| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Hooson: Does the noble Lord appreciate that when he refers to paragraph 6.64 of the Cullen Report he is referring to what Lord Cullen found while considering the evidence? But I have been quoting Lord Cullen's conclusions and recommendations. Having made all his findings about the Chief Constable and the others, he has come to certain conclusions and made certain recommendations to the Government. Those are the important matters that the learned judge has concluded after hearing all the evidence.
Lord Stallard: That is exactly what I said. The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, said that I should have looked at paragraph 6.64. I say to him that he should go a further five paragraphs and look at paragraph 6.69 where Lord Cullen said that if the matters he mentioned in paragraph 6.64 had been listened to, it was unlikely that Hamilton would have carried out the massacre. Why was that not repeated? The danger of not discussing the Cullen Report is fast becoming obvious in this debate.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: I believe that this amendment aims to diminish the number of crimes in which firearms are used. Since 1988 the number of applications for firearms certificates has reduced by 25 per cent., but the number of crimes in which firearms are used has risen.
Lord Vinson: The point that I wish to make is fairly small and has already been broadly raised. If the amendment were passed, it would effectively put an end to the existence of gun clubs in this country. We need to remind ourselves that in past years many of those gun clubs were encouraged and developed in order to create a cadre of people who understood weaponry for the defence of the realm. Although, thank God, after 50 years of peace, that may no longer be necessary, that was what lay behind the foundation of many of those clubs which are full of some of the finest and nicest citizens in this country.
We should also bear in mind the lesson that I was taught at school: that the democracy in which we live is not only for the enforcement of majority will but also for the protection of minority rights.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I rise to support the amendment and, in doing so, to call for a total ban on the legal private ownership of handguns on the British mainland. I did not move my amendments relating to such a ban in Scotland earlier because I am in greater
support of this amendment. My "Scotland-only" amendments might be a valid fallback position if this amendment is not accepted.I believe that there has been a significant cultural change in Scotland and probably in England and Wales also with regard to the legal private ownership of handguns. I believe that that was latent until 13th March last year, but that it has become vested since then. I freely admit that on 12th March last year only a few committed people spoke about the abolition of the private ownership of handguns. Clearly, the terrible events at Dunblane Primary School have brought about a desire to remove or excise handguns from Scottish and British culture and community. I assert that the silent majority--certainly in Scotland--favours a total ban. I wish that I had the referendum figures to prove it.
The Dunblane Snowdrop petition was widely supported by several hundred thousand people and I hope that noble Lords will weigh that against the many letters that we have received from pistol shooters. I have 55 such letters on my desk at present. The Dunblane Snowdrop petition expressed a revulsion against handgun ownership and the associated gun culture, together with the desire for a handgun-free society. I conclude by expressing my belief that a future Scottish Parliament will enact a total ban on handguns.
Baroness Blatch: As has been clear all the way through the passage of this Bill, both here and in another place, there are a very wide range of views on the fundamental question of where the line should be drawn on the banning of handguns.
As I said during the Second Reading of this Bill, the dreadful tragedy of Dunblane placed on the Government an inescapable duty to consider what controls there should be on the ownership and possession of handguns. We have undertaken that duty and introduced a Bill which we believe will protect the public but still allow some legitimate use of pistols. I believe that a complete ban is unnecessary and inappropriate.
It is important to recognise that target shooting has had a long history in this country and although we propose to ban high calibre handguns, we believe there is a way for target shooting to continue safely in this country, albeit with lower calibre pistols.
The shooting of .22 pistols has had an honourable place in Olympic competition since 1896. Tens of thousands of law-abiding citizens of this country enjoy this activity perfectly legitimately. I am reminded at this point of what the noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe, said earlier when he spoke to the Motion and of his reference to disabled people who enjoy shooting as a sport. But by allowing this sport to continue, we intend that it should be able to continue only under the strictest possible conditions and shooters will not be able to keep their pistols at home. Pistols will have to be kept under stringent conditions in licensed pistol clubs. The clubs will have to meet rigorous security standards and satisfy the police that they are run properly and are secure. Shooters will not be allowed to shoot with a .22 pistol until they have obtained a firearm certificate from the police.
No pistol would be allowed to be removed from the club except for certain very limited circumstances which are set out in the Bill. When they are removed the owner will have to get a special permit from the police and, when in transit outside the club, pistols would have to be transported by a third party whom the police had approved. I believe the pistol club system can work safely and securely.
I also think that if handguns were banned altogether there is a real danger of driving target shooting underground. That would not help to protect the public. I believe that that is a very real possibility and consider that it is much better that target shooting should be allowed to continue under very strict control.
The Bill which we have introduced will reduce the number of handguns in this country by up to 80 per cent. and remove them from people's homes altogether. It will give Britain some of the toughest gun controls in the world. I believe it will give the public the protection they need and deserve, while still allowing some limited target shooting to continue.
I welcome the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, about the co-operative working between Members of this House and another place and between the parties on this issue. I have every confidence that that will continue until the passing of this Bill into legislation. I was also pleased that the noble Lord withdrew his comments about the use of .22 pistols at Dunblane. Not only were .22s not used at Dunblane; they were not used at Hungerford. The self-loading 9 mm. pistols used at both Dunblane and Hungerford were concealable yet they were able to produce high fire.
Again, I stand corrected if I am wrong, but I have been reminded that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred to Hamilton firing 743 rounds. Hamilton had 743 rounds but fired 106 rounds--105 at the children and the young teacher and one at himself. I make no point about that other than to put the matter right for the purpose of the record.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, asked particularly about cost. My understanding is that it would cost between £180 million and £190 million to include the other 20 per cent. of guns, given that the 80 per cent. costs £150 million.
I turn now to the exchange between the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, and my noble friend Lord Peel about Lord Cullen's conclusions. It is perhaps worth quoting rather more fully from paragraph 9.113 than did my noble friend Lord Marlesford. The paragraph states:
- "If for any reason that course is not to be followed"--
- "I see no alternative to considering the more draconian alternative of a ban on multi-shot handguns. However, in such circumstances I would suggest that the ban should be directed to the possession of such handguns by individual owners rather than the possession of handguns by shooting clubs, since it is through possession by individuals that the risk, in so far as there is a risk, of homicide or serious injury arises. Thus I do not consider that the banning of
- handguns for target shooting or the banning of shooting clubs would be justified. I have no particular recommendation as to the legislative means by which effect would be given to such a ban".
There is very little difference between what Lord Cullen recommended and the conclusion reached by the Government. However, unlike Lord Cullen, we believe that possession of handguns is very important to shooters. The way in which a shooter uses a weapon for target shooting is very personal and relates to the shooter's handling of that gun, the shape of the gun and the moulding of the handle to that shooter. We have come to a compromise under which the shooter owns the gun but it is held securely in the premises of a gun club. That was the conclusion reached by Lord Cullen.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Marlesford: I apologise for interrupting my noble friend, but my noble friend says that there is very little difference. Surely there is a big difference. Lord Cullen proposes in the paragraph that has been quoted that handguns should be held only in clubs and not by individuals, but he does not propose that calibres above .22 should be banned. That is a significant difference. I suspect that had the Government followed that recommendation there would have been much less objection from the shooting lobby. I still do not fully understand why the Government did not follow the logic of Lord Cullen in that paragraph which my noble friend has read so articulately.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page