| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will forgive my interruption. I very much hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, will deal with these extremely wide-ranging allegations concerning the police both in Scotland and the Thames Valley. Some of the statements that have been made by the noble Lord are quite disgraceful. He has tried to put forward a very convoluted conspiracy theory, believing that there have been cover-ups and all the rest of it. On the direct issues, particularly that concerning the Deputy Chief Constable of Central Scotland who has resigned from the police service, I very much hope that the noble Baroness will deal with these allegations when she replies.
Lord Burton: My Lords, your Lordships may be interested to know that one of the Liberal Democrat Members of Parliament for the Highlands was president of a local pistol club. I am told that he greatly enjoyed being wined and dined by that club. No doubt he was encouraging it to give him its vote. When this legislation appeared he spoke out openly that all handguns should be banned. I understand that the club suggested that he
might resign his presidency. At the initial stages he refused. I believe that he has now done so but it took a considerable amount of pressure.Both the Labour and Liberal Front Benches have advocated the banning of all weapons, including .22s. Can my noble friend on the Front Bench tell noble Lords whether that will greatly increase the amount of compensation? At the moment .22s are not the subject of compensation. If dealers are to be compensated the amount of compensation required will increase enormously. One wonders how much compensation the Treasury is able to stand. Necessary compensation to meet existing promises could well be greater than the £150 million proposed in the Bill. My noble friends Lord Gisborough and Lord Balfour drew attention to this matter. One wonders from where such a frighteningly large sum of money will come.
I understand that almost every clause of the Bill runs contrary to European Union rules. I never expected that one day the European Union might be able to help this country, but I understand that legal opinion from eminent QCs, is that there is every prospect of success in an appeal to the European Court for the overthrow of many of the proposals in the Bill.
Anyone who listened to the Cenotaph service on the wireless last month would have heard the commentator say that it was written "in memory of those who gave their all for justice and freedom". This Bill is grossly unjust and will impose a severe restriction on the freedom of a considerable number of our citizens. Many alternatives have been suggested today to alleviate the situation and at the same time provide the protection that is sought; indeed, give much greater protection. Most of the Bill should be changed. Let it not be said that in 1996 politicians of all parties, their advisers and the media betrayed those who gave their all. As 1996 rolls to a close let there be reflection, and when we return in 1997 let there be a new light shining.
8.23 p.m.
The Earl of Shannon: My Lords, from all that has been said at great length, your Lordships are definitely in a no-win position. Even its supporters say that this is not exactly a good Bill. Whatever we do with it, we are bound to be wrong. At this stage in the debate on the Bill it is difficult to avoid making reference to points already made. However, I shall try to follow as a theme some points made by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, and the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough. Understandably a great wave of emotion followed the deplorable tragedy of Dunblane. But is it right to produce this knee-jerk reaction at immense cost that penalises an innocent section of the population and the taxpayer generally? One understands that politicians must be seen to be doing something. Senior speakers from all parties have vied with each other, I suspect mostly to attract votes. This may be understandable. Perhaps it is their business. But why are all of them barking up the wrong tree?
Let us consider for a moment the incident at Hungerford. Here one had a known nutcase. I suggest that he was irregularly, illegally and irresponsibly issued with a licence to purchase types of weapons which his
gun club--membership of which he gave as the reason for acquiring the certificate--was not licensed to use. Clearly, it was a simple breakdown in administration that had nothing to do with the then gun laws. Then one witnessed the "to be seen to be doing something" syndrome and a similar reaction set in. There was an attempt to tinker with the gun laws and avoid the real problem. What was done then did not cure the problem. Dunblane provides the proof that what was done following Hungerford was not the solution. There appears to have been a similar breakdown in administration, in that the gun laws were not properly administered in Dunblane as they had not been in Hungerford.All of us have heard the analogy of the man who flings a brick through the window of a jeweller's shop in the high street, grabs a diamond bracelet and dashes off. The authorities arrive and, because the man has gone, decide that they really must do something about the brick. That is exactly what is happening now. But it is even worse than that. We are discussing the size of the brick--for example, a .22 brick. It is rather a childish exercise. It is rather like a number of eminent physicians standing round a patient's bedside and saying that they do not understand the disease and they will not bother to find out but they will treat the symptoms. The problem is not how but why. To address that problem is not simple, nor is it dramatic or evidently publicised as something being done. We return to the same old mantra chanted by politicians. When they become bemused and befuddled and do not know what to do they simply suggest that the gun laws should be tightened up, but they do not get to the root problem. If we did the wrong thing last time at Hungerford why are we trying to repeat it.
I do not have the resources, facilities or necessary research to investigate the real problem of why such tragedies occur. As a starting point I make the following suggestion. It is now almost impossible to turn on one's television set without seeing on any channel somebody pointing a gun at somebody else and possibly firing it. In the past we all played cowboys and indians. We would say, "Bang, you're dead". We believed that we were in a faraway mythical place known as the wild west--a thought much engendered by Hollywood. Now such actions are depicted in everyday life and surroundings. Is that not conducive to making people believe that such action is normal in everyday life? As a result, the myth that we live in a safe society and a safe country ought to be debunked. Any glance at the newspapers daily will show that that is absolute rot.
Here I must declare a somewhat antiquated interest of over 30 years ago. My firearms certificate covered some of the most lethal handguns. I had them for a specific purpose: my company used to make nice bronze screens for banks. In the early 1960s the banks started to get "matey" with their customers and they said "Take these screens away", and so the screens were taken away. It happened to be at that time that guns started to be used across bank counters and my company and I decided to manufacture efficient, bullet resistant glass. I therefore had .45s, .44s, .38s, .38 specials and, what I considered to be the most lethal weapon of the lot at the time, the
357 magnum firing the Winchester metal-piercing cartridge. We were able eventually to design a sandwich of glass only 21.5 mm thick which would keep that out. We also introduced the louvred glass window--now very much outdated--which said, "Speak here". Nobody wanted to speak there at all, they wanted to speak through the hole underneath, but nevertheless those would keep out the 357 magnum with that special Winchester cartridge.But I must tell you that the most dangerous weapon of all was not that Ruger with that special cartridge, which was almost an armour-piercing cartridge, it was the shotgun--the shotgun at short range, even sawn-off. The police would not allow me to have a sawn-off shotgun but they very kindly sent an inspector down to the range at my works and we tried it out. It was infinitely more lethal. So had Ryan and Hamilton not had a licence, there is very little doubt they would have found some other means of a "how".
In the 1930s one was told that certain areas of the country were so dangerous--around Docklands I think it was--that the police had to go in twos. They go in twos around Westminster now and armed police, totally unknown in the 1930s, are available more or less on request when a serious situation arises. So we do not live in a very safe society. Something has gone wrong. Incidentally, there are no party points to be made out of this because most of the time when I was making my bullet resisting glass it was under a Labour Government.
I suggest that this is a bad Bill addressing the wrong problem. It may satisfy those who appear to feel that somebody must be made to pay for Dunblane, no matter who, and politicians seem to be currying favour in pandering to this. But I suggest that it is very cruel to induce people to believe that this Bill will stop another Dunblane. Tightening up the gun laws is just a diversionary political tactic.
We all know, and we have heard it said, that in the United Kingdom and the British Isles, Ireland has had the tightest gun laws for decades. I can speak for quite a long time ago--in 1946 I was a military attache in Dublin and I used to go to the North quite a lot. One could see even then that the place was awash with weapons. So illegal weapons abound despite tight gun laws.
The futility of this Bill was illustrated by the BBC announcer the day the Bill was published. He said it will result apparently in the destruction of some 160,000 weapons but many times that number of illegal weapons are in circulation. Some figures have been given to us, but in fact, the main effect of this Bill will probably be to enhance the price of illegal weapons for criminal activities.
Surely it is not beyond the wit of our "oh so clever politicians" to find a way not to penalise an innocent section of the community and the taxpayer in order to be seen to be doing something. But could they please spend their time, effort and resources in facing up to the real underlying problem; try to do something about "the why" of these events and not just think about the bricks and the symptoms.
8.35 p.m.
Lord Swansea: My Lords, I must first declare an interest as a life-long shooter, a member of the Council of the National Rifle Association, and a founder member and former chairman of the British Shooting Sports Council. I must express my deepest sympathy with the parents and families of those children so tragically done to death at Dunblane. This caused shock and horror all over the country and throughout the world. The Government's response was out of all proportion, fuelled by public opinion and the tabloid press.
The Government were right to set up a public inquiry chaired by the honourable Lord Cullen, a wise and distinguished judge. His report was very sensible and well balanced. The Government chose to ignore it and to go way beyond his recommendations. One might well ask why they decided to hold an inquiry at all. They could have saved the country a great deal of money by not having it. They chose to ignore it. One would have thought that Parliament would be given the opportunity to debate the report but no, the Government were in too much of a hurry to get the Bill through Parliament before Christmas. It is up to your Lordships to lick it into a more acceptable shape, however long it takes.
The Bill can only be described as an abomination aimed at stamping out a harmless sport enjoyed by thousands throughout the country. I have received about 200 letters from pistol shooters, all expressing the same theme: why have we been made scapegoats for the sins of one madman when we have committed no crime and are never likely to do so? A couple of letters came from disabled women in wheelchairs for whom pistol shooting is the only competitive sport they are able to practise. Such people do not like being labelled as potential criminals and murderers.
Possession of a firearms certificate is evidence that the holder is a responsible citizen who has been judged trustworthy to have lethal firearms in his possession, yet the Government are now saying that the same people cannot be trusted to hold firearms. That is palpably absurd--you cannot have it both ways.
The massacre at Dunblane claimed 16 young lives and brought grief to many sorrowing families. This Bill aims to create up to 57,000 more victims who have done no wrong and who will be prevented from carrying on a harmless recreation. For generations British shooters have won their share of awards in international competition whether in the Olympic or Commonwealth Games or in other world events. If the Bill goes through in its present form these people will be deprived of the opportunity to develop their ability to the full. A pistol shooter in the top rank of his or her sport needs to have daily access to his pistol for actual firing on a range, for dry firing without ammunition or for tuning and adjustment. All that is essential for keeping the firer and his pistol up to top trim.
The proposals in the Bill for storage of pistols are beyond belief and are beyond the capabilities of most clubs. Many clubs have no premises of their own and may not even have a range of their own. Their only premises may be the secretary's own house. To expect such clubs to go to the expense of building a secure
store for the housing of the members' pistols would be asking the impossible and might well force the closure of the club. Perhaps that is what the Government want.A system of storage, such as that envisaged in the Bill, with police permits for a pistol to be taken out for any purpose, would place an impossible burden on the police and lead to a further increase in bureaucracy. I can foresee an inevitable result--yet another increase in firearms fees for firearms certificates.
A concentration of fully assembled working pistols in one place would be an open invitation to any terrorist organisation to mount a raid on the place. Surely the better solution would be to allow the owners to keep them at home. A person judged suitable to hold a firearm certificate must be presumed to be sufficiently responsible to be aware of the lethal potentialities of his pistol or pistols to exercise proper care over their storage. If that were to be combined with the practice of "disassembly", or the removal of certain essential components, and their separate storage elsewhere, so as to render the pistol inoperable, total security would be achieved. I follow that principle myself with my own rifles, which are put away with the bolts removed and stored elsewhere. The result is that a thief is faced with a useless chunk of metal which is quite harmless. The same principle should of course be followed with the ammunition, so that the weapon, its firing mechanism and the ammunition can never be brought together except when the owner is going to shoot on a range. Lord Cullen and ACPO have expressed their preference for that method.
The objection has been made that the owner might provide himself with a spare of the component to be removed so that he could re-activate the pistol at will. However, to obtain such a spare would involve a variation of his firearm certificate, which the police would be unlikely to grant. The purchase of a spare barrel or cylinder for a revolver counts as a variation of a firearm certificate. So the police would have that control over it.
I should like now to say a brief word about what I shall call heritage arms. At the end of the last century and the beginning of this one, this country was in the forefront of the development of new designs. Models such as the Webley-Fosbery, the only true semi-automatic revolver, and the Gabbett-Fairfax "Mars" pistols, probably the most powerful pistols ever invented, come to mind and are highly sought after by collectors. To condemn such pistols to total destruction would be vandalism of the worst kind, and I hope that the Government will recognise the need to preserve such milestones in museums for posterity. Many of them are superb examples of the gunsmith's art.
I shall not dwell at length on the question of compensation to be paid to owners of pistols which are to be surrendered other than to say that the sums which have been mentioned are niggardly in the extreme and do not reflect the true value of the pistols. That is nothing less than legalised theft. Doubtless other noble Lords will have something to say about that and about other aspects of this abominable Bill.
The Government, in introducing the Bill, have brought upon their heads the wrath of some 57,000 law-abiding users in a harmless recreation. Doubtless they have been panicked into legislating, not only by pressure from the public and the uninformed popular press but also by the imminence of a general election. They cannot be unaware that in so doing they will lose a large number of votes which they can ill afford. On the other hand, the shooting community cannot be unaware of the declared intentions of the party opposite should it form a government. In that case the shooters will be out of the frying pan into the fire, and their last state will be worse than their first.
I want to assist the Government and help them to salvage something from this mess. They have chosen the line of least resistance in attacking an innocent body (the legitimate shooters) as a soft target and one that is readily identifiable. Much of the blame for what happened at Dunblane lies, not with any deficiency in the present law, but with the way in which it was not administered properly by the police. Lord Cullen makes that clear in his report.
The setting up of a central firearms control board, which has long been advocated by the BSSC, would go a long way towards eliminating the wide differences in the administration of the firearms Acts as between different police forces. Moreover, even if all pistols above .22 calibre are to be banned, we cannot lose sight of the fact that there is a vast pool of illegally held firearms in the country which are used in crime. No one knows how many there are. We can only guess. Some estimates put it as high as 4 million, far outnumbering the legally held pistols. If the Government were to concentrate their efforts on tracing and eliminating that enormous pool instead of hounding the innocent legitimate shooters they would be able to gain some credibility in the eyes of the shooting public.
It is not too late even now for the Government to withdraw this terrible Bill and replace it with another on the lines recommended by Lord Cullen. I urge the Government to do just that, and I leave this thought with your Lordships. It comes from America:
- "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns".
8.45 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, our debate has highlighted some of the practical concerns felt by Members of this House and by the wider public outside. The proposals contained in the Bill will bring changes to the ownership and care of handguns and the way in which they are kept and used. I shall restrict my comments to four points: first, the Government's prime responsibility in protecting the public; secondly, an overall reduction in legally held handguns; thirdly, the compensation given; and, fourthly, exemptions to the Bill.
Whether we are participants in the sport of rifle shooting, or merely, as I am, a member of the public, we must be aware of the concerns expressed about the increase in violence, whether perceived or actual. Some of my noble friends have referred to the fact that that is
probably being accentuated with the coming election, but I do not agree with them. It is a genuine fear of many members of the public.The tragic death of Philip Lawrence and the Dunblane shooting brought the whole issue to the fore. A tightening up of the ownership of handguns and the use of knives had to be reconsidered. Lord Cullen's excellent report gives us practical ways of how that can be tackled.
The Government's proposals that all high calibre guns should be removed should be welcomed. The removal from circulation of 180,000 guns is a good move. That, together with other proposed measures on the authorisation of ownership and the keeping of small calibre handguns, should help in the fight against crime. As ACPO says:
- "The proposed ban on high calibre guns and the tightening up of firearm controls generally will provide a significant improvement in public protection".
My second point is to ensure that where individuals or businesses hold guns which will be banned by the new regulations, adequate compensation is given. The market value of such guns, before 16th October 1996, will be paid to the owners whether individuals or gunshops. Compensation for kit which can only be used with such guns is also to be included. I welcome the £150 million already put on one side to help.
Individuals may be most helped, but perhaps we might further consider gun clubs. They have not been directly included. I know that this may sound flippant--although that is not my intention--but I ask my noble friend the Minister whether an application by small clubs for lottery money might be considered. After all, money is given to sporting clubs. I wonder whether that point has been considered. Again, the question is not meant flippantly.
My third point relates to exemptions to the Bill. The Bill rightly says that professionals, such as vets, huntsmen and slaughterhouses will be allowed to hold high calibre handguns to enable them to do their normal daily work. The Bill will also ban expanding ammunition except where it is necessary for the culling of vermin and wildlife in the context of estate management. There are exemptions which will allow people to continue their normal working commitments.
Fourthly, I turn to the use of handguns for sporting purposes. The proposals in the Bill will affect them directly with the requirement that handguns should no longer be held at an individual's home but at a secure, authorised gun club. In her letter to The Times today Mrs. Sarah Cooper says that the Bill will destroy pistol shooting. That is not strictly true, but there will be greater requirements as to how the sport is carried on. She asks that the Government exempt the small and highly defined group of competitors who make up the national squad. But to reach the top, one needs to start at the grassroots. If one does that, how would one come through the system? How would we define them?
In the middle of her letter, Mrs. Cooper compares the position of other high profile sporting people: Steve Redgrave, sitting on the towpath, or the English football
team being precluded from taking part in this year's European championship. That is ridiculous. It is not a comparison. Guns in the wrong hands kill people. Surely, footballs and boats are not lethal.I appreciate that the proposed regulations will add to the difficulties of those pursuing their legal sport, but in the wrong hands guns are dangerous. The noble Viscount, Lord Slim, says that he keeps his guns in a central place, but some people have expressed doubts about doing so. The thought is that criminals would know exactly where to find the weapons. But that is true of both the police and our Armed Services today. Anyone reading of the recent death of Kenneth Speakman would have been moved. He was a sportsman who died about a month ago when his home was burgled and his handguns stolen. Interestingly, his rifles were not stolen. People will appreciate that however careful, and I understand that he was, one is still vulnerable.
The debate gives us the opportunity to express detailed suggestions to make sure that this Firearms (Amendment) Bill will work. I return to where I began. The Government's responsibility is to the public. They expect us to provide as safe an environment as possible. We cannot alter the awful events of the past in Hungerford and Dunblane, but we can and should make every effort to ensure the safety and wellbeing of future generations.
8.51 p.m.
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, as a regrettably infrequent attender to your Lordships' House, I must say how impressive I have found tonight's array of speakers. I was astonished to discover that a great majority were critical of, and some strongly opposed to, the Bill. I confess at the outset that I approached the matter in a state of sublime innocence. I had no interest, knowledge or awareness of pistol shooting as a hobby or sport. The attraction of firing bullets at bull's-eyes is to me as unfathomable as the obsession I detect in otherwise rational human beings for hitting balls into small holes in the ground. What I have found most impressive during the past two weeks is the evidence from correspondence, mostly hand written and individual rather than from organisations, that pistol clubs claim an allegiance and affection of their members which is in no whit inferior to that of golf clubs to their members.
Most of the arguments and facts that I had carefully prepared have been laid before the House and I shall pursue the unusual course of not repeating them. I say simply that whatever one's initial reaction to the horrific events in Dunblane, the persuasive report of Lord Cullen, if people will only read it, can hardly leave undisturbed the raw views fashioned in the heat of that outrage. Before tonight's illuminating debate I was most affected by the letters I received from ordinary men and women about the devotion to their strange sport and its competitions and activities.
Lord Cullen's report offers far-reaching safeguards which are well short of a draconian ban on the private ownership of multi-shot handguns. He offers a detailed change in the law, in its application, to bar people
unfitted to hold gun licences in the future. He proposes membership of clubs and participation in competitions as necessary proof of the bona fides of the interests of the applicants in target shooting. Above all, in place of the crude ban the report offers the lifeline to shooters of dismantling self-loading pistols and revolvers so that key components are kept separate and secure in gun clubs. That appears to me an eminently ingenious and sensible suggestion.The Government deserve some credit for withstanding the intense emotional and political pressure to impose full prohibition. But by restricting the calibre and requiring the remaining guns to be kept intact at reinforced club armouries the Bill simultaneously makes pistol shooting less attractive and far more expensive to an extent that must wipe out the sport except for the super-rich.
The only case for the Government to go beyond Lord Cullen's recommendations is that public opinion has spoken and public opinion must be heeded. Such a view has a natural appeal to Members of the Lower House with an election coming over the horizon. But its superficial ring of democracy should have less resonance in this Assembly. Indeed, the strength of this House, which we may shortly be urging in our own defence against a Labour Government, is precisely that it provides a pause for mature reflection.
Like the great philosophers of individual freedom through the ages, I absolutely acknowledge that proven danger to third parties provides sufficient warrant to contemplate the abridgment and, in the last resort, the abolition of most prized freedoms. However, the rival danger against which this House especially must be equally vigilant is that the legitimate concern for health and safety should precipitate hasty action that inflicts lasting damage on freedom without any offsetting benefit. Responsible experts have satisfied me that Lord Cullen's dismantling option could achieve more safety at far less cost in freedom, composition, compensation and unemployment. When amendments are tabled in Committee to achieve such multiple advantages, I hope that this House will not shrink from accepting them.
8.57 p.m.
The Earl of Stockton: My Lords, I must declare a number of interests in this Bill. First, I have been shooting with a shotgun and a rifle since I was eight years old. Secondly, I am the chairman of the Campaign for Shooting, run jointly by the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, the British Field Sports Society and the Game Conservancy Trust. Thirdly, I am a director of the British Field Sports Society and chairman of its shooting committee and, fourthly, I am also a life member of the Deer Society of Great Britain. It has been suggested to me that those facts should bar me from taking part in the debates on this Bill. I venture to suggest that the opposite is the case.
This is not a bad Bill; it is a sad one. Sad because it fails for the second time to address the basic issue of firearms control, and sad because, while discriminating against a significant group of law-abiding citizens, it
fails to afford protection to the people of this country against a repetition of the ghastly events of Hungerford and Dunblane.I am sympathetic to the points raised by many noble Lords in this debate who have reminded the House that rushed law is usually bad law. I understand that honourable Members in another place are under a great deal of pressure to be seen to do something quickly, and that the great tide of emotion and revulsion that rightly swept the country after the Dunblane tragedy has found its reflection in the proceedings in another place. But I trust that in your Lordships' House we will be more informed, more dispassionate and less emotional. It is the duty and the role of the Upper House to take a more detached and careful view of the Bill. I trust that in Committee the Government will listen to the suggestions from all parts of the House and judge them on their merits, and not simply on whether any changes we propose will be acceptable to another place.
We must recognise that, while the majority of your Lordships are familiar with guns either through the use of sporting weapons or through military and national service, the majority of the people of this country, especially those under 55, are not. They have a healthy respect for, and often an understandable fear of, all guns.
In common with other noble Lords who have spoken already in this debate, I believe that we are once again failing to address the basic issue: that it is the individual, not the weapon, that should be controlled. It is clear from the report by Lord Cullen that he shared that view, although he did not go as far as I and other noble Lords would go in setting up an independent and professionally staffed firearms licensing board. It may be that I and other noble Lords will put this forward as an amendment to the Bill at a later stage. I trust that the considerable sums of money flowing into the coffers of the constabulary will not be the deciding factor.
I must ask my noble friend the Minister to give the House an assurance that this Bill was produced in the light of the Cullen report, and after the appropriate consultations, as promised by her right honourable friend the Secretary of State in another place. There is a widespread view that the first drafts of the Bill, and the consultations with other departments, were prepared in the second half of September, before the Cullen report was published. I am sure that my noble friend will be able to reassure the House on this point.
However, I feel that the Minister will find it more difficult to persuade this House of the necessity of going so much further than the measures suggested by Lord Cullen. I understand that she has received a large number of submissions from a wide variety of interested individuals and groups, and I hope she will agree that the concerns they have expressed are genuine and not, as some members of another place and the tabloid press would have us believe, the rantings of an extremist group.
While I have every sympathy with the concerns that lie behind the amendment proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Strafford, I fear that this is not the time to provoke a dispute between your Lordships and another place. Whether I shall find myself forced to support such an
amendment when the House votes on whether this Bill do pass will depend in large measure on the assurances that my noble friend the Minister can give the House that she is going to listen and act on the suggestions put forward by your Lordships in Committee.9.3 p.m.
Lord Annaly: My Lords, I have no interest to declare regarding the measures in this Bill. I do not possess a pistol and am not a member of any pistol shooting club. However, I do possess a shotgun, and I shoot a rifle when I go stalking but I do not actually own a rifle myself. As I said in the debate on the gracious Speech, I have three small children and I can well relate to the feelings of the parents following the dreadful Dunblane tragedy.
We now have before us a Bill which was born in that tragedy. As I am No. 30 on the list of speakers, most of the points that I wanted to make have already been made and I shall not repeat them all. I shall merely mention one or two.
I feel that the Government were in a very difficult position. I am afraid that, as has already been said, politics became involved too early before it was possible to debate Lord Cullen's report in this House or the other place. I believe that that was a mistake. I should have been much happier if we now had before us a Bill much more in line with Lord Cullen's proposals.
I do not know whether I have received 200 letters, as some noble Lords have, but I have received a great many letters. They vary somewhat but I believe that they are all from decent law-abiding people, who all have different concerns. The main concern is that great injustice may be caused. I believe that it is wrong that we should now be legislating against what is quite a small minority of people. My noble friend Lord Peel made that point in his speech. For example, it is not a sport to drive a motor car but if a maniac, either with or without alcohol, had driven into a group of children and killed them on purpose, we would not be bringing in legislation to ban motor cars. Motor cars are just as lethal as pistols. Therefore, I feel that we are in danger of sweeping under the carpet the interests of law-abiding people and I am not at all happy about that.
I support and admire the amendment tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Strafford. He put his case very succinctly and well. But I am glad that he does not wish to press the amendment because, as other noble Lords have said, I do not believe that it would be right to cause a problem between your Lordships' House and the other place.
Perhaps I may comment on a few points that I should like to see dealt with at a later stage. There is the question of dismantlement. I have not seen the letter in the Library to which my noble friend Lord Kimball referred but I am advised that in 95 per cent. of cases it is possible to have an effective system of dismantlement and, obviously, the other 5 per cent. of weapons would have to go. That seems to me to be quite reasonable.
As regards compensation, it is a question of morality and justice, straight and simple. A great many firearms dealers, manufacturers and those running clubs and
ranges have all built up their livelihoods in connection with guns and are now faced with losing those livelihoods through no fault of their own. They will not receive proper compensation and that is unacceptable.As has already been mentioned, there are sporting exemptions--and here perhaps I differ with my noble friend Lady Byford as regards the national squad. Over the past 100 years this country has led the olympic sport of pistol shooting. I wonder what the rest of the world would say if we suddenly said that we could no longer compete. There are 40 to 48 people in the national squad. Those people are well known. Special rules ought to come into play to allow those people to continue with their sport. My main concern is one of justice. I am sad for all the law abiding people who will suffer if this legislation is enacted.
9.8 p.m.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, I must declare an interest as I am the holder of a firearms certificate which includes a weapon which would be covered by this legislation.
When I considered speaking today I was well aware that many other noble Lords would speak in the debate. Therefore I asked to speak late in the debate as I was sure that most of the points which I might wish to make would have been covered far better by previous speakers. That has indeed been the case. Therefore at this late hour I do not propose to go over them again.
However, I wish to refer to one point which was made eloquently by my noble friend Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank; namely, the question of compensation. Although I welcome the extension that the Government have allowed, it seems to me quite wrong that one effect of this tragedy that led to this legislation should be the bankruptcy, or potential bankruptcy, of legitimate traders. Certainly it is Parliament's sovereign privilege to take such action if it wishes, but, if compensation is not to be paid it will be seen as unwarranted vindictiveness and would be both unreasonable and unworthy of both Houses.
We are considering this legislation for only one reason. There are occasions--mercifully rare--of such devastating impact that for the rest of our lives we remember their horror and our feelings. As with the assassination of President Kennedy, most of us will remember where we were when we heard the news.
In my case, I had just flown south from a happy visit to Scotland. I was driving around the M.25 as the news of the Dunblane tragedy came over the radio. I honestly could not believe my ears. As I began to take in what was being said, a picture of my youngest son, still in primary school, came into my mind. For a brief moment I had a glimpse of understanding of the heartache of the parents involved. As I drove around that motorway I wept. Even today, each time I read the measured description in the Cullen report I cannot do so without feeling an anguish that brings tears to my eyes. As I listened to those radio reports, I was also struck by the calm dignity of those at the centre of the tragedy. In particular, one interviewee--I do not remember who it was--when asked whom to blame by the interviewer, calmly refused to indict, focusing instead on the tragedy.
Yet already by the following morning the whole tone of the news coverage had changed. The blame culture, now so common in our news media, had fully asserted itself and trial by interview was in full sway. Anyone listening to the "Today" programme as I did must have been struck by the imbalance between those who rapidly established a call for blaming the gun on the one hand, and on the other hand the rather inarticulate and bemused secretaries of gun clubs who were suddenly called on to defend themselves. To all intents, this debate was fought and lost long before the Cullen inquiry or Parliament debated the outcome.
It is of course absolutely right that Parliament should take account of public sentiment but in this modern age of spin doctoring and aggressive journalism it has perhaps never been more important that individual Members of both Houses rely on their own intellects and judgments. This Bill owes much more to the media than to reasoned thought. I therefore ask your Lordships to reflect on the actual merits of the arguments rather than on the electoral value of this Bill. Again I felt that my noble friend Lord Rodgers put those arguments particularly cogently, irrespective of the side one is on.
I believe the media campaign has in this instance done us a disservice as it has forced the debate to concentrate entirely on the weapon rather than on the human who actually perpetrated this outrage. Here I have to disagree with my noble friend Lord Addington. I believe that it is important to look at the human being as well as the instrument. It seems to me that Dunblane is not an isolated incident; rather, it is part of a pattern of increasingly senseless and amoral violence which pervades our society. Taken in the wider context of other equally appalling though less devastating incidents, I am forced to consider the forces in our society that create this urge for senseless violence. Until we are prepared to take on the root causes, then those who are driven to these acts will continue to find weapons, whatever they may be, whether legal or illegal, to execute their foul fantasies. If we really want the answers to Dunblane, I do not think that we shall find them in gun clubs. We should be looking for the forces which created Thomas Hamilton and which propelled him to act as he did.
I enjoy a good action movie; but, increasingly, I find the use of gratuitous violence in such films unacceptable. We have reached the stage where for profit films are produced which feature violence for the sake of violence. It is a thin line between action which portrays violence for the sake of the plot and films which portray violence simply to titillate. But more and more the videos which I have seen seem to produce and glorify violence for no other reason. The entertainment media are not the only ones who must answer questions. The news media produce ever more horrendous pictures and one cannot help wondering, as one watches the six o'clock news about the effect on our children of watching endless bloodshed in Palestine, Bosnia, Africa and all the other flashpoints of the world.
Tonight we choose to blame a lump of steel for Dunblane. But I believe that we should be looking for a greater explanation for this catastrophe. As part of that greater explanation, we should not shy away from
looking at all our media, both entertainment and news. The power of communications, in particular with television, has never been stronger and the effect on our society never more pervasive. Yet those who control what is probably the most potent force in our society today do so with only one regard; and that is to make profit. Our future society and culture is being moulded entirely on the basis of what sells papers or achieves high ratings. I do not blame the media for Dunblane any more than I blame Browning or Smith and Wesson. However, I believe that the influence of the media in our society, and the constant denigration of moral values coupled with the glorification of gratuitous violence, have conspired to create a climate where Dunblane can take place. For that I hold the media culpable.This is not a good Bill. For all the reasons which we have heard already from so many noble Lords, I doubt that it will achieve its objectives. It will cost many law-abiding citizens a great deal of money, and in all probability will have no impact whatsoever on the availability of illegal weapons. However, had we been asked to vote tonight I would have voted against the amendment, and for a Second Reading of the Bill. I believe that, above all, this House, as regards a Bill of this nature, must respect the will of another place. I put that constitutional belief above everything and even above my unease on the failings of this legislation. However, I believe that in this Bill we have formulated the wrong charge and put the wrong prisoner in the dock.
9.17 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, first, I declare an interest. I have a shotgun certificate from Angus police; I also have rifles. However, I do not have, and never have had, anything to do with handguns or pistols as described in the Bill. That is apart from June 1958 when I was a young soldier in the Scots Guards and was told to take a weapons training course at Hythe. I was not particularly accurate with a pistol.
Secondly, the Bill and the events following Dunblane afforded me a unique amount of mail. Between 65 and 70 letters on the subject were addressed to me, all cogent and fairly well written. I have attempted to reply to almost all of them.
Thirdly, I have noted a great deal of fairly effective lobbying. In many cases I was reminded of what one of my honourable friends, when he went to Northern Ireland, said in another place about bees looking for bonnets in which to settle. The letters and lobbying over the past two months reminded me of that saying.
However, perhaps I may concentrate on the Bill and the Cullen Report. I was grateful to my noble friend Lady Carnegy for her opening remarks which have shortened my speech by at least two minutes. She referred to the pistol clubs in Angus. Until Dunblane and the Bill, I was not aware of the number of pistol clubs in Angus. I hope that the Minister will be able to take on board the points made by my noble friend about the facilities for practice and the storage available for the permitted weapons and as regards possible surrender and compensation. I hope that the terms for compensation will be both adequate and generous.
I found it interesting that when my noble friend spoke there were present no fewer than five Peers from the county of Angus. One of my noble friends and neighbours has been here throughout the debate. It shows that there is considerable interest in the Bill. I stress the serious point, made by my noble friend and neighbour, that in Angus there is enormous emotion. Unlike Dunblane, which is fairly near the big cities, the area is very rural. Shotguns and rifles are a particular part of its life. I hope that the emotion that is felt in Angus will be perceived as part of the contribution to this discussion.
I direct the attention of my noble friend the Minister to Part III of the Bill, to Clause 26(4)(b) on page 12 and to line 31 which refers to expanding ammunition. The only time I have heard of expanding ammunition is its use in the control of vermin or deer where it is to be permitted. I have received one or two communications about that. I am very pleased to see that it is included in this part of the Bill.
Perhaps my noble friend can give some guidance in relation to Clause 31(2) and applications for firearms certificates. She will see the reference to,
- "two persons who have agreed to act as referees".
When we come to examine Clause 33, perhaps my noble friend will be able to give some help on revocation and the two incredible words, "good reason". I believe the Bill is reasonably clear. However, I am a little worried that a reference to "good reason" in relation to having a shotgun or rifle could become slightly entangled with a similar line in the construction and use regulations on my motorcar. I am on occasions rather scared when I go out on the road that there might be a screw loose in the car and the constabulary will say, "Tut, tut, there is something out of order." I hope that that will not be the case in relation to Clause 33. We can examine that point in Committee.
I turn to paragraph 4.67 on page 42 of Lord Cullen's report. We see that Mr. Thomas Hamilton was said not to be a very frequent attender of the meetings of the Stirling Rifle and Pistol Club. We find that,
- "When the command at twenty metres distance was to fire six rounds ... he would 'blast off' twelve".
I have some small experience of attending clay pigeon shoots. All around Angus one finds country folk, gamekeepers and those who are interested in sport sometimes skeet and trap shooting. I am sure that all my noble friends and everyone who has spoken in the debate today would consider that anyone who behaved in such a way at a rifle club or with a shotgun should be drummed out straightaway and sent off the premises. If that were to happen, there would be no need for putative bureaucratic written material. There would merely be one or two simple questions to the police describing the adequacy or otherwise, good reason or whatever it was, for the individual having any type of firearms certificate.
I reiterate what was said by my noble friends Lady Carnegy and Lady Byford that nothing we could do would ever restore the Dunblane victims. The notable speech by the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, reiterated that.
On page 78 of Lord Cullen's report, noble Lords will read the observations on the system. To add a slight note of levity, it seems to me similar to what is thought to be a well oiled rugby three-quarter line: the responsibility seems to be passed from one police officer or one person to another until either the ball is dropped or someone makes a mistake.
I hope that we shall be able to examine the system and consider the points I have mentioned, particularly from Clauses 31 and 33 and onwards when we reach the Committee stage. Whoever takes responsibility for firearms legislation--and in a small part we do--it cannot be left entirely to the police or individuals who participate in the sport. I hope that we shall all learn and apply the lessons. As my noble friend Lord Annaly said, we must seek to remove some of the worst unfairness of the Bill. I look forward to the next stage.
9.26 p.m.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, first I should like to declare an interest: I am chairman of Atkin, Grant and Lang, a maker of best English shotguns; I also served for a number of years as a director of John Rigby and Company, a maker of best English sporting rifles. I am currently a member of the livery of the Gunmakers Company who run and have run the Proof House for some 300 years. I personally have no interest in handguns and have never made them or sold them.
I should like today to try to put the Dunblane and Hungerford tragedies into some kind of perspective. I hoped that after Dunblane there would be a reasoned and sober reaction by the Government and the Opposition to the horrors perpetrated by both Ryan and Hamilton. Unfortunately, that has not been the case. Both the main parties have been trying to outdo each other in attacking the legitimate owners of handguns.
To ban all handguns over .22 calibre completely is, to my mind, quite futile. It is a fact that for every legally held handgun there are at least two illegally held guns.
It has been said that there are some 6 million unlicensed firearms in the country, compared with 2 million legally held ones. There is a limitless supply of firearms coming over from eastern Europe since the break-up of the USSR and I am told that they can be purchased for as little as £50 each, with ammunition. In 1954, there were 200,000 firearm certificate holders and four armed robberies per annum in this country. Today, there are 150,000 certificate holders and several armed robberies per day. So much for firearms control.To give an up-to-date example of the futility of the proposed ban, in Washington DC, USA, handguns were banned in 1976 when the homicide rate was 45 per 100,000 people per annum. Today the hand gun related homicide rate is 78 per 100,000 per annum.
I would compare this Bill with the Dangerous Dogs Act which, as your Lordships know, has caused great distress to numerous quite innocent dogs and owners. However, that Act, for all its imperfections, has at least gone some way to alleviate that particular problem.
I have received well over 50 letters from handgun owners and pistol shooting clubs and they all say that the root of the problem is the fact that in the case of both Ryan and Hamilton the police did not apply the law. In both cases they were warned about these individuals and failed to act. I do not want to use this opportunity to attack the police; they have a difficult and demanding job to do, enforcing the laws passed by Parliament. However, in the Hungerford and Dunblane incidents the police failed to spot these two psychopaths and they slipped through the net with disastrous consequences.
In my opinion, the law as it currently stands with regard to firearms is quite adequate. It merely has to be applied vigorously to make sure that madmen and guns are kept apart. I suggest that the vetting process is looked into carefully. Perhaps the police are not the best body for the job. I know from experience that the various firearms departments are under constant pressure and are usually short of staff. I suggest that this is what the Government should be looking at.
Putting a blanket ban on all handguns over .22 calibre is, in my opinion, an admission of failure. It will not do the slightest good. It will cost the taxpayer dear. On page 25 of your Lordships' Library notes it is reckoned that the whole thing could cost £455 million. It seems a lot of money to me. It is in the Library notes, so perhaps it might be worth having a look at those. It will ruin a number of people and take their livelihood away.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page