 35 or 40 miles from where I live, to see the animals being exported from there which we, as farmers, depended on in the harder times of the 1970s and 1980s. Those cattle, which we reared, fed and sent to the ports when the beef barons would not pay us, were treated in top-class conditions. I hear spokespersons on radio and television talk about conditions and animal welfare, and it makes my blood boil. That is why I question from where this agenda is coming.
In Clonmel, people depend for their livelihood on small farms yet every year there are protesters outside the annual coursing meeting stopping people coming into the area to enjoy a sport which this House and my party were proud to change some years ago under the then Minister of State, Deputy Deenihan, and the former Minister, Ivan Yates. We brought about changes in coursing. I attended six coursing meetings in the past few months and I did not see one hare killed. I love what is good in rural Ireland, whether it is coursing, hunting hares, beagling or whatever, and I believe there is a strong agenda to stop those sports.
If the Green Party is to make an impact as an Opposition party on the current Administration, it needs to think a little harder and deeper. I campaigned for the past three or four weeks in County Meath where the Green Party got 1,000 votes in the by-election. The green agenda its members were pushing was not strong in that constituency despite them having one of the best candidates in the field.
I am concerned about what is driving this agenda and about the impact it will have on the ordinary people of rural Ireland, for whom my party stands. I am not a spokesman for my party but I represent a constituency that is proud of its heritage in the coursing and animal welfare world. The Dáil should think long and hard before adopting this agenda. There is some merit in what is being proposed by the Green Party but I am seriously concerned about the agenda being followed.
I welcome the opportunity to make these brief comments because I speak on behalf of many people who love rural Ireland, the sports we stand for and, above all, who love the animals and the land of Ireland.
Some of the comments made by the Minister of State, Deputy Browne, show a certain lack of knowledge of what is happening in agriculture. I am surprised by his view on agriculture, which is a little narrow-minded. I was expecting a broader debate from the Minister of State.
I grew up on a farm and over the years I learned about the contempt farmers have for people who meddle in their affairs, whether it be bureaucrats or special interest groups. Farmers may get annoyed about that but they are also willing to listen. Not many years ago animals used to be tethered to a wall, something that was common practice in Irish agriculture. It was a practice brought in from Europe and one eventually banned by Europe. Farmers took that ruling on board and stopped the practice of tethering animals. Farmers are willing to listen.
Fur farming is not necessary in modern Ireland. It is something that could be abolished by the Government. I see no reason to continue with fur farming here. It makes little or no contribution to agriculture. Deputy Martin Brady said earlier that in Denmark fur farming was the third largest agricultural export. He made other references to the industry in other European countries but it failed in this country. It may have attempted to start up in Cork, Kerry, Galway or Donegal but by and large it has failed here and we are now seeing the side effects of the failure of that type of industry. Wild mink are running wild across tourist areas and if the problem gets any more out of control it will destroy much of the indigenous environment in which many of our wild animals live, yet the Minister of State made a bland statement to the House that the Government will continue to support the practice of fur farming without examining it in any detail.
In some respects the Minister has treated much of agriculture in the same way. He has done nothing innovative on his own behalf. He does whatever he is told to do by Europe. For instance, the budget of 2003, nearly a year and a half ago, and this is something that relates to the constituency the Minister and I share, introduced the provision regarding rapeseed oil yet the farmers working on that project in our county are still waiting for their commercial licences to allow them get this project operational. They put a huge amount of their own energy and innovation into making something else work in agriculture but they have received little support.
Fur farming was started here as an alternative enterprise but it has failed. That is why we should get rid of it but we should not just throw aside the people who took this chance 15 or 20 years ago. We must establish alternative industries. The Minister indicated that the industry is worth €2 million to Irish agriculture in exports. Our tourism industry is probably worth €2 billion yet we are prepared to play around at the margins of that industry with this Mickey Mouse fur farming industry that the Minister is not prepared to make up his mind on one way or the other. We should show more leadership and the Department of Agriculture and Food and the Government should be prepared to make decisions, stand up and admit we no longer have a need for this industry, that it is something we can abolish and concentrate on aspects that work in agriculture. We should concentrate on the live exports markets which nearly collapsed last year because the Government was afraid to make a decision on it. It was private enterprise supported by farmers which got that industry up and running again.
There are many aspects of Irish farming that are not good but there are many excellent aspects to it and farmers have the welfare of their animals as their first priority. They always did and they always will but the problem is that we have very poor leadership from Government in terms of agriculture moving forward. This issue will become a major point of contention between certain elements of society and the agricultural community. We will see it broaden into other issues over time, which is totally unnecessary.
Instead of the Minister of State coming into this House and making the sort of bland statement he made about fur farming, he should accept that its time is up and that it is past its sell by date. Perhaps we should protect our environment, tourism and agriculture in a way that shows we have genuine respect. We should not simply pander to the Government's nonsensical ideas about a matter it does not seem to know much about. It is far more important to consider such matters than to deal with the matter before the House.
