| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
7.1 pm
Mr. Michael Colvin (Romsey): I congratulate the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey) on his maiden speech. He said that he was chairman of his police authority and I congratulate him on his many years' service in that role. He will know that, often, what counts is not how good the gun laws are, but how well they are enforced--the Dunblane disaster was an example of that. The hon. Gentleman also applauded the parliamentary record of his next door neighbour, Mr. John Ellis, who was previously the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West, a constituency which I have also had the honour to represent.
The hon. Member for Brigg and Goole and I share one further similarity: both our maiden speeches contained references to Mr. John Wesley. He may have been born in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, but it was in Bristol that he did most of his work and the Methodism movement was launched.
I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) on his maiden speech. He is almost one of my neighbours. He referred to the distinguished record of one his predecessors, Viscount Eccles. I well recall one of the early debates that we had in my locality on the movement of the county boundary. I do not think that there is anyone in the House who has not suffered from constituency boundary changes in one way or another.
That local debate was about whether the county boundary between Wiltshire and Hampshire should be moved. There was a turnout of 200 people at the meeting which, for a rural area, was considerable. Points were put with tremendous passion and the argument went to and fro. Viscount Eccles stayed fairly silent until the end of the debate, when the arguments seemed to be fairly well balanced and there was obviously going to be a division. At that point he got up and said, "To my mind, it is quite simple. Do you want to stay a Wiltshire moonraker or become a Hampshire hog?" The county boundary stayed precisely where it is and will no doubt remain so for as long as Viscount Eccles is living. He is well, robust and still a local.
I should also like to refer to the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson). He may have lost Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman as a Member of Parliament, but I have won her as a constituent. I can assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that she is not going to have a peaceful and quiet retirement--someone like her could not retire peacefully.
Dame Elaine is married to my local Member of the European Parliament. Hon. Members who remember her efforts in this House will never have participated in a debate when she has not intervened in some way or another if present, and her interventions have always been audible. It is significant to see her at a meeting with her husband. When he is in authority or when she is attending one of my local meetings where, as a local Member of Parliament, I command a certain amount of respect, the good Dame is silent. The only times in my life when I have seen her silent are when she has been supporting me as a Member of Parliament or her husband as a local Member of the European Parliament.
On behalf of Dame Elaine and Mr. Keith Mans, I thank the hon. Gentleman for the good messages that he has sent them. We were sorry to lose Keith because his contributions in the House, both in defence debates and in any debates involving civil aviation or aerospace, were considerable. He had immense knowledge of the subjects. He was once one of my constituents when I represented a constituency containing part of the New Forest. I shall pass the hon. Gentleman's messages on to Mr. Mans.
Listening to the speeches, I have a slight sense of deja vu. During debates on what became the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997, there was hardly a single Back-Bench speech in support of the proposals, yet the Bill was passed. Until we heard the speech of the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole I do not think that we had heard any real support for what is being proposed today.
I oppose Second Reading. I support the reasoned amendment tabled in the name of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and my right hon. and learned Friend the shadow Home Secretary. Another reasoned amendment on the Order Paper was not selected; it is in my name and that of, among others, my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope). Some 16 hon. Members signed that reasoned amendment, which says broadly the same thing as that tabled in the name of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. I am keen to add my support to the amendments tabled by the hon. Members for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) and for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell).
I should like to ask the Minister a couple of questions relating to the parliamentary procedures for dealing with the Bill. First, why has the Home Secretary decided to commit the Bill to a Standing Committee of the whole House? When do the Government foresee the Committee stage taking place? There has been some talk of 19 June--it would assist us, particularly in view of the large number of amendments that are likely to be tabled, to have some idea of the date. The alternative procedure proposed by the hon. Member for Stockton, North--a Special Standing Committee to hear evidence from expert witnesses--is preferable. Given the Bill's nature--admittedly, it is a narrow Bill--there is surely a compelling case for subjecting it to expert, specialised and detailed scrutiny before we consider amendments.
The House may be aware that shooting is the fastest-growing participation sport in this country. Some 2 million people shoot using pistol, rifle or shotgun and it is the second largest sport after fishing. That said, there is a remarkable degree of ignorance about involvement in those sports. That is why I think that the Select Committee procedure could well be used to advantage in this case.
The present law, which was amended by the Conservative Government, is now the toughest in the world and that is tough enough in my view--in fact, I think it went rather too far. The 1997 Act banned all high-calibre handguns above .22 rimfire and also removed handguns from general circulation. It banned all handguns from the home, which is certainly a good thing; it required that .22 handguns should be kept and used in licensed gun clubs under the strictest security; and it made it a criminal offence to take a .22 handgun out of a licensed club without a police permit. It also tightened the procedure for issuing firearms certificates and gave the police stronger powers to revoke certificates. That was a welcome measure, because, had those powers existed at the time of Dunblane, the local police authority could have revoked Mr. Thomas Hamilton's licence, thereby saving the lives of many children and their teacher.
Nevertheless, I believe that the 1997 Act went too far. The dismantling recommendations that were proposed in amendments were workable and would have done nothing to endanger the general public. In fact, refusing to accept those dismantling arrangements did nothing further to safeguard the public. When enacted, the 1997 legislation displayed a rather regrettable and unholy alliance between Front Benchers on both sides. It was an example of an knee-jerk reaction to a national tragedy--it was understandable, but such reactions sometimes make bad law. Having established the Cullen inquiry, the Government should have accepted its conclusions and enacted measures accordingly.
The Bill extends the ban to .22 handguns and I remind the House that, during the Committee stage of what became the 1997 Act, my then hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West, Mr. Robert G. Hughes, proposed an amendment to that effect so that all handguns would be banned. That amendment was narrowly defeated by 25 votes. I have not checked the record, but I believe that, in that Division, several Conservative Members and possibly some Opposition Members voted in favour of the amendment, so it is not true to say that the Whips stopped people voting according to their beliefs, although they may have tried to exert their usual influence. None the less, I still believe that the 1997 Act represented a disgraceful collusion between Front Benchers against Back Benchers who were opposed to the Conservative Government's proposals. On that occasion, we Back Benchers were defending the rights of 57,000 law-abiding citizens who were made scapegoats for the criminal activities of others.
It is important to note the Labour party's evidence to the Cullen inquiry in May 1996, which was presented by the current Secretary of State for Defence and the Home Secretary. Page 5, paragraph 17 of that evidence states:
The Bill aims to prohibit the general ownership, possession or use of all handguns by civilians and seeks to achieve that by including small-calibre pistols in the list of weapons that are prohibited under section 5 of the Firearms Act 1968, unless authorised by the Home Secretary. In his report, Lord Cullen said:
My next point relates to the important matter that is the subject of the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Stockton, North--competition shooting. I should apologise for the fact that I was not present in the Chamber for some of his speech this evening, but what I heard was pretty good stuff and I am sure that the rest was too.
The shooting of .22 pistols has a legitimate place in the traditions of Olympic competition and it is a sport enjoyed by thousands of law-abiding citizens. We see in the Bill a fundamental contradiction in the Labour party's thinking, because the Labour manifesto says:
"we recommended that handguns above .22 inch calibre should certainly be prohibited. We also believe that the strong case for restricting handguns of .22 calibre and below to those which need to be reloaded after each shot should carefully be examined by the Inquiry."
11 Jun 1997 : Column 1203
They did not, therefore, recommend a .22 ban, but said instead that single-shot .22 pistols should be accepted. Why have the Labour Government changed their views?
As I said earlier, this is a somewhat narrow Bill, but I want to know whether it is the thin end of the wedge. Labour also made recommendations to Cullen on rifles. Page 5, paragraph 20 states:
"we think there should also be a general prohibition on rifles above .22 inch calibre."
This evening, I want a specific assurance from the Minister that there are no other Bills in draft to extend the ban or to bring air rifles and shotguns within section 1 certification. It is important that the House be told.
"I do not consider that the banning of handguns for target shooting or the banning of shooting clubs would be justified."
What are the Government's reasons for disregarding that recommendation?
"A Labour Government will take the lead in extending opportunities for participation in sports; and in identifying sporting excellence and supporting it."
I, too, support that part of the manifesto. It continues:
"A Labour Government will also work to bring the Olympics and other major international sporting events to Britain."
Again, I am in agreement--it is extraordinary how much we can agree across the Floor of the House. The contradiction is that, on the one hand, the Labour party claims to support our great sporting traditions, yet, on the other, the Labour Government have now proposed policies that would effectively destroy some of those traditions.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |