HC Deb 02 November 1988 vol 139 cc1056-9

Lords amendment: No. 2, in page 3, line 22, leave out "number and"

Mr. Douglas Hogg

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

The purpose of the amendment is to clarify what was always the Government's intention. At no stage did we intend that chief constables should be able to use their powers, either under the Bill or under the principal Act, to limit the number of shotguns that a shotgun certificate holder could have. A number of my hon. Friends, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham), but also my hon. Friends the Members for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) and for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin), were concerned that the Bill did not make that plain. That concern was expressed again in another place when the amendment was moved. The amendment has the effect of saying that the chief constable has no power to impose a limitation on the numbers of guns held by a shotgun certificate holder. That meets what the Government always had in mind, and we are glad to give it statutory expression.

Sir Michael McNair-Wilson (Newbury)

Although it is obviously far too late in the day to think about dividing the House on any of these amendments, I must admit to some unease that the other place has felt it right to introduce this one. Inevitably, it reopens the argument, which I have heard from chief constables and others, that the Bill treats shotguns as somehow different in lethality from other firearms and that in tightening the gun laws —perhaps because of the Hungerford massacre—authorities have concentrated too much on semi-automatic weapons when other weapons are perhaps still too easily available.

We know that there is little difference between the number of offences committed with shotguns—either the long-barrelled or sawn-off varieties and the number committed using a pistol or a rifle. I am obliged to draw the attention of the House to the fact that criminals do not seem to care particularly which weapon they use and are as happy to use a shotgun as they are to use a rifle or pistol, whichever is the easiest to obtain. Generally, shotguns are the easiest to obtain.

The debate in the other place focused on shotguns in their traditional role, for shooting game in the countryside, and only a little emphasis was placed on the issue of numbers, and then purely in terms of safe storage. What of the views of the chief constables? We often say in the House that we must strengthen the powers of the police to meet the crimes of violence that are so rife in our society, yet the amendment effectively denies them the power to impose any limit on the number of guns owned by an individual—a change included in the original Bill, which I welcomed. The amendment suggests that no justification need be shown for owning 10 guns or any number of shotguns.

Any ideas that the police might have formed as this legislation proceeded through Parliament, that they were to have a new ability to restrict the number of weapons held by an individual or to impose stricter conditions on the ownership of weapons over a given number, have gone by the board. As Earl Ferrers said in the other place: In order to make it clear we are saying that the chief constable cannot impose arbitrary limits and we shall say so in the memorandum of guidance."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 19 October 1988; Vol. 500, c. 1160.] Why not? The public are worried about the armouries of weapons held by some people and, so far as I know, public opinion has never expressed itself to be more concerned about rifles, pistols and semi-automatics than it is about shotguns. The public are worried about weapons that kill and injure people.

5.45 pm
Sir Dudley Smith (Warwick and Leamington)

I am interested to hear my hon. Friend's views, especially in view of his extensive knowledge of the subject after the unhappy occurrences in his constituency. Does he agree that, by and large, apart from some specialists, there is no need for anyone to own more than a few weapons for the pursuit of legitimate sport? Does he agree also that, when a person has a whole arsenal, it predicates the thought that there may be undesirable consequences? As my hon. Friend said, the weapon that is the most popular and most used in robberies—alas, crime is growing not only in this country but throughout the world—is a sawn-off shotgun. Unless one is embarking upon a wave of terrorism, the automatic machine gun or rifle is not used as much as the shotgun. It is the shotgun that is the danger.

Sir Michael McNair-Wilson

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because he makes my point for me. It is a fact that, although Michael Ryan used a semi-automatic, he was in possession of shotguns and, as was said in Standing Committee, had he chosen to use them, he probably would have killed roughly the same number of people as he killed with his semi-automatic weapon.

The public and the police are worried about the use of these weapons. How does the amendment reassure them? I admit that the issue of the security of weapons was considered in the other place in the debate on this amendment and was seen as the circumstance that might be used by chief constables to limit the number of weapons. That presupposes a police check on who has weapons and where they are kept, and we know that such checks will be rare.

Lastly, and I draw some hope from my understanding of the paragraph as now drafted, if a shotgun certificate specifies the description of the shotguns to which it relates, what exactly will that mean? Will it mean an individual description of each weapon, or something more general? If it is the former, does that not add up to numbering the weapons held? Perhaps my hon. Friend will tell me whether the memorandum of guidance will offer any guidance to chief constables about their attitude to weapons and whether they should consider being a little tougher about those who wish to have more than a pair of guns in their possession.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor (Upminster)

I was not proposing to intervene. In fact, I was about to rise to ask my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson) whether he would give way again. As my hon. Friend has already sat down, I shall comment briefly.

It would have been extremely damaging to legitimate shooting interests if the words "number and" had been left in the Bill. Contrary to what my hon. Friend said, many people can legitimately wish to keep more than just "a pair of guns"—to use his words—bearing in mind, among other things, the number of children in their families who may want to shoot when they get a little older.

I need a weapon for my young son who is learning how to shoot. When he grows up, I hope to keep it for my younger son when he grows a little older and learns how to shoot. In addition to my guns, I have my father-in-law's gun, so that he can shoot when he visits my farm. The Government are therefore right to delete "number and".

A further point is that the police will need an adequate description of shotguns kept by the certificate holder—although I do not know precisely what description will be required—and that meets the case that was put by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury. The police will glean enough information from the certificate to judge whether somebody has an armoury, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury fears, or whether the shotguns that are kept are legitimate. The shooting lobby feared the words "number and" because, despite the assurances given in the House, it seemed that some chief constables proposed to limit the number of shotguns to an unacceptably low number.

Mr. Douglas Hogg

By leave of the House, I shall speak again. I am pleased to say that I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor). I understand the argument advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson), but for reasons similar to those given by my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster I do not favour a limitation on the number of shotguns held by a shotgun certificate holder.

A number of steps have been taken in the Bill which will certainly improve security. There is, for example, the requirement to keep the gun in a safe place. I have in mind that guns should be locked away. In addition, a chief constable will be able to refuse an application for a shotgun certificate if he is satisfied that there is not a good reason for the applicant to possess a shotgun. The House will remember that we have defined "good reason" to include sporting competitions and the shooting of vermin. We have also provided for the notification of transfers and specified the information that should appear on the certificate. All those substantial measures are designed to tighten the control of shotguns, but we do not seek to impose a positive obligation on the applicant to prove "good reason" or to give a chief constable the power to limit numbers.

I shall make one further point about arsenals. If it were found that an individual was stockpiling guns on a large scale—of course, that would be clear from the description of each gun that the applicant had to give on the certificate—the chief constable would want to be satisfied that the safekeeping of the guns was adequate.

I shall not ask my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster how many guns he has in his house, but I imagine that there are half a dozen or so. He can easily keep them in a steel cabinet. A chief constable would, I am sure, be satisfied with that. If, however, someone had a stockpile of 20, 30 or 40 guns, the chief constable would be anxious to determine the level of safekeeping and security. That is a real means of control, and I hope that it commends itself not only to my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster but to my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury, whose anxieties, which he ventilated so lucidly in Committee and again today, I understand.

Question put and agreed to.

Back to
Forward to