| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Bellingham: The Minister accepts that some people will lose their jobs and livelihoods. There is a need for some form of compensation. Whatever his view of the new clause, will he ensure that a compensation clause, even a more tightly drawn clause, is introduced in another place?
8.30pm
Alun Michael: I have stated my position on the principle and shown it to be one that has been settled by different parties in Government over the years. But we
have to deal with issues of practicality in considering the new clause, which has been chosen by the Opposition. The amount of money that could be paid out, particularly in relation to assets, appears to be open-ended and unknown, and the cost to the taxpayer of just the administration of such a scheme would be huge and unjustifiable.In addition, there is no provision to require people affected to take steps to mitigate their losses. There is no incentive for people to diversify, whether into drag hunting or other equestrian activities, or to apply their skills to related tasks, such as dealing with the disposal of fallen stock. There is a business opportunity there. I take this opportunity to correct something that the hon. Member for North Wiltshire said. He suggested that the Government had asked hunts to help. What actually happened was that the Government indicated those disposal businesses that take fallen stock, which include hunts. That is a quite different thing from seeking help.
Mr. Grieve: Again the Minister rather alarms me. He comes to the Dispatch Box and says, "As we are dealing only with new clause 1, I am giving the answer." I have never heard that happen before on Report. Usually, if the Minister disagrees with the detail of an amendment tabled on Report but realises that a legitimate point is being made, he will go away and think about it and come up with an amendment of his own, and then the original amendment is withdrawn. Are we to have this charade, with the Minister coming to the Dispatch Box and saying that he has closed his mind to the new clause because he does not agree with the details even though he accepts the principle?
Alun Michael: We seemed to have something of a charade on the hon. Gentleman's previous intervention when he ignored the second half of the sentence because it did not suit him. Now he appears not to have heard the quotation from a Conservative Minister about the basic principles in relation to compensation. I dealt with the points of principle; I am now dealing with the practicalities of the new clause.
Mr. Heath: Dealing purely with practicalities, the Minister just touched on the issue of fallen stock, and I should like to know, because it will affect a large number of people in my constituency, a livestock farming area, what the Government intend to do about the lack of facilities for fallen stock. The situation will reach a crisis in a short period of time, and it is no good wishing there to be renderers and incinerators within a space of three months, because they simply will not be there.
Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. I shall touch only briefly on this, otherwise I shall quickly be called to order. The Government came forward with an extremely well thought out and generous scheme for farmers that would have worked had 50 per cent. of farmers signed up. Given that about 34 per cent. signed up, which in the long term farmers will see to have been a mistake, considerable effort is going in to modifying that scheme while retaining its financial viability. But to suggest that there are no facilities to deal with the disposal of fallen stock is not correct.
Lembit Öpik: Is the Minister at least considering introducing some form of new clause or amendment in the other place to allow some form of compensation even on the more restricted lines that he says? It is reasonable to ask that question and it is fair to expect the Minister to tell us whether he is considering it.
Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman asks the question in a reasonable way. I am not considering the introduction of a means of compensation because I have not heard arguments that justify the case, which the hon. Gentleman made in Committee and in which he believes. There is a difference of judgment between us, but I hope that he will accept that it is a matter of judgment rather than principle.
Mr. Cameron: The Minister prayed in aid earlier the ban on fur farming, in which case some people were specifically put out of work by a piece of legislation. Under this legislation, some people, such as huntsmen and those who work in kennels, are specifically being put out of work. Will he therefore consider a compensation scheme? Are not the two cases analogous? How can he argue otherwise?
Alun Michael: No, the hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong. I refer him again to the statement made by the hon. Member for Banbury. He said:
- "It has . . . 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 which may arise from Parliament's properly considered legislative decision."—[Official Report, 13 November 1996; Vol. 285, c. 287.]
Mr. Adrian Flook (Taunton): As the Minister knows, I speak for many in the Exmoor communities who are gravely worried about what a ban on deer hunting would do to the numbers of deer on Exmoor and the knock-on effects that that will probably have on tourism. We have discussed the possibility of a deer management scheme, but if there is no compensation what financial help will be provided to alleviate the problems caused by a ban on deer hunting in my constituency?
Alun Michael: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have supported working with the deer industry and the entire community on deer management. Part of the problem on Exmoor has been a certain unwillingness to engage with this issue on the part of those who regard deer management as an alternative to hunting, and who are reluctant for hunting to end. I understand their reluctance, but a proper deer management scheme and
proper recognition of the place of deer in the community is the right way forward. That is what has happened in other parts of the country and, indeed, in Scotland.
Alun Michael: I give way to the hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire).
Mr. Swire: In his original Bill, the Minister had obviously earmarked some funds—not least for his registration scheme, and for animal welfare groups that were to be encouraged to challenge every single application for registration, and which were to have their legal costs met by the taxpayer. In the new Bill, will the Minister consider earmarking some of that money, out of the kindness of his heart, as a hardship fund for those people who genuinely will lose their jobs and not find other employment?
Alun Michael: When any industry is restructured, there are those who are permanently affected and others who are not. Systems exist in the public domain—provided through the Employment Service and other support available to those who have become unemployed—that are much more efficient, effective and generous than those provided under the previous Government.
Alun Michael: I give way to the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George).
Andrew George (St. Ives): I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. He has dealt with the drafting of new clause 1 and prayed in aid a previous Conservative Minister's interpretation of its fundamental principle. That interpretation is a matter of judgment, with which I disagree. In the light of the intervention of the hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire), will the Minister tell us what budget his Department estimated would have been required to support the previous Bill?
Alun Michael: It was in the order of millions of pounds, as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate. We discussed that issue in Committee, and although there would have been some variation, depending on the final decision of the House, it was certainly some several million pounds.
Alun Michael: As I have said, another flaw in new clause 1 is the provision on compensation arrangements, which suggests that in dealing with an appeal the applicant should nominate a particular body if they are not satisfied. In respect of the fur farming legislation, the body in question was the Lands Tribunal, but the situation here is not at all clear. Will the body in question be a new one or an existing one? However, I should make it clear that what is more important than the practicality of these issues—deeply flawed though
the proposals are in that regard—is the principle underlying the Government's policy of not providing compensation. Some hunts' turnover is small, but that of others is large.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |