| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham): Is it not particularly distressing that the order that would be forthcoming consequent upon agreement to Lords amendment No. 2 would not be subject to amendment? Precisely because of the potentially unsatisfactory contents of the scheme, it is essential either that an order be capable of amendment, or, preferably, that the much more generous, all- embracing and specific proposals that my right hon. and learned Friend is making in his amendments be accepted.
Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is basically right on both points. However, he is making a much more general point, which I have urged on the House very many times, on statutory instruments. Increasingly, over many years--when Conservative Members were in government, too--the House--
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We have strayed into quarantine and strawberries, and now into statutory instruments. Although I am prepared to let the right hon. and learned Gentleman give some background to his amendments, I think that he should now come back to the point.
Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) has made an important point. If the scheme is introduced by way of a statutory instrument, it could not be amended. He believes, therefore, that my amendment should be passed. I was seeking to agree with him and to say that there is an underlying problem with using statutory instruments, which cannot be amended.
There is a way round the problem, and I commend it to the Parliamentary Secretary. It is possible to lay draft statutory instruments. If that were done in this case, the House would be able to debate them--in Government time, and on the Floor of the House--so that hon. Members could express a view on the scheme and on the compensation figures. Nevertheless, although that would be one way of meeting some of the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham, the situation is profoundly unsatisfactory.
I have always regarded this as a profoundly illiberal and offensive Bill, and I have often spoken against the proposals that it contains, including when they were in a private Member's Bill. Basically, I do not think that the Bill is compatible with the views that I have formed on minority rights in a free society. However, given that we have a Bill of this type, I believe that the House should be as generous as possible on compensation. I also think that the House has to acknowledge that we are dealing with the livelihoods of 11 or so people and with very substantial capital assets.
It is not right for the House to be presented with a compensation scheme that does not fully address all the losses. I am prepared to accept that there may be some difficulty with expressing the formulae in the Bill, but that the Bill should address all the losses is something on which the House should express a view. I have a very clear view that it should address all the income and
non-income losses and should extend to all the businesses covered, and that the proviso to the scheme does none of those things.
Mr. Andrew Hunter (Basingstoke): I shall be very brief. I give a cautious and qualified welcome to the Government's acceptance of the Lords amendments. It signifies a potential step in the right direction that could prove to be quite significant. As my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) said, it is a matter of grave regret that, at this stage, the parameters of the compensation scheme are still unknown and there remains an enormous discrepancy between the Government's apparent thinking and the real loss of income that fur farmers will incur.
I warmly support the amendment moved by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg). He demonstrates clearly that the Lords amendments do not cover all income and non-income losses. I regard this as an unacceptable state of affairs and I endorse what my right hon. and learned Friend said: that the House should insist on a proper compensation scheme for fur farmers.
Even with the amendments, this remains a miserable, vindictive, wholly unjustified and unjustifiable Bill. It is draconian and ill-considered. In essence, it is state persecution of a minority to satisfy a perceived prejudice of the majority.
Mr. Peter Atkinson (Hexham): I join the chorus of condemnation of the Bill. I am sorry that we are here finishing off a piece of legislation which I agree is deeply illiberal.
It is a pity that we are here to abolish many people's livelihoods. I take issue with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) as, although the Bill involves 11 farmers with 13 farms, those farms employ a large number of people, some on a full-time basis and many more on a part-time basis. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) shakes her head; she may like to visit the farm in my constituency where I will introduce her to the staff that work there. Those people have jobs in an area where employment is hard to find, so the Bill will have a considerable impact on the local economy where the farms are based.
Angela Smith (Basildon): Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the Bill is fundamentally more honest than the proposals made by his hon. Friends in Committee, which would have improved the standards to such an extent that fur farmers would have been put out of business? The Bill will give them compensation, whereas his hon. Friends' proposals would not.
Mr. Atkinson: I take the standpoint that the whole measure is completely wrong. I think that fur farmers should be allowed to continue their businesses under the existing regulations, which are now being tightened up in Europe to improve the conditions under which mink are kept. The hon. Lady may disagree, but the logic is that our action today will put fur farmers in the United Kingdom out of business, so there will be an increase
in production, particularly in eastern European countries where conditions are much worse than they are here. What, then, is the benefit for animal welfare? How will the mink benefit?We are discussing a narrow measure and I am concerned for my constituent, Mr. Harrison, who tonight is no nearer knowing how much he might get for his business than he was several months ago. Although I appreciate that Ministers hide behind the legalistic fig leaf that they cannot proceed until the Bill has received Royal Assent, I believe that negotiations should have started much earlier so that fur farmers would know precisely how much they were likely to get. We still do not know some of the parameters involved. For instance, for how long will compensation for income be available? How long does it take for a fur farmer to establish another business? I have no idea. Will most of the compensation be paid up front? Under normal compulsory purchase procedures, between 80 and 90 per cent. of compensation is paid up front: will fur farmers benefit from the same provision?
5.30 pm
Mr. Hogg: Many fur farmers are near the end of their careers. Does my hon. Friend agree that it will be difficult for them to find alternative employment, whereas they could have hoped to continue with fur farming well into normal retirement?
Mr. Atkinson: That is correct. My constituent, Mr. Harrison, is a man of middle age--I hope that he will not mind my saying that--and has suffered heart problems that were brought on by the stress of endless day-and-night demonstrations outside his farm. It would be difficult for him to start a new enterprise that would bring him anywhere near the same rewards.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston has the wrong idea of what a mink farm looks like, as do the Government. In Committee in another place, Baroness Hayman said:
- No compensation should be required for the land--that would have alternative uses--but compensation may be required for buildings and equipment . . .--[Official Report, House of Lords, 17 October 2000; Vol. 617, c. 34.]
Maria Eagle: It is not true that I have no idea what mink farms look like. Will the hon. Gentleman accept that I have visited them, and I have met his constituent, Mr. Harrison?
Mr. Atkinson: I do accept that, but the hon. Lady's words implied that she thinks that fur farms cover rolling acres. They do not: they are small outfits, and most are made up largely of hard standing and concrete.
Mr. James Gray (North Wiltshire): The hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) protests that she has visited fur farms. I am delighted that she has, but does my hon. Friend recall that on Second Reading of her private Member's Bill on this matter she was forced to admit that
she had not visited a fur farm? She was determined to ban them anyway. She has since seen reason and visited one, but she had not done so at the time.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We do not want to stray too far down that road, nor do we want a Second Reading debate. I hope that the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) will confine himself to the amendments.
Mr. Atkinson: I take your stricture seriously, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston--who is now engaged in heated debate with my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) behind your Chair--has visited a fur farm.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |