§ 5.19 p.m.
§ Report of Amendments received (according to Order).
§ Clause 1:
§ Carrying firearms with intent to commit a serious offence
§ 1.—(1) Any person who has with him a firearm or imitation firearm with intent to commit an indictable offence, or to resist arrest or to prevent the arrest of another, in either case while he has the firearm or imitation firearm with him, shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.
§ LORD DERWENT moved to leave out subsection (1) and to insert instead:
§ 1.—(1) Any person who has with him a firearm or imitation firearm with intent
- (a) to commit an indictable offence, or
- (b) to resist arrest, or
- (c) to prevent the arrest of another;
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not want to go through all the arguments that I used on Committee stage as to why I do not like the drafting of subsection (1) as it appears in the Bill. In brief, my feeling is that it is essential that the public should fully understand this Bill when they come to read it—because it is the sort of Bill that one expects to be in the hands of the public, as well as those of the lawyers. I object, in particular, to the words "in either case". In my view, they are not in the least clear. I am not quite certain that I understand myself to what these words, "in either case", refer, because in fact there are three offences named in the subsection, and "in either case" would appear to refer only to two.
§ I made an effort to put down an Amendment to alter the words of the clause as they now exist. The result, in each case, was rather clumsy—almost as clumsy as the clause as it now appears. I thought that it would be better to try to redraft the subsection. I am not a Parliamentary draftsman: I am what the noble Lord, Lord Champion, called "an amateur draftsman". It may be that there is some technical reason why my Amendment will not do, but, if there is 1058 no technical reason against it, I consider that it is far clearer than the wording of the Bill. I hope therefore that the noble Lord will accept my Amendment.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 5, leave out subsection (1) and insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Dement.)
§ LORD STONHAMMy Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, that language used in Acts of Parliament should be clear and capable of being clearly understood. That is very important. More important still is the achievement of the objective of that legislation. While I agree with the noble Lord that his Amendment is almost beautiful in its clarity, unhappily my objection to it is the more than technical one that it does not achieve what he and I, and I am sure the whole House, seek to achieve.
The purpose of subsection (1) of the clause is to ensure that if a person goes out with intent to commit an indictable offence, and has with him a firearm, we shall be able to secure a conviction so as to render that person liable to the penalty mentioned in the subsection—that is, a term of imprisonment not exceeding ten years. The noble Lord will remember that when we discussed the point on Committee stage I said that we must in any event insist on keeping the words "while he has it with him". The reason is that those words make it clear that the prosecution would not have to prove that the offender intended to use the firearm, but only that he intended to have it with him; whereas, under the wording of Lord Derwent's Amendment, before we could get a conviction we should have to prove that the man intended to use it in the commission of an offence; and that would be extremely difficult.
Although, for that reason, the Amendment is not acceptable, it is nevertheless incumbent upon the Government to show that their words are easily understood and to show the way in which they arise. Your Lordships will remember that when this Bill was first introduced in another place the subsection read:
Any person who has with him a firearm with intent to commit an indictable offence shall be liable …1059 and so on. There was discussion on that particular point during practically a whole sitting of the Committee in another place. As a result, an Amendment was put down to make it clear that the intention was to commit an indictable offence and to have the firearm with one whilst doing so. That was not good enough, and on Report stage in another place there was yet another Amendment to bring into the ambit of the clause "resisting arrest" or "preventing the arrest of another." So when the Bill came from another place to your Lordships' House this particular section read:Any person who has with him a firearm or imitation firearm with intent to commit, while he has it with him, an indictable offence, or to resist arrest or to prevent the arrest of another, shall be liable …That, clearly, was not satisfactory, because the reference to having a firearm with him qualified only "commit an indictable offence" and not "resisting or preventing arrest". So on the Committee stage in this House I moved an Amendment, which was agreed, designed to put this right. And the subsection now reads:Any person who has with him a firearm or imitation firearm with intent to commit an indictable offence, or to resist arrest or to prevent the arrest of another, in either case while he has the firearm or imitation firearm with him, shall be liable …As Lord Derwent has made clear, his objection to this form of words, which is the fourth attempt of the combined wisdom of both Houses of Parliament, was based on his belief that the word "either" implied reference to only two matters—that is, resisting arrest and preventing the arrest of another—and did not qualify "committing an indictable offence". We have very carefully considered this point with Parliamentary Counsel and we do not think that the present wording can be improved. "In any case" and "in each case" would both look a little odd. Nor do we consider that there is any real ambiguity. I am sure that the noble Lord will agree that any possible ambiguity on the matter is taken care of by subsection (2), which clearly links the reference to having the firearm or imitation firearm with him both with "committing an offence" and with "resisting or preventing arrest".1060 I submit that this matter has been subjected to exhausting, and exhaustive, consideration, and that we have achieved a form of words which we think is satisfactory. There is no difference of objective between the noble Lord and myself. We are satisfied that the present subsection achieves our joint objective and are satisfied that Lord Derwent's Amendments would not. In the light of that explanation I hope that he will be able to withdraw the Amendment.
§ LORD DERWENTMy Lords, much to the surprise of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, perhaps, may I say that I think the criticism by the professional draftsman of the amateur draftsman's draft is valid? I am still not entirely satisfied that the amateur draftsman, who prefers the word "each" to "either", is not more accurate than the professional. Unfortunately, I do not think we can now go further on the matter. I would ask the noble Lord to have another think about "each". I know that he will not give way, but I will accept whatever he decides.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause 2 [Carrying firearms in a public place]:
§
LORD DERWENT moved, in subsection (1), after "gun or" to insert "loaded". The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment deals with the question of loaded shot guns or loaded airguns, or other firearms, whether loaded or not, in certain circumstances. That is clearly the intention of the Bill. At present, subsection (1) refers to
any loaded shot gun or air weapon or any other firearm (whether loaded or not) …
I am advised that, to clever people like Ministers and draftsmen, it is abundantly clear that the word "loaded" applies both to shot guns and to air weapons. But to the more stupid members of the public, such as myself, it is not in the least clear that the word "loaded" does in fact apply to air weapons. If my Amendment is accepted the subsection will read:
any loaded shot gun or loaded air weapon or any other firearm (whether loaded or not)".
I do not think that could be misunderstood, even by people like myself. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 22, after first ("or") insert ("loaded")—(Lord Derwent.)
§ 5.31 p.m.
§ LORD STONHAMMy Lords, when we discussed this particular question during Committee stage, I asked the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, to wait until he saw the whole passage printed in the Bill, when I thought it would be clear to him that "loaded shot gun or air weapon" manifestly applied to both. I nevertheless promised to have another look at this point and I have done so. Having done so, I am still satisfied that the words "loaded shot gun or air weapon" do qualify both and leave no room for ambiguity. But it is the case that the insertion of the word "loaded" before "air weapon" would remove any possible shadow of doubt that exists. The noble Lord's proposal also has the advantage, in my view, of lending added emphasis to the fact that the firearm qualities, whether loaded or not. The subsection covers a loaded shot gun, a loaded air weapon and a firearm, whether loaded or not. Therefore, despite what the noble Lord said about the distinguished Parliamentary Counsel and clever Ministers, I now have much pleasure in accepting the Amendment.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 8 [Conditions of registration of firearms dealers]:
§ 5.32 p.m.
§
LORD STONHAM moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "cause that person's name to be removed from the register" and insert:
remove from the register either that person's name or any place of business of his to which that condition relates".
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope it will meet the convenience of the House if we take Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 together, because they are on the same point. Amendment No. 3 enables a chief officer of police, in cases where a firearms dealer fails to comply with a condition of registration, to remove from the register a place of business of his to which that condition relates. But as subsection (3) of Clause 8 stands at present, a chief officer of police has power to remove from the register altogether the name of a firearms dealer who fails to 1062 comply with a condition of registration. That would, in many cases, perhaps, be unduly severe where a dealer has more than one place, or perhaps a large number of places, of business but has failed to comply with a condition in respect of only one of those places. My Amendment would put this right, by providing discretion for a chief officer of police either to remove a dealer's name from the register or only to remove one place of business. There is a precedent for this distinction in the 1937 Act, where Section 8(3) gives the chief officer of police power to remove a dealer's name from the register and Section 10(3) gives power to remove a place of business.
§ The second Amendment, Amendment No. 4, on the Marshalled List, is purely consequential on the first, and extends the existing right of appeal under the 1937 Act against removal of a place of business from the register to cases where this is done as a result of non-compliance with a condition. I hope your Lordships will feel that this is a necessary Amendment. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 4, leave out line 13 and insert the said new words.—(Lord Stonham.)
§ LORD DERWENTMy Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord. I think that this Amendment is necessary and is an improvement.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD STONHAMMy Lords, I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 26, at end insert ("and section 10(4) of that Act (appeals against removal of place of business from register) shall apply to the removal of a place of business from the register to the said subsection (3) as it applies to such a removal under section 10(3) of that Act").—(Lord Stonham.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§
LORD STONHAM moved, in subsection (2), after "but" to insert:
(a) if it appears to the chief officer of police that a person required to be registered as a firearms dealer carries on a trade or business in the course of which he manufactures, tests or repairs component parts or accessories for shot guns, but does not manufacture, test or repair complete shot guns, and that it is impossible to assemble a shot gun from the parts likely to come into that person's possession in the course of that trade
1063
or business, the chief officer of police may, if he thinks fit, by notice in writing given to that person exempt his transactions in those parts and accessories, so long as the notice is in force, from all or any of the provisions of subsections (1) and (2) of the said section 12 and of the said Schedule 2; and
(b)
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment is to give chief officers of police discretion to waive the requirement on persons who process component parts of shot guns (but not complete shot guns or sufficient parts from which shot guns can be assembled) to keep records of their transactions. It will be remembered that during the Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, moved on his own behalf, and that of his noble friend, Lord Mills, an Amendment which was designed to relieve from the obligation to keep records those craftsmen—we think there are about 150 of them—who do not make or assemble complete guns but who manufacture components of guns for the gun trade. They have to be registered as firearms dealers and there is no dispute between us about that.
§ I am sure I am right in saying that the aim of the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, had the full support and sympathy of the Committee. The difficulty was that that aim was not achieved by the words of his Amendment, because it would have relieved of the responsibility for keeping records not only these craftsmen who only make components, but the manufacturers of complete firearms if they also make components. Having realised that, we both agreed to have another look to see whether we could find a form of words which we could include in the Bill to achieve the objective we had in mind. We have not completely succeeded in doing so, but I believe the present Amendment, which on this occasion I hope will be perfectly clear both in words and in intent, will in practice achieve all that the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, wished to achieve by his Amendment.
§ The new Amendment, if it is accepted, will of course apply to these craftsmen all over the country, wherever they may be, but it is understood that they are overwhelmingly in the Birmingham area, where they have been known to the police for very many years—that is, in 1064 the best connotation of those words. The police there know exactly what they do in this trade, and it is not anticipated that there will be any difficulty at all in carrying out the purpose and spirit of the Amendment which I am now moving. It is, perhaps, only fair to point out that they will continue to have to be registered, and the power to require records will still be there as a reserve power, but we do not think, from our knowledge and from the knowledge of the police of these chaps, that it will be exercised. I hope your Lordships will feel that this is a satisfactory way of getting over this difficulty, and that you will find the Amendment acceptable. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 2, after ("but") insert the said subsection.—(Lord Stonham.)
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, as the noble Lord has said, I raised this point during the Committee stage, and, as he has also said, I think your Lordships sympathised with it. I withdrew the Amendment which I had down at that time in the knowledge that it was perhaps not as effective as it might be—although that could be put right. But I withdrew it principally on the assurance of the noble Lord that he would look again at the matter, and, on his offer, to have consultations with me about it.
In fact, my Lords, I welcome this Amendment, and in doing so I should like to record my appreciation of the efforts made by the noble Lord and his advisers to implement that offer of consultation. We did in fact have useful consultation, resulting in this Amendment and, incidentally, the premature decease of two more Amendments which I myself had put down but which I have withdrawn in favour of his. I am delighted to find that the noble Lord and his advisers have achieved what we were given to understand was the impossible. I always think that that is a very good mark for any man or set of men. Consequently, what this boils down to is that this Amendment certainly meets that particular point. I welcome it, and I hope your Lordships will, also.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ 5.41 p.m.
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, this Amendment, standing in the name of 1065 my noble friend and myself, is a positive earthquake of an Amendment. It corrects, as I understand the Bill, a very small point of drafting related to grammar, which has been occasioned by the acceptance of the previous Amendment, No. 5. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 2, leave out ("its") and insert ("their").—(Lord Chesham.)
§ LORD STONHAMMy Lords, I am in a position of a little difficulty here. The noble Lord, when he described his Amendment as a bombshell, was very much nearer the truth than he anticipated. He has disclosed that, because of the Amendment which has just been accepted, he withdrew two of his Amendments, and, quite frankly, I thought that this one was merely a paving Amendment to make way for those other two. I assumed that the fact that it still continued on the Order Paper was an error which he would put right simply by—
LORD CHESFIAMI wonder if I may, with the leave of the House, interrupt the noble Lord, because, in the circumstances, I ought perhaps to have added a further word of explanation in moving the Amendment. I did not do so because I thought it was such a very small point. The noble Lord will see, if he refers to page 5, line 2, that it says
…but in its applicationand then goes on to mention one paragraph of the Act. By the Amendment just made, it will now be referring to more than one paragraph of the Act, and it should therefore read…but in their application…"—not "its". It is purely grammar.
§ LORD STONHAMI do not think it is purely grammar. If the noble Lord will just read with me subsection (2) of Clause 9, it goes on, after "Notwithstanding", and says,
…and provisions with respect to the registration of such dealers, their places of business and their firearms transactions) shall have effect as if any reference therein and in the definition of firearms dealer in section 32 of that Act to firearms to which Part I of that Act applies included a reference to shot guns, but in its"—and that is the word the noble Lord is talking about—application to shot guns so much of paragraph 3 of the said Schedule 2 as requires particulars of the areas in which the firearms certificates were issued…1066 The word "its" refers to paragraph 3 of Schedule 2, and if we made it "their", so that it read…but in their application to shot guns so much of paragraph 3 of the said Schedule 2…it would make it a nonsense.I regret this, and it is probably my fault for not mentioning it to the noble Lord before the Report stage, but it was my feeling that the Amendment was left on the Marshalled List in error. I do not want to spring anything on him, but I think that, if he looks at it, he will realise that I am right and that the word "its" applies to paragraph 3 of Schedule 2. I think he will see that it is correct as it is now, having regard to the fact that he has not moved his two Amendments and that we have not considered the Amendments to which he referred and for which, I thought, this Amendment was paving a way. I hope the noble Lord will accept that and will feel able to withdraw the Amendment.
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, looking at it in that way with the noble Lord, I am quite happy to accept what he says. I am sorry that my precious bombshell should have met such a petty fate, but it appears to me, on second thoughts, as if he is right. Perhaps I got a little confused because the Amendment on this matter was originally intended to go in about five words later, in which case it would have been correct. But I am perfectly certain that, whichever way it is, the noble Lord will see that it is right before the Bill becomes an Act. I am quite content to leave it at that, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment,
§ LORD STONHAMMy Lords, if I may be allowed to speak again, I am happy to give that assurance—and this rather applies to both of us—to have a look at it again.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.