| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, as Amendment No. 2 has been spoken to, I should point out that there is a mistake and that the amendment should read:
- "Page 2, line 11, leave out ("7 below") and insert"--
the words as printed on the Marshalled List.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 2:
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Chalfont moved Amendment No. 3:
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am not sure whether I am in order, but, in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, and as I attached my name to Amendment No. 3, perhaps I may move it. I have not come prepared to do so so my remarks will be very brief. I move the amendment because it seems to me that this is the only sensible way to ensure that when this legislation is passed, as it obviously will be, those people who engage in national and international sport of a very pleasant and harmless kind are not deprived of the right to do so.
It seems to me that much about the Bill smacks of what I have called before--and have no hesitation in doing so again--the "something must be done" school of policy making. By that I mean that in reaction to some emotional or other impetus people seize upon a single measure in an attempt to solve a very complicated problem, whether it be nuclear weapons, landmines or pistols.
Whatever one's opinion of the Bill may be, it is quite clear that it has now acquired a momentum of its own and that it will, in one form or another, pass into law. However, I believe that there are certain measures which we can take to mitigate the impact of this measure on
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, as I believe it would have been the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, to speak also to Amendment No. 4, I should point out to the House that there is a printing error on the Marshalled List in that the names of those supporting the amendment should have included the name of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I apologise to the House for not being present at the start of this debate. In fact, I was caught on the wrong foot by the speed with which the previous business progressed.
In speaking to Amendment No. 3, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 4, which is the principal amendment in this group. I should tell your Lordships that the noble Lord, Lord Howell, has asked me to apologise to the House for the fact that he cannot be here to support the amendment because he is chairing a Select Committee.
In our proceedings on Report a week ago, on 4th February, (Hansard col. 1543) an amendment was not debated which would have allowed the .32 wadcutter to be treated in the same way as .22 and smaller calibres. Subsequently, an amendment to allow the vital parts of .32 wadcutters to be kept in licensed premises or disassembled was lost. Therefore, for procedural reasons, the amendment cannot apply only to .32 wadcutters. Its purpose is to allow the Secretary of State to exempt certain specified competition pistols from Clause 1 of the Bill. In particular, it will allow him to make special provisions for the .32 wadcutter, which is a pistol used in the Commonwealth Games.
The amendment does not restrict the Home Secretary in any way and could apply to other competition pistols. I hope, therefore, that noble Lords will not suggest that it is going too far. Other calibres will only be allowed if the Secretary of State and Parliament want them. The amendment will merely allow them to be introduced without the need for primary legislation.
The amendment meets the specific concerns of my noble friend the Minister expressed during our debate a week ago. Then, my noble friend argued that the amendment, which was subsequently lost and which related only to the .32 wadcutter, was too loosely drawn. My noble friend said:
This amendment, therefore, closes any such highly unlikely loophole because the Secretary of State will be able to decide which pistols are to be permitted and which are not. For example, pistols used in the Commonwealth Games, which are chambered only for use with the .32 Smith and Wesson long wadcutter cartridge, could be permitted. There is no possibility of
To appreciate why the loophole was in any case improbable, one has to understand a little about the .32 wadcutter cartridge and its weapon. To start with, the Government's own adviser (Mr. Warlow) has confirmed that,
Pistols which fire the .32 wadcutter are clearly designed and used to fire only that round. To do otherwise would put an individual who fired them at great risk. All the experts are agreed on this but I shall not weary your Lordships with the detail, unless pressed to do so by my noble friend or other noble Lords.
The likelihood of criminal misuse of a pistol which is only safe to use with a wadcutter cartridge is negligible. Furthermore, the Secretary of State will have the power under the amendment to ban any other type of cartridge other than the .32 wadcutter and any pistol which is not specifically used to fire that round.
During the Report stage my noble friend the Minister tried to suggest that such pistols could be converted to fire higher calibre cartridges. She said (at col. 1565 of Hansard) that,
It is theoretically true that with machine tools a very crude conversion of a .32 revolver chamber, although not a .32 pistol, could be achieved to enable it to fire a .32 Harrington and Richardson magnum cartridge. However, that is an entirely unlikely scenario. An individual would need to go through the licensing system to obtain a legal .32 revolver. He would then need to manipulate the revolver with machine tools in order to lengthen the chamber in some way to ensure that the longer Harrington cartridge could fire. This really is a non-starter, given the number of illegal firearms in circulation which are far easier and cheaper to acquire, as we have noted before.
Even if the criminal were prepared to go to such lengths, both the revolver used to fire the .32 Harrington and Richardson magnum cartridge and the cartridge itself are very uncommon in the United Kingdom. There are only a handful of such revolvers in existence and the cartridges are just as rare. Faced with these difficulties, it is most unlikely that any criminal would attempt to modify a rare revolver to fire a rare cartridge instead of simply buying one of the millions of illegal weapons freely available on the black market.
All the evidence confirms that competition pistols are not modified and used in crime. Indeed, my noble friend confirmed on Report that the wadcutter cartridge simply does not feature in crime. My noble friend Lord Kimball had asked whether there were any examples of wadcutters being used in crime. In reply my noble friend the Minister said
The Government's adviser, Mr. Warlow, goes even further. In his letter of 15th November 1996, he said:
It would appear that the Government cannot justify banning the .32 wadcutter on its merits. It seems that their real objection is purely bureaucratic, as set out in a letter from my right honourable friend the Home Secretary to a Mr. C. A. Ewing on 21st November last year:
We should remember that the distinction drawn by Lord Cullen was not by calibre but by lethality, by killing power. On that test the .32 wadcutter is the same as the .22. The effect of banning these specialist pistols within the Bill is therefore to destroy a longstanding sport for the sole reason that the Home Office has not tried to produce a definition.
My right honourable friend the Home Secretary recognises this effect of the Bill. On 18th November last year he said in another place,
We are pretty sure that they will wish it, as the .32 wadcutter event is one of the Commonwealth Games' central events. However, unbelievably, my right honourable friend went on to say, again at col. 743,
That is the incredible situation which this amendment seeks to alleviate.
I have to repeat the question which has been put to my noble friend and not yet answered, I think. In what other sport would a Minister dare to declare that his own country's top level sportsmen were less to be trusted than sportsmen from overseas? The amendment offers the Secretary of State an opportunity to overturn this injustice by allowing competitors to practise and so take part in the .32 event in Manchester on an equal footing. The .32 centre fire event is a most popular event of the Commonwealth Games. The British team has a proud history in the event and has long excelled in it.
The amendment does not drive a coach and horses through the Bill. I hope that no noble Lord will claim that it does. It merely offers the Government an enabling provision, with the approval of Parliament, to get them and any future government off the .32 wadcutter hook upon which they have so unfortunately impaled themselves. Who knows? Pistol shooting fashions may change. Even a Labour government in some distant future may wish to avail themselves of this sensible amendment. I commend it to the House and trust that my noble friend and noble Lords opposite can accept it.
Page 2, line 11, leave out ("7 below") and insert ("(Weapons and ammunition used for tranquillising animals).
(7A) In sections 2 to (Weapons and ammunition used for tranquillising animals) any reference to a firearm certificate shall include a reference to a visitor's firearm permit.").
Page 2, line 13, leave out ("subsection") and insert ("subsections").
"My information is that the wording of this amendment is not strictly related to the wad-cutter... It is open to wider interpretation...There are concerns that by exempting one type of .32 calibre handgun, loopholes will be created so that all guns of such calibre will be freely available. Other .32 calibre pistols capable of firing high velocity rounds several times more powerful than the .22 rimfire and wad-cutter cartridges could be allowed through".--[Official Report, 4/2/97; col. 1565.]
"the striking energy is comparable to middle-of-the road .22 rimfire loadings".
"there is also the possibility of handguns already chambered for this particular cartridge being technically modified to fire the more dangerous round. That would constitute a very serious risk to public safety".
"The answer is, very definitely, no".--[Official Report, 4/2/97; col. 1566.]
11 Feb 1997 : Column 126
"We have never seen this target wadcutter--or the specialist pistols used with it--in criminal casework submissions in the last 25 years or so".
"I do not believe that a distinction can be made between these guns and other .32 guns and that the only certain and logical basis on which to draw a distinction by calibre is at the point of the .22 rimfire".
"I have authority under section 5 of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1968 to enable that event to take place in Manchester in 2002 if the organisers of the Commonwealth games wish it".--[Official Report, Commons, 18/11/96; col. 743.]
"British competitors will not be able to practise in this country for that event".
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page