| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Forth: Not on Lords amendments.
Mr. Baker: My reference to the right hon. Gentleman's remarks did not refer only to Lords amendments. It related to the compensation package, which has been discussed ad infinitum, if not ad nauseam, in the House, in Committee and in another place.
There are about 13 fur farmers throughout the country. They can feel that they have had a good innings in the House and elsewhere in terms of their views being represented. I do not wish to denigrate those people because the rights of one individual in this country are as important philosophically as the rights of 1 million people. When somebody's livelihood is taken away it is appropriate that the issues are properly discussed and subject to scrutiny, and that has happened in this instance. I have supported the process and participated in it. The issues have been thoroughly aired, and we can feel justified in having participated in that process.
The hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson)--
Mr. Hogg: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us what he thinks the compensation amounts to?
Mr. Baker: I wish to make progress, but I shall take up that specific point. We have had what I regard as clear assurances from the Minister that the compensation scheme will be introduced. There are signs that it will be widened beyond the scope that it would have had previously. It is for the Minister to make his own case. I believe that he is an honourable man, and when he says that compensation will be provided, I believe that it will be. I am happy to take his word for that. I do not believe that a charlatan scheme will be introduced to defraud about a dozen people. We have had clear assurances, and for Members to suggest otherwise is to be somewhat disingenuous.
Mr. Bercow: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have the highest respect for him. Will he accept from me that no
Conservative Member, as far as I am aware, is suggesting that the Minister is a charlatan. Certainly not. However, there is scope for honest difference of opinion. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it is dangerous for him to imply that the fur farmers should be rather grateful that these matters have taken up as much time as they have in the House, when they are innocent victims? Does he accept also that the details of compensation arrangements are crucial and not minor matters, and that they should properly be subject to the affirmative procedure?
Mr. Baker: The time of the House is necessarily limited--
Mr. Baker: For one thing, there are only so many hours in the day.
Mr. Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you confirm that the Order Paper clearly indicates that there is no limitation on time for this debate, or happily on the one that is to follow?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: There is no time limitation if the House agrees the 10 o'clock motion. I think that the right hon. Gentleman knows that his intervention is unnecessary. The context in which the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) made his point was perfectly clear.
Mr. Baker: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your stout defence. I shall try to remember the interventions and return to them. I do not want to lose the points.
The time of the House is limited in the sense that there are 24 hours a day and seven days in a week, and many matters can be brought before the House. For example, the Minister, who is sitting in his place patiently, might be at Lewes dealing with the 400 people who have been evacuated from their houses, and with businesses that have been driven out of the area by the recent floods. However, he is in his place and--
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is falling into a similar trap to the one that I have just described.
Mr. Baker: Of course, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I accept your stricture.
I return to the intervention of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), on which I was invited to comment. Of course our respect is mutual. I agree that the statutory instruments should be amendable under the affirmative procedure. It is a point that I have often made in the House. The point goes wider than this debate and the amendment. I will not stray further down that road. The Government should agree that it is in their interests to adopt the affirmative procedure in the interests of good legislation, rather than have errors creep in subsequently.
The hon. Member for Hexham described the Bill-- I believe that I am right--as "deeply illiberal". As a Liberal, I do not regard it as such. I recognise that there is a balance to be struck. Rights are being removed from individuals and the House should be extremely careful when it takes that course. Equally, there are significant public ethic issues to be addressed. The majority of the
population believe that fur farming is unethical, and the Government have responded to that. I believe that the correct balance has been struck.The compensation scheme has featured in much of the discussion so far. There are inconsistencies in the way in which compensation matters are dealt with now, and historically. The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) talked about head deboning. The hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) talked about quarantine, quite rightly. We are talking about people who have had their businesses slashed. The number of customers who will use their kennels has been significantly reduced. It is proper to bring that issue into the debate. I accept that there is no compensation in that case. However, there was no compensation for the thousands of miners who had their livelihoods removed by the Conservative Government, who implemented a vindictive policy through the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
It is difficult to argue for a rigorous compensation scheme that is absolutely watertight when the same principles have not been applied in other instances.
Mr. Forth: My memory may be failing me. I find that I have more senile moments as time passes. However, I recall that miners received very generous compensation or redundancy packages when their livelihoods were removed. I would be surprised if the hon. Gentleman cannot remember that.
Mr. Baker: That is not my recollection. However, I shall pass on the right hon. Gentleman's comments to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). They can discuss whether the miners received a generous compensation package.
Compensation has been the issue. I think that Members should accept the assurances that we have received from Ministers. As I have said, I agree with the hon. Member for Buckingham that statutory instruments should be amendable by being subject to the affirmative procedure. However, that is not how legislation works. The procedure was not changed in 18 years of Conservative Government. Surely it is rather difficult for them to argue that the procedures are not right now. They did not seek to change them when they were in government for such a long time.
We should try to make progress. I shall shortly resume my place to make my contribution towards that end. I say gently to the Opposition that I, along with many others, do not equate the length of speeches to the effectiveness of opposition. If they were to make more effective points rather more succinctly, the Government might be more sympathetic towards them. Perhaps they might apply that tactic on occasion.
The Bill has been a long time coming, and many people want to see it enacted. The amendments are satisfactory and I hope that we will not continue to make mountains out of molehills. Let us treat the issues seriously, seek assurances from Ministers and seek also to make progress.
Mr. Gummer: A point that has only recently been touched on worries me. I need to raise it, given my experience. It is--[Interruption.] When the hon. Member
for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) hears the point, she will understand why I am raising it. When I was Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, I was concerned with compensation for those who were in Land Settlement Association areas. [Interruption.] If the hon. Members for Basildon (Angela Smith) and for Garston waited a moment, they would have found that one sometimes apologises for getting things wrong. We got something wrong when we specified that the compensation would not attract taxation. Under those circumstances, people who had been defrauded of much of their livelihood as a result of the appalling manner in which the Land Settlement Association had been run expected to get compensation under a scheme that was clear to the public, unlike the scheme that we are now considering. Those people then found themselves without that compensation because the Inland Revenue demanded that some of it should come back to the Revenue in taxation.6.30 pm
I am sure that the Minister will not repeat that mistake. However, a problem arises as a result of amendment No. 5. which inserts into clause 5 the words "income losses". By changing the original language of the clause, it may well be that that which would not have been taxable has become taxable. I have a fundamental reason for raising this matter. When the Minister puts into operation what, I am sure, will be an honourable and decent scheme, he will be given the gross figures involved, so he may feel that the compensation is perfectly reasonable. However, once taxation is applied, he may think otherwise.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |