| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Frank Cook: My hon. and learned Friend has pointed out that this is a cultural measure and that there can therefore be no exceptions. He says that that is so because of the nature of the weapon. Does it not then follow that rifles are in the same genre and that shotguns are the same? Is that to be the next cultural step? Will he give an honest response to that question?
Mr. Marshall-Andrews: I would not dream of giving my hon. Friend any other response under any circumstances. I will simply tell him this. There is a significant difference between the handgun and other forms of firearm. As he well knows, the handgun is the only weapon that has only one specific designation--the taking of human life. That is why those of us who have campaigned have campaigned against handguns alone.
I can give my hon. Friend this assurance. Those of us who have campaigned in that way have no targets over and above the legislation that we are now pursuing.
Mr. Grieve: I listened carefully to the Minister of State, as he asked me to, and to the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews). The two views expressed point up neatly--we went over this when the Bill first came before the House--the fact that the Minister's position is irrational and untenable.
While the hon. and learned Member for Medway has attacked certain cultural values that he wants to suppress and to supplant with a new era of righteousness, which is at least comprehensible even though I find it abhorrent, the position of the Secretary of State and the Minister of State, as expressly spelled out over and again in earlier debates, was that this was a pragmatic move and that its every aspect was to be judged, not as an attempt to get at the gun culture--that had nothing to do with it--but to deal with specific problems. Yet a rational amendment from another place, which has no prospect beyond the absolutely minimal of increasing the risk to the public, is being rejected by the Minister of State, who is unable to give a reason. My only assumption is that his reason is that he is under pressure from hon. Members, such as the hon. and learned Member for Medway, but feels unable to admit it.
Let us try to apply a little common sense. First and foremost, there is not a blanket ban along the cultural lines that the hon. and learned Member for Medway wants. The armed forces and the police will retain the use of the weapons. The statistical evidence, which will be known to the Minister of State, is that there have been occasions in the past decade--very few--when weapons in the armed forces' possession have been stolen and misused. The same is true with the police. Indeed, I regret to say that there have even been instances when those weapons have been misused by members of the armed forces or the police. We cannot get away from such minimalism.
For reasons that I will not go over again as they are so coherent and cogent, the Lords amendment seeks to allow people who would not otherwise be able to do so to enjoy a legitimate sport. I detect that the hon. and learned Member for Medway is thinking, "Ah ha! But I do not like the cultural values underpinning it." However, it is no place of the House to look at people's cultural values. That is the same road that would take us to the Ayatollah Khomeini's Iran--[Laughter.] It is precisely the same route, because, instead of judging matters on their merits, we would be judging them according to our own cultural values. In fairness, the Secretary of State and the Minister of State have consistently avoided that pitfall.
Mr. Marshall-Andrews:
As far as I am concerned, the hon. Gentleman has overstated his case.
Mr. Grieve:
I do not think that I have. When I first came to the House, I listened carefully to Labour Members and, in particular, the Minister of State. I tried to fathom whether they were trying to act on objective or on emotional grounds--the latter is something that the House should be wary of doing. Although it may be a small step, I nevertheless consider that, when one starts to take such decisions without objective justification, it is the first step down the road to the Ayatollah Khomeini's
Mrs. Anne McGuire (Stirling):
Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that nearly 1 million people signed the Snowdrop campaign's petition, which asked the House to consider a ban on all handguns without any exceptions?
Mr. Grieve:
I recognise that. As was said earlier, it is for the House to apply objective analysis and to ensure that people who may have strong emotions are nevertheless not allowed to dominate and remove the freedoms of others for no good reason.
Mr. Michael:
The hon. Gentleman seems to be in some doubt about the grounds on which the Government have approached these issues. They have done so coolly and clinically, judging what is in the best interests of public safety. I can assure him on that point.
Mr. Grieve:
I am grateful, and I know that the Minister means that, because he and the Secretary of State have said it often. On that basis, his measure is completely and totally irrational. For that reason, the amendment should be accepted.
Mr. John Greenway (Ryedale):
Our debate today brings to an end a long process, lasting more than a year and a half, aimed at strengthening our legal controls over the ownership and possession of handguns following the appalling tragedy at Dunblane in March last year.
Everyone in the House is agreed that such a shocking and horrific incident, in which so many young children and one of their teachers were so brutally murdered, must never happen again. We are united in our resolution to put in place the most appropriate measures to achieve that. In a moving speech, the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) again demonstrated this afternoon that people who shoot for sport feel as passionately and strongly about that as anyone else.
The process of reform on which we embarked all that time ago required a cool-headed and dispassionate examination of the risks posed by certain categories of handgun and the recognition that there are legitimate uses for some guns, but that the greater risk to society is posed by guns that are illegally held or easily obtained by criminals. Above all, there is the need to balance conflicting interests in a way that does not compromise public safety. Such considerations go to the heart of the amendment agreed to in another place, which we are now asked to consider.
Since the Dunblane tragedy, each one of us has had ample opportunity throughout the parliamentary process to express our personal point of view. The House will recall that, last summer, the Select Committee on Home Affairs, of which I was then a member, considered in some detail the existing framework of the law controlling the ownership and possession of handguns. The Committee took detailed evidence on how that framework might be improved.
It is now a matter of record that the Committee divided on party lines. Along with my Conservative colleagues, I took the view that a complete ban on all handguns was impracticable because there were various genuine and legitimate uses that posed no real threat to public safety. Even the Bill recognises the requirement that guns should be used, for example, in the course of animal welfare and husbandry.
Mr. Frank Cook:
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will care to compare the views that were expressed during the sittings of the Select Committee with the recommendations that were published in Lord Cullen's report.
Mr. Greenway:
I had not intended to do that. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting, however, that there was a great deal more symmetry between what was proposed in the majority report and what Lord Cullen proposed, he is right. The previous Conservative Government and the new Labour Government have taken a much more stringent view than the one taken by Lord Cullen or the Select Committee on Home Affairs.
I took the view, as did my colleagues who were members of the Select Committee, that there were--and there remain--legitimate uses of handguns that pose no real threat to public safety. Time has already shown--and will show increasingly in future--that that was the correct judgment.
The sport of competition shooting, which is increasingly popular among disabled groups, was a use of pistols that we had in mind when recommending that an outright ban on all handguns was inappropriate. In our inquiry, we did not seek to differentiate between various categories of handgun, but we noted the destructive potential of recently developed high-calibre, multi-shot pistols.
The previous Government went beyond Lord Cullen's report, as the hon. Member for Stockton, North has said, and concluded that such high-powered, multi-shot, high-calibre weapons had no legitimate place in our society, but that the interests of shooting sportsmen could be accommodated by restricting the use of handguns to .22 calibre pistols kept only in the most secure gun club premises.
The two amendments passed in the other place at the instigation of senior Government Back-Bench peers, not of senior Conservative peers, show that the Conservative Government was entirely right to make such a distinction and that the new Labour Government's decision to seek legislative approval through the Bill for a blanket ban on all handguns is wrong.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |