| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
3.28 p.m.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Mackay of Drumadoon): My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill or to the other three Bills standing in my name. I also understand
that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment to any of the Bills or to speak in Committee on recommitment. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of recommitment be discharged.Moved, That the order of recommitment be discharged.--(Lord Mackay of Drumadoon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, I beg to move that the order of recommitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of recommitment be discharged.--(Lord Mackay of Drumadoon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Planning (Hazardous Substances) (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, I beg to move that the order of recommitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of recommitment be discharged.--(Lord Mackay of Drumadoon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Planning (Consequential Provisions) (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, I beg to move that the order of recommitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of recommitment be discharged.--(Lord Mackay of Drumadoon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
British Nationality (Hong Kong) Bill [H.L.]
Welfare of Broiler Chickens Bill [H.L.]
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, in proposing the Motion that the Bill do now pass, I should like to thank all noble Lords who took an interest and a part in the Bill. In particular I thank the Minister for his reaction to our suggestions. I hope that we have now produced a Bill in a form which could be taken up in a later Parliament either in another place or possibly again in your Lordships'
House and become an Act. In the meantime, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.Moved, That the Bill do now pass.--(Lord Beaumont of Whitley.)
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
Firearms (Amendment) Bill
3.32 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.--(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 11 [Payments in respect of prohibited small firearms, ammunition and ancillary equipment]:
The Earl of Lytton moved Amendment No. 33:
The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 33, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 34 to 36 which stand in my name. I wish to comment briefly on Amendment No. 38 which stands in the name of the Minister, and Amendments Nos. 39 and 40. Before doing so, having not spoken on the Bill before, I should make it clear that I have no personal involvement or interest in handguns. I use a shotgun for sport and some of my farm staff are licensed to carry rifles. By profession I am a chartered surveyor with some involvement in compensation matters, hence my interest in this part of the Bill. I am the father of three children, two of whom are at primary school.
I thank the Minister for her courteous response to letters that I sent her. She well knows my views and some of the reservations that I have on other parts of the Bill. My starting point on compensation under Clause 11 is Lord Cullen's report. With the permission of the Committee, perhaps I may quote from paragraph 9.108:
At paragraph 9.111 the report continues:
It is clear that Lord Cullen felt that it was for Parliament and government to weigh the matters in the balance and that deliberations would be incomplete without a process that he himself felt unable to undertake. I merely add to that by suggesting that the process should be a transparent one with the entire
I note that paragraph 2(a) of the Money Resolution to the Bill specifically covers,
However, at col. 1101 he sought to distinguish compensation where an individual holds an object which then becomes unlawful or unsaleable from the activities of businesses and clubs which would not be able to be compensated. Yet those bodies also hold equipment, land, buildings and contractual liabilities which, while not necessarily made unlawful by the Bill, are devoted to narrow purposes which effectively may become so, or are unsaleable, worthless or a liability as a direct consequence of the Bill.
The Home Secretary then compared the phasing out or banning of products to the example of how businesses were all subject to the whim of the regulator as an occupational hazard. But he did not cite any comparable instance in which 80 per cent. of a bespoke activity with no alternative function was, on the Government's own estimates, to be discontinued. None of his comparisons are ad idem with the present case. At col. 1102 he concluded with a statement which is worth repeating. I apologise to the Committee for quoting again. He said:
With respect, the much larger duty of government is to ensure justice and equity. There is an overarching obligation to act reasonably and with due regard for the actions taken. Government may not act capriciously or to the unreasonable detriment of any individual or group. Without that there is no equitable or sustainable system of law and order in any sense of the term, and certainly no guarantee of public safety arising therefrom. The licensing function of government in relation to firearms and shooting premises is part of that duty and it is impossible, I submit, to ignore the reliance that has been placed by many people on the continuation of that system and the investments that they have made.
The Home Secretary's uniquely narrow interpretation falls a good way short of the principles of fair play that should properly apply. I put it to the Minister that her right honourable friend has used a lesser principle to overrule a much greater one in a manner that I find
In another place on 12th November 1986, the honourable Member for Swansea East referred to cases on human rights--Nold v. Commission, and a business loss case, Lithgow v. United Kingdom. However, there seems to have been no answer to those points which indicates to me that the compensation terms of the Bill may not be entirely well founded. I am no lawyer but I hope that the Minister can enlighten me on that at some stage, although perhaps not today; I did not mention the point in my letter in which I set out in broad terms the issues that I would raise.
I regret that the Government have not seen fit to carry out a public assessment of proportionality and cost benefit as suggested by Lord Cullen. It seems to me that that is one area where they have not gone beyond the terms of Lord Cullen's report but have omitted to undertake a significant part of his recommendation. A large part of the Bill is about economic and personal cost; and proper compensation forms part of that balance.
I have heard various costs mentioned. An official figure of £150 million as the total cost seems to have grown from a rather smaller sum in the middle of last year, and far higher figures are voiced at an unofficial level. In another place last week, Miss Ann Widdecombe admitted in a Written Answer that the Government have no real idea how much all this will cost. How on earth is the Committee supposed to deal with a Bill, the consequences of which are in such doubt, when no costed estimates have been placed before us?
From my professional involvement in compensation matters, I well understand and sympathise with the Government's problem: an unreasonable drain on the public purse versus the risk that activities involving handguns, if not the guns themselves, may simply disappear from sight. However, in all such cases the benefit of any reasonable doubt should be given to those whose loss clearly flows from the proposals. Any overriding public safety argument demands nothing less.
On the question of precedent, I discern that there can be few occasions when government reaction to an event, such as the tragedy at Dunblane, results in an accepted and regulated sport, leisure pursuit and, by association, business activity becoming at a stroke so inherently dangerous to the greater public safety that the proposed level of near-total cessation must be procured. If, as it is claimed, the tragedy justifies exceptional measures, then it follows that the circumstances of compensation are also wholly exceptional; and exceptional circumstances set no general precedent.
It is well established in law that there are circumstances when it is proper for compensation to extend not only to those who are directly deprived by
The entitlement to compensation where no land is taken where a property is adversely affected by certain physical factors such as noise, artificial light and so on is provided for in Part I of the Land Compensation Act 1973. Highways legislation also provides for compensation for loss or damage in certain circumstances arising out of highway works. Last year a private water undertaking paid compensation to three of my clients (and my fees) for pure business losses following a temporary closure of the A.24.
Basic human rights demand proper compensation, particularly when the proposals go beyond what Lord Cullen recommended. We are not considering some shady activity such as cock fighting, even less the "holy water shops" referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, but an honourable sport of centuries-old standing regulated by government.
On what grounds do the Government distinguish the situation of a householder or business adversely affected by, let us say, a new bypass from that of a gun club whose operation is forced to close as a result of the withdrawal of its licence and the banning of the guns which make its very existence possible? Is not this summary and premature removal by law of a privilege by rescinding a licence obtained and paid for in good faith by the applicant, a law-abiding citizen, somewhat different from the norms of phasing out defective products, outlawing harmful substances or banning the use of potentially dangerous upholstery material, to name but three? Further, were there not perfectly acceptable alternatives in each case? I am afraid that I do not follow the Government's logic.
There are compelling reasons why compensation provisions should be fair and seen to be fair. The tragedy of Dunblane and the haste on the part of the Government to act cannot justify parsimony or risk a bitter legacy of shabby treatment in some other direction, even less give reason for avenging 18 deaths by exacting retribution from more than 50,000 other admittedly innocent people. Two wrongs do not make a right.
Nor do I accept the Government's position that there is no precedent for compensation for business losses, losses from clubs or indeed consequential losses. The example of CJD was quoted; however, I prefer the analogy of the phasing in of the national non-domestic rate and the period allowed for the upgrading of abattoirs, when time was given to meet the additional commitment. Handguns are no different. The logical consequence of denying that and insisting on immediate withdrawal--I stress the immediacy angle--is nothing more nor less than full compensation.
Amendment No. 33 is designed to ferret out the meaning of the formulae of the words in the Bill,
This amendment would establish the material fact leading to compensation; namely, lawful ownership of a gun on 16th October 1996 howsoever that lawful ownership arose. But my purpose is to uncover a wider range of issues.
I understand that certain types of ammunition have a use in particular circumstances of competition and may be usable in rifles or pistols. It may be termed dual purpose ammunition. If such ammunition is possessed but used only in a pistol, is it held by virtue of a licence or not? If a dealer stands possessed of spares for pistol repairs which could be assembled to make up further weapons, what is the position regarding those? I could point to other anomalies, including the hiatus that appears to arise over compensation if, for instance, a club where a gun is held cannot, after a period of trying to do so, perhaps due to the costs and process of upgrading its security provisions, stay in business thus preventing it legally holding firearms and necessitating their surrender to the police but perhaps outside the period provided for in the surrender and compensation scheme. What happens then?
Amendment No. 34 endeavours to provide for the assessment of compensation by reference to a date prior to the day when an effect on the market for firearms could have occurred as a result of news and media coverage of the Dunblane incident and the initial response to it of politicians and the public. There are such precedents in the world of compensation theory and practice in which the effect on market values of the events that lead up to the circumstances of compensation are to be eliminated from the calculation. That serves to prevent manifest injustice to compensation claimants and eliminates the risk of the compensating body manipulating the circumstances of compensation so as to procure an unfairly low basis for payment. I do not suggest that the Government have that in mind; however, it is one matter that has developed over the years as a proper way of dealing with compensation. So if, for instance, a date for the Home Secretary's announcement is chosen, I should think that by that time--other noble Lords with more knowledge will be able to tell the Committee--the market will be non-existent. It will be very difficult to assess the value of any handgun on the basis of such a date and there may be unfairness in settling values. I invite the Minister's comments on that point also.
Amendment No. 35 sets out to explore the extent of the ancillary equipment which will rank for compensation. I have in mind the handgun enthusiast
Amendment No. 36 seeks to address those items that are lawfully held but may not need to be on a licence as such or even specifically mentioned on it, but which become inadvertently or deliberately unlawful or obsolete by virtue of the operation of the Bill when it becomes law. I hope that the Minister will be able to enlighten me on that point as well.
There should be seen to be no expropriation in the compensation provisions of this Bill. It should cover all matters where loss can be shown to be attributable to its provisions. The courts are well able to determine cause and effect in these special circumstances. Noble Lords may take issue with the wording of my amendment but it gives me an opportunity to voice very real fears.
I have little to say on the amendments of other noble Lords. In connection with Amendment No. 38, which is grouped with mine, I shall have to hear what the noble Baroness has to say. I wonder when we shall see the details of the scheme referred to in that amendment. For precisely the reasons that the Minister gave last Thursday on the matter of the referral of Clause 6, I believe that the details of the compensation scheme should be known, discussed and approved by the time the Bill is law and comes into force. I strongly support the sentiments behind Amendments Nos. 39 and 40.
I have a few further questions. Does the Minister not agree that there should be some recognition of the consequential losses and problems caused to clubs and businesses as a result of this far-reaching Bill and its quite exceptional circumstances? Does she agree that there should be relief from all non-domestic rates for property used by businesses which are forced to close? This is, after all, a property tax. Does she not agree that there should be grants towards the cost of obtaining planning consent for change of use of gun club premises forced to close? Does she agree that there should be some tax relief, the ability to write off capital allowances in this and previous years and other measures to mitigate the effects of ongoing liabilities? Does she also agree that there should be special assistance to help with redundancy payments where businesses and clubs are forced to close?
All these are matters which are crucial to fair play, honesty and the up-front way in which a Bill such as this should be dealt with. I beg to move.
Page 6, leave out lines 2 to 9 and insert--
("(a) which they lawfully had in their possession on or immediately before 16th October 1996; or
(b) which on or before that date they had contracted to acquire and were entitled lawfully to have in their possession,").
"No assessment of what should be done would be complete without considering what would be proportionate and just, having regard on the one hand to the scale of risk and on the other the implications of one course of action or another."
"It is necessary to decide what risk is acceptable, bearing in mind that some risk is an inevitable feature of daily life. Against the risk to society has to be balanced the loss of freedom of the individual and the other implications which I mentioned earlier".
"property which is surrendered or forfeited under that Act",
meaning this Bill when it becomes an Act, and at paragraph 2(b),
"any other loss which may be incurred as a result of that Act".
So I am surprised at the somewhat narrower view that I discern was taken by the Home Secretary in another place on 4th December last. He made some comments which warrant further scrutiny. At col. 1100 of the Official Report he compared situations where one could say that "on all precedent" compensation should be paid with other situations where "on a proper analysis of the case" it should not. He said that if the effect was to deprive people of property, or the use of it, they should be compensated. I say "Hear, hear" to that.
"The Government have a fundamental obligation to protect public safety. It would be a very significant inhibiting factor if, on every occasion that a decision has to be made, the Government were obliged to pay compensation for the business losses that resulted".
"by virtue of firearm certificates",
and the analogous term,
"by virtue of their being registered firearms dealers".
To what extent will firearms and ammunition be treated as "by virtue" in these contexts and, more to the point, at what juncture will the same articles be treated otherwise? The same formula of words also appears in subsection (7) in reference to ancillary equipment. I therefore take the opportunity to ask the same questions in relation to that.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page