---

Mr. Robert Banks (Harrogate): Does not my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the forensic evidence that he has been given is in total contrast to that which Lord Cullen accepted? The report says:

"In the light of the evidence of Mr. Paton and Mr. Penn I am satisfied that the dismantling of self-loading pistols and revolvers would in general be practicable."

12 Nov 1996 : Column 176

Referring later to fitting barrel blocks, Lord Cullen said:

"There was little doubt that it would be possible for them to be manufactured. Such blocks were already available for shot guns to prevent third parties using the gun."

Mr. Paton was in no doubt that it would be simple for them to be made. Why did not my right hon. and learned Friend accept that evidence rather than that of the Forensic Science Service?

Mr. Howard: The fact remains that those blocks have not been manufactured for handguns. Lord Cullen reached his conclusion on the basis of the evidence of two experts at his inquiry. We have consulted the Forensic Science Service and have reached a different conclusion on the practicability of the way forward.

Mr. Marlow: My right hon. and learned Friend has said that the vast majority of crimes carried out with weapons involve those that are not to be banned or illegally held weapons. He will be aware that the people whom we are seeking to protect the public from will continue to get their weapons illegally. Politics is about priorities. Will my right hon. and learned Friend say how many lives he thinks that his measures will save, what they will cost and how many lives could be saved if that money were spent on the health service?

Mr. Howard: I do not suppose that my hon. Friend seriously expected me to give a quantified estimate along those lines. However, the Government cannot abdicate their responsibility or shirk the duty that the dreadful events of Dunblane placed upon them. Therefore, it is right that the Government should face up to that duty, examine the issues involved and reach their conclusions on how the objectives that Lord Cullen set out can best be achieved. That is the basis of the proposals in the Bill.

Sir Cranley Onslow (Woking): Is my right hon. and learned Friend prepared to put in the Library of the House a copy of the response that he received from the Forensic Science Service on the important issue of dismantling?

Mr. Howard: I am certainly prepared to do that.

Mr. Paul Marland (West Gloucestershire): Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that there is considerable concern about the Bill in my constituency? First, will he confirm for clarification that, as a result of the Bill, the 57,000 law-abiding full-bore pistol shots will be denied their sport for ever? Secondly, if .22 handguns can be kept safely in gun clubs, why is it impossible to keep full-bore pistols in the same manner?

Mr. Howard: I shall return to that point later. It is an important point that merits a reply, and I shall certainly provide one in due course.

I now turn to Lord Cullen's alternative suggestion. Despite the evidence that was placed before him, he recognised that his preferred way forward might not prove practicable. His alternative suggestion was that the individual ownership of all multi-shot handguns should be banned. If we accept the case for allowing some handguns to be kept in licensed clubs, as Lord Cullen did, individual target shooters should be free to continue to own them. Indeed, competitive target shooting would not be viable unless those taking part could use their own guns.

12 Nov 1996 : Column 177

The Government therefore decided to adopt a different approach that draws a distinction between low-calibre and high-calibre handguns.

Mr. Martin O'Neill (Clackmannan): Does the Home Secretary accept that the serious elements within the gun lobby--those competing at the highest level--insist that it will be impossible to achieve the level of accomplishment necessary to compete in the Olympics if they can no longer take their guns back to their homes? Therefore, the argument that the Home Secretary chooses to advance, which suggests that, somehow, the Bill will accommodate the highest standards of gunshooting, is fallacious. He is offering an empty gesture to serious shooters. I oppose the possession of handguns, but my constituents who have reached the highest levels of accomplishment and have participated in Olympic tournaments tell me that they will be unable to continue to compete if they cannot carry their guns home with them to calibrate them, cosset them and do whatever else they do with them. If the Home Secretary cannot provide for that, the Bill is sheer hypocrisy as it does not protect serious shooters.

Mr. Howard: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's argument. The Bill may make it more difficult for the competitive shooters to whom the hon. Gentleman refers to continue their activities in precisely the way in which they have until now. There will be differences. The ban on handguns in the home means that, inevitably, there will be differences, but I believe that competitive shooters will adapt to the regime for which the Bill provides and will continue to practise their sporting activity.

Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan): The Home Secretary realises that the issue raises strong feelings. Therefore, will he answer the question that the Prime Minister failed to answer this afternoon and say why the Government adopt contrasting attitudes to corporal punishment in English schools and the possession of handguns? How can they consider corporal punishment in schools to be a matter of individual conscience, but adopt a different approach to the possession of handguns?

Mr. Howard: Contrary to the hon. Gentleman's assertion, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister replied to that question this afternoon. He made it quite clear that the Government have reached a considered view on the matter. As is normal practice, and as occurred in 1988 after the massacre at Hungerford, the Government present their considered conclusions to the House and expect members of the Conservative parliamentary party to support those conclusions.

As Lord Cullen said, higher-calibre handguns are not target guns in the true and original sense. Many have been developed by the police and the military for self-defence. Their wider use has encouraged some shooters to don the trappings of combat, such as camouflage clothing. In Lord Cullen's words, that has

"caused others to feel uneasy about what appears to be the use of guns as symbols of personal power".

Indeed, target shooting with high-calibre handguns has been removed as a sport from the Olympic games precisely because, as I understand it, those guns are recognised to be more dangerous.

12 Nov 1996 : Column 178

In addition, the power of a .22 rimfire cartridge is limited by a special design. It is constructed of thin metal to enable the rim to be crushed when hit by the firing pin. A .22 rimfire handgun is between four and six times less powerful than a typical full-calibre handgun.

Clause 1 will therefore outlaw all higher-calibre handguns of the sort used by Thomas Hamilton. The ownership and use of lower-calibre handguns will be allowed provided that they are kept under safe lock and key in secure gun clubs at all times.

I know that some hon. Members believe that the Bill should go further and ban all handguns completely. However, I believe that we can give the public the protection that they deserve and allow target shooting with lower-calibre handguns--which has always been an Olympic sport--to continue. Indeed, I believe that banning all handguns could drive some target shooters underground. That might mean that the public would have less protection than would be available under the Bill.

Mr. George Robertson (Hamilton) indicated dissent.

Mr. Howard: The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) shakes his head, but only last week the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) acknowledged the importance of that argument.

Sir Michael Shersby (Uxbridge): Has my right hon. and learned Friend considered the fact that .32 centrefire handguns are used for competitions in the Commonwealth games? Will guns of that calibre continue to be used in the Commonwealth games under his proposal?

Mr. Howard: It is true that .32 calibre guns are used in competitions in the Commonwealth games, but not in the Olympic games. It will be for the Government and the city of Manchester, which decides which events will be part of the Commonwealth games in 2002, to discuss whether that higher-calibre event should be permitted. Should that event be permitted, it will be possible under the Bill to allow the event to take place.

Sir Anthony Grant (South-West Cambridgeshire): Will my right hon. and learned Friend say a word about vintage arms? He will be aware that there is a highly respectable vintage arms society, of which I am a member. It caters for muzzle-loading weapons, which could not conceivably be used to commit an appalling crime but which do not appear to be exempted from the Bill.

Mr. Howard: I understand the concerns of my hon. Friend and many others. I shall turn to that point in a moment and I may have some modestly encouraging news for him.

Mr. Jack Straw (Blackburn): A moment ago, the Home Secretary said that I had acknowledged the argument that a complete ban on handguns would drive underground an activity that could then be conducted without safeguards for security. I did indeed acknowledge that argument, but he should also accept that I said that

"the more I consider the case for allowing .22 pistols to continue to be licensed, the flimsier I find it."--[Official Report, 28 October 1996; Vol. 284, c. 348.]

12 Nov 1996 : Column 179

I understand the argument about which he is concerned, but is not the point that there will still be every opportunity for shooting enthusiasts to take part in lawful, licensed shooting activities, either with rifles or shotguns? There is no question of driving such people underground.

---