| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Michael: I accept that, at least most of the time, my hon. Friend tries coolly and reasonably to explain his viewpoint, and I do the same. I think that I have offered him sense and logic on each of the arguments that he and I have exchanged. The simple fact is that he does not agree with me, and I do not agree with him.
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend has tempted me to put him to the test. When I raised the issue of Olympic and Commonwealth games, he told me that he had had consultations with the associations and that there was no problem. I believed him. I am not suggesting for one moment that he told me an untruth; he may well have thought that he was accurately informing me. If the information was accurate then, however, the situation has changed a bit since.
On 24 October 1997, I received from the British Olympic Association the only circular that I have received on shooting issues. It may interest hon. Members to know that I have three filing cabinet drawers crammed to the gunnels--not neatly filed in fanfold order, but packed full--with correspondence on firearms legislation. My colleagues sometimes tell me that they are receiving a heavy mail, but I promise the House that I know how heavy the mail can be.
How many of those letters--all of which were individually written--expressed disagreement with my stance? Of three drawers full of letters, only five letters
disagree with my stance. The circular from the British Olympic Association is addressed to all Labour Members. I will not read the entire letter, but it states:
I do not want to sound as if I am booting the Minister, because I am not. He was very helpful when the European 1500 championship, which is a pan-European competition, was held at Bisley. As we were getting very close to the date of the competition, there was some doubt about whether it could be held. People were coming from the Netherlands, Germany, France, Belgium and Norway, and from heaven knows where else, but no one knew whether the competition would be held.
During the summer recess, I approached my hon. Friend the Minister, and he was very kind. He telephoned me from his home, we discussed the problem, and he very diligently applied himself to finding a solution. He said, "We will grant a dispensation." Nevertheless, the situation provided an example of the United Kingdom hosting an international competition to which outside shooters brought their weapons so that they could participate, whereas the Brits were rather half in and half out of the competition.
Half the British shooters had retained their .22s, because the date to surrender them had not yet arrived, whereas the other half--who were extra-law-abiding--had handed in their weapons early. Some very good competitors who normally participate in such events had weapons, but some very good competitors who normally participate in such events and represent their country had no weapons. The question inevitably arose whether competitors without weapons would be able to borrow weapons from those who had them. As helpful as the Minister had been with the overall event--which could then take place--he was unable to grant a dispensation to those who had already handed in their weapons.
The event was something of a debacle. Some of our best shooters were without their best weaponry, whereas other shooters--who are probably just as good as our best shooters--were demoralised because their team had been carved up. I suggest that that event provides a technical example of what might happen in future Commonwealth and Olympic games.
The House has already talked about pride, and I have mentioned the pride of people winning elections. I mentioned Daley Thompson and Sebastian Coe. Many
British pistol, rifle and shotgun shooters have brought home the gold and the silver, and we were very proud to welcome them and poured praise on their heads for holding up the flag. Now, however, we are in the crazy situation of saying, "You can take part in a shooting event, as long as you bugger off to the continent or somewhere else to train for it. And don't forget to bring back your stuff." Such a situation is apparently justified by public opinion.
In the debate on Lords amendment No. 1, I quoted from a MORI poll. Unsurprisingly, the same poll questioned public attitudes towards shooting in Olympic and Commonwealth games. As I said, 54 per cent. of the generous sample of people questioned agreed that
Moreover, 56 per cent. of those asked agreed that
Many competitors have had to relinquish their preferred weapon--some of which were custom-made and cost anything from £2,500 to £6,000 each, which is not the type of weapon that the ordinary Jack the lad would use in trying to knock off a post office--and resort to black powder shooting as a form of competition.
I know how long it takes to load such a weapon, because I did it at Bisley during the Trafalgar meeting three weeks ago. It takes a long time, but I am told that Laura Collins of The Sun, who had no official range licence, who was not licensed to use a section 1 firearm and who therefore held the gun illegally, apparently used one to shoot at a melon. Her article tells how quickly she was able to load the gun, but that has to be an untruth. Furthermore, the melon at which she pointed the gun was an unlicensed target--[Laughter.] It may sound funny, but a melon is an illegal target--one can use only authorised targets. We ought to find this a serious matter and not be facetious.
I am talking about someone who broke the law. Indeed, she was not the only one who broke the law. So did the person who lent her the weapon to perform the foul deed, and her editor, who was either an accessory before the fact, in instructing her to perform the deed, or an accessory after the fact, in allowing her to report it.
There is no doubt--[Interruption.] I thought that someone was calling time.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst):
Order. It does not help our proceedings if audible devices are brought into the Chamber.
Mr. Cook:
Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I promise you that my phone is switched off. It was not me, but I am unable to declare who was responsible for the interruption.
Mr. Colin Pickthall (West Lancashire):
It was someone on the Opposition side.
Mr. Cook:
My hon. Friend says that it was someone on the other side, which reminds me of something that happened earlier this afternoon and which graphically illustrates the sad state we are in with this legislation. Much earlier today, one of my hon. Friends said, "Frank, I realise that we are on opposite sides in this matter, but how long are you going to take?" That person is not in the Chamber now. I thought that it was rather sad, as I am on the side of the disabled and of the sportsman.
"We are writing to ask your help . . .
I hope a little better than they were in Dunblane--
The amendment would enable our .22 Olympic pistol shooters to train and compete for international competitions in established Centres of Excellence and avoid the embarrassing situation at the Manchester Games 2002 whereby English, Scottish and Welsh competitors will be able to take part but not train for the .22 pistol events. The safeguards contained in the amendment are absolute. The Centres of Excellence would be approved by the Secretary of State as secure sites. The shooters would be vetted by the Chief Constable,"--
"would then be vetted and recommended by the governing bodies of the Olympic sport and finally, would need the special approval of the Secretary of State. Furthermore, the .22 Olympic pistols would be stored and used at the Centres of Excellence, only being transferred to and used at premises at which a shooting competition is taking place during an Olympic or Commonwealth Games."
The letter expresses the British Olympic Association's current attitude, which varies considerably from the impression that was given to me by the Minister in previous debates in the House.
"Supervised target shooting with .22 calibre pistols in shooting clubs for able-bodied or disabled people"
should be permitted.
"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"
should be excluded from the ban. Of those questioned, 61 per cent. thought that
"Supervised training sessions with .22 calibre pistols by the British teams (able bodied and disabled) for the Commonwealth and Olympic games, and other similar events"
should be excluded from the ban. That is public opinion--based on a random, scientifically compiled sample--as recently as last week.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |