| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Michael Stern (Bristol, North-West): Unlike many of my hon. Members--indeed, hon. Members on
4 Dec 1996 : Column 1095
both sides of the House--I am not familiar with guns; I barely know one end of a gun from the other. I recommend that no one ever test me on the subject. I am here to talk about people. The new clause is fundamentally flawed in that it treats gun clubs, their members and supporters shoddily--which, like many of my hon. Friends, I never expected to see from a Conservative Government.
Before my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary came into the House, he was a very distinguished lawyer. Indeed, he is still regarded as such. In Committee, he quoted precedents for failure to give compensation in this case. May I point out to him two things? First, as any lawyer will know, there are always precedents on both sides. He has, quite understandably, given precedents for the Government to fail to pay compensation. May I point out to him the other precedents, of Governments who, often through gritted teeth, avoided any question of nationalisation without compensation, by paying compensation even when they did not believe in it?
Does my right hon. and learned Friend believe that the Labour Government after 1945 believed that they should pay compensation to mine owners or steel owners? Of course they did not, but nevertheless, as a matter of fairness, as a matter--as my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) put it--of morality, they paid compensation, because they did not believe that any democratic Government should remove people's assets without doing so.
That is a principle for which my right hon. and learned Friend and I, in our earlier days in politics, criticised Labour Members when they sought to make a breach of that principle Labour party policy. I find it very worrying that the Government now propose the exact opposite of the principles for which we have fought for many years.
I understand the concerns of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), that, if compensation is paid for one type of gun, people will--quite legitimately under the Bill--spend it on another type of gun. I disagree fundamentally with his approach to the Bill, but I accept that there is force in his argument. I put it to him, however, that that argument is not appropriate to the new clause before us.
The people who will be deprived of compensation under the clause, particularly club owners and supporters, will not be the ones who then go out and spend the money on building up a new club, because they will not have the money in the first place. The point he made may well be appropriate to the main body of the Bill, in relation to compensation to gun owners, but it is entirely inappropriate for the Government to offer compensation to gun clubs.
Mr. Salmond:
I was making the point in support of the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell). The hon. Member for South Hams seems to agree that they apply in that case.
Mr. Stern:
They may well apply in that case, but certainly not in the context of new clause 4, moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin).
4 Dec 1996 : Column 1096
If new clause 4 does not go through, a number of my constituents who shoot at gun clubs in Yate and Nailsea will be deprived of their occupation and hobby. That is what one would normally expect of a Government who are introducing ill-conceived legislation. But many of my constituents will suffer much more deeply at the hands of the Government. They will be deprived of their assets. They will be treated by the Government as second-class citizens. They have done nothing to deserve that treatment. I do not believe that they sent me here to condone it.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cirencester and Tewkesbury):
I raised a number of points on Second Reading and in Committee, but they were not adequately answered, and people are being deprived of their private property rights.
I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for widening the money resolution so that we can have this debate tonight, but I should be grateful if he would clarify a few points. First, what will be the date of valuation? It seems that the market was distorted immediately after his announcement to the House that these guns would be banned, so the valuations have been reduced.
Secondly, what will be the basis for the valuations? I understand that a list of various categories of weapons will be negotiated with the major gunsmiths in this country. Again, that is an unsatisfactory way to come up with a basis of valuation, because, critically, the value of a gun depends on its age and the amount that it has been used. As my right hon. and learned Friend will know, a gun that is taken out of a gunsmith's is immediately devalued by between a quarter and a third.
Thirdly, who will carry out the valuation? It needs a considerable expert to value a gun. One cannot just pick up a pistol and work out how much it has been used, unless one is a considerable expert.
Fourthly, who will judge the valuation appeals? If 160,000 guns are to be taken out of circulation, a considerable number of cases will go to appeal. Again, the people in charge of the appeal, who are making the awards, need to be--
Mr. William Ross:
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Clifton-Brown:
No. I have hardly any time left.
The people in charge of the appeal need to be great experts in this subject.
Fifthly, how long will people have to wait for their compensation? If people's private property rights are being taken away, they should be paid compensation rapidly.
A number of people have obtained firearms certificates for high-calibre pistols on the basis that these firearms will be kept in secure premises in a gun club. Therefore, a number of people have voluntarily got together to form a gun club and spent considerable sums on those premises, and on the security arrangements of those gun clubs.
It would be iniquitous if individuals received compensation for their steel cabinets in a private home but not for the more sophisticated arrangements that the police will require of a gun club--an armoury, burglar alarms and so on--before the club obtains a licence for the premises, and in order that people can get firearms certificates to keep their guns on those premises.
4 Dec 1996 : Column 1097
Mr. Henderson:
We on the Opposition Front Bench support the principle of the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) and his colleagues. I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) that we shall deal with the potential disposal of weapons abroad later in the debate, so I do not propose to deal with it at the moment.
The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) alleged that there was a coalition of Front-Bench speakers against Parliament. I understand where he comes from on that, but he is not right, because we on the Opposition Front Bench do not agree with the Government on a major issue in the Bill--whether .22 pistols should be retained. If they are retained, it will endanger our agreed objective, which is to provide proper protection for the public. There is a major difference between the Front Benches on that.
The Opposition and the Government agree that people want action on the excessive use of guns and their danger to the public. The House will completely abdicate its responsibilities if it does not face that issue quickly. That is why the Opposition agreed to co-operate with the Government on timetabling, but not on every part of the Bill.
The debate has not half brought people out of their burrows. Hon. Members in all parts of the House have clearly shown where they come from. I mentioned the accusation by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West about a Front-Bench coalition. Opposition by Conservative Members is not entirely from the Back Benches: it could accurately be described as being led by ex-Front-Bench Members who now disagree with the Government.
The hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) said that the Bill was very un-Tory because it did not protect private property. We are all obliged to protect private property--that is part of democracy--but we also have an obligation to protect people, and I did not hear the hon. Gentleman or those colleagues who supported his case speaking about that. Protecting people should be our main responsibility, and that is the issue that we should tackle.
Sir Patrick Cormack:
At any time before Dunblane, did the hon. Gentleman receive any objections from anyone in his party about target shooting as a legitimate sport? Can he refer to any pronouncement by any Labour politician at any time against it?
Mr. Henderson:
Many people--not only members of the Labour party and lobby organisations, but people in my constituency--have asked me, "What do you intend to do about guns? People on our street have guns. Can you do something about that?" After an incident such as that at Dunblane, in which the lawlessness emanates from an activity that is currently lawful, people rightly say to Parliament, "What will you do to prevent that outrage, that horror, happening again?"
4 Dec 1996 : Column 1098
The specific issue that we are debating is compensation. Can the Home Secretary give examples of what he would define as "ancillary equipment", which is referred to in his amendments?
Mr. William Ross:
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |