Violent Crime Reduction Bill

I remember both the Acts to which the noble Lord referred going through this House—one just before and one just after the change of government. At that time, the initial decision taken by the then Conservative government was that single-shot pistols should not be included in the legislation because the threat that they posed to human life was far more limited than that of multi-shot, heavier, wider and basically man-killing, military-designed handguns of the type involved in the Dunblane tragedy. Later, it was decided to expand the type of guns covered by the legislation. I always felt that that was rather harsh on a group of people who did not have any record of causing deaths. When push comes to shove, a target pistol is a rather long-barrelled, unsightly and unmacho weapon. It is probably not the best thing with which to go out and damage people—indeed, a shotgun probably has a greater capacity in that department. I support the amendment for the simple reason that our international sportsmen, who have avoided controversy, have played within the law and have achieved results under remarkable circumstances—I agree with the noble Lord on that—deserve some support. Allowing these people, who are representing their country, to receive the support of the state in order to function is probably the minimum requirement, or something close to it. I do not think that the amendment, or something like it, would be a great threat to public order. I hope that the Government can at least give us some idea of what they propose to do about the Olympic Games, because this is a situation where, understandably, governments have slightly over-reacted. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.