| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
4.45 pm
As I pointed out in an earlier intervention, it would be easier for someone who wished to carry out an offence with a small handgun to take a day trip to France to purchase it across the counter and bring it back. They would, of course, have to go through customs, but their chances of managing that are pretty good and it would be easier than breaking in to Bisley or one of the other centres of excellence.
The exemption for disabled people was added to the Bill in another place. My study of the voting on the amendment shows that support was found in all political parties, including the Labour party. The British Olympic Association also points out in its letter:
As the hon. Member for Stockton, North said, the statistics gathered by the Metropolitan police show that only one weapon had been used in some 600-plus cases involving weapons. That is a telling statistic.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton:
I give way to the hon. Gentleman most willingly.
Mr. Cook:
I must correct the hon. Gentleman. The Metropolitan police said that only one of the 600-plus weapons that they had taken from criminals had been licensed in the United Kingdom--and it had not been licensed by the perpetrator. All the weapons had probably been used.
Mr. Winterton:
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that clarification, which makes my comments even more valid, since the Minister and his colleagues are not prepared to give credence to that important statistic. Facts speak louder than words, and the statistics cited by the hon. Gentleman should carry weight. It is tragic that this debate is not a debate at all, because people are not listening to the argument. If they were, the case put by the hon. Gentleman would carry weight with the Minister and he would accept the Lords amendment.
It has been said before that, although resisting the amendment may appear to be the brave option, the brave option would in truth be to listen to the good sense of the noble Lords who supported the amendment in another place and to the views expressed this afternoon in the Chamber, not least from the Government Benches. I plead with the Minister not to inflict on the disabled shooters of this country a total ban that will take away so much from their lives, making them less satisfactory and meaningful than in the past.
Mr. Christopher Gill (Ludlow):
I join my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) in applauding the speech of the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook), a doughty defender of the right of the bona fide citizens of this country to use licensed firearms. The House will not have been impressed by the justification given by the Minister for refusing to accept the amendment, and we must hear from him exactly how accepting the amendment would endanger the public.
The Minister stressed that the Government must do all they can to combat illegally held handguns, and the public will want to know specifically how he proposes to remove such handguns from society. He must give greater consideration to the amendment, which insists only that a tiny number of disadvantaged and disabled people be allowed to continue their sport.
It is a mean-spirited Government who cannot accept the argument so ably advanced by the hon. Member for Stockton, North and my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield. They, like me, cannot accept that a complete ban is the only safe option for the public. Other lethal weapons, which can be bought openly today without a licence, are perfectly capable of inflicting just as much damage as handguns, if not more. Home Office Ministers should pay attention to those weapons, rather
than continuing with their mean-spirited measure to rub out a sport for people who cannot enjoy other sports and who suffer severe disability.
The hon. Member for Stockton, North talked about public opinion. We all know the history of the Bill--it has its origins in the Government's wish to respond to public opinion. However, the House is not here simply to respond to every whim of public opinion. We are here to defend the freedoms and the liberty of the British people. One cannot rub out at a stroke the rights, freedoms and liberties of British people to do things within the law, and changing the law in this respect is, in my opinion--an opinion shared by other hon. Members--quite wrong.
We know how we got here. "We must do everything we can to make safety paramount," says the Minister. Many years ago, when I was chairman of a local education authority, I laid the foundation stone for an infants school in Wolverhampton. Not many weeks after the awful events at Dunblane, a man ran amok at that school with a machete, causing anguish, pain and injury to young people and their parents in my home town of Wolverhampton. It is interesting that we are not talking about banning machetes. Events at that school, St. Luke's, showed that a machete in the hands of the wrong person is dangerous, just as a gun in the hands of the wrong person was dangerous at Dunblane. However, there has not been a reaction against machetes, knives and other dangerous weapons, as there has been against handguns.
The hon. Member for Stockton, North made the point that many of us suspect that this is the thin end of the wedge, and that, although the Government are intent on proscribing handguns at this stage, the time is fast approaching when they will introduce measures to ban all other firearms. The House must realise that that is the hidden agenda, and I wish to take this opportunity to make sure that that message goes out to the British people. We are in danger of misunderstanding what the Government are doing today. I repeat--rejecting the amendment is mean-spirited. In his winding-up speech, the Minister should tell the House how many handguns would be involved if this small section of society were allowed to continue their sport.
Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews (Medway):
This is something of a phenomenon: I intend to speak against the amendment, and it is unusual in this Parliament for a Labour Member to find himself in a tiny minority in the Chamber. I now know how Opposition Members feel every day.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) well knows, he and I take entirely opposite views on this important issue. He knows that well, because he knows that I have campaigned for many years for the total abolition of handguns. It was a matter of great joy to those of us who have campaigned on that issue when that abolition became a reality.
I have always listened with great respect to everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North has said, and I have immense respect for his statistical knowledge and views. I know that he respects my views, too. Those of us who have campaigned on this issue for many years know that the issue raised by the amendment is the only one that has given us serious pause for thought. We have no right to stop people's recreation--particularly if it leads to a recognition of the abilities of the disabled--unless to do so serves a greater good.
I have never found comfort in the statistical analysis of this matter, and I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) that the number of disabled people holding firearms is small. However, an important principle has been raised in this House. In banning handguns, the House set its face once and for all against the culture of handgun ownership. I refer not to the handguns themselves or to their number or to the numbers to be handed in but to the culture that lies behind the ownership of a weapon whose only designated purpose is the taking of human life. That is the basis on which the House has acted and will act.
I am speaking for two reasons. First, I want to make it clear why many of us will vote against the amendment. Secondly, while I know that I am in a small minority in the House, I am here to demonstrate that those of us who have campaigned on the issue are here to listen--
Mr. Corbett:
I am certainly not arguing over the principle of the Bill, but will my hon. and learned Friend at least acknowledge that 999 of every 1,000 shooters who are to lose the right to hold handguns have alternatives available in the form of rifles and shotguns? The tiny proportion who are people with disabilities do not have that choice. They either take part in competition pistol shooting or they have to get out of the sport altogether. Can he persuade me, as the Minister has failed to do, that allowing that small group of disabled shooters the right to continue to take part in pistol shooting would represent any threat to public safety?
Mr. Marshall-Andrews:
I entirely accept what my hon. Friend has said and I will say what I have, in effect, said already--we are faced with a matter of balance. I acknowledge immediately that, given the small number of handguns that would be held, the risk to public safety would be very small. That is not an issue. The importance of this measure is its cultural nature--setting one's face 100 per cent. against and saying that there are no exceptions to this law. As a sportsman, I take no pleasure in taking sport away from anyone, particularly from disabled people who have no other raft. That is why the matter has been strongly debated within the campaign of which I have been a part, and why the opposition that we are articulating is not meaningless.
"The exemption for disabled people, who would be able to use such centres, is also important since cartridge pistol shooting is one of the few sports in which disabled people can take part"--
the next few words are important--
"on equal terms with able-bodied competitors.
as the Minister must be aware--
Disabled people"--
"are specifically presented with pistol shooting"--
as doctors and others will confirm--
"as a rehabilitation means to help with balance and confidence, primarily in the use of a wheelchair and sport."
That should be recognised and it is tragic that the Government are opposing a reasonable amendment to the Bill, which could be policed with a 100 per cent. chance of success.
5 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |