House of Commons Hansard Debates for 4 Dec 1996 (pt 30)

'(2) No scheme shall be made by the Secretary of State under this section before he has laid before Parliament a report on the general principles which he proposes should underlie the scheme and the Commons House of Parliament has come to a resolution in respect of that report.'.

Amendment No. 66, in page 5, line 41, at end insert--

'(3) Any scheme made under subsection (1) shall provide for the appointment of an independent financial arbiter with powers to hear and determine appeals against valuations of guns and ancillary equipment under the Act.'.

Amendment No. 68, in page 5, line 41, at end insert--

'(2) The Scheme may include provision to make payments in respect of any equipment or facilities required solely in connection with the use, maintenance, storage or repair of such weapons or the making and supply of ammunition for such weapons.'.

Government amendments Nos. 75 to 78.

Government amendment No. 79, in schedule 1, page 21, line 43, at end insert--

'Voluntary surrender of pistols
8A.--(1) A person to whom this Schedule applies may before the appointed day, surrender a small-calibre pistol belonging to him at any designated police station instead of keeping it at licensed premises of a licensed pistol club or delivering it into police custody.
(2) Where a small-calibre pistol has been delivered into police custody, the person who delivered it may (if it still belongs to him) surrender the pistol by giving notice that he is surrendering it to the chief officer of police for the area in which the designated police station to which he delivered it is situated.
8B. The Secretary of State may make such payments, to such persons, as he may consider appropriate in respect of small-calibre pistols which are surrendered, or are treated as having been surrendered, by virtue of paragraph 8 or 8A above.'.

Amendment (a) amendment No. 79, at end add--

'(2) Any arrangements made under section 10 shall provide for the appointment of an independent financial arbiter with powers to hear and determine appeals against valuations of guns and ancillary equipment under this Act.'

Sir Jerry Wiggin: I apologise to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), who asked that his name be attached to new clause 4. I failed to attach it, but he has been very supportive of the principle and I apologise to him.

The Bill will result in thousands of law-abiding people being deprived of their sport. That is both wrong and unfortunate, but, much more important, it will deprive many dealers, manufacturers, agents, transport companies, suppliers and others who make their livelihoods from the sport of shooting of those livelihoods and their jobs. There are ordinary club members who have put their names on long-term mortgages and leases for clubs and ranges that will be forced to close. In short, the Bill will have a devastating effect on a significant minority of people.

Natural justice demands that those people are entitled to receive proper compensation for assets that will be confiscated through no fault of their own. New clause 4 would provide that anyone who loses money as a result of the legislation should be properly compensated. When a legal and, in this case, licensed occupation is legal one day and is made illegal on the next, through no fault of the individuals concerned, it is not the business of the House to deprive people not only of their fun but of large sums of money. I am deeply ashamed of my Government for proposing that.

4 Dec 1996 : Column 1070

So far, much of the debate on compensation has rested on precedent, and the Government argue that many others have lost investments in their business because they have had to comply with public safety legislation and that they have not been compensated. But surely the circumstances of the Bill are different. Many of the examples that have been quoted concerned businesses that have been able to continue with their trade at normal levels after meeting the new obligations. At worst, they have incurred additional overheads, but that is not the issue here.

The principle applies to those examples quoted by the Minister in Committee, including owners whose cars could no longer be licensed under new Ministry of Transport rules in the 1960s, road haulage businesses whose lorry fleets were affected by vehicle testing requirements and businesses that could not afford to implement health and safety regulations, noise level requirements for equipment or safety guards for machinery.

Even more irrelevant were the cited changes in the law on food additives. Bearing in mind the fact that all those rules and changes applied to a whole industry, competition demanded that everybody had to upgrade. In this case, there is no option to continue the business in a modified form. The business comes to an end the day the Act becomes law.

The Government cited new Environment Agency regulations that require narrow boats and other boats used on inland waterways to ensure the safety of fuel and electrical fittings. Until recently, I was an adviser to the British Marine Industries Federation and owned a boat, so I know a little about that matter.

The new rules were the equivalent of an MOT test, and boat owners with any common sense would have maintained their boats to those standards anyway. The rules simply insisted on what was already good practice. It may have cost some owners some money, but that is not the same as saying, "Thou shalt not ever go in thy boat again, as from tomorrow."

I know that the Government are nervous about establishing a principle that would require compensation to be paid to people affected by the bovine spongiform encephalopathy rules. Here I declare an interest, because I am an adviser to British Sugar, which manages a company in the animal food business that certainly has it in mind to make a big claim against the Government. The food in its hoppers was legal on Monday but illegal on Tuesday, and the cost of disposing of it rather than selling it was substantial.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) introduced a debate in the House the other day about a firm in his constituency that was told that what was a perfectly legal activity one day was illegal the next.

Next Section

Index

Home Page