---

Column 1093

of the applicant. Who will decide that? Are disabled people to be barred from taking part in a sport in which they can compete on equal terms with the able-bodied? That would be a disgrace, given the large number of paraplegic members of shooting clubs.

I recently saw in The Times a photograph of Prince Charles shooting while he had the use of only one arm. I assume that the directive would disallow him from possession of a firearms certificate. Incidentally, I seem to remember that the picture appeared just above a headline reading "How the Cabinet assassins struck"--but that, of course, is all history now.

We should also consider the difficulties involved in administering the provision. At present, chief constables are responsible for issuing certificates, and will not do so if they consider that the applicant is of unsound mind or unfit to be entrusted with a firearm. Will that system remain under the directive, and will the right of appeal also remain? I think that we need to know that.

Much has been said this evening about the provision of the additional firearms passes to be used in Europe under article 1(4). I feel that it will lead to much more bureaucracy, which should be avoided at all costs.

I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to listen to the views of the firearms consultative committee, under the chairmanship of Lord Kimball. The committee was set up specifically to examine and report the views of experts, who are best qualified to come up with a constructive line. I understand that the committee is to meet next week to discuss the proposals ; it is a pity that it did not meet before the debate. I only hope that the documents available to the committee are more up to date than those before us tonight. I trust that my hon. Friend will take note of what we have said this evening, and that it will strengthen his arm or those of other Ministers when they go back to Europe to discuss the matter further. Debates like this go right to the heart of the question of sovereignty. There is no doubt--if sovereignty means having control over one's own affairs--that, within the European Community, certain aspects of sovereignty are strengthened if our sovereignty is pooled with that of our partners.

I have no objection to a majority vote on what are essentially European Community matters involving all member states ; however, I have the greatest possible objection to the majority vote being used to pass a directive that would impinge directly on the domestic laws of this country. I will not accept that such a vote should dictate whether we should shoot pigeons or magpies, whether it is legal for us to eat the British banger or whether a carrot is a fruit or a vegetable. Such matters are best left to our Parliament and our domestic law makers.

I believe that we have made a very good job of drafting and agreeing firearms legislation in this country--after, I may say, a good deal of agonising and debate. I think that the firearms laws that prevail here now should be left as they are, and should not be interfered with by our European partners.

9.18 pm

Mr. James Hill (Southampton, Test) : I have no axe to grind. I am not the chairman of a sporting club. I have never fired a gun on a rifle range. Therefore, I speak with

---

Column 1094

the great authority of those who know little or nothing about the taking of sporting weapons from one country to another. It is almost unnecessary to go into that question. However, national security matters have crept into the debate. This important debate will be one of a series on the effectiveness of our future border controls. If the impression is given that the Commission is slackening off on border controls, our customs officers may begin to say to themselves, "We've been told that this particular pass is all right. As a lot of work is involved, we won't, therefore, go into it as rigorously as we did in the past." Terrible problems of that kind will arise time and again while European legislation pours through the House. I hope that much of it will be picked up in the new European Standing Committees and that we shall be able to ask questions that will clarify the position for the Minister. He will not then have to come back from meetings in Europe and tell us what he can remember of his last conversation in Brussels. I praise my hon. Friend for telling us about these facts. The Opposition want it all to be put down in black and white, but it has to be translated in a form that meets with the agreement of the other member states. It is extremely difficult to package such agreements.

I think that we all agree that the debate has focused on the wrong issue. I understand that 14-year-olds will be able to take guns, under supervision-- I presume under the supervision of their parents--across borders. I suppose that they will be able to obtain permits. Nevertheless, I doubt it. The ages that were mentioned this evening varied greatly.

We must ensure that the message goes out from this place that at this time Customs and Excise must be extra vigilant. That applies to drugs, immigration and almost everything else. The Commissioners must adopt our standards. I am sufficiently non-European to be able to say that, although I am pro-European on practically everything else. We had this problem with the European driving licence. When these matters are raised, we must be able to argue the case with the maximum information before us. Our sovereignty must not be defended to an absurd degree--over such questions as the sausage--but when it comes to national security our sovereignty must be defended. This is probably the only member state of the Community that is under particular threat from acts of terrorism.

9.23 pm

Mr. Ken Hargreaves (Hyndburn) : As my speech has been wrecked by the assurances that the Minister has already given, I shall be brief.

I welcome the Minister's announcement concerning articles 5(a) and 5(b). They relate to the age limits of the physically and mentally handicapped. I congratulate him on his achievement.

I know very little about firearms, but one of my constituents, Mr. Derek Waterworth, is secretary of the north-west region shooting association. I wish to voice certain concerns of behalf of the association. I am glad that the Minister has already dealt with them. Mr. Waterworth, however, makes two further points. The letter states :

"Annex 1, Category B. The need for authorisation to possess soft-nosed or hollow projectiles used in pistol ammunition.

---

Column 1095

Most target pistol shooters use projectiles made entirely from lead alloy often with a flat nose and a hollow base, this being the most accurate configuration for a slow moving projectile over short distances. Many pistol shooters also mould their own bullets." Mr. Waterworth asks whether it is realistic

"to make the moulding of lumps of lead the subject of legislation. The proposal is aimed at copper jacketed ammunition with a flat or hollow lead nose of the type used for hunting game but this is not made clear. The directive also seeks to ban the use of military arms by civilians. Unlike some countries on the continent there has been a long tradition here of using military arms for sporting purposes. Not to mention clay pigeon and game shooters, there are over one hundred target shooting clubs in the North West Sports Council Region. Members of these clubs have personally invested considerable sums of money in their equipment."

Mr. Waterworth said that they are worried by the directive. Mr. Waterworth and his members will welcome the Minister's announcement. Perhaps when he replies he will give us further reassurance on the final two points.

9.25 pm

Mr. Peter Lloyd : With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall reply.

This has been a considerably longer debate than we would have had if it had started at the usual time after 10 o'clock. I make no complaint about that because I know that the subject raises considerable interest and concern among hon. Members ranging from the rules as they affect shooters to the effects on national security. Both are important. I have made long lists of the points that have been raised. If I move fairly rapidly, I hope to be able to respond to all the substantive points that have been made.

The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) asked about age limits, as did many of my hon. Friends, most notably my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin). The agreement on age limits reached in the working party is that existing law shall prevail. No change will be made for age limits on shooting sports and target practice. I hope that that is sufficiently clear and that it satisfies hon. Members.

The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West asked what documents would be required by shooters coming from other EEC countries. Under the directive, shooters will need licensing documents from their own state, which will be issued according to the law of their country. They will need the European firearms pass, which will also be issued by the particular country and is available to all those who have proper documentation and licences. We are insisting that we maintain the requirement for the British visitors permit. As hon. Members will know, that is issued only after there is a proper letter of information from a sponsor making clear the purpose of someone bringing in a gun for sporting use. It must also say what the sporting occasion is and where the gun will be used.

The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West asked about the pass and what it would cover. I think that I have dealt with that already. The European firearms pass is issued by member countries to those who ask for it and legitimately hold weapons under their national law. The hon. Gentleman also asked about the information system. It will provide a record of arms movements. Each member state will appoint a national authority. It may be the national police or the country's Interpol bureau. An information exchange system under a Council of Europe

---

Column 1096

convention on weapons already exists, and is said to work well by the states that have ratified it, including Germany and Italy. Concern was expressed by a number of hon. Members about security, and several emphasised the need for intelligence if we are to ensure that firearms are not to be moved across the continent and over borders for terrorist and other criminal purposes. The rules and regulations will be an essential part of that intelligence exchange between European countries. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West referred to the danger of excessive bureaucracy. We want the minimum possible, but in achieving the ends that the hon. Gentleman asked us to address it will be essential to exchange information between countries.

I was reminded by both the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) that at present we do not stop everyone entering the United Kingdom and search their baggage. Many arrivals pass through the green channel. In fact, the number of people using it is increasing. The Community aims at phasing out customs controls. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) was also worried about security, yet it would appear from his speeches that he shares that objective. However, he apparently desires that frontier checks should continue ad infinitum. We do not have full checks now, and under the Community proposals that he supports we will not have them at all.

Mr. Maclennan : I did not make that point, and would not have done so for the reasons that the Minister gave. The hon. Gentleman knows my views on that issue. However, I am interested to know the views of the police.

Mr. Lloyd : Both the Association of Chief Police Officers and its Scottish counterpart are concerned that we should maintain the controls on visitors provided by the British visitor permit scheme. That is why we believe it is not only essential to maintain the visitor permit requirement but that we should have the right to make essential checks at our own border. On both issues, the police and the Government are at one. Achieving those conditions is part of our objective in the continuing negotiations.

Mr. Hill : Does my hon. Friend take the view that more money needs to be spent on the customs service to provide up-to-date equipment for scrutinising baggage? At present it is a question of catch as catch can, and it is not working very well. Once in a while a load of drugs is detected, but when it comes to detecting weapons surely customs halls should be equipped with more high-tech equipment.

Mr. Lloyd : Improved technology as well as improved intelligence can help. It is a constant battle to stay ahead and to detect and catch people who bring weapons into the country for illegitimate purposes.

The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland asked whether the negotiated directive will touch on movements to and from non-EC states. It will not, except in so far as it implies a strengthening of checks on visitors from countries outside the Community. The same question was of concern to my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), albeit from a different point of view.

The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland and my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) mentioned the firearms consultative

---

Column 1097

committee. We have kept the committee up to date with developments. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary relies upon this small but important committee for advice. It will meet next week, and no doubt will give us the benefit of its informed views.

I must take issue with the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland about the treaty base. He seemed to believe that this should be settled first in the negotiations. As he is interested in EEC matters, I am surprised that he had not yet come across the practice whereby a directive is negotiated and, although a treaty base may be in mind, it is not finally determined until what should go in the directive is agreed. As this directive has taken shape, we have made clear our opinion on what the base should be. Some countries, particularly Ireland, share our views.

Mr. Maclennan : I have, of course, come across this procedure before, as the hon. Gentleman will recall, because it was raised by the Government in the debate on enfranchisement of foreign nationals from European Community countries. I am surprised that this practice continues. To reach a detailed agreement before deciding whether it has been established on a proper legal basis is to put the cart before the horse. This is not a matter with which the Minister can deal unilaterally, but it is open to the Government to challenge it and to seek an advisory opinion of the European Court.

Mr. Lloyd : We have been challenging it, but discussions go on in parallel. That is why our arguments about the treaty base of the emerging directive were made before completion of the directive. The directive has not yet been agreed.

My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare raised several specific and detailed points. The semi-automatic weapons element of the draft directive has been dropped. It would have caught self-loading pistols used by, for example, target shooters. The military calibre ban has also been dropped. We expect new and better wording to be included that will not affect target and sporting shooters.

My hon. Friends the Members for Weston-super-Mare and for Dumfries asked about airgun pellets. That aspect is not affected because the domestic law on sales to young persons and possession by prohibited persons which we already have still applies.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries was worried about intensification of controls at external borders to which the directive referred, and I mentioned that point in responding to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland. The fears that this provision will damage the tourist industry are unjustified. The article is simply intended to improve public safety in Europe as a whole. It does no less than require that all non-EEC visitors who wish to bring firearms into the Community for sport or competition should first obtain the certification that member states think is proper.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries will find that the directive requires us to demand no more than we demand already of visitors who come here for shooting, which is such an important part of the industry of some parts of Scotland. I hope that my hon. Friend will feel reassured because the directive does not present any threat in that area.

---

Column 1098

My hon. Friend also referred to paraplegic shooters and to disabled shooters in general. We expect that in the new directive the limitations on the disabled will be wholly removed. We do not believe that such limitations are necessary. The working party agreed, and when the Commission publishes the next directive the limitations should not be included. I hope that that will reassure my hon. Friend and other hon. Members who are concerned about that point. However, I must stress for the sake of accuracy that certain minor limitations in existing firearms legislation--and my hon. Friends knows them better than I do--will continue to be in force. I stress again that our domestic law governs the rules in this area.

My hon. Friend also mentioned the military weapons ban, which has now been dropped. The definitions that we expect to be in place will not ban normal rifles and pistols ; they will ban only

automatic-firing military weapons. My hon. Friend also referred to age limits, but I have dealt with that in replying to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West.

My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East was very worried about the treaty base. I understand what he says and he will understand, not least because I responded to him and to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland earlier, that we share his concern. We believe that the Commission is proposing the wrong treaty base. I can do no more that to repeat that we have put our arguments and that we expect a formal response. Until we have that response, it would not be useful to ask me how we shall decide to respond to it. Our response will depend on how strong we think the arguments are. Many hon. Members referred to checks for security purposes. It is essential that we have rules that enable us to feel as secure as possible, and it is essential that in future we are no less secure than we are now. Within Europe, the old-fashioned customs checks are being reduced. Most travellers go through the green channel, and we have to rely on intelligence work and on the other ways of gathering information so that we can target our checks on the baggage and documentation on which our information suggests that we should most efficiently concentrate. That is how we now secure our frontiers against weapons and against undesirable elements such as drugs or other contraband. We do not secure our frontiers by having the right to challenge people who are going through the green channel. I cannot stress too strongly that we believe that the necessary parts of the directive are those criticised by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West for being bureaucratic. They will help to ensure that intelligence information, especially information on the movement of arms consignments, is available to the authorities. We also believe that it is essential that the British visitors permit should continue to be required. That is a central part of the argument that we have still to make in the working party.

Mr. Randall : I am grateful to the Minister for his comments, but can he tell the House how much that information system will cost?

Mr. Lloyd : I do not know. We must consider that carefully and sensibly. I suspect that, even without the present directive, we should want to establish and expand such an information exchange. The system may not cost much more than we should anyway have spent--possibly

---

Column 1099

no more. The agreements which have already been ratified and which are in force in Germany and Italy seem to work well.

I think that I have answered most of the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside. I understand his argument that matters which seem to have been hanging fire for years suddenly move at great speed. Whether we like it or not, that is the way in which negotiations appear to be carried on in the Community. When an issue such as this comes to the forefront, we may move very fast on it in a series of meetings. That is why I shall say little about the fact that I was able to give the House what I knew was good news. With fast-moving negotiations, it is difficult to ensure that the House is kept fully informed, and I apologise to hon. Members on both sides of the House who came to the debate with well- prepared speeches only to find that the very argument that they had intended to press on me already seemed to have been conceded by our colleagues in Europe.

Mr. Wiggin : I am sure that we all accept that the Minister acted in good faith. Will he reaffirm, however, that the basic purpose of the directive is to ease trade across national frontiers?

Mr. Lloyd : That is part of the argument. The Community argues that the directive is intended to ease trade across frontiers and that is why it has chosen the present base, although the choice may have been influenced by the fact that it is a qualified majority base. We argue that the directive concerns the free movement of people who happen to be carrying weapons with them and that is why we are arguing for a different base. Both arguments concern ease of movement, whether it be of people or of goods.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) for his helpful and constructive remarks. It was good to hear at least one hon. Member say that he wholeheartedly welcomed my remarks.

I think that I have answered the two additional questions raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Hargreaves).

I am grateful for the wise remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill), who knows well how the Community works, having himself been a member of the European assembly.

I hope that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West will not advise his hon. Friends to vote against the directive. It would be a pity if he did, because I think that he agrees with the general tenor of the Government's approach. We want this debate to be read and we want it to be understood within the Community, and if the Opposition voted against the directive it would look as though part of the House was not anxious for the Government to continue to press the points that we are determined to press. Having said that, I know why the hon. Gentleman argued as he did. As I said, I understand that hon. Members would like to have the most up-to-date information before a debate. With a fast-moving negotiation, that is not always possible, but I shall certainly speak to those who are responsible for these matters, for providing background papers and for the way in which the business is managed. Hon. Members' remarks will be drawn to their attention to be carefully considered.

---

Column 1100

Question put :--

The House divided : Ayes 78, Noes 15.

Division No. 15] [9.49 pm

AYES

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Amess, David

Amos, Alan

Arbuthnot, James

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Bowis, John

Brazier, Julian

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Burt, Alistair

Carrington, Matthew

Chapman, Sydney

Colvin, Michael

Curry, David

Dorrell, Stephen

Dunn, Bob

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Fishburn, John Dudley

Forman, Nigel

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Fox, Sir Marcus

Freeman, Roger

Gale, Roger

Goodlad, Alastair

Gorst, John

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Hague, William

Hampson, Dr Keith

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Harris, David

Hawkins, Christopher

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Hill, James

Hordern, Sir Peter

Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)

Irvine, Michael

Jack, Michael

Janman, Tim

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Kirkhope, Timothy

Knapman, Roger

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Lawrence, Ivan

Lightbown, David

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Macfarlane, Sir Neil

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Mans, Keith

Maples, John

Mates, Michael

Monro, Sir Hector

Neubert, Michael

Nicholls, Patrick

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Paice, James

Patnick, Irvine

Portillo, Michael

Redwood, John

Sackville, Hon Tom

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Stanbrook, Ivor

Stern, Michael

Stevens, Lewis

Sumberg, David

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Tredinnick, David

Viggers, Peter

Waller, Gary

Warren, Kenneth

Wells, Bowen

Widdecombe, Ann

Wiggin, Jerry

Wood, Timothy

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Tellers for the Ayes :

Mr. Tim Boswell and

Mr. Neil Hamilton.

NOES

Bellotti, David

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Cummings, John

Howells, Geraint

Hoyle, Doug

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Maclennan, Robert

Nellist, Dave

Pike, Peter L.

Randall, Stuart

Skinner, Dennis

Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)

Wallace, James

Tellers for the Noes :

Mr. Don Dixon and

Mr. Frank Haynes.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 10074/89 and 8836/90, relating to controls on the acquisition and possession of weapons ; and endorses the Government's view that any Directive must preserve the right of Member States to make those checks that are necessary for public security and public safety and that any additional burden on business should be kept to a minimum.

---