---

Mr. Viggers: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Over the past eight months or so, I have been struck by the similarity of many points put to me by hon. Members.

A trade like cattle head deboning might be expected to range from tiny one-man businesses to larger businesses employing between 50 and 100 people. Not at all: the nature of the trade lends itself very well to businesses employing about 20 people. Typically, these are family businesses, although there are one or two instances of deboning being carried out by larger companies. They were proud of what they were doing, and they had borrowed in order to comply with European regulations. In almost every case, they did not have enough capital to continue unless they borrowed. Virtually all the firms in the trade were small family businesses, which borrowed against the security of houses and subsequently went bankrupt when they had to close. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) for citing a company in his constituency.

It is not possible to switch from deboning cattle heads to deboning the heads of pigs or sheep. Some companies have tried, but purpose-built premises such as theirs do not lend themselves efficiently to any other business. It can be done, but it is rather like using a Ferrari to go shopping. This is a highly specialised business, which does not compete well in the normal field of the meat trade.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce (Gordon): Is the hon. Gentleman aware--as I have been made aware--that the Government have now instructed abattoirs not to process sheep heads? That alternative has been closed off. Apparently, however, the abattoirs are being compensated for the loss of their business, whereas cattle head deboners are not. Is that fair or consistent?

Mr. Viggers: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Let me take this opportunity of saying that concern about the issue extends across the House and, indeed, across the United Kingdom.

I was not aware of the position that the hon. Gentleman describes, but the inconsistencies in regard to compensation are such that, in my view, the present situation is untenable. I cannot look my constituents in the eye and defend what is currently happening.

If we accept that those companies cannot readily move to any other kind of business, we must also accept that the only answer is compensation. By temperament, I am not one to demand compensation for everything--I am laissez-faire on the more hard-right wing--but in this instance, I feel that points should be made on behalf of our constituents. They should be given the opportunity to set up in some other business, perhaps parallel, but different from the business that they were in before. So what of compensation? Would it set a precedent?

Mr. Robert Hughes (Aberdeen, North): I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for not being able to stay for the full debate due to Select Committee business, but is there not an inconsistency in that the Prime Minister talks of

13 Nov 1996 : Column 273

compensation for farmers while the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food talks about stabilising the market? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, once we land in the area of compensation, we are inevitably driven to the compelling nature of the deboners' case, as the Home Secretary was driven last night into saying that he was initially prepared to compensate only for the loss of handguns, but now accepted that he probably had to give compensation for ancillary materials. It is always difficult to argue by analogy, but there is a parallel here that the Government should consider. There is grave injustice for the people needing compensation.

Mr. Viggers: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Over the months, he and I have maintained contact on the subject of compensation and on the difficulties suffered by the trade. It is good of him to find time in advance of his Select Committee to come to the Chamber to support the plea for compensation.

Would compensation set a precedent? I have conducted a little research. I gather that the Oral Snuff (Safety) Regulations 1989/2345 is one sort of parallel, but when oral snuff was banned by the Government with that regulation the people who distributed oral snuff did not suffer particularly because other parts of the tobacco trade made up for the loss. Similarly, the Asbestos (Prohibitions) Regulations 1992/3067 caused some difficulty in the building trade, but few companies specialised in asbestos.

I tried to find a parallel for the Government, by edict, banning a business. The advice that I was given earlier this year by the House of Commons Library ran as follows:

"I have been unable to find a comparable example of a recent Order with as dramatic an effect as the one to which your enquiry relates".

So it sounds as if this is unprecedented.

Let us look for other parallels. The BSE orders allow farmers to be compensated. In a letter to me on 17 July 1996, the Prime Minister said:

"our policy is to target support at those sectors which are essential for a secure and efficient beef supply chain".

Bully for the beef supply chain, but what about the people who cannot carry on and who have been driven out of business?

Another parallel is salmonella. Since 1989, compensation has been paid to chicken farmers for their entire flock, on a varying basis from 60 per cent. to 100 per cent. of its value. The hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) put his finger on the latest example. It is only 12 hours ago, almost to the minute, that I, for the first time in my 22 years in the House, voted against the Government. I did so on the issue of compensation and gun control.

The Government have decided to ban most handguns and to compensate handgun owners. On legal advice yesterday, the Home Secretary told the House that he would also be compensating for equipment. He was specifically asked--the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North made the point and I reiterate it--by my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) about compensation for people in the gun business. He said:

"is it not clear that it would be grossly unjust if the money resolution did not cover people who have businesses--for example, shooting ranges with long leases--that will no longer receive any revenue?

13 Nov 1996 : Column 274

They are likely to go bankrupt . . . Will my right hon. and learned Friend assure us that the money resolution will cover such people so that the House can debate the point?"

The Home Secretary replied:

"My right hon. Friend is unaware of the precise terms of the revised resolution. I cannot give him the total assurance that he requests, but I have said--I hope that he will take comfort from it--that in deciding the precise scope of the revised money resolution we shall take full account of points made in the debate today, including the point that he has just made."

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Tony Baldry): My hon. Friend is in danger of misleading himself. If he reads on, he will find that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary went on to deal specifically with that point again. Referring to my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins), he referred to the distinction

"from claims for compensation for loss of trade and business. So far as I am aware, there is no precedent for such claims and I would arouse false hopes and expectations if I were to give my right hon. and hon. Friends any comfort on that point. There is a clear distinction between the two."--[Official Report,12 November 1996; Vol. 285, c. 181-2.]

The Home Secretary said that there is a clear distinction between loss of money in relation to accessories and loss in relation to a business.

Mr. Viggers: That is not the point. I was in the House and I recall the moment well. I prefer the Home Secretary's first reply to his second.

For the sake of argument, let me accept the point of my hon. Friend the Minister of State. I regret the ban on handguns, but if they are to be banned, I suppose that the owners should be compensated. Where is the principle in all this? If it is fair, right and in the public interest to compensate a gun owner for the loss of his gun, which is part of his sport and his hobby, how much more must it be right to compensate someone who has been made bankrupt by Government edict? Surely that is a much more forceful point.

Dr. John Reid (Motherwell, North): Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the case is slightly stronger than even he makes out? People who may, unfortunately, have bought guns that are no longer available, at least bought them of their own volition. The vast majority of the debt of the deboners whom we are discussing has been incurred for machinery and expenses. It was incurred not on the volition of the owner or the deboners, but precisely because of Government and European legislation. Those deboners are being doubly punished, first, by spending the money at the Government's direction and, secondly, in being that by a second Government edict that they have no way of repaying that money.

Mr. Viggers: That is absolutely right. To comply with Government requirements, these people spent and borrowed money to bring their premises up to standard. That is precisely the point.

Mr. Robert Key (Salisbury): May I say to my hon. Friend the Minister of State that there is no parallel here. I listened extremely carefully to what my right hon. and learned Friend Home Secretary said yesterday. He was talking about loss of trade or business in future. What we are talking about, on behalf of our constituents, is an ex

13 Nov 1996 : Column 275

gratia payment--if the Government do not like the term "compensation"--for the confiscation of private property to meet the Government's requirements, as advised by the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee. That surely, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) would agree, is the point. We are talking not about loss of trade and business in future, but about recompense for confiscation.

---