| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, as your Lordships would expect, I wholly endorse what my noble friend
said about the negotiating skills of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. I suspect that, if my right honourable friend had not secured the opt-out at Maastricht over EMU and indeed the social chapter, the debates in both Houses of Parliament would have taken on rather a different character. No doubt it is an enormous relief to all parties, quite apart from the people of this country, that they can rely on something as reliable as the opt-out when so much is still uncertain about the future of the euro. Certainly, the evidence that my right honourable friend is one of the finest international negotiators that we have on the European scene will, I am sure, be taken fully into account at the next general election, whenever it may come.Of course, my noble friend is right and EMU is a far-reaching proposal. As I said, if it is to be launched--whether or not we are to be members of it--it is extremely important that it should not, to use an Americanism, "bomb". Nothing could be more unhelpful to the prosperity of western Europe, should that happen.
I am grateful too to my noble friend for drawing attention to yet another idea of my right honourable friend which he introduced when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer; he called it "parallel currencies". It was something which my noble friend's former magazine, The Economist, at one time took a good deal of credit for. I am glad that he has not forgotten the idea.
I am glad also that during the course of a series of exchanges which concentrated on domestic European matters above all, my right honourable friend found time to talk about the arrangements in relation to Hong Kong. That was a matter in which, contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, implied, our European partners were only too happy to support us. We are extremely grateful to them for underlining the importance of a democratic settlement in the colony after it leaves British tutelage next year.
Firearms (Amendment) Bill
5.30 p.m.
Debate on Second Reading resumed.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I find myself in the extraordinary position of being not only the first speaker from the Back-Benches of the Labour Party, but also the only speaker from the Back-Benches of the Labour Party. In case there should be a scintilla of doubt about the matter, I should say that I shall be speaking only for myself. I should make it clear also that I am not a shooter, I do not shoot; I am not a member of any gun club; I do not represent any gun club or any other interest; I have never used a pistol at any time in my life and the only time I ever held a rifle was when I was in the Home Guard--and when the officer saw how I was holding it, he immediately ordered me off the range.
Everyone is desperately sorry for the bereaved of Dunblane. The hearts of the whole nation went out to parents, relatives and friends of those slaughtered by the
madman, Thomas Hamilton, and to the people of Dunblane who are still coming to terms with the tragedy. Above all, everyone grieves for the 16 children whose lives were so cruelly snuffed out in a moment of one man's madness; for their teacher who died bravely trying to save them; and, of course, for the children who survived but who are still suffering the physical injuries and the mental and emotional trauma of that terrible day.Having said that, I believe that the Government acted correctly in setting up the public inquiry under Lord Cullen. That had general agreement. There was huge support for the inquiry and I am sure everyone would agree that the inquiry was thoroughly carried out. In those circumstances, it is a great pity that the Government announced their own proposals before the publication of the report; indeed, on the morning of its publication. They pre-empted it; they devalued it by that announcement and that was most unfortunate.
Parliament had had no opportunity to see the report, let alone debate it, before the Government decided their policy. No time was allowed for mature reflection of the issues involved, nor for proper consultation with those who would be adversely affected by the proposals. The Bill before us today is not therefore the product of long and serious deliberation after consultation and time for mature reflection. It is a Bill cobbled together in haste, one suspects for party political purposes. I fear that Her Majesty's Opposition have also failed in their duty by co-operating with Her Majesty's Government to rush through ill-considered legislation instead of trying to stem the tide of hysteria which swept this premature Bill before Parliament. It is outrageous that such a Bill was rushed through the House of Commons on a guillotine. It is now the duty of the House of Lords to give it proper scrutiny in as much time as that takes; it should not be hurried.
We have seen time and again that ill-considered legislation produced in response to a supposed overwhelming public demand and rushed on to the statute book has ended up causing injustice, chaos and confusion. Such a piece of legislation was the Dangerous Dogs Act. How many of your Lordships would now defend that Act? I doubt that there is one--not even the noble Baroness who sits on the Front Bench.
The Child Support Act was introduced, and what a mess that has been! What problems it has produced; what injustices it has caused! There have been suicides as a result of that Act. Those who were supposed to be caught were not caught, and those who were paying their dues in fact had to pay more.
The Criminal Law Bill introduced unit fines and we ended up with the spectacle that burglars were being fined £40 for burgling and people who parked on double yellow lines were being fined £500. The War Crimes Bill was introduced, though one admits that that was an Act of the House of Commons rather than an Act of the full Parliament. We have not yet completed one prosecution. So we should beware of hastily cobbled together legislation.
This Bill commits the ultimate injustice, for it imposes a collective punishment on 56,000 innocent people for the atrocious act of a single madman who was able to choose firearms as the instrument of his mad revenge, due to failures on the part of the police in relation to the granting of firearms' certificates. It is ironic indeed that the police and the Home Office, who have failed to enforce properly existing legislation, should bring forward and support this Bill which can only punish the innocent. I remind the House that collective punishment has a bad history and should never be used in a democracy. But that is what this Bill does.
The shooting community has already been punished by being lampooned and demonised in the press and, even worse, in the House of Commons. The characters and integrity of the members of that community have been impugned and labelled as oddballs to justify the provisions of this illiberal Bill. I can understand why people, particularly those directly affected, were impatient for action; but, far from guaranteeing that there will be no future Dunblanes or Hungerfords, this Bill will serve to penalise responsible shooters while ignoring the real problems of enforcement and the increase in illegally-held firearms.
On 7th November the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, asked a Question for Written Answer, which was answered at col. WA 68 of the Official Report. He asked how many homicides had occurred in Scotland between 1990 and 1995. He also asked how many involved the use of firearms and how many of those firearms were legally held. The number of homicides in Scotland between 1990 and 1995 was 669. In 44 of those cases, firearms were used. In only three of those cases did the accused hold a valid gun licence. Those figures are very interesting because most of the homicides were committed with unlicensed guns. There is nothing in the Bill to deal with that problem.
So far as I am concerned, I suspect the Government's motives, for the number of child deaths in the United Kingdom every year is large and unremarked. Every month 26 children are killed on the roads, some by drunken drivers. Five hundred a month are seriously injured. Yet we do not have a Bill about that.
Amendments are threatened which would completely outlaw handguns, causing even more injustice and loss of livelihood to the innocent people who will be punished and disadvantaged by the existing provisions of the Bill. I shall certainly not support any amendments which will make the Bill more onerous and unjust than it already is.
The best thing that could happen is that the Bill should be shelved. However, I understand that the amendment has been withdrawn, so there is no possibility of that. It would have been better if the Bill could have been shelved until after the next election, which cannot be long delayed. We could then have had a new Bill framed in calmer circumstances after proper consultation and mature consideration of the implications of its provisions and its effect on the lives and livelihoods of tens of thousands of decent, ordinary people.
However, the Bill will not be shelved. It is therefore up to this House to bring forward amendments to mitigate its baleful effects. The least this House can do is to attempt to alter the Bill to conform to the reasonable and properly considered recommendations of the Cullen Commission and to ensure that no financial disadvantage is imposed on innocent citizens.
5.43 p.m.
Lord Kimball: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, in his inimitable way, has done the job of opposition which the Official Opposition have singularly failed to do on many of the issues associated with the Bill.
I must declare an interest. I was chairman from 1989 to 1994 of the Firearms Consultative Committee, set up after Hungerford, before handing over to my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury. I am also, under my noble friend Lord Swansea, vice-president of the British Shooting Sports Council.
The fact that haunts me, with hindsight and in the light of the tragedy of Dunblane, is that we made two very bad mistakes after Hungerford. First, the emphasis was on listing and prohibiting the types of automatic and assault weapons used by Ryan. They were coming on sale legally to people in this country on an enormous scale. There was even one automatic smooth-bore Israeli pistol with an extending stock which was coming into this country under a shotgun licence. Those were the kind of weapons that occupied us and were our priority after Hungerford. There was the additional problem of large magazine pump action shotguns.
Secondly, in Chapter 4 of the first report of the Firearms Consultative Committee we dealt with the question of persons who could act as a counter-signature for a firearms certificate. Here again we made a mistake. There was too great an emphasis on the list of professions who should act, rather than asking that we should have a person of similar standing to the applicant. What is encouraging is that Lord Cullen has dealt with this problem in depth. His reference in Chapter 8.81 calls for two referees who have known the person for at least two years and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said, with an ability to answer a police questionnaire to bring out the extent of their knowledge of the applicant. The Bill addresses this problem in so far as future applicants for firearms certificates are concerned. Quite correctly, there is no change in the provisions for shotgun certificates. But Lord Cullen's provision meets, alas too late, a great weakness in the present system.
There is one other recommendation in the third report of the Firearms Consultative Committee. Chapter 3.21 recommends that an appeals procedure should be established which is informal and inexpensive on the lines of the Employment Appeals Tribunal, which is chaired by a High Court judge. An applicant for a firearms certificate which is refused could appeal to the tribunal rather than to the Sheriff's Court in Scotland or the county court in England. One
of the tragedies of Dunblane was the argument put forward by officers of the Central Scotland Police Force that it was cheaper to renew Hamilton's certificate than to have to fight him on appeal to the sheriff. I know that our present Home Secretary, as a learned lawyer, has a personal dislike of tribunals, but I hope that in Committee we can look at this proposal. There is more than sufficient distinguished legal expertise in this House to guide us in the right direction. I am relieved to hear that the Government are now consulting on this issue.Knowledgeable counter-signatures and quick and efficient appeals are two of the Firearms Consultative Committee's recommendations that should have been implemented before the Dunblane tragedy. The Seventh Annual Report of the Firearms Consultative Committee lists in Appendix 1 all seven reports and their recommendations, giving the action the Government have taken. It is not correct to say that they have been ignored. Some primary legislation has been introduced and carried through both Houses of Parliament.
Every leisure activity in this country at the moment is meeting an increased demand. This is true of revolver and pistol shooting. There are some 2,118 pistol and rifle clubs and it is estimated that within those clubs the pistol shooters make up 40 per cent. of those wishing to shoot. The sport is "skill at arms" and competitive shooting at all levels up to Olympic standard. I have now been convinced that the Government are right to take the view that competitive shooting should be limited to .22 rim-fire pistols. The largest calibres, and other weapons, are for military purposes. I thank the Home Secretary for recognising that, and at least saving one growing aspect of the sport. We can argue in Committee about some of the other calibres--I do not think the arguments will prove to be very convincing--and even about centre-fire ammunition.
I do not want to pursue those points now because at Second Reading today I want to emphasise the demand there is for the .22 rim-fire sport and my real concern about the Bill--the need to keep open the facilities for using and holding individuals' cherished and precious weapons.
I would hope that before the Committee stage we may see guidance from the Government on their proposals in Clause 16(2) for the granting of a licence for a club and its premises. It is referred to by the shooting community as the fortification of the pistol ranges. The fear is that it will be too expensive for many of the really good clubs. The really good clubs in this sport are the very small ones where everybody knows each other and there is no danger whatsoever of an unreliable person being a member of that community.
There are problems of isolation and planning permission for many of these ranges. There is a case for looking at secure and safe storage away from the range with transportation between an armoury and the range in an authorised fashion. The Home Secretary's reply in the Official Report of another place on 4th December at col. 1150, gives me hope on that count. I must press
the noble Baroness for an opportunity to explore this before the Committee stage. Any sympathetic comment that she can make tonight would go a long way to alleviate the fears of so many of these small and enthusiastic clubs.Many noble Lords have mentioned, and others will mention, the point about compensation. It must be fair. It has been enlarged in another place in the broadest financial resolution that I have ever seen taken to any Bill. But many of us are concerned about people personally at risk by the closing of a function or facility--for instance, a pistol range for higher calibre weapons and semi-military targets may have no future in the .22 rim-fire Olympic shooting.
I am sorry to tell the House that after much research and help from the Government's forensic laboratory I can no longer support disassembly as a method of secure storage in the home. Barrel blocks were looked at in the fourth report of the Firearms Consultative Committee and rejected by it, as they were by the Cullen report. I believe that your Lordships must take note of the letter lying in the Library from Mr. Warlow, the head of the Government's forensic laboratory, who says, quite categorically, that disassembly is no safeguard for the general public.
In conclusion, I say thank you to the noble Baroness for saving a large and growing section of the handgun shooters' sport, but that is no good without sufficient safe and secure facilities. Can we examine this before Committee?
5.52 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, like all your Lordships I feel the deepest sympathy for the parents, the families and the friends of the children who died in this shocking attack by a brutal psychopath. Of course, we are all anxious to take all relevant--I stress "relevant"--action to stop such a ghastly event ever happening again. But I doubt very much whether this Bill does achieve that.
The proposed legislation is yet another example of the unacceptable face of electoral politics. There is on the Order Paper a reference to the Police Bill, which is to reach its Report stage. As your Lordships may know, that Bill contains a startling clause which enables the police, on the say-so of a senior police officer, to enter not only the house of a suspect, but his lawyer or anyone who might be connected in any way with him, and without the support or authorisation of any judicial figure, to bug; to collect material and wholly to disregard what has hitherto been the rights of the individual to be protected from that sort of arbitrary behaviour.
An amendment had been put down by the Liberal Democrats supported very strongly by the judiciary. It received no support from the Opposition because it is suffering from this near-pathological anxiety of being thought soft on crime. No amendment has yet been produced by the Government. One would have thought that the provision might be modified by limiting it to an emergency or something of that kind.
There is shortly to come before your Lordships' House--I believe after Christmas--the Crime (Sentences) Bill. That Bill abolishes parole and imposes automatic life sentences in certain cases and minimum sentences in others. It has been strongly criticised in this House on a number of occasions. But I have watched its passage in another place and I see little prospect of that criticism being renewed.
Just a year ago, on 20th November, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, in the debate on the Address, said at col. 215 of the Official Report:
- "If the Home Secretary means what he said at Blackpool in early October, then he is in for a shock when he comes to this House. Those measures would not only be wrong in themselves but would be wildly expensive, would increase the prison population from its present 50,000 to at least 70,000 and probably more than that. I do not believe that such measures could get through this House. Even if a whipped majority in another place insisted on them, I do not believe that they would survive the considered view of your Lordships".
Why? It is for the same anxiety: "We must not run the risk of it being thought, rightly or wrongly, that we are soft on crime". Is that not basically what has happened as regards this Bill? Why was not the Cullen report debated? There was material in it to show the public that what essentially went wrong was the failure of the senior police officer or officers to ensure that the licence which this evil man had was removed. The causative effect, if that had occurred, was remarked on in fairly strong terms by Lord Cullen in his report at Paragraph 6.69. He said:
- "If Thomas Hamilton had been finally deprived of his firearm certificate and hence lost his firearms and ammunition, how far would this have altered the course of events? Would he have sought and obtained illegal possession of one or more other firearms and ammunition? Would he have resorted to other means of causing death? Or would the loss of his own firearms and ammunition forestalled the development of homicidal intentions? The Inquiry heard some evidence that it was unlikely that Thomas Hamilton would have been able to obtain a firearm from members of the criminal fraternity. Even without such evidence it seems to me to be highly improbable that he would have embarked upon, let alone been successful, in such an approach. However, by some means or other he might have purloined a firearm, whether legally or illegally held, from someone known to him. On the other hand it is difficult to envisage that he would have been able to amass a collection of firearms and ammunition similar to that with which he approached the school. This all presupposes that Thomas Hamilton would have had an intention to perpetrate a mass shooting which was independent of the non-availability of his own firearms and ammunition. It is clear that what he did on 13th March 1996 was planned in advance. However, it was planned in the context of the continuing availability of his own firearms and ammunition. Further, his attitude to his own firearms seems to me to be of some importance. They were his 'babies': and he gloated over them. He used them as a means of exercising power over his victims and their relatives. It does not appear to me to follow from the evidence that Thomas Hamilton would have sought in any event to perpetrate a mass shooting. It seems to me to be at least likely that the availability of his own firearms and ammunition influenced him in the way in which he proceeded. Now it is possible that he would have sought out some other means of causing death. In the light of the evidence of Dr. Baird it would require to have been a means
- which encompassed his own death. I am not able to reach any conclusion as to what he would have done in this direction as it is too much a matter of speculation".
That is a good indication that one of the major issues that should have been the subject-matter of debate was the causative feature of the availability of the firearms which was due essentially to the failure of the police to carry out the appropriate procedures.
Lord Cullen then dealt with the extent to which there should have been a restriction on firearms. It is true that he made no distinct recommendation, but he proposed that consideration should be given to restricting the availability of self-loading pistols and revolvers of any calibre held by individuals for target shooting. He said that that should be done by their disablement while they were not in use either by removal of the slide assembly cylinder which would be kept securely on the premises of an approved club, of which the owner was a member, or by a club official, or by the fitting of a barrel block by a club official.
From the material that I have read I accept that there may be a number of pistols or revolvers where such disassembling cannot be done, but they should be outlawed. Those are the weapons that should be made unlawful. I understand that their numbers are relatively small. Lord Cullen points out in paragraph 9.107 on page 130 that,
- "the appalling result of the actions of Thomas Hamilton should not obscure the fact that such outrages are comparatively rare; and that the number of crimes which are committed by means of firearms which are or have been in lawful ownership is relatively small, especially so in the case of handguns. A ban on multi-shot handguns would to a very large extent destroy the sport of target shooting and have significant effects on the economy".
6.4 p.m.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, when I first came to your Lordships' House, my noble friend then on the Front Bench said that he did not mind slings and arrows being hurled at him from the front but when he got a dagger between his shoulder blades he really did object. I do not see much evidence of slings and arrows from the other side of this House this evening. I can assure my noble friend on the Front Bench that she has no fear that I shall point a pistol at her back.
I had no intention of speaking until I read the amendment tabled for debate at this stage of the Bill. I thought that it was a most unusual occurrence. I was pleased to hear the noble Earl, Lord Strafford, say that he had tabled his amendment to get a reaction both inside and outside this House. I believe that the response
of Her Majesty's Government to the report of Lord Cullen is sensible. I agree with the terms of the statement issued by the Association of Chief Police Officers which was that the proposed ban on high calibre hand guns and the tightening up on firearms controls generally would provide significant improvements in the protection of the public. It is a measured statement that achieves the right balance. it also points to the fact that it is not a panacea that, ipso facto, prevents the actions of people as deranged as Hamilton. The association goes on to support the comprehensive measures to deal with the security of weapons and ammunition at gun clubs.Those of us who live and work in Scotland have perhaps been closer to the horrific tragedy at Dunblane. I believe that that dastardly deed affected people in an extraordinary way in my part of the world. The report of Lord Cullen, some of whose recommendations are contained in the Bill, says in an introductory paragraph that it is right to regard a gun as dangerous and to treat some guns as more dangerous than others. Handguns are attractive in the ease at which they can be carried and concealed and in the speed at which they can be aimed. Surely, given these words and the views expressed by the Association of Chief Police Officers, to which I have referred, we must look sensibly at amendments to the Bill rather than take the extreme view as expressed in the amendment or by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon.
Two weeks ago, some of us were pleased to have a visit here from the Moderator of the Church of Scotland, accompanied by the Convenor of the Church and Nation Committee of the Kirk. That committee considers such matters as this Bill on behalf of the Kirk. Unlike the Church of England, whose right reverend Prelates adorn the Bishop's Benches--I do not see many of them here today, my Lords--the Kirk does not have official representation in this House. As a humble elder in my own kirk in Bowden, I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to our discussions and correspondence following that visit. The Kirk played a central role at Dunblane in the very difficult circumstances that followed the tragedy on 13th March. I believe that this House should take due notice of their views on these issues as expressed to me and others. I quote from a letter dated 4th December addressed to me from Dr. Alison Eliott, Convenor of the Church and Nation Committee:
- "The Church's commitment to promoting a culture of peace rather than a culture of violence in our country is well established and was reaffirmed by the General Assembly of the Kirk this May. In this connection we are encouraged by the steps that the Government have taken in the Firearms Bill toward increasing the control of handguns".
Three other points arose in addition to the Kirk's basic point. First, legislation had a powerful and educational function as well as its more obvious instrumental function--that is that it expresses a society's values.
The second reason is that broad support across the political spectrum is important in such legislation; and, third, it is the Kirk's judgment that this measure would not be precipitate or out of line with the public will or the power of the public desire for significant change.
I have no doubt that subsequent stages of the Bill will produce detailed discussion on the measures proposed--compensation issues in particular. I share the concern about those. But I also see some of the difficult issues that my noble friend the Minister will have to address so far as lost business is concerned. I agree with my noble friend Lord Kimball in his remarks about small gun clubs and how they are so important to many, many communities; but I hope sincerely that the expansion in the use of higher calibre and higher capacity handguns, and their ammunition, will be stopped in its tracks in the UK and that the provisions of Clause 31 to 36, which strengthen the police powers to refuse to grant or to revoke firearm licences, will remain unaltered.
6.12 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, as my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner has just implied, we can be confident that if the next general election were four-and-a-half years rather than four-and-a-half months away, we would not have this Bill before us in its present form. This is knee-jerk, panic driven and, above all, tabloid press driven legislation; although to be fair some tabloid comment--notably editorials in the Evening Standard and an article by Mary Kenny in the Express--has been extremely sensible and balanced. The role of the right honourable gentleman the Leader of the Opposition in all this last October also leaves much to be desired, as the Daily Telegraph points out in its leading article this morning.
If the Bill goes through without major amendments, it will adversely affect more than 100,000 people, many of them very seriously indeed, including 90 per cent. of pistol shooters--by whom I mean all those who shoot full bore pistols and at least half those who shoot with .22 pistols but whose clubs will not be able to afford expensive security systems--together with their families, many of whom are active or passive participants in the sport.
The right honourable Member for Putney was extremely disparaging, to put it mildly, about people who engage in the sport of pistol shooting. The truth is that nearly all of them are highly respectable individuals, many of them professional people, some serving or retired police officers, many of them ex-servicemen who have fought for this country in the Battle of Britain, on the Normandy beaches, in the western desert, or in the Korean or subsequent wars.
There are also many disabled shooters most of whom, for obvious reasons, particularly those in wheelchairs, can manage a pistol but not a rifle.
It will also ruin dealers and the owners of pistol ranges, many of which are run by co-operatives. Indeed, a great many people stand to lose their mortgaged homes as a result of the Bill if it is not amended. It goes without saying that the Bill as it stands imposes heavy burdens upon the taxpayer. The hundreds of millions of pounds involved could surely be better spent elsewhere.
The Bill's provisions will also greatly handicap the United Kingdom in the Olympic and Commonwealth Games. Some may claim that this is not of earth-shaking importance, but I wonder if they have thought through what this says about Britain to the world at large. The French, German, Spanish, Swiss and Norwegian Governments trust the French, German, Spanish, Swiss and Norwegian people, as, indeed, most governments of civilised countries trust their people. But the British Government evidently does not trust the British people.
Incidentally, while we are talking about statistics, it may be of interest to your Lordships to know that there are 50 times as many licensed pistols in Switzerland as there are per capita in the United Kingdom and yet the incidence of armed robbery in Switzerland is 21 per cent. less than it is here. I invite your Lordships to ponder upon that.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page