| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not quote non-ministerial Members of the other place.
Mr. Greenway: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for that reminder.
The House must recognise that there are senior members of the Labour party who have great experience of negotiating to bring international competitions to this country and who express their views in no uncertain terms. Their arguments are compelling. They have explained that it is not enough simply to say that there will be a dispensation. The real issue is that, in view of the way things work in such negotiations, our attempts to bring prestigious games to this country will be undermined. That view will become increasingly common. The Government are keen that we should host the Olympic games in future. When they try to do so, they will come up against the problems I have outlined.
That point leads me to ask what the Minister for Sport intends to do. How will he vote tonight? Will he agree with Lord Howell, the former Minister, who backed the amendment in another place?
Mr. Greenway:
The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) steals my thunder by asking whether the Minister for Sport is even here. Will he be here for the vote? We shall have to check the voting record in tomorrow's Hansard.
This is a bipartisan issue. More than one former Minister for Sport in the other place clearly supports the amendment. My noble Friend Lord Moynihan joined forces with Lord Howell to ensure that the amendment was passed in the other place. [Interruption.] Colleagues may barrack. I suspect that history will show that the two former Ministers for Sport, Lord Howell and Lord Moynihan, have performed rather better in their task than the present Minister for Sport, who, in his own words, regards himself as something of a bar-room sage. Where does he stand on the amendment?
We can begin to conjecture about what will happen in the run-up to the Commonwealth games--not in 2002, but next year when they will be held in Kuala Lumpur--or about what will happen in the Olympics in Sydney in 2000. Our pistol-shooting competitors will not be able to train or prepare in the United Kingdom. The hon. Member for Stockton, North used the word "embarrassment". I can see The Sun editorial now. It will say, "What half-baked Minister thought this one up?"
When, two or three years ago, we pressed Treasury Ministers to do something about what was called the Dublin trip, whereby horses went to Dublin to avoid high rates of VAT, we quickly persuaded them that the position
was indefensible. What sort of trip will our shooting sportsmen have to undertake to train for their sports? The problem will arise next year and in 2000, not just in 2002.
One of the lessons Conservative Members have had to learn is the extent to which tabloid editorial writers appear to have short memories. The day of reckoning will come. The public and the tabloid press may have supported a total ban, but when the consequences begin to be seen, Ministers will find themselves in an embarrassing position.
There is an alternative for Ministers to consider tonight. The Government could admit here and now that they have got the legislation totally wrong. They could accept the amendment, and their Back Benchers could use their free vote to support it. Alternatively--I know the way these things work--they could give an undertaking to take the issue away and to come back with a new proposal to give effect to what our shooting sportsmen deserve and need, and to accommodate the needs of the disabled, about which we talked earlier.
Mr. Michael:
With the permission of the House, let me say that I thought that the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) made a rather sad speech. It is clear that he has an awful lot to learn about effective opposition. He must know in his heart of hearts that, however much he may disagree with our view, we are doing what we believe is right, and not merely what we believe is popular. We are dealing with important issues, and an important Bill.
The hon. Gentleman made himself totally absurd when he tried to say that the Government were being tyrannical and then went on to quote the words of my hon. Friends the Members for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) and for Vauxhall (Ms Hoey) and Lord Howell in another place--three Labour Members who have engaged in debate on the issues. Quite frankly, rational debate is alive and well on the Government Benches, and seems to be completely dead within the ranks of the Conservative party.
The hon. Member for Ryedale suggested that there were inconsistencies. His view is consistent only if he does not want any ban on handguns. That is a reasonable view, but the issue was decided before the recess, when the House voted overwhelmingly in favour of a ban on .22 handguns.
The hon. Gentleman accepted that we can and will allow overseas shooters to use pistols in order to participate in Olympic and Commonwealth competition. It is rather sad that he then went on almost to give succour to those who might argue against the ability of the United Kingdom to stage those events. His was hardly a patriotic approach.
Mr. Grieve:
In two sentences, one following the other, the Minister contradicted himself. He stressed the great need to ban handguns, and then he said that he would
Mr. Michael:
Once again, the hon. Gentleman was not listening. It has become rather a habit of his. I was responding to the hon. Member for Ryedale.
Quite simply, we have accepted that the ability of Britain to stage the Olympic and Commonwealth games justifies making an exception--as we have agreed to do in respect of Manchester--in order that sportsmen and sportswomen should not be excluded from the possibility of participating in games hosted in Britain. We have always made that quite clear.
We have also made it clear that we shall not extend that exception, which is why we cannot accept the amendment. We have always been perfectly honest and open about the implications of the decision that we have taken. In theory, we could refuse to use those powers in the interests of the consistency that so interests the hon. Gentleman, but it seems pragmatic and sensible to follow the course for which we have argued.
In answer to the hon. Member for Ryedale, it is not a matter of being careless of the interests of sportsmen and sportswomen. We started by considering whether such sports could be protected, and we reached the conclusion that they could not. It is not a matter of sportsmen posing a threat; it is merely that the amendment strikes at the heart of the legislation.
We do not believe that keeping small-calibre pistols at designated sites, as envisaged by the Lords amendment, would provide sufficient protection for the public. We believe that it would create a dangerous loophole, and that no security system would guarantee that pistols were not removed from those places. Therefore, we consider that their continued possession cannot be allowed. We have always accepted that the implications for the sport are serious. We do so with regret, but openly and honestly.
The question was raised about the extension of the Bill to Northern Ireland, and I shall make the position clear. The Bill does not extend to Northern Ireland. The Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997--introduced by the previous Government--does not extend to Northern Ireland. Consequently, the provisions of the Firearms (Amendment) (No.2) Bill will not apply to Northern Ireland.
Northern Ireland has had its own firearms legislation for a number of years. Lord Cullen's report was given separate consideration in Northern Ireland, in tandem with the review of the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 1981.
The review of the legislation and the consideration of Lord Cullen's findings have now been completed, and separate recommendations on each have been passed to Ministers. They are currently being considered by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and a response to Lord Cullen's report, including the question of a handgun ban, together with proposals for the reform of the firearms legislation generally, will be announced as soon as decisions have been taken.
The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) asked about the possible misuse of a handgun brought in for international sporting events within the Olympic and Commonwealth games. When discussing the exemption
that was made in September, I told my hon. Friends that we would have an opportunity to look at the lessons that needed to be learned in terms of controlling the admission of weapons into the country. However, we cannot isolate permission for Olympic or Commonwealth status. Who is to determine whether any individuals could rise to that skill and quality at some point in future, even if they have not reached that standard of competition now?
I remind the hon. Gentleman that foreign visitors need a British visitor's permit, and that, in addition to the Secretary of State's authority to get a permit, the visitor must have a British sponsor. So safeguards are built into the requirements.
The hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) regretted the end of the sport of pistol shooting. His speech reflected the nature of this afternoon's debate. Basically, he did not accept the will of the House that there should be a ban on .22 handguns. To a great extent, that is what the debate has been about. We consider that the Bill is necessary and that the proposed exemption would have a serious and significant effect on the legislation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North said that people were sick and tired of waiting for compensation. The problems of getting compensation through quickly and undertaking proper assessments of all the costs involved will be considerable, and we shall undertake that work as quickly as possible.
My hon. Friend also raised the serious matter of an article in the press. I understand that the author is under police investigation as a result of the issues that he raised. My hon. Friend is certainly right to say that the law must be applied properly and without distinction.
The right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) seemed to display some embarrassment and guilt. I remind him that there were twice as many Labour Members present as Conservatives when he intervened. At best, his was an unfortunate intervention.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mrs. McGuire) spoke out for common sense and for the wishes of the House, as well as for her constituents, in favour of the ban on .22 weapons being carried into legislation without the proposed Lords amendment which the House should reject.
Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:--
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |