---

Mr. Nicholas Budgen (Wolverhampton, South-West): Does my hon. Friend intend to deal with what he understands to be the position under the European convention on human rights? It seems that we have an obligation to conform to that convention, which requires compensation in such circumstances. As the Labour party favours our being further bound by the convention, presumably it will wish to support any claim for compensation in line with the convention.

Sir Jerry Wiggin: I certainly look forward, as I am sure do all my hon. Friends, to hearing the Labour party's

4 Dec 1996 : Column 1071

position on compensation. When the coal mines were nationalised, the Labour Government paid compensation to the coal owners. That rubbed against the grain, and the money was not adequate, but it was paid. I shall come to the European convention in a moment.

The Government have been inconsistent over BSE. They have refused help for the small business in Gosport, but they have offered the rendering industry £118 million. They have offered the farming industry even more. I do not complain about that; I simply point out that there is a good precedent for paying compensation, expensive though that may be. If it proves too expensive, the Government should have considered that problem before introducing the Bill.

Mr. Peter Viggers (Gosport): Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is much in common between the cattle head de-boning industry, which tends to consist of small businesses with individual proprietors who borrow against their houses to pay for their equipment, and small gun dealers, many of whom have borrowed against their houses to fund their businesses? If precedent dictates that the Government are driving such people out of business through no fault of their own, is not precedent wrong, and should we not change the rules?

Sir Jerry Wiggin: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend; it is a matter of morality. That was why I referred to the case that he raised. I think that we both stand by the same feelings on the morality of what should happen to citizens' interests. The House of Commons is here to protect those interests, and I am unhappy about the way in which compensation is handled in connection with the Bill.

In Committee, the Government cited other examples, such as the manufacturers of asbestos, flammable furniture foam and certain drugs, whose businesses have been affected by public safety legislation. Those categories offer a false comparison. They fall under existing product liability law, which covers products that cease to be safe for the purpose for which they were intended.

5.15 pm

No one suggests that the guns that are to be made unlawful are not suitable for the purpose for which they were intended. Indeed, the reverse is strongly argued by those who oppose our point of view. It is worth bearing in mind the fact that some of the worst hit people will be individuals such as those who have given personal guarantees for mortgages or leases on their clubs.

To return to what my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) said, in the case of Lithgow v. United Kingdom, in 1986, the European Court of Human Rights stated:

"The taking of property in the public interest without any compensation is justifiable only in exceptional circumstances. A fair balance has to be struck between the demands of the general interest of the community and the protection of the individual's fundamental rights. A disproportionate burden should not be placed on individual owners."

I am not proud of the fact that we are thinking of having to take faulty legislation passed by the House to the European Court of Human Rights, when we should not be

4 Dec 1996 : Column 1072

passing it in the first place. Of course, when the Bill becomes law, there will be many lawyers beavering away to see whether there is any further outlet. But let us be realistic: such actions take several years, and the suffering in the interim will be great, even if there is success at the end of the day.

A relevant precedent is being set at this very moment in Australia. The Australian Government have banned three categories of weapon following the tragic incident in Port Arthur this year. However, they have also willingly accepted the principle of fair and proper compensation for dealers, individuals and collectors.

In Australia, compensation is to be based on the value of the assets one month before the Port Arthur incident. The Government there recognise that compensation must take into account the fact that a depression in the value of such assets occurred immediately after the incident.

The scheme works as follows. Individuals and collectors are given compensation as soon as they hand in their weapons. The firearm is identified by type, make and model number, and a basic assessment of its condition is made. Owners also have the opportunity to secure an independent valuation of their guns, or to sell them overseas. Compensation will also be paid for any accessory specific to a prohibited firearm.

Dealers are offered compensation for stock, unusable ammunition, spares, maintenance equipment and manuals relating to prohibited firearms--not at purchase price but at sale price. They are also offered compensation for loss of business, which is interpreted as the difference between the value of the business before and after the incident and the new legislation. The valuation will be carried out by professional accountants, and based on audited financial statements for the previous three years.

The Australian Government offer fair and proper compensation to their citizens, in accordance with natural justice. The British Government must do the same.

The people about whom we are especially concerned are firearms dealers. Compensation is offered for stock, but not for loss of business. Many dealers will lose their livelihoods as a result of the Bill. We do not know exactly how many, but 163 dealers wrote to the British Shooting Sports Council to say that they expected to lose 155 jobs when the Bill went through. For 3,000 registered dealers, that would mean 3,000 jobs.

The closure and loss of income for clubs and ranges will hit hard. Clubs and ranges often have leases and mortgages, which are met by ordinary members of the club. The Bill presents us with the real prospect that such people will have their clubs closed. A quick survey of 139 clubs, carried out by the British Shooting Sports Council, shows that 71 per cent. will not reach the Government's requirements for security, and that individuals will remain personally liable for long leases and mortgages, which will leave many people bankrupt. Returns from 126 clubs show that they expect to suffer financial losses as a result of the changes, to a total of £31.24 million. If we apply that to the 2,067 clubs that we know about, the total loss will be more than £64 million.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has listened to some of our requests. The Treasury hand could be seen in the original tight money resolution, which would have prevented us from even debating these points. I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for producing a new money resolution that allowed the

4 Dec 1996 : Column 1073

debate to be widened. I am also grateful to him for taking into account the ancillary equipment used by large-calibre revolver firers to make shots, and the other specialist equipment that he has agreed to compensate for. He has just announced that he will also take into account .22 calibre weapons where the individual concerned no longer wants a weapon because there is no club within range, and has decided to give up his hobby. Those are small crumbs for which we thank the Home Office but, frankly, they do not go far enough.

I appeal not just to those interested in shooting but to the whole House on the basis of fairness. We have seen what the Australian Government think of the matter. I could read out various examples, but they would not necessarily strengthen my case, as hon. Members will have read about them in the press. Many people will suffer greatly and will face severe financial loss. I find that unacceptable, and un-Conservative. I shall be interested to learn what the Opposition think about it. I am certainly not prepared to support the Government, and I shall naturally vote for my new clause. I ask as many of my colleagues as possible to support me in the Lobby.

Sir David Steel (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale): I wish to give broad support to the new clause moved by the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin), and I should like to underline a couple of his points.

It is true that there are differing views in all parties in the House on the merits of the ban itself. Speaking for my party, I can say that there is no difference of view on the essential point that the hon. Gentleman made--that, whatever our views on the ban, we are under an obligation to make sure that those who, through no fault of their own, suffer loss as a result of this legislation are adequately compensated. That is surely a view around on we can unite.

Like the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare, I recognise--it would be churlish not to do so--that, by virtually rewriting the section on compensation, Home Office Ministers have gone some way to try to meet the points raised in Committee. But it is my contention that they have not yet got it right, and we are right to use Report and the later stages of the Bill in another place to get it right.

I underline the basic point made by the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare. I do not believe that there is a precedent for confiscating people's property in the way that the Bill proposes, and comparisons with MOT tests are not valid at all. I speak as someone who began my driving life owning a motor car that braked on only one wheel. In the interests of public safety, the Government of the day thought it right that the cars should be tested. The car was irreparable and--if I had still had it at the time--I would have lost my property. However, that was a wasting asset, and there is no comparison between that--in any case, a long period for confiscation was given--and what we now propose.

We are confiscating not only the property of a small minority of people--I accept that it is a small minority--but their livelihood. We should not do that with gay abandon. As far as I know, only one person in my constituency will be affected by the legislation, but a minority of one is what we are here to stand up for. I referred to the gentleman in a previous debate--I have met him, of course--but he wrote to me only yesterday to say:

4 Dec 1996 : Column 1074

"I am a Registered Firearms Dealer who until recently, manufactured top quality competition handguns. Building, repairing and retail sale of pistols and revolvers was 90 per cent. of my business.


As a result of the impending legislation, I have effectively lost my livelihood".

The House should note his next point:

"because I am self-employed I am not entitled to any unemployment benefit, a ludicrous situation given the fact that the Government have put me out of work."

That is a very fair point, and it must be answered. I do not think that we can pass legislation that takes away the livelihoods of even a small number of people without making sure that we have dealt with the subject adequately.

The central weakness of the Government's case is that they have never made out to anyone's satisfaction--certainly not to mine--the case against the dismantling of weapons, as recommended by Lord Cullen; but they have decided on a policy that the House has approved, and that is the situation with which we now deal. Given that, and given that we are talking about confiscation, we must look carefully at the new clauses and amendments.

I refer briefly to the new clauses and amendments in my name, and those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey), who served on the Standing Committee and tabled an amendment on compensation. Our amendments deal with, among other things, whether there should be an independent arbiter to whom appeals can be made where there is a dispute about compensation--whatever the scope of the scheme proposed by the Home Secretary.

That seems to fall within what the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare rightly described as natural justice. When we are dealing with such a draconian piece of legislation, the insertion of some kind of arbitration and valuation is essential. That is the burden of the measures tabled in my name, and I hope that they are pursued during this debate.

---