| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Orders of the Day
CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Consolidated Fund Bills), and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith, and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.
Madam Speaker:
With permission, I shall put together the Questions on motions Nos. 3 and 4.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),
Queen's recommendation having been signified--
Motion made, and Question proposed,
Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst):
On these occasions, I always say at the beginning of my remarks how unfortunate it is that the Minister never seeks to catch your eye, Madam Speaker, to set out--however briefly--the reasons behind the money resolution. I say that because it would be helpful to the House. It might even avoid the need for speeches, during the brief 45 minutes that we are allowed, if the Minister were to do the courtesy of setting out for the House the reasoning behind the money resolution.
Even in our rather full Second Reading debate, we were unable properly to explore the financial implications of the Bill. Tonight's debate gives us a chance to do so. In the absence of any explanation from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, I shall simply ask a few questions so that the House may judge whether it wishes to approve the money resolution.
The resolution is intended
I do not want to dwell on that because one or two of my hon. Friends wish to concentrate on the specific nature of the compensation scheme. Given the brief nature of the debate, I certainly do not want to take up too much time.
Mr. Jim Dowd (Lord Commissioner to the Treasury):
Why not?
Mr. Forth:
So that my all hon. Friends may speak. Whether the House will wish to divide on the matter will of course depend on the Minister's replies.
Mr. David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden):
During my time dealing with private Members' Bills, I have always been led to believe that they are not allowed to be primarily for the purpose of spending money. My right hon. Friend has referred to the compensation scheme, on which, it seems to me, the Bill depends. Would my right hon. Friend give us his views on that point?
Mr. Forth:
I hate to disagree with my right hon. Friend, but my reading of the Bill is rather different from his. I am reasonably satisfied that the main purpose of the Bill is to ban the practice of fur farming, although, as I said on Second Reading, I do not agree with that. My right hon. Friend has made an important point, however, about whether the ban comes before the compensation or vice versa.
I cannot imagine that the Government wanted to provide compensation and therefore introduced the ban in order to do so, which is almost what my right hon. Friend suggests. However, we need a clear explanation from the Minister of the nature and basis of the compensation regime and the mechanism that he envisages for paying compensation. At least one of my right hon. Friends will pursue just that point in a moment.
I read out the words of the resolution a moment ago to show that it refers only to the compensation mechanism. Yet, when I read clause 5(3) of the Bill, I found that it talked about the mechanism by which to resolve disputes, stating:
It strikes me that it is entirely possible that the extra burden of work that may be laid on the Lands Tribunal could give rise to additional expenditure by the tribunal, possibly on additional staff or training, or even on a further appeals mechanism. We must know whether the Minister agrees that that is so, and whether the money resolution may therefore be defective.
Can the Minister give an absolute guarantee that the Lands Tribunal will incur no additional expenditure in fulfilling the responsibilities laid on it? My view is that either the resolution may be defective or the Minister must give that guarantee. Then we will be able to watch carefully to see that the use of the Lands Tribunal by those who find themselves in dispute over compensation takes place within a tight financial regime, because the tribunal may not be able to spend any more money. There is a possibility of real difficulty owing to inadequate drafting of the money resolution.
Dr. Peter Brand (Isle of Wight):
I am grateful that this issue is being discussed. I fully support the Bill to ban fur farming, but I am extremely concerned that people who have been carrying out what was a legitimate occupation should be adequately compensated. In the past few years, they have had an extremely difficult time. They have had to spend a great deal of money to maintain the security of their premises, to protect not only their livelihoods but the environment from the irresponsible actions of some animal welfare activists. Fur farmers have been spending money--
Madam Speaker:
Order. We are dealing with the money resolution, which is very narrow, not the Bill.
Dr. Brand:
I fully appreciate that, Madam Speaker. The importance of the money resolution is that it will allow the Minister to make a statement on compensation before Third Reading. It is important that, before we vote on Third Reading, we hear from the Minister what compensation arrangements are being put in place.
Mr. Michael Jack (Fylde):
Two out of the 11 remaining fur farmers in this country are in my constituency. They will be affected by the Bill if it is enacted. Therefore, they have a keen interest in the terms of the money resolution.
In my initial remarks, I shall deal with one point of concern. The resolution invites Parliament to agree to effect payment
Fur farmers are worried because many of them hoped that the compensation scheme covered by the resolution would be sufficiently flexible properly to compensate them for the losses that they will inevitably incur if the Bill is enacted and their present legitimate form of business has to cease.
That the draft Civil Legal Aid (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations 1999, which were laid before this House on 22nd February, be approved.
That the draft Advice and Assistance (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations 1999, which were laid before this House on 22nd February, be approved.--[Mr. Hill.]
Question agreed to.
That the draft Social Security (New Deal Pilot) Amendment Regulations 1999, which were laid before this House on 22nd February, be approved.--[Mr. Hill.]
Question agreed to.
That the draft Ordnance Survey Trading Fund Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 24th February, be approved.--[Mr. Hill.]
Question agreed to.
That the draft Scotland Act 1998 (Consequential Modifications) (No. 1) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 25th February, be approved.--[Mr. Hill.]
Question agreed to.
That this House takes note of the European Union Document No. 6985/98 on the protection of laying hens kept in various systems of rearing; and of the progress of negotiations; and supports the Government's intention to continue to work for the adoption of a Directive which sets a clear phase-out date for the battery cage, improved standards in the interim and robust and practical standards for the welfare of birds in non-cage systems.--[Mr. Hill.]
Question agreed to.
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenditure incurred by a Minister of the Crown in consequence of any compensation scheme made under the Act.--[Mr. Hill.]
10.14 pm
"to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenditure incurred by a Minister of the Crown in consequence of any compensation scheme made under the Act."
That is fair enough as far as it goes. The Bill does, indeed, in clause 5, make provision for a compensation scheme, and sets out in helpful detail its likely nature.
"Any dispute as to . . . entitlement to payments under a scheme . . . shall be referred by the Minister to, and determined by"
the Lands Tribunal.
10.22 pm
"in consequence of any compensation scheme made under the Act."
That would give the Minister broad scope to invent whatever compensation scheme he felt was appropriate.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |