| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, it is absolutely vital that policemen should be accurate and quick on the defensive draw, and it may well be true that the official training only allows 500 rounds which, we are told, is not adequate for training. If these policemen are to have their pistols in order to shoot in off-duty periods, where are they going to shoot them? I hope they are not going to practise in their backyard. In fact, they will not because they will keep their weapons in the armoury, and if their weapons are in the armoury then presumably they will be practising on their ranges. I hope that is so. If training periods are laid on for the police, I ask whether the police cannot go along when they are off duty and practise on the same ranges they normally use for official training. In fact, a good deal of the training could be done with the .22.
As well as accuracy, what is important is anticipating the right occasion to use a pistol. There are, of course, highly technical simulators which can show a variety of scenes going on. There may be a man in the boot of a car who swings round, sometimes with a pistol and sometimes without one. The police officer has a fraction of a second to decide whether or not to shoot. He shoots with a ray gun of some kind. He has to make that split second decision which saves his own life. It is what is done on simulators. It is an important part of training for hitting the right person at the right time. I am not persuaded that the amendment is necessary.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, only a minority of police officers are trained in the use of firearms. They are intensively trained. With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Harmsworth, I do not consider that the amendment is necessary. I would be very concerned indeed were we to believe that police officers should be enabled to use firearms in the circumstances described in the amendment because it was the only way in which they could demonstrate they
were proficient. Have any representations been made to the Association of Chief Police Officers in favour of this proposition?
Lord Monson: My Lords, I rise to support the amendment. There seem to be two salient points. First, highly respected senior police officers confirm that acceptance of the amendments would enable police officers to get in five or six times as much practice without any cost to the taxpayer than they would in the absence of the amendment. That must be good from the point of view of public safety. Secondly, as the noble Lord, Lord Harmsworth, said, the guns in question will be securely locked up in police or military armouries. That also enhances public safety.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I wish briefly to support my noble friend's amendments, particularly Amendment No. 26. If the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, is right and police officers receive sufficient training in the use of these weapons, I do not see how one squares that with what my noble friend Lord Harmsworth described as the allowance for service training--500 rounds once every two or three months or so.
I do not shoot with a pistol but I shoot with a rifle. I know how extraordinarily difficult it is to obtain accuracy with a rifle. I also know that it is very much more difficult to reach the required standards of accuracy with a pistol. Far too many people nowadays watch films and television where the villain, the cowboy or whoever it is draws a pistol, fires it and a hundred yards away a Red Indian or someone drops stone dead. It simply does not happen like that. Pistols are extraordinarily difficult to shoot accurately with. It requires a great deal of practice. I say with some regret to my noble friend Lord Gisborough that I do not think the simulated ray gun in the television studio is adequate. It does not deal with the question of recoil. That is absolutely vital for accuracy with a pistol.
There will be a very simple proof to this pudding in two or three years' time if police officers cannot shoot as accurately as they do today when they need to save their own lives or the lives of others. Therefore, I very much hope that my noble friend will look kindly on this amendment.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: My Lords, I wish to support that part of the amendment which deals with clubs. It is exceptionally important for us to understand that practice makes perfect. I am reminded of what my father said when he left this country to go to Guernsey. Someone asked him what he would miss most of all. He said, "the House". The person said what a lovely house it was. My father said, "No, no. I am not talking about my house. I am talking about the House of Lords. It is the best club in England". That is the important point. The club is a significant social institution.
Some noble Lords may know police officers who have been injured in the course of their duty and are disabled. Many noble Lords and many Members of another place are fit and able and sound of mind. However, by considering the Bill in its present form,
each of us, no matter what our political persuasion, will be party to a selfish castigation of a minority. I am speaking about the disabled. How little we have heard spoken of this group in our society. How little we have heard of the Bill's effect on them. What little attention has been paid to them by those who signed the Treaty of Rome. No mention has been made of the disabled.The 5,000 disabled pistol shots need to use a club. Those 5,000 people do not go to the firearms club just to shoot. They go to socialise. For their own good and well being they may be closeted in one of the many fine homes specifically designed to care for the disabled. Although they may get on well with the others in the home, it is good, it is fun and it is interesting to enjoy a visit to "the club" to participate in activities that are practised at the club--whether it be bingo, bowls or target shooting. They can then compare notes and socialise with others.
We donate millions of pounds to unfortunates abroad who are plagued by famine, war, disease and drought, but what are we doing--the nannies of society, whether national or international--about our disabled? We know full well that in 1995 we passed the Disability Discrimination Act. But now we are racing through a Bill which has clauses and subsections that are so costly to implement that firearms clubs will close down. There will be no more shooting for the police in their spare time or any one else. There will be no more socialising--certainly not for the disabled. Some will say that if one club closes people can always go to another. That is simple for the able bodied, who can just jump into their car after work or at the weekend and go to another club. It is not so easy for a person in a wheelchair--for the one-legged, the one-armed or the blind. Clubs are to be financially squeezed out of existence.
I hope noble Lords will understand that what I am talking about is indirect discrimination. Whether it be at Pratt's, at a pub, at White's or at a wine bar, we socialise and select the beverage of our choice. That also goes for firearms clubs. It is to do with the club. Because a particular beer is removed from a pub, that does not mean that it closes down. I hope noble Lords will understand that this relates to firearms as well.
The enabling clause about which we heard earlier is fine for the able Secretary of State, no matter which party it may be, but it does not complement the disabled. Unfortunately, enablement does not lead to the return of fingers, arms and limbs. I support the amendment.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, since time immemorial, Armed Forces and police forces have had their own arrangements for training their members in the use of pistols and other firearms. They are not mentioned in this Bill and that is not necessary. In order to set our minds at rest, in view of some of the things which have been said, can my noble friend assure us that those arrangements will continue?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the amendments concern licensed pistol clubs used by police or military
personnel when off duty. The amendments will allow the police and military personnel to continue to shoot higher-calibre handguns at gun clubs as an exemption to the general prohibition on the use of higher-calibre pistols for sporting purposes. I explained at Report stage that service and police personnel receive training in the use of firearms on the same basis as they receive training in the other skills which they require in order to carry out their important work. I can give my noble friend Lord Renton and the House an absolute assurance that that will continue.There is no strong argument that police officers and servicemen and women need to practise in their spare time in order to reach a suitable level of skill. In debate last week I promised that we would expedite inquiries with the police and the Armed Services to find out their views. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, we have done that. The Ministry of Defence and the Association of Chief Police Officers for England, Wales and Scotland agreed with our assessment. In each case it was confirmed that training for the requisite standards of proficiency is provided for the police and personnel of the Armed Services and that when off duty--and they all stressed this point--they should be treated as private citizens. The position remains that this Bill will not compromise at all the levels of training of our Armed Services and the police.
I know that concerns have been expressed by my noble friend and others that it would be wrong to make an allowance for police or soldiers to be allowed to shoot higher calibre handguns for sport and recreation when law-abiding members of the public cannot do so. I do not believe that my noble friend Lord Harmsworth answered the question as to whether that included members of the Territorial Army and/or special constables. I understand that technically both special constables and members of the Territorial Army could be subsumed, which would widen the provision very much and increase the numbers of people who could, as the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, said, get through this loophole.
There is another point. As my noble friend Lord Renton said, the Armed Forces and the police have their own facilities. As long as the chief officer authorises the use of those facilities, Armed Forces personnel and policemen and women can continue to use those facilities in what is technically off-duty time. As long as it is authorised by senior officers those facilities can be used. But as members of private clubs, they must be subject to their rules and shoot subject to the conditions set out in the Bill.
I am not sure that the point which was made quite passionately by the noble Lord, Lord Clifford, on behalf of disabled people has much relevance to this particular amendment. Having said that, there is no discrimination against disabled people in the Bill. Disabled and able-bodied people will be able to shoot at gun clubs. They will all be subject to the limitation of .22 rimfire pistols. Membership will not be inhibited in any way. The conditions for using those clubs will not be
inhibited in any way. As I say, both disabled and able-bodied people will be subject to the controls set out in the Bill.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |