New clause 8 - Compensation
Hunting (Re-committed) Bill
4:15 pm
Mr Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire, Liberal Democrat)
The hon. Gentleman is correct. If one considered comprehensively who would lose out financially, one would see that it is not just about the individuals who currently depend on hunts to deal with their fallen stock. The irony is that the Government have recommended that farmers use local hunts to deal with fallen stock, yet they are
going against their own advice by taking away that line of management.
There is another group, too, which includes farmers who depend on hunting with dogs to control the fox population. Despite the naive claims of some Committee members, anyone who has considered the issue seriously—I know that the Minister and Lord Burns have—will know that there is a degree of predation and much unequivocal documentary evidence to show that foxes kill lambs. Farmers involved in that business will also lose some stock, unless they find an alternative way that is equally efficient. We already know that farmers in my area, for example, regard hunting with dogs as the most efficient way of dealing with that problem.
We restricted new clause 8 because we wanted to table an unequivocal new clause to which no reasonable person could object. Perhaps it would, in another place, be possible to manage the other elements of compensation. However, who would question the fact that individuals who lose their livelihoods as a result of the actions of Committee members should be entitled to respectful financial compensation?