| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Robathan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It relates to the good reputation of the House--which has suffered in the recent past--which I hold dear, which I believe you hold dear and which I am sure all hon. Members regard as of immense importance.
Rumours are circulating that an internal Labour party inquiry into the actions of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sarwar) has now been completed. In the interests of the good reputation of the House, should not the details of the findings of that inquiry be made available to hon. Members?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord):
Rumours of that sort are not a matter for the Chair.
Mr. Peter Atkinson (Hexham):
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not time that the good name of the House was protected by the Government setting up the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges? Why have not the Government done so, and will they now act?
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
That matter is being dealt with elsewhere. It is not a matter for the Chair.
4.58 pm
Mr. Michael Howard (Folkestone and Hythe): I beg to move, To leave out from 'That' to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
- 'this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Firearms (Amendment) Bill since the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 has dealt comprehensively with the problems identified by Lord Cullen; believes that there is no justification for a total ban on all handguns including those of .22 calibre which would eliminate all legitimate
- target shooting; and calls on the Government to delay this intemperate Bill until the Firearms (Amendment) Act has been fully implemented and a proper assessment made of its impact.'
The Home Secretary gave the impression that the Police Federation and the Police Superintendents Association spoke for all organs of the police. As the Association of Chief Police Officers explained:
What, therefore, is the justification for introducing the current proposals with such unseemly haste? Why not wait at least until the effect of the 1997 Act can be assessed? Why are the Government so hell bent on denying shooters, including those who take part in Olympic competitions, any opportunity to pursue and enjoy their sport? After all, it is not as though the Labour party has a long-standing commitment to abolishing all pistol shooting. As recently as 24 September last year, the Minister without Portfolio wrote in a letter to one of his constituents:
Both those observations represented a rare outbreak of common sense on the part of the hon. Gentlemen concerned. I suppose that we should not be surprised that
it did not last long. The Labour party turned its back on that commonsense approach at its party conference last year, when both the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary committed Labour to a total ban on handguns, well before the publication of Lord Cullen's report.
When we introduced our proposals based on, although not precisely following, the views expressed by Lord Cullen in his report, Labour Members opposed them on the basis that they did not go far enough. Clearly, that is the basis of the present legislation. However, where is the justification for it? Where is the compelling need that must always be present if the state is to justify intervention in the otherwise lawful habits of law-abiding citizens? It cannot possibly be said that the 1997 legislation has not worked--it has not yet been tried. In this, as in so many other issues, the new Government demonstrate an arrogance and contempt for the rights of minorities, which will in due course prove their undoing.
The Conservative party believes that the principle of individual liberty that lies at the root of our democracy should compel any Government to take fully into account the views of minorities and minority interests. We contend that there is no compelling justification for the Bill, which is why we shall oppose it.
Mr. Harry Barnes (North-East Derbyshire):
Does not the shadow Minister wish that he had gone further with the measure that was presented to us in the previous Parliament? He said that the previous Government did not act in conformity with Lord Cullen, whose first recommendation was dismantling. If that had been adopted, it could have been applied to .22s, and the two vastly opposed positions that now exist in the House might have been avoided.
Mr. Howard:
I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman, for the reasons that he knows well. We debated at great length the pros and cons of dismantling during the passage of the previous legislation. The hon. Gentleman had one view on that, and I had another. It would not do anyone any good if we went over that ground again.
I remind the House of the nature of the constraints introduced by the 1997 Act on the shooting of .22 pistols--the only pistol that the law would still permit. Under the Act, those pistols could be used only in gun clubs that demonstrated that they met strict security criteria and that could satisfy the police that their premises had adequate security and that appropriate procedures were put in place to avoid any unauthorised removal of firearms from the premises.
Pistols could be moved from the club only if they needed to be repaired or if the owner were competing in a national target shooting competition at a different club, but, before the gun could be moved, a permit would be required from the police, and the gun would have to be carried by a third party whom the police were satisfied was a fit and proper person to discharge that responsibility.
The Act certainly does not permit unrestricted use of .22 calibre pistols, but it does allow their limited use, so that those who have enjoyed pistol shooting for many years can still do so. Target shooting has a long tradition in Britain. It is an Olympic competition and has been since the 1870s. A total ban would kill off a sport in which Britain does so well. In the 1995 Commonwealth games,
for example, this country won four gold medals in .22 events. At the 1996 Paralympics in Atlanta, disabled shooters won a gold and a silver medal. Many hundreds of law-abiding people would lose their sport, even though there is no real reason to suppose that the public would be protected more effectively than they would be by the 1997 Act.
For some, target shooting is more than just a sport. I give one example. The British Paraplegic Shooting Association stated that disabled people have found competitive target shooting extremely useful as
"The ban on high calibre handguns and the tightening up of firearms controls generally"--
in the previous Government's legislation--
"will provide a significant improvement in public protection. ACPO's measured view suggested retaining a strictly controlled ability for handgun competitions, limited to .22 weapons, and we very much support both that proposal and the proposed requirements for comprehensive security measures over weapons stored at gun clubs."
So the Association of Chief Police Officers supported not the legislation before the House today but the legislation put before Parliament by the previous Government and passed by the last Parliament. That legislation provides the public with the protection that they need and deserve. It gives this country some of the strictest gun control laws in the world, but allows pistol shooting with low-calibre handguns to continue in secure conditions. The Act has not yet been implemented. Only the night before last, we were debating the compensation arrangements that would apply to those unable to shoot pistols as a consequence of its provisions.
"There has unfortunately been some misrepresentation of Labour's position on the ownership of handguns. We support a ban on the holding of handguns in residential property. People such as yourself will still be able to own handguns but they must be kept safely under lock and key at properly run centres."
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), said:
"We do think that handguns should be limited to the Olympic standard of .22 calibre and we do think that there is an argument for handguns to be kept in secure storage under supervision at clubs."
That was, perhaps predictably, in an article in the Shooting Times and Country Magazine of 3 October 1996.
"a rehabilitation means to help with balance and confidence, primarily in the use of a wheelchair and sport. This provides them with a better quality of life and respect for themselves as disabled people in an able-bodied world."
What is the Government's justification for this draconian measure? As I said, there is no real reason to suppose that the proposals will increase public safety. Indeed, depriving pistol shooters of any legitimate opportunity for exercising their sport leads to the real danger that some of them might be tempted to exercise that sport outside the law, in circumstances where the risk to the public might inevitably be greater. The force of that point, which I have repeatedly made, was explicitly recognised by the Home Secretary in a discussion with me which took place on Radio 4 last November, which he acknowledged in his speech a few moments ago.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |