To ask the Secretary of State for Health what new initiatives he plans to take to draw attention to the damage to health caused by smoking [14727]

Press, television and radio advertising are being used in support of a programme aimed at teenagers as well as the more general national smoking education campaign. Detailed arrangements for the final year of the campaign will be finalised shortly. Future activity will be developed in the light of the evaluation of the current campaigns.

Is my hon. Friend aware that non-smokers have absolutely no choice in public places but to inhale other people's smoke, whether in a railway coach or a restaurant? He might consider the Singapore experience, which has been very successful: little plastic see-through igloos are built in public places and are the sole place where smokers may smoke, and the public can look in and see who is puffing away.

Perhaps I can add to the list my hon. Friend gave of places where passive smoking is a problem the Strangers' Bar in this House, where otherwise politically correct Labour Members often inflict this problem on all of us. We will let that pass, however. The instance that my hon. Friend outlined has not been drawn to my attention before. While we are keen to reduce the incidence of passive smoking, my initial reaction is that I do not think that placing the public in the stocks as he suggests would be the best way forward.

The Minister must be aware that the House would be a good place to introduce some pioneering activity in terms of non-smoking areas—sometimes the Palace seems to be suffused with smoke. Surely, both Members and staff could be educated a little better. On the more general point, there has been an interesting and encouraging decline in smoking, but in the last year of record, £69 million was spent on advertising tobacco alone. The advertisers are after young people and teenagers. They want to get them addicted early so that they will have them as slaves for the rest of their lives. When will the Government start to match that sort of advertising money?

If it is not the smokescreens put up by Opposition Members, it is when they are conflated with hot air that we occasionally have our greatest problems, and that is what the hon. Gentleman has done. The countries in the European Union that have been most successful in reducing smoking among their adult populations are the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, where there is no ban on tobacco advertising—but we are supported by a voluntary arrangement. Other EU countries, where there is a ban, have not been nearly as successful as this country. Our principle of voluntary restraint is working, should be supported and should continue.

Is my hon. Friend aware that while most smokers are knowledgeable about the dangers that they face from lung cancer and other cancers, few are aware of the severe danger that they face when they have to have anaesthetics for an operation, which can happen to any of us at any time? When he is considering publicity on the matter, will he also stress that point?

My hon. Friend will know that, as research into such matters progresses, and as we develop both the voluntary code of conduct and the warnings that appear on cigarette packets and other forms of advertising, any lessons that can be learnt will be borne in mind. I shall take on board what she says. She underlines another point about not having a ban on advertising: it is important to draw warnings to the attention of the public in a consistent but evolving way, to fit the prevailing circumstances, and that can be done under a voluntary code of regulation through the advertising campaigns that are run in this country.

The Minister must know that the Government have failed to reach their "Health of the Nation" target and that teenage smoking has increased by 50 per cent. Why does he not take the obvious initiative and ban tobacco advertising? Will we have at the next general election the same situation as we had at the last, when a deal was done with Imperial Tobacco so that Tory posters replaced cigarette advertisements on billboards throughout the country? When the Royal College of Physicians tells us that, every day, 450 children start smoking, is not it time that the Conservatives put the health of the public before the health of their party?

What a lot of sanctimonious claptrap. The hon. Gentleman would do better to base his case on the facts rather than on that sort of argument. The facts are simply that all the research shows that the one sure way to discourage smoking is to increase the price of tobacco, which is what the Government have done through the tax system. Tobacco in this country is more expensive than in any of our European partner countries. That is the true way to ensure that there is a reduction in smoking.

The hon. Gentleman is keen to anticipate failure where none has occurred. There were four "Health of the Nation" targets set out for 2000; we are making sound and solid progress on three, and not as much progress as we would like on the fourth; but that makes us determined to redouble our efforts, rather than resort to the nonsense that the hon. Gentleman was talking about.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the huge amount of tax paid by smokers? As a non-smoker, I am delighted that they pay that tax, because otherwise I and others like me, who have never smoked, would be required to fill the gap in funding. One wonders where Opposition Members expect to find the funds.

My hon. Friend is right to say that smokers make an important contribution to revenue, but the Government's policy is underpinned by the fact that, while of course an increase in price raises extra revenue, it also fulfils the basic purpose of reducing tobacco consumption.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will introduce a no-fault liability compensation scheme for those victims of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease caused by human-derived growth hormone and bovine spongiform encephalopathy. [14728]

The human growth hormone treatment programme was the subject of legal action, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, and we accepted the judgment that was delivered in July 1996.

Any future claim for compensation for other people who have contracted CJD, however that may have come about, will be considered within the context of the Government's statutory obligations.

As the Minister rightly points out, the Government were found negligent in the High Court in respect of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease cases caused by the prescription of human growth hormone. As he will know, 22 victims have already died and far more are living with the terror that they might contract the disease as a result of the treatment, and that they might have to face the disease without any prospect of compensation.

Likewise, CJD victims from BSE are not being compensated, yet the Government have conceded an economic case for BSE compensation to the tune of £1 billion for farmers. Surely it is time to stop the endless litigation and bring in a no-fault liability scheme for the victims, who have contracted this terrible disease as a result of Government negligence, and their families.

Like the whole House, I am enormously sympathetic not only to those who have contracted CJD, whatever the cause, and their families, but to those who are worried but well and do not know whether they will be affected by this terrible disease. The problem from our point of view is simply that it must be the first and overriding responsibility of the Department of Health to concentrate on preventing ill health and curing it when it occurs, not on compensating those who have contracted that terrible problem. We acknowledge our responsibilities where negligence is clearly proven, and we shall continue to do so.

Notwithstanding the terrible tragedy of people contracting Creutzfeldt-Jacob disease through the injection of growth hormone, will the Minister put the issue in perspective by confirming that only 15 people have contracted the disease through the consumption of beef?

So far, the figures suggest that 15 people have contracted the new variant of CJD, although there is no scientific evidence on the connection between BSE and CJD. The numbers are small. As the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) said, we must be concerned with not only those who have contracted the disease but, in cases involving human growth hormone, those who may contract it in future. Some of those people will receive compensation under the judgment that has been delivered. The families concerned are appealing against part of the judgment and, if they are successful, that may extend the scope of compensation.

Will the Minister consider the perspective of people such as my constituent, Edward Gray, who have been treated with human growth hormone and face years of stress and worry about whether they will contract this dreadful disease? Would it not be a kindness to introduce a no-fault system for such people as well as for those who have contracted it? That would at least reduce that aspect of the stress and worry associated with the disease.

It is tragic that a treatment that for 25 years appeared to offer people of low stature a chance to reach normal height has developed a terrible side effect. However, the Health Department's first priority must be to cure health problems, not to compensate those who, however sadly, die from or contract this disease. None the less, we will consider cases of negligence most sympathetically. We have followed up the court case quickly. I assure the hon. Lady that we will continue to do that.

Will my hon. Friend resist absolutely the accusation of the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley), whom I normally respect, that this problem has come about through Government negligence? The debate yesterday made it clear that that is not the case. People who suggest it are attempting to use politics to bring out the sympathy that we all have for people with the disease. It is not a question of political negligence. The Department of Health will do everything possible to assist those who may be affected by the disease.

Indeed. As my right hon. Friend knows, that is why we have given funds to the CJD support network. We are conducting research, and we have set up—and support—a counselling service that operates from Great Ormond Street hospital. On research and health, as my right hon. Friend rightly said, we are committed to giving all the support that we can. However, we do not feel that we can go further and introduce a no-fault compensation scheme, which would be expensive and detract directly from funds for health care.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on breast cancer mortality rates in (a) Britain and (b) other European Union countries. [14729]

Breast cancer mortality rates in the United Kingdom fell by 6.5 per cent. between 1986 and 1992. They have been falling at a faster rate than the European Union average. That demonstrates the continuing success of the action that we are taking, which includes the "Health of the Nation" targets, the national breast cancer screening service and the issuing of specific guidance on improving outcomes in breast cancer.

I thank the Minister for his answer. While we welcome some of the modest improvements that have been made, 35 women a day—13,000 a year—die from breast cancer. Those are not cold statistics; people's lives are being adversely affected, families are being destroyed, and young children are being left without mothers. Does the Minister accept that there are huge regional variations in how people are treated, which means that there is a lottery for treatment? What steps will the Government take to ensure that early detection occurs in all parts of the country and that treatment is successful?

I assure the hon. Lady categorically that the Government take the problem very seriously. That is why we introduced the national breast screening programme. I do not accept that treatment is a lottery. The role of the national health service is to provide the same high-quality care for every patient who suffers from that tragic illness. We shall continue to ensure that that occurs through the screening programme, the guidelines on outcomes and through medical decisions and care.

The Government deserve considerable congratulations on their successes so far and on their continuing efforts to improve the situation, but will my hon. Friend examine the extraordinary imbalance between the funds made available for the important breast cancer campaign and those made available for prostate cancer, which kills an increasing number of men every year?

As my hon. Friend will know, this year the Government are making £25 million available for cancer research, the pharmaceutical companies are making £114 million available, and the charities are making £100 million available. That is a considerable amount of money devoted to research into all types of cancer. It is crucial that research continues in order to minimise the number of deaths and illnesses caused by that tragic condition.

Last year, the Secretary of State asserted in the House:

"To talk about a waiting list for cancer surgery is to talk about a waiting list that does not exist".—[Official Report, 3 December 1996; Vol. 286, c. 784.]

Will the Minister tell the House how he squares that claim with figures provided by his Department that show that more than 10,000 women had to wait more than two weeks for breast cancer surgery in 1994–95?

Notwithstanding the fact that we are in the run-up to a general election, I think that it is unfortunate for any politician to try to score cheap party political points on cancer care.

Answer the question.

I shall answer the question if the hon. Lady will listen. She knows that the Labour party's commitment is bogus because no one waits for cancer treatment unless the doctor makes a clinical decision to that effect. There are times when cancer patients are not medically able to undergo an operation. To talk of a waiting list in the terms that the hon. Lady uses is scaremongering and despicable.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the Government's excellent record on tackling cancer. Will he join me in paying tribute to the Cancer Research Institute and to the Royal Marsden hospital in my constituency, which have contributed considerably to that success? Will he also encourage women to take advantage of breast screening opportunities so that the success may continue?

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for the constructive way in which she asks her question. I pay full tribute to the contribution of all charities and of the pharmaceutical companies, which do much good work in seeking to reduce and minimise the evils of cancer. I pay tribute also to the Royal Marsden hospital and to the fantastic work done by nurses and doctors in an attempt to eliminate that terrible source of suffering.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last met the Association of Directors of Social Services to discuss services for mentally ill people. [14730]

I last met the Association of Directors of Social Services informally on 4 February. Services for mentally ill people were among the issues discussed at that meeting.

Is the Secretary of State aware that emotional and conduct disorders affect 20 per cent. of adolescents, and that in 1995 a NHS advisory service survey showed that mental health provision for children and adolescents was patchy and inadequate? Why did he not confront that problem in his recent Green Paper and advance proposals for handling the difficulties that children and adolescents face?

I have never believed that those who are concerned about mental health problems serve their interests by inflating the number of people who suffer from mental illness. Some people suffer from acute and serious mental illness, and we need to improve the quality of service provision for them. That is why the resources committed last year to improving mental health services totalled £90 million, why a further £50 million was allocated in this year's public expenditure survey settlement to expand mental health services in the next financial year, and why we are looking to health and social services departments to expand their provision using the extra money that the Government are providing.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the increase in the provision of medium-secure beds from none in 1979 to nearly 1,200 today is evidence of the Government's real commitment of resources to those who suffer from mental illness?

My hon. Friend is on to a very important point. Medium-secure bed provision is an important part of the total spectrum of care in mental health services. The need for identifiable medium-secure mental health beds was described by the Glancy committee in 1974; Labour in office did absolutely nothing about it, but this Government have delivered the total number of beds that Glancy—too many years ago—determined was necessary.

In view of the recent reports of problems at Broadmoor, is the Secretary of State satisfied that the commissioning and monitoring arrangements established with the high-security psychiatric commissioning board are adequate to ensure proper inspection of care and control in special hospitals? Will he agree to widen the terms of the inquiry into Ashworth to enable the inquiry team to examine the adequacy of current arrangements for inspections of all three special hospitals and to make recommendations?

No. The Fallon inquiry into Ashworth was set up to examine the background to a very precise set of circumstances that need to be properly examined. When I set up the inquiry, I made it very clear that Mr. Fallon would be free to follow up any linkages with the failures that occurred in the personality disorder unit at Ashworth—either linkages to the rest of the hospital or linkages to places outside Ashworth hospital. Clearly, if they lead to Broadmoor, Mr. Fallon is free to follow up such linkages, but at the moment there is no evidence of any such linkage.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a distinction to be drawn between mentally ill people, who are normally the responsibility of health authorities, and people with learning disabilities, the services for whom lie within the ambit both of local authorities and of health authorities? Is not that an area that lends itself to joint commissioning? Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in the London borough of Bromley, plans are currently under consultation for just such joint commissioning of services? Will he commend that and suggest that others might follow suit?

My hon. Friend is right to say that social services departments and health authorities have a key role to play in the delivery of services to mentally ill people and people suffering from a learning disability. The Green Paper that the Government published two weeks ago is designed precisely to improve the linkage between health and social services in the delivery of services to mentally ill people—a weakness that certainly needs to be addressed. Various options for strengthening the linkages between health and social services are canvassed in the Green Paper; one of those options will be followed up, because it provides the key to an important improvement in mental health care.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the annual change in the number of patients in the Northern and Yorkshire region who have had operations cancelled on the day they were due to go into hospital or after admission since 1994–95. [14731]

Between 1994–95 and 1995–96, cancelled operations in the Northern and Yorkshire region increased by 14.8 per cent. The most recent information for the current year shows a fall in cancelled operations of 25 per cent.

The Minister will confirm to the House that, under the patients charter, cancellations of operations on the day of admission should not happen at all, yet he has confirmed an increase of 14 per cent., which means 830 additional cases and brings the total in the past year to more than 6,613 cancellations. How does he explain those figures to the House? In view of the distress that cancellations cause to patients and their relatives, will he take this opportunity to apologise to those patients on behalf of his Department? Will he pledge that there will be no cancellations in the coming financial year?

No Health Minister can pledge that there will be no cancellations. The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), on the Opposition Front Bench, could not make that commitment and it would be absurd if he tried to do so. The hon. Gentleman did not listen to my answer. He had the opportunity to congratulate the health service in the Northern and Yorkshire region on the 25 per cent. reduction in cancelled operations in the current year.

I have even better news for the hon. Gentleman and his constituents in Leeds. In the current year, the number of operations that were cancelled there fell by more than half. The hon. Gentleman might have taken time off to congratulate those who are responsible for delivering health care to his constituents on the improved service that they are delivering in the current year. I look forward to his having the opportunity to remedy that failure.

Will my right hon. Friend ignore the claptrap from the Opposition Benches? Will he remind people in the country, and the House, of the distress that was caused by union members and Labour party members who picketed hospitals in 1979?

My hon. Friend is quite right to say that the Labour party, with its close links with the trade union movement, must bear its responsibility for the failures in health care that typified the winter of 1978–79 and the period before that. It is worth reflecting that, although cancelled operations account for roughly 1 per cent. of people coming off the waiting list, the number of operations that are cancelled because the patient does not show up at hospital corresponds to roughly 5 per cent. of the total. It is worth bearing that figure in mind when reflecting on the number of cancelled operations.

Will the Secretary of State be less aggressive and more apologetic about the figures that are the answer to this question? The answer that the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam), gave me last month showed that, in the Northern and Yorkshire region, there were 1,200 cancellations on the day of admission or after, and 75 which failed the citizens charter standard. In my area, the corresponding figures were 350 and 75. Nationally, there were 50,000 cancellations and 6,000 cancellations that failed the citizens charter standard for readmission within one month of the original date.

What will the Secretary of State say to the family of Queenie Harrild, who died in Guy's hospital and whose inquest is this week, when the citizens charter is regularly breached and thousands of patients continue to be admitted to hospital and then sent home, some of whom die before their operation?

To an individual patient, if the service fails, of course I express regret. I have never pretended that any human institution can deliver a perfect service. However, when we talk about the cancelled operations record of the national health service, let us start by remembering that when the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) held the job now held by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury, she predicted that there would be 300,000 cancelled operations in the national health service last year. The actual figure was not 300,000 but 54,000, and in all but 6,000 of those cases the patient was then operated on within a month.

That is the record of the national health service—against the background of 5.5 million people being taken off the waiting list every year to receive the care that they need in our health service. The hon. Gentleman might do better to report those figures more often.

The drop of more than 50 per cent. in operation cancellations in Leeds is extremely good news. Can my right hon. Friend give some idea of why that outstanding performance has been achieved this year? Does it owe something to the improving quality of management, which is always subject to criticism and attack from the Labour party?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is nice that he, at least, can welcome that improvement in the health care delivered to the people of Leeds on behalf of the people of Leeds.

My hon. Friend asks why the improvement has been brought about. I suggest that there are two reasons. First, the health service is better managed than it used to be; secondly, the Conservative Government are committed to the growth of the national health service—as the Prime Minister said at last year's Conservative party conference, real growth, which has happened every year since 1979, will happen year on year on year on year on year through the five years of the next Parliament. I wish the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury well in his negotiations with the right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown).

Is not the reality that patient after patient in hospital after hospital is having his or her operation cancelled, frequently just before or just after going into hospital? Is not the real position, which the people of this country know, very different from the Government's rosy version of events?

When hospital trusts talk openly about the judicious elimination of numbers of patients due to go in for operations, does not that show that the Government are fiddling the figures? Is not the truth that no one can trust the Tories with the health service?

The answer to every one of the hon. Gentleman's questions is no. His problem is that he has not been able to secure the backing of his Front Bench for a commitment to a growing health service.

Let me give the hon. Gentleman some other statistics that measure the growth of the health service under the present Government. Because we are committed to extra resources for a growing health service, I was able to announce increases in intensive care provision in the NHS. Over the past five years, the number of places for day surgery has roughly doubled. That is why, under this Government, the number of patients treated has increased by a third in the last six years. That is a record to which the hon. Gentleman cannot begin to measure up, because his hon. Friends will not allow him to make the pledge to a growing health service that the Prime Minister has made.

Is it not a fact that Northern and Yorkshire health authority is one of the best in Europe, and are not the Labour party's politically motivated attacks on the health service now leading directly—it is Labour's responsibility—to difficulties in the recruitment of nurses and other hospital staff?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Along with the rest of the health service, Northern and Yorkshire health authority is treating more patients, and offering a broader range and better quality of care than ever before in its history.

The original question was asked by the hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie). A Leeds Member might have been expected to welcome the fact that in the past 15 years—quite apart from a growing current health service budget in Leeds—we have invested an extra £130 million in improving hospital structures in the city. We are committed to increasing the capital stock of the health service in future through the private finance initiative—which the hon. Gentleman will not back—and to a growth in the number of patients who are treated. We are committed to growth; the Labour party is not.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many surgical operations were postponed in Wolverhampton during 1996; and if he will make a statement. [14732]

In the nine months to September 1996, 216 operations were cancelled in Wolverhampton on the day of admission or after admission to hospital.

I thank the Minister for that information. The list of cancelled operations in Wolverhampton has fallen slightly over the last 12 months.

I am ecstatic for every one of my constituents who is treated properly, and in accordance with the citizens charter; but I am miserable beyond belief for the 350 or so whose operations are cancelled at the last minute. May I put the matter into a regional context, and tell the Minister that there has been an 18 per cent. growth in the number of operations cancelled at the last minute in the west midlands? May I extrapolate, and point out that across the regions of England and Wales that would have meant some 60,000 people waiting, in misery and anxiety, for further appointments after the cancellation of their original appointments? Does the Minister understand the anxiety, misery and worry that is being caused?

I do indeed understand the misery and worry experienced by the hon. Gentleman's constituents—and, indeed, by everyone who must face the prospect of a cancelled operation. That is why I, too, am delighted that, as in Leeds, the figures have fallen over the past few months. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State dealt with that at some length, and I shall not add any further statistics; but we are all delighted that we are making such progress.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent research his Department has (a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the effects of organophosphate toxicity upon humans; and if he will make a statement. [14733]

We have awarded a research contract to the Institute of Occupational Medicine in Edinburgh worth £500,000 to examine the possible long-term human effects of organophosphorous sheep dips.

My officials routinely obtain and evaluate papers in scientific journals that appear relevant to the effects of OPs upon humans. The medical and scientific panel, which is a sub-committee of the veterinary products committee, evaluates research on OPs used in veterinary medicines.

I thank the Minister for that answer, but is it not complacent? For at least 15 years, those drugs have been known to be dangerous, but the Government are no further down the line. If the veterinary committee was not shot through with vested interests, perhaps we would get results sooner.

That is an unworthy allegation and, on reflection, the hon. Gentleman would probably wish to withdraw it. I do not know how he and the Opposition would wish the Government to proceed, other than on the basis of the best available scientific evidence. I am sorry that he has decided to criticise the committee in that way. The Government have always accepted recommendations to carry out research. We also carefully consider relabelling products, where that is necessary. The hon. Gentleman is marching down the same road as the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), who is reported today in the press as saying that Labour has said, despite the evidence, that if it wins the election, it will tell farmers to avoid using the dips on safety grounds. That is a disgraceful failure to recognise the available evidence. The hon. Member for Oldham, West is moving down a track pioneered by the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman), and we saw what results that brought about.

Has my hon. Friend seen the written answer that I received yesterday on the subject? It states that the veterinary products committee has examined the matter carefully and found no scientific justification, on present evidence, for withdrawing the dips from the market.

My hon. Friend is right, and she will disappoint all those in the House who prefer to proceed not on the basis of the scientific evidence that is made available to Ministers, but on some other, politically motivated basis. My right hon. Friend's answer yesterday was based on the professional and scientific advice that he received. The Government will continue to examine all such advice and, if necessary, we will change our procedures accordingly.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of NHS beds for frail elderly people in 2000. [14734]

The Government do not produce forecasts of the number of beds, although the number of geriatric cases treated rose by 19 per cent. between 1990–91 and 1995–96.

What does the Minister have to say about a health board or health authority with a projected population of more than 40,000 elderly people by the year 2000, which plans to reduce the number of national health service beds for frail elderly people to a mere 160, which means that there will be an NHS bed for less than 0.4 per cent. of the elderly population? Would it not be a gross betrayal of the very generation of people who built our national health service if the Government were to deprive them of an NHS bed at their time of need?

I genuinely do not want to be unhelpful to the hon. Gentleman, but I assume that he is referring to Lochgreen hospital in his constituency. He will appreciate that he should raise the issue with—

Answer the question.

I will in a minute. The narrow issue behind the hon. Gentleman's question should be raised with the Minister of State, Scottish Office, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton). On the wider question of beds for residential and nursing care in England and the United Kingdom, the hon. Gentleman seems to forget that, in the past five years or so, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of beds in such homes.

Does my hon. Friend accept that various illnesses are associated with aging, and that, with the number of geriatric beds available, there is a difficulty in accommodating such people in the NHS? Is it not necessary to re-examine the number of beds for those with aging illnesses, so that they do not have to be accommodated in private nursing homes?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As he will be aware, the decision to discharge anyone—elderly or otherwise—from hospital is a clinical decision, with back-up care provided, if needed, after they have left hospital. I am sure that he will welcome the noticeable increase in the number of nursing home beds as well as convalescent homes and halfway house wards for people who may need additional care after they have been treated in a hospital.

To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the future of St. Bartholomew's hospital. [14735]

The Royal Hospitals NHS trust is carrying out the decisions that my predecessor announced on 4 April 1995.

Why close St. Bartholomew's hospital when the people of London want to keep it open? Why close an institution that opened in 1123, which has been open for 874 years, and which survived the reformation, the great fire of London and Hitler's bombing of London? Yet now it is to be closed by the Tory Government.

Let us be precisely clear about what this Tory Government will do for health care for the people of the east end of London. We will invest £230 million in building a brand new hospital to deliver 21st-century care to people in the centre of London. The founders of St. Bartholomew's hospital would be proud of us.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the accelerated bed closures at Bart's have exacerbated the distress of local people, who are already acknowledged to be disadvantaged by the original decision on Bart's? Does he consider that a more sensitive political decision of a two-site project at Bart's might have greatly facilitated the progress of this particular private finance initiative?

My right hon. Friend has always pursued the interests and views of his constituents very honourably and straightforwardly with both me and my predecessor. As I made clear when I took over these responsibilities, I do not believe that the holder of any ministerial office can revisit all the decisions made by his or her predecessor. I am quite clear that the course of action on which my predecessor embarked will deliver the improved quality of health care—both primary and hospital-based care—to my right hon. Friend's constituents which both he and I would want to see.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 February. [14757]

This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the Scots and the Welsh were to be given their own Parliament there would be an overwhelming demand from my constituents in Essex, and elsewhere in England, for English Members of Parliament to be given exclusive control over English affairs? What consequence does he think that that would have for the integrity of the United Kingdom?

I agree with my hon. Friend about the anomalies that would be thrown up were there to be a Scottish or Welsh Parliament. The shadow Foreign Secretary once said, when he was shadow Health Secretary, that he as a Scot could not be Health Secretary in England were health to be devolved to a Scottish Parliament. Clearly there are much wider applications than just health were such a Parliament to be established. That is just one of many anomalies thrown up by the policy of devolution which I hope that we will be able to examine this week.

Does the Prime Minister recall the promise that he made on "Panorama" a couple of years ago that the excesses that we saw in the water industry would not be repeated in the rail industry? Is he aware that, in the next few days, the second of the railway rolling stock companies, which was bought on privatisation for £580 million, is to be sold for £900 million? The first rolling stock company, having been bought for just over £500 million, was sold a few months later for more than £800 million. Does he agree that such profits are entirely unjustified?

I seem to recall the right hon. Gentleman saying that he supported the enterprise of the market and the rigour of competition. That seems to apply only in generality and not in the real world when companies are efficient and sold on. The right hon. Gentleman and his party are as opposed to private ownership and privatisation today as they have ever been at any stage. They know that that is so and take every opportunity that they can to try to denigrate the success across the whole range of privatisation.

I certainly support the enterprise of the market. What I do not support is the incompetence of the Government. I believe that most people in this country will see the difference between making an honest profit and profiteering.

Can I point out to the Prime Minister that, in the sale in the next few days, the managing director, who put in £110,000 a year ago, will make £20 million and the finance and engineering directors, who put in £80,000, will make £10 million each, and it is reported that the part-time chairman of the company privatised earlier, who worked for one day a month and put in £25,000, has walked away with £4 million? Does the Prime Minister believe that that is the enterprise of the market? Is it not simple profiteering?

It is hard not to remember that the right hon. Gentleman's private office is funded by the profits of privatisation. If such funds are so wrong, perhaps he will pay them back to those who provided them. It is not all that long ago that he was saying:

"the pragmatic approach to privatisation is … correct. The key is … sticking to it regardless of the pressures."

Of course, he said that in South Africa; what he says here is quite different.

May I suggest to the Prime Minister that, just for once at one of these Prime Minister's Question Times, he tries answering the question put to him? Is there not the sharpest contrast between the massive windfall gains—[Interruption.]

Order. Let us have a little order in this House. I can hear the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) shouting and bawling.

Is there not the sharpest contrast between the massive windfall gains made on the sale of a public asset that is effectively run through public subsidy, and the misery of thousands of commuters yesterday at Waterloo station, who saw their trains cancelled and their services destroyed because the train company laid off one tenth of its drivers? Is not that the clearest example of a Conservative Government favouring the few at the expense of the many?

The right hon. Gentleman remembers the bad old days of British Rail nationalisation—services were cut with no protection for the passenger. Now, penalties can be imposed and passengers have the right to apply for compensation. Clearly, from what he is saying, he is proposing new capital controls on the market. We look forward to hearing precisely what those are. He cannot deny that privatisation has been a success. Investment is at record levels. [Interruption.] It is interesting to see Labour Members' opposition to private ownership. I shall let them hoot a little longer. New rolling stock is being introduced, extra services are being offered—new services, new investment and higher standards. That is through private ownership across the range of privatised industries. People recall what it was like when Governments tried to run them.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 February. [14758]

I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that grammar schools and high schools exist in Dartford and in a further 60 constituencies across the country as a result of the election and re-election of Conservative Governments since 1979? The only guarantee of their continued existence is the Conservative party, and not the nightmare coalition of Opposition parties.

That must be right. The message to parents is quite clear: Labour in office would wipe out grammar schools. Labour local authority leaders have made that absolutely clear. As the shadow education spokesman said some time ago,

"Watch my lips.…. With Labour there will be no selection."

There would be no selection, no choice, no improved standards, no opportunities and, if Labour had had its way, no tests, no information to parents and no improvement in education across the board. The worst 20 education authorities are all long-term Labour education authorities. That is not an accident; it is inevitable, given Labour's policies and instincts.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 February. [14759]

I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Does the Prime Minister take the same view as I do: that the Daily Mail was right to campaign for the murderers of Stephen Lawrence to be brought to justice, and to name names? All law-abiding citizens are pleased that the murderer of Philip Lawrence, the headmaster who was knifed to death, is in prison—for a long time to come, I hope—but it is a matter of deep and continuing concern that the murderers of the 18-year-old lad who was knifed to death almost four years ago have not been brought to justice. Should not the authorities explore every avenue to ensure that his murderers are brought before the courts?

The whole House is united in offering its sympathy to the parents of Stephen Lawrence, and in condemning this unpunished racist attack. There is total unanimity on that point. I am not a lawyer, but I understand that there is no question of statutory contempt as a result of the activities of the Daily Mail. As the House is aware, it is not through lack of effort that no successful prosecution has yet been brought. I hope that, even at this stage, it will be possible to mount a successful prosecution. If evidence is forthcoming, it will be examined. There is no lack of will to prosecute.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, unlike Labour's foreign affairs spokesman, the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), he is not

"at home with the European social model"?

Will he also confirm that if we were to adopt that habit in this country, 23 million households would immediately face a £2,300 tax hike, which they would otherwise not need to pay?

Unlike the shadow Foreign Secretary, who alas is not present, I am self-evidently not at home with the European social model. It is evident why no one should be. The head of European operations at one of Britain's most successful companies was quoted in one of yesterday's newspapers. He referred to one European country, and said:

"The costs were absurd and everything we wanted to do was blocked by the unions … Whenever we wanted to do anything to improve the business, their first reaction was to call a meeting of the works council."

The senior executive of Grundig said:

"No employee or business is safe."

That is the reality of the way in which these well-meaning ideas work in practice. The second reality is the 4.5 million unemployed in Germany, the 3 million unemployed in France and the 2 million plus unemployed in Italy.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 February. [14760]

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.

Does the Prime Minister agree that we owe a debt to those people who fought in the second world war and who, in their working lives, created the wealth of this nation, and that they should be treated with the greatest respect? Is he aware that in my constituency two elderly people's homes are to be closed? The age of the people in those homes ranges from 70 plus to the 90s. Does that reflect a civilised society, and will the Prime Minister speak to the Minister responsible to ensure that some action is taken to avoid breaking up what is now a family of people in their dotage?

Of course I agree with the general proposition with which the hon. Gentleman started his question. I do not know the details of the case that he raises, but I will certainly ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health to examine it. When he has done so, I will write to the hon. Gentleman.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 February. [14761]

I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.

In the course of his busy day, has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity to study the form for the 5 o'clock race at Market Rasen? If so, has he noted a sporting chance at 8/1 called "Pause for Thought"? While welcoming any convert to Conservative principles, does he agree that "Pause for Thought" might be a maxim to the recent converts to privatising the Tote?

The plan to privatise the Tote, apparently floated by the shadow Chancellor, seems to have been shot down very speedily by the shadow Foreign Secretary. One might say that it fell at the first fence.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 February. [14762]

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.

On the question of a Scottish Parliament, I notice that the Secretary of State for Scotland says one thing and the Secretary of State for Health says another, but it would be petty, mean and spiteful if any future Tory Government tried to dismantle the Parliament that the Scottish people want.

I hope that we shall have the opportunity of a detailed and sensible debate on devolution proposals—

What? In here?

Yes, I had hoped in here on Thursday, and beyond here thereafter, because, despite the passions and convictions felt about this issue by people on both sides of the argument, we can all, I hope, agree that it is an issue of crucial importance to the future of Scotland, of Wales, of the House and of other parts of the United Kingdom. I hope therefore that we can deal with it in detail. There are many questions to be asked and answered. I hope that that is the nature of the debate that we will have in the weeks ahead.

Will my right hon. Friend also admit that, if disassembly were accepted by the House, it would also save the Government an enormous amount of money?

The merits of disassembly are properly to be debated in the first consideration of their Lordships' amendments. I therefore do not think that I should be drawn down the very tempting path offered by my hon. Friend. I understand that he feels strongly on the issue, and I look forward to hearing his comments later.

As I said, much debate has taken place on compensation, but I still believe that it is right that one hour should be set aside to deal with such an important topic.

We believe that the motion will permit sufficient opportunity to re-examine the concerns raised in another place, while ensuring that there is no undue delay in the Bill's passage. I therefore commend it to the House.

The underlying premise of my right hon. Friend's speech was that no delay should be allowed to interfere in the Bill's passage. However, one development since the matter was first mooted is that the public have begun to consider the underlying issues much more seriously than they understandably did in the immediate aftermath of the appalling Dunblane tragedy. I am sure that I am not the only hon. Member who has met many people who are undoubtedly responsible in their use of firearms. I wonder whether it would not be a great deal better if the House were to spend rather longer before rushing the Bill on to the statute book.

We have been told that great urgency is required to pass this legislation. Apparently such great urgency is required that there has been more than a moderate degree of co-operation between Government and Opposition Front Benchers. Sadly, the observation that I must make on that co-operation—or should I say, collusion—is that, when the Government and the Opposition get together as of one mind, they usually make a mess of it, and they are doing so again on this occasion. We are told that we must get this Bill through in the shortest period and with the greatest haste, despite the fact that we are dealing with a complex set of circumstances.

I want to try to educate the House this afternoon—I do not use that term arrogantly—on aspects of legislation related to firearms that should have been considered, but which, frankly, have been neglected. Some hon. Members present this afternoon will recall that I was the Opposition Whip during debates on the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 following Hungerford, and they will realise that some of the remarks I make this afternoon will repeat some of the comments I made then.

I remind the House that there is not and will not be a central register of licence holders—no matter whether we pass the Bill as it stands today or not. Let me try to explain what I mean. If someone in London applies for a firearms certificate, the police do a number of checks on that individual and his background. They go to the domestic violence unit to see whether he or she has been in the habit of knocking anyone about. They go to the local intelligence officer to see whether that beat officer has any knowledge that might preclude the issue of such a licence. The police check with section SO18, the adult cautions section.

Order. May I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that we are debating an allocation of time motion? He is going into a great many details that he could possibly reserve for the debates on the amendments. We are at the moment debating only the allocation of time, and I should be glad if he will consider that and come to it when he resumes his speech.

I am deeply grateful for your guidance, Madam Speaker, but I have to point out that the case I am making is that we are talking about a limitation of time, but I am referring to aspects of the legislation which have not been covered and which cannot be covered because the following amendments are specific. These matters cannot be discussed, as anyone doing so would be ruled out of order.

In support of the plea that the hon. Gentleman is making, can I point out that the guillotine motion allows us exactly 45 minutes to discuss the whole question of compensation? The Minister of State has just circulated a 14-page document on compensation, which I have just received. Are we seriously expected to deal with a complicated issue affecting so many people in 45 minutes flat?

The right hon. Gentleman almost makes my case for me, but not in its entirety. I have received the same document, but I have not got around to reading it. Much that I want to refer to is impossible to cover in any way other than during the debate on the allocation of time. My complaint is that the length of time allocated by the Government is totally unreasonable and has nothing to do with democracy, rationality, a logical approach or even technical expertise. Frankly, I am gravely disappointed in the Government. I am even more disappointed in my own party.

My point is that the kind of cautious approach used in London is important. Adult cautions are checked—in other words, if a person has received a caution, it stays on the record. Strangely enough, we know that Mr. Hamilton had cautions aplenty, but that is another matter. The police in London check the police national computer to find out about convictions, and Infos, the intelligence pool. They check the general registry, a library of all surplus files of unfounded allegations. They do all those checks to find out whether Jack the lad is suitable for the issue of a firearms certificate. So Jack the lad simply needs to move out of London and down to Essex or up to Yorkshire—or even to Teesside. He can then start the process again, and if the local constabulary is not as diligent as the London police, the certificate can be issued. There is no central register to show up such a dangerous practice.

Section 7 permits allow a person to hold a shotgun or a firearm temporarily—usually if someone has died and the weapon is in their effects. A certain Member of this House died not a right long time ago and a huge German machine gun was found in his cellar, along with more than 1,000 rounds of ammunition. His heirs had to deal with it sensibly.

Who was it?

I am afraid that I cannot tell my hon. Friend, because he has a practice of disclosing names from the Dispatch Box. I would prefer to keep the name to myself. I shall tell my hon. Friend at a later date.

Section 7 permits give an inheritor time to get rid of the inheritance. Strangely, the police have no legal powers to make any enforcement on storage or notification of disposal. That is another area that has not been dealt with.

Different ages apply to different certificates. That is confusing, and the matter could have done with some attention. The House may be surprised to learn that a shotgun certificate can be granted at birth, whereas a firearms certificate cannot be granted before the age of 14. That is not dealt with in the Bill.

Someone with a firearms certificate can be given a firearm at the age of 14, when they get the certificate. Someone with a shotgun certificate cannot be given a shotgun until the age of 15. That is another strange anomaly that could have been dealt with if any real thought had been given to the Bill.

Someone without a firearms certificate cannot borrow a firearm, even if they are supervised by a certificate holder, until the age of 17. However, someone without a shotgun certificate can borrow a shotgun, if supervised, from birth. A two-year-old can run around legally with a borrowed shotgun. That is yet another issue that is not covered. I could go on with other examples of negligence.

There is almost no control over shotgun ammunition. Having purchased ammunition, I could give any hon. Member 1,000 rounds without breaking the law. However, I am not allowed to give anyone even one round of firearms ammunition—not even .22 ammunition. I can insist that firearms ammunition is stored securely, but no one can legally insist that shotgun ammunition is stored securely. That is yet another example of negligence by the Government and the Opposition.

The police cannot put additional conditions on shotgun certificates, so we cannot insist on where they are stored, whereas we can with firearms. We therefore do not know where shotguns will be if we have to look for them. The police cannot limit the number of shotguns on a shotgun certificate, so it is possible for one shotgun certificate holder to buy hundreds of shotguns with no check on where they go. Anyone can set up as a supplier to Jack the lad in the underworld.

The police have no statutory right to enter and inspect the secure storage facilities of firearms or shotguns. A licence holder can legally refuse to let the police check whether he has a gun safe in which to store his weapons.

There are further examples of negligence. I am sorry if I am boring the House, but it is important that the catalogue of negligence should be known to the public. People think that we are going to protect them. I am trying to highlight the fact that we are doing anything but that.

Most of our European neighbours, who suffer much criticism here from time to time for all sorts of reasons, insist on the granting of a hunting licence before setting someone loose with a hunting weapon. To get a licence, people have to undergo a period of training and monitoring. A pistol licence holder must pass a similar six-month probation period at a pistol club here before the police will issue a licence, so we know that an applicant can handle firearms properly.

If someone applies for a shotgun or rifle licence, the police have no way of checking that the applicant knows which end of the gun is dangerous or even one end from the other, or whether he or she knows which species are protected and which can be exterminated.

I have mentioned a number of matters, and I could go on, but I know that other hon. Members want to speak on the limitation of time motion. Perhaps most important—I seem to have lost the papers, so I will have to speak from memory—is the fact that—

Disassembly.

It is not dissembling, and that is a fact—it could be disassembly.

I am finding my hon. Friend's contribution fascinating, as I am ignorant on these matters—[Interruption.] I know a great deal about more things than most of those sluggish lads on the Conservative Benches. I am finding my hon. Friend's speech fascinating, and I am prepared to wait until he finds the lost papers.

I am not.

There is no need, Madam Speaker. I said that I would speak from memory, and I will do just that. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) for his intervention, in so far as it shows his experience and knowledge of the theatrical and the voice from the wings.

Never from the wings—centre stage.

I am sure that, in another incarnation, my hon. Friend will acquire safe employment as the prompter.

I started my observations on negligence by commenting that there was no central register of licence holders—a grave weakness, as I pointed out, because Jack the lad can run about. What is probably even worse is the fact that there is no central register of the weapons. We have never had one, and it is not proposed that there should be one. Perhaps the Government's reluctance to accept that principle is born of their doctrinaire attitude towards deregulation.

We are told that there could be 4 million illegal weapons out there, and that there are perhaps 120,000 certificated weapons. Without a central register, we are making those 120,000 weapons illegal—adding them to the 4 million which are already illegal. We do not have an account of any of them, and we do not propose to have one. We are making a bad situation worse, and we are making it worse in a hurry. We are not allowing anyone to talk about it sensibly. When people try to put a sensible point, they get shakes of the head, as I am getting from my colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench.

I appeal for common sense. For God's sake, people out there need protection, and it is our duty to give it. We are not doing so at the moment.

I agree with every word that passed the lips of the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook). This is a bad Bill, which has been badly considered.

At least some of my hon. Friends will be concerned about the wider problem of creating an unnecessary confrontation between this House and the House of Lords. We who are anxious to preserve our constitution and its checks and balances should realise what a grave disservice we are doing with this guillotine motion.

When the House of Lords says that it is not sure that we have got something right, amends our legislation and sends it back to us, it is saying in the politest possible way, "Please think again; we think you might have got this wrong." Sometimes that is said especially insistently, as when the Bill or the amendments we have passed obviously do not have the support of a decision at a general election or of the people.

When we are in our most populist—and especially our agreed populist—mood, when we are at our worst and most tyrannical, the House of Lords says, "Hang on a moment. Think again, and please discuss the matter more carefully." Surely we as Tories should understand the importance of that request, yet we are giving the matter a cursory debate on a guillotine, after which we plan to have a short, truncated discussion on a few selected items, which, as the hon. Member for Stockton, North said, will be kept even shorter by the agreed discouragement that will be evinced from the Front Benches against every dissident voice; so 50,000 people will go unrepresented because of the gross tyranny of the House.

We who most of all represent the checks and balances of the constitution should draw back from an unnecessary confrontation.

The hon. Gentleman spoke about the 50,000 people. I wonder what he would say to a couple I met in my constituency, near the hon. Gentleman's: Martyn and Barbara Dunn, who came to a ceremony to commemorate the massacre at Dunblane, in which they lost their five-year-old daughter Charlotte. They are very keen on what we intend to do, as are all the other parents who lost children. What would the hon. Gentleman say to those parents, who believe that what the House intends to do is right, and that, although there is no guarantee that such a massacre will never occur again, it is one way of trying to prevent events such as happened at Hungerford and at Dunblane?

I would try to be as sympathetic as I possibly could, and I would explain to them that I understood entirely their wish to have the use of all guns banned; but I would say that people who engaged in the lawful and honourable activity of target shooting were entitled to continue to do that. I would say at the end of the conversation, as quietly and as carefully as I could, that as a matter of fact I thought that their appalling tragedy probably did not make them better judges of legislation, and that it might indeed make them worse judges. I would say that, fortunately, we have in general a rather good system of considering legislation in a way that is somewhat detached from their raw emotions, and that the most important thing was to consider legislation carefully and not in a mood of deep emotion. I think that, on reflection, they would understand that.

If the hon. Gentleman says that that is not so, it might be of some interest to him to note that, after the Duke of Edinburgh had made some remarks about the legislation some time just before Christmas, it was obvious that the public as a whole took a more reflective attitude.

In our constitution, it is not only the newspapers, the royal family and others who have a right to comment; it is the legitimate interest of the other place to ask us to think again. If we pass this guillotine motion, we are palpably not thinking again.

The other place faces a difficult tactical question about which issues to disagree with us on, but I hope that it will not disagree with us about the Crime (Sentences) Bill, because the proviso in that case—the argument as between exceptional circumstances and circumstances that are unjust—is not a big issue. While great lawyers make great fortunes arguing the difference between such words, it perhaps does not affect many people.

Perhaps we could say respectfully to the other place that there is some presumption in its proposals for extra compensation. If £500 million of public expenditure is to be made, it should be authorised by this place, not the House of Lords. However, if we reject the Lords amendment on disassembly, I hope that their Lordships will persist with it.

My hon. Friend suggested that 50,000 people were affected, a point that was picked up by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick). The figure of 50,000 firearms certificate holders is merely the Home Office figure, not the real number of firearms certificate holders affected, which is more like 100,000. To those one must add the number of people who legitimately shoot with pistols in recognised and registered clubs, who do not need firearms certificates. The matter goes far wider than the 50,000 people my hon. Friend mentioned.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I was trying to put my point as moderately as possible. When I mentioned figures, I wanted to quote the lower end of the scale.

I hope that their Lordships will recognise that, whether it is 50,000 or 100,000, it is not a fashionable section of the community. I hope that they will consider how they would feel if that many game shooters were being prevented from carrying on their lawful activity.

I do not want to put this offensively to their Lordships, but it would be sad if the suspicion arose that because, by and large, these are unfashionable people, their Lordships were not prepared to exercise their proper duty to prevent populist legislation, but that, in a future Parliament where hunting or game shooting was threatened, they would come bustling along to exercise their constitutional rights. The 50,000 involved are honourable people, who have been treated in a disgraceful, hurried and populist way. I hope that their Lordships will go very slowly in considering the measure.

On this point, I am able to join the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen), who, last Wednesday, in discussing the Police Bill—which had come from the Lords—sensibly asked why a Firearms (Amendment) Bill could not be introduced at the beginning of the next Parliament. I agree entirely. One could be introduced slowly and carefully. If their Lordships suggested that other measures could be brought forward in the interim, I would agree.

The House knows that the Home Office firearms consultative committee was not invited to give its opinion on the Cullen report. The proposals were rushed out. We could in the interim tighten the rules on the qualities and characters of people who own firearms certificates. There could be some extra surveillance of the membership of gun clubs. All those things have been suggested as sensible administrative measures by the committee.

I do not want it to be suggested for a moment that I am indifferent to the arguments of those who fear the repetition of a crime by one of the relatively small number of people who hold guns legally. We all know that the generality—96 per cent.—of crimes are committed by people who hold guns illegally.

There are small measures that could be taken between now and Christmas to introduce some discipline to those who hold guns lawfully. Most importantly, I suggest that Conservative Members should avoid an unnecessary confrontation with their Lordships. If their Lordships are exercising their proper constitutional duty, they will come to the aid of 50,000 people who have been treated very shabbily.

As my right hon. Friend the Minister—it is a great pleasure to address her in that way—will recall, I was not called to speak on the original guillotine motion. I do not complain about that; I was sitting where the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam), usually sits, and I understand completely why I was overlooked.

On that occasion, I would have followed my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) in the debate, and I would have spoken about the effect on people who are following the proceedings on the Bill of the speed with which a series of guillotine motions have obliged us to consider it.

I remonstrated thereafter with an hon. Friend—whom I shall anonymously call a representative of the business managers—that we had insufficient time in which to debate the matters properly. He said that no one else had made that complaint. Our conversation occurred before Third Reading, when I know for certain that several hon. Members—including me, incidentally—were kept out of the debate.

More seriously, I recall the debate on compensation. I mentioned the matter on Report, and I do so again now because of the debate that we shall have this evening. About 10 minutes before the end of the debate on Report, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary—I do not accuse him of having orchestrated the scenario deliberately—declined to give way to an hon. Friend who sought to intervene, on the ground that he did not have sufficient time. It is ironic that the guillotine motion should have the effect of saving my right hon. and learned Friend from the obligation of replying properly to the debate.

We shall have the compensation debate this evening. I do not share the advantage of the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) or of the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) in having seen the 14-page document. The good news is that I calculate that we will have an hour and a quarter for the compensation debate rather than 45 minutes, so we shall have slightly more time in which to absorb the details.

I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the document, which was courteously sent to some hon. Members who participated in the debate, opens Pandora's box.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that comment, and I anticipate reading the document all the more. I simply repeat that, given the interest that the public have expressed in these matters, it is unfortunate that we should give the impression that we are rushing them through without proper consideration.

The Minister very courteously sent this letter to me today. It states:

"I am enclosing for your information a copy of a consultation document which sets out our proposals for the detailed arrangements for the firearms compensation scheme to be introduced under the Firearms (Amendment) Bill. The document will be used as a basis for consultation by the Home Office with the police and shooting organisations. I am sending copies to all those who participated when the issue of compensation was debated on the Floor of the House. A copy is also being placed in the Library".

Why did that letter arrive after lunch on 18 February—the day that we are debating the matter? Even at first glance, there are all sorts of questions to he asked. It would be improper to abuse a debate on the timetable by asking too many detailed questions. However, before we limit ourselves to three quarters of an hour of debating time, I refer to options B and C. Option B is payment based on a price contained in a published list of values and option C is payment based on individual valuation.

We have received no clear answer—at least I have not heard it—to a question posed by the right hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) and many others as to who would do that evaluation. There is cheerful talk about evaluation, but precisely who will do it? The idea that it will be agreed easily and automatically is fairyland.

What about paragraph 14, on ex gratia payments? The letter states:

"He could either choose to lodge his pistol with the police pending its retrieval for use in an approved club, or he could choose to surrender ownership straight away and seek an ex gratia payment for it at the same time as any claim for compensation in respect of higher calibre guns is made."

Who will decide that ex gratia payment? We are talking about a great deal of money.

The list that accompanies the letter purports to give valuations on a range of guns—for example, the Astra 3 in barrel, the Colt new service and the Colt diamond back 6 in. I was told off the cuff today, just after receiving the document, that the figures given for valuation are totally unrealistic. For example, the Cold diamond back 6 in is valued at £235, but I have been told that we are talking about thousands if the owner's perceived valuation is to be gone along with. Owners will challenge the valuations.

I do not know whether all those matters should be confined to three quarters of an hour. As I make these points, I have a suspicion that someone else might properly be called during that period and most of us will not have time to make such points. Given that she has written to us in that way, I ask the Minister whether it is sensible to limit the highly controversial issue of compensation to three quarters of an hour.

I have not spoken in these debates before, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so I hope that you will allow me a few minutes in which to explain why I am so deeply concerned about the manner in which the debate on an extremely important piece of legislation is about to be truncated, if the House wills it so. Clearly, there will not be time for the consideration of amendments that might mitigate what will become an appalling piece of legislation if it goes through unamended.

The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) sought an answer to the question, "How would we feel if …?" and then related the experience of two of his constituents and their appalling loss. I am the parent of three children; I have had the pleasure of watching them grow to maturity and I freely concede that I cannot begin to comprehend the anguish of the parents of Dunblane. Most of those who say, "I know how you feel," are, in my view, guilty of uttering an obscene platitude. Thank God, there are few hon. Members who have suffered anything like that sort of experience and can therefore begin to understand how others feel.

The House must do all it can to pass legislation that seeks to mitigate the possibility of a tragedy like Dunblane happening again, but we all know that in a world of madmen, whatever we do in this House cannot prevent that. Like many other hon. Members, I started out with high hopes that we would achieve something positive with the Bill, but I am concerned that the Bill will do nothing to prevent a similar recurrence and that it will do that nothing at vast expense and at great cost to an enormous number of respectable and responsible people.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), during the months that the Bill has been passing through Parliament, I have had time to realise that it is knee-jerk legislation that will go down in the annals of the House of Commons as second only to the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 in its appalling misconception and haste. As before, we have seen the House at its worst—when it combines to take a cross-party "I care more than you do" approach and rushes a measure through as a sop to an appalling event.

I am not a shooter—I have only ever handled a gun on military service and on the rare occasions when I have missed clay pigeons for the benefit of charity—so I have no personal vested interest in the subject. However, I have spoken to some of my constituents who are members of Swalecliffe gun club, which is located in Herne Bay in my constituency. Following a meeting with them at the end of October 1996, I wrote to the Home Secretary on 2 November 1996, asking a series of questions related directly to the compensation issues that we are about to timetable.

The Minister of State replied to me yesterday. Let me make it plain that I am grateful to her, first for the courteous nature of her reply and, secondly, for turning that reply round within about 12 hours of the letter landing on her desk. However, it has taken some months for me to receive these replies.

I raised the specific issue of what would happen to .22 pistols belonging to members of gun clubs that would go out of existence, and who would therefore have nowhere to go with them, and I asked what compensation those people would receive. I was told—hon. Members who know more about the subject than I do may be aware of this already:

"As most clubs will be unable to comply with the security requirements, initially, it is intended that the police will retain the .22 pistols in safe storage for those who are seeking a club. The time these will be retained has yet to be set, but we expect it to be a matter of years rather than months in order to give clubs time to adapt to the new requirements."

However, my right hon. Friend continues:

"In most cases, this will require the construction of a purpose-built secure range rather than the adaptation of existing ranges. Rather than a number of local ranges and small clubs, it is expected that ranges, and probably clubs, will be organised at a county or regional level. The cost of security arrangements for each club would thus be shared among a more substantial number of shooters. Members of such clubs may have to travel considerable distances to shoot, but in this respect .22 shooting will be similar to ice-skating and other sports where appropriate facilities are rare and concentrated in large towns."

If amendment No. 27 is passed tonight, the members of Swalecliffe gun club, and no doubt others represented by hon. Members on both sides of the House, will lose their facilities, and the fruits of the hard work that they have put in, without compensation—and because that amendment is one of a group of four, we shall not have more than about 45 minutes in which to raise those issues.

I was under the impression that acquisition without compensation was something that even the Opposition had eschewed as a form of political combat. Acquisition without compensation is being done in the name of a piece of legislation that will not have the effect that we intended. The hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) rightly said that this piece of legislation will not establish registers. It will not do what the Metropolitan police would like. It will not prevent the circulation of illegal firearms. It will not prevent lunatics from going across the channel, for heaven's sake, buying a gun and bringing it back through the ports in my constituency, or the port in the Home Secretary's constituency, with the greatest possible ease, and making mayhem with it.

I agree with many of the points that my hon. Friend has raised. He may have received correspondence from constituents—as I have from many of mine, especially sporting shooters who compete for the United Kingdom, who shoot not only at Bisley, but elsewhere—who are especially anxious about difficulties that would be caused to them by rejection of the disassembly option. Does my hon. Friend agree that we shall not have time to discuss that issue properly if the motion is passed?

I do; and if the motion is passed, we shall not have the opportunity to discuss further the matter of single-shot guns.

I shall not detain the House, but I am very worried that, if we choose to truncate our discussion, we shall end up with another Dangerous Dogs Act piece of legislation—an appalling mess, which will achieve absolutely nothing.

Since the Conservatives entered government in 1979, 60 Bills have been guillotined. On 59 of them, Conservative Members have remained silent during the debate except in support of the guillotine, and have trooped through the Government Lobby in support of those measures. It speaks volumes for the sense of value of the Conservative party that they remained silent on one measure after another to cut benefits for 16 to 18-year-olds; silent on one measure after another to restrict the rights of innocent seekers of immigration into this country; wholly silent on the Scottish poll tax measure in 1986; and completely silent on the English and Welsh poll tax measure in 1987.

And the Single European Act.

Indeed, Conservative Members were almost silent—there were one or two honourable exceptions—on the Single European Act. In 1986, the Home Secretary, among others, forced the Act through the House, notwithstanding predictions from Opposition Members—including, in an eloquent winding-up speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson). Then there was the Maastricht Bill, the Bill that became the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993. All Conservative Members voted for the guillotine motion, thus truncating debate on a critical constitutional measure. [Interruption.] Nearly all of them voted for it.

The issues in the Bill that we are debating today have, on any relative basis, been subjected to far more discussion than the issues in the Bills that I have just listed. It raises the crucial question of the control of handguns and the safety of the public. And what do we find? We find that suddenly, out of the Lobbies and the Smoking Room creep Conservative Members who want to stand up for what they see as a fundamental liberty: the right of Englishmen, and indeed Scotsmen and Welshmen, to hold guns. They did not believe that any fundamental rights were affected by the Maastricht Bill, the Single European Act, the Bills introducing the poll tax in England and Scotland or any of the immigration Bills.

The hon. Gentleman was pointing at me; he obviously wished to give way to me, and I am grateful to him for doing so.

Will the hon. Gentleman reflect on the fact that we are debating the Bill unusually soon after a report? As I said earlier, the Cullen report came out at 3.30 pm, and the legislation was presented to the House at 3.31 on the same afternoon. Might it not have been better if we had had a period in which to consider the report before the legislation was framed? That, of course, is why we are rushing it through now.

If the hon. Gentleman has a quarrel, it is with his own party, but if he thinks about the time scale that is involved, he will see that the argument that the House is rushing the legislation through is nonsense. That appalling tragedy happened on 13 March last year; the Cullen inquiry was then rightly established very quickly, but did not take evidence until the end of May. I understand that it then took evidence until the end of July. Lord Cullen finalised his report in September and delivered it in October, and on 16 October both the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland made statements in the House. I think that the Government were quite right to give their response to the report on that occasion: the same would be expected of any Government.

The legislation was presaged in the Queen's Speech two weeks later, and was introduced two weeks after that. It was debated in Committee on the Floor of the House for a day and a half, and then went into Standing Committee. It was further considered on the Floor of the House, and was then discussed in the other place for four days: that debate fills four full parts of Hansard. Now the Bill has come back to the Floor of the House of Commons. Given its importance, I feel that our proceedings should be concluded in the next week or so, but plenty of other measures of even more breadth and significance have not been given the same consideration during a guillotined set of debates.

If that is true, may I ask my hon. Friend for his reaction to the nine areas of negligence that I identified earlier? Those matters could have been considered properly, and could have formed legislation much more sensible than the Bill that we are considering. Those weaknesses are apparent, although I could dig others out of the legislation if my hon. Friend wished me to. The nine areas have not been covered, and will not be covered. If the coverage of the legislation was as comprehensive as my hon. Friend makes out, why were they not attended to?

I listened to my hon. Friend's speech very carefully, but I did not follow his argument. No legislation with which I have ever been familiar has been perfect, and I am sure that this Bill could be improved. It may well be that my hon. Friend could have tabled amendments to extend control in some areas, but I do not think that that is an argument for the extra control that is at the heart of the Bill. If my hon. Friend believes that there ought to be improvements in certification, that is a matter for him, and one that could have been dealt with much earlier.

The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) said, correctly, that we must make a judgment about the views of the other place in coming to decisions on the Commons' consideration of Lords amendments. That is entirely right, but let me reassure him about one matter. His point—I paraphrase, but only slightly—was that the toffs in the other place had not properly represented the common people: they had approved of control of handguns, which are used in general by common people, but they had protected the owners of shotguns, which are used by the more elevated classes in our society.

The only reason for the amendments coming before the House today is the action of the hereditary peers in pushing the amendments through. Often, amendments passed in the other place against the Government are passed by a majority of life peers and, as happened in the case of the poll tax, it is usually the hereditary peers who are dragooned into the Not Content Lobby in support of the Government. On this Bill, the reverse is the case.

On the first Division, that to allow the disassembly of .22-calibre firearms, 153 peers voted Content, and 139 voted Not Content, but of those 153, 105 were hereditary peers. If the hereditary peers are stripped out, it is clear that the first amendment on disassembly—to diminish the control in the Bill—was actually defeated by some 90 votes, a reversal of the position if the hereditary peers are included.

The same applies to the other key amendment that was passed in the other place, on extending compensation for loss of profit and loss of business. It was passed by 121 votes to 110, but 90 of those 121 were hereditary peers; only 31 were life peers. On the life peer measure alone, the vote was 31 to 77.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the advantages of the hereditary peerage is that hereditary peers are not full-time professional politicians, as are, unfortunately, the bulk of the present Members of this House? Hereditary peers probably know a great deal more about the practicalities of using weapons than do any of us, and their view is likely to be helpful to the protection of what the hon. Gentleman calls the common man.

The important point is that, as these are the last weeks of this Parliament, we cannot exercise our powers under the Parliament Act 1911. If the peers decide to go slow and not to accept our attitude towards their amendments, the legislation will fall.

I do not believe that that will happen.

The debate has revealed a high degree of anxiety on the part of Conservative Members about what they believe to be the extent of public opinion. I do not share the view of the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) that public opinion has shifted. I do believe, however, that the shooting lobby has become more organised and more frenetic in its letter writing.

I have a letter which, I gather, is to be found on the Internet site of the Sportsmans Association of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The letter goes into detail about the way in which those reading it should lobby Conservative Members of Parliament. It states that it is important for its members to write to Conservative Members of Parliament, and continues:

"We can only do that through a massive effort over the next five days. The Conservative Central Office do not believe that we have the numbers or the commitment to vote them out."

Further on in the letter, these chilling words appear:

"Be polite but do not leave them"—

that is, Conservative Members of Parliament—

"in doubt. Spell out exactly how you will be taking revenge if they"—

Conservative Members of Parliament—

"put this Bill on the books."

rose—

rose—

I am sorry; I do not have time to give way.

I do not believe that the use of the word "revenge" against Conservative Members of Parliament is an acceptable tactic. It exposes some of the motives and the hysteria of the shooting lobby.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Perhaps it would help the hon. Gentleman if I informed him that the words "revenge at the polls" were—

Order. That was an attempt to intervene after the hon. Gentleman had refused to give way.

It is good to know that the hon. Gentleman claims part authorship or knowledge of the letter, but what is on the record at the Internet site is not "revenge at the polls", just "revenge". [Interruption.] I gather that it has changed, no doubt because the association realised the error in its drafting.

In the hysterical reaction from some—not all—members of the shooting lobby, there has been a huge amount of disinformation about the likely position of the Government and the Labour party on the wider issue of the control of guns in our society. The Government must speak for themselves, but I believe that what is in the Bill, with the exception of the control of .22 calibre handguns, is proportionate to the problem.

The Labour party has never believed that such bans on the use of guns should be extended to shotguns. I make that absolutely clear. We respect the right of those who own shotguns for the control of vermin and for the enjoyment of country sports. We have no proposals to change that regime.

In three weeks' time, we shall see the first anniversary of the terrible shooting at Dunblane. We owe it to the memory of those who were gunned down there, and to their relatives and the community of Dunblane, to have this measure on the statute book before then. We support the guillotine motion.

As I have only four minutes left to reply, I regret that it will not be possible for me to address every single point that was raised.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) suggested that there should be further delay because of growing public interest since the Bill was introduced. It has been a year since the tragedy at Dunblane, and it is quite right that the public should expect us to come forward with proposals to try, as far as possible, to avert any similar tragedy in the future, although it must be clear that that could never be absolutely guaranteed.

I entirely endorse what my hon. Friend said about the responsible nature of those who have interests in shooting. I have no doubt at all—nor have the Government—that the vast majority of people who shoot are law-abiding, decent citizens who can be utterly trusted and are utterly responsible. The fact remains that the problems at Dunblane arose through somebody misusing a gun that was lawfully owned and possessed outside a secure club.

That is not so.

As the hon. Gentleman interrupts from a sedentary position, perhaps I can now come to his speech.

The hon. Gentleman recited a long list of matters that he said that we had neglected, but in today's debate, in Lords amendment No. 71, we shall address the issue of a central register. If he reads the Official Report of the Committee proceedings, he will see that we covered the issue of age limits. It is not true that a long list of matters have been ignored in the debate. Therefore, I reject his proposition that we need more time to discuss them, as many of them have already been discussed in some detail in Committee.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) raised a point about the transitional period for the holding of .22s by the police. The current schedule 1 to the Bill sets out a transitional period of a year for the holding of .22s, although that could be varied by order of the Secretary of State if necessary. I hope that that clarifies the matter.

Several hon. Members said that they wished to have longer to discuss compensation. That issue has been thoroughly rehearsed.

Two hon. Members mentioned the consultation document that we issued today. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) lamented the fact that there was not time to debate the document or to absorb it in any detail in time for today's debate. The document is, of course, intended for a much wider audience. It is not about what we are to implement or what the law should say, but is about how the implementation is to take place—

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

In accordance with the allocation of time order just agreed by the House, Lords amendment No. 8 will be grouped with Lords amendment No. 12. We shall also discuss the Government motions to disagree with those amendments.

The question of disassembly of handguns has been thoroughly discussed during the passage of the Bill both in this House and in another place. The Government's position has been and remains that small-calibre pistols in their complete form should be stored in secure licensed clubs. Allowing members of licensed small-calibre pistol clubs to keep the main body of the pistol at home and remove only a small part for retention at their club cannot in our view provide sufficient safeguards for the protection of the public.

Has my right hon. and learned Friend addressed the opposite proposition that the body of the pistol should be kept at the club and a small part only retained at home?

Yes. Indeed, it was canvassed as early as on Second Reading, when the point was put to me by—I think—the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell). It is not the specific proposal contained in the amendment and I am rather doubtful about what purpose it would achieve. It would attract many of the disadvantages that the proposal specifically identified in the amendment would attract.

The Government entirely accept that members of pistol clubs licensed under the Bill would be overwhelmingly decent, law-abiding people, just as the members of pistol clubs that are allowed under the current law are overwhelmingly decent, law-abiding people. We have all, however, seen the appalling consequences that can ensue when a pistol owner is determined to perpetrate serious crime with his lawfully held gun.

The gun was certainly lawfully held, but the process by which Hamilton obtained the certificate was ludicrously slack. Had that man's record been considered by the police in granting the certificate, he would never have had the licence.

I understand my hon. Friend's feelings. That was of course considered by the police, and Lord Cullen went into that aspect of the matter very carefully in his report. It is of course right that those matters should be addressed as well, but I do not believe that they would provide a complete answer to the problems with which we have to deal.

Is not anybody who lies on an application form for a firearms certificate committing an offence? If a certificate is granted thereafter, is not that certificate, by definition, invalid? Was that not so with Hamilton? Is that not what Lord Cullen found? What did Lord Cullen recommend with regard to disassembly?

I do not know quite what conclusion my hon. Friend sought to reach on the basis of the first part of his question. The certificate held by Thomas Hamilton was not declared invalid and was therefore quite valid until it had been revoked. I shall come to Lord Cullen's recommendations on the question of disassembly.

In considering their response to Lord Cullen's very thorough inquiry into what happened in Dunblane, the Government took the view that it was right if at all possible to allow the sport of pistol shooting to continue in some form, and the Bill allows for small-calibre pistol clubs, operating under a very high degree of security, to be licensed by the Secretary of State. The question is what should be done with the small calibre .22 handguns that are used at such clubs.

The Government propose that such guns should be kept at secure club premises. Amendments to the Bill in another place would allow club members to keep their handgun at home as long as some part of it was always removed and kept at the club. Under the amendments, that part would be the slide of pistols, the cylinders of revolvers or some other part to be specified by the Secretary of State.

As has been said so many times in discussion of this issue, it would be possible for handguns to be kept in a disassembled form. It is said that most owners of most handguns would be capable in practice of removing the vital part to leave at the club and fitting it again when they returned. The Government do not dispute that, but that is not the real question. The question is whether such a procedure would give the public a sufficient assurance against misuse of a handgun by a club member. The Government's view is that it would not.

For example, some people will possess more than one set of barrel and slide components for their pistol or possess components that will allow the calibre of the weapon to be converted by the simple substitution of components. It would be impossible to be certain that a person could not still possess a complete weapon at home by keeping such an illicit spare. Indeed, the frames of some pistols are specially made so that the owner can purchase a comprehensive range of barrels of different lengths and cartridge chamberings, which can be simply substituted and fitted at the will of the user. That could again lead to a person being in possession of a complete firearm, although appearing to comply with club regulations.

rose—

rose—

I will give way first to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory).

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that a shooter keeping illicit spares would be breaching the conditions of the firearms certificate? If someone is prepared to do that, they may easily do the same for an entire pistol. I am not entirely clear that my right hon. and learned Friend's objection to the disassembly option on those grounds is in fact valid.

I understand my right hon. Friend's point, which is serious and substantial. He is right that those who would be engaging in the kind of conduct that I am describing would be in breach of the law. I see the force of the argument that those who are prepared to break the law can obtain access to illegal guns. At the end of the day, my right hon. Friend—and no doubt some other of my hon. Friends—and I may simply have to disagree on the matter. The proposal would place a temptation before those who would be tempted to take advantage of what would rapidly become a loophole in the law. As I shall go on to explain, the difficulties of policing the proposed arrangement would be extreme. I believe that on those grounds we must reject my right hon. Friend's argument, although I see its force, and adhere to the proposals that the Government originally made.

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman allowed me to make some more progress and finish the point.

Furthermore, under a scheme of the kind contemplated under the amendments, it would be the responsibility of the club to ensure that the detached component parts were lodged safely and securely and that they were always handed in when the member left the club after shooting. The club would also have to check each time that what was handed in was the component part that was supposed to be handed in and not a duplicate of some kind.

Right hon. and hon. Members will recognise that the items that we are talking about are relatively small and easily concealable pieces of metal. Clubs would of course be under a legal responsibility, set out in the terms of their licences, to ensure that booking in and out was done properly. A club that did not meet that very important responsibility would be at risk of losing its licence. If a club were not meeting the necessary standards in that respect, it would however be difficult in practice for the police to detect it. In practice, it would be a matter of what happened at the club day after day and not just on the days when a police officer was there and able to see what was going on.

I am seriously trying very hard to follow the logic and make it stand up to scrutiny. The Home Secretary objects to keeping a component at home and the barrel or the chassis of the gun in a club. What is to stop a person who really wants to break the law having a legal gun at the club and an illegal one at home? The whole proposition is totally nonsensical.

I have to disagree with the hon. Gentleman, as I did with my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells, who put the same point. Some people may not want to procure an illegal gun, but may be tempted by the possibility of having an illegally held part.

How many?

My hon. Friend asks how many. The difficulty with that argument is that takes only one to engage in such activity, to procure a gun and to use it in the way in which it was used at Dunblane.

I confess that I can hardly believe what I am hearing from my right hon. and learned Friend. We have surely gone past the argument about legislating on the basis of whether people may be tempted to take a gun in one form or another. Either my right hon. and learned Friend believes in this legislation or he does not. I suspect that the force of argument from the Conservative Benches is beginning to get to him. Will he be tempted to think again about disassembly, and possibly to accept the Lords amendment?

I am sorry to have to disabuse my hon. Friend. I do not follow his argument that we should not legislate on the basis of temptations that may be put in people's way. We legislate on the basis of the view that we take of human behaviour: that is what all legislation is about. My hon. Friend and I may disagree about the precise aspect of human behaviour with which we are dealing, but such a judgment is the basis on which all legislation is passed in the House.

The Home Secretary is right to detect an attempt to weaken his legislation. I am bound to say that, if he had decided to ban all handguns, he would not be in this difficulty. If it was the other way round, and disassembly involved the bulk of the gun being in the club and the component being outside the club, would that strengthen instead of weaken the legislation? I realise that that is not in the amendment, but has he considered that point?

I have considered that point, and I dealt with it a few moments ago when it was put to me by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells. When the hon. Gentleman got to his feet, I expected him to say that the legislation did not go far enough, and that we should have a total ban, and he duly fulfilled my expectation.

The difficulty is that however well the club carries out its responsibilities, there will be scope for an owner who has a mind to do so illicitly to take out the pistol slide, a revolver cylinder or some other small component. He may attempt to substitute it with something else, and he could do that in a variety of ways. There is no point endlessly speculating about how that could be done, but one possibility—it is only one possibility—has already been mentioned in a discussion of this issue. It could be substituted with the same component taken from a deactivated version of the same gun. The differences in appearance between a working and a deactivated component part are not necessarily large. Indeed, it is said to be one of the advantages of a deactivated gun, to those who like to possess them, that they look as much as possible like the real thing.

An owner determined upon mischief could disguise the deactivated component so that it looked on superficial inspection like the real one. It would not have to work like the real component, just look like it.

I must place on record the fact that I hardly ever disagree with my right hon. and learned Friend, but I simply cannot follow the force of his argument that we cannot proceed with legislation if some people may contravene it. That is what he is saying. We all know that it is possible for people to get hold of guns even if they have no right to have them. That will happen whatever my right hon. and learned Friend does in the Bill. I cannot follow the argument that, because some people may break the law, what my right hon. and hon. Friends have said is not reasonable. Whatever happens, some people will break the law.

I suspect that it pains me to disagree with my hon. Friend even more than it may pain her. Her point is not valid, because we have to make judgments about the effect of the laws that we pass on the behaviour of those with whom we are attempting to deal. If it is a consequence of one law rather than another that temptation is likely to be increased, and therefore likely to be succumbed to, and that that is likely to lead to more guns coming into the hands of people who might abuse them, we must take that into account. It is a matter of judgment, and my hon. Friend may legitimately arrive at a different judgment and disagree with me. It is a valid consideration, and it should be taken into account in framing the precise terms of the legislation.

The force of my right hon. and learned Friend's argument is that it is more important to remove temptation from people who he and the Minister of State have said on many occasions are the least likely people to succumb to that temptation. A large group of people will be tempted: my right hon. and learned Friend has already admitted that such people regard the legislation as totally irrelevant. They will use illegal guns. Why is he aiming at the small group of people who are the least likely to succumb to temptation?

I hope that my hon. Friend is not suggesting that we are ignoring the enormous problems that undoubtedly exist as a consequence of the use of illegal guns. We recognise the dimension of that serious problem, and the police do their utmost to deal with it every working day of the year. The fact that they are not totally successful, for reasons which we all understand, does not relieve the House of the responsibility of dealing with another aspect of the problem, which is the circumstances under which firearms should be made lawfully available. It is not either/or: we have to deal with both problems as effectively as we can.

What about the temptation of raiding a gun club? If a gun club that holds complete guns is raided, that is far more dangerous than taking away bits and pieces.

As the hon. Gentleman knows, stringent security will be put in place to deal with that problem. I am not sure that the temptation to raid a gun club for whole guns would be that much greater than the temptation to raid a gun club for the main body of the gun, which is what my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells suggested. But the hon. Gentleman is entitled to his opinion.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?

I shall give way, but we are on a timetable motion. Many hon. Members want to speak, and I do not want to take up their time.

It is not our fault that there is a timetable motion: it is my right hon. and learned Friend's fault. We had the ludicrous position just now of the Minister of State saying that she could not give an answer because she was about to be cut off by the guillotine motion. The whole thing is farcical.

If people have a criminal intent, why should they bother to raid a gun club for a .22 when they could perfectly well buy a .38 or a .44 illegally?

I have sought to answer that point. It is the same point as was put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells. I do not think that the world is divided quite as neatly as my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) suggests, into those who are prepared to engage in illegal conduct and who would undoubtedly take advantage of the fact that illegal guns are available, and those who behave lawfully and would not stray from the law at all. Others who do not fit neatly into that category would be tempted by the circumstances that I have sought to explain. I think that that justifies our approach.

There has been a good deal of discussion of the advice that the Government have received on this issue from the Forensic Science Service. It believes that it would be an extremely difficult task to police these procedures fully and effectively at club level. The procedures would not provide a guaranteed measure of assurance against the possible misuse of a pistol by a determined individual.

The Government have also taken advice from the Association of Chief Police Officers of England and Wales. It concludes that

"disassembly is incapable of being policed."

It too has concerns about a club policing this policy and there would be little to stop a person having two slides, one at a club and one at home. The smallness of these parts makes them easily concealable. The Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland has similar concerns about disassembly providing insufficient safeguards for the public. Thomas Hamilton and Michael Ryan both held their guns lawfully. Either could have been capable of obtaining or concealing component parts had the disassembly approach been enforced.

It has been argued that the Government have gone further than Lord Cullen proposed. In one sense, that is true: Lord Cullen would have permitted single-shot handguns to be kept in the home. In relation to multi-shot handguns, he said:

"in stating my own conclusions I should confine myself to what I recommend should be considered … I recommend that consideration should be given to restricting the availability of self-loading pistols and revolvers of any calibre … Preferably this should be done by their disablement while they are not in use … If for any reason that course is not to be followed, I see no alternative to considering the more draconian alternative of a ban on multi-shot handguns … directed to the possession of such handguns by individual owners."

The Government have not gone as far as the alternative course that Cullen has envisaged. The Bill will permit the continued possession by individuals of .22 calibre handguns, provided that they are kept at licensed pistol clubs.

The Government have taken the view that the protection of the public should be the priority. The safest position must be to ensure that the entire gun is stored in secure licensed pistol clubs.

The debate is about a judgment that the House must make between what exact form of legislation is likely to be the most effective and the rights of the shooting community, balanced against the protection of the public. It is true that the Government and Opposition Front Benchers take a similar approach with the amendment, as will be the case in relation to the next group of amendments. That does not in any way mean that the Government and the Opposition are at one in dealing with the legislation. We both recognise that legislation is necessary because of public demand for action, but there is a difference between our position, which is that there should be a complete ban on handguns, and the Government's position, which is that there should be a ban on guns above .22 calibre. However, we have accepted that the need for legislation on other aspects in the Bill takes priority over our particular position at this time, although we have made commitments in relation to the future. That is why we believe that it is necessary for the Bill to be given passage through Parliament so that it becomes law before the general election.

The Lords amendment would undermine the whole premise of the Bill. It takes the Bill in a different direction. The argument between the Government and the Opposition is on which guns should be banned and which should not. The amendment essentially bans no guns and suggests a different way in which to deal with the problem.

Does my hon. Friend accept that, if the amendment on disassembly had been accepted in the first place, we would have had what the Opposition wanted: a total ban on all whole working guns outside gun clubs? It is the simplest, most straightforward way of achieving that. In failing to achieve the amendment, we have lost the main part of the argument, which is to ban all guns outside gun clubs.

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, but I do not accept the logic of his argument. There would have been no guarantee that the Government would have accepted that position, even if Opposition Front Benchers had accepted some of the views that were expressed by Labour Members and indeed by Conservative Members, but, in any case, as the Home Secretary showed, such an amendment would not have led to the protection of the public from the use of assembled guns.

Whether we like it or not, vested interests have come into the debate at all stages. We all know that we are dealing with the amendment because of the vote of hereditary peers in another place. If the matter had been left to life peers and others who hold office ex officio there, the result would have been different, so the point that was made by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) that the peers would have taken a different attitude if this had been about toff shooting rather than the common man shooting does not hold up to examination because, in that instance, the peers have tried to defend a vested interest against the rightful demands of the public.

The argument against disassembling is that it is too easy to obtain a working gun from the parts. It is too easy for someone who has a will to find parts that are interchangeable with the other parts to which they have access.

If the hon. Gentleman is so concerned about the demands of the public, where does he stand on capital punishment, as it is clear that the demands of the public would bring that back?

I am not sure that I would agree with the hon. Gentleman on that. If a full debate took place on that matter, the result would be different, but the point at debate here is that Parliament is focusing on the maximum agreement that can possibly be achieved to meet a public demand and to protect the public. What we are arguing about is the extent to which a judgment has to be passed by Parliament on different aspects—the rights of the shooters against the demands of the public and their right to be protected.

The great danger is that, if we do not get this right, the maniac or the person who is unstable and has access to the parts of a gun can assemble a gun and take the same action as we know was taken by the Dunblane murderer.