| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is customary for the principal Opposition spokesman to speak first on these occasions, but really I do not consider myself to have been the principal Opposition spokesman. As the House and the country know, we in the Labour Party have been enthusiastic supporters of the Bill. We believe that, fundamentally, the balance has to be made between everything that can possibly be done to protect public safety, not just in the light of the terrible events of Dunblane but in the light of experience over many years in many countries of the dangers of too free an availability of handguns and the dangers of homicide, with the relatively free availability of handguns. We believe that the balance has to be drawn on the side of public safety.
We disagreed on the question of a total ban on small calibre pistols but I believe that it is not a fundamental disagreement. I share the view of those who are more opposed to the Bill than I am that in practice a large number of .22 weapons will not survive because there will not be suitably secure gun clubs for them. The Minister referred to the regulations for the procurement, ownership, storage, use and disposal of small calibre pistols. That emphasises the complications into which the Government have got themselves by rejecting the total ban which we proposed.
We have had a free vote on the matter. My noble friend Lord Stoddart has been doughty in his root and branch opposition to the Bill and has had some modest support from our Benches. However, I think the Government will recognise that, on the whole, my noble friends have followed my advice--it was no more than that--and have sustained the Government, whenever possible, in the Division Lobby. It has only caused some shock to some of my noble friends that even when we vote with the Government we still lose. But perhaps that is a unique and unfortunate experience.
We wish the Bill well. We sincerely hope that if and when another place rejects the amendments which have been carried against the Government that is the last we shall hear of it and that there will be no last ditch attempt to weaken the provisions of the Bill. If there were, it would call into question the composition as well as the powers of this House.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, as someone who lives a few miles from Dunblane I came down here to represent the view that we are fed up with handguns and want no more to do with them. I came here to seek a complete ban and to ally that with fair compensation. What have we achieved? We have certainly achieved a partial ban and we appear to have achieved fair compensation, although there is a threat that it may be withdrawn.
It is important that by 13th March whatever Bill we are going to have should be on the statute book. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for their forbearance
during the passage of this difficult Bill when they were being encouraged by people like me to go one way and by their noble friends to go the other way. I wish the Bill well.
Lord Renton: My Lords, many years ago I piloted through Parliament a short firearms Act. I therefore wish to say a few words on the Bill. That Act created a new offence of possessing a firearm or imitation firearm with intent to cause fear of violence. This Bill seems a very big but logical sequel. Although the Government have had to rush the Bill through and although it will cost the taxpayer a great deal of money in compensation, they deserve credit, as do those members of the Opposition who have supported it, for the broad intention behind it. I know that it goes much further than was expected, but we should remember that firearms legislation has always been difficult to enforce.
I know from my own long experience that the police and magistrates have always done their best to enforce the law, but there have always been illegally held firearms of various kinds in the hands of dangerous people. As a result, lives have been taken not only on the scale of Hungerford and Dunblane but in the course of many burglaries and other violent crimes.
By greatly reducing the total number of firearms in circulation, this Bill should substantially reduce the number of lives lost by the aggressive use of firearms. But that depends on enforcement. The police will need the co-operation of the public, especially those members of it who have written to us in such large numbers about this Bill.
I conclude by saying two things. I have no hope of finding time--I do not suppose other noble Lords will, either--to reply to the vast number of letters I have received. I hope that we will be forgiven for that. This is a difficult Bill technically and it is also controversial. My noble friend Lady Blatch deserves great credit for her achievement in piloting this Bill.
Earl Peel: My Lords, this has not been an easy Bill for any of us, least of all for the Government and in particular for my noble friend. I reiterate the words of my noble friend Lord Renton.
I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said that he found that there was not a fundamental disagreement between himself and my noble friend. I find that quite astonishing. There is an enormous difference between what the noble Lord and his party have been saying about this Bill and what my noble friend and this side of the House have been saying. If the noble Lord's ideas had been implemented there would have been no .22 rimfire shooting whatsoever and a great swathe of people would have been prevented from participating in a sport which, under this Bill, at least they will still be allowed to enjoy. That is a very important point.
The next point is the question of disassembly. Noble Lords will no doubt recall that at Committee stage my noble friend Lord Swansea tabled an amendment which would have referred disassembly to a Select Committee. We debated that matter and it was suggested that that
would not be an appropriate course of action. My noble friend did not divide the Committee on that amendment and accepted the advice that he had been given. My noble friend on the Front Bench said that she thought it quite appropriate that this House should discuss very carefully the question of disassembly and that we were qualified and competent to deal with the matter.I am sure that noble Lords will recall that we discussed the issue twice, once at Committee stage and again at Report stage. Ultimately, my noble friend Lord Pearson divided the House and his amendment was carried. So I say to my noble friend that we did look very carefully at the issues, debated and voted on them. The amendment was carried. I hope that the message will go to the other place loud and clear.
I moved an amendment and divided the House on the question of a firearms control board, but I was not successful. But there was one very important point about which I expressed my concern at the time, and I am still concerned about it. It is the question of a fair and competent means by which the police will assess whether an applicant is an appropriate person to receive a licence. I was extremely disappointed by the response I received from my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate.
I say to the Government now, please ensure that we have a fairer and more competent system. I say that because we must ensure that wherever possible we reduce the possibility of another Dunblane. Unless that matter is looked at seriously there is a danger--there is always a danger. We must reduce the possibility of another Dunblane and that is one sure way of doing it.
Perhaps I may make reference to comments which have been made in this House and elsewhere on the role that hereditary Peers have played in this particular Bill. If one analyses the voting patterns, it is interesting to note that without the support of Labour Peers--in particular that of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, whose contribution has been quite extraordinary--and also the support of the Liberal Democrat Peers, the amendments on compensation would never have been carried. So it is not just a question of the involvement of hereditary Peers because the mathematics show quite clearly that Labour and Liberal Democratic Peers helped to carry those amendments. The Labour Party complains when the Government win with the help of the hereditary Peers; now they must accept the fact that the Government have lost with the help of the hereditary Peers.
I believe that this House has done itself a service. It has looked at this Bill very carefully and the strength and independence of this House have come through. We have done our job properly and I hope that that will be reflected.
I finish simply by saying to my noble friend yet again how grateful I am for all the help that she has given me personally on this Bill, difficult though it has been.
6.45 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I believe that your Lordships' House has done excellent work with this Bill. We were told that we would be damned if we did something with
it and that we would be damned if we did not. Personally, I would rather be damned for doing something than to be damned for not doing anything at all.The Bill came to us in a completely impractical and unworkable form, but our relaxed procedures have allowed us to work on it and to improve it in many ways. As I have previously observed, the Bill, as originally drafted, would have practically eliminated the sport of target pistol shooting while providing a negligible increase in public safety. I therefore take issue with the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. I do not believe that the Bill does very much to improve public safety. However, with our amendments, the Bill will not now be quite so draconian.
This House is blessed with many highly regarded Ministers, and the noble Baroness is no exception. We have given her a terrible time: our intellectual challenges were hard to resist and many of them were accepted by the House. However, I believe that it is extremely unfair on the noble Baroness and her department to have to pilot several very difficult Bills through this House at the same time. As a result I sometimes wonder whether Home Office Ministers generally have as good an understanding of specific issues as they might. That observation applies not only to this Bill but just as much to others.
We have successfully provided for the disassembly of .22 pistols which, as well as allowing some sport to continue, will increase public safety. However, another place has now been given the opportunity to strike a balance between the cost of compensation if it does not open up our disassembly amendment and the perceived risk to public safety if it does. I contend that the increased risk to public safety--if there is one at all--is negligible in comparison with the risks from other types of guns and illegal weapons.
We remember the excellent work of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, and the success that he had with his amendment concerning information technology and databases. After all, we are here because one police force totally failed to administer properly the firearms law within its area. It is unfortunate that we did not make much progress with the control board amendment, especially when the Government's argument was so weak.
We have improved the compensation arrangements which provide some comfort to those who will be penalised under the Bill. I am not sure for how long those amendments will last in another place, especially in view of the comments of the noble Baroness. Attention has been focused on pistols, but one of my concerns is that the greater danger lies with shotguns. We have not even finished all the stages of this Bill, and yet last weekend in New Zealand there was a disaster in which six people were killed with a shotgun.
Despite our best efforts the Bill has problems. For example, as part of the knee-jerk reaction expanding bullets were identified as a problem and were banned. Unfortunately, my technical advisers, who are as good as those of the Minister, tell me that this policy gives
rise to a problem. An expanding bullet will not penetrate a policeman's body armour; it will first disintegrate. However, a high velocity jacketed bullet is very likely to penetrate body armour. One also knows that the legislation is full of loopholes, ambiguities and anomalies. This branch of the law has acquired a Byzantine complexity. Even worse, some of the provisions are open to challenge in Europe. The amendments agreed to at Third Reading may help to deal with minor matters, but there are big loopholes in relation to major matters and primary legislation will be required. I am sure that the Bill will encounter big problems.We have been subjected to press comment that we represent no one but ourselves, but it is apparent from a recent MORI poll that public opinion is evenly divided. Over 1,000 people were asked whether they would still support the change in the law if each taxpayer had to pay £40 to fund it. Forty eight per cent. responded that they would support the Bill and 47 per cent. said that they would not. Five per cent. said that they did not know. It is hard to understand how the Bill's extremely poor cost benefit analysis can be justified.
As to the future of the Bill, I would be content to accept any message from the other place with one very important proviso. The other place must properly debate our amendments when they do not infringe its privilege on money matters. I do not say that because of the gentle threat that emanated from the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, but because we must concentrate the minds of the other place and not allow it to dodge the issue. It must decide the matter for itself.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page