Violent Crime Reduction Bill

I am well aware that the noble Earl is far more expert in these matters than I am. I am sure the point that he makes is a very proper one. Although I accept the points made by the noble Earl, I want to explain our position. As I have said, I am happy to confirm our approach, which has been set out before. At this point, we are not persuaded that we need a change to the legislation, as the new clause proposes. I entirely accept that there is a debate to be had about the arrangements for the London Olympics but, ultimately, this is something which can be resolved using the Secretary of State’s powers under Section 5, which are sufficiently wide and allow for conditions to be attached both generally and to ensure that public safety and peace are not endangered. The new clause before us does not address what would happen after the London games. The proposed starting date of 1 January 2010 was clearly selected with just the London Olympics and preparations for them in mind, but gives no indication as to when the special arrangements might end. Furthermore, far from being confined to those with a realistic chance of becoming Olympians, it would be open to any shooters to claim that they were training with this as their long-term aim. While I recognise that only a limited relaxation of the handgun ban is being proposed, I would be concerned that this might be seen as a weakening of our gun controls. The ramifications of a total ban were very carefully considered by your Lordships’ House, although in a different atmosphere, at the time of the original ban and it was recognised then that it would effectively end competitive pistol target shooting in this country. However, it was also recognised that special arrangements could be made to allow pistol shooting events to go ahead if, as is now the case, the Olympic, Commonwealth or Paralympics Games were to take place in Great Britain. We should continue to pursue that course, in consultation with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the shooting organisations. A number of noble Lords have mentioned that these consultations are currently being conducted. There are also new Ministers in post. This is clearly a matter of some delicacy, on which there will need to be careful consultation and consideration. We have had considerable success with our firearms strategy over recent years. There was a reduction in the number of firearms offences in 2004–05 of 5 per cent, and a beneficial decrease of 15 per cent in the use of handguns. However, gun crime must be tackled, and we must all take it seriously. Clearly, the legislation was originally drafted with that in mind; there was a carefully constructed political consensus at the time. I pay tribute to those who have had success in the Commonwealth Games. I have the table of winners in the most recent competition, and it is indeed impressive. Those successes have been achieved under the current legislative framework. I hear and recognise what the noble Earl, Lord Peel, said. I hope that we can continue the all-party consensus. I have seen a recent press statement from the Conservative Opposition on the issue, which concerns me a little, but it contains a commitment to continuing an all-party consensus wherever possible on the limiting exemption for handguns. I hope that we can pursue the issue in that light. I cannot give a commitment that we will bring back an amendment like the one we have today; that would be quite wrong. All I can say is that we are committed to further consultations to find a way through what is, as all have recognised, a difficult issue. However, I am most grateful for the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, has raised this matter, and to all speakers who have contributed from the Opposition Benches for the constructive framework in which they have done so. Having said that, I hope that the noble Lord feels able to withdraw his amendment this evening, so that those discussions and consultations can continue.