| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
12. Mr. Flight: What has been the total amount of compensation paid to those handing in their firearms as a result of the recent firearms legislation; and if he will make a statement. [24623]
Mr. Michael: As at 21 January, £31.6 million had been paid to shooters and more than 28,000 payments have been made. A one month hand-in period for .22 handguns started yesterday, fulfilling our undertaking before the election and the overwhelming will of Parliament which was expressed in a free vote.
Mr. Flight: I and, I have found, many colleagues have had many complaints from constituents who have handed
in their weapons, but who have not received compensation for considerably longer than the 21 days average that is claimed by the Home Office. The Revenue charges people interest if they pay their taxes late. First, will the Minister undertake that if compensation is unduly late, people will receive interest? Secondly, could he confirm that in assessing retail values, the Home Office is not factoring in a charge that is equivalent to VAT? Some of my constituents complain that they are not receiving full retail value as a VAT equivalent has been deducted.
Mr. Michael: I must make it clear that we have no intention of paying interest, and neither had the previous Government. The arrangement is not a commercial transaction, but the fulfilment of a promise to pay compensation to shooters for the loss of their sport, and for the fact that they cannot use their weapons and ancillary equipment as they could before the legislation. I think that the hon. Gentleman and some others underestimate the size of the task that was taken on by the previous Government, with our support. There were some 40,000 applicants. Some of them applied under the simpler parts of the scheme and some applied under the more complex parts. The rules are quite clear. All those who have handed in their guns and ancillary equipment will receive compensation in the fulness of time. We will pay the compensation as quickly as possible.
Mr. Mullin: Now that the ban on handguns is on the statute book, what are the Government's plans for reducing the huge quantity of shotguns in circulation and for the introduction of some sort of licensing system for air weapons which, as hon. Members will be aware, cause a great deal of low-level mayhem and some serious injuries?
Madam Speaker: The Minister is not required to answer that question as it does not relate to the main question.
Mr. Greenway: Does the Minister realise that he must be the only person in the country who thinks that this compensation scheme is being run fairly and efficiently? Everyone else knows that it is a shambles, and it is about to be made worse by the needless banning of .22 calibre pistols. The Minister told the House that there was no need for the Government to accept a 30-day time limit for compensation payments because payments would be made as quickly as possible. Will he agree to pay interest on all claims that are outstanding not for 30 days, but for three months?
Mr. Michael: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's last question is simple and I have given it already. It is no, and the hon. Gentleman's Government would not have paid interest either. There is some inconsistency in the hon. Gentleman's question. He is speaking about the legislation that was passed by his Government, and that is the legislation on which we have been compensating up to now. The .22 legislation relates to additional guns--about 10,000--that are to be handed in over the next month. [Hon. Members: "A shambles."] It is not a shambles; the matter is being handled well. It is a major task which is being undertaken properly and as swiftly as possible. I am surprised by the pettiness of Opposition Members in a discussion on the removal of handguns from private possession to protect the British public.
13. Mr. Fitzpatrick: What measures he plans to implement to ensure that there is a framework for local action to tackle youth offending. [24624]
Mr. Straw: The Crime and Disorder Bill establishes new youth offending teams throughout the country, bringing the relevant local agencies together in partnership to work more effectively with young offenders. The Bill also establishes a youth justice board for England and Wales, which will provide a clear national framework for that local action to tackle youth offending.
Mr. Fitzpatrick: I thank the Secretary of State for his response. I am sure that he knows that his proposals have been widely welcomed. However, it is also accepted that we need to be tough on the causes of offending. With that in mind, does he agree that, as part of the framework, we must have adequate resourcing of youth services, as well as promotion of education, training and employment opportunities for young people?
Mr. Straw: I pay tribute to the work of the youth service, which is a much neglected service. The issue in all these cases--this applies generally throughout the public sector--is not just the money that is spent on the service, but how effectively that money is used. As we saw from an Audit Commission report last week for the police, the police forces that have been most effective in reducing crime have not necessarily been those that have had an increase in resources.
Mr. Clappison: I congratulate the Home Secretary on his good fortune in being in the Prime Minister's good books. We hope that relations with No. 11 are equally good. May not the Prime Minister have less reason to feel pleased with the Home Secretary if he considers local authority secure accommodation? Is it not true that, in the previous Parliament, when a substantial amount of extra local authority secure accommodation was being provided, the Prime Minister, then the shadow Home Secretary, promised that he would provide more? Is it not true that it was said that sending 15 and 16-year-olds to adult prisons rather than secure accommodation was a scandal? Is it not true that, under this Home Secretary, the Government are not providing a single extra local authority secure accommodation place, are set to continue remands of 15 and 16-year-olds to adult prison accommodation long into the future and, on top of all that, have abandoned the promising experimental regime at Colchester? Is all that not proof that they have failed to deliver on a commitment?
Mr. Straw: Even by the standards of the Opposition Front-Bench team, that was a remarkably poorly researched question. The truth on secure accommodation is that, in 1991, the previous Administration promised a programme to increase the number of secure accommodation places by about 170 and it took them nearly seven years to achieve that. They also completely confused the legislation, with the result--until the introduction of the Crime and Disorder Bill--that some of those places were having to remain empty for 12 and 13-year-olds, while there were insufficient places for the
remands of 15 and 16-year-olds. We will take no lectures on the issue of secure accommodation for young people. We have proposed a national youth justice board. One of its tasks will be to sort out the present incoherent and expensive system of custody for young people.14. Ms Beverley Hughes: What plans he has to implement the incorporation of the European convention on human rights. [24625]
Mr. Mike O'Brien: The Human Rights Bill gives effect to our manifesto commitment to incorporate the convention. It will enable everyone in the United Kingdom to enforce their convention rights before our courts. It will bring rights home to the British people. Our judges must be trained and our courts ready to implement the convention's incorporation.
Ms Hughes: I thank my hon. Friend for that information and welcome the Government's initiative. He has rightly told us that the process of implementation will inevitably be lengthy, despite the Government's swift action. That makes the previous Government's failure all the more regrettable. When does he expect that the British people will be able to apply the protection of the convention in UK courts?
Mr. O'Brien: We want to ensure that this important step for giving British people rights is done in the best possible way and that all the facilities and training are in place. Therefore, we have not yet set a date for completing incorporation, but we want to ensure that it is done as quickly as possible because it is enormously important that we bring those rights home to the British people.
Sir Brian Mawhinney: Those who approach the Prime Minister and ask his views on the introduction of privacy legislation are firmly told that he is against it, even by the back door. However, the Lord Chancellor--both in another place and elsewhere--has let it be known that he is fanatically in favour of judicially driven privacy law. The Home Secretary sits on the fence, a leg dangling on either side, waiting to see who will win. When will the Government speak with one voice and ensure that if there is to be privacy legislation, it emerges from this place and not from the law courts?
Mr. O'Brien: The shadow Home Secretary is somewhat confused, is he not? Does he not understand that the European convention on human rights applies in any event? Legislation will not change the substantive rights under the convention, but it will enable British people to enforce their rights in British courts. Why is the Conservative party so unwilling to allow the British people to enforce their rights under the European convention in the British courts?
The Labour party has always supported the freedom of the press. We want to ensure that the rights of the British people are properly enforced. Indeed, the shadow Lord Chancellor appears to be of that view, too. He said:
"One thing you can say in favour of the Bill is that it domesticates the powers of the institution of the Convention with the result that our own judges are now making decisions instead of the judges in Strasbourg."
2 Feb 1998 : Column 716
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |