| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Hooson: Before the noble Earl sits down, perhaps I can make a point. He mentioned Lord Cullen. Lord Cullen's recommendation 24 states that the availability of guns should be restricted in one of two ways; either dismantling,
- "or, if such a system is not adopted, by the banning of the possession of such handguns".
Earl Peel: Dismantling is something we will be coming onto at a later stage.
Lord Hooson: My point was in relation to the banning of such guns.
Lord Marlesford: Further to the point the noble Lord has just made. In paragraph 9.113 Lord Cullen says clearly,
- "I do not consider that the banning of handguns for target shooting or the banning of shooting clubs would be justified".
Earl Russell: I am familiar with the argument that guns do not kill people; people do. As far as it goes that argument is perfectly true. On the other hand, it must be
conceded that people can kill people much more easily than they can with most other methods; they can also do it a great deal quicker.I should like to tell the Committee about one incident that was reported in the Evening Standard, I believe in November 1994, which did a great deal more to persuade me of the virtues of the case for gun control than anything that happened at Dunblane. It does not concern a madman; it concerns a respectable American householder. He and his wife went out to dinner to celebrate their silver wedding anniversary. They left their daughter, aged 14, at home. During the evening she became somewhat bored and when her parents came back, around midnight--very happy and perhaps just a little merry--the daughter retired into a cupboard and leapt out at them exclaiming "Boo!". The householder, hearing an interruption, believed he was being ambushed by a burglar. He drew his gun out of his pocket and shot. Before he knew what had happened, his daughter was dead. If he had used any other weapon--even a knife or a glass bottle--he would, before the fatal moment, have realised what he was doing. That to me in a nutshell is the case for gun control.
I heard what the noble Earl, Lord Peel, said about people who, for many years, have enjoyed their sport. What he says is true. I am happy to concede that the overwhelming majority of them are innocent, decent, law abiding citizens who have been enjoying what has always been a lawful and innocent recreation. But it does not follow that we should not legislate against their interests if we believe, as I do, that by reducing a culture in which it is acceptable to have guns, we may save a considerable number of lives.
There is precedent for that line of argument. In 1626, in another place, a Member dealing with expiring laws continuance pointed out that a whole profession had been wiped out by the Reformation--the profession of running what he described a little discourteously as "holy water shops"; what are now called in North London, "Catholic repositories". Clearly, that was economic ruin to a group of innocent people. But it seems to me to be reasonable that the country could not decide on its religion on the grounds of the economic interest of this one particular group. Where these people have a very strong claim to be heard and where we on these Benches have heard them very strongly, is on the issue of compensation and on that we intend to press very strongly indeed.
Essentially, the case of those who are now arguing for guns is that they are doing something which is culturally acceptable and so, hitherto, they have been. But cultures change. It used to be culturally acceptable for every gentleman to carry a sword. It used to be acceptable to come into this House wearing a sword. The House decided that that was unacceptable in 1621 in the face of great protest. I believe that there are very few of us now who believe that that decision was mistaken. There are very few of us now who would go back to a world where every gentleman wears a sword. The cultural
change that we are now considering is of equivalent magnitude. With regret for those who will suffer from it, I nevertheless hope that it will go forward.
Earl Attlee: It is always a pleasure to listen to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, but does he agree that the tragic story from the United States which he has just related is a particularly good argument in favour of dismantling?
Earl Russell: I understand that dismantling is to be discussed at considerable length later on. The questions here are about feasibility, security and practicality. On those questions I am willing to listen to argument and I look forward to doing so.
Lord Torphichen: There is a point that worries me about the comments made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, about the gentleman who unfortunately shot his daughter. In the story that he related, the man was not carrying a sporting pistol. I am sure that he was not using the gun for sporting purposes but for personal protection. Has it not occurred to the noble Earl that there would still be many thousands of guns--
Earl Russell: I beg the noble Lord's pardon, but I am unable to hear what he is saying.
Lord Torphichen: Is the noble Earl aware that if this Bill is passed in the form the noble Earl wishes, there will still be many guns in use in this country for the same purpose as that mistaken citizen was carrying his gun? This law does not ban all handguns.
Earl Russell: I am well aware that this law does not ban all handguns. If it comes into force I believe that it will be the most stringent gun control law in the West, which I would welcome. I am also aware that there will still be guns which are possessed illegally. However, from the police point of view it is a great advantage to be able to prove the offence of illegal possession. Just as with the law against offensive weapons, we would now use it against anyone who went about the West End wearing a sword. The cases seem to me to be analogous.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I am very interested in what the noble Earl has said about the carrying of swords. Until 1920 people could carry pistols legally if they wished to do so. But is it not the fact that fencing--in other words, sword play--still goes on in sports clubs and other venues quite legally and that in fact it is an Olympic sport? That is all that the shooting fraternity want to do.
Earl Russell: I am well aware of the point that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, makes. We have a question here about security. I fenced when I was a young man. The foil is a pretty supple instrument. I do not see it as being particularly suitable for use by a gang of bandits or robbers. In a world where there is a security risk arising from a great many people with terrorist inclinations, I do not believe that there is a real
prospect of raiding stores for foils used for fencing. However, there appears to be such a risk with guns, so I do not believe that the cases are on all fours.
Lord Milverton: I shall be unable to support this amendment. I am not one who does pistol shooting or anything like that, but I have great sympathy for those who do. We ought to show them that we have some feeling that they have integrity and honour in their sport. I have not been persuaded by the argument here or by any reading that I have done, about the need to have this complete ban for which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is asking. Therefore, I shall not support the amendment.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Burton: Perhaps I may go back to the amendment for just a moment. I am at a loss to understand why the Opposition are so keen on this amendment because, surely, if this legislation comes into operation there will be very few clubs left, if any. I have heard a policeman say that all the clubs would be shut down. If that happens there will be no legal .22 pistols.
Lord Stallard: I must be one among many in the Committee at the moment who is considering how to vote or how one should consider the whole issue. Our natural instinct is to do everything that we can to prevent any further incidents or even the use of firearms. Once or twice I have been bemused by references to Lord Cullen's report because we did not debate it. I believe that there has been a great error in the programme since Dunblane in that we have not debated that report. If we had done so we would not be in the position that we are in now where people are picking from the report the parts which suit them and quoting them for and against the arguments.
Perhaps I may give an example. The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, mentioned Lord Cullen's report. But he could also have mentioned paragraph 6.64, which concluded that the chief constable of Central Scotland Police should have revoked Hamilton's firearm certificate and he went on to say that had he done so, it was unlikely that Hamilton would have carried out the massacre. That appears in paragraph 6.69, which could have been mentioned as well. In mixing up the Cullen Report with this Bill we can get into a situation where we are vying with each other as to which paragraph we consult.
I have never had a more professional lobby than I have had on this gun Bill. I have received a number of letters about it which were well thought out and professional. I started by saying to myself that I was opposed to all guns and that was an end to it, but having read all these letters and having replied to them, and having had some replies to my replies, I am a wee bit worried now that I may be going over the top a bit and that I should be looking further into Lord Cullen's report. I would have liked to have had a debate on that report to justify it.
He is quite rightly saying that had the acting chief constable listened to the people in his own police service then Hamilton would never have had a licence. Through
my correspondence quite a number of people have linked the acting chief constable and Hamilton with another organisation who may well have influenced the decision of the acting chief constable. The fact that he left is an aspect of the matter which has not been discussed and it means we have missed out through not discussing the Cullen Report. If we had done so, we would have discussed the actions of the acting chief constable. Therefore we are in a wee bit of trouble in constantly referring to specific and chosen passages in a report that we have not discussed.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |