---

Miss Widdecombe: Yes.

Mr. Peter Griffiths (Portsmouth, North): Will my hon. Friend the Minister of State accept the gratitude of those who use muzzle-loading firearms for sport, usually under the general title of black powder shooting? Will she also accept my personal gratitude for showing evidence of the Government's willingness to be flexible when sound cases were put to them during their discussions on this difficult subject? Strong emotions have been aroused and it has not always been recognised that the Government have been willing to listen. They have the gratitude of those serious shooters who have benefited from the amendments.

Mr. Henderson: The hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) will be able to judge whether the Government have listened to hon. Members and others when we see the final report to the House after 28 November. The Opposition support the Government's amendments; we support the exemption of muzzle-loading guns, subject to the endorsement of the local consumer standards officers. The most likely danger from a muzzle-loading gun is that one might blow oneself up rather than anyone else. If the consumer standards officers are satisfied, I think that the Committee will be satisfied.

Amendment agreed to.

18 Nov 1996 : Column 797

Amendments made: No. 21, in page 1, line 20, at end insert--

'(3A) In paragraph (ad) (smooth-bore revolver guns), for the words from "loaded" to the end there shall be substituted the words "a muzzle-loading gun".'

No. 22, in page 1, line 21, leave out second 'subsection' and insert 'subsections'.--[Miss Widdecombe.]

Sir Jerry Wiggin: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 1, line 22, after 'any', insert 'readily'.

Some .22 rifles have detachable butt-stocks--there is one very popular one--and they could be regarded as short weapons if measured when the stock is detached. It is apparently impossible to use them when the butt is detached except in a test rig, and by inserting the word "readily" we feel that we would obtain our point. I hope that the Government will be able to accept this modest amendment.

Miss Widdecombe: I am afraid that I must urge the Committee to resist the amendment. The effect of the amendment would be to clarify that butt-stocks should be disregarded in measuring length only if they are readily detachable. I regret that, after much thought, we have concluded that we cannot accept that definition. Adding a butt-stock to a handgun can change its essential characteristic and in some cases, in terms of aim, make it more closely resemble a rifle.

The amendment gives rise to the further problem of what is meant by "detachable". Is it intended that it should include only butt-stocks which can be removed without the use of tools? Should it also include those which require a screwdriver to remove? It is true that some butt-stocks can be easily detached while others require more effort, but the point remains that, if a butt-stock can be removed at all, it should be disregarded for the purposes of measuring the overall length of the weapon.

I regret that I must invite the Committee to reject the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment made: No. 23, in clause 1, page 1, line 24, at end insert--

' (9) Any reference in this section to a muzzle-loading gun is a reference to a gun which is designed to be loaded at the muzzle end of the barrel or chamber with a loose charge and a separate ball (or other missile).'.--[Miss Widdecombe.]

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Brooke: I shall be brief. The harbinger of my concerns was contained in my intervention in the speech of my hon. Friend the Minister of State earlier. My remarks were addressed, through you, Mr. Morris, to my hon. Friend, because the Government have indicated that part of their support for the .22 concession is to allow our participation in the Olympic games to continue.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary answered my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) wholly properly, but he did not give a complete answer to the question whether the Home Secretary realised that people had to practise with their own pistols. He was asked whether he understood that, to compete at county or national level--one is

18 Nov 1996 : Column 798

necessary for the other--one needed to be able to train and practise with one's own pistol. He did not specifically answer that question, so I return to it.

Do the Government realise that, at the highest level--county level leading to national--about 80 per cent. of one's training and practice occurs away from the club where one may do one's shooting, generally in one's home, on what the professionals call the kinasthetic element of the preparation? That will involve, at the highest level, at least two evenings a week in one's home.

There are serious separate concerns about training weekends. At the highest level, one must attend a training weekend three weekends out of four. Those are not competitions allowed for in the Bill; they are a separate condition. Although I shall not press my hon. Friend for specific answers on those subjects tonight, I want to say that, in addition to the ones that I have mentioned, there are concerns about batch ammunition tested for one's own pistol, and about the movement of the pistol, especially travelling to international championships, which my hon. Friend will realise are a necessary qualification for the Olympics.

There are six international championships between Olympics, and one must attend every one. It necessarily becomes a matter of concern how one is going to transport one's pistol to them.

I shall write to my hon. Friend on these matters. All I ask for tonight is a stated recognition that a competitor at that level must practise and train with his own pistol, and that no other pistol would be any good for that purpose. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary did not answer the question when it was put to him earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle, but it is important that everyone is clear that the Government realises that that is the case.

Mr. Dalyell: There have been frequent references to the costs of compensation during the past five hours, and I think that clause 1 stand part is the appropriate occasion to repeat that reference.

Although various assertions have been made, the Government have said little or nothing. I ask for the Minister's attention, as I want to ask her a direct question. The Home Office must have some idea, in round figures, what compensation will be involved. I refuse to believe that the Treasury has not asked some questions. The figures vary from my estimate of £1.2 billion to £500 million from some Conservative Members to between £25 million and £50 million. What are the rough estimates of the Home Office?

The question asked by the right hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) and repeated several times since is, who will do the valuing? Valuers can have vastly different ideas of what guns might fetch. Is it to be a market value or an antique value? In other areas, the discrepancies in valuations by the great auction houses are mind-boggling.

Mr. Andrew Hargreaves (Birmingham, Hall Green): I would declare an interest if that were appropriate, having worked as a fine arts auctioneer. I am sure that the Government would be only too happy to avail themselves of the services, for nothing, of such experts, so that a proper value can be put on the firearms. In any case, the Government could recoup some of the costs by auctioning

18 Nov 1996 : Column 799

some of the finer firearms, which otherwise would have to be destroyed, in those countries where there are no restrictions.

Mr. Dalyell: If the hon. Gentleman is right, it is enormously significant that valuers are prepared to give their services free. In my experience, valuers do not come cheap. If they are prepared to give their services free--[Interruption.] Some of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues are shaking their knowledgeable heads. I suspect that it is highly unlikely that valuers would volunteer their services free.

I want to put my question as succinctly as possible. What is Home Office thinking on the whole question of valuation? Are we talking about £1 billion-plus or £100 million-minus?

Mr. Allason: I am grateful for being able to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. During the last few hours, several assertions have been made that I want to correct. The first and most damaging is that Thomas Hamilton had legally held handguns. It is perfectly clear to anyone who has read Lord Cullen's report that he duped the police over 20 years--in respect not only of the firearms he held, but of the ammunition.

Lord Cullen is extremely critical of the way that the police supervised the issuing of firearms. Plenty of people--at least three--in Central Scotland police were perfectly aware of Hamilton's character, and they wrote reports showing that. Detective Sergeant Hughes analysed the man's personality as unstable and untrustworthy. The recommendation that he should not ever be granted a firearms certificate is there to be seen.

The real problem is that those reports did not get into the criminal intelligence file. We now know that the officer in 1995 who was responsible for issuing the last renewal was wholly unaware of the existence of those documents, which are absolutely damning.

My heart goes out to the Dunblane parents. It also goes out to the police officers who had to investigate Hamilton, who had very well-founded doubts about his stability and who wrote about those doubts--which were then completely overlooked by their more senior colleagues. I am not surprised that one senior officer resigned from that force. There should have been other resignations.

---