| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Howell: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord for allowing me to make the point I would have made had I put my name down but was unable to do because I have had 'flu. We have been awarded the Commonwealth Games in Manchester. We seek the Olympic Games for London in the next century. In both cases we have to give clear undertakings--we have already done this for Manchester--that these shooting sports will be included. Does the noble Lord agree, therefore, that we need to know from the Government how they intend to honour those obligations and allow British shooters to take part in them?
Lord Monson: My Lords, of course the noble Lord, Lord Howell, makes an extremely good point. To claim that you will have virtually the strictest controls on legal gun ownership in the world is surely a matter for shame rather than a matter for self-congratulation.
It is true that in the Republic of Ireland legal gun ownership is very tightly circumscribed, but at the same time there are massive stockpiles of illegal weapons, some of them used by the IRA and the INLA in the north of Ireland, and some used by powerful Dublin gangsters. Indeed, a journalist, going about her lawful business, was recently gunned down with total impunity on a busy dual carriageway on the western outskirts of Dublin, so I do not think the Republic of Ireland is the best example to follow.
One of the problems is, of course, semantics. Pistols, in a more or less modern form, have been with us for 129 years, since 1867. For approximately 50 years, from 1870, the pistol called the British Bulldog could be bought without any licence at all for about a guinea--about two days' wages for a bank clerk or a skilled artisan. They were widely carried and, as I mentioned in my speech on this subject on 24th October, the police would occasionally borrow pistols from passers-by to pursue armed criminals--there are well-documented
instances of this--and yet the overall armed crime rate at that time was extremely low. As I say, this was at a time when pistols could be bought without a licence.The word "handgun" is synonymous with the word "pistol": in other words, there is no need to use the word "handgun" except as a form of psychological warfare designed to frighten gullible members of the public into imagining that a novel and alien species of weapon has been introduced into Britain.
How can we avoid the painful and unjust consequences of this Bill as presently drafted? The answer in a nutshell is disassembly, as recommended by Lord Cullen. I know that a couple of Home Office officials maintained initially that it would not work with most pistols but I am glad to see that the Government now concede that more than 90 per cent. of them can be disassembled.
In this way, well over 90 per cent. of those who now engage in pistol shooting would be able to continue doing so, rising to almost 100 per cent. if those few with the wrong sort of pistol switch to a type which can be disassembled. Dealers and shooting-range owners would not be bankrupted. There would no longer be any need for such extremely expensive security precautions, as a gun minus some of its vital parts is of very little value to a professional criminal given the widespread availability of illegal weapons. The Times of 17th March 1995 has some extremely interesting data on this point. My latest information is that illegal guns can be bought in most of our big cities for between £50 and £200. That is why the noble Baroness's contention that a really determined individual could get round disassembly falls down. Yes they could, but it might well be cheaper and easier to buy an illegal gun instead. There would be enormous savings for the taxpayer as compensation would only be payable for 5,000 pistols at most, those which could not be disassembled.
Above all, as the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, so eloquently reminded us, tens of thousands of innocent respectable individuals would not be punished for the sins of one evil man who, in most parts of the United Kingdom outside central Scotland, would never have been allowed the arms and ammunition that he, Hamilton, possessed.
If passing a bad law could bring back even one murdered child, one might seriously have to contemplate passing that bad law, but we know that it can do no such thing. The House of Commons did not have a fair crack of the whip at this Bill because of the guillotine and the heavily rigged Standing Committee. In this House we have both the right and the duty to do everything in our power at subsequent stages to make a bad Bill better.
6.20 p.m.
The Earl of Shrewsbury: My Lords, bearing in mind the large number of speakers in this debate and that Committee and Report stages of the Bill promise to be somewhat interesting, I intend to limit my comments to what I believe to be the minimum. I shall delay your Lordships no longer than is necessary.
I must declare my interest. I am the current chairman of the Firearms Consultative Committee, an independent advisory committee set up under the 1988 Firearms (Amendment) Act to advise the Home Secretary on matters concerning firearms and the workings of the firearms Acts. The committee is made up of representatives from the Association of Chief Police Officers, ACPO Scotland, the Forensic Science Service, the Crown Prosecution Service and experts from the shooting sports world. We produce an annual report to the Home Secretary, the reading of which I commend to the House.
In the past seven annual reports, the FCC has made a considerable number of sensible and well thought out recommendations. Sadly, to date only a handful have been actioned. Recently, the FCC has been scrutinising the Bill now before your Lordships, and I know that the committee would wish me to convey to your Lordships its considerable disappointment that some of its recommendations have not been included. Perhaps the situation will alter at Committee and Report stages. We in the FCC firmly believe that the inclusion of a number of our recommendations would make this a better Bill. I take this opportunity to thank the officials who look after my colleagues and I at the FCC. They have been under considerable pressure to produce this Bill, and as always they have looked after me with considerable courtesy and efficiency.
The news of the appalling atrocity at Dunblane on 13th March shook the FCC to the core. We had a scheduled meeting the following day, and the joint and several feelings of the members was one of complete horror and disgust at Hamilton's criminal actions. But we all agreed at that stage that a knee-jerk reaction would be disastrous. So when Her Majesty's Government announced the wise appointment of Lord Cullen to hold an inquiry, the FCC greeted the news with vigorous support. Indeed, we felt that the Cullen Inquiry would provide a window for a new efficient, workable firearms Act which would correct all the anomalies of both the 1968 and 1988 Acts and would last as an effective piece of legislation for the next 20 years.
No one was in any doubt that the shooter would have to pay for the privilege of taking part in his or her chosen sport. Many of us felt that such legislation should include the establishment of an independent firearms control board together with an independent appeals tribunal--both recommendations of the FCC.
Sadly, that was not to be. I have the greatest respect for my honourable friend the Member for Burton in another place, but I felt that it was not a wise move for the Home Affairs Select Committee in the other place to inquire into the subject of handguns, as it was always clear to me that those deliberations, whatever the conclusion reached, would always pre-empt Lord Cullen's findings. Of course, that is exactly what happened, and the media took the HAC's deliberations to be an inquiry into Dunblane. All of a sudden, the whole matter was thrown to the political wolves. I believe that Her Majesty's Government were then forced into an untenable position.
I submit that the result is a Bill which will make absolutely no difference to the possibility of such a similar atrocity taking place in the future. I find it absolutely sickening to witness all the political parties doing their utmost to score points against one another over this tragic matter. I believe that the Labour Party behaved disgracefully when its leader pre-empted the results of Lord Cullen's inquiry by announcing at the Labour Party Conference:
- "I believe we should ban the private ownership and possession of handguns".
I turn for a moment to the matter of compensation. Many people stand to lose their livelihood from the effects of this Bill. It is a disgrace in a civilised society that people can be so deprived of their ability to earn their living through absolutely no fault of their own, through what amounts to legalised theft, with no compensation for the loss of their businesses. I am fully aware that the amount of money available for compensation purposes has grown from an original £25 million to £50 million to some £150 million. I commend the Government on that, and for the fact that the scope of the compensation is now wider. But this is, to my mind, a monstrous injustice, unworthy of a country which has always believed in the virtues of fair play. I hope that the Government will make every possible effort to minimise the financial hardships which the Bill will most certainly cause and that your Lordships will amend the Bill to widen the scope of compensation, when we come to Committee and Report stages, to include the small number of specialist dealers and manufacturers--often small businesses and family based.
It is a very great pity that both Hamilton and Ryan committed their atrocities with legally held weapons. The problem does not lie with those who legally hold guns. The problem lies with the millions of illegally held weapons which are cheap and freely available. This is the area where tough and decisive action is needed, not the needless persecution of the legally held gun-owning community.
The 1968 and 1988 Acts are full of anomalies but in essence they are readily workable. In the case of Hamilton, the systems were not used properly. The result was that Hamilton, who should never have been able to possess a certificate, became a certificate holder.
In conclusion, I trust in the enviable reputation which your Lordships' House has earned over very many years--a reputation for fairness and knowledge and for improving bad legislation. That is our primary function, and I fervently trust that on this occasion we shall not be found lacking in this area.
6.28 p.m.
Viscount Slim: My Lords, I own two handguns (two pistols). They have been good friends of mine during my life. I am happy to give them up if that is what is required. I shall be a bit sad, but I have never kept them in my house. I do not believe that a pistol should be kept in anyone's house. They have always been kept in a secure place where I know that they can do no one any harm. I have also to say that I am not a director of anything pertaining to this debate; I do not belong to a gun club any more; I do not belong to a security company; and I do not consult for any.
I have seen and been to a number of gun clubs. As the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, and the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, said, some are outstanding, some are average, and some are below average. The areas in which they are below average occur also in those which are average; that is, the security of their arms and ammunition, right across the board.
After Hungerford, a great effort was made. Everyone woke up. The only people who have been to sleep since are the Government. The Government have been to sleep. They have said that Hungerford is all over and people have woken up. I am especially disappointed that while the Cullen inquiry was in being the Home Office did not take a good hard look at gun clubs. I believe that in many ways they have been given some confidence and could assert the law so as to improve the situation. After Hungerford people appeared to go to sleep in the belief that everyone was happy.
The members of the Association of Gun Clubs and the committees of the gun clubs must take their duties more seriously. The committees should act more like trustees so that they have overall control of their clubs. They must be much more fussy about who is allowed membership. Discipline as regards the ranges and the keeping of armaments must be further considered. Guns should be kept in a gun club.
Many of today's excellent police officers have not done National Service. Therefore, apart from those in the special armed units, their knowledge of guns is minimal. There is in this country a great wealth of experience of weapons and of their security and that pool should be made use of. We have been rather lax in doing so.
I wish to refer the Minister to two aspects in respect of which we should take care. Indeed, perhaps amendments can be made in Committee. First, she lightly brushed over the heritage pistol. It is not a muzzle loader but a pistol, as the noble Lord, Lord
Monson, described. It is part of our heritage and is the admiration of world heritage, as are our suits of armour, sabres, pikes and so forth. As time passes such items become part of our heritage. If the collectors, learned bodies and societies which own and study such items were to turn them in we would lose part of our heritage.Furthermore, if in the meantime the owners cared to get rid of them some people on the Continent and in America would pay through the nose for them. But, once more, we would be giving our heritage away. We are quite good at doing that with our pictures and so forth. I believe that the compensation figure of £150 million would not cover the cost of the heritage pistols which are owned throughout Britain. They are lovely weapons, if I may use that expression, and an art form.
I am no expert but I have been advised that the total cost will be £800 million to £900 million. The Government are not going to pay for that, so I urge them to do something about it in Committee. Of course such weapons are lethal--they are working--but there is no requirement for them to have ammunition. However, in my humble estimation, I believe that we do not want to lose this part of our heritage. Lancaster, Webley, Wilkinson, Bland, Farbery, Henry and so forth were great pistol makers and have provided us with some of that heritage. We should hold on to it.
I turn to the second matter which I ask the Minister to consider. The total remit of a few security companies is the protection of VIPs. They are able to provide that service. They are well run and are part of our export earnings. They work overseas; there is no requirement for them here but they are based here. They work against intense competition, mainly from French, Israeli and American competitors, and they bring money back to this country. It will look odd if we are unable to provide that service, which does not affect people in Britain. Employees of such companies must keep weapons, train and practise with them and maintain them. Furthermore, they must have ranges. Often, indoor ranges are sufficient--indeed, I have designed several--upon which one can play many of the necessary actions. With modern technology they can be made secure. I believe that under the Bill such companies will go out of the window and I urge the noble Baroness to do something about that. Let us be positive and not say that everything is rotten and bad. Let us see the worth of some aspects, whether it is shooting for the Olympic Games or whatever.
Like many speakers, I am amazed that there has been no debate on the Cullen Report. We are at the end of a parliamentary term, when I normally rise to debate defence. The business managers always put that debate on just before a Recess, but now we are taking this Bill rapidly just before the Christmas Recess. That shows a weakness on the part of the Government. They cannot spend time and energy to get the Bill right so it comes up at the end of the term to be passed quickly when everyone will flannel it through.
It is a pretty lousy Bill and I do not believe that it has much to do with stopping people being murdered by criminals. Most of the 50,000 or 60,000 members of gun
clubs are extremely honourable, good citizens. There are bound to be a few macho men who join a club in order to wear a camouflage smock, which no member of any self-respecting club that I have attended wears. But there are a few who go for the beer. The committees and the Association of Gun Clubs should sort out such people and ensure that they attend clubs in order to improve their competitive marksmanship to a certain standard.There could be something to be said for allying the gun club system to the Reserve Forces. It was done in Queen Victoria's time. We do not want members to be running up and down hills trying to be soldiers, sailors or airmen. However, we need the discipline of the military man with his weapon and we need his expertise in the security of his weapon. Above all, members of gun clubs would feel that they were part of something and were doing good for the nation in their competitive shooting role. Various standards of marksmanship could be instituted to which they would have to adhere if they wished to remain members. I have always found that if a club is difficult to join there are always a good few people who wish to become members. In that way, the best membership is achieved.
I am not sad about the Cullen Report because it is a good report. But I am very sad about the way in which politicians have pandered to an early election and have all leapt to their feet and made a great deal of noise. That is not a pretty sight to the average citizen of this country. We have a lot of work to do if we are to take on this Bill. It must be put right and I hope that noble Lords who are to speak and who have spoken will make certain that we make the best of what, frankly, is a fairly bad job.
6.40 p.m.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I declare an interest as the holder of a firearm and shotgun certificate. Obviously I should like to be as supportive as I can of the Government and their Bill which we are now considering on Second Reading. However, the best that I can offer is to say that the alternatives proposed by the Labour Party would be significantly, and perhaps very significantly, worse than what the Government have put forward.
Why do I believe that this is a bad Bill? Partly it is for the reasons set out so lucidly by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon. But essentially--and it is a bit of a cliche so I am surprised that nobody has yet said it in the debate--because it is not guns which kill people; it is people who kill people. This Bill is all about guns and not about people.
If I had a real point of criticism to make in relation to why the situation arose in Dunblane, it would be to condemn the Home Office for their longstanding incompetence in administering the licensing of firearms. That is an incompetence which, in my view, is matched only by its incompetence in administering the custody of prisoners. It may not be directly relevant, but I have been recently establishing some of the facts in relation to that matter. I find from a Parliamentary Answer that when people are sent to prison not only are their passports not removed but there is not even any attempt
to inform the passport-issuing authorities that those people are in prison. I expect to discover shortly that prisoners can obtain new passports while in prison, just in case they should need them!As we know, the tragedy in Dunblane happened on 13th March 1996. I had become very uneasy about the administrative system for both firearms and shotguns back in December 1995. I tabled a series of Questions for Written Answer to try to establish exactly what was wrong. I found that there was absolutely no proper co-ordination or cross-referencing of records on who possessed weapons. There was no linkage between police forces as to who had licensed weapons and nothing covering the sort of people who should and should not possess such weapons. Anybody who reads the Cullen Report will see that weapons were possessed by a wholly unsuitable person who was, as a result, able to commit that monstrous crime.
One obvious and easy measure to take would be to have a cross linked computerised record of the ownership of all such weapons, enabling the suitability of individuals to be checked. My noble friend Lady Blatch--and I say this in criticism of the Home Office and not of my noble friend--had to report to me in a Written Answer of 24th January:
- "The Government remain to be convinced that the substantial resource implications of establishing a central computer register for all firearms is justified".--[Official Report, 24/1/96; col. WA 76.]
Indeed, by 30th January 1996, I had reached such a stage of frustration that I wrote a letter to my noble friend in which I said:
- "The information you have supplied me with so far",
- "shows two things. First that the present system is unbelievably bureaucratic and secondly that it is widely inefficient and inadequately used".
- "I hope that you can see why I feel that the present arrangements are thoroughly inadequate, unsatisfactory and unduly burdensome ... I sense that the Home Office has put the shutters up against what it no doubt sees as the impertinence of a mere legislator questioning what it sees as its sole prerogative!"
The tragedy at Dunblane is merely an aspect of the failure of successive governments, but particularly, I am afraid, this Government, to realise that in dealing with citizens there are certain requirements. Those are: to protect society from those who are going to commit crimes; to protect society from those who are going to defraud society; and to protect society from those who are going to ill treat each other. Something that the state most needs is a proper computerised personal record system with a single identity number--I am not talking about cards which are a subsidiary issue--so that proper checks and records can be made on such matters as the holding of firearms. Sadly, none of that is included in
the Bill. I shall try to amend the Bill in order to ensure that in future, through this Bill, we can focus more on the individuals rather than on the weapons.It is always sad to see a government dancing to the tune--perhaps I should say the screech--of the tabloids and sad too to see the Opposition seeking to dance even more rapidly to the same tabloids. It would be very sad indeed if your Lordships' House were not to have sufficient confidence in its own future to subject this Bill to the criticism and amendment which may be necessary, regardless of superficial public opinion.
6.49 p.m.
Baroness Wharton: My Lords, I was out of the country at the time of the Dunblane massacre. Every newspaper carried the story on its front page and the impact of that fateful day will never be forgotten by any of us. Of course, we all grieve for the parents of Dunblane.
I decided to speak in this debate because a member of my family has been a keen competitive shooter for years. He is invariably placed near the top in many of the competitions he enters. He shoots with a Smith and Wesson .38 revolver which has been especially modified for precision target shooting. The gun is probably worth in the region of £1,200 excluding accessories. This type of gun is adopted by the top competitive sportsmen for full-bore events, and will be among those to be handed in, so I believe that the sport will be destroyed. On numerous occasions my relative has represented England and club while competing both here and abroad. He is also treasurer of a pistol and rifle club in Surrey and is worried that his club will not survive the proposed measures.
I, like many noble Lords, have received a large number of letters from legitimate shooters and sportsmen. Most of them have read Lord Cullen's report and mention that the Government have chosen to ignore many of its recommendations. I believe the Bill will probably destroy all open competitions due to lack of participation, as most clubs will be unable to comply with the new measures. The letters reveal a great sense of injustice and betrayal. Many of my letters are from executive members of rifle and pistol associations. One writer even asks whether the 1689 Bill of Rights could be upheld. As already said by other noble Lords, it would seem that about 57,000 law-abiding gun owners are being found guilty for the crime of one deranged man.
At the end of the day, of course, it is up to the Government to take action to prevent another Dunblane, and this Bill is intended to do just that. But I have to say that like many others I have my doubts. It is easy to disarm the law-abiding citizens who are few in number, but how on earth are the police going to get to grips with the illegal guns around? I have been given one estimate of about 4 million. Some 96 per cent. of crimes involving guns are committed with unlicensed firearms. I would think it would be extremely difficult to trace those. The tragedy here is that Thomas Hamilton possessed four legally registered guns. Reading Lord Cullen's report I got the impression that perhaps the
deputy chief constable had erred when reviewing Hamilton's firearm certificate. Surely there must have been doubts about the man's behaviour to make the deputy chief constable think again and refuse a certificate. I for one simply cannot believe that he did not have the power to do so.There is another point. I am told that customs officials do not often check individual vehicles at ports since the borders became more lax. Bringing a gun into this country must be relatively easy as a result.
Compensation is going to be extremely costly. I was glad to read at col. 707 of Commons Hansard of 18th November that the Secretary of State has confirmed that compensation for clubs, retailers, wholesalers and manufacturers would be in order, and that he would accept an amendment to that effect. Do I now understand that that would not be the case? I thought I heard the Minister say something to that effect when she opened this debate. The tragedy of all this is that if you have enough money I suspect there is nothing on earth that you cannot buy, either in this country or any other for that matter. Purchasing an illegal firearm would be child's play for those who were desperate enough.
6.52 p.m.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, we all sympathise with the parents of Dunblane. But, however distraught people may be, emotion makes bad law. Thus British shooters have all been found guilty for another man's crime on the premise that if one goes berserk, the others must follow. Legal gun owners are found guilty without trial and must all be punished for no crime at all.
Dunblane hit the headlines but it was no more a tragedy for those families affected than for any other family losing a child. Indeed, tragedy is worse for individuals who suffer losses as they have no group comfort. There are scores of sudden tragedies, both individual and en masse in the air and on the roads. But, as one journalist wrote, Dunblane tapped a deep well of emotion. There is something frightening about a political system that responds to emotion and not to reason. It reminds us how close we are to lynch law.
Last year 43,700 children below the age of 16 were killed or seriously injured on the roads. Some 459 aged under 10 were killed and another 2,500 seriously injured. Each death was traumatic for the family concerned. Does that not put Dunblane into proportion? However, aircraft and cars are not to be banned. More children die each year from dangerous dogs and from the actions of drunk drivers than from gunshot wounds. The difference is that they die by ones and not by the mass and so do not attract the attention of the media.
There are some 57,000 target shooters in the country. They include ex-servicemen, policemen, firefighters, lawyers, doctors, teachers and--as has been mentioned--many wheelchair shooters who would have difficulty with a larger weapon. Those people are not Rambos. Many pistol shooters have fathers and grandfathers who fought in the wars. They see it as a personal insult that the rights for which they fought should now be taken away as a knee-jerk reaction.
The Dunblane women have understandably wanted to see the end of private ownership of guns, but many other women have written to me to ask that their menfolk should be allowed to retain their sport. They compete in events leading up to the Commonwealth Games and the Olympics, but that will be no more, or, at best, they will have no chance of success without the weapons with which to practise. Banning .32 and .38 for UIT centre fire events will deny participation to the British in the 2002 Commonwealth Games event and will deny British competition in the Olympics in that sport. Will competitors from abroad receive an exemption to come to this country with their guns, or will the event itself be banned? Why should foreigners be trusted with weapons that the British cannot use?
It would be misleading to pretend that the streets will be safer as the threat from criminally held illegal guns, of which there are four to five to every gun with a licence, will remain the same. The Home Affairs Committee concluded that most gun related crimes involve illegally held guns. Of 657 weapons used in armed robberies in the Metropolitan area between 1988 to 1991, half were imitations and only one of the rest had been licensed. That is some 320 illegal weapons. In Glasgow firearms can be hired for £50 a day with a discount if the gun has not been fired, and they can be bought for just over double. Had Hamilton not had pistols, he could have either obtained them illegally, or used some other weapon. The logical outcome of the ban is to drive more guns underground.
Incidents such as Dunblane and Hungerford are so rare that they form a poor basis for legislation. There is no law that can be written that can stop homicide on whatever scale if a maniac intends to do it. If murder is in the heart of a "nutter", there are plenty of other ways for such people to commit murder. At Monkseaton in 1989 a shotgun was used to shoot 14 people; at Sullivan Upper School it was a home made flame thrower constructed from a fire extinguisher. In Tasmania it was rapid fire from a rifle and in Wolverhampton it was a machete. A petrol bomb can be used. A bus queue of children can be mowed down by a car. All are obvious possibilities. A baseball bat can kill many before the assailant is overcome. Is the ownership of petrol cans, baseball bats, fire extinguishers, machetes, and motor cars to be made illegal? Any object can be used. However, it is not the object itself that is dangerous but the "nutter" behind it with the access to the target. One simply cannot ban everything that a lunatic could use to cause damage.
As society becomes more centralised, and as control is increasingly exercised over doubtful characters such as Hamilton, they feel themselves to be more isolated and alienated than ever before. From time to time we shall see the consequences of those who perceive, rightly or wrongly, that they are discriminated against. They will burst out into mass killings. Having trained our population with constant exposure to violence, and fuelled their fantasies with pornography in the media, on film and on video, we cannot be surprised if we now reap the harvest of gratuitous violence, road rage and sexual deviation. We must expect a shift in the whole pattern of human behaviour leading to cases of ever
more bizarre and aggressive behaviour. Therefore, more episodes such as Dunblane and Hungerford are highly probable. Removing handguns will only make the next "nutter" use something different. If he uses a rifle, will rifles then be taken from all legitimate owners? Will the same thing happen to shotguns? The decision to ban the guns as a result of the Cullen Report was taken before any reasoned debate, and before the tens of thousands of shooters were able to put their case. It was knee-jerk legislation without considered debate.Few clubs will have the resources to meet the storage criteria. Members are likely to move to another sport. Storing the handguns in one place in a club presents a challenge to thieves to break in and get a worthwhile haul of a number of guns in one raid. Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights states that every natural and legal person shall be entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions and shall not be deprived of them except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law. It guarantees citizens full and generous compensation in respect of retrospective prohibitions of property.
Many people have their own ammunition and magazines, holsters, gun safes, and so on. I am glad that the Government will now include those in their compensation. One person's equipment was valued at £6,500. He believes that he will receive only £450 in compensation. If that is true, how can that be called fair for someone who has done nothing wrong?
Furthermore, when will the compensation be paid? After Hungerford, when self-loading guns were banned along with shotguns holding more than two cartridges, they were bought in by the Government. I am advised that some of those who handed their guns back 10 years ago are still waiting for compensation to be paid. To promise compensation and then not to pay is dishonest. I am so glad that the concession has been made for historic weapons. That is a great concession.
There are those who rely on gun sport for a living. Some 1,800 traders actively deal in firearms. For them, some 70 per cent. of their trade is reportedly derived from pistol shooting. They probably hold more pistols and accessories than the public and they alone could account for a demand for compensation of some £380 million. Some gunsmiths will go out of business, yet there is little likelihood of their receiving compensation.
The Bill will destroy some 2,000 businesses, wasting the talents of some 10,000 highly skilled and law-abiding people. Some have worked for years building up their target shooting businesses for them now to be taken from them through no fault of their own and for no legal misdemeanour, with no compensation for their businesses. One site owner spent £30,000 building his range. There is a 40-year lease that will cost the club a further £40,000. Another club spent £60,000 on improving facilities. That will be lost; there will be no income to meet the charges. One site owner has seen the withdrawal of a purchaser of his ranges when he wanted to retire after a figure of £200,000 had been agreed, which represented the retirement fund for the owner. Will he be compensated?
Many ranges are purpose built, very professionally run, and with high investment. There is a total investment in property and buildings which could add up to something like £200 million. The livelihood and retirement finance of many of these people will be ruined. Will that bring satisfaction to the Dunblane parents as a quid pro quo for the loss of their children? Two wrongs never make a right.
The cost to many of the clubs of becoming secure enough to keep the .22 pistols will in most cases be quite beyond their ability to pay and the clubs will close. Even if the sums were available, and one is talking of sums of six figures. planning laws may prevent the building of, for example, security walls.
The whole value of compensation in the country could add up to £1 billion. Will the Government pay that? Alternatively, will they contravene human rights and confiscate without adequate compensation? If they did so, what would they do if the European Court were to find in favour of compensation for the gun and range owners?
I am surprised that the Opposition are so keen on the Bill. If they manage to win the next election it is they who will have to find the money, on top of all the other promises of largesse that they have made. Or would they rat on the Bill?
Then there is the cost of making some 10,000 people unemployed, many of an age at which they will not be conveniently retrainable or able to get a job if they were retrained. The cost of maintaining those people on social security could run to £91 million a year.
The answer to the problem of mass attack does not lie in banning from every law-abiding person every weapon that is or could be used by some nut case. That would end up with everything from the motor car to the rolling pin being made illegal. Nothing but a wooden spoon would be safe. The answer lies in protecting the public, and schools in particular, with security devices just as do many businesses and flats now with their electronic doors. It would be far more effective to spend the compensation budget on that aspect than on compensation for one weapon after another without the hope ever of stopping the determined mass murderer from finding an alternative for his act.
Hospitals must also be better protected. At the moment a madman could walk into many a hospital and pull out the tubes from a dozen patients before he would be stopped. It is quite frightening. With deranged people about there is nothing that might not happen, and most action results from ideas disseminated by the idiot box in the corner of the room.
If precautions are taken as a matter of routine, there is a chance of avoiding the next mass murder which will be either with an illegally held handgun or with any weapon that may be available--petrol can, machete, poison, or screwdriver--you name it. I cannot, therefore, support the wholesale destruction of pistols when it will not achieve any result. Such destruction will deprive 57,000 innocent people of their sport. It will debar the country from competitions. It will throw many people out of work. It will bankrupt businesses. It will contravene human rights and will be the vehicle for
inadequate compensation for perfectly law-abiding citizens. If this bad Bill is passed, there must be fair compensation not only for the guns but also for the ancillary equipment and the businesses with a time limit for payment by a definite date.The Bill is ill thought out, will cost a lot of money in compensation, and will not work any more than did the withdrawal of repeater guns 10 years ago. It is a waste of public money, an insult, and grossly unfair to shooters; and it will not prevent another tragedy.
7.5 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, my noble friend was not exactly flattering about the Bill. However, I must remind him that the House of Commons has accepted the broad thrust and balance of what is contained in the Bill. It has done so by a large majority. In effect, it has agreed with the Government that the confidence of the public in its safety demands that Parliament should go somewhat further than Lord Cullen recommended. In fact, the other place gave the Bill a Second Reading by a majority of 384 votes to 35--no small majority.
I agree with other noble Lords who have said that in this particular circumstance it would be highly inappropriate for this unelected House to decline the Bill a Second Reading here, either on the ground that the Bill goes too far or that it does not go far enough. At the same time, the Bill needs careful examination in this House. The legal expertise which resides here, as well as local knowledge of city, town and countryside, and knowledge of the sport of target shooting and of firearms in general, are already revealing themselves in the debate. That will mean that we can have a detailed and, I hope, a very constructive Committee stage.
I do not regard myself as a pistol packing Annie--as a shooting lobbyist, as the media would have it--but I know very well, as did my noble friend Lord Sanderson, of the fears that Dunblane kindled in many a house across the whole of Scotland. In Committee your Lordships may be able to find practical and workable ways to achieve the thrust and the difficult balance that the Bill strikes and at the same time protecting, somewhat better, the freedom of people to pursue their leisure interests which are unavoidably affected.
I should like to suggest two particular aspects at which the Government might look. The first--I do not think that it has been mentioned--is the position of small handgun clubs in scattered rural areas. My noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate--he has been sitting throughout the debate beside my noble friend the Minister until a few moments ago--probably knows that in Angus and East Perthshire, where I live, a number of small clubs pursue their sport entirely in the open air. They have no premises. They simply bring their weapons to properly set up ranges in quarries, on hillsides or at outdoor military ranges--at the marine base of HMS "Condor" and the army camp at Barry Buddon. Clearly the tight rules proposed in the Bill will make the organising of shooting in that way virtually
impossible even for .22 and below weapons. Creating a safe lock-up and transporting the guns to the ranges would be far too complicated and expensive.I do not know whether there is a way round this problem. If not, one way forward might be for the Ministry of Defence to help by enabling clubs of that kind not just to use its open ranges but to have some secure storage on its premises so that members could keep their weapons there. Although the distances travelled by club members would be greater and probably clubs would have to amalgamate, at least they could survive if they wanted to. Perhaps my noble friend will indicate when she replies whether the Government have considered that possibility, or whether she might feel able to raise the matter with ministerial colleagues and ask them to discuss it with defence Ministers. There are a number of defence establishments across Scotland and it might be very helpful if that could be arranged.
The other point I want to raise is how appeals against police refusals to grant and police decisions to revoke firearms certificates are dealt with in Scotland. In paragraphs 8.114 and 8.115 Lord Cullen sets out the reason why there is uncertainty when an appeal goes to the sheriff in Scotland, whether it is the sheriff's duty simply to decide whether the police have exercised discretion capriciously or inappropriately, or whether it is his duty to look at the appeal afresh. I am advised that an analysis of the Home Office submission to Cullen shows that in Scotland under current arrangements only 3 per cent. of appeals to the sheriff are granted, and that it is felt by lawyers specialising in this matter that it is often difficult for Sheriffs to be able to draw on adequate expertise in order to make their decisions. The dubiety as to the nature of the decision must add to the dilemma.
This is likely to be even more of a problem in the future when the powers of the police will increase and they may, understandably, tend to err even more than now on what they see as the safe side from their point of view. Appeals against their decisions may therefore be more numerous and a greater number may possibly be legitimate.
It was suggested to Lord Cullen that such appeals might be heard before a specialist panel or tribunal rather than before the sheriff. Lord Cullen rejected that and favoured retaining the present system, as I understand it, but with a limited list of grounds for appeal. I should be interested to learn whether the Government have looked carefully at the question of whether a tribunal or small panel would be a preferable approach. It would enable lawyers who have expertise in this area, and other citizens with specialist knowledge, to take part in the panel; and it might create more faith in the system. Those are two points among very many that have been raised. I greatly look forward to the Committee stage. In the meantime, I hope this House will give the Bill a Second Reading.
7.13 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I put my name down on the list of speakers for this debate because, about four years ago, I discussed with a variety of Members
of this House the possibility of bringing forward a Bill to ban the ownership of handguns. I did not do so because I was reliably informed that it did not stand a chance of becoming law. If there was ever an occasion in relation to which I feel bad about not doing something and listening to the undoubtedly correct advice of my colleagues, it was that.We have heard a great deal about how it is not handguns that kill people; it is people who kill people. I could hardly believe it when I heard that. When we talk of a handgun, we are talking about a mechanical device that is designed to kill people. Historically, handguns were always developed to fire at man-sized targets. Throughout history that is what they have existed for. We may have changed their use to that of a sporting device, but that is the history of the handgun. It is a close-range offensive weapon. It is also used as a defensive weapon, but inflicts death and damage on people from short range. It does not matter that its use has changed; that is its capacity.
The growth in popularity of the handgun as a personal weapon started in the days when such guns could be made efficiently; namely, when the wheel lock was introduced. Just to show that there is nothing new in the idea of handguns being dangerous, I refer the House to an Act of Henry VIII in 1542 forbidding the use of pistols. One of the reasons given against their use was that they enabled people to carry out "detestable murders, robberies, felonies, riots and routs". Even at that time you had something with an enclosed firing mechanism; you could take it out of your pocket, point it at somebody, squeeze the trigger, and you had a lethal discharge. That is the origin and history of what we are talking about. I suggest that we bear that in mind. There is already an historical precedent for banning these weapons.
It is also worth bearing in mind that handguns replaced swords as the weapon of choice when an accurate firing mechanism and multiple shots became available. People quite often miss when using pistols. I studied the history of duelling pistols as part of a military history course when I was preparing for a course in personal insight at university. I learnt that a gentleman undoubtedly hit a target when he was practising, but when it came to the real thing he invariably funked it and shot something else. Lots of rounds are needed to make these weapons effective. It is the magazine that enables somebody to carry on shooting. That is why Hamilton was so deadly. If he had had a .22 pistol he would probably have had to fire more shots at people in order to kill them because the smaller bullet displaces less tissue as it tears through somebody--that is, the holes are not quite so big. But if there is sufficient magazine capacity and there are enough bullets you can always put a few more holes in someone. The lethal capacity is still there.
Another small historical anecdote may put all this in context. Colonel Colt was called the great equaliser because of his six-shots handgun of the wild west. If I remember the expression correctly, it is: "God made men big, God made men small. Colonel Colt made them all equal"--because anybody could use a handgun. That is the history of what we are talking about.
I leave the House to judge whether it is a greater violation of civil liberties to remove from a section of our society the right to use such guns as sporting implements (I do not say banning handguns altogether, or at least multi-shot handguns, which is what I hoped would be the result of this Bill) or whether it is a greater reflection on our civil liberties to allow people to carry on enjoying life, limb and happiness. However, if we are going to discuss this issue, let us be honest about what we are dealing with. We are talking about a weapon. It is not a sporting implement; it remains a weapon if it fires a metal projectile through the air so that it can pierce a target. The sword, which the handgun replaced as a personal weapon, is not a very easily used lethal weapon. The emphasis is on ease of use. Even with a full swinging Napoleonic cavalry sabre, one still had to get close enough to a person to hit him. The difference between using a bladed weapon to kill and using a handgun was displayed in the two attacks on children in playgrounds. In Wolverhampton, people were hurt but they did not die. It was a barbaric act, but people did not die. I suggest that if we bear that in mind, the true essence of what we are talking about becomes clearer to all concerned.
7.20 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Addington. I do not know whether he has considered the damage that can be done by a sawn-off shotgun, loaded with buckshot. It is rather more than a .22 pistol.
I do not shoot with a pistol, so my only interest to declare with the Bill is perhaps as the father of a 12 year-old daughter. As such, my heart goes out to the children and families in the Dunblane atrocity. So it is for all of us. But I cannot support the Bill. Were it not for the conventions of your Lordships' House I should certainly support the noble Earl, Lord Strafford, in the Division Lobby. As it is, I can only congratulate him on the lucidity with which he introduced his amendment and on his courage in putting it on the Order Paper.
I have had more letters about this regrettably unjustifiable Bill than on any other Bill. They are nearly all well written and well reasoned letters from decent people who see their recreation and sometimes their livelihoods removed at the hasty and nervous stroke of the politician's pen. The Bill is therefore in the mould of the Dangerous Dogs Act and the Child Support Act, as the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, mentioned. It is also in the mould of the Activity Centres (Young Persons' Safety) Act of last year which was the politico-bureaucratic machine's knee-jerk reaction to those young people who died so tragically in a canoeing accident. On that sad occasion, as with the events leading up to Dunblane, the existing regulations had not been followed. I am told by friends in the Scout movement, for example, that that Act has made life very difficult for many scouting activities, without any discernible benefit whatever. In the Dunblane case, a senior police officer has resigned--honourably no doubt--because he did not make sure that the existing procedures were carried out.
The large majority who voted in favour of the Bill in the other place does not make me think that it must be a good Bill. Instead, it makes me worried about the state of our democracy which is being devoured by bureaucracy and by misguided professional politicians.
In the interests of brevity, I shall take issue with only one specific point made by the Minister today. She said that disablement and/or taking the gun to pieces and perhaps keeping the pieces in separate places would, none of it, solve the problem. I think I heard her say that it would not deter the determined and motivated individual who would be able to acquire the spare parts illegally. But one of the policemen who has written to me points out that there are many more illegal firearms in this country than legal ones. He says:
- "It has been suggested that owners would obtain illicit spares. But this would of course require the necessary criminal contacts, from whom it would be far simpler to obtain a complete illegal gun than a particular component part of a particular make and model of gun".
I also have to say that compensation is not the point. These people do not want compensation; they want to keep their livelihoods and their sport. So I regret to say that I agree with all those noble Lords who say that this is a bad Bill. It is unlikely to save a single life, but it will blight the enjoyment of thousands of honourable people. I hope very much that the Government will think again.
7.24 p.m.
Earl Peel: My Lords, if there is one fact that unites this whole House, it is that the origin of the Bill stems from one of the greatest tragedies to beset any community. I, like so many other noble Lords before me, express my deepest sympathy to all those who have suffered in any way because of this ghastly Dunblane tragedy.
We can quite understand the course of action that was taken by some as a result of the disaster. I think it is easy to sympathise with those whose initial instincts are to ban all handguns. But whether that call is wholly justified, fair, practical or would achieve its purpose is, as other noble Lords have said, highly debatable.
I wish to start by declaring an interest, as I am president of the Gun Trade Association. I am bound to say that there is a very strong sense of betrayal by members of that association and by many others besides, that those involved with handguns, in whatever legal form, have not been given a fair hearing. They feel that they have been badly let down, and I have to say that to a large extent I agree with them.
Noble Lords have mentioned a number of letters that they have received on the Bill. I have received over 200, from good, honest citizens who have participated in the
sport and who feel that, largely because of political opportunism, their sport will be curtailed. I very much regret that the agreement which was made by all three main political parties with regard to Lord Cullen's Report was not adhered to.How much more satisfactory it would have been, as was originally proposed, to have delayed the report until after the party conferences and then to have engaged in rational, sensible debate, based on this fully researched and learned deliberation. The consequences of such a move would, I am sure, have been legislation founded on fact and devoid of excessive emotion which, as we all know, invariably leads to bad law.
Unfortunately, a combination of timing, a small parliamentary majority for the Government and political opportunism all got in the way and we have this compromise before us today. I was hoping to avoid making any party political points; but I must take issue with a remark made by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. I think he said it was the Government's fault that this compromise to which I referred earlier broke down. That is not my recollection of what happened. I believe that it was his party who took the opportunity of exploiting--and I use the word carefully--the Snowdrop Campaign at their party conference. It was that, combined with the quick decision made by the other Opposition party, that forced the Government into this position and forced us into having the Bill before us today. But at least we have something to offer those--
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page