| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Andrew George: As the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) suggested earlier, one of the principles involved is the loss of property. In the case of handguns, the property lost was the handgun. In the case of fur farming, livelihoods were lost.
Mr. Peter Atkinson (Hexham): Another relevant example concerns an individual in County Durham who runs a fox destruction business. Much to the disapproval of the Master of Foxhounds Association, he owns—privately—about 10 foxhounds, which he uses for that purpose. When the Bill becomes law, he will lose his business entirely, and will effectively be deprived of his property. I see no difference between his case and that of a fur farmer.
Andrew George: The hon. Gentleman helps to make the point. I am sure that the new clause, as drafted, would catch the constituent to which the hon. Gentleman refers.
Mr. Heath: We must continue to explore the parallel between the fur farming legislation and this Bill. Whatever one thinks of hunting, some people will lose their jobs as a direct result of the legislation. It was considered absolutely necessary to provide compensation to fur farmers. I remember the proceedings well. It was never suggested then that fur farmers were entitled to benefit and the assistance of the Employment Service, or that they could diversify into some other form of business involving keeping animals in cages without endangering their continued well-being. Why is that argument being employed in this instance?
Andrew George: The Minister might argue that that was because fur farmers ran their own businesses rather than being employees.
Mr. Heath: It was because they were rich.
Andrew George: My hon. Friend, from a sedentary position, makes the point that I was going to make—
that it was because the fur farmers were better off than those who we believe will be caught within the curtilage of the new clause, in respect of compensation.I asked the Minister what estimate his Department had made of the potential cost to the Government of running the registration scheme. As the hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) noted, a similar question applies to many aspects of the original Bill—the one that the Minister favoured. Other expenses under that version of the Bill would have included the high cost of the tribunal system that the Minister intended to establish. The Minister says that costs would amount to several million pounds. The hon. Member for North Wiltshire said that he had not made an estimate of the likely costs involved in any compensation scheme, but I do not think that the costs under the tightly drafted scheme that I would consider appropriate in connection with a total ban would be much different from what the Minister envisaged in his original Bill.
Dr. Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test): Is the hon. Gentleman arguing for an ex gratia payment to cover practical consequences, or for a general principle in respect of payments? If the latter is the case, does he think that the House should compensate wheel clampers if it passed legislation against that activity? If we legislated on the licensing of doorkeepers, does he think that we should compensate bouncers? Is he speaking according to a general principle which he thinks the House should adopt forthwith, or is he saying that—in this instance, and because of these particular circumstances—compensation should be paid on an ex gratia basis?
Andrew George: The hon. Gentleman is projecting into the future. We do not know what the strength of such cases may be; I have certainly not been involved in any parliamentary debates on those matters.
We are considering the principle set out in previous legislation, such as the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Act 2000, which has been prayed in aid, and the compensation provisions for people who have given up their handguns. That is the benchmark against which I am measuring the Bill. It would impose a complete ban on hunting, and the principle applies to the people who would be affected by that.
Mr. Garnier: The hon. Gentleman should not be too confused by the question put by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead). Nothing in new clause 1 expressly precludes the usual duty to mitigate one's loss. Anyone who goes before the tribunal, or whatever it is, that will assess the loss for which compensation is to be paid will have to demonstrate that he has done all that he can to mitigate his loss. In any form of assessment of damages or loss, a court or tribunal wants to know what a person has done to mitigate their loss. That ought to apply to the new clause, as it would in any other civil claim for compensation.
Andrew George: I suspect that the hon. and learned Gentleman has experience of such cases in the courts. Subsections (5) and (6) would provide for legal examination and appeals.
I do not want to take up more time than necessary, as I know that many other right hon. and hon. Members want to speak in the small amount of time that remains for the debate. Fundamentally, I agree with the first half of the Minister's comments. The new clause is rather wider than I would allow. However, the hon. Member for North Wiltshire made a strong argument to draw the attention of the Minister and of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to the Department's significant and continued failure to deal with the problem of fallen stock.
The Minister said that a benchmark of 50 per cent. of all livestock farmers had been set and that, once that threshold had been reached, a national collection scheme would be introduced. However, I know of many livestock farmers who have received more than one form, so, given the administrative problems in the Department, I do not know whether more than 50 per cent. have already registered their interest. I have already raised the matter with the Minister.
Alun Michael: I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that we would not play with the figures in that regard. Some care is being taken and, with the trade associations and farming unions, we are looking into the administrative difficulties to ensure that a true picture emerges. A proper balance of businesses is necessary to make the figures work and to ensure that the public investment to support the scheme is justified. We are still looking into that with some care.
Andrew George: I am grateful to the Minister for that reassurance. When he checks his figures in detail, however, I think that he will find that far more forms were sent out than there were livestock holdings against which to judge support for the scheme.
Mr. Swire : Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, as I said in the Committee last week, when the Bill involved a degree of registration, the Minister could advance the argument that there was no need for compensation? However, since the Bill has become little other than the private Member's Bill of the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) and is an all-out ban, might it not have been easier for the Opposition to come up with a tighter clause had the Government spent a little time working out the financial implications of a total ban and the economic loss that would result? Would not that have been the act of a responsible Minister, rather than rushing through a completely different Bill, with only one day in Standing Committee, as a result of which none of us can say to what extent the measure will affect those living and working in the countryside and involved in or associated with hunting?
Andrew George: I agree, and as I said earlier in my contribution, registration would allow the Minister to construct an argument, as he did in Committee, that compensation might not be appropriate in such cases. But the Bill is, in fact, quite different in that regard.
9 pm
Lembit Öpik: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in the preposterously short time that we have left to debate eight amendments and a new clause—28 minutes—we are we unlikely to hear any plausible explanation from
the Minister about why he thinks that compensation is not reasonable? The Minister has said that, despite the contradictions, he is not considering introducing compensation. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is, in itself, a fundamental violation of the rights that have been introduced, not least for mink farmers, by the Government in previous legislation? They are contradicting a precedent that they themselves have set.
Andrew George: My hon. Friend makes a very strong point, but we are now reiterating arguments. Anyone who has listened to and perhaps later reads the Minister's speech will make a judgment and reflect on the fact that his case against the principle of compensation has not been well argued, unlike the drafting issue. On that basis and in view of the fact that many other hon. Members wish to contribute, I shall to make it clear that I will support the new clause when the House divides.
Mr. Alan Hurst (Braintree): I am pleased to be called to speak in the debate. I have not had the opportunity to speak on this controversial subject on the many occasions that it has been debated in the House previously. May I say at the outset that I shall join those hon. Members who support the new clause in the Division Lobby this evening?
This seems to be an elementary question of equity and fairness. I am not over-impressed by the Banbury formula that appears to have been put before the House this evening. I am surprised that my hon. Friends should support paying compensation for property, but denying compensation for livelihood. Huntsmen are very skilled. It is a skilled, delicate and intricate trade and calling. It is difficult to understand immediately how they can turn those qualities straight away to some other occupation. The problem this evening is that the drafters of the new clause have drawn it far too wide. As a consequence, they may well have lost the sympathy of a number of Labour Members who, although they support a total ban, think it right and proper that those who lose their livelihoods as a direct consequence should be compensated.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |