| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Madam Speaker: I am delighted to hear that the hon. Gentleman is not criticising me. I wish we could get back to the Attlee days--particularly at business questions. At that time, Members asked long rambling questions and the Leader of the House simply answered, "No, not next week," and moved on. That was a good period, and it would be splendid to get back to that sort of thing. As Attlee said, "No good at the job--out".
Orders of the Day
Firearms (Amendment) Bill
Order for Second Reading read.
Madam Speaker:
I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Frank Cook (Stockton, North):
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. My concern originates from the long-standing convention of the House that no intervention be made on a maiden speech. The debate will, I hope, be a sensible and perhaps energetic scrutiny of some aspects of the Government's proposals. There are many new Members, some of whom have delivered a maiden speech and some who have not. To avoid confusion--and perhaps embarrassment--would it be possible for you to counsel the House and hon. Members taking part in the debate, who could indicate by semaphore at the outset whether their contribution to the business of the House is their first? Perhaps you can provide some sign yourself, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker:
I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that if a Member who stands up to speak does not have a familiar face, he should listen carefully to the first few phrases, in which a Member making a maiden speech usually pays tribute to his or her predecessor and makes nice comments about his or her constituency. If he or she fails to do that, the Speaker always knows who is making a maiden speech, as do the Whips on either side of the Chamber. Anyone who is interested can approach the Chair or the Whips to find out who is making a maiden speech. I want to be helpful in that area.
4.22 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
None of us will ever forget the appalling events that took place on 13 March 1996 in Dunblane, when 16 innocent children and their teacher were gunned down by Thomas Hamilton, armed with a lawfully licensed handgun. In response to that tragedy, the previous Parliament passed the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997, which banned all higher-calibre handguns. We supported it, but, in our view, it did not go far enough. In our manifesto, we said this about gun control:
I strongly commend the Bill's proposals to the House, but I want to make it crystal clear that--as in opposition--it will be a matter for my hon. Friends' individual consciences to decide whether to support or oppose the measure tonight. But none of us should doubt the overwhelming public support for the proposed ban. For only one indication of the extent of public support for a complete handgun ban, I draw the attention of the House to the results of an opinion poll in The Daily Telegraph
last Friday, which showed that 83 per cent. of those polled approved of the Government's proposed ban on all handguns.
Mr. Andrew Robathan (Blaby):
The opinion poll may or may not be correct, but on that logic, the Home Secretary would be introducing a Bill to reinstate capital punishment. Every time there is a poll on that subject, 75 per cent. of people are in favour. That is not a good argument for the Bill.
Mr. Straw:
I do not accept the premise of the hon. Gentleman's argument. Of course, it is, in the end, a matter for the individual consciences of hon. Members, but, in making our decisions, we must take account of the strength of public feeling. I do not think that anything like 83 per cent. of people are in favour of capital punishment, but I am well aware that I may not have had my constituents' support when I have marched into the Lobby against it. That is a fact which I have to take into account, but it does not stop me. In a matter of public safety, it is important to recognise the extent of public support for what is in the Bill.
The Bill proposes a total ban on all civilian handguns in general use. The question was last debated on an amendment courageously moved by Mr. Robert Hughes, then Conservative Member of Parliament for Harrow, West. With every justification, he said:
Let me first explain the Bill's provisions. Clause 1 extends to small-calibre pistols--.22 and below--the ban instituted by the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997.
Sir Nicholas Lyell (North-East Bedfordshire):
Everybody recognises the tragedy of Dunblane, but in the aftermath of such a tragedy--an important action has already been taken in the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997--it is essential for the House to look after the liberties of citizens, including minorities. Could the Home Secretary tell us clearly on what basis of principle the Government think it proper to interfere with people's lawful recreation?
Mr. Straw:
The basis of principle is the protection of the public. I do not think that there is a huge amount between us and the previous Government, who decided that the protection of the public required the banning of 80 per cent. of handguns, and that that should override what the right hon. and learned Gentleman was absolutely right to say that we should all be concerned about--the protection of minorities. We are proposing, for reasons
Mr. Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield):
On how many occasions in the past 50 years has a small-calibre pistol been used to commit murder, and what categorisations and classifications have come from that? A small-calibre handgun is designed for sport and for no other purpose, although of course it could be abused.
Mr. Straw:
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman raises that issue, because I sought to establish whether the statistics on firearms murders distinguished between small-calibre and high-calibre weapons; the answer is that they do not. We know, however, as I shall explain in more detail later, that .22 weapons are lethal. As he asks who has been murdered with such weapons, I can mention Robert Kennedy and Yitzhak Rabin. I also draw his attention to the fact that .22 weapons are used for the purpose of killing people both by the Israeli security service and by our own Special Air Services.
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall):
Obviously, all of us, including my right hon. Friend, are concerned about public safety. Is he aware of my constituents' overriding concern, which is the huge number of illegally held weapons? The police were called out to more than 800 firearms incidents last year in my borough and all the guns were held illegally. How will anything in the Bill help to make my constituents safe from illegally held guns, as opposed to those held in pistol shooting clubs?
Mr. Straw:
I am well aware, as my hon. Friend knows, of the problems with firearms incidents in her constituency, because I happen to live there. That important issue was debated at some length during the passage of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997. We cannot describe with absolute precision the relationship between the regulation of lawfully held weapons and the availability of unlawful weapons. However, we know that countries that have lax firearms controls also have a high level of use of firearms in crimes, and the reverse is true.
We may take the two extremes. The first is the United States, where it is easy in most states of the union to buy weapons over the counter, as I have seen myself, and where there is a huge level of firearms-related homicides and other incidents. At the other end of the scale, Japan has even tighter controls than this country will have, even after the Bill comes into force, and a low level of firearms-related murders. I can also tell my hon. Friend that, in 1995, almost 400 lawfully licensed pistols were stolen. Every one of those pistols was stolen for use by criminals.
Mr. Frank Cook:
My right hon. Friend mentioned the assassination of Kennedy in the United States and of Yitzhak Rabin in Israel. Does he believe that if .22s had been illegal in those countries, those assassinations would not have taken place?
"In the wake of Dunblane and Hungerford, it is clear that only the strictest firearms laws can provide maximum safety. There will be legislation to allow individual Members of Parliament a free vote for a complete ban on handguns."
That is why, only five weeks after taking office, we have proposed this Bill to give effect to that manifesto commitment.
"I have evidence from my conversations with a number of Ministers and parliamentary private secretaries that, on a free vote tonight, they would vote for the banning of all handguns."--[Official Report, 18 November 1996; Vol. 285, c. 789.]
I suspect that it was precisely because of the prospect that a free vote would have resulted in the acceptance of Mr. Hughes's amendment that Conservative Members were placed under a three-line Whip, imposed, I believe, at the instigation of the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard). The amendment was defeated by 25 votes and the British people have been forced as a result to wait another six months for the outright ban that they patently support to be put before Parliament.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |