| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Frank Cook: I can understand that the Minister and the Government cannot accept Lords amendment No. 8. I am also not surprised by their position, because of the attitude that they have expressed on so many other matters. However, I have yet to hear why the amendment is unacceptable. The hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) has adequately explored the confusion over the Government's position.
I am still astonished, however, that a 60-day period is unacceptable. The Minister has told the House that the Secretary of State has within his gift the ability to allow the concession. He can give the concession, he can withhold it--he can do whatever he likes with it. However, a 60-day period is still not acceptable. I know that the period will be arbitrary, but why have the Government chosen 28 days? We are wasting a lot of time on disagreeing with those in another place who made a good argument and were able to pass an amendment. That is exceedingly wilful.
I am also astonished by the attitude adopted by Opposition Front Benchers. Unless circumstances have changed and I am not aware of the change, the Labour party has made a sworn declaration that it will ban all handguns once it gets into power. Nevertheless, we are talking about approving a 28-day period in which people can decide whether they enjoy taking part in a sport that will eventually be denied to them. So many illogical events are occurring. If the events were taking place in a music hall, I would enjoy them, but, as they are occurring in a legislative Chamber, I am appalled. I do not know where we go from here. I appeal sincerely for hon. Members to think again before engaging in an argument that they apparently do not fully understand.
Sir Jerry Wiggin:
It would be churlish not to thank the Government for accepting the principle. Had the amendment not been made, it would have been virtually
I do not know why we are reducing the total from 60 days to 28 days, but it is symptomatic of the neurotic approach that the Government have to the sport. Anyone with a gun in his hand is, to them, lethal and dangerous, and has to be surrounded by regulations, forms, certificates and security to the point that we are locking ordinary people out of the sport. I am grateful for this opportunity, under pretty stringent conditions, to make that point.
The only thing that worries the shooters is that they take a few weeks to get to know anyone whom they will admit to a club. Normally, clubs have a probationary membership period of at least three months, and sometimes six months, before they will accept anyone, for reasons that we well understand. Limiting this to 28 days will make that personal contact rather difficult. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister will take that point and, if in the future the regulations are altered, one of the weaknesses will be the short time available for regulars to get to know a newcomer.
Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow):
I seek some guidance from the Minister in relation to amendment (g), which refers to clause 23 and the preceding clause 22. If clause 23 is amended in the way that the Minister seeks, would it prevent a recurrence of a tragic event that happened in my constituency a few days ago? That case illustrates the need for the police to have the strongest powers concerning licensed club members who are under criminal investigation.
I have raised this case with the Secretary of State for Scotland and have urged upon him the need for an early fatal accident inquiry into this case, in which a member of the Greenock gun club was charged in Greenock sheriff court with using lewd and libidinous practices in relation to four young boys. He was released from court and, literally hours later--despite the fact that the police had removed his personal weapons from his home and from the club--was able to enter the club, open a weapons locker and use one of the weapons contained therein to commit suicide. The police acted properly and efficiently in confiscating his weapons.
Sir Jerry Wiggin:
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Time is short, and it is just conceivable that the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) is speaking to a different amendment from the one we are discussing. We should like to hear the Minister's response. I think the hon. Gentleman mentioned Lords amendment No. 2, which we are not discussing.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
That is quite right. The hon. Gentleman is going rather wide of the amendment, and he may be referring to Lords amendment No. 2.
Dr. Godman:
I am referring to amendment (g), which deals with clause 23 and is concerned with the power
Miss Widdecombe:
In the one minute that remains, I shall try to address the specific points that have been raised. First, I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) that the cost of granting a firearms certificate will be £56, and for a pistol club licence £150. There will be no extra charge for clubs which allow starter shooters. I hope that that is helpful to him.
As to the point raised by the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) concerning the tragedy in his constituency--I well understand his concern--it is very difficult to see how somebody being investigated by the police could be automatically banned from entering a club if he was not already in possession of a certificate.
It being fifteen minutes past Eight o'clock, Mr. Deputy Speaker put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to the Order this day.
Lords amendment disagreed to.
Government amendments (a) to (g) in lieu of Lords amendment No. 40 agreed to.
Lords amendments Nos. 1 to 7, Nos. 9 to 11, Nos. 13 and 14, No. 15 and Government amendment (a) thereto and consequential Government amendment (a), and Nos. 16 to 24, agreed to.
Lords amendments Nos. 28 to 33, No. 34 and Government amendment (a) thereto, and Nos. 35 to 39 agreed to.
Lords amendments Nos. 41 to 49, No. 50 and consequential Government amendment (a), and Nos. 51 to 70 agreed to.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.--[Miss Widdecombe.]
Sir Jerry Wiggin:
Perhaps I shall not be out of order if I refer briefly to the comments of the hon. Member for
I fully understand the hon. Gentleman's concern. The shooting fraternity will have taken notice of the incident that he has mentioned, and will want to take security measures to prevent such an event in future. I strongly suspect that, when the Home Office comes forward with stronger security provisions, there will be some double locking or double entry, or something of that sort, to secure armouries. Those armouries will be attractive places to go, full of complete weapons. We have already had that debate, and I shall be out of order if I go further on that. The shooting community will certainly take note of what the hon. Gentleman said.
The history of the computerisation and registering of firearms has been bedevilled by the fact that we have so many different police forces. As in so many other areas, this is not a unified operation. The British Shooting Sports Council asked more than five years ago for a civilian firearms board to supervise the issue and monitor the numbers of all shotguns, rifles and revolvers, so that there was a use to be had from such a register.
Until a short time ago, if a firearm was discovered late on a Friday evening by one police force, there was no way in which all the other police forces in the country could be asked whether it was on their register. Thirteen police forces use one sort of computer, six use another, and the others all deal with some separate system. In any event, the systems are not connected by telephone.
The system of registering firearms was not responsive to the needs of the police. That seemed pretty crazy to us, so we proposed an independent board. We believed that that would be cheaper and more efficient. We visualised it being staffed by ex-firearms officers or armourers, or people with an expert knowledge of shooting and shooters. A firearms officer would get to know all the shooting fraternity in the county and the dealers, and would be well in with the shooting world.
Prejudice broke in somewhere. After an amazing series of reports by various accountants, the Home Office finally came up with a figure of £10 million a year to run such a service. For about 1.1 million shotguns and, let us say, about 500,000 rifles and revolvers--I forget the exact total--that seemed rather a lot of money. Sadly, we have never seen some of the accountancy reports behind that decision.
A central register would go some way towards providing a practical response that the shooters are perfectly happy about. We have no worry about details of our weapons and their numbers being kept on a computer. We want the machinery to be useful. Nothing is more purposeless than bureaucracy with no pay-off.
I do not say that we welcome the precise terms of the new clause, but we are prepared to accept it. We can see some good coming out of it. When she starts to deal with the practicalities of the Bill, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will impress firmly on the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Association of Chief Police Officers (Scotland) the necessity of the police forces talking to each other by computer. It is ludicrous that they are so far apart in this day and age.
Lords amendment: No. 71, after clause 32, to insert the following new clause--Register of holders of shot gun and firearm certificates--
".--(1) There shall be established a central register of all persons who have applied for a firearm or shot gun certificate or to whom a firearm or shot gun certificate has been granted or whose certificate has been renewed.
(2) The register shall--
(a) record a suitable identifying number for each person to whom a certificate is issued; and
(b) be kept by means of a computer which provides access on-line to all police forces."
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |