| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I suppose I am guilty of special pleading. My noble friend made that accusation against those who were speaking in favour of the amendment, and since I am one of them I must be guilty. But, frankly, I thought that special pleading was what Parliament was about. I thought that
Parliament was available to people to make their pleas against what they consider to be injustice and in favour of themselves.I support the amendment and I shall vote for it, even though it is much more modest than that debated in Committee. We must take what we can get and be thankful for small mercies in relation to this Bill. But undoubtedly, as so many noble Lords made clear, great hardship will be caused to a number of people. Whether it is a large number or a small number is irrelevant. If there is an injustice, it does not matter whether it is against 10,000 people, a million people, or one person. They are all entitled to redress. This modest amendment attempts to give them some redress. It is therefore worthy of the support of this House.
I do not want to repeat the speech that I made on this matter in Committee. However, we have to recognise that we are dealing with people who have built up businesses, often by sheer hard graft, over a long period of time. They are entitled to be considered.
It is ridiculous for the Government to say that there is precedent for their meanness. There cannot be any precedent for Dunblane. There is no precedent. So do not call into account precedent! In fact, many precedents have been cited which contradict the Government's view.
To those who say that other businesses have been adversely affected by legislation but do other things, I would say that we are not talking here of garages or houses affected by a road widening scheme. If you own a garage, you are compensated to the extent of the market value of your property and resettlement. In many cases the local or national authority will also try to find alternative premises for you. The fact is that there are still motorists who will want to buy petrol. Under the Bill many gun manufacturers will not be able to sell their guns because they are forbidden to do so. That is the difference. That is why the amendment deserves support.
I received a letter from a small manufacturer of guns, part of which I think I should read to the House. I sent a copy to the noble Baroness. John Slough, of London, sets out the problem:
- "I would like to draw your attention to our factory which contains drawings, machinery and fixtures made specifically for the manufacture of full-bore handguns and spare parts. Also a purpose built testing range, strong-room and security system ... We are in government owned property and are now unable to pay the rent. We cannot sell off much of the machinery because of its specialised nature and we cannot move out of the secure premises because we are storing firearms and component parts until they have to be surrendered."
The other problem he faces is that his house is now at risk because it is mortgaged to support his business. He is not only going to be put out of business; he will
be put out of his home as well. Is that what the Government want? Is that what noble Lords in this House are going to allow? I sincerely hope not.
Lord Zouche of Haryngworth: My Lords, I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, within its limits. My concern lies with the thousands of individuals and small businesses which will lose their livelihoods as a result of this unjust Bill. To make matters worse, there is no provision to pay them fair and proper compensation.
In Committee my noble friend Lord Vinson summed up the feelings of many of us. He said:
- "We should also bear in mind the lesson that I was taught at school; that the democracy in which we live is not only for the enforcement of majority will but also for the protection of minority rights".
The Federal Government of Australia have passed new laws banning certain types of firearms. They are playing fair. Most importantly, dealers have been offered compensation for loss of business. The Australian Government are looking after their citizens; we are not looking after ours. What is wrong with us? We are taking away the livelihoods of good people and are not prepared to pay them fair and proper compensation. This House has an enormous responsibility to protect the rights of the minority. I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, when the Government decided upon the path they took, a big obligation was immediately imposed on what my noble friend the Minister described as the public purse but what I prefer to describe as the taxpayer's pocket. Given the Government's decision, I find it a little difficult to follow what they say about where compensation in principle begins and where it ends.
I listened intently to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. I do not understand why it is reasonable to compensate the individual who has to hand in a gun, which arguably is a very small part of his or her financial life, and not compensate a dealer or manufacturer for whom in certain cases it will be a very significant part of his or her financial life. It is finance that we are talking about.
I am therefore very inclined towards the amendment proposed by the Liberal Democrat Party. I wonder whether the savings to the taxpayer's pocket which will follow from the passing of the amendment on disassembly may perhaps pay for it.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: My Lords, I agree totally with the amendment. I am very pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, raised the European angle. As
the noble Lord pointed out, the BSE and fishing crises have already dragged heavily on the purse which has been filled by the taxpayer and will continue to be filled to a certain extent. When it will break, I do not know.The gun manufacturers Hekler & Kock, Beretta, Glock and Browning have already taken legal advice on action to be taken in the European Court against the British Government, of whatever party. I suggest that whatever the party to which we belong we should think very hard and consider the money that is needed for mental health institutions and the National Health Service generally. We should also consider the money that the police authorities will need for monitoring everything that the Bill is intended to achieve.
If the Minister and others on the Benches opposite had listened to what I proposed in my amendment, the necessity for compensation would have been avoided because it would have been paid for.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, Amendment No. 27 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, and the noble Lord, Lord Lester, together with Amendment No. 28, concern compensation for business losses by firearms dealers as a result of the Bill. In Committee I responded to a similar amendment, tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Gisborough and others, which would have made the Government liable for business losses ascribed to the prohibition of higher calibre handguns in the Bill.
The Government entirely recognise the strength of feeling on the issue, but the fact remains that for the Government to accept liability for business losses said to result from the introduction of legislation aimed at improving public safety would be unprecedented and would in our view set a seriously damaging and inhibiting example for the future.
Noble Lords have suggested that there are parallels here to the paying of compensation in relation to compulsory purchase orders. We accept that where the effect of government legislation is to deprive people of property or of the use of that property, then it is right that taxpayers collectively should pay those property owners for the value of that property. This principle has been a part of English law for many years. It also arises from our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights and is the principle which informs our compensation scheme.
However, the analogy cannot be extended to include compensation for business losses and other liabilities. Dealers' and clubs' premises and other assets remain theirs. There are no proposals to interfere physically with any property belonging to dealers and clubs beyond those items catered for by our compensation plans.
Noble Lords will know that 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.
The Government will also pay compensation to owners for ammunition, including expanding ammunition which the Bill would prevent them from owning, and for other accessories and other ancillary equipment which they own and which have no use other than in connection with prohibited higher calibre handguns. Our discussions continue with the British Shooting Sports Council as to what those accessories will be and their values.
The Government will pay compensation to firearms dealers on the same basis as owners in respect of prohibited handguns and ancillary equipment which they owned or were contracted to acquire on or before 16th October 1996, which was the day when the Government announced that they intended to bring the prohibition into force. The scheme would be laid in draft form before this House and another place. The scheme could not be made until approved by a resolution of both Houses.
We intend to pay fair compensation to dealers for their lost stock. But the Government cannot go any further than that in relation to firearms dealers. The Government have taken their position on the possession and ownership of handguns and have done that in the interests of public safety and in the light of the dreadful incident in Dunblane and of the report of Lord Cullen's inquiry into it.
Firearms control is only one area in which the Government may be obliged to legislate from time to time in the interests of public safety. I cited during discussion of this issue in Committee the fields of transport, medicines, chemicals and pollution. The Government do not pay compensation for business losses in those areas, however severe they may be.
I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendment, but perhaps I can refer to one or two points that were made. Much was made in regard to the issue of precedent. We do not accept that this undermines our argument. Each case is a special case. For example, renderers were referred to. They were paid grants because they are an essential part of the food chain. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, is aware of that because we discussed the matter at the last stage of the Bill.
Fishing boats were mentioned. But fishing boats had to be destroyed and we do not compensate fishermen for business losses. In relation to the position of the property Acts, a special case is when legislation goes back to the last century. It is a complex area and we do not believe that it bears on the present case. Reference was made to Europe. The Government are entirely satisfied that their proposals for compensation meet the requirements of European law and are in accordance with our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights.
My noble friend Lord Gisborough referred to, and read a paragraph from, a letter which was brought to my attention also by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon. Both referred to different parts of the same letter. In the case of a manufacturer of prohibited handguns--the case mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart--the terms of the compensation scheme will
not cover equipment in the area of the manufacturing of firearms. Ancillary equipment is defined in Clause 14(2) as equipment,
- "for use in connection with firearms prohibited ... and has no practicable use in connection with any firearm which is not a prohibited weapon".
My noble friend Lord Peel referred to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lester. The amendment would cover the component parts of firearms or ammunition but not manufacturers of gun cases, targets or other ancillary equipment.
We were invited by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, to take account, as legislators, of the way in which the Bill came about. I should like to think, whatever side of the debate we are on, we are in no doubt as to the reason why we are discussing the Bill. Perhaps I may say that we, as legislators, should take account also of precedents and of the likely cost of such amendments which will not fall on the Government but on the taxpayers.
It was argued that the taxpayer will bear some cost for many of those concerned--those who are out of work and those who have difficulty with rents, their council tax and other things. The taxpayer at large will bear those costs. However, to take that burden yet further for the taxpayer and make this a special case when there are many cases, sadly, of people whose businesses have been affected by legislation in the past, is not acceptable.
I repeat a point made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. No government should be inhibited from addressing an issue of public safety by having to take into account the precedents that would be set by the passing of the amendment. I do not believe that we are in contravention of human rights; I certainly do not underestimate the pain, grief and anguish that is caused by the passing of this Bill. But we should never set our face against having to address the balancing issue of public safety.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page