| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Howard: My right hon. Friend is unaware of the precise terms of the revised resolution. I cannot give him the total assurance that he requests, but I have said--I hope that he will take comfort from it--that in deciding the precise scope of the revised money resolution we shall take full account of points made in the debate today, including the point that he has just made.
Mr. William Cash (Stafford): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Are we to understand from the Home Secretary's statement that the money resolution currently before the House is being withdrawn? Otherwise we could be in a state of some confusion.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. Decisions on that are not a matter for the Chair, but I imagine that the Home Secretary will clarify that point.
Mr. Howard: The money resolution before the House will not be moved and I have indicated that a revised money resolution will be introduced shortly.
Mr. David Harris (St. Ives): When my right hon. and learned Friend considers businesses of the sort mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing(Sir T. Higgins), will he also pay special attention to businesses that are legitimately involved in selling arms--for example, Helston Gunsmiths in my constituency, which has written to almost every hon. Member? Will he take fully into account compensation for the stock of weapons and accessories that such businesses hold and for loss of trade?
Mr. Howard: There is a distinction between the two categories that my hon. Friend has identified and it is important that that distinction is clarified. Stocks of weapons that will become unlawful as a result of the legislation will be the subject of valid compensation. The position of a dealer in firearms or a manufacturer of firearms will be no different from that of an individual holder of firearms. Holders of firearms that will be made unlawful by this legislation will all be entitled to compensation for the weapons they own, but that is different--I would be wrong not to draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) to the distinction--from claims for compensation for loss of trade and business. So far as I am aware, there is no precedent for such claims and I would arouse false hopes and expectations if I were to give my right hon. and hon. Friends any comfort on that point. There is a clear distinction between the two.
Mr. Michael Colvin (Romsey and Waterside): When my right hon. and learned Friend reconsiders the money resolution, I hope that he will consult clubs. He must acknowledge that the banning of large-calibre pistols will result in many clubs folding. They will not be viable if large-calibre guns cannot be used. Therefore, will he consider carefully the possibility of compensation for clubs? I am told that 90 per cent. of clubs are likely to
12 Nov 1996 : Column 183
close and that they will lose, on average, about £8,000 or £9,000 each. If he reconsiders the money resolution, he should bear those facts in mind.
Mr. Howard: I am afraid that the same points apply to that category as to the category that I was just describing, but--as I said earlier--all the points made in today's debate will be taken into account in framing the revised money resolution and deciding on its precise scale.
Mr. Peter Viggers (Gosport): I understand that compensation of about £150 per handgun was contemplated by the Government. I visited my local gun club last Friday and the first estimate, with documentation, that was produced by one of my constituents was for compensation of £2,000. Will my right hon. and learned Friend give his best estimate now of the amount of compensation that will be required, and is that the best use of public money?
Mr. Howard: The financial memorandum deals with that point. On the basis of the present money resolution, the best estimate that we could make of the compensation bill was between £25 million and £50 million. Clearly, if we revise the money resolution and extend the categories of compensation, the bill will be greater.
Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough and Horncastle) rose--
Mr. Michael Lord (Central Suffolk) rose--
Mr. Howard: I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh), who was on his feet first, after which I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk (Mr. Lord). I must then make progress.
Mr. Leigh: My right hon. and learned Friend quotes precedent, which I accept, for a Government not compensating businesses that fold as a result of Government decisions. He has set his mind against that, but did I understand him rightly when he said, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin), that he has not ruled out compensating the members of gun clubs? As I understand it, there is no precedent that requires the Government to ignore the plight of ordinary members of the public who come together, with limited means, to create clubs--most of which will now have to close. The cost to the public purse, unlike that of compensating businesses, would be limited and may be about £8,000 or £9,000, as we have heard. Will my right hon. and learned Friend at least consider that point and not rule it out today?
Mr. Howard: I am afraid that that point comes into the same category as those to which I have previously responded. Depending on the scope of the money resolution--I know that my hon. Friend will have taken careful note of what I said on that--those matters may be able to be considered in greater detail at a later stage in the consideration of the Bill.
Mr. Lord: I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend is taking note of the feeling of the House on the
12 Nov 1996 : Column 184
question of compensation. If people undertake a legal activity, it is wrong to take away their legally held property without adequately compensating them. Like many other hon. Members, I discussed the subject with constituents at the weekend. One gentleman showed me documented evidence that his handguns and accessories were worth just under £4,000. I asked him how many members of his club had similar handguns and he said that there were 100, so there are handguns worth nearly £500,000 in one club in Suffolk. I trust that when my right hon. and learned Friend is doing his sums on compensation, he will ensure that he allows enough to compensate everybody adequately.
Mr. Howard: I have repeatedly made it clear that the owners of weapons rendered unlawful by the Bill will be compensated at market value for their guns.
Mr. James Wallace (Orkney and Shetland) rose--
Mr. Howard: I am sorry, but I must make a little more progress.
Part II of the Bill deals with the arrangements for the new pistol clubs that must be licensed by the Secretary of State before target handgun shooting may be allowed. Before being granted a licence, clubs will need to demonstrate that they meet detailed criteria, especially in relation to security. We shall publish those criteria. The police and other interested parties are currently being consulted on the details.
The new clubs will have to conform to the published criteria during the term of their licences. They will need to keep registers of the guns that are stored there, and to record when the guns are removed from and returned to the club on a permit. Police officers and police civilian staff will have the power to enter and inspect a club's premises to ensure that the provisions of the legislation, and conditions on the licence, are being met. If the conditions are not met, or if there are other concerns about public safety, I, or the Secretary of State for Scotland, will have the power to revoke a club's licence.
Part III introduces new regulatory requirements and prohibits both mail order sales and expanding ammunition, except for the purposes of lawfully shooting deer and of vermin control.
Certificate holders will be required to notify the police about the destruction of firearms listed on their certificates, or of transactions involving those firearms. Those arrangements will apply equally to rifles and shotguns, and will enable the police to keep a closer watch on the destination of legally held firearms.
The Bill implements Lord Cullen's recommendation that applications for firearm certificates should be accompanied by the names and addresses of two referees. The referees may be required to provide details of the applicant in a structured questionnaire, as prescribed in rules.
For an applicant seeking to renew his firearm certificate, one referee must be from an official of a licensed gun club. Firearm certificates granted for rifles for target shooting will be subject to a condition that the holder must belong to at least one approved club. That implements another of Lord Cullen's recommendations. Those steps will provide the police with more background evidence about the applicant than is currently available from the present single counter-signatory.
12 Nov 1996 : Column 185
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |