Martin Ferris (Kerry North, Sinn Fein)

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.

See this speech in context