| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Hogg: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) raised an important point. Many of fur farmers have incurred huge security expenditure in trying to guard their property against the offensive activity carried out by those trying to disrupt their business and by the proponents of the Bill outside the House. Should not such substantial security expenditure be recoverable?
Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend. That touches on a question that arose earlier--whether the security measures had been put in some time ago or recently. It is perfectly possible that they were put in just before people were made aware, through a manifesto or whatever else, that it was the intention of new Labour to destroy their livelihood.
There is another, related question--whether the security arrangements would enhance the value of the property. I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for pointing me in that direction. It is possible that the security arrangements would be useful to protect the strawberries when they came on to the scene.
The strawberries mentioned by the hon. Member for Garston are becoming an important part of the debate. When we were discussing income and non-income losses in terms of the Lords amendments and the clause in its original form, the hon. Lady helpfully pointed out that in at least one case, a fur farm had been converted--profitably, she implied--to the growing of strawberries. We would have to consider such alternative use. When we introduce the matter of security arrangements, that raises the interesting question of the extent to which those could be seen as enhancing the value of the property, depending on what its alternative use might be. Another area of doubt has appeared, which I hope the Minister--
Mr. Forth: I will give way to the hon. Lady, although I am desperately trying to conclude--
Mr. John Gummer (Suffolk, Coastal) rose--
Mr. Forth: Now I am besieged. I give way to my right hon. Friend, then I will be more than happy to give way to the hon. Lady.
Mr. Gummer: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. On his point about income losses meaning losses of income, I find it difficult to understand how income losses could mean anything else. In clause 5, to which Lords amendment No. 5 refers, it is difficult to find any instance in which the term "income losses" is used, but many other terms much more otiose than that are used. Does my right hon. Friend consider that that phrase properly refers to clause 5(2)? If not, clause 5(2) ought to have some similar explanation, if an explanation is necessary in so simple a matter as income losses and non-income losses.
Mr. Forth: Subject to what the Minister may say to guide us, that is what Lords amendment No. 2 may be intended to do. It refers to
- the description or descriptions of income losses and the description or descriptions of non-income losses in respect of which payments are to be made
- the description or descriptions of businesses in respect of which payments are to be made.
However, we know the Minister well enough--or we hope that we do--to know that that is not in his mind. He may want to tell us why he is prepared to recommend to the House that that amendment be included. He may even tell us whether it was the Government or he himself who initiated it, or whether it arose in another place, has come to us in the form of a Lords amendment and is accepted by the Government with more or less reluctance.
6.15 pm
Mr. Gummer: Perhaps I did not make myself clear. I do not understand why the Government seek to change the wording of clause 5(2) and why, having changed the wording, presumably to make it clearer, they need an addendum to explain what the clearer wording means, whereas they did not need an addendum to explain what the original, less clear, wording meant. Can that be cleared up?
Mr. Forth: Not by me. I am as puzzled as my right hon. Friend. [Interruption.] As my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) helpfully says, I am not the author. My right hon. Friend simply reinforces what I said earlier: we need an explanation from the Minister as to whether the proposed new wording is helpful or obfuscatory. I suspect that it may be the latter.
Mr. Bercow: Given the uncertain impact of security considerations on the value of the sites--a consideration that my right hon. Friend helpfully highlighted--does he agree that it becomes particularly important to ensure that the consultation process is long enough to allow these matters properly to be taken into account? If the Government do not see sense, is there not a danger that if clause 5 is implemented two months after the passage of the Act, it will be arbitrary, capricious and damaging?
Mr. Forth: I hope that my hon. Friend is incorrect. Again, the Minister is under an obligation to give us a
clearer idea of the scope and duration of the consultation process. One can see arguments both ways. One imagines that the people whose livelihoods are to be destroyed by the statute may want the matter to be resolved as quickly as possible, but is there not a tension between that and the need for proper consultation and for the matter to be properly dealt with by the Minister's experts and assessors?I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the matter. It would be appropriate--nay, essential--for the Minister to tell us, in his introduction to the Lords amendments, how long he believes the consultation process should go on in order to meet all the requirements.
So many questions have been raised during the debate, although the matter looked so simple--
Mrs. Golding: I am sorry to intrude on the right hon. Gentleman's concluding remarks. It occurred to me that when the consultations had virtually finished, the so-called animal rights protesters--those thugs--might come along and release mink again, as they did to the fur farmer in my constituency. The fur farmer would then have to meet the cost of rounding the animals up and installing additional security for a very short time. Would that be taken into account, even though an agreement was already in hand?
Mr. Forth: The hon. Lady raises an important point. Let us envisage the circumstances in which the assessors have consulted and agreed with the victims how the package will operate. The statutory instrument is then devised and brought before the House--under which procedure, we know not yet. I hope that we will be reassured by the Minister.
Under the terms of the package, the assessors go out again, armed with their thick book of regulations about how the scheme will work, run their slide rule over the concrete or whatever it may be--the buildings and so on--and arrive at a figure. They go away and everybody feels reassured, except that between that point and the finalisation, the thugs come along and wreak further havoc on the innocent person plying his legal trade, and diminish the value of the property.
What mechanism, the hon. Lady asks, exists to allow for the fact that there may be a dramatic reduction in the value of the property, and possibly also the livestock, caused by mindless thugs between the time of the apparent settlement of the compensation and the payment being made? Will there be an expiry time? That takes us back to a question that we have already raised. One can begin to see that all these questions interrelate and interact in a way--[Interruption.] If the late-coming hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) wants to intervene--[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order.
Mr. Forth: Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As you know, I am always happy to take proper interventions, even from the hon. Gentleman, but I am trying to conclude my remarks.
The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme has raised an important point--not a theoretical point, but one which, given the experience of her constituency, could well arise in the most regrettable, unfortunate and, frankly, disgusting circumstances.
We have posed a number of questions to the Minister. It is his job now to seek to reassure the House on those matters before we have to make up our minds whether to divide the House. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) might agree that if the Minister can answer all our questions to our satisfaction, fully and comprehensively, he will consider not pressing the amendment to a Division. However, if the Minister falls short of that standard and requirement, we may want to test the view of the House.
Mr. Norman Baker (Lewes): I shall try to redress the balance of the debate. We have heard several speeches against the Bill, and I remind the House that so far the Bill has worked its way successfully through all stages in this place and in another place. I hope that it is now close to enactment. A clear majority of Members on both sides of the Chamber support it, and it has clear support among the public. I introduced a Bill to outlaw fur farming in March 1998. The issue has been the subject of considerable discussion and it is disingenuous for the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) to say--I hope that I quote him accurately--that this is the only opportunity to make representations. There have been many opportunities to make representations on the Bill--
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |