§ Lord Lester of Herne Hillasked Her Majesty's Government:
Further to the statement made by Baroness Blatch on 4 February 1996 (H.L. Deb., col. 1593) as to the Government's satisfaction that their proposals for compensation under the Firearms (Amendment) Bill meet the requirements of the European Convention on Human Rights, what are their reasons for concluding that the denial of compensation to registered firearms dealers for the destruction or blighting of their licensed businesses as a result of the Bill would be in accordance with each of the general rule, the deprivation rule and the control of use rule contained in Article 1 of the First Protocol to the Convention, interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights in cases such as Sporrong v. Sweden and Tre Traktorer Aktiebolag v. Sweden as requiring the striking of a fair balance and the payment of compensation to individuals to avoid their carrying an excessive and disproportionate burden; and
Further to the statement made by Baroness Blatch on 4 February 1996 (H.L. Deb., col. 1593) as to the Government's satisfaction that their proposals for compensation under the Firearms (Amendment) Bill meet the requirements of the European Convention on Human Rights, whether they consider that the denial of compensation to registered firearms dealers for the destruction or blighting of their licensed businesses as a result of the Bill would (a) be fair to such dealers; (b) would avoid such dealers having to bear an excessive burden for the enactment of the Bill; and, if so, what are their reasons.
§ Baroness BlatchThe Government have carefully considered this matter. We are satisfied that our compensation proposals are in accordance with our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights.
We consider that those proposals properly address the question of striking a fair balance, as interpreted in the cases referred to, within the margin of appreciation which the United Kingdom enjoys to determine measures of control over the use of property in accordance with the general interest. We do not consider that the effect of the Bill on firearms dealers will amount to depriving them of the use of their business in the sense meant by Article 1 of the Convention. Firearms dealers will receive compensation for their stocks of newly prohibited firearms and ancillary equipment. We believe that it would be unfair, and would not represent a fair balance between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements for the protection of the individual's fundamental rights, if we were to establish a precedent which meant that compensation was to be paid for any loss of business which might result from legislative requirements imposed in the interests of public safety.