GUN BARREL PROOF BILL [Lords] (Hansard, 22 February 1978)

§ The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Dr. John Gilbert)
I beg to move, That the Chairman do now report to the House that the Committee recommend that the Gun Barrel Proof Bill [Lords] ought to be read a Second time. This is quite a minor Bill, but it is useful and is essentially for the convenience of the trade. It provides for the accession of this country to the CIP, the International Commission for the Proof of Firearms. It has no defence implications whatever, and for that reason I am not quite sure why I am here. As I understand it, as soon as the Bill is passed, if that be the Committee's wish, responsibility for these matters will pass forthwith to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection. This is a formal announcement of a change of Ministerial function which has been approved by the Prime Minister, by whom all such changes have to be approved.
1616 Equipment that is manufactured by Royal Ordnance Factories is in no way affected because they are subjected to Crown proof and therefore do not come within the auspices of the Bill. Other than providing for accession to the CIP, which is of considerable convenience to the gun trade in this country, the Bill has a couple of minor clauses that provide for tidying up such matters as historic penalties that are clearly out of date, eliminating some minor infringements from the area of criminal law, extending potential areas of operation of the two gun proof houses now in existence in this country, and a couple of matters of definition.
The Bill is quite straightforward. I do not wish to take up the Committee's time by going through the whole history of the matter, but I will be happy to answer any questions that hon. Members might have.

§ Mr. Churchill
The Committee will be interested to note that the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection, having failed so conspicuously in his own sphere of influence, is to be entrusted with the latest stages of this Bill, which I trust we shall be handing to him in a state in which he cannot even begin to fail to get it onto the statute book.
The Bill emphasises the value of the House of Lords, because there can be no greater collection of expert opinion in any legislature throughout the world—

§ The Chairman
Order. The hon. Gentleman will be well aware that it is customary to refer to another place under that designation, and, in any case, I do not see its relevance to this Bill.

§ Mr. Churchill
I accept your admonition, Mr. English, but this Bill did originate in another place, and it has been delivered to us in what hon. Members on both sides will consider to be a very satisfactory condition. I should merely like to say that the quality of British guns, which has depended to such an extent on the gun proofing which has been carried out by the London and Birmingham proof houses over the centuries, has a place second to none in the world. They are regarded as the Rolls-Royce of the shotgun and rifle industry, and they provide important export earnings for this country. The purpose of the convention, as I understand it, is to bring world standards up to the British standards which have been insisted upon for so long by the London and Birmingham proof houses.
There are two minor points I should like to raise. First, the Explanatory Memorandum states: Nearly all of the principal nations who manufacture and export sporting weapons and other small arms are now signatories to the Convention. It is noteworthy that the United States, Czechoslovakia, Japan and the Soviet Union, all of which are major exporters, are not as yet signatories to the convention.
Furthermore, it is slightly misleading that the Bill should be entitled the Gun Barrel Proof Bill when it refers not only to the barrel but to the action of the gun. The 1868 Act was conceived at a 1618 time when muzzle loaders were going out and breech loaders coming in, but it is important to appreciate that the proving extends not merely to the barrels but to the full action of the gun in which, in many cases, failure is experienced.
I should like to put one question to the Minister in relation to Clause 6, which provides that The Gun Barrel Proof Acts 1868 and 1950 shall extend to Scotland and Northern Ireland. Is it the case that, up to the present time, Scotland and Northern Ireland have been covered by no gun barrel proof Acts whatsoever, as would appear to be the case?
The Opposition certainly have no wish to detain the Committee. We feel that this is a much needed measure which is welcomed by the industry and will increase the export potential of our own industry by the fact that we shall be incorporating ourselves into this international convention.

§ Mr. David Walder
I shall endeavour to stay within the rules of order, but I should like to take the subject of this Bill just a little further, if that is possible, Mr. English. I welcome the presence of the Minister of State, Ministry of Defence, who is normally responsible for more sophisticated weapons. I hope that he can help me with this, although it may be something which goes off into the realm of another Department.
I well accept the purpose of the Bill, which, as the right hon. Gentleman says, is for the benefit of the trade. Having some knowledge, I think that there has been a period when the trade was in considerable difficulties with regard to proof marks coming from other countries, then the proofing here, and sometimes the difficulty of assuring its own customers that shotguns bought in England were properly proofed and therefore there was some indication as to their quality and, perhaps more important, their safety.
Proofing on a gun barrel and on the action—and this is where I realise that you may well choose to stop me, if you so wish, Mr. English—is a rather complicated means of identification. There are other methods of identifying shotguns, generally by a number which customarily appears in the same place as the proofing.
1619 It has always intrigued me that a person who buys or possesses a shotgun and fills in the licence which allows him to keep it is not asked to identify that gun in any way when it could so easily be done by reference to number and, if necessary, proofing. I leave the thought with the Minister that it would be no bad thing if the other Department responsible produced a very short Bill suggesting that that method of identification be used. At the moment, the only identification on a licence is that of the possessor. The authorities also wish to know one's profession and height.
If I were buying a shotgun for illegal purposes, it is unlikely that I should put as my profession "bank robber" and it would hardly matter whether I was 5 feet 2 inches or 6 feet. I suggest that my proposal would be a simple matter to achieve through governmental channels, and would provide a great restriction on the illegal possession and use of a shotgun.

§ Dr. Gilbert
I should like first to reply to the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Walder). I shall see that his remarks are referred to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, since such matters fall within his province. The Home Office is already looking into the subject, although I do not know how far its examination has advanced.
My reply to the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) is that Scotland and Northern Ireland have been involved only with the offence-creating provisions of the legislation up to now. The reason the Bill refers to those countries is a logical extension of removing the 10-mile restriction on the London and Birmingham proof houses. We know of no intention of Scotland and Northern Ireland to set up similar establishments, but the measure enables them to do so if that should become convenient for the gun-making trade.
I think that the hon. Gentleman was a little wide of the mark in saying that 1620 the Bill would be effective in raising world standards. The Government, of course, hope that it will, but at the moment the CIP has only 11 members. He was right to point out that one or two major manufacturers—although not necessarily major exporters—are not members of CIP, particularly the United States.
Other countries, such as Sweden, Finland and Japan, have shown an interest. However, their principal difficulty is that their proof houses are not independent of the gun manufacturing trade. The houses have not thought it worth while to achieve that independence, but until they do the countries in question will not be eligible for membership of the CIP.
I take the hon. Gentleman's point about the Title of the Bill, but I am afraid that it is too late to do much about it now The hon. Gentleman is quite right—the measure not only relates to gun barrels but amends two previous pieces of legislation with a similar title. However, for future ease of reference, perhaps no great harm has been done by using the title.
Maybe I misled the hon. Gentleman, but I should correct him on one very minor point. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection will not actually have responsibility in the matter until the legislation is enacted, when I am sure he will assume that responsibility with the same brilliance with which he has managed to bring down the inflation rate.

§ The Chairman
May I thank everyone present for his co-operation?

THE FOLLOWING MEMBERS ATTENDED THE COMMITTEE:
English, Mr. Michael (Chairman)	Kershaw, Mr.
Banks, Mr.	Lewis, Mr. Ron.
Churchill, Mr.	Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral.
Cowans, Mr.	Tinn, Mr.
Ellis, Mr. John.	Townsend, Mr.
Ford, Mr.	Walder, Mr. David.
Gilbert, Dr.