Badger Cull

Debate between Chris Williamson and Simon Hart

Wednesday 11th December 2013 Westminster Hall

[Chris Williamson]

The culls are making matters worse, and yet Members are straining at the leash to intervene to support the badger cull. I will give way to the hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart), whom I know is an inveterate supporter of killing badgers.

[Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate. The hon. Gentleman gives the impression that the evidence is completely one-sided. Does he accept to some extent the evidence of the British Veterinary Association? We have accepted its evidence in other debates, such as on circus animals. It is concise and focused on this. Does he accept that there are at least some scientists out there who take a contrary view and that the matter is not as one-sided as he maintains?

[Chris Williamson]

I of course concede that some small percentage of individuals—pseudo-scientists, some might call them—[Interruption.]

Policing of Violence at Hunts

Debate between Chris Williamson and Simon Hart

Monday 11th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)]

I secured this debate to highlight the antisocial and criminal behaviour of a tiny minority of individuals who cause havoc in the countryside. These rural ruffians are blood sports enthusiasts who have been getting away with this lawless behaviour for far too long. To my mind, they are no different from the mindless yobs that blight some of our urban housing estates, but the police, regrettably, are turning a blind eye to their lawless behaviour.

I have been a trustee of the League Against Cruel Sports since 1979, and I was the press officer and then the chair of the Hunt Saboteurs Association 35 years ago, so I know from first-hand experience what these characters are capable of. I was regularly assaulted and threatened by hunt supporters, and I would like to give the House just one example of an incident that happened to me. Following a lengthy car chase, my vehicle was rammed by a supporter of the Quorn Hunt who was driving a Land Rover. Just a few minutes later, several other Quorn Hunt supporters used powerful catapults to fire steel ball-bearings at me. I was therefore delighted when Parliament struck a blow for decency by passing the Hunting Act 2004.

[Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman will have to forgive me—I am trying not to be facetious in asking the question, but would he at least declare to the House any criminal record or record of a similar nature that he obtained while being a hunt saboteur, because I think that is relevant to the debate?

[Chris Williamson]

I am pleased to confirm to the House that I had no criminal convictions when I was a hunt saboteur.

[Simon Hart]

Would it be fair to say that the hon. Gentleman was bound over to keep the peace for an incident involving inciting people, in the eyes of the law, to break the law when he was secretary of Derbyshire hunt saboteurs back in the 1970s, as reported in the Derby Telegraph?

[Chris Williamson]

For the record, I was bound over to keep the peace after taking part in a Radio Derby broadcast to outline a protest against grouse shooting. That is very different from what the hon. Gentleman is seeking to imply.

The Bill that became the Hunting Act was long overdue. Public opinion overwhelmingly supported the ban and still does. Labour, Tory and Liberal Democrat voters support the ban; young and old citizens support the ban; male and female citizens support the ban; urban, suburban and rural dwellers all support the ban.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Williamson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. People cannot understand why some Government Members want to bring back this barbaric activity. The overwhelming majority of the British people want blood sports to remain consigned to the dustbin of history. As my hon. Friend points out, the vast majority of the British public want the Hunting Act to be retained.

The Act should have consigned hunting to the dustbin of history, yet such is the arrogance of some members of the hunting fraternity that they think they are above the law. However, they need to understand that nobody in this country is above the law—not even them. Organisations including the League Against Cruel Sports, Hunt Watch, Protect Our Wild Animals, the Hunt Saboteurs Association and the International Fund for Animal Welfare, along with many other conscientious individuals, have continued to monitor hunt activity. They all tell a consistent story: hunt violence and hunt havoc continue to blight the lives of ordinary people living in and visiting our beautiful countryside.

I have been genuinely shocked by the evidence that has been passed to me about the behaviour of these common criminals. Antisocial behaviour, intimidation, harassment and even violence directed towards those monitoring their activities are all too commonplace. I could not believe that the violence and intimidation, which I witnessed in the 1970s, is even worse today. The disregard for the wider rural community is another feature of their selfish, arrogant behaviour, which includes road blocking; invading and damaging private property; rampaging hunting dogs killing livestock and beloved pets; causing road traffic accidents; and recklessly trespassing on railway lines.

I am not suggesting that everyone who participates in hunting is an arrogant, violent thug. Indeed, I am sure that most hunt followers obey the law. However, worryingly, a significant minority are arrogant, violent thugs, which is why urgent action is needed to tackle this flagrant disregard for the law. Of course I understand that the police numbers have been reduced, but where the law is being routinely abused, the public must have confidence that the authorities will take action. That is why the Government must act to give the police the tools they need to do the job.

Since I secured this debate, I have been inundated with examples of the lawless behaviour of sections of the hunting fraternity. The incidents are too numerous to list them all tonight, but I wish to give just a few examples to illustrate the kind of people and the sort of incidents I am talking about. In December, a hunt monitor reported to Okehampton police an assault that was captured on film. She was told to attend the police station with evidence of the assault, but, after reviewing the DVD, police officers told her that no offences had been committed. They said that there were just some driving issues that the offenders would be advised about, that any assault was part of a hunting issue and that she should not have been on the public footpath in the first place.

Last summer, a south Pembrokeshire hunt supporter was jailed for three and a half years for firearms offences while at a hunt, after a hunt monitor was shot in the head by what transpired to be a modified single-shot handgun. The man also had a sawn-off shotgun and ammunition inside his van, and a further 16 guns were found in his home. In Devon, two separate home owners sold their houses and moved away from the area after being victimised by the local hunt. The hunt master of the Crawley and Horsham hunt, Kim Richardson, was recently filmed telling hunt monitors,

“You’re all fair game now”.

On 4 January 2012, a female hunt monitor was violently assaulted by a supporter from the Cottesmore fox hunt. The woman was on her own when she saw the hunt’s hounds illegally chasing a fox. When she intervened, she was thrown to the ground by a man who smashed her over the head with an aluminium bottle before pinning her down and pouring the bottle’s contents over her face.

On 18 March 2012, supporters of the Ross Harriers hunt broke the window of a vehicle belonging to a monitor and attacked the monitors with an iron bar. One of the victims of the attack suffered injuries to the leg and head.

[Simon Hart]

rose—

[Chris Williamson]

On 25 March 2012, three hunt monitors were set upon by a group of 15 Coniston fox hunt supporters armed with sticks.

[Simon Hart]

Will the hon. Gentleman just give way on that point?

[Chris Williamson]

I have a lot to say and I want to make some more progress. If I have time, I will let the hon. Gentleman in towards the end.

One of the monitors was left with welts on his back and a serious eye injury after the attackers tried to throw him down a ravine. An ambulance was called to treat him, but could not reach him after it was deliberately held up by vehicles belonging to hunt supporters, who hurled abuse at the paramedics.

On 3 November, the Crawley and Horsham huntsman Nick Bycroft was filmed breaking the wing mirror of a moving vehicle and then trying to smash the window with his whip. However, the West Sussex police, who were on the scene, refused to take action. On Boxing day, five armed men from the Southdown and Eridge fox hunt attacked a solitary hunt monitor, beating him around the head and injuring his hands. Keys and equipment were stolen from the vehicle, yet the East Sussex police refused to visit the hunt meet to identify the culprits.

Earlier this afternoon, I watched a short DVD produced by the International Fund for Animal Welfare, which illustrates the intimidation, theft and assault to which its monitors have been subjected. I have to say that I found the footage shocking.

I also have evidence—a letter from Thames Valley police—of one particular hunt incident dating back to January 2011. It involved a Thames Valley police detective inspector who told a complainant that the case was

“fundamentally flawed (principally due to the delay in time since the offences)”.

Is an offence not an offence whenever it takes place? Is the passage of time a valid reason not to pursue?

It is not just hunt monitors who are the victims of these militant blood sports fanatics. I also have recent examples of other types of antisocial behaviour where these rural ruffians have run amok. In Kent, a farm manager’s wife was pushed off a public footpath by horse riders who were galloping across a narrow area. She was pushed into a hedge after grabbing her pet dog to save him from being attacked. The Goathland and Staintondale hunts killed a pet cat. In Devon, a Staffordshire terrier was attacked by hunt hounds. In Yorkshire, recovering horses at a sanctuary were distressed by rioting hounds. The owner of the sanctuary subsequently received threats—incredibly—from a member of the hunt. A Surrey cattle farmer had his herd disturbed on a number of occasions, causing severe distress to many of the cattle. In Somerset, a sheep farmer complained of sheep being distressed by hunting hounds. In Gloucester, horses were distressed by trespassing hounds that killed a fox on private property. In north Cornwall, animals from a small holding were disturbed by rioting hounds.

Those examples are just the tip of the iceberg. In what other part of society would that be acceptable? The simple answer is that it would not be. The irony is, of course, that none of this is necessary. If those recalcitrant hunt supporters and their unacceptable practices were not tolerated by the hunting fraternity’s hierarchy, those incidents would stop. By complying with the terms of the Hunting Act, all the transgressions I have outlined could be avoided.

[Chris Williamson]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. Indeed, I shall come to that point towards the end of my speech.

[Simon Hart]

I respect the fact that the hon. Gentleman has given way. We could both stand here all evening making such comments. I have spent 20 years compiling a list of incidents of violence against legitimate country people and hunt supporters, particularly by members of the hunt saboteurs in balaclavas and all that. Will he accept two things? First, could he not at least seize this opportunity to apologise to all those people—women and children included—who have been on the receiving end of violence from the hunt saboteurs? Secondly, could he not recognise that in every instance that he has mentioned there is existing law to deal with the matters that he has brought to the attention of the House?

[Chris Williamson]

If anybody is owed an apology, it is the victims of the hunt violence that I have referred to. I regret the fact that the hon. Gentleman has not taken the opportunity, as a former chief executive of the Countryside Alliance, to offer that apology tonight.

If the hunting fraternity complied with the terms of the Hunting Act, the hunt monitors, whom they seem so frightened of, would be welcomed because the hunts would not be doing anything unlawful. However, the Masters of Foxhounds Association and the Countryside Alliance have singularly failed to deal with the lawless behaviour in their midst.

Will the Minister reassure me that he will issue an instruction to chief constables stating that the Hunting Act must be upheld? Will he also ensure that chief constables take steps to prevent hunt supporters from intimidating anyone who is lawfully monitoring hunting activities? Will he state for the record that, as far as this Government are concerned, no one is above the law? Does he agree that the mixed messages from senior Ministers could be misinterpreted by some people as tacit approval for breaking the law? Will he urge his senior colleagues, including the Prime Minister, to stop criticising the Hunting Act?

RSPCA (Prosecutions)

Debate between Chris Williamson and Simon Hart

Tuesday 29th January 2013 Westminster Hall

[Simon Hart]

I will take an intervention later, but I want to make a little progress if I can.

The debate asks why the RSPCA prosecutes when pretty much every other worthy charity, whether they deal with animal or human welfare, such as the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, relies entirely on the CPS and the police to deal with problem areas they come in contact with in the course of their professional duties. Why is animal cruelty in Scotland dealt with perfectly satisfactorily by the procurator fiscal, rather than by the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the sister organisation to the RSPCA, as private prosecutions are not permitted in the same form north of the border?

I draw the Attorney-General’s attention to the fact that all those activities have a cost to the taxpayer both through the beneficial tax regimes that all charities benefit from and through gift aid, which assists the RSPCA to the tune of several million pounds a year. Will he comment on what powers the society really has, and its relationship with the police? Even some police officers often assume that the RSPCA’s officers have powers of entry. They do not. Their rank and uniform, although often similar to those of the police, provide no authority whatever in the eyes of the law, yet they can and do liaise with the police to engage in covert surveillance, raids on property and interviewing or cautioning those whom they might suspect. Given the political and commercial activities of the society, is it right that it operates so closely with the police? Should the police exercise some care in the relationship, especially as it applies to the use of cautions?

I want to address how the decision-making process for prosecutions fits with CPS guidance, especially as it applies to the old, sick, infirm, vulnerable and young. Many fellow Members will have examples of constituents who feel that they have been the victims of heavy-handedness from the RSPCA. I will highlight just two.

[Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman talks about the RSPCA being heavy-handed, but does he agree that the common criminals who are in breach of the Hunting Act 2004 should be prosecuted whenever possible?

[Simon Hart]

The hon. Gentleman and I disagree on many things, but what we can agree on, whether it suits my taste or not, is that the law is the law until such time as it is not. I am not here to defend anybody who breaches the law in this area or any other, frustrating though I may find the law. I reassure him—I refer back to my answer to an earlier intervention—that nothing I say today should offer any comfort to those who wish to break the law. This is about process, rather than policy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Hart]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention, which I suspect she wrote before she read The Daily Telegraph this morning. I refer her to a letter written yesterday from the Charity Commission to the RSPCA:

“The charity should ensure that it has fully considered the reputational damage to the charity of adverse publicity; fully assessed the risk of such publicity; and taken steps to mitigate such risk where possible.”

The letter continues that

“although we understand the reasons for the ‘independence’ of the charity’s Prosecution Department…ultimately the trustees are responsible…and…the trustees should review the current arrangements to ensure that they are entirely satisfied with the criteria for prosecutions”.

The Charity Commission has therefore today issued a rebuke to the RSPCA on the manner in which it carries out prosecutions.

[Chris Williamson]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Simon Hart]

I am not going to take further interventions just yet. Hon. Members may disagree with what I say, but I advise them to have a look at what the Charity Commission has said.

[Chris Williamson]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Hart]

I think the situation in Scotland is deemed to be perfectly satisfactory from the point of view of animal welfare charities. I do not think that they are particularly governed by statistics. I am intrigued by the 98% success rate, because nowhere in the RSPCA documentations could I find any reference to conditional or unconditional discharges, which I think make quite a difference to the overall figure. I believe—and I stand to be corrected on the point—that those are included in the 98% success rate. I suggest that the lawyers in the Chamber might consider that slightly misleading.

I want to press on somewhat, and discuss something that I think is a commercial disincentive, using the Freedom Food brand as an example. It is a wholly owned brand of the RSPCA, launched in 1994. The society claims that more than 75 million farm animals and salmon were reared to RSPCA welfare standards under the Freedom Food scheme in 2011. So far, so good—I have no problem with that. Yet in the 19 years since the scheme was introduced, the RSPCA has not brought a single prosecution against a Freedom Food member, despite several members of the programme having been prosecuted—not by the RSPCA—for seriously compromising animal welfare standards. It is odd that in that instance the CPS is deemed expert enough to prosecute under animal welfare legislation, whereas in other cases the RSPCA argues that it alone possesses the necessary skills and resources to do so. That raises the question—I put it no more strongly than that—whether in a case where there is a commercial risk to the RSPCA brand, it is dissuaded from bringing prosecutions, whereas it may be tempted in the direction of a tantalising, juicy case that it might want to get its teeth into because of its political or financial benefits. Those are unnecessary and unfortunate consequences of trying to mix prosecution with politics.

[Chris Williamson]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Simon Hart]

Yes, go on.

[Chris Williamson]

The more I listen to the hon. Gentleman the more I am convinced that what he is talking about is a smokescreen for the attack on the RSPCA for having the temerity to prosecute the Prime Minister’s hunt. Is that not the real reason he brought the debate to the Chamber today?

[Simon Hart]

The hon. Gentleman has omitted a declaration of interest, which is his vice-presidency of the League Against Cruel Sports. My response, therefore, is, “He would say that, wouldn’t he?”

This raises further questions for the Attorney-General. Does he agree with the Environmental Audit Committee’s findings on wildlife crime? The Committee states:

“The CPS should review its performance on prosecuting wildlife crime in England and Wales with a view to either employing specialist wildlife crime prosecutors or introducing specialist wildlife crime training for its generalist prosecutors.”

That would enable the CPS to be better equipped to handle prosecutions, by aligning it with the procurator fiscal and reducing the need for prosecutions to be brought by a politically motivated charity. As was mentioned earlier, there are means by which we can achieve the same ends without the uncertainty about conflicts along the way and whether people are being dragged into the court system at great expense to themselves when they should not be there in the first place.

Firearms Control

Debate between Chris Williamson and Simon Hart

Monday 20th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Chris Williamson]

I agree that the violent images that we see on our screens and the references to weapons in rap music do not help. However, I do not think that that sufficiently explains why young people use guns to the extent that they do these days. That is why it is so important that we give the necessary resources not just to the police, but to youth organisations that turn young people away from firearms and make them realise the consequences of using firearms. There are consequences not only for the victims of firearms incidents, but for the lives of those who use them. The life of the young man who killed the teenager in my constituency, and that of his family, has been destroyed as a result of that incident.

[Simon Hart]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that in the absence of a total ban, there is evidence to suggest that when people are given responsible access to firearms at an early age, under proper supervision, it reduces the chance that they will end up in the terrible circumstances that he has described? Instead of it being a negative, it is a positive. The Home Affairs Committee and others have pointed to plenty of examples that suggest that it is a good thing.

[Chris Williamson]

I am not sure that I accept the hon. Gentleman’s analysis. I certainly do not accept the point with regard to young people, or any people, using firearms to shoot live quarry. Perhaps using firearms in a shooting range is a different matter, but I am not sure that I agree.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

Let me start by associating myself with the comments of many right hon. and hon. Members about the dreadful incidents in Cumbria and other places. I was present at the June Westminster Hall debate introduced by the hon. Member for Copeland (Mr Reed). As a proud representative of a rural area, I can only think in horror of the effect that such an incident would have on my community. Everything that I say should be understood in that context.

Since that time there have been some encouraging signs of an emerging consensus, among organisations and authorities, on what would be a proper, responsible, measured and proportionate way forward. Like other speakers, I would like to dwell on just three aspects of that, which are the availability of firearms to young people, the use of medical records in the application process, and the thorny issue of what constitutes a proper form of certification.

I shall start by establishing some context. One passage in the Home Affairs Committee report states:

“Certainly licensed firearms do not appear to be used in the majority of cases.”

That, I would suggest, is something of an understatement. I was pleased that the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), the Chairman of the Committee, clarified that point earlier this evening. However, he did not go as far as the Committee did in April 2000, in its second report of that Session, which said:

“A common theme to many submissions is that illegally held weapons pose a far greater danger to public safety than those which are held in conformity with the present controls…it is clear that those determined to live outside the law are unlikely to respect the law’s requirements when they wish to acquire or use a weapon.”

Other Members have mentioned the way in which the law has performed in certain areas. It will come as no surprise to them that 52% of firearms offences in 2008-09 were committed with handguns, which were of course prohibited in 1997. That illustrates the point that both the Select Committee reports have made, albeit with a different emphasis.

The Committee went on to say:

“The proportion of licence holders who use their guns in crime is tiny”,

and added:

“Many representations were made to us…about the legitimate enjoyment of shooting…and the wider benefits that shooting brings to the UK economy.”

Other speakers have touched on that point today, but it is fair to re-emphasise that there are different approaches to firearms in urban and rural areas. In rural areas they are seen more as an essential tool of the trade than they might be in other parts of the UK. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), who is not in her place, spoke of the Opposition’s recognition that 70,000 jobs were associated with the shooting industry—if I can call it that—and the fact that the industry injects £1.6 billion into the economy. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) also said that £250 million is devoted to wildlife and habitat management. That is a significant industry; to put it in context, it is not dissimilar in size to the UK film industry.

I want to dwell first on the issue of young people. Paragraph 7.7 of the Home Office’s “Firearms Law: Guidance to the Police 2002” is no doubt familiar to many. It states:

“It is in the interests of safety that a young person who is to handle firearms should be properly taught at a relatively early age.”

Others have expanded on that, including Assistant Chief Constable Adrian Whiting, as the Minister said in his opening remarks. I can see no evidence—emerging or otherwise—to suggest that young people who have access to firearms pose any danger whatever to society; in fact, quite the opposite. It is well within the capability of parents to make sensible and responsible decisions about the activities of their children. They do so pretty effectively every day of the week, and this is no different. There is simply no evidence to suggest that we should conjure up theories that would have a long-term downstream impact on shooting in the UK.

In case that is not sufficient evidence, I will quote a comment made at the weekend by Anita North, the Commonwealth games 2010 gold medallist and record holder, who said:

“People choose their sport at a young age. We have some extremely talented shooters in the GB team who started in their early teens. If they hadn’t been able to get involved so young, they might now be taking part in some other sport rather than winning medals for shooting.”

I shall turn now to the contentious issue of medical records, and start by taking careful note of the Information Commissioner’s concerns about the security of data on the names and addresses of certificate holders. Large numbers of individuals within medical practices could have access to this sensitive material, the leaking of which could pose a significant risk. There is therefore legitimate concern about the proportionality of this measure. The Independent Police Complaints Commission could identify only six cases in which medical involvement at the granting or renewal stage of a licence might have made a contribution to the prevention of crime.

As we have heard, some medical practitioners—not many, but some—are unfavourably disposed to firearms ownership, meaning that licence holders might not visit their GP when they need to. A GP wrote to me only this weekend to say:

“our overriding duty is to our patients, to give them the best advice and guard the confidences they give us. A patient is not going to tell me things if I am going to pass information on to the authorities. We are the guardians of the patient’s confidence, not agents of the state”.

That position is reflected not only by the GP who bothered to get in touch with me but by many others across the country who have been in touch with other hon. Members.

[Chris Williamson]

Does the hon. Gentleman feel that the tragic massacres that took place in Hungerford, Dunblane and Cumbria could have been avoided if Michael Ryan, Thomas Hamilton and Derrick Bird been subject to a medical examination resulting in their firearms certificates being removed and their guns taken away from them?

[Simon Hart]

Let repeat what I said to the hon. Gentleman in an earlier intervention. The fact is that there are individuals who may be perfectly healthy and competent when they apply for and are granted certificates, but in subsequent years may feel that their health is changing in a way that poses a potential threat to the ownership of their certificates, and as a result may feel fearful about approaching their GP in case their circumstances are changed forcibly. That is not good either for their health or for public safety. I understand why the hon. Gentleman has made his point, but sadly, I do not think that there is any evidence to suggest that the outcome would have been any different if different measures had been in place at that time.

[Chris Williamson]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Simon Hart]

I will, but that is not an indication—

[Chris Williamson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman—

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Williamson]

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I thank the hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire for giving way.

I think that the hon. Gentleman’s argument reinforces my own point. Does he agree that rather than a voluntary arrangement—which I acknowledge could deter people from going to their GP for fear of losing their firearms certificate in the circumstances that he has outlined—there should be a mandatory test, perhaps annually? If he does not agree, will he explain why?

[Simon Hart]

I apologise for the earlier exchange, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

My answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is no. I will give my reasons for that answer in due course. I think that it is quite difficult to come up with a concept that would appeal to those who, like the hon. Gentleman, start from the absolutist position—which he is perfectly entitled to take—that nothing short of a total ban on all forms of firearms, whatever their purpose, is acceptable. However, I shall do my best in the few moments that I have left.

Let me try to nail the theory that consulting the spouse, or ex-spouse, of a certificate applicant or holder is somehow in the interests of safety. I cannot think of a more divisive and potentially litigious proposition. Some of the healthiest marriages and family arrangements are based on strong disagreement about almost every important issue, and arrangements of that kind often survive rather longer than others. On a flippant level, I think that such consultation would be a ridiculous intrusion into the way in which people conduct their lives. On a more serious level, I think that in acrimonious circumstances in which a marriage fell apart, the idea that an offended ex-spouse, male or female, should have a say in the future enjoyment of his or her partner is ludicrous. I have read, seen and heard no evidence suggesting for one minute that that would have contributed greatly to a lessening of the chance of serious crime involving shotguns or firearms. The idea that we can expect spouses to become moral adjudicators on applications is clearly nonsense.

Finally, let me deal with the difficult question of certification. Here, the devil really is in the detail. I may have got this wrong—I am sure that the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) will put me right if I have—but it seems to me that there is an implication that it would improve the position if the baseline criterion for applications for shotgun certificates were aligned with that applying to section 1 firearms. I cannot imagine that it is being suggested that the opposite should be the case, so I assume that the criterion for all shotgun certificate applications would rise to the section 1 level. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), I can see why that might be attractive on the face of it, but I feel that it could be devastating to the shooting and gun trade in the United Kingdom. Let me cite the following at this point: “It would be one thing for a person to require good reason to hold a certificate for a shotgun—a reversal of the current burden of proof whereby the Chief Officer shall not grant a shot gun certificate if he is satisfied that there is no good reason—but quite another to require good reason to possess each and every shotgun, as is currently the case with rifles.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) picked up on that, and put it rather more succinctly than I have managed. With this change in circumstances would come all sorts of requirements at variation stage, some of which are practically deliverable but some of which would impose an extraordinary burden, both financial and otherwise, on the already hard-pressed police force. If we consider the sheer number of shotguns in legitimate hands—they outnumber section 1 firearms by about 5:1, I think—we see that the burden that we would be putting on firearms officers and the police force in general is huge. The Select Committee is not as clear as it might be about precisely what the implications are, but perhaps that could be clarified.

All reasonable people will have looked on with horror as the various disasters we are discussing unfolded, most recently those in June and July, and they would accept that some consolidation of the existing legislation is an acceptable and sensible way forward. However, it does not necessarily follow that that consolidation should result in wholesale changes, as there is no evidence to suggest that such changes, had they been made earlier, would have altered the tragic events that took place.

I agree with many other Members that evidence and principle must be the two foundations of any changes made by this or any other Government. Of course the efforts of the enforcement agencies and the Government should principally be directed at the eradication of gun crime, rather than unnecessarily penalising legitimate firearms owners. Sadly, so far as I can see, none of the proposals in the Select Committee report would have altered the outcome of the events that we have discussed this evening.

Apart, perhaps—although I doubt it—from the unlikely and absolutist solution suggested by the hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson), no system is going to be 100% watertight. I suggest that the consolidation approach is the best way of establishing a proper balance between the legitimate interests of users—whether recreational users or those who use weapons as part of the nuts and bolts of their daily job—and the legitimate safety concerns. A consolidation would achieve that without compromising the coalition’s unequivocal commitment not to introduce legislation that unnecessarily impacts on people’s daily existence so that they are unable to conduct their businesses or live their lives free from state interference. If the coalition can get us to that stage, and not be too distracted by some of the eye-catching but—I venture to say—dangerous suggestions we have heard this evening, that would be a not unreasonable place to reach.