| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Mitchell: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. When I saw that point in the Government's reply, I thought that, if that was the level of argument that the Government were to use to put their case, it was pathetic--to cite the possible loss of small screws is to debase logical and rational debate.
What is proposed by dismantling is more effective, in that it prevents access to complete and working handguns outside clubs; and it is less draconian, in that it allows the sport to continue and guns to be used in controlled conditions. Although the right hon. and learned Member for Putney showed some distaste for gun clubs as the embodiment of the gun culture, I have to say to him that the gun culture is independent of gun clubs, and we cannot deal with it through legislation. We have to use education, effective control of violence on television, and other means of mobilising society against the gun culture.
Dismantling as a means of control would allow a legitimate sport to continue. If we can allow the sport to continue while preventing access to working guns outside, we should do so. The onus should be on allowing those people to continue enjoying their sport if possible while avoiding tragedies such as Dunblane.
As the right hon. Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) said, the proposal is less expensive. I do not know what the compensation bill will be as a result of the measure. It could be as high as £100 million, and if we accept tonight the principle of banning all guns--.22 calibre and less--it will be even more substantial. We could avoid that huge and unknown expense by taking a much more rational approach. If we rush into legislation without considering it properly, it will be messy.
I have a problem, as amendment No. 1 appears before my amendment. We have tried to get round that problem, but have not succeeded, so we shall vote on amendment
18 Nov 1996 : Column 768
Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan):
It is a quandary.
I cannot avoid the cynical thought that the Government are hoping to limit the compensation bill by limiting the ban on handguns to weapons over .22 on the grounds that, if they do that, the .22 weapons and the gun clubs will wither on the vine.
I have talked to members of Grimsby gun and pistol club, who share my suspicion. Membership of that club has decreased, and it has had to take out large overdrafts. Like other gun clubs, it will have to meet stringent and extremely expensive safety requirements at a time when membership is falling, which will give it financial problems.
If the Government can get rid of most of the .22s and the gun clubs through the provisions outlined in the Bill, they will not have to pay compensation. That may be a cynical thought, but one has such thoughts about the Government from time to time. I hate having to say that, and it is cruel to the Government, but that will almost certainly be one of the consequences of the legislation. I am in a quandary over how to vote on amendment No. 1, particularly if I take a cynical view about what the Government are doing.
I do not wish to continue that argument now, as I shall make my own decision. But surely we should have looked longer and harder at the effective and rational way of achieving the objective we all want.
The method would be a little more difficult to administer than a complete ban, but, if we did not introduce a complete ban, but approached the problem via dismantling weapons, we could make huge financial savings. We can achieve our objective--an effective ban on working handguns outside gun clubs--through dismantling. The principle of dismantling allows us to achieve our aim more cheaply, effectively and rationally, while allowing the sport to continue more effectively. We should adopt that approach.
Sir Mark Lennox-Boyd (Morecambe and Lunesdale):
I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), as I wish to support him. First, however, I shall say a few words about emotion.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) made a powerful argument, with great passion and eloquence. My hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) correctly said that we must allow emotion to enter such debates--I fully understand that it would be an insult to those involved in the terrible tragedy that we are discussing were we not to allow emotion to enter our debates--but, ultimately, a rational decision has to be made.
The most powerful emotion must come from the bereaved parents, but we are dealing with another sort of emotion--with a minority interest that is severely threatened by the Government's proposals. Although the level of deprivation is ridiculously small in comparison with that of the parents of the Dunblane children, there is a level of deprivation involved.
18 Nov 1996 : Column 769
When I visited Morecambe rifle and pistol club in my constituency in July, one or two of its members were very near to tears at the tragedy of Dunblane and the horror of the experience that the nation had been through. One or two members were terribly emotional at the threat to what they rightly regarded as a perfectly legitimate sporting interest--they described to me the skills involved. It was not my first visit to the rifle club; I had made an earlier visit a few years before. I have been in contact with it for a number of years, as one of its members is articulate and keeps in touch with me.
I was frank with the club members, and told them that I would support Lord Cullen's recommendations, on which I thought the Government would base their legislative proposals. The members were reasonably accepting of my view; some of them felt that I should act in accordance with my conscience, but I said that we appointed judges of distinction to give us guidance, and that we should follow Lord Cullen's recommendations. The meeting ended on that note, and I believe that the people I saw were reluctantly willing to accept Lord Cullen's conclusions. However, they feel unhappy about the measures that the Government have decided to introduce following Lord Cullen's report.
One reason that they felt that what I was saying in July was probably good advice was that I had received from my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office, a letter containing the magic words. It said that the Government would have to
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney feels that Lord Cullen should never have been appointed, but he concedes that the report was right in evaluating the evidence--we both agree on that. Those who feel that Lord Cullen's report should have been limited to the evidence are stretching my imagination. I cannot believe that a man of Lord Cullen's distinction could be expected to evaluate the evidence and not come up with a conclusion.
In addition, when strong feelings are expressed by those who have suffered terrible tragedy, the purpose of appointing someone of Lord Cullen's distinction to make recommendations is to get behind the emotional pressure and try to see the arguments on which rational decisions will ultimately be based. I am sure that all those associated with the Dunblane inquiry would, as we do, pay the highest tribute to Lord Cullen for the way in which he has conducted the proceedings. The Government rightly appointed Lord Cullen to make recommendations in order to get behind the emotions. I am sad that those recommendations have not been followed.
The hon. Member for Great Grimsby spoke about dismantlement of weapons. As he said, the Government's answer to his proposal is that it is feasible to dismantle some weapons but not a practical proposition for others. The first question that one must ask when that argument
18 Nov 1996 : Column 770
As it happens, I wrote to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary on the very day that he made his statement, to ask that question. I know that he has been burdened with work, and I have not yet received a reply--
Mr. Austin Mitchell:
Nor have I.
Sir Mark Lennox-Boyd:
Nor has the hon. Member for Great Grimsby.
The House is entitled to a statistical explanation of that very important fact tonight, as are those of my constituents who attend the Morecambe rifle and pistol club. If the Government were to say, "Some weapons can be dismantled, so we shall allow their use under stringent controls in gun clubs, but we are afraid that the others, which cannot be dismantled, must be destroyed," at least that would be a rational position.
We must not allow the issue of dismantlement of weapons to be clouded by the issue of the barrel lock that does not really work. I am not pursuing that; I do not have enough technical knowledge of the subject. I do know, however, that, if one dismantles a weapon and puts one piece in one place and another piece in another, one cannot use it, unless--this is the Government's argument--one feels that the missing part, the slide assembly or the cylinder, could be manufactured or acquired.
The answer to that argument--I am entitled to a careful explanation if I am wrong--is, "Yes, but one would be breaking the law. If one had that part surreptitiously without disclosing it on one's licence or seeking permission to have it, one would be breaking the law." Once again we are back in a position where we are talking of people who would be already breaking the law, as it would be if it were as the hon. Member for Grimsby has advocated in amendment No. 15.
That is not a powerful argument against amendment No. 15; nor is it a powerful argument to say that people could, once again, legally manufacture weapon parts in their homes and go out and use them as horrible weapons of terror. First, it is very difficult to manufacture the parts of a weapon; one needs to be highly skilled. Secondly, there are many much easier methods of obtaining those horrible weapons of violence that may be used in such a way, if that is the intention of the perpetrator of such a crime.
"strike the right balance between the legitimate rights of shooters and public safety".
We all know that that comment does not have a precise meaning, but it is slightly loaded: it talks about the legitimate rights of shooters when a large measure of their sporting activity would not be made illegal. My disappointment at the Government's proposals--I have so far been loyal to the Government when voting--is that, as the hon. Member for Great Grimsby said, they did not accept Lord Cullen's recommendations.
8 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |