| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Forth: Does my right hon. Friend have any sense at this stage of whether those people who are involved in their currently legitimate trade are worried more about compensation for loss of revenue and profits in their on-going businesses or about the possible loss of asset value? Are they concerned about compensation on the capital side as well as on the revenue side? Does my right hon. Friend have anything to say about that?
Mr. Jack: My right hon. Friend asks the question that fur farmers themselves are asking. They are concerned about the compensation for business assets to which the Minister referred, but they are equally concerned that it seems that no further money will be available for consequential losses when they have to cease trading, or to give funding to enable them to re-establish businesses in other agricultural operations. Many of those farms are located in sparsely populated areas where other activities might be hard to get off the ground.
The farmers would like to hear some certainty on compensation from the Minister when he winds up the debate. I should like to know--and I am sure that the fur farmers would like to know--how the Minister calculates
the figure of £400,000 which is put about. Is he willing to consider further representations on that matter? Those issues will determine the fate of the principal Bill in its passage through the House. My duty this evening is to represent the interests and concerns of those fur farmers. They have had some indications of what their future might hold, but it is only right that, if Parliament takes away the legitimate livelihood of that group of people, there should be proper compensation. I hope that the Minister will give them some satisfaction.
Mr. Gordon Prentice (Pendle):
Why did those considerations not apply under the previous Government when head de-boners were put out of business and received no compensation whatever?
Mr. Jack:
That may be a perfectly legitimate point to raise. However, my task is not to discuss yesterday's business; it is to discuss the terms of compensation under this measure. We are discussing that, not a previous event.
10.27 pm
Mr. Patrick Nicholls (Teignbridge): Unless I am seriously provoked, I do not intend the detain the House for long. However, the fact that my right hon. Friends the Members for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and for Fylde (Mr. Jack) have come to the House to speak on the measure this evening shows that it is one that needs a few moments' consideration.
If I attempted to revisit the arguments made on Second Reading, you would rightly pull me up, Madam Speaker, but I think that I am entitled to make the point that in the Bill we are dealing not with the suppression of an illegal activity, or even the curtailment of a legal activity, but with an activity that was once legal and that will be removed at a stroke. In that context, the case for proper rates of compensation is overwhelming.
When the Minister addressed the matter briefly on Second Reading, he said in reply to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) that the Government could not
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley):
First, let me make it clear to the House that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle), who is the Bill's promoter, would like to have been here tonight, but she has had a tooth removed, so it would have been difficult for her to attend.
The money resolution is tabled as a matter of course once a private Member's Bill has received its Second Reading. Details of compensation and how it is to be applied have been addressed in the explanatory notes to the Bill. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) spoke about the Lands Tribunal, but it should be recognised that the Lands Tribunal mechanism is an appeal mechanism. Under the formulation for compensation, if an individual farmer feels that the compensation is unfair or has not been properly dealt with, an appeal procedure is available that is independent of Government.
Mr. Forth:
I am grateful to the Minister for pointing out the obvious fact that the Lands Tribunal provides an appeal mechanism. However, the question that I wanted answered was whether the Minister would give an undertaking that there would be no additional expenditure by the Lands Tribunal in fulfilling its role as an appeal mechanism. My point is that the money resolution contains no provision for extra money for the Lands Tribunal.
Mr. Morley:
The Bill relates to a relatively limited number of people. The Lands Tribunal is already established and is funded to deal with such matters, so I do not believe that additional burdens will be imposed on the tribunal as a result of the Bill.
The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand) raised the issue of security. We had proposed and had put out for consultation a proposal to increase security measures on all fur farms as a licence condition. However, because the Bill has now been introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Garston, I have announced that we shall defer
a decision on increased security measures. Additional expenditure that could have been incurred by fur farmers has therefore been deferred.
Dr. Brand:
Does the Minister agree that responsible fur farmers have already considerably increased their perimeter security in response to the risk of illegal break-ins? Should they not be compensated for such expenditure over the past few years?
Mr. Morley:
We are talking about an acceptable standard of compensation for all fur farmers. It may well be that some fur farmers have implemented security measures. However, the fact that mink are now indigenous to the UK wildlife population is a result of escapes from fur farms. There is a fur farm in the hon. Gentleman's constituency; given the vulnerability of fur farms, he will appreciate the importance of proper security measures being instituted to ensure that there are no releases.
I understand the argument advanced by the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) in respect of compensation; he made a reasonable case. The way in which compensation is to be calculated has been laid out. The estimate of what the overall cost will be comes from MAFF's professional advisers and is based on calculations of fur farmers' current income and their assets.
Mr. Jack:
Can the Minister satisfy me on one small point? As far as MAFF is concerned, is the total sum available for that purpose cash-limited, or is it open -ended?
Mr. Morley:
Open-ended is ambitious. If the right hon. Gentleman fears that the £400,000 estimate is set in stone and cannot change one pound either way, I can give him an assurance that that is not the case.
The hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) talked about compensation for income forgone. On Second Reading, I made it clear that, because the three-year breeding cycle of mink might be interrupted by the cut-off date of 2001, in such cases, we would be prepared to consider income lost or forgone. That has been made quite plain.
Mr. Nicholls:
Was the figure of £400,000 based on the assumption that there might be a two-year income loss? I cannot relate the £400,000 to the Minister's present comments; I cannot see the tie-in.
Mr. Morley:
The calculation was made on the basis of a one-year income loss. However, the details can be considered properly in Committee.
Queen's recommendation having been signified--
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"provide any open-ended commitment on income that could or could not be forgone in future."
That is a perfectly fair point and I am sure that my right hon. Friends would accept it. However, the Minister continued:
"To a certain extent, we have accepted the principle of income loss."
He went on:
"We are prepared to deal with that. I hope that that goes some way towards meeting the right hon. and learned Gentleman's point. The details will be addressed after the Bill has been passed."--[Official Report, 5 March 1999; Vol. 326, c. 1378.]
It is very new Labour to say that things will be addressed after the Bill has been passed, but it is not quite good enough for this House. There is a middle way; no one is asking for compensation on income. [Interruption.] Labour Members have pinched so many other ideas over the years that it is not surprising that they should have pinched that language as well. There is a middle way between open-ended and perpetual compensation in respect of income and the profoundly unfair circumstances in which people find their source of income destroyed at a stroke. Even if Labour Members cannot bring their minds, such as they are, to bear on the
arguments, I want the Minister to tell the House that he is prepared to accede to the perfectly fair points that my right hon. Friends and I have put to him. The House is entitled to nothing less.
10.30 pm
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Road Traffic (Vehicle Testing) Bill, it is expedient to authorise--
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |