| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
New clause
Lords amendment: No. 25, after clause 11, to insert the following new clause--Compensation scheme for firearms dealers--
".--(1) The Secretary of State shall, in accordance with a scheme made by him, make payments to persons who on 16th October 1996 were wholly or mainly carrying on business as registered firearms dealers under the 1968 Act, in respect of any loss of business directly caused by the prohibition contained in section 1.
(2) A scheme under subsection (1) above shall provide for payments to be equivalent to one year of after-tax profits of the business, based on the average after-tax profits from the audited financial statements of the business for the three financial years, or for the total period of trading if less than three years, before the passing of this Act as calculated by a qualified person.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (2) above--
"business" means only the business or that part of the business directly affected by the prohibition contained in section 1; and
"qualified person" means a person eligible for appointment as a company auditor in accordance with section 25 of the Companies Act 1989.
(4) A scheme under subsection (1) above may--
(a) restrict eligibility for receipt of payments to claims made within a period specified in the scheme;
(b) provide for the procedure to be followed (including any time within which claims must be made and the provision of information) in respect of claims under the scheme and for the determination of such claims."
6.30 pm
Mr. Howard: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 26, Lords amendments Nos. 27 and 93 and the Government motions to disagree thereto, and Government amendment (a).
I have to inform the House that all four of these Lords amendments involve questions of privilege.
Sir Jerry Wiggin:
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Will it be possible to have separate votes on Lords amendment Nos. 25 and 27?
Madam Deputy Speaker:
If it is so desired, yes.
Mr. Marlow:
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On the last vote, the majority of Conservative Members of Parliament who are not on the payroll either opposed the measure or did not support it. The fact is that only a minority of the Conservative party supported the Government. That fact should be known because the matter now returns to another place, whose Members might like to know that the Conservative party supports what they did last time and would seek to support them if they continue.
Madam Deputy Speaker:
One must not use points of order to make points of policy or opinion.
Mr. Howard:
The Government are committed to paying compensation at a fair market value to people who
I should like to remind the House of the arrangements that are planned. 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 16 October; and will have 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 that an owner may claim for each high-calibre handgun he surrenders, whatever its make, age or condition. Secondly, there will be a list of market values--as applied immediately before 16 October 1996--for the most commonly held types of handgun. Those figures may 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 that they themselves have obtained. In cases of dispute there will be recourse to a second independent valuation of the gun.
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow):
Who exactly will do all that valuation? Item 12 of the letter that was circulated today by the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe), states:
Mr. Howard:
Any arguments about the condition of the gun could be dealt with at the time the gun is surrendered to the police, but questions of valuation will not, of course, be decided by the police. They will be decided in the way that is properly set out in the letter and the accompanying document.
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.
Mr. Spencer Batiste (Elmet):
Within that list of accessories will there be included a machine for reloading ammunition, which a small business might have so that it could sell reloaded ammunition to others? Does that fall within my right hon. and learned Friend's category?
Mr. Howard:
It is highly likely to do so. I answer in that rather provisional way because the details are not yet fixed. We intend to discuss with the British Shooting Sports Council the question of precisely what these
There will also be ex gratia payments--separate from the compensation scheme--for shooters who own .22 rim-fire 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 in which to keep their pistol or who choose not to join a club will be able to apply for an ex gratia payment for their gun; but this will, as I said, be separate from the statutory compensation scheme.
Taking account of the concerns raised earlier in the passage of the Bill about the nature of the compensation scheme, we have decided that the scheme should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. Amendment No. 26 will enable parliamentary oversight of the scheme. I intend to lay the scheme in draft form before this House and another place. The scheme could not be made effective until approved by a resolution of this House and by a resolution in another place.
Mr. Dalyell:
If the Home Secretary was the owner of, for example, a Ruger Blackhawk 6in barrel, which I am told is quite a valuable gun, would he be content to accept 175 quid as compensation? Knowing him as I do, I bet he would not.
Mr. Howard:
I am sorry to say that I can offer no opinion on that question, as I do not own any such gun. However, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that, if any person who does own such a gun is not content with the amount identified in the list attached to the document, it would be open to him to come along with his own valuation and establish that the weapon is worth more than £175. If he makes his case and the valuation is a proper one, he would be compensated on that basis.
The provision that the scheme should be approved by the House would not alter the principles of the compensation arrangements that I have just set out. 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. The amendment means that the details of the scheme can be fully considered by Parliament before it comes into effect.
I would now like to say a few words about amendment No. 25, which concerns compensation for business losses by firearms dealers as a result of the Bill.
Mr. Roger Gale (North Thanet):
My right hon. and learned Friend has made it clear that the valuation is to be set at the date on which he made his announcement to the House and not before the tragedy at Dunblane. He must be aware that, terrible though that event was, it is the purchase blight placed on the value of firearms by the legislation that has affected what he now deems to be the market value. That will undoubtedly be an issue disputed in any appeal.
Mr. Howard:
Indeed, it is because the purchase blight consequent on the legislation is important that I have said that the valuation should be as at the day before any
"Any discrepancies in the claim--including any relating to the condition of items claimed for under Option C--will either need to be resolved before the claim is accepted by the police."
For some reason, that paragraph does not make complete sense, but the issue with which it deals is important. Can the Home Secretary explain the background to that provision?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |