---

Several hon. Members rose—

Alun Michael: I ask all hon. Members to note that I shall happily give way, but I would prefer to do it at the end of a sentence or a thought.

Mr. Grieve: The Minister's last comments worry me a little. He suggests that if only a small number of people are to be compensated, the Government think that that is all right, but if there might be many such people, they think that it is a bad idea. I think that he will agree that that is not what the Human Rights Act is all about. The reason why the Government chose to compensate fur farmers was that they knew that if they did not do so it would be incompatible with human rights legislation.

Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman demonstrates my point brilliantly. If he had waited for me to finish my point, he would have heard me explain the difference between this Bill and the fur farming legislation, by which fur farmers were directly prevented from carrying on their businesses.

Rob Marris: Does my right hon. Friend agree that new clause 1 is so ridiculously widely drawn that

9 Jul 2003 : Column 1298

someone who was made redundant by the League Against Cruel Sports would be able to claim under it, which would be nonsensical?

Alun Michael: My hon. Friend may be right. If I were in those circumstances, I should like to have him as an advocate because he is always inventive about the application of the law.

Lembit Öpik: It is disturbing that the Minister now claims that the amendment might be acceptable if it were more tightly drafted. The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) and I tabled an amendment in Committee. It stated:

"The Secretary of State shall pay compensation to those who lose their employment owing to a ban on hunting . . . The compensation will be equivalent to one year's lost remuneration and 100 per cent. of the assets that are lost on account of this Act."

That is close to what the Minister claims that he would accept. Why did he vote against it?

Alun Michael: I said no such thing. One of the strengths of the House is hon. Members' ability to intervene and allow a Minister to respond to the specific thoughts of colleagues. One of the weaknesses is that one does not get through the logical, successive points that one wants to make.

For example, let us consider the horse industry. One of the chief excitements of traditional hunting is the ride. People like hunting because they love charging across the countryside. They enjoy being in the countryside, pursuing the activity. Some tell me that they hardly ever see a fox or the hounds. I cannot believe that people will stop riding simply because they cannot hunt. Some may, but generally the desire to ride in the countryside will not go away. The demand for horses, stabling, farriers and others who work in that industry will not decline. The horse industry is healthy and growing. Changing the law on hunting will have only a minimal effect on it.

Mr. Challen: Does my right hon. Friend agree that horse riding in the countryside that is not associated with cruelty will improve the chances of people who live in the countryside to develop businesses that are based around horses and horse riding? Does he also agree that tourism will grow by getting rid of the moral debasement of rural affairs because more people will be inclined to go to the countryside?

Alun Michael: My hon. Friend makes a good point about the attractions.

David Taylor: My right hon. Friend the Minister rightly referred to trends in recent years that show an increase in equestrian activity and those employed in the equestrian industry. Is it not possible that that rate of growth would accelerate if equestrian activities were decoupled from the stigma of hunting?

Alun Michael: That should be encouraged. We are considering a growth industry in which many people participate. The Government strongly support horse riding and a variety of other sports and leisure activities that are associated with it.

9 Jul 2003 : Column 1299

Let us consider dogs, which the hon. Member for North Wiltshire mentioned earlier. He described the Burns report as an excellent report. It states:

"It is common, but not universal, practice for hounds belonging to the registered packs to be put down after some six or seven years' hunting, when they are considered to have reached the end of their working lives. The Countryside Alliance estimated that the Masters of Foxhounds Association puts down approximately 3,000 hounds a year."

Working dogs are often put down when they can no longer perform the tasks that are required of them. It further stated that it would be prudent of dog owners to plan for the eventuality of a ban on hunting. The RSPCA has offered to give advice on finding new homes for hounds. Hon. Members should take note of the Burns report.

Mr. Banks: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for making that point because Opposition Members are tearing at our heart strings, when the facts that he mentioned are little known throughout the country. Will he also add that young hounds are destroyed if they do not show the necessary proclivity for hunting? We do not know the numbers because they do not have to be registered.

Alun Michael: My hon. Friend makes his point well. Several such matters should be included in any argument about the future of dogs.

Mr. Garnier: I am not clear whether the Minister objects to new clause 1 in principle and believes that no compensation should be paid in any circumstances to anyone who suffers a loss through the ban on hunting or whether the argument is Treasury driven, and based on the fact that the number of people and therefore the amount of money is undefinable. On which side of the see-saw does the Minister sit?

Alun Michael: The hon. and learned Gentleman makes a fair point. I am responding to the muddled nature—

Mr. Cameron: Will the Minister give way?

Gregory Barker: Will the Minister give way?

Alun Michael: Not for a moment. I shall certainly not give way to anyone who tries to intervene in the middle of a sentence.

The hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) made a fair point about the principles. I can do no better than cite the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) when he was Minister of State at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in 1996. I note that his name is not on the new clause, although he has added it to other amendments. He said:

"The long-standing public policy on compensation is clear . . . when an individual is deprived of his property, fair compensation for that deprivation, subject to any overriding circumstances in the public interest, is properly due . . . It has, however, also been a long-standing matter of settled public policy that no Government are under any obligation to pay compensation to a business for any loss of opportunity of carrying on that business

9 Jul 2003 : Column 1300

which may arise from Parliament's properly considered legislative decisions." —[Official Report, 13 November 1996; Vol. 285, c. 287.]

Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed): I am worried that the Minister has moved from arguing that the clause is too wide and that too much compensation would have to be paid to contending that the activities can largely continue without hunting and that there is therefore no problem. I do not understand that. However, I want him to clarify his argument of principle. He said that there can be no rights to compensation that depend on allowing people to be cruel. How does he square that with reaching the conclusion that he could present a proposal for licensed and limited hunting? He must have accepted that that was not inherently cruel.

Alun Michael: That is absolutely not the case. Let me correct the right hon. Gentleman. The point of the original Bill was to distinguish activities that were cruel and unnecessary and could be done in a way that involved less suffering. The House took the view that all hunting of foxes was in that category. I am sure that hon. Members who voted for that made a judgment about the element of cruelty involved.

A moment's thought will show that the proposed scheme is impractical and unworkable. I am dealing with it on the basis of principle and practicality. On loss of employment, it may be relatively easy to identify those who are directly employed by the hunts, although even Burns was unable to get an exact number for those people. That suggests some ambiguity. At Portcullis House, we heard evidence that suggested that Burns overestimated the numbers. Others might claim to be in the position of losing their jobs as a result of a ban, especially if there were generous compensation on offer. What about a farrier who depends on hunt activity for 30 per cent. of current business? As a consequence of reduced turnover, he could decide to lay off a member of staff. Determining the amount of compensation would be complex.

Secondly, it is claimed that business turnover may be affected by a ban on hunting. That may be the case, but it would vary.

Mr. Bellingham: Will the Minister give way? He has reached the end of a sentence.

Alun Michael: Some, if not most of the business assets could be reutilised or an alternative business could be created. I shall consider some of those points shortly. However, given the good punctuation of the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham), I shall give way to him.

---