HC Deb 18 February 1997 vol 290 cc816-21

Lords amendment: No. 40, in page 10, line 16, at end insert— ("(3) A member of a licensed pistol club approved by the Secretary of State may, without holding a firearm certificate, use under the supervision of an officer of the club, for a period not exceeding 60 consecutive days, a small—calibre pistol and ammunition when engaged as a member of the club in, or in connection with, target shooting.")

The Minister of State, Home Office (Miss Ann Widdecombe)

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

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this, it will be convenient to take Government amendments (a) to (g) in lieu of the said amendment.

Miss Widdecombe

Amendment No. 40 goes too wide in its effects and would pose a risk to the public. It would allow any club licensed by the Home Secretary to offer a facility to any member to shoot there without holding a firearms certificate. It would not be limited to starter shooters, but would apply to any member who did not hold a firearms certificate, and that might include members whose certificates had been revoked by the police.

The police have expressed concern about the length of time—60 days—that the amendment would allow a person to shoot. It should be possible for a novice to make up his mind whether he wishes to pursue the sport of target pistol shooting in a shorter period than 60 days.

Mr. John Carlisle

Will my right hon. Friend explain why she thinks a new shooter could learn to shoot in 28 days rather than 60? I am sure that she appreciates that a novice will not be able to spend all those 28 days learning to shoot—people have to work or go to school. When their Lordships accepted the amendment, they considered the number of days that it would take a person new to the sport to learn it.

Miss Widdecombe

It is not a question of the starter shooter learning the sport: it is a question of the starter shooter deciding whether he wishes to pursue the sport and, therefore, whether to apply for a firearms certificate. We do not expect that a starter shooter would become proficient in 28 days, but that is long enough for him to decide whether he likes the sport and wishes to pursue it.

Mr. Frank Cook

Why is it undesirable to extend the number of days from 28 to 60? A person might try shooting once and then have to go away, perhaps even on a parliamentary visit. After 29 days, he would be out of time and have to start all over again. What is so objectionable about the days from the 29th day to the 60th day?

Miss Widdecombe

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that any limit we set will be arbitrary, whether 60, 70, 50, 40, 90, 100 days or whatever. We have to try to find a reasonable limit that will meet the concerns of the police and, at the same time, meet the principle behind the amendment—that there should be a period in which someone can go to a club and decide whether he likes to shoot.

Mr. Cook

But 28 days is not reasonable.

Miss Widdecombe

I have already tried to explain that to the hon. Gentleman. If he does not understand it, I cannot assist him.

We accept the principle behind the amendment, but we cannot accept the detail. Moreover, in the Government's response of 16 October 1996 to Lord Cullen's report, we said that we would make special provisional arrangements for starter shooters. It is unreasonable to expect people interested in the sport to pay the fee and obtain a firearms certificate for a small-calibre pistol before that person has had a chance to try it out. If the sport of target pistol shooting is to continue, licensed pistol clubs should be able to offer facilities to new members who are unsure whether to become full certificate holders.

My noble Friend Lady Blatch gave an undertaking on behalf of the Government that a more appropriate amendment would be introduced at this stage in the Bill's passage. Therefore, the amendments that we have tabled allow the Secretary of State, when he issues a licence to a pistol club, to permit starter shooters to use small-calibre pistols without a firearms certificate at that club for a period of up to 28 days. That does not mean that they will be able to shoot on any 28 separate days but that the last day on which they shoot without a certificate should be no later than 28 days after the first.

Amendments (a) and (b) are technical amendments, which are included in this group for convenience, but they do not relate directly to starter shooters.

8 pm

Sir Jerry Wiggin

On a technical point, is my right hon. Friend predicting that there will be a charge for that permission? The chief constable will have to give his permission, and presumably there will be some bureaucracy. Is there any suggestion of a charge being made? What is the initial cost of a firearms certificate, at the end of the 28 days?

Miss Widdecombe

The cost of the firearms certificate at the conclusion of the 28 days will be same as if the person had applied before the 28-day period. The idea is that, when the Secretary of State issues a licence to a club, he can permit starter shooters to use small-calibre pistols.

Amendment (c) allows clubs to have pistols that may be used by starter shooters. Amendment (d) is a consequential amendment and amendment (e) allows the Secretary of State to impose restrictions on the licence. Not all clubs will be granted that facility. The Secretary of State would have to be satisfied that a club had in place sufficient supervisory and other controls to ensure that a starter shooter could safely be allowed to practise.

Amendment (f) sets out the main provisions that I have described, and limits the length of time for the starter shooters' trial period to 28 days. Whether the Secretary of State allows the concession to starter shooters at any particular club will be a matter for him to decide. The amendments also allow him, if he considers it right, to make the concession to some licensed clubs but not to others. In deciding whether to allow starter shooters to shoot without a police certificate at a particular licensed club, he will be able to take account of all the circumstances, including the amount of supervision and training that the club might agree to devote to novice shooters and any concerns that the chief officer of police might have about the operation of the concession at the club in question.

Mr. Henderson

When I was about 27 years old, some of my mates persuaded me to try winter hill walking and ice climbing in Scotland. I spent a great amount of money before I even got out of the car—buying gloves, hats, cagoules, ice axes, crampons and other items—and I remember thinking, "I hope that I enjoy this once I start, because, otherwise, I will have wasted a lot of money." Therefore, I have much sympathy with people who might fancy themselves as target shooters, and I realise that significant costs are involved, especially when starting.

Therefore, it is appropriate to have a trial period in which people can decide whether they think that it is a sport for them, whether they like the environment that it offers and whether they are prepared to invest in the necessary equipment. As I had to make a decision before I even stepped on to the mountain, I think that 28 days is a reasonably generous period to allow someone to decide. If they are motivated, it will intensify their efforts to decide whether they like target shooting. It is a reasonable amount of time, and I support the Government's amendments in lieu of Lords amendment No. 40.

Mr. John Carlisle

My right hon. Friend the Minister will know that we do not intend to divide the House on this measure, although, like the rest of the Bill, it involves a matter of principle. Overturning the Lords' suggestion of allowing 60 days and substituting 28 is somewhat disappointing. I have already explained to her the various possible practical difficulties with people who might not use the full the 28-day period, because they might be sick, at work, require a sudden holiday or have a family bereavement. Therefore, 28 days is not a very long period.

The principle behind providing a period for starter shooters and behind their Lordships' amendment was to encourage young shooters—when possible, in a somewhat alien world. Part of the reaction to the Bill and to the Dunblane tragedy has been for some organisations that work with young people to react, like the Government, in a knee-jerk fashion, which has caused disappointment. Those organisations, such as the scout movement, for example, are now actively considering banning all forms of target practice among their members. I think that some troops have already banned target practice. There have even been some problems with the Duke of Edinburgh award, which, as hon. Members will know, was the subject of early-day motion 402.

It is incumbent on the House to encourage people, particularly youngsters, to take up the sport, as it is still a legitimate sport—or at least what will be left of it after the passage of this awful Bill is still legitimate. It is somewhat incongruous that, in only the past couple of weeks, we have heard proposals from the Prime Minister to encourage combined cadet forces in schools. In only the past few days, we have heard that the military services, because they are short of personnel, are actively trying to recruit 16-year-olds. However, we are not encouraging—as I think that we should be—youngsters who want to take up the sport of shooting.

Provision of a 28-day period is somewhat mean-minded of the Government, and I agree with the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) that it is difficult to understand why it should not be 60 days instead of 28. In principle, however, we must encourage young people. We have obtained at least something from the Government, but not very much.

Mr. Frank Cook

I can understand that the Minister and the Government cannot accept Lords amendment No. 8. I am also not surprised by their position, because of the attitude that they have expressed on so many other matters. However, I have yet to hear why the amendment is unacceptable. The hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) has adequately explored the confusion over the Government's position.

I am still astonished, however, that a 60-day period is unacceptable. The Minister has told the House that the Secretary of State has within his gift the ability to allow the concession. He can give the concession, he can withhold it—he can do whatever he likes with it. However, a 60-day period is still not acceptable. I know that the period will be arbitrary, but why have the Government chosen 28 days? We are wasting a lot of time on disagreeing with those in another place who made a good argument and were able to pass an amendment. That is exceedingly wilful.

I am also astonished by the attitude adopted by Opposition Front Benchers. Unless circumstances have changed and I am not aware of the change, the Labour party has made a sworn declaration that it will ban all handguns once it gets into power. Nevertheless, we are talking about approving a 28-day period in which people can decide whether they enjoy taking part in a sport that will eventually be denied to them. So many illogical events are occurring. If the events were taking place in a music hall, I would enjoy them, but, as they are occurring in a legislative Chamber, I am appalled. I do not know where we go from here. I appeal sincerely for hon. Members to think again before engaging in an argument that they apparently do not fully understand.

Sir Jerry Wiggin

It would be churlish not to thank the Government for accepting the principle. Had the amendment not been made, it would have been virtually impossible for anyone wanting to take up shooting to do so without spending a great deal of money—the amount of which we shall no doubt hear later—to get a firearms certificate from scratch and without trying the sport. I sympathise with the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson), but I have to tell him that .22 shooting is, in my long experience, a great deal more pleasant than ice climbing. I must say that I have never been ice climbing, and the thought of it fills me with horror.

I do not know why we are reducing the total from 60 days to 28 days, but it is symptomatic of the neurotic approach that the Government have to the sport. Anyone with a gun in his hand is, to them, lethal and dangerous, and has to be surrounded by regulations, forms, certificates and security to the point that we are locking ordinary people out of the sport. I am grateful for this opportunity, under pretty stringent conditions, to make that point.

The only thing that worries the shooters is that they take a few weeks to get to know anyone whom they will admit to a club. Normally, clubs have a probationary membership period of at least three months, and sometimes six months, before they will accept anyone, for reasons that we well understand. Limiting this to 28 days will make that personal contact rather difficult. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister will take that point and, if in the future the regulations are altered, one of the weaknesses will be the short time available for regulars to get to know a newcomer.

Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow)

I seek some guidance from the Minister in relation to amendment (g), which refers to clause 23 and the preceding clause 22. If clause 23 is amended in the way that the Minister seeks, would it prevent a recurrence of a tragic event that happened in my constituency a few days ago? That case illustrates the need for the police to have the strongest powers concerning licensed club members who are under criminal investigation.

I have raised this case with the Secretary of State for Scotland and have urged upon him the need for an early fatal accident inquiry into this case, in which a member of the Greenock gun club was charged in Greenock sheriff court with using lewd and libidinous practices in relation to four young boys. He was released from court and, literally hours later—despite the fact that the police had removed his personal weapons from his home and from the club—was able to enter the club, open a weapons locker and use one of the weapons contained therein to commit suicide. The police acted properly and efficiently in confiscating his weapons.

Sir Jerry Wiggin

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Time is short, and it is just conceivable that the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) is speaking to a different amendment from the one we are discussing. We should like to hear the Minister's response. I think the hon. Gentleman mentioned Lords amendment No. 2, which we are not discussing.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

That is quite right. The hon. Gentleman is going rather wide of the amendment, and he may be referring to Lords amendment No. 2.

Dr. Godman

I am referring to amendment (g), which deals with clause 23 and is concerned with the power of entry and inspection of clubs. I appreciate that time is of the essence, but I am seeking to impress upon the Minister that when members of gun clubs are being investigated by the police, not only should they have their weapons removed—as happened in Greenock—but, in terms of the operation and management of these clubs as provided for by clause 23, they should be refused access to the premises. That is why I am seeking an assurance from the Minister along these lines, because this tragedy could have been avoided. It points the way to similar tragedies taking place if, by way of the management of these clubs, such a person is still allowed access.

Miss Widdecombe

In the one minute that remains, I shall try to address the specific points that have been raised. First, I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) that the cost of granting a firearms certificate will be £56, and for a pistol club licence £150. There will be no extra charge for clubs which allow starter shooters. I hope that that is helpful to him.

As to the point raised by the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) concerning the tragedy in his constituency—I well understand his concern—it is very difficult to see how somebody being investigated by the police could be automatically banned from entering a club if he was not already in possession of a certificate.

It being fifteen minutes past Eight o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to the Order this day.

Lords amendment disagreed to.

Government amendments (a) to (g) in lieu of Lords amendment No. 40 agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 1 to 7, Nos. 9 to 11, Nos. 13 and 14, No. 15 and Government amendment (a) thereto and consequential Government amendment (a), and Nos. 16 to 24, agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 28 to 33, No. 34 and Government amendment (a) thereto, and Nos. 35 to 39 agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 41 to 49, No. 50 and consequential Government amendment (a), and Nos. 51 to 70 agreed to.

Forward to