---

Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North): Who does?

Sir Patrick Cormack: Those who are in favour of a total ban on handguns, I fear.

I believe that it is extremely important that we do not brand all those engaged in country sports as potential criminals.

Mr. Winnick: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He is usually the last hon. Member to distort the argument. Will he therefore accept that those who want a total ban on handguns, and who will vote accordingly, would not for one moment take the view of which he has just accused us? I believe that I speak for colleagues on both sides of the House on that. We do not believe that those who are engaged in such sporting activities are potential criminals. I believe nothing of the kind and it does not strengthen the hon. Gentleman's argument to accuse us of something of which we certainly are not guilty.

Sir Patrick Cormack: I was not accusing the hon. Gentleman or those who take that line. I am sure that that is not their intention, but that is the effect. That is the difference.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney and the four preceding contributors in the debate said that we cannot risk another Dunblane, and that we do not know who might commit such a crime. My solution is at least as logical as that of my right hon. and learned Friend. I call for the strongest vetting procedure and the most careful supervision. I would insist that every handgun be kept in secure and proper premises, but we should not outlaw a sport or penalise those who derive perfectly legitimate pleasure from it.

As has been said, one must recognise that many of those who engage in sports with handguns are themselves severely handicapped. It is the one thing that they can do, as was attested to in a moving letter that was read out earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards).

I believe that the Bill is an untidy compromise, but I will support the Government because it goes some way towards achieving a position of common sense and objectivity. Much as I admired the eloquence of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney, and much as I found his speech compelling, I cannot agree with him, for one reason above all else, which was contained in his answer to my intervention: where do we stop if we have further examples of crimes committed in the way that I suggested?

As the Bill makes rapid progress through the House, which it rightly should, I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will give some further

18 Nov 1996 : Column 765

thought and consideration to the points on vetting that I have raised. I appreciate that they are not appropriate for a full debate now, but they are not unimportant.

Mr. Austin Mitchell (Great Grimsby): I shall speak to amendments Nos. 15 and 16, but I recognise that we are currently debating amendment No. 1, which brings us to the nub of this highly emotive argument.

We have heard the paranoid reaction of gun clubs and the supporters of gun sports, who feel that they are a threatened and persecuted minority. We have heard powerful and emotive speeches from the right hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) and from my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson). It is right that we should share the emotions of the people of Dunblane, but it is also right that we, as Members of Parliament, should approach this difficult legislation, not in an emotional state of mind, but in a rational one.

My argument is that the proposals in amendments Nos. 15 and 16, which further the principle of dismantling weapons as a means of control, are a far more rational and effective way of achieving our objective. After all, we began to approach the situation rationally by appointing Lord Cullen to conduct an inquiry. That is a proper way of proceeding, and we should have done it after Hungerford. The right hon. and learned Member for Putney might have criticised the appointment of a judge, but an inquiry is, in itself, a rational process.

Lord Cullen himself suggested dismantlement in his conclusions. He said:

"I am satisfied that of all the measures which stop short of a ban"--

he did not propose a ban--

"the one which is open to the least objection on the ground of practicability is the temporary dismantling of self-loading pistols".

That is Lord Cullen's suggestion, so it is right that we should consider it more seriously than we have done up to now. That is why I am proposing dismantling in my amendments, and why I shall continue to pursue the principle. It is also right that the Government should deal seriously with the proposal, which they have not done so far.

The Government's reply to Lord Cullen's suggestion was a little disingenuous--I hope that the Home Secretary will forgive me for saying so. It was an inadequate reply. I sensed that they were on weak ground from their approach to the same issue last week on Second Reading, especially when the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe), refused to take any interventions on that point. She recognised that she was on weak ground.

In their reply, the Government dealt with a subsidiary part of Lord Cullen's argument. Lord Cullen said:

"In exceptional cases it"--

dismantlement--

"would not be practicable for some pistols and some revolvers. The exact extent to which that would be the case is a matter of detail. The solution to it, short of banning such handguns, would be to require barrel blocks".

The Government concentrated their reply on the practicability--or, in their view, impracticability--of barrel blocks and did not deal with the substantive issue.

Mr. Howard indicated dissent.

Mr. Mitchell: The Secretary of State shakes his head, but all that was said on the substantive issue was that not all handguns could be dismantled. That is not exactly true.

18 Nov 1996 : Column 766

I am not a gun enthusiast and I know nothing about guns, but I want us to approach the issue rationally and calmly. In fact, 95 per cent. or more of handguns can be dismantled.

Mr. Howard indicated dissent.

Mr. Mitchell: If the Secretary of State knows otherwise, why does he not tell us what proportion of handguns, and what specific makes, cannot be dismantled? If we can achieve the effective control we want through the principle of dismantling, we have a responsibility to do so. If the Government do not accept that method, I want to know why not. They must express, defend and justify their approach better than they have until now.

The Government rested their case on the fact certain handguns cannot be dismantled, but such weapons form a minute proportion of the range of handguns available. Amendment No. 15 covers that issue by proposing that any handgun that cannot be dismantled should be banned. If dismantling is to be the principle of control, it is easy and straightforward to ban those handguns that cannot be dismantled and so fit into that control system; having done that, we can then provide for the dismantling of all other handguns. It is an extremely simple, straightforward, effective and logical method of control.

The Government have not explained their case adequately, which makes me believe that they are acting according to some principle other than rational consideration in respect of the Bill. I still cannot understand why we cannot legislate to ensure that part of a gun should be kept at a gun club and part--inevitably the smaller part, which is the cylinder in a pistol and the slide in a revolver--should be taken home, so that the two parts can only be reunited and so make a working handgun in the club, under supervision and in licensed and controlled conditions. That would achieve all that we want to achieve. Our aim is to prevent access to and the use of handguns outside clubs--to prevent another Dunblane--and we would achieve that by legislating for the principle of dismantling.

7.45 pm

Sir Terence Higgins (Worthing): Is it not true that that would be safer than having large accumulations of guns in one place? My right hon. and learned Friend argues that people would buy duplicate slides or cylinders to fit in their guns, but, if they are prepared to go to such lengths, they will probably buy illegal weapons anyway. Will the hon. Gentleman also bear in mind the fact that the pure solution put forward by Cullen is a great deal cheaper in terms of compensation?

Mr. Mitchell: I shall bear that point in mind--it certainly would be cheaper. The right hon. Gentleman makes the valid point that control by dismantling would prevent the storage of piles of whole weapons at gun clubs, which might be subject to burglary, ram-raiding or some other form of theft. If the dismantling proposal is accepted, any thief--whether stealing from the club or from the home of a gun owner--would find only useless parts of guns. If the argument is that owners will purchase duplicate parts, that can easily be prevented through an effective and properly administered licensing system. All the arguments point toward dismantling.

18 Nov 1996 : Column 767

If the principle of dismantling were embodied in legislation, to carry a complete gun outside would, in itself, be an offence; that would make it easier to control illegal guns--an issue that the Government have not addressed. Any gun that was outside in a whole and working condition would be illegal, and could be dealt with effectively and, I hope, powerfully.

Mr. Robert Banks: The hon. Gentleman must know that the Government took evidence from the Forensic Science Service to justify their criticism of Cullen's proposal of dismantling weapons as a means of solving the problem. The letter from the Forensic Science Service is in the Library. It says that the small screw that is the retaining part for the side plate of a common revolver could easily be lost or disfigured, and that a special screwdriver with an accurately ground tip would be required to remove or replace it.

Such problems can easily be overcome--anyone with any sense would keep a spare retaining screw and would have an appropriate screwdriver--but is not the real point that it would be perfectly feasible to allow weapons that can be dismantled to be licensed, and to permit them to be fired in clubs when the two parts are put together? It is as simple as that.

---