| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Gisborough: I am obliged to my noble friend for giving way. If these guns are to be withdrawn for reasons of public safety, surely it would be only fair to withdraw fire extinguishers and other objects like that.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: Everything is a matter of balance. Noble Lords will have different views about what constitutes public safety and when the Government
should intervene, but in responding to this particular incident there are many different views as to where the line should be drawn in terms of public safety. For what it is worth, the Government have drawn a line which is well known, and that is the subject of our debate today.Strong recommendations were made about the control of hand-guns. But Lord Cullen said--and the Government entirely respect his stance--that the question of whether handguns would be available was one for Parliament and not for a judge to decide. The Government have taken a view on this fundamental question and they have been supported in another place. It would be a very significant inhibiting factor if on those occasions when the Government were obliged to legislate in the interests of public safety they were obliged to pay for business losses which were thought likely to result from it. As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has made clear in another place, there have been many occasions when public safety legislation has been introduced which affects businesses--for example, in the fields of transport, medicines, chemicals or pollution, and compensation for business loss has not been paid. If the practice of many, many years was to be changed, such an onerous requirement on the Government of the day would seriously inhibit the passing of safety legislation.
We intend to pay fair compensation to dealers for lost stock. But, in declining to compensate also for business loss, the Government are following the precedent of many years. Much as we regret the difficulties which many firearms dealers may face--I do not take issue with my noble friends on the examples that have been given--I believe that this is the right course for the Government to take, and I urge noble Lords to reject the amendment.
Finally, I turn to the amendments tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Monson. I do not believe that the noble Lord's Amendments Nos. 81 and 82 add to the present arrangements under which we propose to compensate the owners of small calibre pistols who choose to surrender them to the police rather than join a licensed pistol club. We fully intend that these people shall receive fair payment for their guns based on market value as at 16th October last, the date of the Government's Statement to the House on Lord Cullen's Report. We do not know how many of the small calibre pistol owners will choose to surrender their guns. We intend that the payments they receive should be ex gratia rather than being made under the terms of the statutory compensation scheme envisaged by Clause 11 of the Bill. But I can assure the House that they will be treated as favourably as people who surrender their prohibited higher calibre guns.
Perhaps I may deal with one or two particular points that have been made. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, referred to a matter that was not included in his correspondence. I take this opportunity to thank him very much for the way in which he has shared some of his concerns because it facilitates debate on these matters. I refer to the issue in Lithgow v. United Kingdom which was dealt with before the European Court of Human Rights. The Government consider that their proposals meet the requirements of the European
convention in relation to the expropriation of property. The court held that a "fair balance" had to be struck when property was expropriated. The Government propose to pay compensation at market value. We believe that that meets the requirement for a fair balance. As I understand it, this case was not about business losses.My noble friend Lord Kimball posed a question about guns for gun clubs being held on secure dealers' premises. I hope that my noble friend will forgive me if I say that that is the subject of Amendment No. 42. For that reason, I believe that it is wrong to deal with it while discussing this group of amendments.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Monson, referred to the distinction between owners and dealers. The use of the word "dealer" carries no implication that business losses would be paid. The Firearms Act distinguishes between firearm certificate holders and dealers in many aspects of the law. I believe that it would mislead the Committee if I said that compensation would be paid only to gun owners.
I urge the Committee to accept the two government amendments, although I appreciate that not all noble Lords agree with them. But it must be for other noble Lords to consider whether any of the amendments in this group are pressed.
Lord Renton: Before my noble friend sits down, can she give the Committee a broad idea of the total amount of compensation that is likely to be payable under the Government's proposals and how much more compensation would have to be paid under the proposals put forward by my noble friends?
Baroness Blatch: The ballpark figure that the Government have in mind at the moment is £150 million. As to the latter sum, I cannot hazard a guess other than that it will be very considerable. No quantification has been made of the degree to which businesses will lose out as a result of these changes. Implicit in this amendment are people who have put up their houses as collateral, taken out loans or leases and will suffer loss of rent. It is almost impossible to quantify other than to say that it will be a very considerable sum.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: In her speech the Minister referred to the comments of my noble friend Lord Stoddart. Both she and my noble friend are aware that there is a free vote on all of these issues. But I do not believe that I should let the moment pass without making it clear that at least as far as I am concerned my noble friend Lord Stoddart speaks for himself and not necessarily for others in his and my party. My advice to my noble friends, based on my personal assessment of the issues, is that when the government amendments are moved they should support them, and if there are any amendments that seek to extend compensation they should oppose them and join the Government in doing so.
Lord Monson: I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, for her absolute assurance that
compensation to the owners of .22 pistols who will have to surrender them will be at market value, even though for whatever reason the Government appear determined that this should remain on an ex gratia basis. As I understand it, however, no compensation will be payable for the accessories for these .22 pistols on the ground that there will still be a market for them. Does the noble Baroness agree that if most .22 pistol clubs must close because they cannot afford the extremely expensive security precautions that they will be obliged to incur, the value of these accessories will plummet?
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I begin by declaring an indirect professional interest. I was counsel in the European case which was referred to by the Minister. In that case my clients were in the business of cattle head de-boning; that is, the removal and processing of meat from the heads of cattle. That is a case pending before the European Commission of Human Rights. As a result of the Government's measures to prevent the spread of BSE, my clients complained that they had been deprived of their right to property and livelihood by the destruction of their business in breach of Article 1 of the first protocol to the convention.
I was also the unsuccessful counsel in the Lithgow case who sought to challenge Labour's nationalisation proposals as not amounting to fair compensation. One found oneself against a Conservative Government which had promised to compensate when in opposition but which when in government--as one comes to expect of all parties when the executive gains power--behaved exactly as the Government before them. As a result, they succeeded in diluting the necessary English principles of compensation so that many Members of the Committee, especially on the Benches opposite, will find themselves in great difficulty today since, as I have explained, their only hope, I suspect, will be that European law will come to the rescue of difficulties about the British constitution.
I shall speak directly to the problems, based on my experience and expressing my view. On Second Reading, the Minister explained, as she has today, that the Government are unwilling to pay compensation for anything except guns and accessories, as distinct from the business losses sustained by those who suffer directly from the government legislation. What has been said, and said repeatedly, is, first, that there is no precedent for paying claims for business losses which occur as a result of direct government legislation. I shall try to persuade the Committee that that is a mistaken view.
What is said is that where the effect of government legislation is to deprive people or businesses of property or the use of their property, it is right that taxpayers collectively should pay those property owners, and only those property owners, for the value of their property. It is said that that obligation arises under the European Convention on Human Rights, but somehow it is different from paying compensation for business losses. I am merely summarising the Minister's speech on Second Reading.
On Second Reading my noble friend Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank raised what he described as the awkward question of compensation for loss of business, expressing his belief that public expenditure considerations should not be allowed to override what is fair and just to those who will inevitably be the victims of the legislation. My noble friend doubts whether we have yet got the extent and incidence of compensation right. I share his doubts, and I should like briefly to explain why.
First, there is the question of principle. Where the direct and inevitable effect of legislation is to deprive someone of the right to engage in what has previously been his lawful business and carry on what has previously been his lawful livelihood, the question is whether it is right in principle that the victim should be denied any compensation by the state, or should he be compensated, if not at full market value--I think not at full market value--then at any rate fairly, so that that individual does not have to bear an excessive individual burden. That is the question.
We pride ourselves in this country on the fact that ever since Magna Carta both common law and statute law give effective protection to the enjoyment of one's property, including the right to be fairly compensated for loss of livelihood or business where it is destroyed by coercive, legislative, or administrative measures. That basic principle is well preserved; for example, by our planning legislation in relation to the effect of planning blight on the enjoyment of one's property. It has always been well preserved by nationalisation legislation, where businesses are blighted or destroyed and compensation is payable.
I am dealing with principle, but as a matter of principle I can see no rational basis whatever for distinguishing between compensation for the deprivation of the right to own a firearm and compensation for the deprivation of the right to carry on business in selling firearms. For the dealer, the business is a much more valuable property right than is his current stock. In principle, the loss of business by dealers resulting directly from the banning of handguns should be compensated.
Secondly, there is the question of European law. I find it ironical and enjoyable that the noble Lords, Lord Stoddart of Swindon and Lord Pearson of Rannoch, will have to rely upon European law to deal with this problem.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page