| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Frank Cook (Stockton, North): I want to deal first with the theft of handguns. I prefer to call them small firearms, because I do not like the term "handguns". I think that I heard the Minister say that 398 legally held weapons had been stolen. I find that figure difficult to accept, because I have seen the results of a survey done by the Metropolitan police a couple of years ago. They recovered more than 600 guns from criminals--people who were using them in the course of their trade. Only one of those 600 weapons had been licensed in the United Kingdom, and not by the individual who had used it to perpetrate his nefarious crimes. There is a great disparity between the two sets of figures. I believe that we should look at the matter a good deal more closely, rather than use such sloppy logic, which creates a dodgy base on which to pass any legislation.
In the other place, Lord Williams of Mostyn said that he did not want to single out the disabled, because he wanted to treat them like everyone else. That was most laudable, as far as it went, but can we say that disabled people are just like everyone else? The noble Lord went on to say that disabled people could take up another sport. Of course they could. I suppose that someone confined to a wheelchair could take up bingo, housey-housey or tombola, if he or she wanted to compete with able-bodied people.
When Daley Thompson or our ex-colleague Sebastian Coe stood on the rostrum to receive their medals, I am sure that they felt pride. Was that pride justified? Bob Everitt, the Welsh pistol champion, is severely disabled--he has only one arm--yet he is in the Great Britain able- bodied squad. He is in line to represent Great Britain or Wales--according to whether it is at the Olympics or the Commonwealth Games--and depending on the decisions that we make this afternoon.
Mr. Robathan:
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, in respect of Mr. Everitt and people confined to wheelchairs, it was patronising in the extreme for the Home Secretary to write:
"rifles and shotguns . . . would, in the absence of . . . pistols, still be available for use by disabled people for . . . sporting purposes?"
3 Nov 1997 : Column 36
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it was unfortunate, to put it mildly, for the Home Secretary to write in those terms?
Mr. Cook:
I would rather do a body swerve to that question. Whether or not it is patronising, the hon. Gentleman has raised an important point.
The announcement was made when I was at the Labour party conference in Brighton. People said to me, "There you are, Frank. They have gathered them all in." I replied, "Yes, they have, but who have they gathered them from?" When they asked what I meant, I said that they had gathered in weapons from people who had complied with the law because they were law-abiding citizens.
That evening, I heard the television newscaster interviewing a police superintendent who said that people did not use handguns to rob banks or post offices--they used shotguns. He said, "Nobody would try to run off a security van with a .22 pistol. They would be out of their tiny minds." I thought, "Just a minute--we have an informed professional telling us that we are banning weapons that should not be banned and identifying shotguns."
What did that tell me? I am not a very clever person; I am quite simple really, but that does not mean that I am stupid. That policeman was talking about shotguns being the danger, and people are talking about that now. If the Minister tells me that a person in a wheelchair can use a rifle or a shotgun, I have to ask him, for how long and when will the next move be made?
To return to disability, what are we to say to Bob Everitt from Wales, and to Ian Horn, the European 1500 unclassified 1995 champion who won the expert silver medal in 1997 and has severe spinal injuries? Should we tell them to go and play golf or to have a game of five-a-side football in their spare time? Such people have worked for years and spent fortunes on specialist equipment and special weaponry--not the variety that is used on the street. It would be a waste of time a criminal carrying such a weapon.
Such disabled sportsmen have spent a lot of time, money and effort getting some tribute for this country. If we do not accept the Lords amendment, we are denying them that right. I do not think that we have the right to deny them that right.
A competition called the Pistol Anno Domini, in which disabled shooters used to take part, used to be held at Bisley--until legislation was introduced. Not only disabled shooters took part; each year there were 5,000 competitors--with their families--all of whom arrived with their pistols suitably boxed, cleaned, oiled and ready to take part in the competition. It was the biggest event of the year.
I would like the House to know how many police officers were required to supervise the competition each year. Does any hon. Member care to make a guess? The answer is: one. Does the House know why? There was one police officer because he was participating in the competition. There was not one official policeman on duty to supervise the event. That is the kind of threat that we are talking about quelling. That is the kind of sloppy logic that is being used.
How do we justify the sloppy logic? My guess is that the public opinion argument is used to justify it. I understood the surge of concern and anger when Thomas
Hamilton committed that barbaric act, bearing in mind that his first certificate was illegally held and that his initial weapon was illegally procured. Every subsequent deal was therefore ruled out under the law--if the police had taken the trouble to apply the law.
I could understand the public opinion. I, like everybody else, was sickened, just as I was sickened after Hungerford, when I and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) served for the Opposition on that travesty of a Bill, the Firearms (Amendment) Bill. We made a mess of the legislation then, and we are making a mess of it now. We have had a perfect opportunity to take the whole legislative framework relating to shooting and weaponry and make sense of it, and we have not done so. We are dealing with it in a piecemeal way, and that is foolish.
I return to the issue of public opinion, the driving force, the promises that were made and the media-driven propaganda that has been put out. I have the results of a MORI poll that was conducted between 24 and 26 October--so it does not have whiskers on it. The question asked was:
Only 1 per cent. of those asked responded "Don't know", 5 per cent. responded "Depends"--it could depend on anything--and 56 per cent. said that the first group should be excluded from the ban. That is akin to the figure used in the newspaper today to justify Government support for the Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs) Bill. I suggest that if 57 per cent. in a survey in the press is enough to support that measure, 56 per cent. in a survey on the street should be sufficient to support the amendment. I have other figures, which I will come to later because they relate to the other amendment.
I sympathise with the Minister, because he has been talked into a corner by members of his party and the Government. The inclusion of the disabled is unenforceable and unnecessary, and there is no justification for it. They will suffer a double condemnation, because they have worked so hard, done so well, and represented their country so well. They have brought back some national pride, which we seem sadly to be losing at the moment. I know that the Minister has problems, but I appeal to him not to oppose the Lords amendment for the sake of trying to make everybody the same. That is not justified, because everybody is not the same.
The Bill will stop me, as the captain of the Palace of Westminster rifle club, going elsewhere to shoot. In fact, the law of the land does not apply here. We do not abide by licensing rules in Crown buildings. The rifle club will continue because it is Black Rod's property. Once the ban applies, if I go elsewhere, I will have to do something like gymnastics. [Interruption.] I was trying to find out whether hon. Members were awake. It seems that they are, but only to the funny side.
The matter is not funny. People have worked hard to gain the pride that Daley Thompson and Seb Coe felt in competition, and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, felt when you were elected. I am sure that you were proud, as I was, that the people maintained their faith in you. There is a place for pride. Let us allow the disabled to keep it, for God's sake.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton:
I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook). No one in the House has fought harder for good sense in the legislation. His knowledge is unequalled and the research that he has undertaken has been magnificent. I regret only that the House is not prepared to listen to him.
I have been a Member of Parliament for some years, and I have seen legislation introduced as a knee-jerk reaction; the Bill is another example of such a reaction. It is extraordinary that people with a disability who have achieved excellence in shooting small-calibre handguns will be forced to go abroad to follow their interest in their sport. I share the anxiety of the hon. Member for Stockton, North about the Minister, who has been pushed into a corner. To say that the disabled must be treated like any other group is wrong.
The amendment makes it clear that the small-calibre handguns in question would be stored at and used only at the centres of excellence and would--as the British Olympic Association states in a letter to the Home Secretary--only be
"Which, if any, of the following groups of people do you think should be excluded from a ban on small-calibre handguns and so be allowed to have them?"
The first group cited was:
"Supervised target shooting with .22 calibre pistols by disabled people in cases where it can be medically proven their disability means they cannot take part in other types of competitive sport."
I suggest that that relates directly to the Lords amendment.
"transferred to and used at premises at which . . . competition is taking place".
To suggest that the amendment would open up the centres of excellence to risk or make them vulnerable to people who might break in, as the Minister suggested, is stretching the imagination a bit too far.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |