REVOCATION OF CERTIFICATES (Hansard, 2 November 1988)

§ Mr. Douglas Hogg
First, on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I regret to say that there is a printing error in the amendment. I refer hon. Members to subsection (3)(b), the first line of which includes the words "if such an appeal". The word "such" is an error; it should not appear.

§ Mr. Robin Corbett (Birmingham, Erdington)
Resign.

§ Mr. Hogg
That was a nasty suggestion.

§ Mr. Speaker
It is not for me to correct the Minister, but I understand that the mistake is in paragraph (a), not (b).

§ Mr. Hogg
It sounds as though we are approaching resigning territory. I do not see the word "such" in subsection (3)(a). It is not in my copy.

§ Mr. Speaker
It is in mine.

§ Mr. Hogg
Your view, Mr. Speaker, is likely to be authoritative. I am looking desperately for help with this.

§ Mr. Corbett
I had better make a confession. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) will give me hell when he notices this. He used to go through Bills and spot errors before Ministers did. The copy that I, and, it appears, you, Mr. Speaker, have contains the word "such" before the words "an appeal" in subsections (3)(a), (b) and (c). At least that is consistent. Is the Minister happier with that, or shall I ask him another question? I am not a lawyer, but I should have thought that, on grounds of consistency and clarity, this would be an improvement. It cannot do any great harm either way.

§ Mr. Hogg
This is the first time in a debate that I have had to say that I am excessively grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I think that we can settle happily on subsection (3)(a). That is where the error is to be found. If we could deal with subsection (3)(a), I should be uncommonly obliged to you, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Speaker
The House accepts that.

§ Mr. Hogg
I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This amendment represents quite an important change in the provisions in the Bill, and I commend it to the House. In section 30 of the Firearms Act 1968 the chief constable has power to revoke a firearms certificate. That power of revocation is subject to appeal. But what happens to a gun pending the hearing of an appeal? At present, the police have a limited right to require the surrender of the gun. For example, in section 46 of the 1968 Act they have power to search under warrant and the right of seizure when they have reasonable grounds to suppose that an offence has been or is about to be committed. But they do not have power to require the delivering up of the gun after revocation of the certificate on the general public safety grounds referred to in the new clause, whose purpose is to give them that power.
If an appeal against a revocation is successful, the gun and its ammunition, if any, will be returned. If it is not successful, or is not pursued, the new clause provides for the disposal of the gun. In the first instance, that should be done by agreement; in default of an agreement, it should be done on the adjudication of the court.
I hope that the House will consider it right to improve the circumstances in which a chief constable can require the surrender of a gun pending an appeal, and agree that we have got the balance about right.

§ Sir Dudley Smith
I broadly agree with my hon. Friend's support for the Lords amendment. However, throughout the proceedings on the Bill there has been an undercurrent of anxiety about chief constables responding too vigorously to the measure. Chief constables vary throughout the kingdom, and we want to keep a reasonable check on any actions they may take as a result of the legislation.
There is a large degree of discretion in refusing a gun licence to someone. If there are good and adequate reasons why one should not he given, I am sure that the whole 1064 community would support chief constables and the police in withdrawing a weapon. If the subject is debated, and if the police propose that a weapon should he taken away under the provisions of the Bill, the owner of the weapon will have the right of appeal.
I hope that as we proceed with the implementation of the legislation the Home Office will keep a careful check on the weapons that are withdrawn or confiscated as a result of the new provisions. Situations can vary, and I say hypothetically that one thing could happen in Sussex and another in Worcestershire. Subsection 3(c) of the new clause says: if no such appeal is brought … (i) in such manner as the chief officer of police and the owner may agree".
If a person does not appeal, or if he appeals and the appeal fails and he is not entitled to have a shotgun certificate or to own a weapon, will the police confiscate that weapon? Provided that he is not a criminal, will he be able to sell the weapon so that he does not suffer a penalty on the spot?

§ Mr. Hogg
I should like to reply to the question put to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith). The situation is comprehensively described in subsection (3) of the new clause. Perhaps I could take my hon. Friend through it, because this rather complicated procedure is dealt with in detail. Subsection (a) provides that if the appeal against revocation succeeds the gun or the ammunition shall be returned. If the gun holder appeals against revocation and wins, he returns to the status quo.
The second alternative is where the gun holder appeals, the appeal fails and the court holds that the chief constable was correct. In that case it will be for the court to decide how the gun and the ammunition are to be disposed of. The parties to the appeal will almost certainly make representations to the court about a fair manner of disposal. I envisage a sale, depending on the nature of the gun, to an authorised dealer, with the proceeds of sale being made available to the shotgun owner whose appeal has failed.
The third situation is where a revocation notice is served and an appeal is entered but not proceeded with. In other words, the shotgun or the firearms certificate holder does not go to court. In that case the subsections apply in the ways that are set out in the Bill. First, they will apply in such manner as the chief officer of police and the owner may agree. If there is such an agreement the gun will be dealt with in accordance with it. If there is no agreement the chief officer of police has a power to impose one. He may say, "We have not agreed, but I suggest that the weapon be sold and you receive the proceeds of the sale." If the gun owner is dissatisfied with the scheme put forward by the chief constable, he has the right of appeal to the court. Ultimately, the court will decide the situation that we have been discussing.
I hope my hon. Friend will feel that, although this is a slightly elaborate approach, at least the interests of the shotgun or firearm certificate holder have been preserved.

§ Mr. Speaker
We now come to Lords amendment No. 11, to which there are the following amendments: (a), in line 2, leave out 'of or over the age of seventeen'.

(b), in line 2, leave out 'seventeen' and insert 'fourteen'.

(c), in line 7, leave out 'and'.

(d), in line 9, at end insert