| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Monson: Can the Minister say how often single-shot larger calibre handguns have been used in crime over the past 25 years or so?
Baroness Blatch: No, and I do not even think that I can promise to write to the noble Lord. I do not think that that kind of detail is recorded.
Earl Attlee: I am grateful for the Minister's comments. I fully accept her comment regarding her Amendment No. 19.
She mentioned the danger of encouraging the development and sale of a particular type of weapon. I accept that argument. However, this particular gun is not dangerous in that sense. I quite accept the dangers of the shot pistol that she will debate later.
The Minister also mentioned the danger of conversion to multi-shot. That is a valid complaint in relation to my amendment. I shall read her words carefully and possibly redraft the amendment for a later stage so as to consider a weapon specially designed, originally constructed to be single-shot, which would therefore make it extremely difficult to convert to multi-shot use. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 4:
The noble Lord said: This amendment represents the only major difference between ourselves--or rather between myself and those of my colleagues who agree with me--and the Government on this Bill. We have a free vote, and it is to be taken seriously. It is important that at every stage when there is a free vote--I am glad to see my noble friend Lord Stoddart back in his place--nobody should accuse us of trying to browbeat colleagues into a position that they do not wish to take up. I repeat, within the context of a free vote this amendment represents the only major issue on which we are in dispute with the Government.
I pay tribute to the way in which the Government and the Opposition throughout the period, not only since the drafting and progress of this Bill but since Dunblane, have worked together to secure greater gun control. The sight of Mr. Forsyth and Mr. Robertson in their first visit to Dunblane, followed by the sight of the Prime Minister and Mr. Blair, should be enough to convince all noble Lords that there is no party animosity between us on this issue.
There is, however, a difference of judgment in this case. The judgment we make is that the exclusion from the complete prohibition on handguns of .22 small-calibre pistols is a mistake. I do not say that it is a wicked plot or anything of that sort; I merely say that it is a mistake.
What are the Government's arguments for excluding .22s from the full rigour of the Bill? First, they say that these are used in Olympic sport and that to ban .22s would damage that part of Olympic sport.
All those who listened to the Second Reading debate will acknowledge that those who are opposed to gun control have expressed the opinion very forcibly that Olympic sport is already damaged by the provisions of the Bill as it stands. The exclusion now of small-calibre pistols from Olympic sport would not make a very great deal of difference.
I acknowledge and respect the views of those who wish to find some way of retaining the ability of this country to participate in Olympic sport. However, that has to be within the confines of public safety, as I am sure all sportsmen will acknowledge. I put it to those to whom this is a very important and respectable consideration that there is comparatively little difference between a complete ban and the 80 per cent. ban proposed by the Government in this respect.
The second argument put by the Home Secretary in another place was that, were there to be a complete ban on small-calibre pistols, somehow gun clubs would become more attractive targets for criminals. Again in a non-partisan spirit, I pay tribute to the way in which the Bill has been drafted to tighten up on the security arrangements of gun clubs. I believe that in so far as anything can be effective, those arrangements will be effective and therefore they will apply as much without .22s as they would if .22s were excluded from a ban.
After all, what is the difference between small calibre pistols and other handguns so far as concerns public safety? Small calibre pistols are the preferred weapon of the Special Air Service; they are the preferred weapon of Mossad, the Israeli Security Service, which is probably the most effective, and without fear of international incident I would say the most ruthless, security service in the world.
It was a .22 which killed Yitzhak Rabin; it was a .22 which killed Robert Kennedy; and it was .22s which killed at Hungerford and Dunblane. If a .22 can be used as Thomas Hamilton used it to fire 743 rounds to kill 17 people, seriously injure 15 people and then to kill himself in a matter of minutes, can there be any doubt that from the point of view of public safety there is no significant difference between a small calibre pistol and any other kind of handgun?
I realise that the Committee will be referring back to Lord Cullen's report on a number of occasions in the course of this debate. But we must remind ourselves that Lord Cullen said that no system of certification or regulation could be foolproof. That must apply, surely, as much to .22s as to any other form of handgun.
This is a loophole in the Bill that the Government have provided. It is not necessary. There is no consistency in the Government's approach to this particular part of the Bill. The Bill would not only provide a safer environment but would also be easier to
Lord Gisborough: I oppose this amendment. It is important that the pistol should be available for Olympic sport, and I understand that the Manchester Olympics in 2002 were agreed virtually on condition that there would be firing pistols available. The British would not be able to partake fully. As it is, the British will not be able to partake in most events, but at least they will be able to partake in the events involving .22s.
One has to remember throughout the whole debate is that of all the massacres that have taken place, the pistol came into it only once. There was Monkseaton with a shotgun; there was Sullivan with a fire extinguisher used as a flame gun; and there are still things like explosions, chain saws and poison, and many other ways of massacring. Pistols represent just one single method that has been used. There is no justification for singling out pistols, when the only safe way of dealing with this is to leave everybody with a wooden spoon and nothing else, because that is about the only thing that is safe.
Lord Monson: I wonder why the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has so little faith in his fellow countrymen and countrywomen. Almost every other civilised country in the world has more liberal gun laws than the Government propose, and far, far more liberal gun laws than the Opposition propose, and yet their inhabitants seem perfectly happy and safe, and indeed they are statistically safe. I see no sign of British tourists avoiding those countries where, in the majority of them, guns are more freely available. I believe that this amendment is quite unnecessary and goes much too far.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: I do not wish to rehearse the arguments for the amendment which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and myself because I believe that they are very largely familiar to the Committee. We discussed them at Second Reading, when your Lordships appreciated that there were really four options.
One option was to concentrate on the regulation of the ownership and use of weapons and on that alone, which is the view which has already been expressed in the House today and no doubt will be expressed again. The second was the option of Lord Cullen, for which there is some support. The third option was the one adopted by the Government. The fourth option was the banning of all weapons because of a lack of distinction, pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, between .22 and heavier weapons.
I recognise the legitimacy of views on all sides of the House for all four of these options, and I do not take the view that those who opt for the better regulation of ownership and use are not themselves deeply concerned about the terrible tragedy of Dunblane. However, what we have to do is apply our minds to the possibility of legislation, and the legislation most likely--we cannot say more than that--to avoid a tragedy of this kind occurring again.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred to there being no significant difference in the capacity of a .22 and any heavier weapons to kill. Of course, that is the central question. When we were discussing on the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, Clause 6 earlier this afternoon, I reflected on the fact that Clause 6 is in the Bill as prepared by the Government and put before another place because it recognises--Ministers do recognise--that there are dangers inherent in the ownership and use of .22 weapons. Clause 6 therefore is a compromise between a ban of such weapons and leaving them outside the purview of the Bill. The point has already been conceded by Ministers that .22 weapons are dangerous and they could indeed be responsible for a repeat of the terrible offence of Dunblane. In those circumstances, we have to ask ourselves, among other things, whether the Bill as drafted is more likely to be effective in its administration than a Bill which contains a ban on all handguns of whatever kind.
I have to say to the Minister and to the Committee that I believe that if we carry the Bill as at present drafted there will be very serious problems of definition and of administration in applying Clause 6, allowing the use and ownership of handguns but restricting where they are held and not in fact banning them altogether. I have said this once and I say it again: we cannot be sure that whatever measures we take or do not take in this Bill will avoid another Dunblane. However, what we can do--and this is what this Bill is all about--is minimise the risk to human life through the ownership of handguns of every kind. If we learn the lessons of Dunblane and we are bold enough we may save others from the same fate. Nobody has a natural right to own or to use a handgun, but we all have a natural right to life.
In those circumstances, among others, I believe that a total ban on handguns, as embodied in the amendment put before the Committee at this time, is the right course to follow.
Lord Marlesford: I have a very small point I wish to raise. I listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, and I was under the impression that in the course of the argument he was advancing he suggested that Thomas Hamilton had used a .22 weapon and that indeed he shot himself with such a weapon. Is that what he did suggest? I believe that he said that.
In paragraph 3.37 of the Cullen report it is made clear that the weapons he had with him were two 9 mm Browning self-loading pistols and two .357 Smith & Wesson revolvers. It would appear from the earlier paragraphs, such as paragraph 3.5, that he used the 9 mm pistols to kill the children. In paragraph 3.8 of the report it says quite clearly:
Page 1, line 15, leave out ("a small-calibre pistol,").
4.45 p.m.
"He then released the pistol and drew a revolver. He placed the muzzle of the revolver in his mouth, pointing upwards and pulled the trigger. His death followed quickly".
16 Jan 1997 : Column 299
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |