HC Deb 26 July 1967 vol 751 cc890-8

Lords Amendment: No. 127, in page 54, line 25, leave out from "granted" to first "any" in line 28 and insert: by the chief officer of police unless he has reason to believe that the applicant—

  1. (a) is prohibited by the Firearms Act 1937 from possessing a shot gun; or
  2. (b) cannot be permitted to possess a shot gun without danger to the public safety or to the peace;
and a shot gun certificate may be revoked by the chief officer of police for the area in which the holder resides if the officer is satisfied that the holder is so prohibited or cannot be permitted to possess a shot gun as aforesaid. (2A) A shot gun certificate shall—
  1. (a) be in the prescribed form;
  2. (b) be granted or renewed subject to any prescribed conditions and no others; and
  3. 891
  4. (c) specify the conditions, it any, subject to which it is granted or renewed.
(2B)

Mr. Tavern

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

With this Amendment we can take Amendment Nos. 131 and 132.

The effect of the Bill as printed is that a shotgun certificate can be refused if the chief officer of police has reason to believe that the applicant is prohibited from having such a firearm or is of intemperate habits or of unsound mind, or is for any reason unfitted to be entrusted with a shotgun. These words were criticised in Committee and in order to confine the powers of refusal to matters having criminal significance the Amendment substitutes the criterion of danger to public safety or to the peace instead of the words "intemperance", "insanity" and "unfitness". The opportunity has also been taken of rewriting Section 2(3) of the 1937 Act specifically in relation to shotgun certificates instead of applying that subsection, with an Amendment, in subsection (5) of the Clause.

Mr. Marcus Kimball (Gainsborough)

The Amendment, coming from another place, is an improvement on the position that we had before, if we accept that there is necessity to have this system of shotgun licensing at all. The Amendment means that we have to consider only the danger to public safety or the peace of the Realm. Does the Amendment mean, however, that if anybody shoots someone else while out shooting and that other person thinks that the first is a dangerous chap and should not continue to have a shotgun, he can tell the chief constable, so that the next time that person applies for a shotgun certificate it will not be granted?

We could think of many cases where this might be useful, although it is taking the matter rather to an extreme at this hour. As I understand the Bill, and from information given to me by the London gun trade, this application could be made under the Clause.

If the hon. Member is making so much about public safety in connection with the grant of a shotgun certificate surely this is the place where we could institute some system of voluntary testing of people before they apply for a shotgun certificate. That step would be welcomed by various organisations interested in encouraging the further use of shotguns. While very much opposed to the proposals which were put forward, if we have to accept that chief constables can refuse a person a shot gun certificate on the grounds of his being a danger to public safety, surely we should develop a system of voluntary testing for people in the use of shot guns before they are allowed to shoot. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will draw the attention of the regional sports councils and other organisations to this Clause to see whether we can build up a few experimental schemes in the voluntary education and testing of young people, in particular, in the use of shot guns.

10.15 p.m.

Sir D. Glover

My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball) has been a little unfair to some of his colleagues. I cannot imagine, if anyone who was an efficient shot proceeded to shoot one of his friends, that it would not be lethal. My hon. Friend put forward the situation in which someone was shot and then went to the police. Surely if he had been shot he would be in no condition to go to the police.

I do not think that it was ever intended that a person who shot someone else, while out shooting, would be covered by the Clause. If he is covered by it, and if my hon. Friend's remarks are valid, then we ought to have an explanation from the hon. and learned Gentleman because it would open up a field which it was never intended that the Bill should cover. The Bill was designed to stop people from having shot guns or other lethal weapons who had felonious intent. I doubt whether the Bill in fact will stop anyone from getting a gun who wants one for evil and felonious purpose. It will only create difficulties for people who want guns for sporting purposes and who will not be able to obtain them as easily as in the past. I do not think that there will be much increased safety for the general public, but there will be a lot more red tape as a result of the Bill.

I should like clarification of the suggestion that if someone, while out shooting, shot one of his colleagus he would be prohibited thereafter from holding a licence.

Mr. Taverne

May I reply by leave of the House? I will not be inveigled into giving an indication of what I think "danger to the public" could mean in a particular case, because it would be unwise to do so. It should be left to a sensible decision on a question of fact whether someone was considered to be a public danger in a particular case.

The Bill does not seek control only those who have a felonious intent. We are very much concerned also with the irresponsible element who have no felonious intent but who may still be a danger to the public—and "danger to the public" is a very suitable phrase.

The question of testing does not strictly arise on the Clause, but I see no reason why organisations should not set up their own testing schemes.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 128, in page 54, line 32, leave out "imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or".

Mr. Taverne

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

It may be convenient at the same time to consider Lords Amendments Nos. 129 and 130.

The Amendment substitutes a maximum penalty of £50 only for maximum penalties previously proposed of six months' imprisonment and/or a £200 fine. The maximum penalty of a £50 fine applies only under the Air Guns and Shot Guns Act, 1962 to offences of giving to children or accepting from children gifts of air guns or ammunition. But those are much lesser offences than the ones under Clause 69 of having a shot gun without a certificate and the associated offences of making a false statement in order to obtain a shot gun certificate, producing a false certificate, or personating a certificate holder.

It would seem that, in relation to the Clause 69 offences, the maximum summary penalties of six months' imprisonment and £200 fine should continue to apply. All the Clause 69 offences may relate to serious incidents which the courts should be empowered to deal with appropriately. If the shot gun certificate system is to deter at all and not be regarded solely as a matter of local registration, the possibility of imprisonment for uncertificated possession is necessary and it is essential for the courts to be able to impose a stiff fine. It would not have to be imposed in every case. One is dealing simply with the maximum penalty and leaving it to the discretion of the courts to determine what is suitable in each case.

The present maximum penalties in the Clause are the same as those provided under the Firearms Act 1937, as amended by the 1965 Act, that is, the penalties on summary conviction for corresponding offences in regard to Part I firearms. The shot gun certificate is seen as complementary to the firearm certificate system, and it is appropriate that the penalties should correspond. The Part I offences, though not the Clause 69 offences, are also triable on indictment, and this reflects the closer control which is exercised over Part I firearms.

Sir D. Renton

I do not wish to cover ground which we covered when we had the Bill before us earlier. I wish merely to put on record that the Government have been thoroughly inconsistent. On the one hand, they have made it one of the principal themes of the Bill that they want to do away with short sentences of imprisonment. On the other hand, against the advice of the House of Lords and of the Opposition here, they insist that for these offences the courts should have power to impose a sentence of imprisonment not exceeding six months.

It does not make sense. However, at this time of night and at this stage of the Bill, one would be beating one's head against a brick wall in saying more. I wish to put on record how utterly inconsistent the Government are.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 129, in page 54, line 33, leave out "£200" and insert "£50".

Question, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment, put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 130: In page 54, line 33, leave out "or both".

Question, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment, put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 133, in page 55, line 15, at end insert: () the following paragraph shall be added at the end of section 11(1) of that Act (prohibition on transferring firearm to person not producing certificate):— '(c) a person returning to another a shot gun which he has lawfully undertaken to repair, test or prove for the other.'

Mr. Taverne

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

The Amendment meets the criticism that it might be unreasonable if a customer of a gunsmith had to produce his shot gun certificate for inspection not only when he bought the gun but when he took it away on another occasion. The Amendment would allow the gun to be returned without further production of the certificate.

Mr. Kimball

I am very glad that the Minister admits that having to produce one's shot gun certificate to get a gun back from the gunsmith would be a great burden. Now that he has admitted that it is a very unsatisfactory provision, I hope that when he reviews the Firearms Act, which he has undertaken to do, we will look at this sort of provision most carefully.

Most of us keep our firearms certificate where we buy our ammunition, but we probably take our rifle or gun to be done up somewhere else. Probably we do not buy our ammunition in London, although we take our firearms there to be repaired. It is a great burden to those who use rifles to have to remember to bring their firearms certificate when they send them for repair. The Joint Under-Secretary of State admitted that it would be unsatisfactory procedure with shot gun certificates. Having admitted that, he will, I hope, look most carefully at the workings of the provisions affecting firearms.

Mr. Taverne

I do not believe that I told the hon. Member for Gainsborough that we were reviewing the firearms legislation. I think that I promised that we would consolidate it.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 134, in page 55, line 17, leave out "one month" and insert "thirty days".

Mr. Taverne

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

I think it would be convenient to discuss with it Lords Amendment No. 135.

Lords Amendment No. 134 substitutes the expression "thirty days" for "one month", which might be rather less ambiguous in certain circumstances.

Lords Amendment, No. 135 deletes subsection (7), which enables my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State by rules to reduce the thirty days. Three months was originally proposed, with power to reduce it. Later the Bill was amended to reduce the period to one month, and it was then said that it would be unlikely that there would be any need to reduce the period yet further, which might place restrictions on regular visitors and that would be somewhat harsh. The position was reconsidered and it was decided that the power, which was unlikely to be used, should be abandoned.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 136, in page 55, line 26, after the second "a" insert "time and".

Mr. Taverne

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

The Amendment provides specifically that when a chief constable authorises a place for shotgun shooting at artificial targets such as clay pigeons he may do so for a specific period or periods of time.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 137, in page 55, line 28, at the end insert: () A person may without holding a shot gun certificate borrow a shot gun from the occupier of private premises and use the shot gun on those premises in the presence of the occupier.

Mr. Taverne

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

The Amendment enables guests who do not have shot gun certificates to accompany their host when he goes shooting, and to borrow and use his shot guns on his land without committing an offence under subsection (1). It is designed to deal with cases where someone has a friend to stay for the weekend and asks him to go shooting as an incidental feature of the visit. It is deliberately restricted to the more intimate occasions and not to weaken the basic policy that regular shot gun owners and users should have shot gun certificates.

Sir D. Renton

We must be grateful for small mercies. The Amendment is obviously necessary, but it should be realised that it does not extend to a very common case. My neighbour in the country sometimes invites me to shoot with him. There have been occasions when I have had a friend staying and he has arrived without a gun, borrowed my spare gun, and we have both gone shooting with my neighbour. The Amendment would not allow my friend to go shooting without a shot gun certificate, which is ridiculous and most unfortunate. We had better take note of that.

Sir J. Hobson

Another point shows how limited the concession is, although we are grateful for small mercies, as my right hon. and learned Friend said. Large numbers of people have only shooting rights or rabbiting rights and are not the occupiers of the premises over which they shoot. In those circumstances they could not lend a gun to a friend who was shooting with them.

Sir D. Glover

I am not an expert in shooting, like my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball). But I think that this is most unsatisfactory; the Government certainly have not got this right. Surely, it is not their intention to prohibit the sort of thing which my right hon. and learned Friends have just described. Surely, the intention must be that on what I would call a family or social occasion somebody could lend a gun to another person, even though he or she moved from their own premises to their friends' next door, and that they would be allowed to shoot?

10.30 p.m.

As I understand it, under the present regulations it would be outwith the law. I am sure that the Government never really intended this. Is this really what they intend? If it is, they are making nonsense of most of the social fabric of the people of the country who shoot, who have shoots, who borrow shoots, who rent shoots and who move from one field to another, one being their own private premises and the next being with the leave of their friend next door. The Government are making complete nonsense of what goes on in practice.

I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will be able to give some satisfaction to the House. If he does not, even though this might be an improvement on the Bill, it certainly will produce a very unsatisfactory state of affairs and will result in people appearing in court when the Government never had any intention that they should be anywhere near a court.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 138, in page 55, line 39, at end insert: () Notwithstanding anything in section 2(4) of the Firearms Act 1937 (duration of firearms certificate), a shot-gun certificate issued before the expiration of six months from the date of the commencement of this Act shall continue in force for such period from that date or from the date when it is granted, whichever is the later, as may be specified in the certificate by the chief officer of police (being a period of not less than one year but not more than five years).

Mr. Taverne

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

The purpose is to enable special arrangements to be made to deal with the large number of applications which may be made for shotgun certificates when the new system comes into force. There will be a danger that all the shotgun certificates will be renewable at exactly the same time, and the peak will place an enormous burden on the police. The problem is, therefore, to arrange the renewals so that they will result in an even spread over three years, and this the Amendment seeks to achieve.

Question put and agreed to.