| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
9.15 pm
The Minister said that he was advised that he has no moral responsibility. Who in the Government advises on moral responsibility? That is an interesting point, given that many of us believe that it is immoral to take away a person's livelihood directly in such controversial circumstances. I had not heard the hon. Member for Braintree speak before, but I thought that he adopted an
elegant and proper approach. Although he does not share my view on the main aspect of the Bill, we share a common view on how people should be treated.The Government must tell us who explained the moral issue, because there are questions about whether they always get their morality right on other matters, although it would be improper to discuss that under new clause 1. Those of us who debated the Iraq war took that position and therefore disagreed with the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton. I am worried that a Minister should come to the House and tell us that he has taken advice on morality without giving us an indication of the quality of the advice and the nature of the adviser. I think that most people would—
Alun Michael: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Gummer: May I finish my sentence, because the Minister was very keen on finishing his sentences? I think that most people would hope that the Minister would say to himself, "Morality is based on doing to others as you would have them do unto you." I suspect that if Parliament deprived him of his job and livelihood, he would hope that it would make life easier for him—at least, at first. Indeed, that would happen.
Alun Michael: I am rather intrigued by the way in which the right hon. Gentleman links a moral argument with advice. I said that I was advised that there was no legal obligation to provide compensation—that was absolutely clear—and that I had not been persuaded that there was a case for it in any other terms. Loss of employment is dealt with in a variety of ways, as has been shown by other examples. I am afraid that he has either misheard or misunderstood something that I have said.
Mr. Gummer: If the Minister reads the unexpurgated Hansard report of that debate, he will find that he said that he was advised that the Government have neither legal nor moral need to compensate—the two were put together. He might wish to withdraw that statement, but I shall not let him get away from the fact that he said that he was advised—because he was very hard on my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) and would not let him get away from something that he said, although we all knew what my hon. Friend manifestly meant.
The real reason why I raise the point is that the Minister has not convinced moderate, ordinary Members of the House such as the hon. Member for Braintree. I do not believe that he will have convinced anyone outside the House that there is a moral case for not providing compensation. The Minister cannot merely come to the Dispatch Box and say that he knows and therefore it must be right. He is not always right, as he has discovered. Irrespective of logic and rationale, he has been found wrong on almost every issue on which we have voted.
Andrew George: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Minister's arguments on compensation have thawed as the debate has progressed? Having pursued in Committee the sub-plot of less than cordial remarks
about the Minister, the right hon. Gentleman, I fear, will not succeed tonight. Does he accept that in response to the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst), the Minister accepted the principle of compensation? It was purely the issue of applicability that concerned him.
Mr. Gummer: I should like to be led down the route of thinking that the Minister has opened a door to compensation, and I certainly would not want to close it, but he said that he was not considering compensation. He needs to think seriously about the way in which his words will be heard by people outside the House. He should distinguish between his complaints about the detail of the new clause. I have done the sort of job that he is doing and it is always possible to make a fuss about a new clause. There are always reasons why they could be better written. We want the Minister to say that he has listened to our arguments and to accept that it will not go down well in Cardiff and Penarth if he has to explain to constituents that he thinks it reasonable not to compensate people when he has removed their livelihood. How can he say that compensation is all right for mink farmers but not for huntsmen? How can he sell that to his constituents? I am trying to help him so that he can go back to his constituency unscathed.
Lembit Öpik: Let me help the Minister further, although perhaps he has changed his mind. He said:
- "There are decisions that people have to take when new legislation is introduced. Some decisions are consequent on the legislation specifically. A lot of other decisions that people take are not consequent on it. If people make such decisions, it is not appropriate for compensation to be paid."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 3 July 2003; c. 94.]
Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman is right. I think that the Minister is most embarrassed about the issue. I have been pretty tough in our discussions, and the right hon. Gentleman has responded in kind. That is because we both feel strongly about the subject. Debate would not be good if it were not of that sort. I think, however, that he is, at heart, someone who understands why we find it difficult to accept his argument, which tries to distinguish between a mink farmer and a huntsman. The only distinction is the social security position of the individual. One is an employed person and the other was a self-employed person. It seems to me that for a Minister of his ilk to make that distinction in that way is odd.
Alun Michael: I appreciate that the Minister's approach is slightly quixotic. In general, this may not be the only issue on which he takes a particular view on compensation. As I said, a settled view has been taken by Governments of both parties over the years. As I said in Committee when we discussed the matter on 27 February, I considered the legal arguments and was clearly advised that there was no legal obligation on the payment of compensation. I also considered the non-legal arguments and could see no case that was
consistent with the decisions made, for example, on the confiscation of guns. The onus is on the right hon. Gentleman and those who believe in compensation to make the case in accordance with the requirements and the way in which the issue has been viewed consistently by Governments of all colours.
Mr. Gummer: I am happy to tackle that, because it was to be my next point. I want to consider the application of the statement by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) to mink farmers. Reading what he said, I find it quite difficult to apply it to mink farmers.
Mr. Martlew: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Gummer: No, I want to develop this issue because it is important. The Minister did a peculiar thing. He said that because a Minister in a previous Government had said something, it must be true now. There are three reasons why that is not so. The first is that this is not the same Government. I have sat in the House throughout many of the debates since this Government won office, and I do not think that I ever heard anybody say, "We can't change this because previous Governments had a different view." The whole point of changing Governments is that one might have a different view, so that is not a sensible argument.
The second issue, which I find very peculiar, is that the earlier statement was made before we had human rights legislation. We all had arguments about whether that legislation should be brought into the system, but it makes a difference, so one cannot quote from an earlier time and pretend that nothing has changed. The third reason, which is very simple, is that I cannot see how one can square the mink farmers' compensation with what my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury said.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: There is one fundamental difference between the situation when my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) made that statement and the situation now. One of the first things that this Government did was to accede to the European convention on human rights. As it was such a priority, they should bend over backwards to comply with it.
Mr. Gummer: I am one of those people who are in favour of the convention. One of the United Kingdom's problems is that, under Governments of both parties, we have had the view that human rights are for other people and that we do not need such legislation.
Mr. Martlew: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Gummer: No, I want to respond to my hon. Friend's view. The world is different, and the Government decided that it would be different. The Minister will therefore have some difficulty in explaining logically to his constituents, and certainly to mine, why it is acceptable to compensate mink farmers but not others. His only argument is that there are fewer of the first and more of the second.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |