| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Gregory Barker: Will the Minister give way?
Alun Michael: In a moment—let me make a little progress first. Large businesses can be expected to look after their staff, but that is not to say that the public sector will not play its part. And as with others who are affected by legislation or changes in business, anyone who is made redundant will have statutory entitlements to benefits. Anyone in that position is entitled to use the Employment Service to find alternative work. Those in rural areas who cannot easily get to a jobcentre can access such services by post or phone, and in some cases outreach facilities may be made available.
Alun Michael: The new deal for young people and work-based learning for adults provide training opportunities for those who want to acquire new skills to let them compete for jobs. [Interruption.] I am not sure why opportunities to retrain and to contribute to society and the economy are being mocked so enthusiastically by Opposition Members. Let me make it clear that hunt employees are precisely that: they are employees of individual hunts, and it is open to those hunts, if they decide not to go in for drag hunting or similar activities, to offer their staff redundancy payments.
Alun Michael: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey).
Kate Hoey: The Minister said that compensation was provided for the fur industry because it was being ended. Can he explain to the House what part of the hunting industry is left?
Alun Michael: In fact, compensation for the fur industry was very limited, and if my hon. Friend wants to make that comparison she ought to look at the detail of the relevant legislation. It was quite limited, based on the principles that I have indicated, in the practical ways that it applied.
The fact is that all sorts of changes—some the result of the marketplace, some the consequence of what we decide in Parliament—affect businesses, but they do not automatically lead to or merit compensation. In the past, compensation has been paid to those who, as a consequence of legislation, have been deprived of their property. I underline that point, because it was agreed by both main parties when they were in government. The most notable recent example is the firearms compensation scheme, which was put in place as a result of the legislation that followed the tragedy at Dunblane. Again, both parties adopted a similar approach when in government. We have not generally paid compensation from public funds to those who may have lost their
livelihoods as a result of legislation. We believe that going down that route would set an unfortunate precedent.
Gregory Barker: I want to draw the Minister back to his monstrous and misleading statement about dogs in the hunting community. We all know that every year, tens of thousands of much-loved and cared for family pets are taken to the vets to have their lives ended unnaturally—to be destroyed because it is judged to be the most humane thing to do. Will the Minister go out into Parliament Square and explain to the owners of dogs and hounds there why it makes no difference whether their hounds are destroyed at the age of only one, two, three, four or five when they are still in the prime of their lives or at the ages of six, seven or eight when they finally come to the end of their useful working lives? The Minister knows that there is absolutely no moral similarity in the position. He is proposing mass genocide of dogs and he knows it.
Alun Michael: I would advise the hon. Gentleman to examine his terminology and consider whether it is appropriate, in the light of the normal usage of such language, in this context. The hon. Gentleman had probably wandered out of the Chamber when I quoted precisely what Lord Burns said about the 3,000 hounds a year that are put down at the age of six or seven—not exactly in their old age.
Mr. Kaufman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, as a member of a religion that was literally subjected to genocide, I take grave exception to the frivolous use of that word by the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker)?
Alun Michael: My right hon. Friend says explicitly what I was gently hinting to the hon. Gentleman. It is indeed wise if hon. Members do not exaggerate by their use of language the important issues with which we are now dealing in the House.
Gregory Barker: I appreciate that genocide may not be the right word, but what word would the Minister attach to the slaughter en masse of 26,000 hounds, or possibly even 100,000 of them?
Alun Michael: I take the hon. Gentleman back to the precise words of Lord Burns, whom Conservative Members are fond of quoting when it suits them. He said that it would be
- "prudent of owners of the dogs to plan for the eventuality of a ban on hunting. I understand that the RSPCA has offered to give advice on finding new homes for hounds."
I have dealt with the issues of principle as well as the practical obstacles to accepting the new clause, which I urge the House not to accept.
Andrew George : I am not generally in favour of encouraging a compensation culture in which people
who experience a loss feel that they can claim against anyone other than themselves. Fundamentally, it is right for the House to look askance at a general trend in that direction. The Minister attempted to deal with the principle, but I am not sure that he did so entirely. After all, we are talking about something that is not an act of God, but an Act of Parliament. The Minister prayed in aid the former Conservative Minister, the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), and attempted to deal with the principles of compensation, but the fact remains that it is ultimately a matter of judgment for the House. I hope that, on a free vote, hon. Members will consider the issue very carefully.8.45 pm
Although I agreed with the Minister's general remarks that new clause 1 is drafted so widely that it allows for some potentially spurious claims for compensation, the fundamental principle is well founded, which is why I shall support new clause 1 in the Lobby. I agree with the criticisms about the drafting, but I supported a similar amendment in Committee because some people—admittedly, perhaps only a few—will be deprived of their livelihoods as a result of the Bill. The amount of compensation might be low because the period of unemployment might be short, but the same fundamental principle applies to the banning of handguns and of fur farming, which have a direct parallel with the Bill.
Lembit Öpik: Does my hon. Friend agree that when one reads the Minister's comments in the Official Report, one will find that he was arguing in favour of the principle of compensation, at least for those people who will lose their employment and assets as a direct result of the ban? The Minister suggested that he argued the opposite, but that will be contradicted by the record of the debate.
Andrew George: The Minister will wish to put clearly on the record what he believes he said, but I read between the lines of the argument that he presented, too, and it contained a strong argument that the main weakness of the new clause lay in its drafting.
Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman invites me to correct any misapprehensions. I thought that I had set out clearly the principles on which compensation has been decided by Governments of all colours over the years, and said that the conditions do not apply in this case, especially given the wide-ranging nature of the new clause. Nor do they apply in terms of the direct application of the legislation to specific aspects of employment.
Andrew George: That is helpful, because the Minister has once again indicated that his primary argument against the new clause is its wide-ranging nature. When we debated the issue of compensation in Committee, the Minister made a cogent argument to the effect that, given that the Bill at that time proposed registration, compensation would not be applicable because the loss would be caused not by Act of Parliament but by the applicant's failure to succeed in registering their hunt. That was a stronger argument against compensation.
Mr. Gummer: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Minister put himself in a difficult position when he said
that compensation was payable only when people had their property confiscated? Does he know of a single fur farmer who had his property confiscated? People did not lose their property, but they did lose their livelihood, which is a precise parallel with the narrow drafting of the new clause.
Andrew George: The fundamental point is that people lost their livelihoods, not their properties. That was the argument advanced by the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) on moving the new clause, and it is that principle that I support.
Mr. Garnier: The Minister mentioned the firearms legislation. People did not lose their livelihoods because they were not able to use what is called a handgun; they lost their ability to take part in sporting competitions with pistols. Those who had shops were no longer able to sell handguns, but they could sell shotguns, rifles and other firearms that remained within the law. Is not the parallel getting a bit bendy?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |