---

Madam Speaker: I was not aware of what took place on Friday--it has just been drawn to my attention. My deputy dealt with the matter at the time, but I shall study the Hansard report carefully and make inquiries. I call Mr. Cohen.

Mr. Harry Cohen (Leyton) rose--

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North) rose--

Madam Speaker: I called Mr. Cohen. He is small in stature, but he packs a lot of personality.

Mr. Cohen: I am lost for words, Madam Speaker--[Hon. Members: "Good!"] But not that lost for words.

My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) raised a point of order in which he referred to the news that a company, Mil-Tec, supplied arms to Rwanda and considerably worsened the conflict two years ago--surely the House should consider that issue. I hear what you said, Madam Speaker, about the fact that you could not order Ministers to make statements on issues of such importance, but Customs and Excise has made a peculiar statement in response to today's news about the breach of the United Nations embargo and of United Kingdom law. It said that it might consider investigating the subject if it was appropriate. Surely the House can call officials to the Bar of the House so that we can question them on important matters. Is there a procedure under which we can call Customs and Excise officers to the Bar of the House to ask them properly to investigate the breach of the United Nations embargo?

Madam Speaker: I do not think that we need to proceed in that way. The House, particularly the Treasury Front-Bench team, are well aware of the feelings of the House on the matter.

Mr. Corbyn: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. While the House understands the reply that you gave my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), there is enormous public concern about the issue of illegal arms sales to the desperate conflict in Rwanda and eastern Zaire and the allegations that those arms have been exported to Zaire illegally, via offshore islands around this country, under the cloak of secrecy.

18 Nov 1996 : Column 697

Although we are awaiting a statement on the deployment of British troops, you will understand that many people are frightened about the immorality of the arms trade and the use of those arms to kill thousands of innocent people in a desperate conflict that needs a resolution. Surely we have a part to play if we have allowed arms from this country to go to that area.

Madam Speaker: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will use his own Front Bench and the usual channels in order to press the Government for a statement. That is what he is seeking on that matter.

Firearms (Amendment) Bill [Money]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified--

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Firearms (Amendment) Bill, it is expedient to authorise--

(1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any administrative expenses incurred by the Secretary of State which are attributable to that Act;
(2) the payment out of money so provided of any sums required by the Secretary of State for paying compensation in respect of--
(a) property which is surrendered or forfeited under that Act; or
(b) any other loss which may be incurred as a result of that Act; and
(3) the payment into the Consolidated Fund of any sums received under that Act by the Secretary of State.--[Mr. Howard.]

3.39 pm

Sir Terence Higgins (Worthing): I am glad to have an opportunity to speak briefly about the money resolution--an opportunity that we would not have had if the motion had been taken immediately after the Bill's Second Reading last week. I declare an interest as president of the Worthing and West Sussex shooting club, an office which I have held--totally unremunerated--for many years.

It is very important that we should debate the money resolution, because it has a significant impact on the scope for amendments that may follow. I shall therefore concentrate on the money resolution.

I make one point by way of background. In my view, although we must all have great sympathy for the victims of the Dunblane massacre, these proposals are unlikely to have a significant impact in reducing the probability of a similar tragedy occurring in future. Indeed, in my view, the proposal may prove to be counter-productive because, if I read the Cullen report correctly, the problem is not so much the current law as the way in which it has been administered; the resignation of a senior police officer bears witness to that.

If we are to drive these matters underground, and if there still are fanatical gun maniacs--I fear that there may be--they may find it more attractive to buy weapons illegally than buying them under the previous arrangements, so we may receive no warning whatsoever of a tragedy similar to that which occurred in Dunblane, whereas, reflecting on the history, perhaps we should have taken more careful note of warnings that were given in the case of Hamilton.

At all events, we shall seriously affect many of our constituents, who engage in what has always been regarded as a perfectly reputable and sensible sport. That being so, the House should pay close attention to compensating those who suffer as a result of the legislation, whatever view one may take on the overall issue.

I very much welcome, therefore, the change that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has made in the money resolution, but I want to be sure that I have understood it correctly. When we debated the matter last week, it was clear that compensation would be provided for those who were giving up firearms that would become illegal under the legislation. My right hon. and learned Friend went further; he said that he

18 Nov 1996 : Column 699

understood the points that were made about equipment, which may be very expensive and which would no longer be of any use to its owners. But several of my right hon. and hon. Friends, as well as Opposition Members, strongly emphasised the case of those who, as a result of the legislation, will lose their jobs or suffer severe financial strain, perhaps having mortgaged their homes to set up in business or establish a shooting range or whatever.

If I understand the amended resolution correctly, under clause 2(b) it would now be possible to move amendments to cover

"any other loss which may be incurred as a result of"

the Act--that is, over and above property which is surrendered or forfeited under the Act. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary can confirm that that is so, and that it will now be possible to move amendments, for example to clause 11, which would enable us to make provision to compensate people in all the circumstances that I have described.

This is a matter of very great importance because, as I understand it, it would affect not only the amendments that could be moved in the House but those that could be moved in the other place--and no doubt their Lordships also will wish to debate those matters. I should be grateful if my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary would confirm what I have just described.

Mr. Robert Key (Salisbury): Is it my right hon. Friend's understanding that the money resolution implies that the Government would be prepared to pay compensation for loss of trade--this is a crucial point--rather than just for guns?

Sir Terence Higgins: As I understand it, the resolution covers any loss, other than guns and property forfeited, which may be incurred under the Bill. It is an important point if we are to deal fairly with those affected by the Bill. However, it will have a significant effect on public expenditure. No doubt we will want to debate that when we reach the appropriate clauses.

I find it surprising that, apparently, Treasury Ministers in the Cabinet must have agreed to the proposals, which are potentially very expensive. As a number of hon. Members pointed out in our debate last week, the money could be better spent on other things--for example, the police. We need to be clear about the position. In particular, we must take note of the fact that, if the Government were simply to accept the Cullen recommendations--which, in my view, would be equally effective, in that equipment would be dismantled and the parts kept in separate places--the cost of the Bill would be significantly less than it is currently likely to be. It is important that the Treasury should carefully consider whether the Government's view that they should go beyond Cullen was the most appropriate decision in the circumstances.

Sir Donald Thompson (Calder Valley): I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way so generously. Does he

18 Nov 1996 : Column 700

agree that it is important that we get a clear statement? The Bill is going through at a rapid pace and it will be impossible to unpick.

Sir Terence Higgins: I agree very much with my hon. Friend. The whole matter has been rushed--indeed, we will reach the guillotine motion a little later. I do not understand why it is necessary to legislate in such haste.

I want to make a final point on the narrow issue of compensation. I am worried about the provision of clause 11, which states that compensation will be in accordance

"with a scheme made by him"--

that is, the Home Secretary. Surely in legislation of this sort any scheme involving large sums of public money--it has been conceded already that it is more than £100 million--should be subject to a resolution of the House. It is extraordinary that the Home Secretary should propose--I might almost say, presume--to spend public money on a scheme made by him rather than one approved by the House.

Having said that, all those on either side of the basic argument about firearms control should welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's proposals--but we want an assurance that, if we wish to amend the Bill during its later stages in the way that I have suggested, that will be possible.

---