| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman has completely misunderstood our proposal. The Bill will enable third parties, authorised by the police, to transport firearms from one club to another for the purpose of use in a competition--not the owner of the firearm but an authorised third party. The criticism that the hon. Gentleman has just read out is wide of the mark.
Mr. Straw: I do not think I have misunderstood the proposal at all. The Bill's proposals are not as tight as those in the Republic of Ireland, where I am advised there has been a complete ban on handguns since 1972, and the transportation of any such weapon must be undertaken by the Garda. The Bill does not allow for that. We take the evidence given by the shooters' council to Cullen very seriously.
Mr. William Ross: Surely the hon. Gentleman is aware that the Republic of Ireland is, to put it mildly, widely believed to be the repository of the largest collection of illegal weapons in Europe?
Mr. Straw: Of course I am aware of that, but it does not alter the fact that, to try to control the supply of weapons, there is a complete ban on lawfully held weapons in the Republic.
Mr. Gallie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
When the issue of compensation first arose--during consideration of the 1988 Firearms (Amendment) Bill--the then Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witney, resisted the idea, saying that there were serious objections to compensation. Indeed, the White Paper published by him stated that the Government had concluded that, as a matter of principle, it was undesirable and unjust to require the taxpayer to pay for the removal from the public domain of weapons that were an acknowledged threat to life.
In the end, compensation was conceded, but the Minister of State at the time, the right hon. and learned Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), went out of his way to say that the compensation scheme agreed
When industries have been directly and seriously damaged by changes in tariffs, no compensation has generally been paid. Even in cases where compensation arises--for example in road schemes--the rules are tight. Many home owners in my constituency are to receive no compensation whatever for the serious loss of value to their homes caused by the construction of a motorway nearby.
In the present case we think it appropriate that compensation should be paid, not least to ease the process of compliance. However, like the right hon. Member for Witney and the right hon. and learned Member for Grantham, I do not believe that that should be seen as a wider precedent.
Mr. Toby Jessel (Twickenham)
rose--
Mr. Straw:
Those of us who follow the debate on Europe inside the Tory party have been greatly entertained by the sudden faith in European judicial institutions shown by former sceptics such as the hon. Member for
12 Nov 1996 : Column 197
Mr. Straw:
We welcome with open arms hon. Members who, like the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, have suddenly shown such faith in the European convention on human rights, and we look forward to his support for our plans to incorporate the European convention into British law.
I must tell the hon. Gentleman and others who are tempted down that path that it will take about seven years and tens of thousands of pounds to get a case to judgment, and that our best advice is that such a case has no chance of success. After all, article 1 of the European convention on human rights provides that
I will take three interventions, then I must make progress.
Mr. Leigh:
The hon. Gentleman has made clear his view, as have the Government, that there is no precedent for compensating businesses. He has also made it clear that he supports compensation for individuals. Will he comment on compensation for groups of individuals who join to form a rifle club or, in this case, a pistol club, which will necessarily be closed by the Bill?
Mr. Straw:
These are complicated matters. If the hon. Gentleman has detailed proposals, I should be happy to consider them, as I know the Secretary of State would be.
Mr. Jessel:
Does not the hon. Gentleman know that the European Court of Human Rights is an organ of the 27-nation Council of Europe, which is a voluntary body, and has nothing whatever to do with the European Union?
Mr. Straw:
I know that. If only other Conservative Members knew it, it would greatly assist the debate.
Mr. Gallie:
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. For a while I had the feeling that he had something against Scots. He has repeatedly said that shooters will still be able to use rifles in pursuit of their sport. He is usually a great champion of the disabled. The disabled can use handguns, but cannot use rifles, especially from wheelchairs. Has the hon. Gentleman thought of that?
Mr. Straw:
As I said, I accept that many innocent people who are responsible shooters will suffer as a result of the changes. I regret that, but it is a matter of balance between the right of people to participate in a sport and the dreadful atrocities that have occurred and could occur in the future if handguns remain available. The hon. Gentleman and I come to different conclusions.
12 Nov 1996 : Column 198
There are other issues that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I will pursue in more detail in Committee. I shall mention two now. The first is the issue of age limits. Young people may not marry until they are 16; they may not hold a driving licence until they are 17; they may not drink in a public house or watch a violent film until they are 18; but they may possess a firearm, including a handgun or pistol, from the age of 14. I find that extraordinary. The minimum age of 14 is only a matter of police practice. As the Home Office evidence to Lord Cullen put it,
Mr. Straw:
I apologise to the hon. Gentlemen. I have given way a great deal and I must conclude my speech.
The second issue concerns airguns, which are not lethal in the way that shotguns or firearms are, but which can cause severe injury. They remain outside any licensing system. Only yesterday, the Press Association reported that someone had been blinded in one eye by an air rifle. I know from my hon. Friends that thousands of our constituents are harassed and intimidated by the use of air rifles. Because they are wholly outside regulations, no one knows how many there are in circulation. Lord Cullen raised concerns about the dangers posed by air weapons and drew them to the attention of the Home Office in his report. We believe that the time has come for a serious review to establish whether more effective regulation of airguns should be introduced.
My final point concerns the licensing system. Neither Ryan nor Hamilton should have received a licence, but both did. So, if newspaper reports are accurate, do many other unsavoury characters. The Times reported on5 October that a
"cannot be regarded as any sort of precedent".--[Official Report, 17 May 1988; Vol. 133, c. 376.]
Parliament has long accepted that where a particular private interest is affected by legislation or by Government decision, proper compensation should be paid. The most usual cases are those in which homes or businesses are adversely affected--for example by road schemes. Different considerations surely apply where a general class of people is adversely affected by legislation--for example to improve public safety. The manufacturers of asbestos, flammable furniture foam and certain drugs have all found that their businesses have been undermined by changes in public safety regulations. As far as I am aware, no compensation has ever been paid to them. They have had to accept the risk.
"a serious possibility that the judges of the European Court of Human Rights may oblige the British taxpayer to provide compensation on a much wider basis"--[Official Report, 7 November 1996; Vol. 284, c. 1350.]
Mr. Gallie
rose--
"everyone's right to life shall be protected by law".
That seems to argue for total gun control. The convention is silent on compensation for gun owners.
"the law does not set a minimum age for the issue of a firearm certificate".
We believe that the law must be changed. There must be a minimum age of 18 on the civilian possession or ownership of rifles and any remaining licensed handguns, and tighter restrictions on the use of shotguns by minors.
"disturbed gun enthusiast who drew up plans for a Hungerford style massacre. . . [had] succeeded in becoming the armourer at his local gun club".
The Daily Express reported on 11 September how a man who shot his wife dead had been licensed to keep 18 weapons
"despite being in the grip of depression for six years".
Some say, as we have heard this afternoon, that that is all the fault of the police--that the regulations are satisfactory, but that the police have failed to do their job. Many of the most odious comments by members of the gun lobby have been their attacks on the police. In one of their published documents, they have accused the police of having an anti-gun agenda. That is bad enough, but I was astonished to learn that the shooting lobby has been encouraged in its attacks on the police by some hon. Members who should know better. The hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith) launched an extraordinary attack on the police last week, saying:
"We have got to make absolutely sure that the police get a good kick in the pants for this"--
12 Nov 1996 : Column 199
their failure to implement proper firearms controls--
"and take their jobs more seriously where weapons are concerned".
I believe that such intemperate assaults on the professionalism of the police are utterly irresponsible.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |