---

Mr. Howard: The last thing I expected to find myself doing when I rose to reply to the debate on this new clause was agreeing with the hon. Members for Perth and Kinross (Ms Cunningham) and for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan)--although it is fair to say that my hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside (Mr. Walker) made exactly the same point.

This evening, we have heard the most bizarre speech from an Opposition Front Bencher that I have ever heard in my 13 years as a Member of this House. The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) spent 75 per cent. of the time that he used for his speech explaining that he is not going to support the new clause because, if one votes for something knowing that one is not going to win, that is gesture politics and he is not interested in gesture politics.

What on earth has the hon. Gentleman been doing for the past 17 years? What has he been playing at? Why has he been coming to the House for the past 17 years? Why has he been voting? Why has he been speaking from that

4 Dec 1996 : Column 1124

Front Bench? Can we expect a decent period of silence on his part for the rest of this Parliament, or perhaps even his absence? He displayed the most extraordinary and grotesque attitude, and I thought it absolutely astonishing. The hon. Members for Perth and Kinross and for Falkirk, West made those points with appropriate eloquence, as did my hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside.

I, at least, am prepared to deal with the merits of the new clause, and I shall explain why I believe that the House should reject it.

The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) argues that there is in Scotland strong support for a complete ban on handguns and that that justifies making different laws north of the border, but I am not sure what, in practice, would be achieved by the new clause. I believe that the proposals in the Bill will make it virtually impossible for someone to remove a handgun illicitly from a gun club, so I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman's new clause would, in practice, add to public safety in Scotland.

Let us suppose for a moment, however, that the Bill did not impose such stringent security arrangements upon handgun shooting in England and Wales--let us suppose that it was possible for someone to remove a gun from a club in England and Wales. Would the new clause make Scotland a safer place? Of course it would not. It would still be open to a pistol shooter from Scotland to join a club south of the border and illegally import his gun into Scotland.

We have to recognise that our two countries share an island, and we must be realistic about the extent to which laws about the possession of guns can differ between the two jurisdictions.

8.45 pm

Mr. Salmond: The Home Secretary is saying that, if his Bill does not work, the new clause might not work--but this is a new clause to his Bill. The right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot have it both ways: either he thinks that his Bill will work, or he thinks that it will not.

Mr. Howard: I think that the Bill will work, and, if it works, the new clause will be of no significance for the reasons that I have given--but even if the Bill did not work, the new clause would be of no significance. That is my point.

I now want to make a more fundamental point. The House does not reach its decisions on the basis of petitions, public opinion polls or letter-writing campaigns, and nor do the Government. Competitive pistol shooting has a long history both north and south of the border. Target shooting with .22 calibre pistols has been a part of the Olympic games from the very earliest days of the modern Olympics.

The Government believe that, if they are able to provide a way of preserving some limited competitive target shooting while providing the high level of safety from the misuse of handguns that the public expects and deserves, they ought to do that. It is our duty to make that solution work, and I believe that it can be made to work without compromising public safety.

I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that those arguments are shared by a number of Scottish newspapers which have commented on our proposals. On 17 October--the day after my statement--the Dundee Courier said of our proposals:

4 Dec 1996 : Column 1125

"They should be given the chance to work, thus permitting the continued existence--albeit rigorously controlled--of a long established Olympic sport."

On the same day, The Herald said:

"The Government has, on this occasion, come down on the side of rationality and fairness. No Scot will despise reason and its role in our political life."

I do not accept, therefore, that public opinion in Scotland is anywhere near as monolithic as the hon. Gentleman suggests.

For the substantial reasons that I have given, and not for the extraordinarily bizarre concoction that we got from the hon. Member for Hamilton, I invite the House to reject the new clause.

Mr. Salmond: I shall deal first the Home Secretary's points. The Courier and The Herald are excellent newspapers--indeed, I write for one of them--but their combined circulation does not equal the circulation of either of the leading tabloid newspapers in Scotland, The Sun and The Daily Record, both of which have argued strongly in favour of a handgun ban. We are not arguing that opinion in Scotland is monolithic--we are saying that opinion in Scotland is overwhelmingly in favour of a handgun ban.

The Home Secretary knows that. Among other comments in the Scottish newspapers in the past few months, there have been broad hints from Scottish Office sources--for example, those published in the Evening Express of 16 October--that the Secretary of State for Scotland is in favour of a handgun ban, but that this legislation was the best deal that he could get out of a Home Secretary who resisted that approach. If anything, the number of Scottish Members of Parliament who voted two weeks ago to ban handguns--56 Members of Parliament--is probably an underestimate of the balance of Scottish opinion on this issue that might be revealed in a free vote. If we are to believe the briefings from the Scottish Office, it may be that, in a free vote and were it not for his Cabinet responsibilities, the Scottish Secretary himself would follow his constituents' views and vote for a handgun ban.

At least the Home Secretary did not tell us that our new clause was in some way technically incompetent--that is usually the last refuge of Ministers. [Interruption.] I see that he is acknowledging that the new clause is technically correct. Although he probably did not mean to do so, in his speech he also acknowledged that, in terms of his interpretation of the Bill, the new clause would be practicable. He argued that it would be impracticable only if his own legislation does not work.

However, the Home Secretary has missed the major criticism of the legislation. The factor that motivated me more than any other to vote for the handgun ban was the gun lobby's argument that arsenals of guns would be created at gun clubs, which would be vulnerable to people of criminal or terrorist intent.

I concede that the new clause would not prevent a gun club in England being raided and illegal weapons being taken into Scotland--there are many illegal weapons in Scotland at present--but it would ensure that there were

4 Dec 1996 : Column 1126

fewer arsenals, because there would be no pistol clubs in Scotland, and it would ensure that fewer guns were legally in circulation. We believe, therefore, that it would make our society that bit safer.

The Home Secretary should consider all the arguments that have been made against his legislation before he picks and chooses which to acknowledge.

If Labour Front-Bench spokesmen care to read my opening speech, they will find--perhaps they were anticipating a different type of speech--that I did not make a series of political points against the Labour party. Instead, I explained the positive reasons why I believed that the House should find the new clause worthy of support.

I was told by the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) that I had said that Scotland should be a testing ground. What I actually said was that English and Welsh Members had supported the new clause because they could see a virtue and a value in Scotland leading the way. They believe, reasonably, that, if Scotland can implement a total handgun ban, the lesson will be followed south of the border.

The handgun ban is not comparable to the poll tax. The overwhelming majority of the people of Scotland opposed the poll tax. The overwhelming majority of the people in Scotland support a handgun ban--and not only in Scotland. [Interruption.] I disagree; two weeks ago, I was proud to go into the Lobby to vote for a handgun ban in Scotland, England and Wales. However, that option is not available to us tonight, because our procedure does not allow us to revisit that argument.

Mr. Donohoe: We do not have long to wait.

Mr. Salmond: It is convenient for people to say, "We shall take this issue to a general election." Of course I will enter the general election campaign with a manifesto commitment to a handgun ban, but, as the hon. Gentleman should know, the result of no general election is a given, and in any case, as Labour Front-Bench spokesmen appear to have committed themselves only to allowing a free vote, the matter may not be determined by an election. We should take every opportunity to express our point of view, and tonight is the current opportunity.

The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) argued that people should not propose amendments that they believe that they will lose. That comment has been dealt with by several hon. Members. Last night, the Opposition voted for VAT on fuel at 5 per cent. instead of 8 per cent. We were not confident of winning the vote. Earlier tonight, I supported new clause 3, tabled by Labour Members, which proposed a licensing system for air rifles. I was proud and happy to support that new clause; I do not believe that we expected to win.

The one argument that I resented tonight was the argument that the clause would disappoint people in Dunblane, the relatives and the Snowdrop petitioners. They are not naive. I would not have tabled the new clause without consulting the relatives and the Snowdrop petitioners. The ones that I have spoken to all strongly support the new clause. I am even willing to name names, because they have said that I can if I need to, but I will not concede to an argument from anywhere that I am discounting their opinion.

4 Dec 1996 : Column 1127

I have been more affected by this issue than by any political issue since I became a Member of Parliament. I am not unique in that. I am sure that that has been the case for the hon. Member for Hamilton, the Secretary of State for Scotland and any right hon. or hon. Member with a heart. I have tried to approach it in a way that dignifies the argument that I am advancing.

---