| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Howard: I was not claiming the hon. Gentleman as a convert to my cause. Indeed, I am not certain how much good it would have done my cause had I done so. I was merely making the strictly limited point that, in a radio broadcast with me last week, he acknowledged the importance of the point that I have been making: that a total ban on the use of handguns might drive some target shooters underground, which might mean that the public had less protection than would be available under the Bill. That is an important point and the hon. Gentleman shared that view last week.
The Bill will take out of circulation entirely the most dangerous high-calibre weapons that were lawfully held by Thomas Hamilton. As a result, 160,000 high-calibre handguns will be destroyed--80 per cent. of those legally held in England and Wales. The Association of Chief Police Officers has welcomed the proposals. It said:
"The proposed ban on high calibre handguns and the tightening up on firearms controls generally will provide significant improvement . . . in public protection. ACPO's measured view suggested retaining a strictly controlled ability for handgun competition, limited to .22 weapons, and we very much support both that proposal and the proposed requirements for comprehensive security measures over weapons stored at gun clubs".
Mr. Rupert Allason (Torbay):
Is it not a fact that Thomas Hamilton should never have been allowed access to handguns? Is it not a fact that the police failed in their job? Is it not a fact that, far from supporting a total ban, Lord Cullen suggests that the police should regularise their own arrangements for scrutiny of applicants and that the law should have been looked at to ensure that the weight of evidence lay in favour of police objections to Hamilton's case rather than in favour of the applicant? Would not that be simpler?
Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend will be aware that many of the 23 recommendations made by Lord Cullen in his report--all of which we accept--go to precisely the point that he has just made. Of course it is true that there is room for reform of the procedures. The Bill proposes the implementation of the recommendations that will achieve that objective. Lord Cullen went on to say, however, that that in itself was not enough and that consideration had to be given to controlling access to handguns, which has given rise to the proposals in the Bill in addition to those dealing with certification.
Mr. Robin Corbett (Birmingham, Erdington): Did it not become apparent in the Cullen inquiry that part of the problem over Hamilton's possession of weapons was that police forces throughout England, Wales and Scotland were not using a common inquiry form? The law was not being equally applied in separate parts of the United Kingdom by various police forces. Is the Home Secretary able to assure the House that as a result of the Bill the police will use a common inquiry form that will range
12 Nov 1996 : Column 180
wider and uniformly collect all the information that they require to make a sensible judgment on applications for licences?
Mr. Howard: I agree that consistency of approach along the lines that the hon. Gentleman has suggested would be desirable. That will indeed occur in future.
Mr. William Ross (East Londonderry) rose--
Mr. Howard: I have not yet given way to anyone from the hon. Gentleman's party, so it is right that I should do so before I make further progress.
Mr. Ross: Did I understand the Home Secretary correctly a few minutes ago when he was quoting from advice that he was given by the chief constables to the effect that, if the number of legal firearms were reduced, there would be a considerable reduction in armed crime? Surely that implies that chief constables believe that licensed guns are used in armed crime. That is manifestly untrue. Only illegal weapons are used in armed crime.
Mr. Howard: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman is right. ACPO is, perhaps, in a better position than--dare I say it?--either the hon. Gentleman or I to know what weapons are used in the commission of armed crime. I am certainly prepared to accept that the vast majority of armed crimes are committed with illegally held weapons, but in the face of such opinions I for one would not exclude the possibility--perhaps the probability--that some legally held weapons are also so used.
Mr. Winston Churchill (Davyhulme): What evidence does my right hon. and learned Friend have in respect of his reply to the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross)? What figures does he have at his disposal to show that legally held weapons have been used in the commission of armed crime? What are the statistics? Furthermore, bearing in mind the fact that the overwhelming majority of people who own firearms legally are upright, respected members of the community, by what right are the Government and the House about to dispossess them of their property without full compensation not only for the firearm but for all the equipment that goes with it? Many such firearm owners will be severely out of pocket.
Mr. Howard: I shall come to compensation in a moment. I cannot give my hon. Friend precise figures along the lines that he requests, but I remind the House--it is important that we do not lose sight of this--that the genesis of this legislation was one appalling incident in which 17 murders were committed with lawfully held weapons. When we consider the use of legally held weapons in the commission of crime, it is not possible to overlook that dreadful event.
Clauses 2 to 5 provide for a number of essential but strictly limited exemptions. Certain professionals, such as vets, hunt servants and those working in slaughterhouses, need high-calibre handguns to destroy animals humanely, and they will be exempt. Equally, some types of pistol need to be exempt. They will include starting pistols, flare pistols and trophies of war acquired before 1946.
As I made clear to the House in my statement on Lord Cullen's report, the Government want to put these measures on the statute book at the earliest possible
12 Nov 1996 : Column 181
Clauses 6 and 7 will require the owners of low-calibre handguns to be members of a licensed pistol club. They will have to keep their pistol at that club and will be able to use it only for target shooting. It will be an offence to possess a low-calibre handgun outside a licensed pistol club. The maximum penalty will be 10 years in prison, an unlimited fine, or both. Transitional arrangements will require those who have a low-calibre handgun to surrender it until they are able to find a licensed handgun club in which to store it.
I accept that there will be circumstances in which low-calibre handguns have to be moved from licensed pistol clubs--for example, when a gun needs mending or its owner is competing in a national target shooting competition at a different club. Clause 8 contains the provisions governing such moves. Before a gun can be removed, a permit will be required from the police and the gun will need to be carried by a third party whom the police are satisfied is a fit and proper person to discharge that responsibility.
Since the Bill was published on 1 November, the Government have been reflecting on the question of compensation that should be paid to those who are affected adversely by its provisions. I have met parliamentary colleagues on a number of occasions. I have also met representatives of various organisations and received letters from individuals who will be affected by the legislation.
It has always been the Government's position that they must pay compensation to those to whom they have a legal obligation. Since the Bill was published, the Government have received further legal advice from the Law Officers, which makes it clear that not only do we have an obligation to those whose guns will be made unlawful by the Bill but that our obligations also extend to those who own accessories that can be used only in connection with those guns. In those circumstances, I intend to enter into discussions with the British Shooting Sports Council to identify the accessories that fall within the terms of the further legal advice that we have received. The Government will introduce proposals to implement that legal advice. That clearly means that a revised money resolution will be necessary and the Government intend to table one shortly. In considering the precise scope of that resolution, we shall take into account the points that will no doubt be made in today's debate.
Sir Terence Higgins (Worthing):
Obviously, the change will be some improvement, although the fact that it is necessary to make a change reflects the rush with which the legislation has been introduced. Whatever view one may take about complete or revised bans, is it not clear that it would be grossly unjust if the money resolution did not cover people who have businesses--for example, shooting ranges with long leases--that will no longer receive any revenue? They are likely to go bankrupt, as are many other businesses associated with the sport. Will my right hon. and learned Friend assure us
12 Nov 1996 : Column 182
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |