§ 5.—(1) In this paragraph "the proceedings" means proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill, on the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the Report of such a Committee.
§ (2) Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of the Message or, as the case may be, for the appointment and quorum of the Committee.
§ (3) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.
§ (4) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.
§ (5) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
§ (6) If the proceedings are interrupted by a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on the Motion shall be added to the period at the end of which the proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion.
§ The effect of the timetable motion is to bring to an end the House's consideration of Lords amendments three hours after the start of the present debate. It is right to mention that this debate cannot last more than one hour. The timetable motion thus provides for the termination of debate and for voting on various questions.
§ Without seeking to curtail the debate, it might be helpful to remind hon. Members that the sooner we finish the debate on the timetable motion, the sooner we shall get on to the substantial consideration of Lords amendments.
§ I know quite well that the House views timetable motions with some hostility. Indeed, I have sometimes expressed such hostility. On occasion, timetable motions are justified, and I hope that the House will agree that this is such an occasion.
§ The Government's policy for reforming firearms legislation and for the Bill has been the subject of extensive debate and scrutiny. The House will recall that, in December 1987, we discussed the White Paper on the firearms proposals. The House gave a Second Reading to the Bill and it went into an extended and interesting Committee. The Bill spent a total of 28 hours in Committee. That was a substantial period, when one remembers that the Bill then contained only 19 clauses. I 1039 make no complaint about it being debated so fully, because, as a result of remarks made by hon. Members, substantial and useful changes were made.
§ The Report stage of the Bill was a wonderfully interesting occasion. It lasted 16 hours, which is a trifle unusual for a Bill of this length, and there were 67 Divisions. My recollection is that most of them were fairly unusual. For about five hours, hon. Members rose every two and a half minutes to express their views.
§ The Bill has had many curious aspects, and we have seen one recently. The House will recall that the Opposition urged us to set up a statutory consultative committee: we were reminded of that this afternoon by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett). He said that it was good that we had set up a statutory consultative committee, so we moved the money resolution to pay the out-of-pocket expenses of the committee, which was set up to meet the wishes of the House. What happened? The Labour party caused a Division and voted against the proposition that we should pay the expenses of the members of the committee, which the Labour party urged us to set up. The hon. Member for Erdington, who is an Opposition spokesman, and the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) entered the Opposition Lobby to vote against the payment of out-of-pocket expenses to those whose establishment they urged on us. As I said, this has been a remarkable Bill.
§ Mr. Henry Bellingham (Norfolk, North-West)Does my hon. Friend agree that, when the debate about the consultative committee began in Committee, there was broad agreement between those who tabled the amendment and the Opposition? The animal that we created was different from that on which we voted today in connection with the expenses of its members.
Mr. HoggNo, I do not. The consultative committee that is encapsulated in the Bill is a more powerful and effective institution than that for which my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) and some of his supporters voted in Committee.
§ Mr. Robin Corbett (Birmingham, Erdington)The Minister resisted it.
Mr. HoggI resisted it because at that stage I thought it was an unsustainable proposition. In deference to the House, we accepted it and improved it by giving it more force and efficacy. Those who suggest to the contrary do not understand the legislation.
From time to time, the House is entitled to protect itself against an undue prolongation of procedure. I am not one to criticise hon. Members who use parliamentary rules. I have done so myself on many occasions, and should I be deprived of my comfortable seat on the Front Bench I shall do so again. I recognise that there is a converse to that proposition, which is that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or the House collectively, are entitled to take proper action to prevent an undue prolongation of procedure. What happened on the money resolution was a good example of the practices that the House, on the whole, deems undesirable.
§ Mr. Frank Cook (Stockton, North)I am grateful to the Minister for allowing me to pose a question. Is he seriously suggesting that parliamentary procedures have been abused during the passage of this legislation? If he is, I 1040 demand that he puts evidence for that before the House. Conservative Members know clearly that that is not so and never has been.
Mr. HoggThe House will have heard my reference to 67 Divisions and my view that that was somewhat unusual. I did not say that it was an abuse; I said that I never criticised hon. Members for using parliamentary procedure, if only because I had done it myself. However, on occasions it is right and proper to give the House an opportunity to protect itself against the undue prolongation of proceedings so that it can focus on the issues that really matter. The Opposition's behaviour on the money resolution shows the good sense of the timetable motion.
§ Mr. Robin Corbett (Birmingham, Erdington)When the Minister and others read Hansard tomorrow, they will see one of the most remarkable attempts to justify an outrage that has ever been made from the Dispatch Box. I do not object to the odd history lesson, but I and, I think, many others object to the entirely one-sided and selective nature of the Minister's recollection of earlier events on the Bill. It should be understood—if the Minister needs reminding, I am happy to remind him—that those 67 Divisions following Report and Third Reading arose solely because of the outrageous way in which the Minister and his colleagues slapped a guillotine on those proceedings, despite the most amicable series of Committee sittings—
§ Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe (Leigh)The Government would not have had a sittings motion without us.
§ Mr. CorbettAs my hon. Friend says, and not to put too fine a point on it, if it had not been for the good will and co-operation of the Opposition, the Minister would not have had his sittings motion, let alone his Bill. It is a fine way to say thank you.
It is traditional, and perhaps part of the ritual of this place, for Oppositions to protest against a guillotine motion. I wish to make it immediately clear that I do not do so on that basis today. I oppose the motion because it is needless and vindictive. It is the second time this Session that this arrogant Government have imposed a guillotine on debate of the Bill—not because of obstruction by the Opposition, but because a number of the Government's supporters tried to insist, with our support, on proper debate and to persuade the Government to see better sense on some of the provisions of this unhappy Bill.
As has been made clear throughout the proceedings, well before Hungerford and well before the Bill was presented, the Opposition demanded a tightening of the gun laws to protect public safety. Initially, the Home Secretary said that there was no need for that. He said so to a number of my hon. Friends who represent London constituencies and who were rightly alarmed about: the shocking rise in violent crime on the streets of our capital —something that is being echoed in Birmingham and other parts of the country.
§ Sir Nicholas Bonsor (Upminster)The hon. Gentleman is aware that the Bill was prepared in 1973 and then shelved. It sat on a shelf during the entire time that the Labour party governed the country. Why did it not bring it in then?
§ Mr. CorbettI do not accept that. My point, which is incontrovertible—as the Minister and his colleagues; can 1041 confirm—is that when a deputation of my hon. Friends from London constituencies went to see the Home Secretary in June 1986 to argue the case for some tightening of the gun control laws on the ground of public safety, they were sent away with a flea in their ear.
We gave a general welcome to the Bill and both promised and delivered co-operation—while, of course, exercising our right to seek changes in what was proposed. The Minister will remember that, at the Committee's first sitting, he could not obtain a sittings motion without our assistance because of a shabby attempt to deny the Committee the right to discuss the issue and the detail of compensation for weapons made illegal under the Bill. The fact is and remains so as we reach the final stages of the Bill—that the details and scope of compensation have never been discussed on the Floor of the House, despite the fact that on Second Reading all but one of the Government's Back Benchers, including a distinguished former Prime Minister, insisted—in the face of Government opposition—that there should be some compensation.
No proper details were made available during the Committee stage. We were promised—and, to be fair to the Minister, received—details of what was proposed before Report and Third Reading. That is where the cheat and the affront came in. Between the end of the Bill's Committee stage and its Report stage, the Minister hid from members of the Committee, and indeed the whole House, the fact that a guillotine would be placed upon Report and Third Reading in a way that made it impossible for compensation to be debated in the time allowed.
§ Mr. Douglas HoggThe hon. Gentleman will recall that the guillotine was tabled only after the Bill had already been discussed for six hours on Report, without a guillotine, during which time remarkably little progress had been made.
§ Mr. CorbettHad the Minister and his hon. Friends not been so bone-headed, but had taken more time to consult the quite legitimate range of interests involved in the legislation, some of that time could have been saved. Even if what the Minister says is true—
§ Mr. CorbettI accept that. However, that is no good reason for the Government to use their mailed fist to prevent proper discussion on the Floor of the House of important acres of the Bill. It is a shabby and a shoddy way to shovel legislation on to the statute book. That was to treat the House with contempt because, apart from its effect on us, it denied the voice to those who shoot for leisure or for competitive purposes. That is what is happening again today.
The background is important because, as I have said, it would have been more understandable that the Government should seek the motion had there been adequate debate at earlier stages of the Bill. That was not the case. I shall offer the Minister and the House an illustration of what this needless gag has done. Dealers and their proper actions and the control of them are a vital part of achieving better public safety, but that has never been discussed on the Floor of the House. Certain actions have 1042 been taken on, for example, photographs on certificates, but the Bill contains no provision for section 5 dealers' certificates to carry a photograph of the holder. I am told that those certificates can be, and indeed are being, simply photostated and sent with an order as part of trading arrangements between dealers.
Even worse, there is no provision to check the character or the bona fides of those whom the dealers employ. I ask the House to think of the risk of illicit trade in weapons not just for criminal use, but possibly for terrorist use. There is a gaping hole in the Bill, yet the Minister is trying to persuade us that we have had adequate time to debate that issue.
The Opposition and other hon. Members have been prevented from discussing that important matter, and the same is to happen again today. The Minister has not yet told us why there is such a rush about the Bill and why the Government refused properly to consult and respond. The Minister will know that, for more than 12 months, the International Sports Shooters Liaison Committee has been begging for a meeting with him.
§ Mr. Douglas HoggI find it difficult to make the hon. Gentleman's remarks compatible—he is asking why we were in such a rush—with those of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), who, apart from anything else, invited us to take the Bill on the Floor of the House.
§ Mr. CorbettThe choice of how the Bill was dealt with belonged to the Government and not to the Opposition. It is as simple as that. Perhaps the Under-Secretary of State will wish to come back to me on that point. It is a fact, is it not, that large parts of the Bill have never been discussed on the Floor of the House? Yes or no?
§ Mr. HoggWill the hon. Gentleman kindly answer the question that I put to him? How does he reconcile his present observations, which are blaming us for discussion, with those of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, who urged us to get on with the Bill without any delay at all?
§ Mr. CorbettThe Minister is being unusually confusing about the matter. A suggestion that the Bill might be taken on the Floor of the House does not mean that discussion would be curtailed or rushed. It depended upon adequate time being provided. The Government chose not to take up that suggestion. The House and others will note that the Under-Secretary of State is unable to dispute my point that large parts of the Bill have never been discussed on the Floor of the House. That remains the position.
I was saying that, for more than a year, the International Sports Shooters Liaison Committee, by letter and even by fax during the dispute involving letters and parcels, asked for a meeting with the Under-Secretary of State or the Home Secretary. That committee is not a gang of head bangers who want to shoot around the clock willy-nilly, but a group of responsible people who are experienced in the use of weapons. They want more effective controls on the possession and use of weapons. As recently as 14 October the Under-Secretary of State's private secretary had to tell Mr. Desmond Hughes
I am afraid that"—"that" is misspelt, but never mind—Mr. Hogg's schedule of engagements would not permit a meeting with you in the short time available before the Bill completes its Parliamentary passage.1043 The letter goes on to state that there could be a meeting at official level. I understand that view, in a letter dated 14 October, but it was not the first request that was made by that body: it was the umpteenth request. That illustrates the unwillingness of the Under-Secretary of State and his colleagues to consult those who have legitimate interests in the matter and a right to be heard.In case he has inadvertently given a wrong impression, I inform the Under-Secretary of State that, as far as I am aware, not a single voice in the House wants to weaken the control of weapons. Nobody is calling for the indiscriminate right of any individual in this country to possess and use firearms. In fact, opinion goes the other way. The House as a whole wants more effective control of the possession, use and storage of firearms. The argument has been about ways in which that control might be achieved.
As it stands, the Bill has a small chance of achieving what we all want to achieve in terms of public safety. It will not, and, as has been acknowledged, cannot, prevent another Hungerford. At best, it has laid more work on a hard-pressed police force and might mean an additional 300 to 400 officers to ensure that it is carried out. If I might be allowed to say in parenthesis, this is at a time when the Under-Secretary of State and the Home Secretary—and the Prime Minister, no less—have told me that there is not 181,000 quid in the kitty to convert a building in my constituency into a police office. Yet, suddenly, extra officers can be found out of nowhere to police the extra powers that the Bill lays upon them.
The Bill is silent on better measures to detect and control the illegally held weapons that are used in crime. It is one of the ironies of this legislation that, compared with 1986, the number of firearms offences known to the police—that is, when weapons are fired, used as a threat, or used to cause injury—actually fell last year by 4 per cent. That total was 8 per cent. less than that in 1985. What problems are the Government trying to deal with?
We know that, last year, under this so-called law and order Government, there was a 12 per cent. rise in violent crime on the streets of our towns and cities. Last night the Birmingham Evening Mail was able to report that in the inner-city suburb of Handsworth
Robberies and assaults with intent to rob … had rocketed by 51 per cent. this year.And thefts from the person—mostly purse and jewellery snatches from women and girls—had soared by an alarming 31 per cent.That is the problem for the West Midlands police force, which the Home Secretary has said cannot have the 1,000 extra officers that it says it needs over the next three years to deliver the kind of service that it wants to deliver to the public of Birmingham and the rest of the west midlands. Yet apparently we can find 300 or 400 spare officers knocking around to deal with the consequences of this Bill.
§ Mr. William Ross (Londonderry, East)It is not a case of the Government trying to find extra officers. Surely it is a case of diverting existing officers from the duties in which they are presently engaged.
§ Mr. CorbettThe hon. Gentleman's point is well made. He put it far more accurately than I could. That is what will happen. From what the Home Office said on the back of the Autumn Statement earlier this week, we know that there will be a small increase in total police numbers. The 1044 hon. Gentleman is exactly right. If he is not exactly right, I should be more than pleased to stand at the Dispatch Box and withdraw my allegation.
Because of the contempt with which once again the Government are treating the House, my right hon. and hon. Friends will vote against this heavy-handed guillotine. I hope that some Conservative Members will join us to reinforce last night's message. On behalf of our constituents, we are here, irrespective of party, primarily to hold the Government to account. The guillotine denies us that right, and that is why it is an offence and offensive.
§ Sir Hector Monro (Dumfries)I rather hope that I address the House for the last time on this infamous Bill. My hon. Friend the Minister highlighted the number of Divisions on Report. It had nothing to do with many of us who were interested in discussing the Bill, and we felt that it was quite the wrong action to take. If there was any blame at all, it lay with those who drew up the timetable motion. They should have ensured that so many Divisions did not take place, as so frequently happens with other guillotine timetable motions. My hon. Friend considered also that we took undue time in Committee. He really should do an apprenticeship on the Scottish Standing Committee. He would then know what serving time was like.
§ Mr. Douglas HoggMy hon. Friend will remember that I said that I had no criticism of the time that we took. It was used beneficially for everybody. I merely outlined the length of time; I made no criticism of it.
§ Sir Hector MonroI am glad. We had an excellent Committee stage which, compared with many Committees on which I have sat, was of a reasonable length, bearing in mind the controversial nature of the legislation.
I have no personal interest to declare. What weapons I own will not be affected one way or another by the Bill. I have been involved because of my interest in shooting sports and because I feel that the Bill is manifestly unfair to many people. I have served on a police committee for 15 years and, indeed, was chairman of it, so I am wholly on the side of the police and support law and order 100 per cent. But I am afraid that of the many measures in the Bill only a few will reduce crime involving the use of rifles. We could have a far greater impact on armed crime by bringing back the death penalty, but Home Office Ministers seem to object to that most strongly.
Obviously, the Government had to act after Hungerford, if only to ensure that police procedures were implemented. All hon. Members who served on the Committee were behind my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson), who produced so many constructive ideas. We appreciated how he felt about the importance of strict control of firearms, but we would all agree that we should not go too far and that we must be fair.
The Government's major failure was their failure to consult responsible shooting bodies, despite requests to do so, before the Home Secretary made his announcement in Torquay at the end of September 1987. If he had consulted, much of the antagonism to the Bill would have been removed and the Bill would be much more effective. I pay warm tribute to the chairman of the British Shooting 1045 Sports Council, Lord Swansea, who did a tremendous job throughout the Bill's passage, particularly while leading his team in another place.
Many aspects have not been thoroughly discussed on the Floor of this Chamber, particularly those relating to the consultative committee and compensation. Yet today we are again on a timetable motion and the procedures of the House prevent us from discussing such subjects because they are not included in the Lords amendments. For that reason, the timetable motion is somewhat hypothetical because it provides time only for what we are allowed to discuss, which is of minimal importance.
We welcome the amendments because they are favourable to shooting interests. Throughout the Bill's passage, shooting interests have achieved notable victories, mostly against a stubborn Government who are determined to avoid any amendment, even when they have made major mistakes, such as they did on the sporting rifle. We argued at length on that in Committee and lost, but second thoughts in another place have produced a worthwhile Lords amendment.
It is particularly sad that there has been such an attack on genuine shooting sports interests. It is sad that a Conservative Government, who should be so knowledgeable about competitive shooting and country sports, have been involved in that. I am sad that, while we carried amendments in Committee on an all-party basis, many were reversed in this Chamber on Report. I am sad, too, that so much of the implementation of the Bill is left to police rules or Home Office guidance. We hear on all sides that chief officers of police are already interpreting the Bill as if it were law.
Some attitudes of the Minister have been difficult to follow. I have already mentioned the sporting rifle. One of the most depressing episodes involved the Government's attitude to the disabled. We welcome back those from the paraplegic games in the far east, but at the same time from now on we shall stop the disabled using three or four-shot self-loading rifles and enjoying the sport in which they may have participated for years, on a wrong premise. The Minister says that the fire power of a three or four-shot self-loading rifle—
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker)Order. I have allowed the hon. Gentleman a great deal of latitude. He should now relate his remarks more closely to the motion.
§ Sir Hector MonroI am trying to show that we have not had time to discuss these matters on the Floor as I should have liked, and that our last chance to do so seems to be disappearing rapidly. I am worried that we cannot debate in depth either how the Bill affects the disabled or the consultative committee. We may discuss neither in detail today.
Most important, we have not had a chance to discuss compensation. The Minister did not introduce the scheme while we were in Committee. He gave an assurance that we could discuss it on the Floor, but the Report stage was timetabled, and we had no time to discuss it. This House, which is elected to represent people throughout the United Kingdom, could not discuss the compensation scheme with the Minister. To introduce a scheme offering £150 or 50 per cent. of the alleged value of a weapon is unfair for 1046 the higher value weapons. Many a rifle costs more than £1,000 and the owner, who will have owned that weapon legitimately, will lose substantially. But we could not and cannot discuss the scheme because of the timetable motion, which is why the Minister is being unfair with us today.
An M14 carbine, which many people have bought for the enjoyment of their sport, costs about £500, and with a new barrel its value will be £1,000. The owner will be lucky to see £500 for it and there is no appeal. Compensation is a serious issue, which we have not been able to discuss. Today, I received a parliamentary answer and I thank the Minister for it, but evidence from one auction house and the trade papers is not a sufficient basis for compensation terms.
I have a heavy heart. I am an elected official of the National Rifle Association, the National Small-Bore Rifle Association, the Clay Pigeon Shooting Association, the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, and the British Field Sports Society. It is sad that those responsible bodies, which have done their best to lobby Ministers in every possible way, have not had a fair response. I am gravely concerned about the cost of the legislation, police manpower and firearm and shotgun certificates, but the Minister has not answered our questions on those matters. He owes us much more information today.
The Bill should not have been controversial. It should have been one on which the Committee could unite to support stricter and fairer controls in the interests of those with legitimate weapons. Whatever happens, I know that the Government will have their way. More important, the few Lords amendments which we may discuss are of small importance compared with the subjects which we may not discuss, but such is life in this House.
§ 5.8 pm
§ Sir Dudley Smith (Warwick and Leamington)I support my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro). The time has come when debate on the Bill should end and it should be implemented, but I am left with the impression—I am heartened by what my hon. Friend has said—that the vast majority of those involved in shooting regard it as an inconvenience, an irritation and, alas, a measure which in the end will have little result. Law-abiding shooting organisations are sad and bewildered. Only this afternoon I took two such bodies to the Ministry of Defence in an attempt to save a rifle range in the Warwick area. They are all thoroughly good individual citizens who have conducted themselves very well over the years in their sport. The Bill has been a bad experience because of the troubles with the votes and the Lords amendments to which my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries has referred.
I feel that, with the best of intentions, the Government overreacted following the terrible events of Hungerford. There should have been some reaction, but in this respect it was overkill, and it will not bring about the ideas that were predicted at the time. Of course I hope that it will, because no one wants to see anything like Hungerford happen again.
In those circumstances, it is more in sorrow than in anger that I make known my views, which I know are shared by many hon. Members who are not necessarily in the Chamber this afternoon.
§ Mr. Jerry Wiggin (Weston-super-Mare)I agree with everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith) has said. I am deeply sorry to hear that the Ministry of Defence is contemplating closing a range in his constituency where I have spent many happy hours. I would like to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), who has effectively led the opposition to the Bill from this side of the House with the greatest of patience, competence and hard work. I am sure that that is something with which all my hon. Friends will agree.
Normally, I would be in favour of all guillotines. The time that we have wasted in the House in debating Bills without a timetable has been a farce. I will not trouble the House with the reasons this afternoon, but there is a very good case for timetabling all Bills. However, until such a practice comes in, and bearing in mind that the Select Committee on Procedure did take its first light step down that road in the last Session but one, the Government must be cautious before proposing a timetable motion. I believe that they panicked on the last occasion. We had overcome the burden of the Bill in the middle of the night, and we would have made good progress with it. I know that this has been mentioned before, but I think that it is worth repeating.
On the following day the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) and I and my hon. Friends who were opposed to the Bill agreed that we would have only one vote and then we would allow the Government to have the Bill, providing they allowed us to have the consultative committee that we requested. As the Government refused even that amazingly modest concession, Opposition Members were enraged, and I believe rightly so. I took no part in those further proceedings, but I believe that what happened should be on the record.
It is clear that the Government have no intention of allowing the Bill to go back to the other place, for reasons that I understand, but they are all modest improvements to the Bill—all of which I welcome—and I see no purpose in debating the amendments further. I cannot understand the neurosis that has struck the Government's business managers in proposing this timetable motion.
§ Mr. Henry Bellingham (Norfolk, North-West)I agree entirely with what my hon. Friends the Members for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) and for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith) have said. There is no doubt that there is some good in the Bill, but there is also a great deal of bad. We have, at times with the co-operation and help of the Minister, improved the Bill, and I would pay some tribute to the Under-Secretary for his good humour and patience in Standing Committee, because there were undoubtedly occasions when he did—[Laughter]—sit down and talk to us about certain matters. There were times, too, when he changed his mind after due consideration of the argument.
Having paid that tribute, I must say that the shambles that took place in the House when the guillotine was imposed caused a tremendous amount of ill feeling. The Minister's implication that there was time-wasting and filibustering is complete rubbish. Yes, we did discuss for about six hours on Report various matters in the earlier 1048 clauses of the Bill, but at no time did anyone in this place try to filibuster. There was an extremely long list of amendments, as well as many Government amendments, and not to allow us to continue discussing them has added a great deal of insult to the injuries already caused.
My hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington mentioned compensation and the statutory expert committee, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro). Those are crucial matters that were not discussed on the Floor of the House. Many of us made fairly general and wide-ranging speeches on Second Reading and we discussed three or four clauses on Report, but many other crucial matters were not discussed at all.
What about the process of sleeving shotguns? What about some of the exemptions from controls for self-loading rifles and shotguns deactivated to a standard approved by the proof houses? What about the creation of the conterminous shotgun and firearm certificate? There has been some movement by the Government on some of those matters in the other place and we have had some results, but a number of crucial matters for our constituents—such as the visitors' permits and the dealers' certificates—were not discussed in the House because of the shoddy, shameful tactic of applying the guillotine.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare that there are times when it is necessary to apply the guillotine—for example, on Report if we are dealing with a Bill that has only a small number of amendments, when perhaps the debate is prolonged unnecessarily—but on this occasion we had a huge amount of material to get through. To use bully-boy tactics in those circumstances was wrong. I must say to the Under-Secretary and to my right hon. Friend that many people in East Anglia supported some improvement and tightening up of firearms controls, but what they find hard to accept is that debate in this place was curtailed. Many people are having their weapons taken away, and many other people fear that the new panoply of controls and structures will prevent them from enjoying their sport. I hope that that will not happen.
For example, some of my constituents enjoy rough shooting and wild fowling, but may not be used to dealing with the police when it comes to filling in forms and so forth. They may not be very knowledgeable when it comes to asking solicitors or friends how to apply for a certificate. Those people fear that the new structures will militate against them. Those of us who have been talking in this debate and have an interest in shooting have no problems in carrying on our sport, but there is a concern in rural areas that people who enjoy rough shooting and clay pigeon shooting will find it difficult in some circumstances to comprehend that good reason. I hope that they will not have any difficulties, but it is a pity that we could not have discussed this at greater length.
§ Sir Nicholas Bonsor (Upminster)All that my hon. Friend says about the difficulties that will be experienced by people in rural areas is even more true in the urban areas, especially the suburbs of London—one of which I represent—where a number of people especially enjoy clay pigeon shooting. There is no doubt that they have a real fear that they will find it difficult to get a licence from the Metropolitan police if the latter can find an excuse.
§ Mr. BellinghamMy hon. Friend is right. I received a letter recently from someone who lives in a council bedsit 1049 in an urban area. He has had a run-in with the police before. He fears that, if the wrong sort of policeman was dealing with his shotgun certificate, he could suffer because of that officer's prejudice. I hope that that will not happen. My hon. Friend is absolutely right—there may be difficulties in urban areas.
§ Mr. Douglas HoggMy hon. Friend has just told us about his constituent and friend. Is that the gentleman who keeps the shotgun under his bed, about which we were told last time we discussed the matter?
§ Mr. BellinghamThe Minister is wrong. I have had another letter from someone outside my constituency. I do not represent an urban area. However, the Minister is right that in Committee we discussed a constituent of mine who kept a gun under his bed, in a flat.
If some good comes out of the Bill—I am not saying that it is all bad—it will be the inculcation in many sporting and shooting people of the understanding that they must take more care of their weapons. There will be greater emphasis on security and on the care of weapons during transportation, for example, from a shooting ground back home. Within the shooting community, there is greater realisation of the responsibilities. In that respect, the Bill is to be welcomed.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary knows that I am concerned about practical shooting for the disabled. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries made his feelings clear. We are trying to encourage disabled people to participate in sport, to find their feet, as it were. We are trying to give confidence and pride back to them. Therefore, it is appalling to stop them taking part in target shooting, stalking or other forms of rifle shooting. The Minister knows that we have had this argument time and again, but it is sad that, as we put the Bill to bed, disabled people have not had—
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. I cannot see anything in any of the Lords amendments relating to the argument that the hon. Gentleman is putting before the House. He should address his remarks to the motion.
§ Mr. BellinghamI was about to refer to practical shooting, which was discussed at length in the other place. It is important to mention that the sport of practical shooting may soon become an Olympic sport. As a result of the Bill, we in this country will be prevented from taking part in that sport, which is sad. It is also sad that, for the first time ever, our citizens—
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. I fail to see what the hon. Gentleman's speech has to do with the motion before the House. He should address his remarks to that.
§ Mr. BellinghamI certainly will. It is unfortunate that, when the previous guillotine fell, we were prevented from discussing many of those points.
We welcome the guillotine now. We bitterly regret the fact that the Bill was not properly discussed on the Floor of the House. The Minister must be left in no doubt about the fact that there was widespread support in the shooting community for a measure to improve firearms legislation and to improve the working relationship and co-operation 1050 between the sporting community and the police. The Minister could have won the confidence and support of the shooting community.
It is sad that the Government felt minded to rush into the Bill and that the necessary consultation did not take place. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) said that Mr. Des Hughes wrote to the Minister asking for a meeting on 14 October. I was sent a copy of that correspondence. Much criticism was levelled against the Under-Secretary and the Home Secretary for not consulting widely enough. They said at the time that they were consulting and that their doors were open. To keep the door shut during the final stages of the Bill is most unfortunate.
§ Mr. WigginDoes my hon. Friend agree that much of the difficulty that was created in regard to consultation arose from the fact that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) gave my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary the green light from the Opposition Benches? One of the lessons of the House that one should have thought had been learnt 100 times over is that, when both Front Benches are in agreement, the Bill before the House is rotten.
§ Mr. BellinghamMy hon. Friend makes his point effectively, but that does not detract from the fact that Ministers said that their doors were open and that they wanted to have discussions and consultations with the shooting community. I know that some efforts were made. The Home Secretary and the Under-Secretary have indeed had many discussions and meetings, but it is sad that, in the final stages of the Bill, when a meeting was requested, an excuse was found not to have it.
§ Mr. CorbettAlthough there was a green light from the Opposition, the hon. Gentleman should know that it was also on amber.
§ Mr. BellinghamWe appreciate that.
I do not believe that there is a single colleague who represents shooting intrests in the House who has not been lobbied furiously on the Bill. I think that every colleague is in agreement that there is grave disquiet and concern about the effects of the Bill on reducing crime, on tying down the police and, above all, on the excellent series of relationships between the shooting community and the police.
We cannot gaze into a crystal ball. I wish the Bill well, but I am pessimistic. We shall have to come back in about a year or two, because only then will we know its effects.
§ Question put:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 252, Noes 175.
1053| Division No. 466] | [5.26 pm |
| AYES | |
| Adley, Robert | Batiste, Spencer |
| Alexander, Richard | Beaumont-Dark, Anthony |
| Alison, Rt Hon Michael | Bellingham, Henry |
| Amos, Alan | Bendall, Vivian |
| Arbuthnot, James | Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke) |
| Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham) | Benyon, W. |
| Ashby, David | Bevan, David Gilroy |
| Ashdown, Paddy | Biffen, Rt Hon John |
| Aspinwall, Jack | Blackburn, Dr John G. |
| Atkinson, David | Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter |
| Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N) | Boscawen, Hon Robert |
| Baldry, Tony | Boswell, Tim |
| Banks, Robert (Harrogate) | Bottomley, Peter |
| Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich) | Bottomley, Mrs Virginia |
| Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich) | Heathcoat-Amory, David |
| Bowis, John | Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael |
| Brazier, Julian | Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE) |
| Bright, Graham | Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L. |
| Brittan, Rt Hon Leon | Hill, James |
| Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's) | Hind, Kenneth |
| Browne, John (Winchester) | Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm) |
| Bruce, Ian (Dorset South) | Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd) |
| Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon) | Howells, Geraint |
| Buck, Sir Antony | Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W) |
| Burns, Simon | Hunt, David (Wirral W) |
| Burt, Alistair | Hunter, Andrew |
| Butcher, John | Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas |
| Butler, Chris | Irvine, Michael |
| Carlile, Alex (Mont'g) | Jack, Michael |
| Carlisle, John, (Luton N) | Janman, Tim |
| Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) | Kilfedder, James |
| Carttiss, Michael | King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield) |
| Cartwright, John | Kirkhope, Timothy |
| Channon, Rt Hon Paul | Kirkwood, Archy |
| Chapman, Sydney | Knapman, Roger |
| Chope, Christopher | Knight, Greg (Derby North) |
| Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford) | Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston) |
| Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S) | Knowles, Michael |
| Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe) | Knox, David |
| Colvin, Michael | Lamont, Rt Hon Norman |
| Conway, Derek | Lang, Ian |
| Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest) | Latham, Michael |
| Coombs, Simon (Swindon) | Lee, John (Pendle) |
| Cope, Rt Hon John | Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh) |
| Couchman, James | Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark |
| Cran, James | Lightbown, David |
| Critchley, Julian | Lilley, Peter |
| Currie, Mrs Edwina | Livsey, Richard |
| Curry, David | Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant) |
| Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g) | Lloyd, Peter (Fareham) |
| Day, Stephen | Lord, Michael |
| Devlin, Tim | Lyell, Sir Nicholas |
| Dickens, Geoffrey | McCrindle, Robert |
| Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James | MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire) |
| Durant, Tony | McLoughlin, Patrick |
| Dykes, Hugh | McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael |
| Eggar, Tim | Madel, David |
| Emery, Sir Peter | Malins, Humfrey |
| Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd) | Mans, Keith |
| Evennett, David | Marland, Paul |
| Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas | Marlow, Tony |
| Fallon, Michael | Marshall, John (Hendon S) |
| Favell, Tony | Martin, David (Portsmouth S) |
| Fenner, Dame Peggy | Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick |
| Field, Barry (Isle of Wight) | Meyer, Sir Anthony |
| Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey | Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute) |
| Fishburn, John Dudley | Miller, Sir Hal |
| Fookes, Miss Janet | Mills, Iain |
| Forman, Nigel | Miscampbell, Norman |
| Forsyth, Michael (Stirling) | Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling) |
| Forth, Eric | Mitchell, David (Hants NW) |
| Fowler, Rt Hon Norman | Montgomery, Sir Fergus |
| Fox, Sir Marcus | Moore, Rt Hon John |
| Franks, Cecil | Morris, M (N'hampton S) |
| Freeman, Roger | Morrison, Sir Charles |
| French, Douglas | Moss, Malcolm |
| Fry, Peter | Moynihan, Hon Colin |
| Gale, Roger | Mudd, David |
| Garel-Jones, Tristan | Neale, Gerrard |
| Gill, Christopher | Needham, Richard |
| Glyn, Dr Alan | Nelson, Anthony |
| Goodhart, Sir Philip | Neubert, Michael |
| Goodlad, Alastair | Nicholson, David (Taunton) |
| Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles | Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley |
| Gorst, John | Oppenheim, Phillip |
| Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW) | Owen, Rt Hon Dr David |
| Greenway, Harry (Ealing N) | Page, Richard |
| Gregory, Conal | Paice, James |
| Hamilton, Neil (Tatton) | Patnick, Irvine |
| Hampson, Dr Keith | Patten, Chris (Bath) |
| Harris, David | Pawsey, James |
| Haselhurst, Alan | Porter, Barry (Wirral S) |
| Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney | Porter, David (Waveney) |
| Hayward, Robert | Price, Sir David |
| Raffan, Keith | Stewart, Andy (Sherwood) |
| Raison, Rt Hon Timothy | Stradling Thomas, Sir John |
| Redwood, John | Sumberg, David |
| Renton, Tim | Taylor, John M (Solihull) |
| Rhodes James, Robert | Taylor, Matthew (Truro) |
| Riddick, Graham | Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N) |
| Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas | Thornton, Malcolm |
| Ridsdale, Sir Julian | Thurnham, Peter |
| Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm | Townend, John (Bridlington) |
| Roberts, Wyn (Conwy) | Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath) |
| Roe, Mrs Marion | Twinn, Dr Ian |
| Rossi, Sir Hugh | Viggers, Peter |
| Rost, Peter | Waddington, Rt Hon David |
| Ryder, Richard | Wakeham, Rt Hon John |
| Sackville, Hon Tom | Walden, George |
| Sayeed, Jonathan | Waller, Gary |
| Shaw, David (Dover) | Walters, Sir Dennis |
| Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey) | Ward, John |
| Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb') | Wardle, Charles (Bexhill) |
| Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW) | Warren, Kenneth |
| Shepherd, Colin (Hereford) | Watts, John |
| Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge) | Wheeler, John |
| Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick) | Whitney, Ray |
| Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield) | Widdecombe, Ann |
| Speed, Keith | Wilkinson, John |
| Speller, Tony | Wilshire, David |
| Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W) | Winterton, Nicholas |
| Spicer, Michael (S Worcs) | Wolfson, Mark |
| Squire, Robin | Wood, Timothy |
| Stanbrook, Ivor | Yeo, Tim |
| Stanley, Rt Hon John | |
| Steen, Anthony | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Stern, Michael | Mr. Stephen Dorrell and |
| Stevens, Lewis | Mr. David Maclean. |
| NOES | |
| Adams, Allen (Paisley N) | Eastham, Ken |
| Alton, David | Evans, John (St Helens N) |
| Anderson, Donald | Faulds, Andrew |
| Archer, Rt Hon Peter | Field, Frank (Birkenhead) |
| Armstrong, Hilary | Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n) |
| Ashton, Joe | Fisher, Mark |
| Banks, Tony (Newham NW) | Flannery, Martin |
| Barron, Kevin | Flynn, Paul |
| Battle, John | Foot, Rt Hon Michael |
| Beckett, Margaret | Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S) |
| Beggs, Roy | Foster, Derek |
| Benn, Rt Hon Tony | Foulkes, George |
| Bidwell, Sydney | Fyfe, Maria |
| Blair, Tony | Galloway, George |
| Blunkett, David | Garrett, John (Norwich South) |
| Boyes, Roland | Garrett, Ted (Wallsend) |
| Bradley, Keith | Golding, Mrs Llin |
| Brown, Gordon (D'mline E) | Gould, Bryan |
| Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E) | Grant, Bernie (Tottenham) |
| Buckley, George J. | Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S) |
| Caborn, Richard | Griffiths, Win (Bridgend) |
| Callaghan, Jim | Hardy, Peter |
| Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley) | Harman, Ms Harriet |
| Campbell-Savours, D. N. | Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy |
| Clark, Dr David (S Shields) | Heffer, Eric S. |
| Clelland, David | Henderson, Doug |
| Clwyd, Mrs Ann | Hinchliffe, David |
| Cook, Frank (Stockton N) | Hood, Jimmy |
| Cook, Robin (Livingston) | Howarth, George (Knowsley N) |
| Corbett, Robin | Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath) |
| Cousins, Jim | Hoyle, Doug |
| Crowther, Stan | Hughes, John (Coventry NE) |
| Cryer, Bob | Hughes, Roy (Newport E) |
| Cunliffe, Lawrence | Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S) |
| Cunningham, Dr John | Illsley, Eric |
| Darling, Alistair | Janner, Greville |
| Davies, Ron (Caerphilly) | John, Brynmor |
| Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l) | Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside) |
| Dewar, Donald | Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn) |
| Dixon, Don | Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W) |
| Dobson, Frank | Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald |
| Doran, Frank | Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil |
| Douglas, Dick | Lamond, James |
| Dunnachie, Jimmy | Leadbitter, Ted |
| Leighton, Ron | Quin, Ms Joyce |
| Lestor, Joan (Eccles) | Radice, Giles |
| Lewis, Terry | Randall, Stuart |
| Litherland, Robert | Redmond, Martin |
| Livingstone, Ken | Richardson, Jo |
| Lloyd, Tony (Stretford) | Roberts, Allan (Bootle) |
| Lofthouse, Geoffrey | Robertson, George |
| Loyden, Eddie | Robinson, Geoffrey |
| McAllion, John | Robinson, Peter (Belfast E) |
| McAvoy, Thomas | Rogers, Allan |
| McCartney, Ian | Rooker, Jeff |
| McFall, John | Ross, Ernie (Dundee W) |
| McKelvey, William | Ross, William (Londonderry E) |
| McLeish, Henry | Ruddock, Joan |
| McNamara, Kevin | Sheerman, Barry |
| McWilliam, John | Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert |
| Madden, Max | Short, Clare |
| Mahon, Mrs Alice | Skinner, Dennis |
| Mallon, Seamus | Smith, Andrew (Oxford E) |
| Marek, Dr John | Snape, Peter |
| Marshall, Jim (Leicester S) | Soley, Clive |
| Martin, Michael J. (Springburn) | Spearing, Nigel |
| Martlew, Eric | Stott, Roger |
| Meacher, Michael | Strang, Gavin |
| Meale, Alan | Straw, Jack |
| Michael, Alun | Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury) |
| Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley) | Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck) |
| Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby) | Turner, Dennis |
| Molyneaux, Rt Hon James | Vaz, Keith |
| Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon) | Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N) |
| Mowlam, Marjorie | Wall, Pat |
| Mullin, Chris | Walley, Joan |
| Murphy, Paul | Wardell, Gareth (Gower) |
| Nellist, Dave | Wareing, Robert N. |
| Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon | Welsh, Andrew (Angus E) |
| O'Brien, William | Williams, Rt Hon Alan |
| O'Neill, Martin | Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then) |
| Orme, Rt Hon Stanley | Winnick, David |
| Paisley, Rev Ian | Wise, Mrs Audrey |
| Parry, Robert | Wray, Jimmy |
| Patchett, Terry | Young, David (Bolton SE) |
| Pendry, Tom | |
| Pike, Peter L. | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Powell, Ray (Ogmore) | Mr. Allen McKay and |
| Prescott, John | Mr. Frank Haynes |
| Primarolo, Dawn |
§ Question accordingly agreed to.
§
Resolved,
That the Order of the House [25th May] be supplemented as follows:—