---

Orders of the Day

Firearms (Amendment) Bill

[Clauses Nos. 1 to 5 and any new Clauses and Schedules appearing on the Order Paper not later than Friday 15th November which relate to the prohibition of small firearms or to further special exemptions from the general prohibition of small firearms.]

Considered in Committee.

[Dame Janet Fookes in the Chair]

Clause 1

Extension s.5 of the Firearms Act 1968 to prohibit certain small firearms

5.35 pm

Sir Jerry Wiggin (Weston-super-Mare): I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 1, line 15, after 'weapon' insert

'(including those powered by carbon dioxide)'.

This is a minor amendment which has long been recommended by the Firearms Consultative Committee. That committee was told some time ago that it could not have this modest concession until there was major legislation. I am very hopeful that my pleas will fall on receptive ears. It is ridiculous that a weapon powered by air pressure can be used without a certificate while an identical weapon powered by carbon dioxide will be confined to section 5. It is so clearly an historical breach of detail that I hope that the Government will accept the amendment.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Miss Ann Widdecombe): There is, indeed, a case for exempting low-powered carbon dioxide handguns from the general prohibition because they are no more dangerous than the low-powered airguns that are currently exempted. Not unnaturally, as the clause is concerned with handguns only, the amendment deals with carbon dioxide handguns and not long-barrelled guns. We intend to table an amendment to ensure that all forms of low-powered carbon dioxide weapons are treated in the same way as low-powered airguns. On the basis of that undertaking, I ask my hon. Friend to withdraw his amendment.

Sir Jerry Wiggin: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir Jerry Wiggin: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 1, line 16, after 'apply', insert

', a firearm which is incapable of holding more than one cartridge'.

The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Janet Fookes): With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 7, in page 2, line 6, after second 'pistol', insert

'which is capable of holding more than one cartridge and'.

Sir Jerry Wiggin: Amendment No. 6 would exclude single-shot pistols from section 5. It covers both .22 and

18 Nov 1996 : Column 736

higher calibres. There are a number of different types, but the guns are few in number. Some would be banned because they fall outside other provisions of the Bill, such as the limitation on length. Among the higher-calibre, single-shot weapons there are perhaps a few hundred in use. These guns do not feature in the Olympic games, but are an important part of the Commonwealth games and all international matches. It is a sport at which Britain excels. We have won 19 medals at the last three Commonwealth games, including seven golds.

At no time did Lord Cullen suggest that a ban on single-shot guns was appropriate. He made a very clear distinction between multi-shot and single-shot guns and made no recommendation for the further control of single-shot guns. Of course, a single-shot gun is an infinitely less lethal weapon than an ordinary shotgun, for example.

Amendment No. 7 alters the definition of small-calibre pistols so that it will exclude only single-shot .22 calibre pistols from the Bill's provisions. I fully accept that if this amendment were to be acceptable, a new paving amendment in subsection 2 would be required at the Report stage.

Fewer than 5 per cent. of .22s are single shot pistols. They are used for Olympic discipline free-pistol shooting, which is the most prestigious--the creme de la creme--Olympic shooting event. The .22 single-shot pistol is used at both the top and the bottom ends of shooting. They are used by elite Olympic shooters, who use carefully honed and expensive guns, and by beginners, who often start out with a single-shot .22.

The question is clear: is a single-shot weapon really so lethal that it should be banned, or are not we going too far in our endeavour to make apparent concessions to public safety? I say "apparent concessions" because the matter was debated at considerable length last week.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Howard): My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare has summarised the effect of the amendments. They would exempt single-shot pistols from the general prohibition, effectively limiting the ban to multi-shot guns. They would particularly allow single-shot handguns to continue to be kept at home.

I cannot invite hon. Members to support the amendments. The Government believe that there is no place for handguns in the home. As is self-evident, even a single-shot handgun can be used to kill, and they are very easy to carry and to conceal.

Mr. John Redwood (Wokingham): In framing his reply to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare, will my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State go beyond the question of whether such guns should be kept at home to answer the burden of the point made by my hon. Friend--that we would like to keep the Commonwealth games in this country and our competitors to be able to take part in them? Will my right hon. and learned Friend suggest other amendments to the Bill that would enable that to happen in a safe manner?

Mr. Howard: I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare was concentrating more on the Olympic than the Commonwealth games. We do not ban

18 Nov 1996 : Column 737

any of the weapons that are used in Olympic competition. In the Bill, we ban some of the weapons that are used in the Commonwealth games, but they are used in only one of the competitions in those games. All Olympic competitions use .22 calibre weapons, and all but one Commonwealth competition use .22 calibre weapons.

I made the Government's position clear on this matter last week. It is possible for the holder of my office to authorise that element of the Commonwealth games that is not a .22 calibre competition to take place at Manchester. It is true, however, that the Bill's effect would be that no British competitor would be able to practice in this country for that element--it is one element only--of the Commonwealth games. As I explained last week, it is true that that is a consequence of the Bill's provisions.

The purpose of amendment Nos 6 and 7 is to allow people to keep handguns in the home. We do not believe that the public can be given the protection they need and deserve if handguns continue to be kept at home. That is why I invite the Committee to reject them.

Mr. Doug Henderson (Newcastle upon Tyne, North): In the spirit of this debate, I am pleased to agree with the comments made by the Secretary of State. I also agree that high-calibre single-shot pistols are extremely lethal--as has been demonstrated by evidence presented to many hon. Members over the past few weeks and months. I am sure that such evidence will continue to be produced during the remainder of this week. If one accepts that we must take action to outlaw pistol shooting in shooting clubs, it would be unacceptable to allow the type of exception provided for in amendment No. 6. The type of weapon we are talking about is particularly lethal. It may not be as lethal as the multi-shot pistol, but it has the ability to kill very quickly.

5.45 pm

There is another reason why I hope that the Committee will not accept amendment No. 6. I believe that he and his colleagues are trying to pick apart the Bill. If one examines amendment Nos 6 and 7, and subsequent amendments, one will notice an attempt to exclude various categories of weapons from the provisions of the Bill. The effect would be that the Bill would prohibit only Magnum pistols and perhaps some pistols smaller than .32, which are used for vermin control, and that all others would be acceptable. That would run a coach and horses through the Bill and would not accord with the will of the vast majority of hon. Members.

Although people have a right to enjoy their sport, we should weigh that privilege against the risk that guns will be used as they were in Dunblane. I take part in many sports and on most occasions I support the sporting world and some of its arguments, but I do not believe that one can argue that the rights and privileges of the sportsperson should take precedence over the very real risk to the population. That is why I do not believe that the House should accept amendment No. 6 or some of the other amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wigging).

Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire): I do not intend to speak for long, and I do not intend to intervene regularly. I should, however, like to mention one matter.

18 Nov 1996 : Column 738

The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) mentioned the wish of the overwhelming majority of hon. Members. It is quite true that all hon. Members are deeply saddened and appalled by what happened in Dunblane--there is not a cigarette paper of difference between any of us on that--but there is considerable unease, not only on the Conservative Benches but on both sides of the House, about the tone and content of this legislation. I should not like the debate to end without my right hon. and learned Friend being aware that I share that unease.

Rarely is panic legislation good legislation. Although Thomas Hamilton acted in an unspeakable manner with the weapons that he legally possessed, he is--as one of my correspondents said to me this morning--having his revenge in this legislation, which will penalise many law-abiding citizens who have never comtemplated and would never contemplate doing wrong.

Thomas Hamilton could have inflicted equal damage if he had run amok with a motor car. He could have inflicted damage with a variety of weapons and implements, as could any other evil man or madman--and I believe that Thomas Hamilton was the former. It is incumbent on all hon. Members, however great our sympathy for those who have suffered--I hope that no one's sympathy is greater than mine--to realise that we have a duty to try to distance ourselves and to be objective in what we are trying to do and in the legislation that we frame. I do not believe that this legislation will enhance Parliament's reputation, or that it is really serving our country's interests.

---