| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Gale: The Home Office has made it abundantly plain that it expects that small gun clubs will close because they will not be able to meet the security regulations, and as a result larger gun clubs will be set up. Those small clubs have members who have invested. They are not businesses. They are members' clubs. The members own them and have invested in the facilities. If the Bill goes through tonight, as planned, there will be no compensation for those people whatever. What does the hon. Gentleman think about that?
7.15 pm
Mr. Straw: I understand that, and although sympathy may come free, I have every sympathy with people in that predicament. I do not, however, believe that on any careful examination such clubs or businesses are in a different position from businesses that were affected by other legislation. I ask Conservative Members in particular, who have always--very honourably--been concerned about the impact of legislation on the public purse, to think about the consequences of agreeing this precedent today, for precedent it is bound to be.
That is one example, but it is no different from the very adverse effect that legislation had on many businesses that made foam-filled furniture. They did so lawfully and honourably, but, following a change in the law they lost their businesses. The cattle deboning industry was wiped out and received no compensation whatever. Many pharmaceutical companies put drugs on to the market which are lawfully licensed, then some problem arises and they have to take them off. They may lose millions of pounds, as may their shareholders, but they receive no compensation at all.
Sir Terence Higgins:
Will the hon. Gentleman take into account the point made by his hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) about the European convention on human rights? When voting on the amendment today, will he consider the implications of the convention, particularly if it should be incorporated? More important, the shadow Chancellor said very clearly that he would not do anything in excess of the Government's expenditure plans. It is quite clear that if compensation is to be paid--even in the restricted terms proposed by the Home Secretary--the policy that the hon. Gentleman advocates, that of a total ban on all handguns, is bound to be vastly in excess of what the Government propose to incur. What is his position on that?
Mr. Straw:
The compensation that would arise from a complete ban would not be vastly in excess--[Hon. Members: "Oh."] It would not. It would be 20 per cent. more than the total, because the .22 ban affects only 20 per cent. of the total.
The right hon. Gentleman's first point is very important. We thought very carefully about the European convention on human rights, and I am pleased that it is now being prayed in aid on both sides of the House. I look forward in the next Parliament to widespread support for its incorporation. After all, it was drafted in part by a distinguished former Conservative Lord Chancellor, Lord Kilmuir.
If one reads carefully the speech of Lord Lester of Herne Hill, who is unquestionably a great expert on the European convention on human rights, one will see that he picked his words with great care. At no stage did he say that in his opinion the compensation scheme proposed by the Government would run foul of the European convention. The most that he said was that it raised powerful arguments about breaches, and we know that when a lawyer says that something raises powerful arguments he is accepting that the case is not all that strong.
Lord Lester quoted the words of the European Court of Human Rights, which said that it has to be decided whether a fair balance has been struck between the
demands of the general interest of the community and the requirement to protect an individual's fundamental freedom. That is a fair way of putting the issue before the House. Of course there is an issue of an individual's fundamental freedoms. I wish that, in a perfect world, we could compensate everybody and also protect public safety, but we do not live in a perfect world. We have to make choices. I think that the Government's amendment properly reflects a balance.
Mr. Donald Anderson:
Perhaps the caution of Lord Lester is as much as one could expect from such a distinguished lawyer, but it is surely not difficult to distinguish cases such as the factory producing foam-filled mattresses, which my hon. Friend cited, from that of a shooting club, because a factory producing foam-filled mattresses can adapt the premises to produce other forms of mattress. By their nature, purpose-built premises such as those in my constituency cannot adapt and would be totally ruined.
Mr. Straw:
That wholly depends on the particular case. There will be some clubs or gun dealers who will be able to adapt their trade to take account--[Interruption.] Part of the gun trade would be rendered illegal. Part of it was rendered unlawful in 1988, but a large part of the gun trade--rifles and shotguns are still lawfully licensed--remains wholly lawful, and that may include country sports.
I wish to pick up a point that the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) made from a sedentary position about other areas in which businesses are affected by legislation. He has represented his constituents with great skill in respect of the textile trade in his constituency, as I have sought to do over the past 18 years in respect of my constituents. The textile industry is a shadow of its former self, not least as a result of Government decisions in accepting, for good reasons or ill, various changes in the multi-fibre arrangement. That arrangement--an international treaty--has led to the closure of whole swathes of the industry; yet not a penny of compensation could be or has been paid to those industries. That is why I say to hon. Members on both sides of the House that, whatever merit they may give the argument, a huge precedent would be created if we were to accept the amendment.
Mr. Straw:
I will not give way. I am about to finish because others wish to speak.
The effect of the precedent would be such that, when next we felt that there was a need to improve public safety through legislation, whether in respect of furniture, the pharmaceutical industry, the transport industry or firearms control, Governments and the House would always be constrained and often prevented from making decisions in favour of public safety by the enormous cost involved. Yes, as the European Court of Human Rights said, there is a balance to be struck between individuals' fundamental freedoms and the general interest of the community, but in my judgment and that of my hon. Friends, the balance on this issue must be struck in favour of the general interests of the community as a whole.
Sir Jerry Wiggin:
The argument seems to revolve very much around precedent. I am not a lawyer, but I am
A Government ordinance to change the foam in a furniture factory, a drug failing or there being tighter control on effluent is completely different from ordinating the cessation of a legitimate business. I am deeply uncomfortable at the moral justice of what we are doing. The Australians very well understand the problem and have managed in their way to give full and fair compensation. If they can do it, we can do it. After all, theirs is a precedent and we can reasonably use it.
Lords amendment No. 27 concerning clubs is about not dealers or businesses but a handful of individuals who have perhaps put some of their own money against a mortgage, lease or whatever. The sums of money are infinitesimal. Indeed, we cannot estimate the global sum, but the level is about £1 million or £2 million. That is not a lot for the Government but a great deal for the unfortunate individuals involved. I am very, very ashamed of my Government for not agreeing with the amendments.
Mr. Dalyell:
I just want to ask the Home Secretary one factual question. Home Office officials must have been summoned to the Treasury and asked how much, in the next year and the year after, all the Home Office's proposals would cost. What answer did his officials give?
Mr. Nicholas Winterton:
I rise to speak because I am incensed by what my Government are doing. The hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) talked about a sense of justice. My goodness, how the Government with this Bill are legislating against justice in every way. Throughout today's debate, one Member after another, from both sides of the House, has pointed out the injustice, illogicality, nonsense and lunacy of the legislation. Surely nothing brings the House into greater disrepute than what it is doing today: legislating in ignorance against justice in order to achieve a particular objective and not permitting proper and full debate.
I asked my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary earlier what he expects me to do when 30 to 35 per cent. of the business of a family company that I represent--I believe that it was founded by the current chairman's grandfather--is outlawed almost retrospectively by the Government, probably putting its future viability in doubt, preventing it providing jobs for the next generation and putting a number of my constituents out of work as soon as the legislation hits the statute book.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |