| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I should like to support all the amendments in this grouping except for the amendments in the name of my noble friend the Minister. I refer in particular to Amendments Nos. 39 and 40, which deal with compensation.
There is one other aspect about compensation in this matter which has not been fully touched on. It is generally agreed that compensation is paid when an Act of Parliament results in the public good; for instance, when a road which the public may require has been put through one's property, or whatever. But there is a growing realisation all over the country, in your Lordships' House and, I understand, in the other place, that the Bill will not achieve its aim of saving lives or of preventing another terrible tragedy such as Dunblane.
In those circumstances, the pistol shooters do not want compensation. They will want to go on with their sport. No amount of compensation can recompense them for what the Bill will deprive them of. Therefore, if these pistol shooters--these thousands of people--are forced to take compensation, it must be unusually generous. That is thanks to this most unusually bad and flawed Bill.
Baroness Blatch: Before responding to the amendments in this group on the Marshalled List in the names of various noble Lords, if they will forgive me, too numerous to mention, it may help the Committee if I turn first to my own amendments, Amendments Nos. 37 and 38, and outline the arrangements the Government propose for compensation.
The Government are committed to paying compensation at a fair market value, as at before my right honourable friend the Secretary of State's announcement--repeated in this House--on 16th October, to people who hold firearm certificates for the higher-calibre handguns which the Bill will prohibit.
To qualify for compensation an owner will have to have held his firearm on a firearms' certificate or have held it by virtue of being a registered firearms' dealer, or have been contracted to acquire his or her gun on 16th October, and to surrender it to the police. Owners will be able to choose between three compensation options.
First, there will be a basic flat rate figure which an owner may claim for each high-calibre handgun he surrenders, whatever its make, age or condition. Secondly, we are discussing with the British Shooting Sports Council the preparation of a list of values for the most commonly held types of handgun. These figures will be higher than the basic compensation figure and owners who hand in a gun of one of these types will be able to claim that value.
Thirdly, there will be owners whose guns do not fit within these arrangements or who want to obtain their own valuation. We intend that those who wish to will be able to submit valuations which they themselves have obtained. In cases of dispute there will be recourse to a second independent valuation of the gun.
Owners will also be entitled to compensation on a similar market value basis for ammunition, including expanding ammunition, which the Bill would prevent them from owning, and for accessories and other ancillary equipment which they own and which has no use other than in connection with prohibited higher-calibre handguns.
We are discussing with the British Shooting Sports Council what these accessories will be and their values. The details are not fixed yet but examples might be reloading equipment for cartridges, specialised holsters and spare parts.
There will also be ex-gratia payments--separate from the compensation scheme--for shooters who own .22 rimfire and other small-calibre handguns which will not become prohibited by the Bill but which the Bill will require to be kept in licensed pistol clubs. Owners who cannot find a club to keep their pistol in, or who choose
not to join a club, will be able to claim an ex-gratia payment for their gun. But this will, as I say, be separate from the statutory compensation scheme.The Government have listened to the concerns raised earlier during the passage of the Bill, both by noble Lords and in another place, about the nature of the compensation scheme which is needed on this occasion. We have decided that the scheme should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. Amendments Nos. 37 and 38 standing in my name will enable parliamentary oversight to be given to the scheme.
A previous scheme introduced following the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 to compensate owners who surrendered their semi-automatic rifles was not subject to parliamentary scrutiny but nevertheless was successful, with most owners receiving a fair rate within a reasonable timescale. A later scheme in 1992 and 1993 made payments to people who surrendered disguised firearms--for instance, walking stick guns--after these had become prohibited, except for collectors, following the Firearms (Amendment) Regulations 1992. This too was successful in terms of fair payments being made in good time. But it was similarly not subject to parliamentary scrutiny. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State would lay the scheme in draft form before this House and another place. The scheme could not be made until approved by a resolution of this House and by a resolution in another place.
This provision would not affect the principles of the compensation arrangements. The current Clause 11 of the Bill sets out those things for which compensation will be payable. Both in this House and in another place very full consideration has been given to this issue, and we have explained why the Government have decided that compensation should be paid for weapons, ammunition and other ancillary equipment. This amendment will enable the details of the scheme to be fully considered by Parliament before it comes into effect.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I believe it is all to the good that the draft scheme should be brought before both Houses. Can the noble Baroness say whether the scheme will be amendable? That is the important point. Will it be amendable by one or by both Houses?
Baroness Blatch: My understanding of the procedures for discussing orders that come before the House is that it can reject or accept them. Any influence that is brought to bear takes place during the consultation period. The House can reject a scheme and then it would be for the government of the day to go away and reconsider the details.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: In fact the House would have to take an H-bomb to the matter if they want to bring back another scheme. Is there no way in which we can have a draft scheme brought before the House which we can discuss and amend?
Baroness Blatch: As far as I know there is not an official mechanism for amending a scheme. There will
be a draft scheme laid before the House and there will be an opportunity for people to pray in aid against it. I have to be advised by the usual channels. I am no expert in parliamentary procedures, but to my knowledge it is not possible to amend an order in this House. I am receiving an affirmative nod from the Clerk at the Table.
The Earl of Lytton: I apologise for interrupting the Minister, but maybe I missed it or she is about to get to the point. I would particularly like to know when the scheme is going to be laid before Parliament.
Baroness Blatch: I am unable to say. I know the particular concern that the noble Earl posed when he was speaking to his amendments that he would like the scheme to be laid before the House before this Bill completes its progress through both Houses. I promise that I shall come back as soon as possible after this stage of the Bill is completed with some idea of what the timescale will be. I cannot be definitive at this moment.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Does my noble friend understand that she is therefore asking us to accept this Bill without knowing what the terms of compensation will be? That adds insult to injury owing to the fact that we shall not even know what the terms will be for the security of gun club premises. We are told that 71 per cent. of the clubs will be put out of business; but there may be many more. We are being asked to take so much on trust. It is very difficult to proceed if we do not have information on these two vital areas as to what the security arrangements are going to be and what the compensation will be.
Baroness Blatch: A good deal of information is available to my noble friend which has been put on the record more than once--that is to say, the market value from a particular date will be the base for payment. The categories of items that will be compensated for are subject to amendment. We have many amendments before the Committee today. There will be an order and a full debate in the House. Both Houses will have the opportunity to accept or reject the terms of the compensation arrangements. I can say no more than that. There is not another mechanism other than during the consultation process and/or at the time of considering the order when both this House and another place will have an opportunity to have their say.
Lord Gisborough: Can my noble friend say whether there are plans to compensate those people who have, for example, committed themselves to long leases?
Baroness Blatch: They are not included in the compensation scheme as I have set it out. Again, there are a number of amendments and that particular point is explicit in some of them. I cannot pre-empt the outcome of today's business. It is a matter to be determined by the Committee.
I now turn to the amendments of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, Amendments Nos. 35 and 36, which would remove the precise terms in Clause 11 which specify
that the persons eligible for payments should be firearm certificate holders or registered firearms dealers. I am not sure that I see any benefit in removing this fair and, I would argue, reasonable qualifying criteria if the Government are to make substantial payments to the persons concerned. Those people whose firearm certificates may have expired since 16th October and who hold their high calibre pistols temporarily on a Section 7 permit will still meet the laid down criteria and will qualify for compensation.Amendment No. 35 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, which removes the wording "firearms prohibited" from Clause 11 (5)(a) in favour of the phrase "any firearms" would bring ancillary equipment belonging to the owners of small calibre pistols into the compensation scheme, which is the intention of the noble Earl. Point 22 pistols will not be banned and the Government have taken the view, and gone to some lengths in this Bill, to ensure that .22 pistol shooting can continue to take place in conditions of safety. Unlike accessories for high calibre handguns, therefore, .22 accessories will continue to have a use. There will continue to be a market for them both for gun dealers and for individuals who give up .22 shooting, but have accessories which they would wish to get rid of.
The last of the noble Earl's amendments, Amendment No. 34, introduces the earlier date of 11th March 1996 immediately prior to Dunblane, as the date to assess market values for the purposes of the compensation scheme. The Government cannot be held responsible for fluctuations in a market over which they have no direct control. The Bill specifically refers to 16th October because this is the date of the Government's response to Lord Cullen's report, and that must be right.
Perhaps I may refer to a point made by a number of Members of the Committee about precedents and whether there were any on the statute book. We have found no examples of compensation being paid for loss of business resulting from legislation. Examples of legislation leading to loss of business, for which no compensation was paid, include the Marine, &c., Broadcasting (Offences) Act 1967. That outlawed off-shore private radio. There was also the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988, which prohibited self-loading rifles, pump action shotguns and a number of other items of weaponry. Compensation was paid to owners of prohibited guns, but not to businesses.
Cattle head de-boners and the specified bovine material order of 29th March 1996, which is fairly recent, prevented meat from the heads of slaughtered cattle being sold for public consumption. That has done considerable damage to the industry, as we all know, which processed cattle heads. No compensation was made in that case and neither was there any time to adjust to that change. I make that point to my noble friend Lord Peel.
Other examples of Government action leading to loss of business without compensation included the banning of the use of hormones in red meat in 1988 under EC legislation and the banning of products such as drugs or pesticides on health and safety grounds.
I now move on to Amendment No. 39 in the names of my noble friends Lord Gisborough, Lord Swansea and Lord Shrewsbury, which deals with compensation for clubs and businesses. The Government will put in place arrangements which will allow clubs to continue to shoot small calibre .22 rimfire pistols under Home Office or Scottish Office licence. We hope that we shall have the co-operation of the shooting community in making that work.
Unfortunately, it may be that some existing clubs will not be able to take advantage of these arrangements. If so, that is a matter of regret. Clubs will be eligible for compensation for prohibited handguns and accessories under the terms of the Government compensation scheme, which we will lay before your Lordships' House. As I have already said, it will be a complete departure from precedent and one which we could not support, for the taxpayer to be asked to meet losses of this kind which were attributed to the prohibition of handguns.
Perhaps I may say as an aside at this point to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, that I have not detected in anything which has been said here or in another place by the official Labour Party Front Bench that they would have been more generous or generous at all, beyond what has been agreed in terms of compensation in this Bill or in any other Bill. For the record, that is my retort to the point made by the noble Lord.
I am aware of the great strength of feeling on the subject of compensation for business losses which will result from the implementation of the Bill. Firearms dealers who surrender prohibited handguns and specified ancillary equipment will be able to apply for compensation for them under the terms of the Government's compensation scheme on the same basis as private owners if they owned them, or were contracted to acquire them as at 16th October last. Amendment No. 40 would go further than this. It would have the Government pay compensation to dealers not simply for losses of property but also for business losses which were attributed to the prohibition on higher-calibre handguns. I regret to tell my noble friend that the Government cannot accede to that proposition. The Government have not been, and cannot be, liable for business which may be lost by companies when they introduce regulation in the interests of public safety. It is one of the overriding duties of the Government to protect the safety of the public. Thomas Hamilton's terrible crime made it inevitable that there would be further changes in the way in which guns were controlled in this country. Lord Cullen in his very thorough report made that abundantly clear.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page