| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
12.16 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Howarth): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) on securing the debate. His speech on such an emotive subject was full of serious points based on a review of the available scientific literature and research. Of course, he is extremely well qualified to make such a speech given his expertise, understanding and the amount of reading that he has done on the subject. I also congratulate him on the thoughtful manner in which he conducted hon. Members through some of the evidence. His speech was in the best traditions of the House and I am sure that the House will look forward to further speeches from him on the subject.
I welcome the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) to the Opposition Dispatch Box--as he rightly pointed out--and long may he remain there. In the few minutes available to him, he made it clear that he has a particular view, but he, too, welcomed the tone of my hon. Friend's speech and the way in which the debate has been conducted.
My hon. Friend referred to the important scientific research contained in the MacDonald and Bateson reports. Given that he dealt with them so fairly and fully, and given the time available, I hope that the House will forgive me if I do not repeat their findings. Today's debate, although inflamed at times, has been marked by some useful and interesting contributions from hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber.
The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mr. Fraser) essentially made a constituency speech in which he spoke of the impact that a ban on hunting would have in his area. He rightly described the economic consequences for the rural economy and specifically the support industries, agriculture and the countryside. I thought that his conclusion was rather apocalyptic, but that will be either proven or disproved by events that may take place.
There was a difference of emphasis, if not of opinion, between the hon. Members for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) and for Mid-Dorset and North Poole on the issue of how many jobs may be lost if the legislation proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) is put on the statute book. The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole suggested that about 9,000 jobs would be lost and the hon. Member for North Wiltshire said that he thought that 60,000 jobs would be lost.
Mr. Gray:
Will the Minister give way so that I can explain that?
Mr. Howarth:
I want to say a little more, which may have an influence on the hon. Gentleman's intervention, but then I will give way. I believe that he quoted the report produced by Mr. Ralph Cobham. The House should be aware that that report was commissioned by the countryside movement. The group has a particular point of view and those statistics might reflect that.
Mr. Gray:
The figures quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mr. Fraser) referred to those jobs that are specifically attached to the sport of fox hunting. The figures I quoted include, for example, farriers, grooms, people who make saddles and look after horses, and so on. That explains the difference between the two figures.
Mr. Howarth:
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I suspect that, even making allowances for that qualification, the figure of 60,000 jobs is probably on the high side. Nevertheless, whichever way we cut it, if legislative changes occur, there will be an impact on the rural economy. I do not know the scale of that impact--no one does--but if a current activity is stopped, some businesses and jobs will be affected in some way.
We had an interesting discussion about the "thin end of the wedge" argument in respect of angling and shooting. My hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) confessed to being an angler and, in the spirit
of confession being good for the soul, let me confess that, for most of my life since the age of about 10, I too have been an angler. In defence I should say that when asked by a journalist whether, in view of reports on the subject, she thought that her husband's fishing was cruel, my wife responded, "Not in his case, because he rarely catches anything." I suspect that many hon. Members know that feeling well. There is a world of difference between angling and various sorts of hunting. I am not coming down on one side or the other, but it must be acknowledged that there are differences in approach and in the way the sports are perceived. Any comparison is therefore unfair, although there are some points at which they meet and they are part of the same debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West spoke about the scale of various demonstrations, but I am not sure whether that gives a measure of anything these days. That underlines the point my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North made about how we should be influenced not by who shouts the loudest, but by the evidence available--especially that from the scientific world--which we should coolly analyse before drawing our conclusions.
The hon. Member for North Wiltshire brought a great deal of personal experience to the debate, both from his constituency viewpoint and from his own participation. In many respects, it is worth listening to those who have such experience; however, he indulged in a little hyperbole towards the end of his speech. I am sure that that will make good copy in his local newspaper, but it added little to the debate. We have to consider these matters soberly and although the hon. Gentleman raised some points of interest, some of his comments were more appropriate for audiences other than the House.
The hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) made an interesting and brief contribution about the nature of the fox and about people's freedom to engage in various activities. The scale is debatable, but the fact that foxes are by nature predatory and that they prey on some types of farm animal, especially chickens, is not disputed. That there is a pest element to the activities of the fox has to be conceded.
In the time left, I want to refer to recent debate--by which I mean in the past 40 years or so--and to reports that may or may not have been covered today. The last significant parliamentary report was the report of the Committee on Cruelty to Wild Animals, which was presented to Parliament in 1951. Known as the Scott-Henderson report, it looked into the practices and activities that might involve cruelty to wild animals and concluded that hunting with hounds was no more cruel than any other form of pest control.
The National Trust commissioned Professor Savage's working party report, published in 1993, which studied the conservation and management of red deer and which has been mentioned today. That report did not focus on the animal welfare aspects of that form of hunting. In September 1996, the countryside movement commissioned a review of the findings of the Scott-Henderson report headed by Mr. Richard Phelps, a retired Treasury official. He recommended a new independent authority to initiate research into hunting and to regulate and supervise the practice. He argued that the authority should be self-regulatory and appointed on a basis similar to the Press Commission. That brings us the Bateson report, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North, and other more recent research.
I should now say a few words about the Government's position on these issues. The Government's position on the issue of hunting with hounds is clear: we neither support nor oppose hunting with hounds--we take a neutral position. However, in our manifesto we gave a commitment to allow a free vote on whether to ban hunting. It is our intention to deliver that free vote when the opportunity to do so is presented by the Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester. That Bill would ban hunting with hounds and it would outlaw the hunting of deer, fox, hare and mink. It is due to be considered for Second Reading on 28 November and if it secures a Second Reading members of the parliamentary Labour party--including Ministers--will have a free vote.
It will be for Parliament to consider the question of a ban on hunting. There are complex issues associated with any such ban, including the effects on the rural economy, pest control and a range of other rural and agricultural concerns, which have all been discussed in today's debate. The scientific evidence contained in the Bateson report will no doubt be one of a number of factors that will inform the debate and help hon. Members to arrive at their own conclusion.
The assessment of the report and the conclusions drawn by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North will be a valuable addition to the debate. Most important, the manner in which he introduced today's debate--cool, dispassionate and analytical, looking at the scientific evidence, bringing it to bear and weighing one argument against another--is a good way for Parliament to proceed on this subject. If we can keep that sort of debate going over the coming months, the public will appreciate the House far better and we will have performed a valuable service in respect of both animal welfare and the wider community.
Mr. Charles Kennedy (Ross, Skye and Inverness, West):
I am glad to have been fortunate enough to get this debate in the first week after the House's return from the summer recess. Timing is everything in this case, as it so often is in transport issues.
The debate concerns the precipitate decision taken by British Airways, to take effect in just a few weeks' time, to terminate its three flights a day between Inverness airport and Heathrow, and to switch them to smaller-capacity flights with British Regional Airlines out of Gatwick.
I mean no disrespect to the Scottish Minister with responsibility for transport when I say that I am pleased that a United Kingdom Minister is to reply to my debate. There are many highlands and islands Members present in the Chamber. I hope that the hon. Members for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) and for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Stewart) will be able to catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to stress the all-party nature of this campaign. The crucial point is that it is not just an argument about services between Inverness and Heathrow. It is about the future of services between regional airports throughout the United Kingdom and Heathrow--and the slots for those services.
We have been here before. I shall refer again later to what happened earlier this year to services between Plymouth and Heathrow. Now the same may be about to happen to the service to Inverness. The management of British Airways have in the past offered categorical assurances on the future of these services. Now, without consulting the local community, they are announcing their wish to axe the services. I suggest, therefore, that Members representing Belfast, Birmingham, Manchester, Newcastle, Aberdeen and Glasgow should be watching anxiously, because of what has happened to Plymouth and what may happen to their services in and out of Heathrow.
We condemn the lack of consultation and BA's blatantly broken promises. We are deeply concerned about the economic impact that the termination of services will have on the economy of the highlands and islands and the north of Scotland. Highlands and Islands Enterprise, the Government agency with the remit of promoting the economic well-being and development of the area, has carried out an in-depth survey of the economic importance of the Inverness-Heathrow link. Some of the statistics in it are worth reading into the record. Among the three airlines plying between Inverness and Stansted, Luton or Heathrow, 85 per cent. of business flights are taken on the BA Heathrow service, and 47 per cent. of terminating passengers' destinations is Greater London. There is no doubt that Heathrow is preferred to Gatwick by most of them. Most importantly, 88 per cent. of interlining journeys on the surveyed companies were made through Heathrow, and only 12 per cent. through Gatwick.
We should bear in mind the fact that the highlands of Scotland depend heavily on adding value to products and then shipping them out quickly to other parts of the globe, in particular to other parts of the single European market. Therefore, the loss of the interlining freight facilities at Heathrow would have a considerable impact.
A week or two ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) and I had a detailed meeting with the Scottish Salmon Growers Association, one of whose largest member organisations employs a great many people in Inverness and on fish farms in other parts of the highlands and islands. That firm is already having to reconsider its entire export marketing strategy because of the likely loss of this service.
I will not weary the House by reading out the hundreds of pleas issued by local companies to British Airways and the Government. Suffice it to say that the threat is real and widespread. My hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland and the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) can speak with more authority on this matter than anyone else. The Highland Post Office Advisory Committee has written to me to express its deep concern about the change in the capacity of the new aircraft due to serve on the route. What is more, on one of the UK's most important tourist links during the summer months, about 1,000 passenger seats a week will be lost when the new aircraft to be used by British Regional Airlines is introduced. The aircraft will also have 35 per cent. less hold capacity, and in a more awkward shape. That will affect nightly postal services onward from Inverness. The committee also points out that my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland
One local business man summed up the whole affair admirably:
I know that the Minister has already said that she wants to meet Robert Ayling, chief executive of British Airways, to discuss these matters. I hope today that she will also refer to the position of the European Commission. Because of BA's global ambitions and its proposed merger with American Airlines, it is under great pressure from the Commission to release slots at Heathrow for competition reasons. It would therefore be helpful if DG IV, the air transport directorate, clarified whether airlines own the slots in question or whether those slots are simply allocated to particular routes.
Once before, BA gave up these slots, which were then taken over by Dan Air. Dan Air eventually went bust, although not as a result of losses sustained on the Inverness service. Peter Clegg, the former director of marketing, said that the airline had been making £1 million a year profit on the Inverness-Heathrow service. Its financial difficulties arose from the charter business links elsewhere in Europe. If, as seems likely, the slot in question was designated for that particular route, there are legitimate grounds--given the number of changes of ownership of the route that I have outlined--for the European Commission looking into the competition implications of the proposed change.
What contacts has the Minister had with the European Union about all this? If she has had none, does she propose to have some in the future?
I mentioned earlier the parallel with Plymouth--the south-west lost its direct link with Heathrow. My hon. Friend the Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor) wrote earlier this year to Commissioner Kinnock to express his concern. The Commissioner sent him a reply pointing out that the British Government have the power to protect regional slots at Heathrow if they so wish. A local newspaper report of 27 March said:
The Labour shadow Secretary of State for Transport met local campaigners earlier this year and pledged that a Labour Government would protect flights to regional airports such as Plymouth. I noticed also that his pledge was immediately condemned by Tory strategists as electioneering. Furthermore, he urged the then Government to use their powers to protect west country air slots at Heathrow in preference to the switch to Gatwick. He said:
If that was the view that Labour transport spokesmen held in opposition as recently as February and March regarding south-west services, it would be consistent for Labour Transport Ministers to adopt the self-same approach regarding north-west services now that they are in office.
I conclude by urging two things on the Minister: first, that she respond positively to the concern that she is about to hear expressed by Labour Members, not only Opposition Members and, secondly, that she urges Mr. Ayling, when she meets him, not to take any precipitate decisions on the future of the service until the Transport Select Committee is able to examine on a United Kingdom basis the future of regional slots and the access of the regions of the country to Heathrow as a whole.
I hope that, in that spirit, the Minister responds constructively and positively.
12.29 pm
"will be able to show you a dossier of complaints about mail being shut out of flights to the North Isles"
since BA passed over the Stornoway slot to British Regional Airlines.
"I have no objection to British Airways' aspiration to remain one of the world's leading and most successful airlines, but I do think it should reconcile its global ambitions with its domestic responsibilities."
That hits the nail on the head.
"Mr. Kinnock added that there are rules governing how slots change hands",
and said that he was investigating. Kinnock went on to say that
"a letter has been sent to the UK authorities requesting further information on these points."
That campaign was not successful, even though it was clear that the British Government do have the power to intervene in these matters.
"The message I have been given loud and clear is how crucial the Heathrow link is to people and businesses in Cornwall.
announcements had been made. He added:
It is very evident the Government has been caught off balance by this. Only last week Sir George Young said there were no plans to vary this service. Yet within three days"
"The Government must act now in the public interest and order British Airways to review the whole situation at Heathrow."
D'accord. I could not have put it better myself.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |