New clause 8 - Compensation
Hunting (Re-committed) Bill
4:15 pm
Mr Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire, Liberal Democrat)
We are talking about compensation. It is obvious that the Bill will do considerable damage to the economic circumstances of a number of individuals directly involved in hunting with dogs. The Middle Way Group has never regarded the question of economics as the core issue. There are important questions about animal welfare, which have been raised today, but there is no doubt that at the individual and regional level there will be considerable consequences for the local economy, as well as those
who have participated in the industry of fox control using dogs. That is why we are proposing new clause 8.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams), who is not on the Committee, felt so strongly about the matter that he was instrumental in suggesting that we consider it. I compliment him with pleasure for suggesting that we make the proposition.
It is clear there is plenty of precedent for the proposal. When the practice of fur farming was banned, compensation was paid to those employed within the industry. The principle of compensation after removing someone's livelihood has been established, and established in the same theatre of operations; animal-related changes to the law. Our amendment proposes compensation equivalent to one year's lost remuneration and 100 per cent. of the assets that are lost after the implementation of the legislation. In our view, that is the least that can be done.
Speaking of the area that I know best—Montgomeryshire and mid-Wales as a whole—and speaking on behalf of the farmers of Brecon and Radnor, it is clear that the Bill currently outlaws the hunting of foxes with dogs altogether. That is unacceptable in the eyes of many people in Powys. Rather than seek compensation, they would seek the opportunity to carry on with their pursuit. Since that is not within the scope of the amendments, we feel that it is reasonable to respect the inconvenience, let alone the trauma and the distress that the Bill will cause those who have spent a lifetime in the industry of hunting with dogs.
It is unnecessary to support the views of the Middle Way Group, the Countryside Alliance or any of those farmers in order to be sympathetic to the claim for compensation. It is a matter of fairness. As I said, in fur farming there is already a cast iron precedent that must be taken as a touchstone for what we do in the Bill. It would be mean-spirited in the extreme if, after peoples' trade was taken away, they were not compensated for an action that they did not request and which was forced on them.