| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Miss Widdecombe: I could almost be forgiven for thinking that my hon. Friend was arguing against the concession. What I said was crystal clear: I said that the heirs would be exempt--not the sons, grandsons or great grandsons. A great nephew or a third cousin six times removed could be an heir. When we introduce our amendment, we will make our intentions clear. It is a trifle
19 Nov 1996 : Column 868
unfair for my hon. Friend to criticise the concession, as he does not yet have the details of it. I have given him an idea of my general thinking.
Mr. Dalyell: I shall be more than a trifle unfair, because I think that there are other problems with the magic date of 1946. What about trophies of the Korean war? To my certain knowledge, some of my national service contemporaries brought trophies back from the Korean war. God knows what has happened to them. Has the date of 1946 been plucked out of the air?
Miss Widdecombe: We must have a definition. When we introduce our amendment on trophies of war, hon. Members will have an opportunity to propose other amendments. There was a proposal to tighten the definition and to change the date to 1939. We shall carefully consider whether the definition is consistent with and coherent across different legislation, and whether it is right.
Mr. Dalyell: This is quite important. Presumably, certificates would have to be produced for possession of a gun acquired before 1946. What about trophies of war that were acquired back in the late 1940s and 1950s? We are going back a very long way. What standards of proof will be expected? I do not want to be difficult for the sake of being difficult, but I believe that the provision is fraught with difficulties.
Mr. Henderson: I did not really understand the Minister's point about deactivated guns. It is a bit like asking, "When is a gun not a gun?" It was suggested that a gun that was fully operational at one time could be in a different state as a trophy of war. We all acknowledge that a "trophy of war" licence would not be given for such a gun to be used with ammunition, but there is still a danger that it could fall into the wrong hands and then be loaded with ammunition. That is particularly likely in the case of the relatively modern guns that I mentioned earlier. I do not think that deactivating a gun of that kind means that it is no longer a gun: it could be reactivated.
Mr. Henderson: I think that it could, but that is a technical point.
Miss Widdecombe: Perhaps I can give the hon. Gentleman some technical advice. As I said, deactivation is now extremely strictly prescribed. It would be much easier to build a gun from scratch than to try to reactivate a gun that had been deactivated according to current specifications. The meaning is pretty precise. In any event, deactivated guns fall outwith the terms of the Bill, and we would be talking about nothing if we wrote them in.
Mr. Henderson: I am grateful for the Minister's advice, but I am not sure that it convinces me. Common sense tells me that if something can be deactivated, it can be reactivated. Many engineers would welcome the challenge of reactivating a gun and returning it to the condition in which it was when it was manufactured and first in use.
19 Nov 1996 : Column 869
I think that the Minister is saying that she agrees that there is a potential loophole--that she recognises that, in some circumstances, some trophies of war could become dangerous to the public. In recognising that, she has acknowledged that sometimes the police will have to say, "Your trophy of war must be kept in a particular circumstance before it can be given an appropriate licence." If the Minister recognises that, she should seriously consider saying it in the Bill.
Miss Widdecombe:
Primary legislation already states that the police can specify the circumstances in which guns must be kept, either in terms of their physical condition--which means dismantling--or in terms of the secure conditions that surround their keeping. The decision is made on the merits of each case. There would be little point in trying to introduce blanket legislation affecting a number of circumstances to which the application was not appropriate.
Mr. Henderson:
Again, I am grateful to the Minister for her advice, but this advice does not convince me either. There is a need to be specific. The Government must think again, and for that reason I may not press the amendment.
We should recall the position in which the police found themselves in central Scotland when they believed that, under the existing law, they would fail in court if Hamilton challenged their decision to deny him a certificate. We could be in the same position in this instance. Someone who held a trophy of war and believed that the law did not give the chief constable powers to be specific and to make a particular requirement could challenge the chief constable if he thought that the cost would be disproportionate.
Miss Widdecombe:
Although this Bill does not make that specific, the existing law does. There would be no ground for such a challenge.
Mr. Henderson:
I understand the point on which the Minister is attempting to convince the Committee, but she has not convinced me, and I am not sure that she has convinced the Committee. She has accepted that there is a loophole. I hope that, in the light of this discussion and the confusion that exists in the minds of hon. Members--[Interruption.] Some hon. Members are confused. The hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) looks very confused. We need clarification.
Mr. Dalyell:
Will the Minister find out from the Scottish Office precisely what the state of the law is? In 1988, Thomas Hamilton came to my surgery. His visit was prompted by a constituent, Mrs. Paula Morebay of Linlithgow, who telephoned to say that she was extremely concerned about her son being taken to a camp by a group leader whom she did not like and whom she distrusted. It was so urgent that I asked the police to go and see my constituent. Detective-Sergeant Anderson then went to see Hamilton.
The police reported that they would have liked to do something about the matter, but could not. That is the story that my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) and others learned 10 years later, and it constitutes the guts of the issue. The man Hamilton
19 Nov 1996 : Column 870
Mr. Henderson:
I am grateful for my hon. Friend's supportive emphasis of what I consider to be a real point. I hope that the Minister will accept that some Conservative Members are also confused, and, having reflected on the issues that we have discussed, will table an amendment. If she does not, it is possible that, after further consultation, I shall want to do so.
Miss Widdecombe:
The minds of Conservative Members are models of clarity and lucidity. We are not confused. I cannot speak for Opposition Members, but I do not think that there is any confusion on Conservative Benches about the current provisions in the law. The hon. Member for Linlithgow did exhibit some confusion, but, to be fair, he had been absent for part of the discussion.
Miss Widdecombe:
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was at the other end of the Chamber.
Two pieces of law were discussed. The hon. Gentleman raised one: the conditions for licensing, which, as he well knows, we are tightening. The piece of law that I was discussing was that which allows the police to specify the circumstances in which a gun may be kept, in terms of either its physical state or the security provisions surrounding it. I do not think that I can say anything further to dispel the confusion, if indeed it exists.
I will, however, clarify a few points for the hon. Gentleman. I said that we would reflect on these. As all weapons taken in war since 1946 are deemed to be the property of Her Majesty's Government, the issue that the hon. Gentleman raised will probably not have as much impact as he may have thought; but I undertake to examine the position, and make certain that that is the case. He also mentioned guns that were purchased a long time ago, standards of proof and so forth. Certificates are renewed every five years, and the same tests are applied on each occasion.
Mr. Leigh:
I wish to make just one point. It is clear in my mind now that the law is itself quite clear: anyone can be made an heir, and therefore anyone can sell any trophy of war to whoever he likes by signing a simple affidavit. The gun will then come on to the open market. Trophies of war will be kept on the open market, and will be specific items for sale and resale. [Interruption.] If that is not the case, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will correct me.
Miss Widdecombe:
We are talking about wills and inheritance, not about deeds of gift. Wills are provable; wills are held; wills can be referred to.
19 Nov 1996 : Column 871
Mr. Henderson:
I think that there is now adequate evidence of confusion. I beg to ask leave to withdraw my amendment, to enable the whole House perhaps to return to the issue on another occasion.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |