| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham): I begin from the premise that the Bill is offensive and illiberal and should not be enacted, but it has passed through the House and the other place. Consequently, we
are dealing with what we have got. It would be churlish not to acknowledge that the Bill is somewhat better than it was when it left this place, because it now has a compensation clause.Sub-amendment (b) to Lords amendment No. 2 is the most important of the sub-amendments in my name. We need to be clear what the compensation scheme is. The compensation scheme as provided for in the Lords amendments does not provide for full compensation for all losses suffered by all businesses caught by the prohibition, whereas my amendments, if they were enacted by the House, would.
If one examines the Lords amendments, one finds that the Government have considerable discretion as to what to include or not to include in the scheme. There is a proviso to clause 5, as amended, which is couched in the following language:
- A scheme . . . need not provide for the making of payments in respect of all income losses or all non-income losses or (as the case may be) in respect of all businesses.
I am doing the Minister the justice of believing that that is not what he would wish. I assume that he wants to cover most income losses, most non-income losses and all businesses, but the House has a right to insist on clear language and to insist further on a proper compensation scheme.
I acknowledge that, in one sense, what I am urging on the House is different from what I have urged on the House before. I am conscious that compensation schemes have not been provided for other activities that, from time to time, have been prohibited by the House. Indeed, I acknowledge--otherwise, it will be said against me--that I personally am responsible for one such measure: the prohibition on head deboning at the time of the BSE crisis. That did not carry with it a compensation measure, but there are two differences. First, since the deboning measure was put in place, we have enacted the European convention on human rights and incorporated it into domestic law. One consequence is that, in all probability, compensation is a legal requirement in such cases--or, put differently, a prohibition without compensation would probably be deemed to be incompatible with convention rights. That being so, since I enacted a measure there is a change of circumstance which I recognise and which has consequences in law. Secondly, the prohibitions that have been enacted in the past have been done on a different basis from that on which we are operating today. For example, the prohibition on head deboning was done on the basis of a threat to human health. That was the justification for that Bill; actually, I think it was an order.
This Bill is justified not in terms of any pragmatic or scientific assessment of animal welfare, but on the basis of some assessment of public morality. It is wrong for the House to have done that because, within a democracy, minorities have rights. If one can only do that which the majority approve of, one is not living in a truly free society. We as Members of Parliament must be very
cautious about enacting proposals simply on the basis that we can get a majority to support them. That is a road to tyranny.5.15 pm
If we are to take such action on such a narrow basis--which I believe to be wrong--it is essential that we put our money where our vote is. If we are to make a prohibition on a basis that I believe to be fundamentally flawed, we must compensate properly and fully. That means--this is what my amendments are intended to achieve--that all businesses caught by the prohibition should receive compensation for all their income losses, and for all their non-income losses.
Non-income losses can be substantial. Unquestionably--my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) mentioned this--the capital value of the premises that will be outlawed, together with that of the stock, will be very great. That has been the case in Austria, where a high capital value has been placed on each fur farm--although, naturally, the facts have been under-explained.
We are depriving people of an important asset which they had every right to expect to see them into old age, providing pension funds and so forth, simply because of our assessment of public morality. I consider that shameful.
Mr. Roger Gale (North Thanet): My right hon. and learned Friend is a lawyer, which I am not. He may be able to assist me, and prevent me from making a lengthy speech later.
I do not understand the difference between proactive and reactive prohibition. As my right hon. and learned Friend knows, I am a passionate supporter of the pet travel scheme. We introduced the scheme, and consequently deprived a significant number of quarantine kennel owners--who had set up businesses to serve an Act of Parliament--of their living. They received no compensation. I do not understand how it is possible to compensate generously one section of the business public whom we have deprived of their living, and not compensate another section at all.
Mr. Hogg: I entirely agree. This is a serious question, which is why I drew attention to the prohibition on head deboning. I recognise that I was the Minister responsible for that prohibition, and that the scheme I introduced did not provide for compensation.
A variety of approaches have been adopted over many years. For example, some of the firearms legislation did not, in the first instance, provide for proper compensation. I am thinking of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988. The legislation subsequently did make such provision, but only, I believe, in respect of the capital value of the weapons concerned; it did not provide for compensation for loss of income.
There is a serious problem relating to compensation. Governments frequently intervene to prohibit or regulate activities, and historically, as a general rule--there are exceptions--we have not provided compensation. An important change has taken place, namely the incorporation into domestic law of the European convention on human rights. It has also been recognised that, given the rights of property enshrined by one of
the articles--I think it is article 14, although I may be wrong--it is necessary to provide compensation where such rights will be infringed.As the House and, probably, the country will realise, there is a difference between intervening to prohibit an activity on grounds of public health or public policy--rather broadly defined--and simply expressing our own preferences in regard to what is right or wrong. If we are to indulge ourselves in the latter respect, which I strongly believe we should not--I hope I have made that plain; I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale)--we should provide a much more generous compensation scheme than we would provide if we acted on the basis of what is necessary for animal welfare.
Maria Eagle (Liverpool, Garston): Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that capital assets will still be owned by the fur farmers, and that there is an alternative use for those assets? A fur farmer in Scotland found that his capital assets were perfect for the purpose of setting up a farm on which to grow strawberries.
Mr. Hogg: Clearly, a fur farmer possesses land, and, depending on the quantity and quality of that land, it may have an alternative use. Indeed, it is likely to have an alternative use. However, it is probable that the value of that land and those assets will be much diminished by the prohibition. Regardless, if that land is to be put to an alternative use, there will have to be a very substantial capital investment to transform the physical facilities on the land. Therefore, on any view--we can argue about the extent of the diminution--there will be a very substantial--[Interruption.]
The hon. Lady is indicating ambivalence. It is not a matter of "if and but"; it would be a serious capital loss. Although only 12 or 13 farmers will be affected--
Why should the House impose on 11 farmers a real loss, when we have it within our ability to compensate them entirely for that loss? I think that that is what we should be doing.
Mr. Morley: I simply want to deal with the point made by the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) on the difference between fur farmers and quarantine kennels. Although there are various differences between the two cases, the principal one is that the quarantine regulation changes have not resulted in the closure of quarantine kennels. There is still business for quarantine kennels. Additionally, the quarantine regulation changes do not apply to some countries, where there is endemic street rabies. Consequently, there is still a requirement for United Kingdom quarantine facilities. The fur farming proposals would have a different effect.
Mr. Hogg: The Parliamentary Secretary's remarks are correct, but they are correct only in part. Although it is perfectly true that there is a requirement for kennels, it is also true that, over time, their volume of business will decrease very substantially. Therefore, if one were to measure year on year, before and after the change in the
passport laws, one will find a diminution in business because of the change in the quarantine routine. So, although there is a continuing business, there is a loss.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |