---

6.31 pm

Mr. James Wallace (Orkney and Shetland): The right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) has expressed a view that is echoed by many Conservative Back Benchers. It is important for many views to be expressed in a debate such as this, but I think that we shall remember that, referring to the banning of guns, Lord Cullen said in paragraph 9.111 of his report:

"proposals such as a ban on the possession of a certain type of firearm raise questions which are peculiarly within the province of the Government and Parliament to decide."

Ultimately, the buck stops with us: it is for us to make that decision--a decision that I think Parliament will want to address very seriously.

As we are too painfully aware, the origins of the Bill lie in the tragic events that took place at Dunblane primary school on 13 March this year, when Thomas Hamilton--with what can only be described as evil intent--opened fire on a class of innocent children. We should not pretend that passing the Bill will somehow draw a line under the tragedy of Dunblane, but I hope that, by producing legislation, the Government have acknowledged what the vast majority of our fellow citizens believe to be true:

12 Nov 1996 : Column 207

that, despite the reforms prompted by the Hungerford killings, our firearms legislation requires further strengthening. We hope that, at the very least, Parliament will try to make our country a safer place for our citizens.

My right hon. and hon. Friends start from the position that the protection of the public is a paramount duty of Parliament. It must be admitted that, in an imperfect world, we do not always get it right; but, after the tragedy of Dunblane, we recognise the need to address the issue again. In this context, we do not believe that the ownership or use of a gun can be considered a right. It is a privilege, and a privilege that can be granted only within a framework of regulation that provides the highest degree of public safety. An important part of that regulatory framework must be control over who is issued with a firearms certificate. I doubt that we shall ever be able to construct a foolproof system, but any system that licenses people like Michael Ryan or Thomas Hamilton requires significant review and amendment.

My colleagues and I feel that perhaps too often the existing regime has been tilted towards the applicant. In today's debate, Central Scotland police have already been the object of some criticism, but, having talked to senior police officers in Scotland--not members of Central Scotland police--I have been left with the clear impression that they have been dealing with firearms certificate applications in a climate in which refusal has been regularly and readily appealed against, often with financial backing from the shooting lobby. Unless the case for refusal was watertight, the police hesitated before refusing. Whereas the law does not stipulate or express presumption in favour of a certificate being granted, it appears that practice was very much to that effect.

We welcome the provisions in part III of the Bill which tighten up on the granting of firearms certificates. The provision to extend the powers for revocation of firearms and shotgun certificates is particularly welcome. In their submission to Lord Cullen's inquiry, the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland noted:

"Unless a certificate holder sustains a criminal conviction during the currency of his certificate, the conditions for revocation may not apply in practice."

Indeed, in his report, Lord Cullen draws attention to the fact that section 30 of the current Act makes no provision for the revocation of a firearms certificate owing to the loss of a good reason. It is right that the Bill rectifies that anomaly.

Another clause in part III relates to ammunition. I note the prohibition on expanding ammunition, and the appropriate exemptions for the lawful shooting of deer or control of vermin. Let me draw to the Minister's attention a letter passed on to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster). It is from a constituent who is a firearms expert, and raises doubts about what is intended--or not intended--by the clauses on ammunition. I do not wish to make what would essentially be a Committee point; I shall pass the closely argued text of the letter to the Minister. It makes the following point, however:

"Sporting bullets are designed to expand and if possible dissipate energy within the body of the animal. Is the Home Secretary suggesting that sportsmen use solid, full patch bullets? These are specifically designed not to expand and intended for human

12 Nov 1996 : Column 208

targets . . . they would pass through the body of an animal with little loss of velocity, hit the ground and ricochet in all directions, not good for public safety one might think."

I simply ask for such arguments to be considered in detail, so that we can ensure that we pass sensible legislation. [Hon. Members: "Read the Bill."] I think that the Minister takes my point. I said that the vermin exemption was in the Bill.

As a general rule, we should be particularly careful in passing any legislation when there is a degree of bipartisanship in the approach. We must make sure that we get it right. As is obvious, however, this Bill does not command support across the Floor of the House in every respect. That is particularly the case in regard to how far the ban on handguns should go. I agree with hon. Members who have said today that the House should think hard and deeply before banning an activity that has hitherto been legitimate. As Lord Cullen rightly pointed out, this is ultimately a matter for Parliament.

The Bill proposes some exemptions. I imagine that those who are drafting amendments in favour of a complete ban would allow exemptions for veterinary surgeons, for instance. I welcome the Home Secretary's announcement today that some heritage and antique weapons are also to be included. We look forward to seeing the detail of those proposals. As far as I am aware, there is no history of misuse of such weapons.

Clearly, the key issue is whether we should go beyond what the Government propose, limiting legally held handguns to those of .22 calibre. By banning some handguns--by going further down the road than Lord Cullen recommended--the Home Secretary has made clear his belief that fewer handguns will lead to safer communities and a reduced chance of another Hungerford or Dunblane. I believe that the majority of Members of Parliament, the public and the police would support that. Why, then, should smaller guns be exempt from that logical conclusion? As the Police Federation of England and Wales has concluded,

"handguns are particularly lethal. A person skilled in their use can murder a large number of victims in an incredibly short time."

If we fail to extend the ban to all handguns, we leave open the possibility of development of smaller handguns. By the very nature of the market, if a commodity is limited the natural consequence will be greater investment in similar goods that are left. That is why it is perhaps misleading, although not deliberately so, to assume that, if what is currently proposed would affect 80 per cent. of handguns, that 80 per cent. will always be the figure. Many of those who give up what will become illegal handguns could well then buy what will subsequently be legal.

The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) mentioned the number of homicides involving handguns. In paragraph 9.11 of his report, Lord Cullen points out:

"in 12.5 per cent. of the firearms-homicides in Scotland in the years 1990-94 . . . the firearm was lawfully held by the perpetrator."

He goes on to say that the use of legally held firearms in crime was "significant", although small. That evidence cannot be lightly ignored.

Another consequence of the partial ban under the Bill is the obligation of smaller handgun owners to keep their weapons in a licensed club, a measure that could lead to the creation of larger arsenals. Initially, my colleagues and I were willing to consider support for a partial ban,

12 Nov 1996 : Column 209

coupled with an assessment of the feasibility of ensuring that firearms for sporting purposes are kept inside a suitable armoury, subject to nationally agreed standards. Ironically, the Government's response on that aspect of secure storage and the scepticism with which it was met by police persuaded many of my colleagues that that was not a viable option.

The Government's White Paper in response to Lord Cullen's report states that few, if any, existing clubs will meet the criteria. Enforcement of such a partial ban, with such strict club security arrangements, will be complex and costly, certainly compared with, as it were, the clean way of approaching the matter--an outright ban. The hon. Member for Blackburn read out the comments of the British Shooting Sports Council on transport. In clause 8(8), the Secretary of State is given power to designate, by order, the competitions to which people are allowed to take weapons. I am not sure whether he would intend to exercise that power, whether all competitions would be allowed or whether he has in mind some competitions, but that underlines the considerable bureaucracy and cost that will be associated with trying to police and enforce the partial ban.

Moreover, it has been claimed that the security requirements will further reduce the number of legally held handguns in circulation to well below the 20 per cent. shown in the Government's response. If the intended effect is to achieve a near complete ban by the back door, it would be far better for Parliament's credibility if we were to do it by the front door. I hope that, even at this late stage, this will be an opportunity for right hon. and hon. Members to exercise their individual conscience and judgment.

On compensation, it is the duty of the House not to punish the innocent. Clearly, a vast majority of firearms enthusiasts are not criminals. I agree with the comments of the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling). Those of us who have met firearms enthusiasts at our surgeries will recognise the integrity of many of those people, who are going to lose out not only by an outright ban, but even by a partial ban. When it deprives many people of their hitherto legal sport, the House must face up to the consequences with regard to compensation.

As it stands, what the Bill proposes is inadequate. It was therefore welcome news to hear the Home Secretary announce that he is willing to hear further debate before closing the door on compensation, which would have been the effect if the money resolution were passed this evening. He accepts that, as well as the weapons, there are the accompanying accessories, ammunition and specialist equipment. We said that there was no precedent for small businesses being covered, but perhaps it would be interesting to know whether there is any precedent in such circumstances for small businesses not to be covered.

I ask the Minister to deal with the fact that many people will have what will be, technically, legal handguns--if the Bill is passed as it stands--but will not find an outlet for using them if all clubs in their region cannot meet security requirements. If, in effect, they have to give up their weapons--because they cannot use them anywhere--it would be only fair if they were entitled to compensation.

If gun owners are not adequately compensated, that not only would be unfair but would potentially lead to the Bill not working effectively. If compensation is inadequate,

12 Nov 1996 : Column 210

many gun owners may be less likely to part with their weapons. They may find overseas markets with a higher price and thereafter those guns may find their way back illegally into Britain. That could lead to the legislation's aims being defeated. I hope that there will be a proper opportunity for the Government to listen to the legitimate demands for much wider compensation.

Let us not pretend that, by passing the legislation, even amended to extend to a full handgun ban, we can guarantee that somewhere, sometime, some wicked or deranged person will not cause a further outrage. Constant effort, for example, will be needed to combat the illegal use of guns. We can legislate to make such outrages less likely by restricting the guns legally available and by restricting those to whom certificates may be granted.

The Bill goes some significant way towards achieving that. It should be supported, but it can be made better still by the amendments that we will debate next week.

---