---

Madam Speaker: Statements such as that should be listened to in silence, not heckled. I deprecate very much what took place during that statement.

Working Time Directive

4.26 pm

Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South): I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, to debate an important matter that requires specific and urgent consideration, namely,

"the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities concerning the application of the United Kingdom in respect of the working time directive."

One of the factors in the Standing Order is urgency. The directive will become law in this country next week. Unless we have a debate under the Standing Order procedure, it is unlikely that any debate will be held, yet at the same time the subject will no doubt be extensively covered in the media, with comment on radio and television and discussion and debate outside the Chamber.

We must clarify the issues because, as the Secretary of State half agreed, there is no chapter in the Maastricht treaty; nor is the opt-out relevant because article 118A applies. This case shows that its scope has been increased, so the increased qualified majority vote influence will be greater in future.

Unless we debate this matter--which has not been debated at all in this Chamber, merely in Standing Committee some three years ago--the merits of the law will not be considered, its effects will not be debated and the effects on tribunals, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), will not be properly explored. The rights of employers and employees will be, at least, uncertain.

It is not a question of replacing tomorrow's business with an Adjournment debate. As I understand it, such a debate would be given precedence over the bovine spongiform encephalopathy debate, which perhaps should have been more thoroughly discussed previously.

The public expect us to debate the working time directive--and to sit for an additional three hours--as it concerns vital matters relating to their employment and to the rights of employees. There is no likelihood of the matter being debated, even on the Adjournment for three hours, unless you, Madam Speaker, accept my application.

Madam Speaker: I have listened very carefully to what the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) has said and I must give my decision without giving my reasons. I am afraid that I do not consider that the matter that he raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20 and I cannot therefore submit his application to the House.

12 Nov 1996 : Column 173

Orders of the Day

Firearms (Amendment) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

4.28 pm

Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Biffen). With the exception of speeches by Front Benchers, I am afraid that speeches wil be limited to 10 minutes.

Mr. Michael Jopling (Westmorland and Lonsdale): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Could you help the House with regard to motion No. 2 on the Order Paper? It is not exactly a wholly new precedent, but I believe that it is the first time that such procedure has been challenged in the House.

I read motion No. 2 under the heading "Business of the House" and like, I suspect, many of my colleagues I said to myself, "That's a guillotine motion." I made inquiries and was told that it was not a guillotine motion in the form that we have come to know and use over the 32 years that I have been in the House.

Apparently, the motion--I do not know how many hon. Members can read it and argue that it is not a guillotine motion--is not debatable, and a decision will be taken forthwith. In contrast, a normal guillotine motion can be debated for three hours, or--if my memory serves correctly--an hour and a half if it is a supplementary motion.

There are two issues, the first of which is whether the motion is suitable for dealing with clauses 1 to 5 of the Firearms (Amendment) Bill, although I shall not attempt to deal with it now.

My second concern is about the procedure, which has been used once before, in the summer, when no one spotted it and the motion went through on the nod. The matter has been drawn to my attention principally by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J.Wiggin), who asked me what I thought the second item on the Order Paper meant. I said, "It's a guillotine motion."

You, Madam Speaker, will know that many decades ago, and with great reluctance, the House had to adopt the guillotine procedure. By its very nature, the procedure removes the rights of the Opposition and of minorities by truncating debate. The safeguard, as I have always understood it, was a three-hour debate on guillotine motions or a one-and-a-half-hour debate on amendments to those motions. We are now being presented with the first new procedure, in my memory, allowing a guillotine motion to be moved and passed without debate. It is a deplorable and thoroughly retrograde step for the House to be landed with this procedure, without any warning, discussion or decision being made by it.

I am appalled that the Government should have decided to introduce a guillotine in such a back-door manner. I hope that Ministers will tell us that they will not move motion No. 2, that we will have no more of the new

12 Nov 1996 : Column 174

procedure and that we shall proceed with the established guillotine procedure to which we have become so accustomed.

Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North): Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: I think that I require no further instruction on this matter. I am sure that the House is quite aware of the sentiments--[Interruption.] No; there will be no further points of order on this matter. I can see that hon. Members are concerned about the matter, but they do not have to continue expressing their concern. The Government have placed the motion on the Order Paper, and hon. Members can interpret it as they wish.

A precedent was set during the passage of the Family Law Act 1996. I wonder whether the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) realises that, today, the motion will fall if the voice of only one hon. Member is raised in objection. At the appropriate time, hon. Members will merely have to say "object", unless the Government withdraw the motion. When the time comes, I am sure that at least one hon. Member will say "object", which will meet the right hon. Gentleman's concern. Perhaps we can now proceed.

4.32 pm

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Nine months ago, Thomas Hamilton walked into Dunblane primary school carrying four high-calibre handguns and 743 rounds of ammunition. Within minutes, he had killed 16 young children and their teacher. The dreadful crimes committed that day were committed with weapons that were legally bought and legally held. Those facts placed an onerous duty on the Government to consider what controls there should be on the ownership and possession of guns.

Lord Cullen was asked to conduct an inquiry. His report, and the Government's response to it, were published last month. The Government intend to implement all 23 of the recommendations on firearms made by Lord Cullen. The nine recommendations that require legislation are taken forward in the Firearms (Amendment) Bill, and the remainder will be taken forward administratively.

Lord Cullen made no recommendations on the central question of access to handguns, but he considered that access to handguns should be strictly controlled because of the special dangers that they pose. He made two alternative suggestions to achieve that objective. The Government agree with Lord Cullen's objective, but propose to achieve it in a somewhat different manner. Let me explain why.

Mr. John Carlisle (Luton, North): When dealing with what Lord Cullen said--or, rather, what he did not say--I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend will add that Lord Cullen did not consider that the banning of handguns for target shooting or the banning of shooting

12 Nov 1996 : Column 175

clubs would be justified. As my right hon. and learned Friend has said, that is the crux of the Bill. Why, then, has he gone beyond what Lord Cullen recommended?

Mr. Howard: My last words before giving way to my hon. Friend were "Let me explain why." I am about to explain why the Government have chosen the course of action that we are putting before the House.

Lord Cullen would have allowed single-shot handguns to continue to be kept at home. The Government do not believe that handguns, whatever their calibre, should be kept at home. Handguns are not used to shoot game and, as Lord Cullen observed and Thomas Hamilton demonstrated, they are extremely easy to carry and to conceal. Of course it is true that most gun-related crimes are committed with illegally held weapons. That is why we have increased the maximum penalties for illegal possession of a firearm and for going to a crime equipped with a gun. It would be difficult to argue that the public would get no extra protection from a ban on handguns in the home.

Lord Cullen suggested that multi-shot handguns, too, should--

Mr. Marlow: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?

Mr. Howard: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I should like to complete my explanation.

Lord Cullen suggested that multi-shot handguns, too, should be kept at home if--and only if--they could be safely disabled. He suggested that that could be done by removing the slide assembly or the cylinder, which would then be left in a gun club, or by fitting a locked barrel block to the gun. He suggested that the individual ownership of multi-shot handguns should be banned if that option proved unworkable. Instead, licensed gun clubs would own and keep them for use by their members.

The Government took advice from the Forensic Science Service on the practicability of disabling multi-shot handguns. It concluded that that way forward was unworkable. Existing barrel blocks are currently commercially available only for certain types of shotgun; they are not suitable for handguns. Even if such blocks became more widely available, it would be impossible to guarantee that they could not be removed by someone with enough determination.

As to removing parts from handguns to disable them, it would be impossible to ensure that someone did not keep illicit spares at home. While it is true that the slide or cylinder can be removed from many handguns easily, it is not universally the case. As Lord Cullen conceded in the case of many high-precision .22 handguns:

"Repeated disassembly involved disruption of carefully tuned components and would very quickly impair the accuracy for which they were designed".

---