| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Thomas Graham (West Renfrewshire): The right hon. and learned Gentleman said, as the Opposition keep saying, that there are folk who will be driven underground and will take part in illegal activities with guns. Surely he is not encouraging folk to do that, once the House has taken a decision on .22 guns and high-calibre weapons. Let us remember why the debate came about: because of the tragic circumstances of Dunblane. People can be killed just as well by .22 guns. That is what the debate is about. I am surprised that the Opposition keep referring to folk going underground and acting illegally. We determine the law here. We shall give them 10 years in gaol if they are caught.
Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman knows very well that assertion of a proposition does not help to establish whether or not it is well founded. Of course no member of the Opposition is encouraging anyone to use pistols in a way that is prohibited by law. We are highlighting the danger that that might happen and, indeed, the Home Secretary acknowledged that it was a point with some force to it, which had to be weighed in the balance. Throughout history, that danger has often followed total prohibition. We should always take account of it and weigh it in the balance. It does not always carry the day, but we suggest that the potential consequences of the legislation should be taken seriously. For that and the other reasons that I have identified, we regard the legislation as unnecessary and unfair.
It is also expensive. One would not begrudge the money if the legislation meant increased protection for the public. However, as I have explained, there is no basis for that assertion. The Government have estimated that
compensation would be likely to run to more than £30 million for weapons and their accessories. Where do the Government intend to find that money? The Home Secretary said that it will come from within existing Home Office budgets. What does that mean? Does it mean that expenditure on closed circuit television or on the police will be sacrificed in order to compensate law-abiding owners of lower-calibre handguns?
The Government might like to consider the following facts. The sum of £30 million could pay for the installation of several thousand closed circuit television cameras up and down the country. It also represents half the funding that police forces such as Wiltshire and Gloucestershire received in this financial year. It must surely be better to spend millions of pounds of taxpayers' money on more closed circuit television cameras or on the police than on compensation for law-abiding .22 calibre handgun owners.
Furthermore, there is good reason to suggest that the estimates in the financial memorandum to the Bill do not tell the whole story. During the passage of the Firearms (Amendment) Bill earlier this year, we decided against compensating gun clubs for the impact of a ban on high-calibre handguns. An important justification for that view was the fact that gun club members could continue to shoot .22 and lower-calibre pistols. A total ban on handguns would force many clubs--especially those whose members fire only handguns--to close. Does that not alter the previous position on compensation? Have the Government considered compensating clubs that will be forced to close as a direct result of the Bill?
When I put those questions to the Home Secretary, he said that he would re-examine the matter if the Bill departed in any way from the principles that informed our approach to the previous legislation. The argument is not that the Government are departing from those principles, but that the application of those principles will lead to different consequences as a result of the total ban on pistol shooting that this legislation provides. We need answers to those questions and I hope that the Minister of State will address them in his winding-up speech.
Mr. Beith:
The right hon. and learned Gentleman has made some well-founded comments about the Bill. However, he must recognise that some clubs were forced to contemplate closure under the previous legislation because they could not afford to implement costly security measures. Yet the right hon. and learned Gentleman refused those clubs' bid for compensation on that account.
Mr. Howard:
I acknowledge that fact, but the current considerations are different. We debated that subject at great length during consideration of the previous legislation. At the time, I pointed to many precedents when the imposition of more stringent requirements under health and safety and similar legislation did not involve compensation. That proposition is entirely different from the one that I am putting now. Gun clubs will have to close as a consequence not of extra security requirements but of the fact that pistol shooting will no longer be permitted at all. That is an entirely different point and we look forward to hearing the Minister's response at the end of the day.
Mr. Peter Atkinson:
My right hon. and learned Friend has put his finger exactly on the point. I have been told
Mr. Howard:
My hon. Friend raises an extremely important point which deserves a serious response--it certainly does not deserve to be met with the hilarity that we observed on the Government Front Bench a moment ago.
The Opposition want to see firm gun controls in place. Like the Government, we are committed to ensuring that gun controls are rigorous and protect the public. Throughout our time in government, the Conservatives tightened gun controls when we found it necessary to do so, following due consideration. As a result, Britain has some of the world's toughest controls on the private possession of guns.
In 1982, we recognised the necessity of making it more difficult to possess imitation firearms that could be readily converted into working weapons. We changed the law so that the same tight licensing controls established by the Firearms Act 1968 applied to the imitation and to other dangerous firearms. In 1988, following the Hungerford tragedy in August 1987, we strengthened gun controls further. As a result, many of the most dangerous weapons--such as self-loading rifles and short-barrelled semi-automatic shotguns--were banned. We also strengthened controls on shotguns and on the safe keeping of all legally held firearms. Following the Dunblane tragedy in March last year and the completion of Lord Cullen's inquiry, we took the further action that is contained in the 1997 legislation.
The need to protect the public should be the main priority of any Home Secretary--it certainly was mine. Protecting the public from gun-related crime was a priority of the last Government. We took firm action not only to ensure that we had some of the toughest gun controls in the world, but to deal with the criminal misuse of illegally held firearms. For example, in the Criminal Justice Act 1988, we increased the maximum penalty for taking a gun to a crime from 14 years to life imprisonment. The Labour Opposition of the day opposed us virulently. The then shadow Home Secretary, now Lord Hattersley, described the provision as squalid and disreputable, and the present Prime Minister and Home Secretary voted against it.
Mrs. Anne McGuire (Stirling):
Mr. Deputy Speaker, thank you for allowing me to speak so soon after making my maiden speech. As the parliamentary representative of the Stirling constituency and the town of Dunblane, I want to identify some of the legitimate opportunities of my constituents that were infringed on 13 March 1996. I wish
Like many hon. Members, I wish I were not discussing this issue today. However, I think that we should remember exactly why we are doing so. Thomas Hamilton entered a primary school in Dunblane with four high-calibre guns and 473 bullets. He fired 106 shots, killing 16 children and their teacher and injuring 15 others. Only eight years before, a similar incident had taken place in the town of Hungerford. We must never forget the context of this debate.
We have been criticised for introducing an emotional element to the gun debate, but I remind hon. Members that emotion differentiates us from other species. We should never forget the strength of the human spirit. Time is a great healer, and it is sometimes easier to put the facts from our minds. However, I want hon. Members to reflect for a few moments on where they were on 13 March 1996. I want them to remember how that day developed and the way they felt.
At first, it seemed as though only one child--think about that--had been killed. However, the numbers soon increased and there was incredulity at how many children had been killed. We then witnessed the despair of parents, families and the whole community. I observed the House's reaction from outside and I was impressed by the way in which it empathised with the people of Dunblane on that day.
Since then, there have been many developments. For example, there was the Snowdrop petition, containing 750,000 signatures. It reflected the public opinion of which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary spoke. The Cullen inquiry took place and many of the Dunblane parents listened to the evidence that was presented to it. A momentum was created and hope increased, but we went only part of the way.
The previous Government's Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 certainly tightened regulations and imposed restrictions, but it left a lethal loophole. We know that .22 calibre guns are still in circulation under current legislation and it has been amply illustrated that these guns are not toys. The Police Federation's evidence to the Select Committee on Home Affairs confirmed that. The small-calibre single-shot handgun is as lethal as a larger-calibre gun. The loophole could still be exploited and, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said, the British Shooting Sports Council highlighted that. The 1997 Act presented us with restrictions, but, at the same time, it put the pursuit of a minority who are involved in a sport above the protection of the public and their need and demand for public safety.
Labour's case in opposition was always that the House should establish a positive case for the possession of handguns. Two principal arguments are constantly advanced in trying to make that case. First, it is said that it is the individual, not the gun. Undoubtedly, Thomas Hamilton and Michael Ryan were evil and wicked people. They do not reflect honest, law-abiding citizens who shoot. We cannot legislate, however, for what an individual does with a gun. Lord Cullen identified that fact himself when he said that it is insufficient protection for the public merely to tackle the individual rather than the gun.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |