| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. John Burnett (Torridge and West Devon): The Royal Marines on HMS Ocean have been off the coast of west Africa for three or four days now. The Secretary of State said earlier that that was a precautionary measure. I well remember that, after the Aden withdrawal, I spent some weeks off the coast of Aden cooped up in a commando ship. It is pretty frustrating. What plans does he have to get those troops ashore?
Mr. Hoon: I have to say that those troops have not been there for three or four days, but they are ready and available as a precautionary force, should we require them. However, there are no specific plans at this stage to reinforce the existing forces on the ground. We shall look at the situation as its unfolds, but, if it continues as it is, we might not even need those forces. They are there to provide greater flexibility to the force in Sierra Leone, should we require them.
Mr. Crispin Blunt (Reigate): When the situation in Sierra Leone is juxtaposed with the Prime Minister's speech in Chicago last year, it is almost a classic case of where intervention, on the Prime Minister's terms, should take place. The RUF is supported by Liberia, which sells the diamonds that the RUF controls in Sierra Leone. Otherwise, they are a bunch of gangsters who hold their position in the country by force of terror. As President Kabbah was democratically elected, there is a classic case for intervention.
Our troops are now on the ground. Unless the Government grasp the nettle of making the decision to get out, having discharged their obligations to the British national interest, surely they must, if they are going to take on a wider national interest, make up their mind to commit fully to a United Nations mandate, with the UK, in effect, leading a UN operation to sort out the source of the problem: the RUF's control of the diamond fields.
Mr. Hoon: I have had tide of the fax which the hon. Gentleman helpfully sent to the Ministry of Defence in urging the Government to commit British forces to a UN contingent. I am afraid that he has had no more success in persuading me than he has in persuading his own Front-Bench team.
We do not judge that it is appropriate to commit British forces to the UN contingent simply because they are contributing successfully to the UN mission by ensuring the security of the airport. That valuable task is providing the UN force with enormous confidence. It is a task that they are deployed to continue and to complete.
Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): Now that British forces have fulfilled their primary role in an exemplary fashion--namely, the evacuation of those British nationals who wish to leave--can the Secretary of State tell us who is paying for the enterprise? Is the money coming out of the sorely pressed defence budget, or is there a special account from which he can draw in the Foreign Office, labelled ethical foreign policy perhaps? Can he say what conceivable British interest, beyond the extrication of our nationals, merits putting British service men at risk over a prolonged period?
Mr. Hoon: We are keeping a close account of the costs--which, for the moment, are additional costs. We should bear in mind that some of those forces were already deployed on other exercises, so that they were already being paid for. Consequential costs are still being identified. We have agreed with both the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and with the Treasury that we shall continue to monitor those costs, and that we shall decide later their attribution between different Departments.
As for the hon. Gentleman's final comments, the reality is that we are there supporting the United Nations. We are there to ensure the evacuation of British personnel, and to fulfil our responsibilities as part of the international community. Those seem to be objectives that most hon. Members, at any rate, ought to support.
Point of Order
4.30 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Madam Speaker will be thankful that this is not one of those points of order to which she has to say that she has had no request for a statement from a Minister. It is on a matter that I believe concerns the House of Commons.
Over the weekend, and not least in today's edition of The Times, there has been ample comment on the legal aspects of the Lockerbie case as it pertains to the Crown Office. We all understand that the Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence aspects of the case are matters for the House. I am concerned about the Crown Office aspects--which, incidentally, are the matters of the greatest contention. It is now argued that those matters are, of course, for Holyrood and the Scottish Parliament, and that the House of Commons has no locus whatever in discussing matters pertaining to the Crown Office in Edinburgh.
If Lockerbie had happened yesterday, it might have been a clear-cut case. However, as it happened 12 long years ago, and as it has been a matter of continuing comment, particularly in relation to Mr. Boulier and to Mr. Lumpart, his engineer, of Mebo, may I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to reflect--or to ask Madam Speaker to reflect with her advisers--on the issue of whether, if developments go forward as anticipated by serious members of the press, this is purely a matter in which the House of Commons has no say whatever? Some of us might think that, whatever view one takes, the House of Commons definitely has a locus in the issue.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I am sure that I am as grateful as Madam Speaker would be that, in this case, it is not a matter of giving the stock reply to the hon. Gentleman. However, I think that the matter tends to be more a matter for debate. Nevertheless, I shall of course ensure that Madam Speaker notes the hon. Gentleman's point of order, and, if a ruling on the matter can be given by the occupant of the Chair, undoubtedly it will be given. At first sight, however, it does not seem to be such a matter.
Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill
Order for Second Reading read.
4.33 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The whole history of fur farming in the United Kingdom has not been a very happy one. Since its introduction, it has been dogged by escapes from fur farms that have resulted in very large public sums being spent on eradication programmes. The coypu eradication programme cost about--in today's figures--£4 million. Attempts to eradicate mink after escapes from mink farms, when they were established in the United Kingdom, cost about £1 million. Therefore, about £5 million has been spent on trying to deal with the consequences of escaped animals from United Kingdom fur farms. With the associated escapes have come environmental damage, damage to indigenous wildlife, damage to stock and feeding birds, and the unquantified cost of trying to deal with them by trapping and control.
A range of welfare concerns, about how animals are reared and kept in fur farms, has been expressed by the Government's own advisory body, the Farm Animal Welfare Council, and in independent research. There are also complaints from people who live adjacent to fur farms about smells, nuisance and flies.
The history of fur farms is not happy. The Government announced the introduction of the Bill on 22 November to fulfil our pre-election pledge to prohibit fur farming.
Mr. Desmond Swayne (New Forest, West): I acknowledge the strength of what the Minister has said, particularly in respect of the New Forest. The end to that environmental hazard is welcome, as is the end to a cruel practice. However, will he explain why, to achieve that desirable end, it is considered necessary to introduce into law what many of us feel is an obnoxious principle: that it is acceptable to farm for food, but not for pelt or fur? Could not the desirable objectives have been achieved at a lower cost?
Mr. Morley: No. I am well aware of the problems in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. As long as fur farms exist, there is no guarantee that there will not be further escapes and further environmental damage for all sorts of reasons. That is why his local authority strongly supports the Bill and is keen for it to progress. The leader of his local council, who is a Conservative, has written to me in support of the Bill.
Mr. Andrew Hunter (Basingstoke): Are we to understand that the Government justify their proposals on economic and environmental grounds and that they have abandoned the argument of public morality?
Mr. Morley: The principal reason is public morality. I have been rather generous in taking interventions before I have been able to set out the case and our justification for the ban.
A combination of factors make fur farming a matter of public morality. We believe that it is wrong to keep animals solely or primarily to slaughter for their fur.
Fur farming is not consistent with a proper value and respect for animal life. Animals should not be destroyed or bred for destruction without a sufficient justification of public benefit. Our detailed consultation and the many representations that we received from the public and other organisations showed that the majority of the public share that view.Fur farming is distinct from food production. If the primary purpose of keeping animals is the production of food, that provides a sufficient public benefit to justify breeding them for slaughter. That is so even if the production of fur or hide is a secondary purpose to the keeping of the animal. That does not mean that high standards of welfare should not be applied in any rearing system.
Animals are live creatures. It is one thing to breed and kill them for food, because we have to eat to survive. In the balance between respect for the dignity of animal life and our survival, we put our survival first. We do our best to make sure that the animals that we slaughter for food are well treated.
Animals should not be killed for the sake of it or just for the business of stripping their skins off their backs--not in the 21st century. It is not the Government's philosophy. We also share the concern that many have for the welfare of farm mink. That is not our principal motivation for introducing the Bill, but we have sought to ensure the highest possible standards as long as fur farming continues.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |