---

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I fear that the hon. Gentleman is falling into the same trap as the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison). He must relate his remarks to the allocation of time, not the issues, important though they are.

Mr. O'Neill: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I accepted an intervention and was diverted from my course. I accept that speed is of the essence.

Great emphasis has been placed on the international sporting dimension. Future competitors in the Commonwealth games in New Zealand in 1998 are beginning their rigorous and lengthy preparations. The House would not be fair to the sport if it did not make the position crystal clear on opportunities for training and preparation--the individuals involved have to make the correct arrangements. I have heard that the measure may stymie competitive handgun shooting--if so, it is a risk that we must take.

Speed is of the essence; we have delayed for too long. It is important that we sort out the arrangements, in relation not just to the type of guns, but--I stress the importance of time in this context--to licensing. As we speak, the police are having to process licences under what we now consider to be defective arrangements. It is essential that we ensure that the police are able to do their job, that sportsmen understand the limitations that the legislation will impose on their activities, that the level of compensation is understood and that people can make the appropriate security arrangements. Those matters must be dealt with urgently, which is why the Opposition are prepared to support the guillotine motion and why there has been a fair degree of consensus nationally that something must be done.

Although the measures do not go as far as the Opposition would have liked, we recognise that the Government are offering us the opportunity to correct something that we should have got right after Hungerford--it is now more than 10 years later and we cannot delay any longer. I therefore support the guillotine motion.

5.13 pm

Sir Jerry Wiggin (Weston-super-Mare): I find myself in a dilemma over the motion, as I have consistently voted in favour of guillotine motions. I feel strongly that

18 Nov 1996 : Column 726

guillotine motions should be passed automatically as, in my experience, the guillotine process often results in endless wasted hours on both sides of the House in debating clause 1, followed by far too rapid consideration of the Bill's details. I once promoted a guillotine motion on a private Member's Bill, which was unusual.

The Firearms (Amendment) Bill has been introduced in haste. The Firearms Consultative Committee, which was established under the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 to give expert advice to the Home Office, was not consulted until after the Bill had been published--a negation of the intention behind establishing that committee. There has been no time for consultation with the various interests as represented by the British Shooting Sports Council, of which I have declared my interest as a vice-chairman and former chairman.

I am sad that it is necessary to produce such complex legislation. Even today, we shall learn of the intricacies of the firearms laws, which I fully confess I shall never fully understand. It is better to introduce such measures in consultation with experts, and I am sorry that we will not do so on this occasion. Under the timetable motion, we shall, however, give full consideration to clause 1 today and to other clauses tomorrow. The Bill's Standing Committee stage will be rapid, and I prefer to begin to discuss the matters that concern us.

We are having today's debate because the Government, doubtless with the connivance of the usual channels--I cannot believe that the motion would have appeared on the Order Paper without such connivance--tabled a new sort of guillotine motion. That motion had escaped the eagle gaze of my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling). I am sure that he would prefer to be here today, but he is abroad on NATO business on behalf of the nation and the House. He spotted that the new procedure was to be nodded through and felt that we should not adopt such rules without a proper debate. He therefore, correctly, shouted, "Object," which is why we are now discussing a full guillotine motion.

I am torn between my defence of the opposition to the Bill and my desire to see it properly debated--I would certainly not wish to oppose the motion. My message to those on the Front Benches is not to try that trick again. Other hon. Members should beware when those on both Front Benches connive, as it is usually to the nation's disadvantage.

5.16 pm

Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North): I can understand why the legislation is now before the House. After the searing, desperate, mind-numbing events of Dunblane, anyone would feel that something should be done urgently and that a solution was vital. But the legislation is no solution: it will not stop a future Hamilton. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) said, the vast majority of crimes carried out with firearms involve firearms that the measure will not ban or illegally held firearms. A potential Thomas Hamilton will continue to acquire weapons--the difference is that, in future, he will acquire them illegally and without the knowledge of--or giving notice to--the authorities.

In my limited experience, there are two circumstances in which the House is asked to introduce a guillotine: either there has been a manifesto commitment on a

18 Nov 1996 : Column 727

measure that is supremely controversial in the House and the Opposition seek to overturn the will of the people as expressed in an election; or the Government are embarrassed. I have never known a Government to be as embarrassed over a measure that they have introduced in the House as this Government are over the Bill.

There are 321 Conservative Members of Parliament. Last week, 215 Conservative Members of Parliament voted for the Bill's Second Reading, which means that 106 Conservative Members voted against Second Reading, abstained or were paired--that would have been a small minority. There was a three-line Whip on a measure that the Government said was urgent and had to be dealt with quickly. In my 17 years in the House, I have not known a rebellion of such strength in the Government party--and the vast majority of Conservatives going through the Lobby on this supremely un-Conservative measure went through holding their political noses.

This is rushed legislation, and if one rushes legislation one is in grave danger of introducing mistaken legislation. This is mistaken legislation. As far as the House is concerned, we are here because we are here because we are here. What should we do? Delay is the enemy of bad legislation, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the only way to delay this legislation is to vote against the guillotine.

I should like to say to my hon. Friends who are Conservatives that we have heard from the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) that, in all his time in Parliament, this uniquely is the only time that the Opposition have sought to support a guillotine motion. Surely that should give them some cause for thought. Those of my right hon. Friends and hon. Friends who support this Government, this wise Government--in most circumstances, quite rightly--should give them the opportunity to think again, to withdraw this legislation, to go out to consultation, to introduce proper legislation, properly digested, that may well achieve some of the ambitions and objectives that the Government seek to achieve through this measure.

We are all privileged to be members of this House, members of this legislature of the United Kingdom. We should be very jealous in our regard as to what this legislature does. We should not pass bad legislation, and the first thing we can do is to block this guillotine and block this measure.

We may or may not do that, but what we do in this House is reflected in the other place, and if we start the struggle on behalf of the Government, on behalf of the House, on behalf of Parliament, against bad legislation, I can assure the House that the other place will follow our example.

5.21 pm

Mr. David Wilshire (Spelthorne): I will not detain the House for more than a minute or two, because I am conscious that it wants to get on to the substance of the debate.

I share with my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) a distrust of guillotines that have cross-party support. I believe them to be deeply damaging to parliamentary democracy, and I see a very big difference between an opposed guillotine and an unopposed guillotine. I am very nervous of the principle of what we are about to do.

18 Nov 1996 : Column 728

I should far rather have dealt with the main business without a guillotine, waited to see whether there was a filibuster and dealt with it as and when it happened, because I do not believe that there would have been one, and it would have been a better sign to the country that we could dispose of the business without having to use these procedures.

I also agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West that there is more than one way of responding positively to the bereaved parents. As I said on Second Reading, I believe that backing Lord Cullen and his proposals is the right way to proceed. But--and it is a big but--drawing on my experience as a bereaved parent, I believe that taking a speedy final decision one way or the other will be part of the healing process, even if that decision is not the one that the parents want.

I hope very much, therefore, that I shall not damage the reputation of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) when I say that I agree with what he said. He was right when he said, "Let's take a decision tonight." I wish only that it was without a guillotine, especially one that has the Labour party's support.

---