I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I want to raise a matter of order, not of controversy. A few minutes ago you called the motion to suspend the seven o'clock rule. Am I right in believing that any hon. Member who thought that we should not have the debate could have called a Division to stop the suspension of the seven o'clock rule? As that was not the case, are not the Conservatives making hypocritical arguments?

What is done is done with regard to the seven o'clock motion. I have called the new clause for debate and the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) to speak to it.

That bogus point of order speaks volumes about the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). It is absurd that for the first time since the reforms, we are in the Chamber after seven o'clock—probably finishing at 11.45 pm—so that we can discuss hunting. No other issue—health, education, foreign affairs, the war—has kept us until midnight on a Wednesday, but here we are discussing hunting. What an absurdity!

I am not unsympathetic to the idea of compensation, as I said in Committee, but what figure does the hon. Gentleman have in mind? I assume he has costed it.

I shall come to that.

Does my hon. Friend find it rich indeed that Labour Members, who support a Bill that will cause job losses in the countryside, are asking the Opposition to come up with a figure for compensation? If the Government cared at all about those in the countryside who are about to lose their livelihoods, surely they would have studied the possible financial impact of the Bill?

My hon. Friend makes a good point. To give the Government some credit, they appointed Lord Burns to consider such matters. They called hearings in Portcullis House for three days to discuss them. The tragedy is that they ignored all the evidence brought before the Minister and replaced it with a totemistic outright ban. They have no idea of the consequences.

Is it not regrettable that the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), for whom, on all other occasions, I have the highest respect, has failed to read new clause 1 in its entirety? We have set out the scheme in subsections (2), (3), (4) and (5). The amount will depend on the claimant.

My hon. and learned Friend is right. The scheme is laid out in detail and it will be a matter of people applying for compensation according to those arrangements.

Does the hon. Gentleman find the comments by the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) even more preposterous when we consider that he was given the opportunity to vote for a specific amendment in Committee which prescribed percentages in terms of compensation? It would have done exactly what he criticises the new clause for not doing, and he voted against it. That is typical of his illogical approach.

To be fair to the hon. Member for West Ham, he made it plain several times that he believes in the principle of compensating people who are damaged by legislation. That is why I am keen to get away from the old arguments about whether we are in favour of hunting or against it. We lost that argument. We now want to put in place compensation for those people whose livelihoods will be so tragically lost.

rose—

If hon. Members will forgive me, I have taken enough interventions. If I can make a little progress on the meat of my speech, I shall take interventions from a spread of hon. Members. We are in danger of getting too far from the thrust of the new clause.

It is 700.

I think the figure was 873, but Lord Burns went on to say that there were more. It is in the order of 1,000. There is no point in getting into an argument about it. There are 350 hunts in Britain. We could easily find out by sending a letter to the hunt yards. I would be happy to accept 700 to 1,000. Let us not get into a silly discussion about the precise number.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

No. The hon. Gentleman is a Scot; he represents a Scottish seat. That he should dare to come down here and pontificate on English hunting is a scandal and a disgrace. I will not give way to him at all.

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about how the Bill deals with people at the lowest end of the pay scale who are employed by the hunt. Is there any reason why the House legislated to give lavish compensation to those who farmed mink, yet will not pay kennel maids who will lose their jobs because of an Act of Parliament?

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point and I shall return to it. There is a precedent in the legislation on mink hunting for paying compensation. As he says, people employed by hunts are at the bottom end of the pay scale in our rural communities. We are not talking about rich people. Those 700 to 1,000 people will lose not only their salaries and income, but their houses and livelihoods. If there is any decency in the House, it is only right that we consider what we can do to help them.

I note that the Bill does not have the imprimatur of any Secretary of State to say that it is compatible with the Human Rights Act 1998. The intention may be to add that, but at the moment it is not compatible because it does not provide for compensation.

There has been an extremely interesting exchange of correspondence between the Committee that considers these matters and the Minister. I hope that the Minister will expand on that later. My hon. Friend is right: there is a large question about whether the Bill is compatible with the Human Rights Act. There is no imprimatur on the Bill at the moment; we hope that it will be added before the Bill leaves this place, but we do not know. Certainly it cannot become law unless and until it is compatible with the Act.

The hon. Gentleman may recall that we covered this issue in Committee last week, and I pointed out that the appropriate human rights certification was given when the Bill came to the House. The next stage at which certification will be provided is the Bill's introduction to another place, and that will be done in compliance with the requirements of the House authorities.

The original certification was given to an utterly different Bill that bears no relation to this one. This Bill will impose an outright ban; every person who hunts in any shape, size or form will be banned from doing so. Under the Bill that the Minister introduced the best part of a year ago, people could have applied for a licence and continued to hunt under certain circumstances if they passed certain tests that he had set. This is an entirely different Bill, and I am sure that the Joint Committee on Human Rights will be considering that. My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) made a good point, and we will examine it with great care.

Does my hon. Friend think it extraordinary that this is an Administration who have not been at all slow to provide, at the taxpayer's expense, lavish compensation for Ministers who lose their jobs, yet they do not propose to pay one penny to people who will lose their jobs as a direct result of legislation from this House?

My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point, and I think that it would be interesting to know the view of the Lord Chancellor, or the last Lord Chancellor, on that matter. He is living in the lap of luxury, having been given the sack by the Prime Minister. All we want is a little decent compensation for these decent, ordinary people who work for the hunts.

rose—

We are trying to have a debate here, and I will happily give way in a moment, but not while everybody is jumping to their feet all the time, seeking to intervene on daft points. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Morley and Rothwell (Mr. Challen) says that his point is very important. We look forward to hearing it.

The important point is that the case for compensation would be far stronger if those people who are about to become unemployed had no suitable alternative that is similar to their existing employment. Clearly, in most cases they have such an alternative: drag hunting. I would argue that more jobs will be created in drag hunting than ever existed in fox hunting.

One of the very few points of unanimity in the excellent report by Lord Burns was that under no circumstances, by any stretch of the imagination, could drag hunting possibly replace fox hunting, stag hunting and the rest. The notion that the 1,000 people who are currently employed by the 350 existing hunts could, overnight, be employed in drag hunting, which is a completely different sport that bears no relation to hunting, shows that the hon. Gentleman knows nothing about it and that he has not read the Burns report, which makes that fact perfectly plain.

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point about people losing their livelihoods, but they will also lose their homes. Families with children will be homeless through no fault of their own. [Interruption.]

The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely good point. He may not have heard, but from a sedentary position the Parliamentary Private Secretary asked why people should lose their homes. All he need do to find the answer is visit a hunt, and he will discover that many hunt servants live in houses on someone's estate in the countryside. There is no reason why they should continue to live there. Why should they? They are there as servants. Presumably the kennels would have to be sold off, and all kinds of changes would occur. The notion that hunt servants could continue to live near the kennels for all time, without paying, is an absurdity. That shows that the hon. Gentleman, too, has no idea of how things work.

Is it not a display of the usual ignorance to fail to understand that many agricultural tenancies are provided specifically because animals have to be looked after? That is due not to the way in which the hunt is run but to the way in which we have made special arrangements for those who have to look after animals. Labour Members show their ignorance and lack of concern for the countryside in making those comments.

My right hon. Friend is exactly right. Agricultural ties would prevent a great many of these houses from being used for anyone other than hunt servants or other farming people. There is a reasonable likelihood that a large number of the 750 to 1,000 people whom we are talking about would lose their home and their entire way of life.

As part of the fact finding for an earlier, similar Bill, I visited the Quorn hunt kennels at Kirby Bellars in the constituency of the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan). In saying that hunt servants know, and could do, no other job, the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) is being rather condescending and patronising about their skills. Of course they could do other jobs, and they would probably be in more enjoyable occupations, and with better pay, than they have at the moment.

I fear that the hon. Gentleman's intervention does not deserve a proper response. Of course these people will find other jobs. Many of them are extremely skilled with horses and other animals, and in other ways; but if the hon. Gentleman knows anything about the countryside, he will know that, at the moment, there are not an awful lot of jobs available with dogs, horses and other animals. The notion that all 1,000 of them could get a new job tomorrow is frankly absurd, and I will not dignify it with any more of a response.

Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?

I am seeking to move on to the more substantial point about new clause 1, but I happily give way.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. My local hunt, the West Norfolk, made it clear that if hunting were banned it would have to sell the attached kennels and cottages because the raison d'être for those houses would go.

My hon. Friend is entirely right about drag hunting. There is no way one could replace hare hunting or other forms of foot hunting, in the uplands for example, with drag hunting. That is an absurdity. Many packs could not be replaced by drag hunting.

As there seems to be so much ignorance in certain parts of the House about dogs that hunt, would it not be useful for some of the Members who have been sitting here all evening to go across to the green and talk to the many families and owners of hunting dogs there? They might learn just a bit about what hunting dogs do.

The hon. Lady is exactly right, and I pay tribute to the many people who are in Parliament square with their hounds and hunting dogs of all varieties. It would be instructive for hon. Members to go and find out a little more about that. I pay tribute to the hon. Lady, whose courage and determination on this issue is second to none and worthy of our respect.

My hon. Friend is making some excellent points, but I would like him to set the record straight about something that he said earlier. He said that we had lost the argument. We have not lost the argument; we have lost the vote.

I certainly hope that I did not say that, but I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing that out. If I said that we had lost the argument, I certainly did not mean to. In the last 12 months in which I have been involved in the issue, we have won every argument in the Chamber and in Committee. The person who has lost every argument and who has been humiliated by his own Back Benchers is the Minister, who has sought to put his arguments but been voted down by his Back-Bench colleagues on every occasion. He has lost not only the arguments but the votes.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

No, certainly not to the hon. Gentleman. New clause 1 ranges beyond the question of compensating—

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I fully appreciate the fact that the hon. Gentleman can give way to whomsoever he wishes, but I would be grateful for a ruling from the Chair. Is it not a fact that each and every Member of the House has equal status and standing?

The only ruling that I will give from the Chair is that the hon. Gentleman is precisely right—it is for the Member who has the floor to decide whether to give way.

On a point of principle, may I make it plain, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I will give way to as many hon. Members who represent English and Welsh constituencies as possible, but I will not give way to Members who represent Scottish constituencies? They can go to Holyrood and pontificate about hunting in Scotland if they wish, but they cannot come here and pontificate about hunting in my constituency, which is a matter only for English and Northern Irish MPs.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees that most of us in the United Kingdom, and certainly the majority of elected representatives from Northern Ireland, are against the draconian ban on hunting, and wish to speak in support of our fellow countrymen in England and Wales to try to prevent this disastrous ban.

rose—

Order. A few minutes ago, the hon. Gentleman said that he wanted to make progress on new clause 1. May I suggest to him and the whole House that we do just that?

I am most grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In view of your response to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown), may I draw your attention to clause 16, and ask how it relates to Northern Ireland? On what basis of equity can the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) give way to a Northern Ireland Member but not to a Scottish Member?

These are not matters that we should be debating at the moment. Our debate is timelimited—we are simply wasting time and should get on with new clause 1.

I am most grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as I want to press on with the wider consequences of new clause 1.

rose—

If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I should like to make progress—[Interruption.] I beg his pardon, he represents Walsall, so I shall give way.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a spokesperson for the industry told the local paper last week that it would not be devastated in the locality, and that in fact it has far more extensive work than it used to have? Should he not have done his homework before mentioning my borough and getting his facts wrong?

I have indeed done my homework. Not only have I had conversations with the other Walsall MP, the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), who is extremely concerned about the consequences of a ban for Walsall, but I have had a great many conversations with BETA—the British Equestrian Trade Association—which has had detailed discussions with saddle manufacturers in Walsall. BETA is concerned about claims by Walsall manufacturers that they will be badly hit by a ban on hunting. The hon. Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) knows his constituents better than I do, but BETA, which represents saddle manufacturers, has made those comments, and his colleague, the right hon. Member for Walsall, South, is deeply concerned about the consequences of a ban for the town.

On that point and the question of compensation, especially for people not directly employed by hunts, it is not apparent how the new clause would affect Wycherley's, a saddlery in Malpas supplied by a Walsall firm that has already closed because of the reduction of interest and investment in hunting and fears about what may happen. Is it true that compensation could be backdated to before the ban on hunting because of the anticipated consequences of the ban?

One of the provisions in new clause 1 would indeed invite applicants for compensation to specify when they started to lose their business. Compensation could be backdated to a period before a ban came into effect if it could be demonstrated that that was when people stopped buying saddles.

rose—

If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I should like to move off page one and on to page two.

"The NFU believes that the moment should not pass without drawing attention to the serious threat which this legislation represents to the ability of farmers to protect their livestock and crops from pests, and the significant additional costs and difficulties it would bring to the struggling agricultural industry. Farmers regard this as a disastrous and ill-founded approach which will be damaging to them, to the interests of the countryside—and not least to the cause of animal welfare."

"As at least 17m lambs are born every year in England and Wales, farmers can be forgiven for finding it hard to agree that the loss of some 340,000 of them to foxes at a cost to the industry of over £13.6m should be regarded as not significant."

"predation by foxes on poultry is potentially catastrophic because foxes can indulge in surplus killing".

Will my hon. Friend remind the House that the Government asked the hunts to help in the removal of fallen stock, as they were an important part of such a service? This is the only country in the European Union that, because of the Department's incompetence, has not yet found a satisfactory way of dealing with the relevant legislation.

My right hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. There are 350 hunt kennels evenly spread across England. They would have served as a natural collection point for carcases, had it not been for Labour's ideological hatred of hunts. They would have taken the remains to the renderers, and incinerators could have been improved to deal with those remains. Because the Labour party hates hunting so vehemently, it will not even make proper use of those kennels, which is disappointing.

My hon. Friend will be aware that not only the farmers who make use of the fallen stock service provided by hunts but a lot of individual pony and horse owners will be hit hard. The other day, I received a letter from a constituent whose pony died, after which the hunt came to remove the dead animal. What will happen to such people? Many ponies and horses will simply not be collected.

My hon. Friend is right. There is a great tradition in this country. What will happen to the carcases of horses and ponies? Who will pay for them to be carted off to a knacker's yard, which may be situated many miles away? The Minister has not told us; perhaps he will do so later.

On the ban's commencement and the question of compensation, will my hon. Friend clarify whether the new clause, which I support, would cover the destruction of the 100,000 hunting dogs that will have to be put down in very short order if hunting is banned? I am worried that it may not cover that process, which will be very distressing and expensive for the hunts concerned.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Yes, the new clause would indeed pay for the destruction of those hounds and dogs.

We know that this Government are inherently mean when it comes to country people. Does my hon. Friend agree that financial compensation alone will not be enough to cover the distress of those who work with the hounds? The kennel men and other hunt servants who know all the hounds by name and have nurtured them and brought them up since they were puppies will have to stand by and watch them be slaughtered en masse. The blood of those hounds will be on the hands of this Government, who are dog haters.

My hon. Friend is right that Labour Members' names will engraved on the hearts of people who love their hounds—there is no question about that—but under the new clause we are seeking to work out a sensible compensation regime in respect of the financial losses that they will face. I fear that he was right to say that there can be no such thing as financial compensation for the terrible pain that they will feel.

The new clause, to which the hon. Gentleman has just returned and which deals with compensation—an issue with which I have some sympathy as a general rule—is merely an example of grandstanding, as he has chosen not to table an amendment allowing for a money resolution. The Bill would therefore be nonsense if the new clause were to be passed, as he well knows. He is merely grandstanding.

The hon. Gentleman made useful, interesting and legalistic contributions throughout the Committee stage and I thank him for doing so. That was another such contribution. I hope that, when the new clause is agreed, the Government will take steps to amend the money resolution satisfactorily so that it can become law.

The hon. Gentleman may not be aware, but the middle way group has resubmitted the appropriate money resolution. More to the point, if Labour Members were really so concerned about compensation, why did so many of them vote in favour of eliminating the money resolution on recommittal?

The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely good point.

"In the event of a ban on hunting, consideration would need to be given to possible action in respect of the fallen stock service provided by many hunts and to whether there would be a case for compensation if hounds had to be destroyed and hunts had no further use for the kennels."

My hon. Friend's new clause gives me some cause for concern, as it would provide considerable discretion to the Secretary of State. Proposed subsections (5) and (6) provide for an appeal. Will he confirm that an appeal to the appellate body could relate not only to the amount of compensation but to the principles involved, in case the Secretary of State should get it wrong?

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend and I am certain that he is right in what he suggests.

"Certainly those who are made redundant have certain statutory entitlements: they are entitled to use the Employment Service to find alternative employment. There are opportunities for training…There can be no rights to compensation that rely on allowing people to be cruel…I am advised that there is no obligation, either legal or moral, to pay compensation to those who may be affected by the Bill."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 27 February 2003; c. 1256–57.]

I was particularly pleased to hear the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) acknowledge, I thought rather graciously, that he had lost the argument about the principle of hunting with dogs. I hope that that will be reflected in the remainder of the debate and in the actions and attitudes of his colleagues in another place. He said that this was a completely different Bill, which is not what he said a week ago.

Will the Minister give way?

I shall do so in a moment or two; let me at least get started.

Will the Minister give way?

In a moment.

The Minister repeated the accusation that my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) said that we had lost the argument. If he did say that, he subsequently retracted it and said that we had not lost the argument, merely the vote. No one outside this building believes that we have lost the argument.

I refute that utterly. The hon. Member for North Wiltshire said it not once, but twice, and he had to be invited by a Back Bencher to retract it. I know about winning the argument and losing the vote: that is different from what the hon. Gentleman has said throughout these debates.

I want to move the Minister away from trite points to a matter that is fairly fundamental. At some point this evening, he will invite me to vote on the Third Reading of a Bill that does not have the imprimatur of the Secretary of State that it is compatible with the Human Rights Act 1998. I have serious reservations about that, and the Minister owes it to the House to explain in some detail why he considers that it is so compatible.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the relevant debates in Committee. For instance, the "Deadline 2000" Bill on a complete ban was certified as compatible.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The House would benefit from your guidance on whether the point made by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) would be more appropriate to the Third Reading debate.

I think that we should simply proceed with the debate: all these points of order take up far too much time.

Parliamentary procedure requires that a Minister of the Crown in charge of a Bill in either House must make a statement on compliance before its Second Reading. We did that on introducing the Bill to this House.

This is a different Bill.

It is not: it is a Bill that has been amended by this House. This House amends many Bills, and many differ at this stage of their passage through the House from the precise form in which they were introduced. The Bill remains a Government Bill, and it remains compliant. That will be certified in time for Second Reading in the Lords. Other comparable Bills have been certified. I remind hon. Members of the challenges mounted by the Countryside Alliance in relation to the Scottish legislation. It has had no success at all in trying to promote the concept that Conservative Members are trying to bring to this House. There is no foundation to the points that they are making: they are specious.

The right hon. Gentleman says that this is the same Bill. The Bill that was introduced into the House of Commons did not ban hunting: it licensed it. This Bill bans hunting: it is therefore a completely different Bill. My authority for that is that the right hon. Gentleman himself said that the Bill that he introduced was not to ban hunting. The fact is that he is now introducing another Bill, and he should be ashamed of himself for so doing.

The right hon. Gentleman should be ashamed of himself for advancing such a specious argument. The Bill that was introduced included the banning of certain activities, the exemption of other activities, and a system of registration allowing certain other exemptions to apply. The Bill that we have now—

rose—

The hon. Gentleman should contain himself at least until I reach a comma or a full stop.

The Minister says that it is the same Bill. How, then, does he explain a letter from himself to the Deputy Prime Minister, dated 14 May, in which he says that

"a 'complete ban' amendment would destroy the architecture of the Bill, undermine the strong, simple framework of enforcement that is set out in the Bill and be perceived as pursuing prejudice rather than targeting cruelty which is totally banned by the Bill as it stands."

Order. Before the Minister responds, I cannot see how these exchanges relate in any way to new clause 1. I should be grateful if the Minister would now relate his remarks to the new clause.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am mindful of what you say, but we have to make a decision about whether the Bill is salvageable in accordance with the Human Rights Act. Surely, therefore, the question of whether the Bill has been entirely changed is highly pertinent.

Order. The hon. Gentleman has made that point more than once. My job is to ensure that we address new clause 1, and I ask the Minister to do so.

I merely say that the Bill is compliant and that that will be certified at the appropriate stage of the processes that I described. I must now comply with your injunction, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

"which may be measured by ordinary principles of commercial accountancy."

rose—

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.

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.

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.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that new clause 1 is so ridiculously widely drawn that someone who was made redundant by the League Against Cruel Sports would be able to claim under it, which would be nonsensical?

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.

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."

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.

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?

My hon. Friend makes a good point about the attractions.

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?

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.

"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."

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.

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

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?

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

Will the Minister give way?

Will the Minister give way?

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.]

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?

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.

rose—

I give way to the hon. Member for East Devon (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?

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.

rose—

I give way to the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George).

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 judment, 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 have been required to support the previous Bill?

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.

rose—

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 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.

Will the Minister give way?

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.

rose—

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.

rose—

I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (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?

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.

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.

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.

rose—

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)?

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.

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?

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 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>lb/> 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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 wellbeing. Why is that argument being employed in this instance?

The Minister might argue that that was because fur farmers ran their own businesses rather than being employees.

It was because they were rich.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that members of the recommittal Committee had the opportunity to vote on a specific amendment that was very close to what the Minister implied, perhaps by accident, he would consider sympathetically. So we have tried it both ways, but at neither example are we able to convince those who, on the basis of prejudice, have simply set their minds against compensation to change their view.

It is not for me to judge the minds of other hon. Members, but I should have thought that the House would be more receptive to a tightly drawn new clause than to this broad-brush approach.

I am listening carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has to say. Does he share my slight surprise that the Minister, who is normally there to square the circle in such circumstances, has not said that he appreciates the principle and will therefore go away and consider it properly? That happens routinely on Report, when amendments are proposed that may not quite meet the necessity of the case but, nevertheless, have a point behind them. Is it not absolutely astonishing that we are met with a blanket refusal to consider a principle that, I am pleased to hear, the hon. Gentleman understands and shares?

Again, it is not for me to judge the mind of my right hon. Friend. He clearly hears what I say, and what other hon. Members say. We must return to the principle that livelihoods are as important as property. We need to have respect for those who will lose that livelihood in these controversial circumstances. One is put in mind of Abraham Lincoln at the conclusion of the American civil war: a gracious and generous approach is a far better way to conduct oneself than what might be perceived as being vindictive.

One must make a distinction between the element of loss of equipment, which was what happened under the guns legislation, loss of business, which underlay the decision in relation to fur farming, and loss of employment, to which my hon. Friend referred. That is why I referred to the principles at the beginning of the process, and I have considered the case well. Were there an argument about such a limited element that would be affected under those principles, of course I would be willing to consider it. I have heard no propositions during the debate, however, that lead me to identify any element as one that would fit with the principles that are applied and on which we ought therefore to move. My hon. Friend can be assured that that is not from a wish not to listen to his comments or the comments of other Members.

I am sure that my right hon. Friend will continue to listen. The example that comes readily to my mind, however, which is not an exact comparison, is that were the electorate to withdraw their confidence from any right hon. or hon. Members, and were we to lose our livelihood as a consequence and be unable to find an easy alternative trade to follow, we would be compensated with a sum in excess of £25,000 for those on the humbler Benches, and, I suspect, rather more for those on more elevated Benches. I would pray in aid that if hon. Members can be reduced in that way so can huntsmen.

Does my hon. Friend agree that if a proposition of this kind were to be brought forward to the House, the last people who have the right to bring it forward are Conservative Members who, during a period of eight years, deliberately destroyed 215,000 jobs in the coal mining industry, together with hundreds of thousands more jobs in coal communities. The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), who has put his name to the new clause, was one of the people responsible for those hundreds of thousands of job losses.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, but that is precisely why I prayed in aid the conduct of President Abraham Lincoln. I could operate at a less historical level and say that two wrongs do not make a right—that phrase may not have such a flow to it, but it may sum up the position.

What my hon. Friend needs to do is to compare the situation with that in Cumbria two years ago—he knows Cumbria well, as he trained there as a solicitor—when we had foot and mouth, as farmers were compensated for the loss of beasts but the farm labourers who lost their jobs were not compensated at all.

That is the best argument that I have heard so far, and as they say on American law programmes, I shall take it under advisement as to what the proper answer would be. It does not detract from what I was saying, however, and if that was the case, I would have anticipated my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) to have argued on behalf of those farm labourers who lost their jobs at that time. Perhaps it was a pity that that was not done. Nevertheless, it does not change my view that in this case, when the House has rightly reached a decision about what should happen about hunting with hounds, we should therefore move on to consider how to deal properly with those who will suffer as a consequence.

I respect the comments of the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst), who is not quite my neighbour but very close, and who understands the circumstances about which we are talking. I found it difficult to accept the comments of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), as he will remember that many more miners lost their jobs under Governments whom he supported, and that the arrangements made were much less generous than those under Governments whom I supported. However, that is not the matter that we are discussing today, although the right hon. Gentleman will lose no moment in which to find some unpleasant personal comment to make. That is his stock in trade.

Is it not peculiar that the original Bill that was introduced to the House last autumn contained the relevant certificate under the Human Rights Act and that, all of a sudden and by surprise, it is no longer there?,

My hon. and learned Friend is right, but the Minister has explained that it will be there in future. I suggest that he may have to look rather carefully at this part of the Bill, which has been highlighted by the new clause, because it is particularly, if not solely, vulnerable to the human rights legislation.

rose—

I shall give way in a moment.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.]

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.

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 nonlegal 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.

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.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

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.

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.

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.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

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.