| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
(d) the slide assembly or cylinder has been removed and stored according to the conditions specified in subsection (2A) below.
(2A) Except as permitted by virtue of any provision of this Act, a small-calibre pistol shall be held under the following conditions--
(a) the slide assembly or cylinder shall be held on the premises of a licensed pistol club, and
(b) the remainder of the weapon shall be stored at different premises which shall be specified on the certificate granted for that pistol.'.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following amendments: Government amendments Nos. 84 to 86.
No. 62, in clause 12, page 6, line 13, after 'pistols', insert
No. 63, in clause 15, page 7, line 25, at end insert--
No. 64, in clause 40, page 19, line 28, at end insert--
Sir Jerry Wiggin:
The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) asked me to add his name to the list of supporters of the amendments but, in all the excitement and in view of his many amendments on the Order Paper, I am afraid that I failed to do so. Nevertheless, I am glad that the amendments enjoy cross-party support.
The purpose of the amendments is to require guns to be stored in separate parts, so that the complete gun is not in the owner's hands except within the secure confines of the club. The amendment does not provide an alternative:
4 Dec 1996 : Column 1131
The effect of the amendment is to force the surrender of those guns that cannot be disassembled. The amendment does not challenge the distinction between .22 and other calibre weapons, and it retains the Government cut-off point. It does not challenge the separation of the complete gun from its owner when outside a licensed club, which is the core of the Government's security assumption.
Lord Cullen said that the option
The only objection raised against the proposal refers to its practicability. All firearms experts agree that the proposal is practicable, but the Government's response to Cullen says:
The evidence on which the Government's statement relies consists of two letters from Mr. Warlow of the Forensic Science Service, which I shall not refer to in detail. The letters are in the Library--although the first was somewhat late--as those hon. Members who are interested will know.
I do not think that the Government were entirely fair to Mr. Warlow, as his first letter did not bear the interpretation that they sought to put upon it. Nowhere does he say that dismantling is "impracticable". It is perhaps a nuisance--unusual, because it was hitherto unnecessary--but, at worst, would result in the loss of a 10p screw or a scratch on the polish.
Mr. Warlow, in his second letter, added the following:
The present Bill requires a shooter to deposit a gun that is identified on his certificate. The proposal requires the shooter to deposit a named part that is identified on his certificate. The Bill requires the gun to be stored at a single named club. If a shooter belongs to a second club, that condition still has to be complied with. The proposal would require the part to be stored at a single named club in the same way.
Mr. Warlow then says that some
The Home Secretary said:
The Government have now added a further offence--to have a .22 pistol outside licensed premises--but that does nothing to alter the distinction between legal and illegal guns. Nor would it make any difference if the new offence were limited to having a complete .22 pistol outside licensed premises, leaving the carrying of a part lawful.
The legal control of the part is as strong as that of the whole: a legal spare part cannot be obtained without police permission. Getting the system off to a secure start will rely on exactly the same information--current certificates--whether we are dealing with dismantled or whole guns. All components, as well as whole guns, that do not conform to the Bill's requirements will have to be surrendered. Illegal components are more difficult to obtain than illegal guns, and probably more expensive. It is difficult to see why anyone willing and able to buy an illegal gun should want to buy an illegal part.
All the objections of the Forensic Science Service are met once it is recognised that, at the commencement of the Act, all pistols will be subject to assessment by the police. A complete inventory of pistols and component parts exists today on firearm certificates. All pistols not conforming to the Act will have to be surrendered and removed from the certificate. That applies in exactly the same way to components. Thereafter, all that is required is for the police to notify the club of any changes in a member's certificate.
'and such premises may include the premises of a registered firearms dealer which may be used for the purpose of storing small-calibre pistols;'.
'(4A) In determining whether to grant a licence, the Secretary of State shall consider whether the requirements of this Part could be adequately met by proposals by the Club for the storage on its premises of parts of weapons belonging to members of the Club.'.
'(3A) In determining which days to appoint, the Secretary of State shall have regard to the need to permit adequate time for licensed pistol clubs to make the necessary arrangements to conform with the provisions of the Act.'.
"which is open to the least objection on the ground of practicability is the temporary dismantling of self-loading pistols and revolvers by the removal of major components".
That suggestion has several obvious advantages: it is quicker and easier to implement; it will save much expenditure, both to clubs and the Treasury, by way of compensation; and it will avoid the risk of terrorist attacks on arsenals of weapons. The recommendation continues to fulfil the Bill's central purpose: to separate the owner from his pistol or revolver, except within a club, as a safeguard against another amok killing.
"While removal of key components is feasible for certain types of gun, it is not a practical proposition for others".
Before considering the question of practicability, it is important to understand the present law regarding components. Buying spares without authority is already illegal. The two parts to which Lord Cullen referred--the slide assembly and cylinder--are already controlled by law. They are pressure-bearing component parts of the gun, which it is impossible to buy or possess without entering it on one's firearms certificate. Any additional slide assembly or cylinder requires the consent of the chief officer of police, who must grant a variation of the original certificate. From the point of view of the present law, there is no difference between buying another gun and buying a replacement slide assembly or cylinder.
The obvious inadequacy of Mr. Warlow's first letter was exposed during debate in the House on 18 November. The Government were forced to describe it as
"a summary of careful consideration by the service".
They said that the letter
"was not meant to be a definitive answer to every point raised".--[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 20 November 1996; c. 7.]
On the same day as the debate on the Floor of the House, Mr. Warlow wrote again to the Home Office. That letter was described by the Minister as offering
"as much advice as we are able to release".
We must therefore regard it as the Government's definitive evidence.
"This procedure (ie dismantling) . . . would constitute a much resented and annoying imposition on the vast majority of club members."
No club member has yet been able to interpret that extraordinary remark. The Government's new restrictions are extremely onerous and irksome and will annoy many--I dare say all--club members, but why is it more likely to produce annoyance if the storage is of part of a gun instead of the whole gun?
"It would be an extremely difficult task to police . . . effectively at club level,"
he said,
"especially in instances where the individual is a member of more than one club."
9.15 pm
"Some will possess more than one set of barrel or slide components for their pistol",
goes the criticism. Only if permitted by the police. The Home Office mysteriously failed to acknowledge that each slide assembly and cylinder is, for purposes of the law and police control, already treated as if it were a complete gun. At the commencement of the Act, all the guns and component parts of each legitimate shooter will be known to the police. Therefore, only those parts that conform to the requirements of the new Act and are approved by the police will be allowed to continue. The situation described by Mr. Warlow cannot arise unless the police permit it to arise.
"will possess components which will allow the calibre of the weapon to be converted by simple substitution of components".
It is possible for a .32 slide assembly to be substituted for a .22, but only if someone has one. For the same reasons that I have just given, a shooter cannot have both components unless the police permit him to do so. The Act will not permit the police to do so.
"A criminal member could obtain 'major components that would pass inspection' prior to storage."
4 Dec 1996 : Column 1133
The only example of that given by Mr. Warlow is that a person could buy a deactivated gun of the same make and model for which no authorisation is necessary, and so deceive the club. That example smacks of desperation, and is a classic instance of arguing from extreme cases. Even so, it relies on the highly contentious assumption that deactivated parts are not easy to spot.
"it would not be difficult for a gun owner to keep an illicit spare at home. That would enable him to reactivate the gun at any time. It is perfectly true that, in doing so, he would be breaking the law, but he would be unlikely to be discovered until it was too late."--[Official Report, 18 November 1996; Vol. 285, c. 784.]
We all know that the number of illegal guns in this country quite probably exceeds, by a substantial proportion, the number of legal guns, but that does not prevent the Government from maintaining a system of legal gun ownership. I think that all hon. Members would support that.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |