| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Howard: I am not sure that I agree with my hon. Friend. One may test matters to some extent by considering the history of the firearms industry. As I said on Report, major changes have been made in the regulatory environment that applies to this industry several times in recent history, and those changes have had a massive impact on the shooting industry and on those who use guns for leisure purposes. In 1920, firearms controls were introduced for the first time. In 1934, fully automatic weapons were prohibited. In 1962, airguns and shotguns were made subject to restriction for the first time. In 1988, semi-automatic and self-loading rifles were prohibited. In 1992, disguised firearms were prohibited.
Many other minor changes have affected the operations of gun dealers and gun clubs apart from the major changes that I have just identified. All those changes were introduced to improve public safety, and some will undoubtedly have affected some businesses more than others; but none was made the subject of compensation for business. No one who works in the firearms industry can be unaware of the significance of regulatory controls on that industry.
Mr. John Townend (Bridlington):
Is my right hon. and learned Friend really trying to tell the House that if at some future date a Government introduced a Bill to prohibit drink on the ground that it was bad for people's health, every brewery, off-licence and pub would have to shut? All those people would go bankrupt; would the Government say, "Because this is for the benefit of health, there will be no compensation"? Surely my right hon. and learned Friend cannot envisage such circumstances.
Mr. Howard:
I take some comfort from the fact that, were any Government to introduce such an outlandish measure, my hon. Friend and I would be in the same Lobby opposing it resolutely--but I have every confidence that no such proposal would ever reach the statute book.
Mr. Batiste:
My right hon. and learned Friend has drawn a distinction between loss of business and loss of property. He is clearly not talking about compensation for
Mr. Howard:
I do not think so, for reasons that I have already given.
Sir Anthony Grant:
Is not a legitimate firearms dealer entitled to say, "I understand that an appalling tragedy took place and that a careful inquiry was conducted under a distinguished judge, having been set up by the Government, but I did not and could not anticipate that the Government would decide--when Parliament was not sitting--to go against the recommendations of that inquiry, and that is why we are experiencing difficulties now"?
Mr. Howard:
With great respect to my hon. Friend, it is not easy to resolve the question whether the Government have gone further than Lord Cullen's recommendations. I pointed that out when we were discussing the last group of amendments. We certainly went further than Lord Cullen recommended in that he recommended that people should be allowed to keep single-shot pistols at home. He put forward that suggestion for consideration: he did not really regard it as a recommendation. We have said that no single-shot pistol should be kept at home--that no pistols of any kind should be kept at home.
Lord Cullen expressed a preference for disassembly of multi-shot pistols--we have just dealt with that--but said that if, for one reason or another, disassembly was not regarded as a viable solution, all private ownership of handguns should end, and that only handguns kept in and owned by clubs should be available for shooting purposes. I do not think that it can be argued that we have gone further than Lord Cullen in that respect, and I do not think that the question is as easy to resolve as is sometimes made out.
Mr. Christopher Gill (Ludlow):
I think that the House understands my right hon. and learned Friend's reluctance to establish a precedent by compensating people who have undoubtedly lost out as a result of the change in the law, but does this not send the country a terrible message? Are not law-abiding people being told, "You are entitled to run your businesses, but if we, Parliament, change the law at the drop of a hat, you will not be compensated, although you have been bona fide all your lives and your businesses are bona fide"? At the same time, as all hon. Members know, there are thousands of illegally held firearms that are not affected by the legislation, and to which the question of compensation simply does not apply. That, as I am sure my right hon. and learned Friend will recognise, is very rough justice.
Mr. Howard:
With great respect, I do not see how questions of compensation could apply to illegal firearms. We have a problem with such firearms, as I constantly acknowledge, and the police are doing their best to deal with it; but I do not think that the fact that we have not yet been able to eliminate illegal firearms relieves us of the responsibility to deal with the problem that arises when dreadful acts such as the one committed at
Mr. Colvin:
Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?
Mr. Howard:
I will, but then I must deal with Lords amendment No. 27.
Mr. Colvin:
Will my right hon. and learned Friend clarify a question relating to property? It applies both to the businesses that we have just been discussing and to the clubs with which my right hon. and learned Friend is about to deal.
We are not discussing big business. Dealers are small businesses, and we as a party are supposed to help small businesses. Clubs usually operate on very thin ice financially: they are generally mortgaged, and the ownership of the property--in the case of both clubs and businesses--is very tenuous. Destroying the business of dealers and the membership of clubs will put the ownership of property in jeopardy.
Will my right hon. and learned Friend clarify what Lady Blatch said in the debate on these amendments in the other place? She said:
Mr. Howard:
It will apply--I used similar words a few moments ago--but I do not think that it will apply in quite the way that my hon. Friend suggests.
Mr. Colvin:
I thought that my right hon. and learned Friend would say that.
Mr. Howard:
My hon. Friend is right in that respect. I think that he is well aware of the distinction that lies at the heart of my answer.
Sir Peter Emery (Honiton):
I have listened to my right hon. and learned Friend with great interest, but I cannot quite follow the logic of the desire of the police and of the Home Office to get rid of illegal weapons. Surely, if compensation is to be paid to those who hand in such weapons, we stand a good chance of getting rid of rather a lot of them: it is nonsensical to deny that. Why not do it in that way?
Mr. Howard:
I am afraid that I am not attracted by my right hon. Friend's suggestion that wrongdoers should be rewarded with compensation. We had a successful amnesty last year, when a good many weapons were handed in, but I have no intention of compensating wrongdoers in the way that my right hon. Friend suggests.
Amendment No. 27 deals with clubs or associations that suffer losses as a result of the Bill. Some existing target shooting clubs that cater predominantly for pistol shooting may not be able to adapt to the new licensed arrangements; others which concentrate on providing rifle target or shotgun shooting, or adapt to these disciplines, will be little affected. Clubs will be eligible for compensation for prohibited handguns and accessories under the terms of the Government's compensation scheme, but we do not intend to compensate them for any other losses. The Government have not been, and cannot be, liable for business that may be lost by companies, clubs or associations when they introduce regulation in the interests of public safety.
"We"--
the Government, that is--
"accept that where the effect of government legislation is to deprive people of property or of the use of that property, then it is right that taxpayers collectively should pay those property owners for the value of that property. This principle has been a part of English law for many years. It also arises from our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights, and is the principle which informs our compensation scheme."--[Official Report, House of Lords, 4 February 1997; Vol. 577, c. 1592.]
Will that apply to both clubs and dealers in this instance?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |