| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Gisborough: It seems that all these amendments are to be spoken to together; I shall therefore speak on Amendment No. 40. It has long been recognised that Parliament does not expropriate private property without compensating those affected. Yet the plight of small businesses in the gun trade which will
be put out of business by the Bill has been ignored by the Government. Payment for stock is one thing; loss of a business, with no proposal by the Government to compensate, is quite another.The trade faces serious financial hardship but the Bill provides no compensation for the substantial loss of value to businesses which the Bill will cause. Compensation provisions should apply to people severely hurt by the devaluation of assets other than the banned guns and their accessories. Compensation is offered for stock but not for loss of business. Many dealers will lose their livelihoods as a result of the Bill. This is not just an occupational hazard; it is a sudden imposition of law that will take away such a large amount of trade that an enterprise could become non-viable.
Loss of employment within the industry is another serious consequence of the Bill. Returns from 163 dealers show an estimated loss of 155 jobs. That, if reflected across the whole 3,000 businesses, implies job losses of some 3,000.
I am sure that the Bill will have a devastating effect on a significant minority of people. Natural justice requires that those people are entitled to receive proper compensation for assets which are confiscated through no fault of their own. Many have given personal guarantees on leases which they have signed and which they will have to meet over the years.
These businesses cannot easily diversify. What alternative use will there be for a purpose-built shooting range once the Bill has taken 80 per cent. of legally held guns out of circulation? Some businesses will have been financed by personal guarantees, with terrible consequences for the guarantor.
At Report stage in another place the Home Secretary said that, so far as he was aware, there was no precedent for paying claims for business losses which occurred as a result of Government legislation. He ignores the compensation given to farmers, as my noble friend mentioned, as a result of BSE regulations. Farmers were able to carry on farming with other enterprises. He ignores the £118 million offered to the rendering industry. He ignores the precedent established in Australia earlier this year, a Commonwealth country with a similar legal system and whose case law is often cited as a precedent before the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords. The Australian Prime Minister, during the passage of legislation on the prohibition of rifles and guns, said that the Government had a duty to pay fair and proper compensation, including compensation to gun dealers who had suffered a loss of value to their hitherto lawful businesses.
The following principles were to apply to dealers for loss of business: compensation was to be available to any dealer whose business included sale, repair or importation of firearms; such dealers were to arrange prescribed and certified valuation of loss and were to recover reasonable cost of valuation; and they were to accept the valuation which would be subject to audit. There were a considerable number of other conditions and requirements.
The Australians have now found that the generous compensation to owners for the withdrawal of automatic weapons is costing far more than anticipated, as will be the case here. Perversely, the compensation is being used to legally purchase bolt-action and lever-action guns which can fire almost as fast as automatics. As a rapid-fire marksman in the Army myself, I can testify to the possible accuracy of high-speed shooting. Similarly, once pistols have been withdrawn here, at great cost to the nation, no doubt keen marksmen in this country will purchase other weapons which they are allowed to keep and so maintain their sport in some other way although they will not necessarily be able to use the same ranges. The proposed expenditure will not therefore have much effect.
The mass-murder tragedies have each taken place with a different weapon: New South Wales with a rifle; Middlesbrough with a knife; Sullivan with a flame-thrower; Wolverhampton with a machete; and Monkseaton with a shotgun. There remain chainsaws, pitchforks, poison, petrol bombs, swerving into a queue with a motor car, explosion and other weapons including, incidentally, a cricket bat. In only one of those tragedies was a pistol used. There are as many ways of committing mass murder as there are holes in a sieve. Today it has been reported that a baby was stabbed in its pram.
To withdraw legally held pistols cannot do more than scratch the surface of the problem of mass murder. It does not begin to stop another tragedy with an illegally held pistol. It is like stopping one hole in a sieve, at a cost of perhaps £500 million to the country, while leaving all the other methods of mass murder unaffected. It is an expensive but purely cosmetic exercise to satisfy an understandable emotion, as a result of which a large number of businesses will be bankrupted.
My amendment gives the Government the opportunity to say how the buy-in will contribute to stopping further attacks by any of the other weapons available: shotguns, rifles, chainsaws and so on. If they can justify the expenditure of some £500 million for a useless confiscation, how can they justify not paying compensation for business losses?
It may be inappropriate for this House to suggest increased expenditure on compensating dealers, which is a matter for the other place, but it cannot be wrong to tell the other place that it is wasting money in the first place. Perhaps the Government can explain how the reduction in the number of legally held pistols affects the prospects of another mass murder with an illegally held pistol, there being about four of them to every legally held one. There is all this cost, distress and damage to plug just one hole in the sieve. It is not more legislation that is needed but proper application of the existing law. If innocent gun dealers and range owners are to be gratuitously distressed, they should at least be adequately compensated.
4 p.m.
The Earl of Shrewsbury: My noble friend Lord Swansea has agreed that I should move Amendment No. 39, which deals with compensation for clubs and associations. I begin by declaring an interest as the current chairman of the Firearms Consultive Committee.
I firmly believe that the present plans will lead to gross injustice. Many of the worst hit by the Bill will be ordinary club members who have pitched together to run their clubs or ranges. Many of these individuals will remain liable for long-term mortgages and leases for clubs and ranges which will be forced to close by this Bill. A survey of 139 clubs showed that 71 per cent. of those clubs will not reach the Government's requirements for security. They will have to close, making an otherwise valuable asset worthless. It will leave many people bankrupt. The Government must put that right. A return from 126 clubs shows that they are expected to suffer financial losses as a result of the changes to the tune of £31.24 million in total. On the basis of 2,067 clubs, the total loss will therefore be over £64 million.
The worst hit in the case of clubs will be individuals such as those who have given personal guarantees. In many cases, that responsibility has been undertaken without any commercial consideration or personal gain.
I turn to a matter touched on by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. The European Court of Human Rights has 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 welcome the fact that the Government have acknowledged that the cost of this operation will be higher than the original offer from the Treasury of £25 million to £50 million. As we all know, it has risen from that figure to £150 million. The Government originally proposed to offer the market value of banned guns prior to the announcement of the Government's intention to legislate. I believe that they have since been advised by their lawyers that they are obliged to include ancillary equipment, which will have no value once the gun to which it relates is banned. The FCC has been consulted on that issue, although not entirely in this context.
We need to learn from the Australian experience. It offers an insight into what can be expected in the United Kingdom. In Victoria state alone, 14 collection sites were set up. The weekly destruction of guns will continue until the end of the year, as only 10 per cent. of the total weapons expected under the amnesty have been destroyed. The crunch comes in that the Premier of Victoria, Jeff Kennett, has already criticised the federal government for not providing enough money to run the firearms buy-back scheme. He said that the compensation payments in general and the disposal of surrendered weapons was costing more than expected. That, I think, must be fairly obvious. Those responsible for administering the scheme are now having to face those real practical problems, as the government will
have to do. The Victorian Minister for Police and Emergency Services, Bill McGrath, has summarised the feeling among his colleagues:
- "The whole thing was done in too much haste and there was not enough proper thought".
I and many others feel very strongly indeed that the Government should correct this injustice. I urge my noble friend to accept this amendment. Let me give just one example of many. Dave Richardson of the 10th Battalion Suffolk Home Guard Rifle and Pistol Club in Sudbury writes:
- "We've just taken out a £6,000 loan. We own the freehold, about 6 acres or so ... We've just rebuilt the club house and installed a new 11 kva automatic generator. The 3 main ranges are all equipped with electro-magnetic turning targets. We consider the complex before the legislation to have been worth £200,000+ and it is now effectively worthless".
I urge the Minister to try to accept this amendment. A great injustice is being done to those who will suffer loss, as has been described over the past few minutes by a number of noble Lords. I commend the amendment.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page