New clause 4 - Compensation
Hunting Bill
3:15 pm

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

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

As you correctly say, Mrs. Roe, we have been down a long, winding, rocky and rather nasty road. We have banned deer hunting, hare coursing and terrier work. We are very close to banning foxhunting and we are told that, when the Bill goes back to the Floor of the House, it will be banned, too. We have banned freedom. We have banned the livelihoods of people in the countryside. We have banned a whole variety of things.

We have narrowed the definitions of cruelty and utility to such a degree that it would be impossible for any sensible hunts to pass them. We have left it as the Bill that will allow the hunting of stoats, dormice, and possibly weasels, with dogs, but that is about it. It has been a pretty rough old road. Those debates are now past, the almighty strength of Labour Members has

driven through the Bill in its present ghastly format and the Minister has been overruled on at least two or three occasions. No doubt that will continue on the Floor of the House when the Bill gets back down there again.

All that is left to us now is to discuss not the principles behind the Bill or the principles behind the worst parts of it, but what we shall do about those people in the countryside who will be so badly affected by it. There is no doubt that a large number of people will suffer greatly as a result of what the Committee has done in the past two months.

I shall highlight four areas where people, their livelihoods and futures will be affected significantly. There has been an extensive debate over the years. Lord Burns became involved in how many jobs would be lost as a result of a ban on all hunting. All sorts of statistics are batted backwards and forwards. I have never taken the view that that was the strongest argument against banning hunting. All sorts of activities, if they were wicked, might be banned and jobs might be lost.

None the less, it is important that we should consider what should happen to those people. Lord Burns accepted that between 6,000 and 8,000 full-time jobs would go. A further 70 per cent. of that figure may apply to part-time or part-year employees, bringing it to about 13,600 other people. Studies produced a figure of 16,000 people who would lose their livelihoods as a result of a ban. It is a significant number.

In my constituency of North Wiltshire, many people working in livery yards, as well as farriers and others will lose their jobs as a result of what has been decided in the past two months. It is only reasonable that we, as legislators, should demonstrate some compassion for people whose livelihoods will be affected. We should consider all sorts of people, even if we disagree with them and we legislate to do away with their jobs and houses. Many hunt servants live in tied cottages and will lose their houses as a result of the Bill. They will lose their outlook and their entire way of life. It will have a significant effect on many people.

Even if we believe, as Labour Members do, that it is reasonable to take such action, we should at least demonstrate some compassion when considering how to look after them in their plight. Lord Burns estimated that it will take up to 10 years to reabsorb the jobs that are lost in the rural economy. Without arguing about it, losses will need to be considered.

Secondly, in the event of restrictions on hunting with dogs, there will be significant depredations on livestock, particularly on game birds. I was amazed to hear the other day that about 10 million pheasants are shot in England each year. There is a huge likelihood that that industry will be damaged severely by the inability to use terriers to control predators, as was decided on Tuesday. There will be great depredations, which will affect farmers and gamekeepers.

Thirdly, farmers will suffer economically from the loss of the fallen stock collection service.

Mr. Tony Banks (West Ham) rose—

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

The hon. Gentleman has only just arrived in Committee. He is either standing up because he wants to leave or to intervene.

Mr Tony Banks (West Ham, Labour)

Of course I am. I am caught halfway up and halfway down. I am trying to catch the hon. Gentleman's attention.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

The hon. Gentleman has not been here for most of the Committee stage. Each time that he gets up or sits down, we do not know why. If he wants to make a sensible intervention about the effect that the provisions will have on farmers, I shall be happy to hear it. However, he might like to let me know that in a proper manner.

Mr Tony Banks (West Ham, Labour)

I shall make a sensible intervention when the hon. Gentleman starts to makes sensible speeches. I want to ask him a simple question. The slippage of accuracy that the hon. Gentleman makes from time to time has become legendary in Committee. Did he say that 10 million pheasants were killed each year? That is all that I wanted to know.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

There is no secret about that. It is a well-known fact. Yes, the number is of that order. The Government have gone to such lengths. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames), who apparently does not like the revelation about the 10 million birds, should be aware that the Labour party has made it plain that it supports shooting wholeheartedly. That is part of its manifesto. It goes out of its way to say that all the time. There is no point in hiding the statistics; they are readily available. That 10 million pheasants are shot each year in this country is not a surprising statistic. It is well known. I see no reason to cover it up. The Labour party says that that is sensible action to take.

Mr Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside, Labour)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

I would rather not. We are dealing with compensation for the abolition of hunting. I see no reason to become involved in a further discussion about a particular aspect of it. None the less, shooting is an important industry in our countryside and the decision that we made on Tuesday to ban terrier work will have a significant effect on the shooting industry. The hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) may think that that is a good idea. Jackie Ballard at the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals said recently that she is determined to see the end of shooting in this country. That is not the position of the Labour party; it is not the position of the Government. I see no reason therefore why the hon. Gentleman should take such glee in the fact that shooting is a significant industry in this country.

I was pleased that the Minister visited the Country Land and Business Association's game fair last August and made a speech in favour of shooting game. I hope to see him there this year. Perhaps we may show him around some of the other sports that are represented at the game fair. I am glad that the Labour party is the greatest exponent of both shooting and fishing. We will hold it to that. The Bill will have a significant effect on the livelihoods of a large number of gamekeepers and others who depend on shooting for their living. It will have a great effect on farmers, who

are dependent on the fallen stock collection service provided by hunts. The Minister has said in response that on-farm burial, which will be outlawed a month or two from now, does not affect the decisions at all.

The Government will come up with a magical way of dealing with the 400,000 carcases that hunts dealt with last year. The Minister has not yet told us how he is going to do that. He tells us that some of the burners provided by hunts are out of date, but none the less from 1 April all farmers are going to have to find a way of getting rid of 400,000 carcases per annum. Hunts do it at the moment and if hunting is banned, farmers will have to pay a Government agency or someone else to do it.

There is no doubt about the first three damages that will be caused to the countryside. The fourth damage will be caused to the hunts, which will be looking for compensation for having to put down hounds that are no longer required. The Burns report came to this conclusion in paragraph 10.60:

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

Leaving that question to one side, we understand that the principle generally applied when considering compensation is whether the individual concerned is deprived of a particular benefit rather than when some limitations are placed on its use. In that context, the Minister may well choose to pray in aid the regulatory impact assessment that he has published on the Bill. It is a very interesting document. It is rather incorrect in some respects and it takes no account of those activities that have been banned in the Committee—hare hunting and terrier work.

The regulatory impact assessment published by the Government is out of date, but it was pretty poor beforehand anyway. The RIA, having referred to Lord Burns as one of the guiding lights of the legislation, goes on to dismiss the employment estimates of the Burns report saying:

''Economic evidence to the public hearings''—

those at Portcullis house—

''discounted the estimates in the Burns report . . . An economic expert stated that the number of jobs associated with hunting was a great deal smaller than that estimated by the Burns report.''

The extensive research by Lord Burns and commissioned, prayed in aid and paid for by the Government is now dismissed in favour of an opinion that conveniently happens to suit the politically expedient needs of the Minister in his relations with the Treasury.

The Minister knows that there is an economic downside to the countryside in the banning of hunting. He has accepted that with regard to Exmoor. When he visited Exmoor he accepted that there was definitely an economic downside to the ban, and in a variety of other ways he has accepted that there will be problems in several areas. Let us not debate whether there is an economic downside to the ban, or the size of the economic impact. Let us agree that there will be a

significant impact and discuss what we are going to do about it.

I ask the Minister whether it is possible to ban something and cause that economic impact on up to 13,000 to 14,000 people without considering some form of compensation. New clause 4 calls on the Government to introduce compensation in two different ways. First, the registrar should set compensation with regard to activities affected as a result of the Bill. When someone loses the application to be registered, the registrar will decide what compensation should be issued. In the case of activities banned outright such as hare hunting, hare coursing and deer hunting, the level of compensation will be agreed in secondary legislation. This House will lay down precisely how much should be paid and that seems only reasonable. If that does not happen, there may be a risk of falling foul of the European convention on human rights or the Human Rights Act 1998. That was considered before the 2001 Bill, when the Joint Committee on Human Rights said:

''In view of the absence from the Bill of provisions for compensating those who lose income or land value as a result of losing the right to hunt, either generally or on their own land, and who suffer an interference with their freedom to enjoy their own land for hunting non-commercially, there is a risk of incompatibility with rights under ECHR Article 1 of Protocol No 1.''

The Joint Committee went on to say that if compensation is not provided for the affected parties, they might have grounds for a claim before the European Court of Human Rights under article 1, protocol 1 of the convention. That protects the right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions and provides protection against deprivation of those possessions. In view of that finding in 2001, I tabled some written questions to ask the Minister whether he was certain that the Bill conformed with the Human Rights Act and his reply is interesting. I shall read it to the Committee carefully:

''It is the Government's view that the requirements of the Hunting Bill would, for the purposes of Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights, amount to an interference with the use and enjoyment of property rather than a deprivation of property, and that accordingly no compensation should be payable for any economic losses that may be suffered as a consequence of the Bill by the persons concerned.''—[Official Report, 24 February 2003; Vol. 400, c. 90W.]

To spell that out again, the Minister says that because the Bill amounts to an interference with the use and enjoyment of property rather than a deprivation of it, no compensation is payable. The implication is that if it were a deprivation rather than an interference, compensation might be payable. That is the logic of his reply.

Mr Gregory Barker (Bexhill and Battle, Conservative)

I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend's flow, but earlier he was greeted with some incredulity when he mentioned 10 million pheasants being shot each year. I have had the opportunity to check that with British Association for Shooting and Conservation and have obtained the definitive figure, which may interest the Committee and my hon. Friend in particular. Approximately 25 million pheasants are put down a year, of which approximately 50 per cent. are shot, giving a figure of about 12.5 million—

somewhat higher than the figure that my hon. Friend suggested. I suppose that it largely depends on how many days my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex is involved in the sport in a particular season.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that clarification about the figure that I produced. I can find no reason why Opposition or Government Members should be ashamed of it. That is our point; it is not a wicked figure in any way. Government Members say that they are in favour of game shooting, but the only reason why they are giggling, snorting and making rude remarks is that, in reality, they are not in favour of it. They, along with their friend Jackie Ballard of the RSPCA, would very much like to abolish it if they could. That figure exposed the reality. On the one hand, they say that they are in favour of shooting, but the moment we talk about it, they start snorting and complaining about it.

I remind the Committee that the point that the Minister made in his written reply was that if the Bill amounts to an interference with the use and enjoyment of property, no compensation should be paid, but if it amounts to a deprivation of the property, compensation is payable, broadly speaking. An interesting letter written by the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Jean Corston), who is the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, has come to my attention. The letter is written on the Committee's paper, and is dated 21 January and addressed to the Minister. It says:

''The Bill would, in the Committee's provisional view, be likely to deprive people of possessions of type (ii). Deprivation of possessions without compensation requires particularly strong justification under P1/1.''

In other words, the Minister's written reply to me on 24 February saying that the Bill would amount only to an interference with the use and enjoyment of property, rather than a deprivation of it, is in direct contrast to what this Parliament's Committee has said. The Committee believes that the Bill will be likely to cause the deprivation of possessions, which requires compensation. The Minister's glib response indicates that he believes that it will cause only interference and that there should be no compensation.

Leaving that minute point of law on one side, it is important that a Committee that was set up to examine the matters has reached a conclusion that the Minister is gliding over easily—I look forward to hearing his response to that. It seems that there is a genuine and general point of justice because people will be deprived of their rights and livelihoods and it is only reasonable to compensate them appropriately. The Government acknowledged that principle when they considered a Bill to ban fur farming in England, which was passed only two or three years ago. Baroness Hayman, who was the Minister at the time, said that she thought that there was more to the banning of fur farming than what she perceived to be cruelty to animals because there was a moral question. She believed that compensation should be paid to fur farmers because there was a moral question. She did not say that the Government only wanted to look after mink better, but that it was morally unacceptable to have fur and mink farms in the United Kingdom so

they would be banned for moral reasons—not welfare reasons. She said that on Second Reading of that Bill on 19 July 2000. As we know, the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Act 2000 made proper compensation available to fur farmers who were put out of business as a result of it.

There are good recent precedents. The Human Rights Act 1998 refers to people being deprived of their possessions—the right to use their land, dogs and other equipment—in the same way as fur farmers were deprived. They will be deprived for moral and human activity reasons, not for animal welfare reasons, as we have often discussed. It is only right that we should give them proper compensation, even if not under international law or the 1998 Act.

The new clause would provide that the registrar could set a level of compensation for people whose application for registration fails. However, if the Committee decides to put people out of business by banning hare hunting, deer hunting and terrier work, it is reasonable that we in this place, through secondary legislation, should decide the amount of compensation. That is fair, reasonable and compassionate, given the circumstances. It has nothing to do with banning hunting or any of the issues that we have discussed for the past couple of months. It is a measure of compassion for those in the countryside whom we are hurting and I hope that Labour Members will understand the thrust of what I am saying.

Hon. Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex, Conservative)

I rise to support the new clause as we reach the conclusion of what, for all those who have put their hearts and souls into defending the interests of hunting, has been a tragic few weeks in Committee. We can all see that the Bill will move towards a denouement on the Floor of the House which may regrettably lead to the banning of foxhunting by the House of Commons. The Minister has done terrible things to hunting in the Bill. At our previous sitting we discussed the banning of terrier work, which will lead to grave difficulties for keepers—we have been over that ground and I may return to it in a minute—and for the interests of some of our most endangered species.

I want to put in context a comment made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) about reared pheasants and other reared game. The shooting economy in this country is an important part of the rural economy. As my hon. Friend said, it is extensive and substantial and as increasing havoc is wreaked on the rural communities of this country the farming industry is dying on its feet. I was born and grew up on a farm and I do not suppose that during my 55 years, or at least the 50 years that I have been conscious of, there has ever been a time when every aspect of the farming industry seemed to be almost flat on its back. The disaster that foot and mouth disease wreaked on the agricultural community and the astonishingly grotesque way in which it was handled by the Government, with the killing of 10 million farm animals, has left the farming community rocking on its heels and many farmers have found that having shoots on their land has

enabled them to create some diversification and some minor but hard-earned further income.

The real seriousness of what the Minister and his colleagues have done is directed not at birds that are reared for shooting, but at wild birds such as the grey partridge and grouse. I have been through that and will not go on about it, but I hope that the Committee understands that keepering a reared-bird shoot is a relatively simple exercise compared to keepering in the uplands where foxes are difficult to get hold of. Keepers will have to stay out night after night to get foxes that are wreaking havoc on ground-nesting game. The Committee may know that pheasants spend the night in trees, but ground-nesting game spend most of their lives on the ground, so they are very vulnerable to the predation of foxes. Banning the use of terriers will not put lowland keepers out of work because, until the Labour party bans the shooting of reared game, which it inevitably will, there will be reared birds. However, the small, viable populations of grey partridge—the wild English partridge—in the uplands and parts of East Anglia will be under tremendous pressure because of the banning of terrier work. That pressure will not be terminal, but it will be very serious.

It is beyond me how a Committee that came to ban hunting—many Labour Members voted for a totally different Bill from the one before us—glibly and out of the blue, bans beagling and terrier work and without any debate it bans hare coursing and deer hunting when there is not a single shred of evidence for doing so. Who will compensate stag hunts for the loss of their kennels? Who will compensate hare coursers? It is the most terrible thing that this House of Commons is doing without any knowledge or thought.

The Minister knows that some hunts provide a valuable pest control service, particularly in the wilder parts of the country, where a farmer will ring up and say ''Please come and get this fox, which has been killing my sheep''. The keepers will go out at 3 o'clock or 4 o'clock in the morning and will lay the hounds on to the line of the fox. They are extremely efficient and effective at dealing with the problem.

I hope that the Minister is deeply worried about the collection of the fallen stock. The idea that hard-pressed farmers will be able to cope with that problem without the most grievous difficulty and considerable expense is ridiculous. The farmers could not do without the service provided by the Crawley and Horsham hounds, the hunt that I support in Sussex, which collects and takes away fallen stock, particularly at a time when the insane inequities of the livestock market mean that a number of cattle that are not wanted are put down on the farm and taken away. If the hunt does not take them away, who on earth will? The hunt takes them away for free, because it has good will and wishes to engender good will and to express its thanks and gratitude to the farmers and those who live in the countryside, who allow it to visit their land and to derive enormous pleasure from hunting across their ground, which the farmers in most cases—not all—

willingly allow. For many farmers, the hunt will still collect the fallen stock, even if it does not hunt on their land, as a mark of respect, help and solidarity for an agricultural community in deep and abiding trouble.

I have expanded on all the unintended consequences and have bored the Committee with them for many hours. They will not lead to a diminution in the number of lowland keepers, who will always be able to deal with foxes. They will use snares. Any member of the Committee who has seen a fox snared will devoutly wish that he had not. Lowland keepers will use snares and will shoot foxes in great numbers, and they will survive. That is fine. However, in the uplands, where there are few keepers, their job depends on the fragile nature of the ecosystem that they secure and which would not exist without them. If they cannot use their terriers, inevitably they cannot get hold of the foxes, and we gradually get into the cycle of decline: grouse stocks will diminish, grey partridge stocks, such as they are, will diminish and keepers will lose their jobs and go. It is a most wicked state of affairs.

The Burns report estimated that between 6,000 and 8,000 full-time equivalent jobs depend on hunting, although the number of people involved in hunting is significantly higher. About 700 of those jobs result from direct employment by the hunts; another 1,500 to 3,000 full-time equivalent jobs, perhaps involving some 2,500 to 5,000 people, result from direct employment on hunting-related activities by those engaged in hunting. The remaining jobs in a wide variety of businesses depend indirectly on hunting. Of those, many will be in urban rather than rural areas. It is not something that the Minister can simply brush aside.

I want to conclude by saying something about hunt kennels. One or two Labour Members have visited a hunt kennels. I know that the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) has, I am sure that the Minister has, and some hon. Ladies have done so too. I am glad that they have. I do not know which hunts they visited, but one will always find the same thing in a hunt kennels. [Hon. Members: ''Dogs.''] One will certainly find hounds, not dogs. As I am sure the Committee knows, a hound is an infinitely superior animal to a dog. One will find hounds in quantity and number. One will also generally find immaculately kept premises and extremely clean kennels, many of them in historic, remarkable and beautifully laid-out buildings. I have visited the Belvoir hunt kennels, one of the most magnificent buildings that I have ever seen. It is beautifully laid out and designed, a wonderful and remarkable place. If hunting is banned, such kennels will fall into disuse.

The Committee must understand that it is destroying not only something that people love and that is part of their fibre and being and whole life—I know that some Members do not care or understand about that and that it does not mean anything to them, so we have to put that aside—but a wonderful, unique, remarkable tradition in English life. It has been a fount and origin of some of our greatest writing, art and other things that we have discussed at length, which are being set at nought and as of no account. I

suppose that an historical treasure trove is all that we will have to remember foxhunting by.

Parents who used to hunt, and who hoped that their children would hunt, will see their children's and grandchildren's lives immensely the poorer. Tens of thousands of children hunt today, with the Pony Club, with hunts and at children's meets. I went to a children's meet the other day. One can see the real pleasure, knowledge, gain and character building brought to those children when they take part in hunting and riding—a sport that is not risk-free, but in which one chances one's neck and one's arm—with a smile on their faces. All that is going to go. A great and abiding tradition in English life will be swept away for ever.

At the same time, hunts have tremendous organisations that pay for the upkeep of kennels. They are valuable places, some of them with hundreds of years of invested capital—of money, time, effort and sweat. What will happen to them? What will the hunts do? Many are in areas of outstanding natural beauty, so there will be no chance of converting them to a software writers' counselling project or doing a barn conversion job. Kennels cannot be converted. Many of them will become listed buildings. Who will compensate the hunts for their single most important physical asset being taken away?

I realise that this is a difficult argument for the Government to swallow. My Government were responsible for the miners, who, quite rightly, received substantial compensation. This wicked, wholly unnecessary, pointless and facile piece of legislation will result in good, honourable, decent men and women who love their jobs and their lives and have no security and no stability being thrown out of their tied cottages. I declare an interest in that I am a donor to the hunt servant's benevolent fund, which has many calls on it to give time and effort to support former hunt staff. There is no way in which the hunts will be able to keep them on. The hunts are run and their funds raised through an intricate network of hunt supporters' clubs, foot followers, subscribers and evenings that are the essence of community life in some places. In some of the more remote parts of Britain, there is no social life other than that provided by the hunt: in the deeper parts of the west country, where stag hunting is an integral part of community life, there is very little social life other than that which the hunts organise and generate.

The Minister has terribly let down all the people who put their trust in him. I know what he is going to say: he is going to say that people came to Portcullis house and were wholly in favour of the hearings; I was not, but against my better judgment I was persuaded that we should take our full part in them. Lots of evidence was produced by the Countryside Alliance and many others, such as the hare coursers, the gamekeepers and the beaglers. All of them were present for the Minister to listen to and to heed, but there is not a single shred of evidence that he paid a blind bit of attention to any of them.

I have paid handsome tribute to the Minister: people keep asking me why I bother to do so, but I believe in giving credit where credit is due, and he did

organise the hearings, and he did hold them, and he did listen—but he did not do anything. As we have sat through the passage of this Bill, we have watched the dismantling, piece by piece, of everything that we tried to present to the Portcullis house hearings, as if it all stood for nought. As far as I am aware, not a single thing that the Minister heard at those hearings has been incorporated in the legislation. They were like the Judas sheep—the sheep that goes on to the cart first to lead the others on board so that they can be taken to the slaughter.

We are discussing something that we love. Many of the people that we represent cannot believe that Parliament could do such a dreadful thing as to destroy foxhunting, beagling, coursing and stag hunting on the basis of so little knowledge and so much ignorance and prejudice. Some Committee members have not said anything; they have just sat here without uttering a word to try to defend the awfulness that they are wreaking on the supporters of the hunt and those who participate in it. I make this forecast to the Committee: they will be back.

Do not let anyone believe that the Government will not go after shooting, because they will. They have not listened to a word. The National Gamekeepers Organisation made strenuous representations to the Minister, but not a word has been taken on board. The Minister is doing a terrible thing for which his name will live in infamy forever in the British countryside—I mean that. Given that, I hope that he will be generous with regard to compensation and generous to those whose lives and livelihoods he is going to destroy.

Mr Tony Banks (West Ham, Labour)

The hon. Member for Mid-Sussex has only one speech, although it is a good one. He gives us this sort of speech from time to time: it is more suited to Second Reading, but we understand how passionately he feels about the subject, and it is an open secret that I have a great deal of time for him. There is something about him that makes me smile when I see him: he just brightens up my life, which means that I must be a very sad person.

However, the hon. Gentleman paints a grotesque picture of the Bill, of us and of the rural economy. I listened closely to what he was saying as I always do because I am fascinated by him—although not in an unnatural way, I hasten to add in view of what one has been reading in The Sun recently. He paints a picture of a rural community that is largely comprised of a legion of hollow-eyed, shoeless, emaciated, ragged peasants who shuffle from one disgusting hovel to another. It does not bear saying to him, although he should listen to it carefully, that the rural economy and the agricultural industry of this country receive more central Government funding than all the other industries put together. That is a fact. I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the amazing crisis brought about by foot and mouth disease. I criticised the Government savagely about that in the House. I thought that the methods that were used owed far more to voodoo than to science. Subsequent events have proved that analysis to be correct.

Sometimes one does not need to be an expert; one just needs some commonsense and some gut feeling about such things. I am glad to say that on that occasion commonsense and the gut feeling of many hon. Members were proven to be correct. Perhaps we will learn something from that.

Some 300,000 jobs have been lost in manufacturing industry since 1997.

Mr Adrian Flook (Taunton, Conservative)

Six hundred thousand.

Mr Tony Banks (West Ham, Labour)

I do not pluck figures out of the air. It is not 600,000. I will stick with 300,000 and wait to see whether that is correct. I am trying to remember the statistics. There are still 1 million more jobs in the economy. [Hon. Members: ''A million and a half.''] The point that I am trying to make is that of course one is concerned about any loss of jobs. It matters to the individual who has lost their job. However, let us not get an idea and rush away with the belief that somehow the economy, even the rural economy, is static. We are talking about infinitesimal numbers of jobs in comparison with those lost in manufacturing industry and those created in the economy as a whole.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

Give way?

Mr Tony Banks (West Ham, Labour)

I will not. I am addressing the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

Through the Chair.

Mr Tony Banks (West Ham, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman is as pedantic as ever. He never lets us down. I have never met someone so pedantic, tedious and humourless. I cannot wait for the Committee to finish so that I do not have to look at him again.

I say to the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex that there is something in the amendment that must be addressed. If we are to pass laws that deprive people of their livelihoods, perhaps we should be prepared to consider sensible compensation. I am seeking to put the issue into some sort of context and I see no reason why we should not take that view. I am prepared to take a compassionate view, particularly when animal welfare interests are concerned. If those could be shown to us on Report, I think that a sensible amendment ought to be tabled so that we could give it due consideration. I am mindful of the fact that I have strong beliefs about the matter and that I want many things to be banned. Having said that, I do not want people to lose their jobs if it can be shown that they have no chance of getting alternative employment.

Mr Adrian Flook (Taunton, Conservative)

What price would the hon. Gentleman put on the head of a hound that is perhaps three years old?

Mr Tony Banks (West Ham, Labour)

That is precisely what I will not do. That is why the amendment is not helpful—it does not put a price on anything. I do not want us to do that. This is the way to it: we need to think about it, consider the situation and table a considered amendment that can be proven to be worthy of acceptance by the House. There is something in the

amendment, despite the fact that it was moved by the hon. Member for North Wiltshire and I am still sympathetic in principle. Even when the hon. Gentleman has a good case he manages to lose it through the kind of speeches that he makes to this Committee.

Ms Candy Atherton (Falmouth and Camborne, Labour)

Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be helpful if the Minister talked about fallen stock in his response? That is a genuine issue.

Mr Tony Banks (West Ham, Labour)

We all know that our right hon. Friend will consider the matter carefully. Where genuine problems and hardships are created by this type of legislation a decent Government should necessarily take them into account when it is being drafted and when it is agreed as it goes through the House. I am sure that the Minister will respond.

My good friend the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex talks about the traditions and the shape of the countryside and says that we are losing something for posterity, but what did posterity ever do for us? When one looks at the shape of the countryside, one realises how much has been completely changed by intensive farming methods—the nitrates that have been poured on to the land that have leached into the river, the species that have disappeared because of farming methods, the colour and shape of the fields and the hedgerows that have been eliminated.

The hon. Gentleman seems to be saying that the Bill represents a destruction of the traditional base of the countryside, but the countryside looks nothing like it looked in the 1950s and 1960s, when I spent a considerable amount of time there doing things about which I do not wish to elaborate.

Hon. Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex, Conservative)

I assure the hon. Gentleman that many of the hedgerows that he put to such good use are still there. I have a high regard for him, as he knows, and I am grateful for the tone of his comments but much depends on where he looks. The countryside used for hunting has, in many ways, been improved and enhanced over the years. I agree that there has been terrible destruction to some parts of our farming land—one thinks of the terrible prairie farming in East Anglia, which has been a disaster. Everyone deeply regrets the vandalism, but farmers were doing only what they thought was right at the time.

If the hon. Gentleman visits the shires—Sussex or almost any of the rural counties of England outside East Anglia—he will see countryside much of which was laid out and is still maintained for hunting. Some 97 of the 184 hunts in this country manage 38,900 of the 700,000 hectares of broadleaf woodland in Great Britain.

Mr Tony Banks (West Ham, Labour)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and we must do all that we can to ensure that those benefits are maintained, but we must find an alternative method. I will not repeat arguments that I made in other places about the role of the farming community in looking after the landscape for us as a whole, but the countryside belongs to all of us, not only to those lucky enough to live there.

The hon. Gentleman asked whether kennels could become listed buildings. When I was the Minister responsible for fine arts and tramways—an interesting combination of sport and listed buildings—I listed a pigeon cree in Northumberland. They are genuinely, architecturally fascinating and valuable buildings that have to be maintained. There is a way of looking after such buildings through the various agencies.

There is something in the new clause and although I cannot support it this afternoon, the issue could receive support on Report, especially if we emphasise the animal welfare aspect. I would certainly be prepared to support such a provision.

Mr Peter Luff (Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Gentleman because there is a note of agreement in the Committee, which is a welcome surprise. We must recognise that the people who will be affected by our failure to agree the new clause are often poor and underprivileged, not the rich people of mythology. My hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire had to leave the Committee to attend a sitting of the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill on behalf of his party. I know that he wanted to emphasise the serious adverse economic impact that the Bill will have on mid-Wales now that it has been re-drafted.

What the hon. Member for West Ham just said was extremely welcome, and I agree with him. As he said, the 300,000 or 600,000 jobs that were lost in manufacturing were lost not by an Act of Parliament but by other processes. The Committee is knowingly passing legislation that will lead to the loss of jobs and economic utility. The hon. Gentleman recognised that in his characteristically thoughtful remarks.

It is worth remembering that the Government paid generous compensation to the farming industry after the decimation of foot and mouth disease. Therefore, DEFRA, which replaced the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, has a precedent to follow. The Burns report is clear on the matter. Paragraph 3.75 deals with the impact on farming of a ban on hunting:

''The negative impacts of a ban would be particularly resented because they would be viewed as unnecessary by many of those affected, and as an avoidable addition to other problems facing the farming community.''

Burns makes an explicit case for compensation in paragraph 10.60:

''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 their kennels.''

Burns made those remarks before the Bill existed and they are very relevant to the Bill as originally drafted, before it came to this Committee. It has become much more draconian in Committee and the case for compensation has grown all the time. The test on utility has been toughened significantly, notably by the addition of the words ''pest control''. There has been an absolute ban on hare hunting, for which there is no supporting evidence whatsoever. The evidential basis of the Bill was overthrown by that vote and by the spectacular ban—again, which has no evidential basis—on Tuesday on all terrier work. That is important because in paragraph 10.17 Burns

discusses the implications and workings of the human rights legislation and states:

''An important consideration would be whether legislators could point to unnecessary suffering or some other reference point beyond mere disapproval, to reflect the general interest (or, to the extent necessary, the protection of morals and pressing social need). A relevant issue would be the form of the Bill: one which required proof of unnecessary suffering, or some similar test, would be less open to argument than one which banned hunting per se.''

I have not quoted the whole paragraph, because I wish to save time and hear what the Minister has to say before the Committee finishes at 5 o'clock.

I suspect that that paragraph was uppermost in the Minister's mind when he developed the Bill that he presented to the House of Commons. However, the Bill has changed significantly in Committee and is now much more based merely on disapproval. The tests have been strengthened beyond recognition, but they are applied to many fewer activities. Hounding and terrier work, for example, are simply banned.

The banning of terrier work means that lowland hunts are much more likely to be banned. The Committee said that hunts should hunt for pest control purposes only and then denied them the means to engage in pest control—an act of rank hypocrisy. The banning of lowland hunting is much more likely, because it is much less able to meet the tests of utility by its own action, which is deplorable. Hunts such as the Croome and West Warwickshire in my constituency are likely to close. The North Cotswold hunt, which is also in my constituency, has a fine listed building for its kennels. I invite the hon. Member for West Ham to come and see it. It is a beautiful building in the centre of Broadway high street. Those kennels are now much more likely to close.

The Worcestershire hunt's kennels, which are in my constituency, have incinerators that meet modern standards. That hunt could have provided a fallen stock service to the local farming community, but will now not be able to do so. The incinerator will become valueless to them. The case for compensation has grown enormously as the Bill has gone through the Committee.

The Minister will not accept new clause 4—we are not holding our breath. However, the comments of the hon. Member for West Ham should weigh heavily on the right hon. Gentleman as he considers the Report stage. Whatever the final form of the Bill—we all think that there will be a complete ban on hunting, without the utility or least suffering tests, by the time the Bill leaves the House of Commons—the case for compensation is extremely strong.

The golden thread that the Minister talked about when all of this began has unravelled completely in the Committee, sometimes with the Minister's active assistance, for example, when he voted for a ban on terrier work. It has been unravelled and chopped into bits by the Minister and the Bill is now about disapproval. Burns said that that would make it much less likely to pass a test of the application of the convention on human rights. If the Minister wants the Bill to get on the statute book and survive the test

of the courts, it is in his own interest to be generous with compensation.

I have one last point to make before I sit down for the last time in what has been a long and emotionally demanding Committee for those of us who care about animal welfare rather than bigotry and who genuinely have animal welfare and human liberty at the centre of our considerations. The regulatory impact assessment, published by the Minister and signed off by him on 2 December is now a completely irrelevant document. It refers to the Bill as originally drafted. I will not quote it for want of time and I know that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough wants to speak. I ask the Minister to reflect on paragraphs 3.1, 5.1 and 10.1 of the regulatory impact assessment, which are now nonsense—a nullity.

Even if the Minister cannot accept the new clause, I hope that he will promise a new regulatory impact assessment so that the true costs of the Bill, which have become enormous in Committee and more than we ever expected, can be properly understood by the House of Commons and the House of Lords, before—God help us—it becomes law.

Mr Edward Garnier (Harborough, Conservative)

I had not wanted to speak having heard my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex because I did not want to detract from the gravamen of what he said or to disturb the effect of his words, but they were powerful. It is easy to mock, tease or pooh-pooh the way in which someone looks or speaks and I fear that many of those who have observed my hon. Friend over the years have made a great mistake in treating him with some disrespect. This afternoon, if I may say so without embarrassing him, he spoke for many of the people that I represent, who cannot speak for themselves in the Committee. I hope that the Government will pay close attention to what he said because he spoke from his heart, his head and his own experience.

Although I am five years younger than he, I share many of the values, experiences and concerns of which he spoke. I am grateful to the hon. Member for West Ham for recognising that despite the differences of opinion on the subject of hunting, there are some things that can draw us together. One of the subjects that should draw us together is legitimate compensation for those whose lives are being not just disturbed by the consequences of the Bill, but interfered with. In some cases, they will lose their livelihoods, their homes, their whole way of life and their understanding of what life is about.

I am not talking about compensation in the current sense. I cannot place a monetary figure on what I am talking about. In the few moments available to me, I am hoping to use the new clause of my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire as an illustration of my points. My hon. Friend has also suffered the slings and arrows of personal abuse from others. I think that is unfair, unnecessary and it detracts from the value of the Committee's work.

Underlying what he said is a cry for fairness, and acceptance that when a Parliament does things to others, it should not do so without accepting that the people to whom those things are done are entitled to not just a hearing, but some form of compensation for the adverse consequences visited on them. I am not talking about the price of everything, but the value of those people's lives and what they stand for.

I accept, as the hon. Member for West Ham said, that the farming economy is a nationalised activity. The farming world is hugely subsidised by the taxpayer, and one has to accept it is hugely subsidised by the urban taxpayer because there are more urban taxpayers than rural ones. More to the point, we are in receipt of vast sums of European Union money in support of our agricultural industry. Whether that is a good or a bad thing is not for us to discuss today. What is relevant to the new clause is that by passing the Bill into law, we will add to the nationalisation of our rural economy by turning a huge number of people who are employed into dependants on the state. I am not sure whether that is a sensible consequence to look forward to.

I shall bring the debate to my area. I hope that I am not accused of showing off or being ostentatious because that is not my intention, but I accept that no part of life, our economy or our environment in the United Kingdom can be set in aspic. I accept that my constituency, despite the fact that it is the capital of foxhunting and has been for hundreds of years, has no right to expect to become a museum in which activities of which the public disapprove can continue simply because they have continued for many years and we must have a living example of them.

I know from my family's experience that the rural economy has changed and I say that as one of the latest generations of a family that has lived on its land since the conquest and that has never had to buy any land during that great period. Throughout that period of 1,000 years, the way in which the countryside in that part of the world has changed has been obvious. If one rolls the clock back, as the hon. Member for West Ham tried to do a moment ago, I accept that the farming scene of 2003 is different from that of the past.

Mr Tony Banks (West Ham, Labour)

I have listened and hopefully learned. The hon. and learned Gentleman says that he lives on his lands, which have been there since the conquest. I suppose that all lands have existed since the conquest, but his family acquired its lands in the conquest. [Interruption.] If that is the case, was compensation paid?

Mr Edward Garnier (Harborough, Conservative)

I accept the way in which the land has been kept has changed over the years. I am not arguing that if necessary changes have to be made to our farms and to our rural economy they should not be introduced. I invite the Minister to consider that in my constituency and particularly in the village in which I live, many of the people who work have jobs connected directly or indirectly with either farming or hunting. In the event that the Bill becomes law, their jobs will be abolished—one may say, ''Bad luck''—and they will migrate to other parts of the country where jobs are available.

My point, which I agree that I am making clumsily, is that we are in danger of turning the rural parts of our country into not only nationalised museums and subsidised bits of the economy, but dormitories. Many of the houses in rural villages, which in the past were filled with people who work on farms, in stables, as blacksmiths or in hunting, will be inhabited by people who simply buy them for the view and commute into neighbouring towns and cities. The whole rural area will become a dormitory that is quiet throughout the day, that revives when people come home from work in their cars and that goes to sleep again at 7.30 the following morning. The place will become denuded of adults throughout the day. People may say that that does not matter and that life moves on. About 150 years ago, Disraeli wrote of two nations; we are about to see two nations, in the worst sense, reappear as an indirect consequence of the Bill.

Yesterday evening, I addressed the Grafton hunt farmers' dinner, at which there were 250 people. The gap between their understanding of what is important and Labour Members' understanding is vast and growing bigger. The gap will lead to the breakdown of a sense of nationhood in this country, which is way beyond Labour Members' understanding. I feel that I am making a plea in the dark, which is gaining no purchase on the intellects or emotions of those who disagree with me. I fear that the gap between us and them is now so wide as to be unbridgeable.

I do not want my part of the world to become an empty quarter or to become still more nationalised and I do not want the people of this country to become disaffected by the democratic process. All those things will surely come to pass if legislation such as this, which has one origin but which has transmogrified into something quite different, are passed into law. This could not happen in Spain, France, Italy or any other civilised country in Europe, yet the Government, the Committee and the House of Commons are content to see it happen in this country.

If there is to be any fairness in the Bill, we must consider what was envisaged by my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire. Proper compensation must be paid to those whose lives are about to be ruined and it should be given willingly and not grudgingly. I am sure that even the hon. Member for West Ham would agree with that.

Mr Alun Michael (Minister of State (Rural Affairs), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Cardiff South and Penarth, Labour/Co-operative)

This has been an interesting debate. Compensation has entered into only a small part of it, although it has been referred to in the context of much wider comments made by a variety of Committee members. I want to focus on compensation, but I must deal with the context in which many of the contributions have been made.

The hon. Members for North Wiltshire, for Mid-Sussex and for Mid-Worcestershire and the hon. and learned Member for Harborough made a number of generalised criticisms. I reject their perception of the Bill. When it was published, I said that I would welcome constructive debate and improvements that would help to develop legislation that would stand the test of time. I am pleased that the animal welfare provisions have been strengthened and that the content has been clarified as a result of the debate in

Committee. I stress that the Bill is based on principles that all sides, including the pro-hunting organisations, accepted as right during the consultation process that led to its drafting and publication.

The principles of utility—the things that need to be undertaken to control pests—and the concepts of cruelty or least suffering provide the basis for the two tests must be satisfied if hunting is to take place. Hunting is banned unless the two tests are satisfied. The Bill's purpose is to eradicate all cruelty associated with hunting with dogs, which is the expressed aim of those concerned with animal welfare. The Countryside Alliance has also acknowledged that if it is cruel, we should not be doing it. [Interruption.] Of course, I will give way to Opposition Members, but a number of them have spoken widely and generally about the social, economic and financial impact of the Bill on the countryside and I wish, briefly but coherently, to rebut those charges, as well as to deal with compensation.

Mr Peter Luff (Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)

I do not believe that countryside interests have ever accepted the principles as set out in the Bill. The Middle Way Group reluctantly acquiesced in them as an alternative way forward, less good than our proposals. The idea implied in the Minister's statement, that the Bill's principles were in some sense endorsed by the Middle Way Group and countryside interests, is not right.

Mr Alun Michael (Minister of State (Rural Affairs), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Cardiff South and Penarth, Labour/Co-operative)

I am afraid that I have to reject what the hon. Gentleman says. If people use the words, ''If it is cruel, we shouldn't be doing it'' but have failed to unpack the term ''cruelty'' and to examine the issues of necessity and least suffering, they cannot blame me for taking them seriously and at face value, and assuming that they know the meaning of the English language.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

The point that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire made so well is that the Countryside Alliance and other such groups accepted the liberal definition of cruelty and utility laid out in the Minister's letter of April, but that we do not accept either the illiberal definitions of cruelty and utility laid down in the Bill or the Minister's unilateral, arrogant decision to ban stag hunting, hare coursing, hare hunting and terrier work. That is his decision and has nothing to do with the tests in the Bill, which we accept. We most emphatically do not accept that decision.

Mr Alun Michael (Minister of State (Rural Affairs), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Cardiff South and Penarth, Labour/Co-operative)

I am not sure whether the word ''we'', as used by the hon. Gentleman, refers to hunting interests, the Countryside Alliance or the Conservative party. [Hon. Members: ''All three'']. Ah, it is all three—an identity. That is revealing. The hon. Gentleman cannot on the one hand ask for principles to be applied to hunting and on the other reject, in the most cavalier manner, the meaning of words and the application of logic.

I take the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex back to hare coursing. Hare coursing, according to the definition of organisations that undertake it, involves not the control of pests or any other utility, but the testing and comparing of the skills and agility of dogs. That cannot, by any use of the English language, be seen as satisfying a utility test.

Of course it is cruel. The opportunity to make that case was there for those who came to the Portcullis house hearings and submitted evidence. They had their opportunity, and they failed. That is the fact. Opposition Members have revealed the arrogance with which they—

Mr Peter Luff (Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)

On a point of order, Mrs. Roe. We have 13 minutes left of this Committee stage. I acknowledge that the debate has gone freely, but would it not be helpful if the Minister addressed new clause 4?

Mrs Marion Roe (Broxbourne, Conservative)

I have heard the point of order. Let us get on with the debate. It is very important, and we have only a few moments left.

Mr Alun Michael (Minister of State (Rural Affairs), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Cardiff South and Penarth, Labour/Co-operative)

It is fascinating that Members who took up much time in this debate do not want to hear the answer to it. They are not willing to be challenged logically on the total nonsense that they have been talking. They wanted all sorts of evidence to be brought forward and for that then to be ignored. They wanted cruelty to be ignored. They do not like it when the meaning of words is applied strictly, where logic is used and where evidence is examined objectively. They do not like it when that is what we have done—applied logic to the available evidence. At its introduction, the Bill was described as tough but fair. That remains true, although it is even more robust as the result of the amendments accepted.

I reject some of the comments made during the debate. The hon. Member for Mid-Sussex talked about rural economies and communities. The Government have paid much attention to the needs of rural economies and communities, especially since publication of the rural White Paper and the establishment of DEFRA, the Department in which I serve.

I listened to the hon. and learned Member for Harborough make some serious points on the dangers of to countryside areas becoming dormitories. He is right about the trends, but they were not introduced by the Government. They are social and economic trends, and serious ones that we need to tackle. That is one reason why, as a result of my responsibilities and my commitment to the national parks, I have been keen to bring together, for instance, the national parks authorities and the regional development agencies, because I do not want our national parks to become landlords' museums. I want them to be sustainable. We want sustainable development that respects the countryside, the community and the economy. Opposition Members do not seem to be interested in any of those important issues.

A number of hon. Members raised relevant points about hunting. My hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton) asked me to refer specifically to fallen stock. I shall do so only briefly, because it was referred to in two debates. As a result, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has written to all members of the Committee setting out the impact on fallen stock of the European Union's animal by-products regulations. Even without the Bill, hunts would have to change the way in which they undertake

their activities. In some circumstances they provide a free service; in others they no longer do so. They will have to change, adapt and develop. They will have the option of going out of business or developing that aspect of the business within the context of the new regulations. I refer members of the Committee to my hon. Friend's letter.

I want to refer to compensation, because the hon. Member for North Wiltshire, who took some time to reach that issue in his contribution—

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

It was all I talked about.

Mr Alun Michael (Minister of State (Rural Affairs), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Cardiff South and Penarth, Labour/Co-operative)

Hansard will show that that is not the case. The hon. Gentleman failed to be clear about who should be compensated or how compensation should be assessed. Do we compensate simply those directly employed by the hunts? Burns could not provide an exact number for those people, which suggests some ambiguity. If hunts fail to be registered for hunting, some aspects of their business may be able to continue, although with a reduced turnover. Does an owner, or, for that matter, the employees, of such a business qualify for compensation? What would happen in the case of a hunt that, once a ban had come into force or because it failed to register, decided to convert itself into a drag hunt? Why should an employee of that hunt, whose job description and conditions of service may remain essentially unchanged, be eligible for compensation? Therefore, the amendment is flawed on the ground of practicality alone. Beyond that, it appears that the amount of money that the registrar could award would be open-ended. The Government, as guardian of the public purse, could not support it as a matter of principle.

I recognise, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham does, that some people will be directly affected by the Bill. 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. I make the point again to Opposition Members that the Portcullis house evidence was that the contribution of hunting to the rural economy is small.

Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries, Labour)

I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister knows that the only hunt that has been disbanded north of the border is in my constituency. Last week, I tried to check the number of people who have presented themselves as unemployed as a direct or indirect result of that hunt disbanding. I stand to be corrected, but no one had presented themselves as unemployed.

Mr Alun Michael (Minister of State (Rural Affairs), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Cardiff South and Penarth, Labour/Co-operative)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that information.

The Foster Bill and the Deadline 2000 Bill did not provide for the payment of compensation. I understand the concerns expressed, not least by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, but I cannot give a commitment on this issue. The key point is that the Bill deals with cruelty in hunting. There can be no rights to compensation that rely on allowing people to be cruel. That is at the heart of what the Bill seeks to tackle.

The difficulty of finding other jobs is exaggerated. The rural economy has expanded faster than the urban economy in recent years. As one Opposition Member said, I referred to specific micro-economic problems in relation to Exmoor, and I undertook to work with organisations and people in that area to address those concerns.

The hon. Member for North Wiltshire referred to the letter sent to me concerning the Bill by the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Human Rights on 21 January. That letter explained that the Committee had formed the provisional opinion that the Bill is compatible with the relevant human rights obligations. The Chairman asked for an explanation of one aspect of the Bill: its effect on contracts already entered into for future hunting. I provided that explanation in a detailed reply to the Committee on 31 January, which the Committee will no doubt publish in its next report. The arguments are detailed, but I am advised that there is no obligation, either legal or moral, to pay compensation to those who may be affected by the Bill.

The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire suggested that there should be a revised regulatory impact assessment. I would point to that fact that when any Bill reaches the House of Lords, a revised RIA is automatically prepared. Without changing the processes in any way, I can assure him that that will be the case.

The Government consider that controlling hunting with dogs is a proportionate means of preventing cruelty to wild mammals. That is the purpose of the Bill. In the Government's view, any interference with property that arises as a result of the Bill's provisions is justifiable on the basis that it strikes a fair balance between the interests of the community and the rights of the individual.

The control of hunting has been accepted by the European Court of Human Rights as a legitimate aim that may justify an interference with property rights. The Scottish courts have ruled similarly in relation to Scottish hunting legislation. It is the case that there will be employees of individual hunts whose livelihood will be affected. It is right that where possible, they should be assisted in finding new employment, and their employers will have responsibility in that regard. That does not lead to the conclusion that compensation should be paid in the way suggested in the new clause. I urge the Committee not to support it.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

The Minister's woefully inadequate reply to a passionate and gripping debate is typical of his response to all the debates that we have had throughout the Committee. Whether we are talking about expanding the categories of banning—as he has done, wrecking his own Bill by his own vote—whether we are talking about narrowing the cruelty and utility tests so that no hunt can possibly pass them, or whether we are talking about compensating the poor people in the countryside who will be put out of a job as a result of his decisions, the Minister chooses not to address the human rights issues or the real difficulties that will be faced by people in the countryside when the Bill becomes law. He chooses instead to reiterate his thin arguments.

In his bogus, biased and bigoted arguments, he exposes his prejudice against the countryside and his lack of knowledge of the countryside. His ignorance is matched only by his apathy. His performance throughout the Committee stage has been despicable in our view and from the countryside's standpoint, but it has been despicable in his own terms too. He was given the task of putting together some sort of Bill that would stand the test of time, as he put it, and find widespread acceptance. It was to be some sort of middle way licensing approach.

However, as we come out of Committee, he has a Bill that bans almost everything, that does it in a most cack-handed, bureaucratic and useless sort of way, and that fails to compensate the people whose lives, expectations and outlook will be destroyed as a result of his actions. He does not care. He does not understand. He does not know anything. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex said in his memorable speech, the countryside will remember that. The Minister's name will be engraved on the heart of the countryside. His name will be engraved on the families and the children that he has cast aside in his arrogant unconcern for the future of the people affected by his disgraceful little Bill. He is a disgraceful little man, and he brings black shame on himself.

Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a second time:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes 16.

Mr Alun Michael (Minister of State (Rural Affairs), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Cardiff South and Penarth, Labour/Co-operative)

I am aware that the constraints of the programme motion reduce your flexibility to hear hon. Members at this point, Mrs. Roe, but I am sure that it is possible, even following the controversy during the last debate, to end on a note of agreement by thanking you and Mr. Stevenson for the way in which you have diligently undertaken your duties in a sometimes fractious Committee. It has been the longest Committee stage of any hunting Bill that has been considered by the House.

I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House will also want to thank the Clerk, the Hansard writers, the police, the officials and others who have helped and advised the Committee in a variety of ways, and members of the public on both

sides of the argument who care about the outcome and attended our sittings to hear our debates.

I also thank Committee members on both sides for their contributions, although some have pleased me more than others. Nevertheless, they contributed on issues that are passionately divisive in the Committee and made a significant contribution to the Committee's work in assisting the House in the difficult process of enabling Parliament to work towards a conclusion on the matter of hunting with dogs.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

May I add my warm words of thanks to you, Mrs. Roe, and to Mr. Stevenson? You have both handled what has sometimes been a difficult Committee with great equanimity under duress and with huge aplomb. You have both allowed proper discussion of difficult matters and sometimes allowed us to deviate from the straight and narrow with only the slightest pulling back from time to time. You have both handled the Committee extremely well.

May I also add my thanks to the Clerk, Mr. Sandall, who has handled the Bill superbly with great expertise. He has done brilliantly well.

I mumble and swallow my words, and the Hansard staff have done a superb job. The fact that one of the Hansard writers is an old Jock, like me, may have helped him to understand what I was talking about.

Mr Edward Garnier (Harborough, Conservative)

A young Jock.

Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire, Conservative)

He is a young Jock, unlike me.

Others have also done a superb job—the police, the attendants and so on.

The Committee has been well served by advisers outside this place and on both sides of the argument. I greatly enjoyed my recent visit to the sanctuary of the League Against Cruel Sports where I learned a lot

about the league. Perhaps I could pay particular tribute to the National Farmers Unions, the Country Land and Business Association and, above all, the Countryside Alliance whose work in advising us has been superb, the British Deer Society, the National Gamekeepers' Organisation, the Game Conservancy Trust, the Terriermen's Association and others. A huge number of people have worked very hard to produce telling amendments and speaking notes to support them. We are grateful to all those organisations.

Whatever the outcome of the Committee stage, I hope that it will be realised by the countryside in general that we have had the opportunity to discuss the Bill in full. We are not happy with the Government's explanations of it, but the support that we have received from outside groups have made that debate possible. We are very grateful to them.

Mr Tony Banks (West Ham, Labour)

On a point of order, Mrs. Roe. Is it possible to force a vote on the thanks to the Clerk?

Hon. Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex, Conservative)

May I add, superfluously, my thanks to those of the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire? In particular, may I say, Mrs. Roe, that you and Mr. Stevenson have ridden your ponies extremely well on a very long rein? It has been important that this Committee, given the contentiousness of what we have discussed and the tremendous implications that will flow from the Bill, has been pretty good natured. Much of that has been because of the way in which the Committee was chaired.

Mrs Marion Roe (Broxbourne, Conservative)

I thank the Committee for its kind comments and will ensure that Mr. Stevenson is made aware of them.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, to be reported.

Committee rose at five minutes past Five o'clock.