§ 3.22 p.m.
§ LORD SWANSEAMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to publicise the latest amnesty for firearms and shot-guns; whether they are aware that among firearms and shot-guns handed in during an amnesty there may be items of some value; and whether they will give instructions to police forces that firearms and shot-guns so surrendered shall first be offered for sale to registered dealers before steps are taken to dispose of them by other means.]
§ LORD BOWLESMy Lords, the amnesty is being publicised by prominent Government advertisements in the national Press and sporting journals, a distribution of 700,000 leaflets, and announcements on the radio. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has made arrangements with the police for the preservation of any antique weapons or other valuable items which can be 565 preserved in national collections. It is not intended that any of the illegally held firearms handed in during the amnesty should be offered to the trade. Shotguns, to which the amnesty does not apply, may be sold privately and to the trade without restriction before May 1. Any shot-guns handed in to the police will be offered to the trade before destruction.
§ LORD SWANSEAMy Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that part of his reply dealing with antique weapons and shot-guns, may I ask why Part I firearms should automatically be destroyed? Is he aware that many are in good working order and would command a good price in export markets? Could not Part I weapons, firearms, be sold to registered dealers on the understanding that they would not be sold on the home market?
§ LORD BOWLESMy Lords, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary agreed that the arrangements for the present amnesty should be similar to those obtaining in 1965. Suggestions made by the trade at that time that amnesty weapons should be available to dealers for export purposes were firmly rejected. The arguments were roughly these: it is inconsistent with the purpose of the amnesty, which is to take firearms out of circulation and not to export them to other countries with the possibility that they might come back. Also, in the earlier amnesty members of the public who had handed in their weapons in good faith complained when they later saw them on sale in this country. Thirdly, I suggest that it would be quite wrong that arms handed in in this country should be handed over to other countries where criminals might get to work in a way we are trying to stop here.
§ LORD SWANSEAMy Lords, while applauding the Government's reasons for wishing to take these firearms out of illegal circulation, if they are returned to legitimate circulation why should they be any more likely to fall into the hands of the wrong people than other firearms already held by dealers as part of their stock?
THE EARL OF MANSFIELDMy Lords, arising out of the original reply, does not the noble Lord agree that it is a great waste that excellent weapons 566 should be destroyed? Could not these suitably be issued to police forces or other sections of Her Majesty's Forces, or put on sale to responsible people? Is it not a fact that the person who hands in a firearm for which he has no certificate has no reason to feel aggrieved that it should be afterwards displayed for sale, because he has no right to have it in the first place; he is himself a potential criminal, even if gaining the benefit of the amnesty. Is it not a mistake to waste these excellent weapons when there are opportunities for disposing of them to the public advantage?
§ LORD MITCHISONMy Lords, without going into the niceties of the Theft Bill, would it not be rather odd to requisition arms for one purpose and then to sell them?
§ LORD BOWLESMy Lords, that is exactly what I said a few minutes ago. The whole importance and object of this exercise, the three months or four months amnesty, is that these firearms should be taken out of circulation in this country. Many people who have a firearms certificate obviously are not criminals and could go on holding them. Those who do not have certificates have been asked to hand their firearms in. I think the noble Lord will remember, from the debate we had on Part V of the Criminal Justice Act last year, that quite tremendous figures were shown as to the increase in crime and indictments in the years from 1961 to 1967.
§ THE EARL OF SWINTONMy Lords, may I support my noble friend in the suggestion that instead of destroying these weapons they should be held so that they can be available for the police? There could be no objection to that, and there seems to be a tendency, probably a very wise one, on the part of the Government to arm the police; it may become more and more necessary. Why cannot these guns be held by the Government in case they wish to issue arms to the police?
§ LORD BOWLESMy Lords, I am quite certain that if my right honourable friend, the Home Secretary felt the police were short of these kinds of firearms he would certainly see that those which were useful to the police would not be destroyed.
LORD SALTOUNMy Lords, can the noble Lord tell me why the height of the possessor of the arms is material as to his eligibity to possess it or not? On my certificate there was a careful inquiry as to my height.
§ LORD BOWLESMy Lords, as the noble Lord knows, this has nothing to do with shot-guns at all.
§ VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARDMy Lords, I still cannot understand why these firearms cannot be sold to members of the public who have a firearms certificate.
§ LORD BOWLESMy Lords, I do not know how many people with firearms certificates have firearms, but I dare say there is a limit to the firearms covered by one certificate.
§ LORD BOWLESWell, it is about time there was.