HL Deb 15 December 1977 vol 387 cc2247-59

11.51 a.m.

Lord WINTERBOTTOM

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee. — (Lord Winterbottom.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]

Clause 1 agreed to.

Lord WINTERBOTTOM moved Amendment No. 1: After Clause 1, to insert the following new clause:

Offences

(" . — (1) A person who commits an offence under section 30 (acting as Guardian while not qualified), section 122 (dealing with barrels bearing forged or counterfeit marks etc.) or section 143 (fraud by officers of the Two Companies) of the Act of 1868 shall be liable—

  1. (a) on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum; and
  2. (b) on conviction on indictment to a fine.

(2) Section 87 (refusing inspection of books), section 100 (acting contrary to declaration) and section 142 (neglect of duties) of the Act of 1868 shall cease to have effect.").

The noble Lord said: I apologise to the House and to the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, for the rather sudden flush of Amendments that appeared late last night. I hope that I shall be able to satisfy your Lordships as far as possible today, despite the short notice that your Lordships I have had. If not, of course, we shall have a Report stage in January when any outstanding points can be dealt with.

With those undertakings, I shall speak on the new clause which it is proposed to insert after Clause 1. This, of course, is an understandable lapse of mind on the part of the drafters of the Bill. The intention is, of course, to increase the size of fines payable on offences under this particular clause and the present maximum fines payable under these sections are as follows: Section 30, concerning Guardians acting while unqualified, has a maximum fine of £50; Section 122, dealing with barrels bearing forged or counterfeit markings, has a maximum fine of £20 in the case of each barrel; Section 143, which deals with fraud by Proof House officers, has a maximum fine of £50. These penalties were fixed more than 100 years ago and the value of money has fallen somewhat since then. The new maximum penalties have been agreed in consultation with the Home Office and are in line with other penalties fixed by the Criminal Law Act 1977 for offences of similar gravity.

Incidentally, in the hurry I have omitted to discover what "offences of similar gravity" are, but in Schedule 3 there is talk of £1,000 and I hope that by the time we reach that Schedule I shall be able to make certain that it is £1,000 instead of the figures given in this brief. Different provisions are included for Scotland and Northern Ireland because the provisions of the Criminal Law Act 1977 do not extend to Scotland or Northern Ireland. That deals with subsection (1) of the new clause. Subsection (2) of the new clause is a technical Amendment. Sections 87 and 142 cover matters which are no longer appropriately dealt with under the Criminal Law. As they relate to matters of discipline, they would today be governed by the contract between employer and employee.

Section 100 attaches criminal penalties to the breach of the oath by the Proof Master and Assistant Proof Masters of the Birmingham Proof House. In so far as this oath covers fraud and corruption, a breach of these provisions would now be covered by the Prevention of Corruption Acts 1889–1916—Acts which I am certain are well within the knowledge of the noble Lord, Lord Lyell. The oath also provides for good and faithful behaviour in office, but this is too vague an expression to be subject to criminal penalties. It is accordingly thought desirable to abolish these offences. This is an interesting illustration of the difference in social attitudes between Victorian England 100 years ago and the England of today. I beg to move.

Lord LYELL

I am certainly grateful for the kind words expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom. Indeed, I was somewhat shattered to find a flush of Amendments. I was even more startled to find that the 1868 Act, which we are discussing and which the noble Lord has so eloquently amended in various sections and subsections, was, indeed, not a public Act but among private Acts applying only to the City of Birmingham. He has cleared up most of the points that I had in mind, particularly the repeal and removal of Sections 87 and 142 from the 1868 Act.

He mentioned Section 100 and said that it applied merely to Birmingham, but I have the Act in front of me and it says, "Any person". There are various other references in the Act to the City of London and the two companies which are charged with a responsibility of proofing gun barrels. I wondered why it was applicable only to the City of Birmingham. I had various questionmarks down about the removal of these three sections, but the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, has laid my fears to rest, particularly with regard to the penalties, which are more up to date. That being so, I should like to thank the noble Lord and wish the Amendment a speedy passage.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

11.58 a.m.

Lord WINTERBOTTOM moved Amendment No. 2: After Clause 2, to insert the following new clause:

Rules and regulations

(" .The Guardians shall have power to make any such rules and regulations as are mentioned in section 106 of the Act of 1868; and sections 101 to 105 of that Act (byelaws made by the Guardians) shall cease to have effect.").

The noble Lord said: This is another technical Amendment. The last by-laws made under Sections 101 to 105 of the 1968 Act which it has been possible to trace were made in 1870. These provide for the penalties payable by officers, workmen or servants of the Guardians for neglect or breach of duty—for example, By-law 2 provides for a fine of 2s. 6d. for mixing different loads of barrels, that is, gun barrels. Such matters are now more usually provided for in an ordinary contract between employer and employee. The Guardians no longer require the power to make by-laws and rules under Sections 101 to 105 and are content to be given the rule-making power under Section 106 which provides for rules for receiving, proving and re-delivery of the gun barrels. The opportunity has, therefore, been taken to repeal these provisions. I beg to move.

Lord LYELL

Once again, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom. He pointed out that these sections which are being repealed—Sections 101 to 105 inclusive—had not necessarily been in use since 1970. But I am sure that the noble Lord and, indeed, the Committee will be aware that there are many safe and excellent gun barrels still in current use in all parts of the United Kingdom which probably might have been built, cast or forged about that time. Certainly I know of very valuable gun barrels produced at about the turn of the century.

There is one aspect on which the noble Lord might be able to assist me. In some of the sections that are being repealed—particularly Sections 103 and 104—it seemed to me that the specific rules, which are set out in these sections, were covered in somewhat blanket form, if that is the right term, in Section 106, which is to be repealed by the Bill. I take what the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, has said about the last amendments and by-laws being made in 1870, but nevertheless in the interest of safeguards to members of the public and possible gun users, so that anybody who has a gun knows whether it is in proof or not, I would not like any malpractice to be condoned on the part of members of the public through lack of notice. Possibly if the noble Lord could reassure me now, or indeed next year, I should be grateful.

Lord WINTERBOTTOM

I am grateful for the thorough way in which the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, has studied the Act in preparation for today's debate. I thought as I read this that we were repealing Sections 101 to 105 and leaving Section 106 in being. Is that how the noble Lord interprets it? As the clause says: The Guardians shall have power to make any such rules and regulations as are mentioned in section 106 of the Act of 1868; and sections 101 to 105 of that Act (byelaws made by the Guardians) shall cease to have effect. Is that how the noble Lord interprets it or has he a different interpretation?

Lord LYELL

Possibly the lack of clarity is on my part. I just hoped that all the safeguards that I understood were written into, particlarly, Sections 103 and 104 would be continued under the new provisions of Section 106. That was the only point I had in mind. Certainly the noble Lord has gone more than halfway to reassuring my fears. I have no doubt that, in the manner in which this House conducts its affairs, he will be able to settle all my fears.

Lord WINTERBOTTOM

I will undertake to give the noble Lord an exact reassurance when we get to the Report stage.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clauses 3 to 6 agreed to.

Clause 7 [Citation and Extent]:

12.2 p.m.

Lord WINTERBOTTOM moved Amendment No. 3:

Page 2, line 28, at end insert—

(" ( ) This Act shall come into operation on such day as the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument appoint, and different days may be so appointed for different purposes.").

The noble Lord said: I know that this blanket power given to the Secretary of State is unpopular in your Lordships' House. We had an interesting discussion about it last week. But I think the reasons for this particular power being given to the Secretary of State are reasonable and will be acceptable to your Lordships. I regret that it has been found necessary to introduce this Amendment at this late stage.

The purpose of this Amendment is to provide that instead of the whole Act coming into force when it receives the Royal Assent, it will come into force on the date or days provided for by the Secretary of State by Statutory Instrument. The purpose of this Amendment is to avoid a situation where the Act would come into force before the United Kingdom had acceded to the Convention—there could be an interval of up to one year between our application being lodged and our accession. However, certain provisions of this Bill are independent of our accession to the Convention—for example, Clause 2 which removes the geographical limitation which currently restricts the siting of branch proof houses to within 10 miles of London or Birmingham. These clauses could be introduced before accession. Hence the provision to enable the Act to come into force by order on a piecemeal basis. I should like to express the personal hope that we get it tidied up in one day, but it may be that Scotland, for instance, will wish to start a proof house before implementation of the full Bill, and this gives the Secretary of State power to take such a step. I beg to move.

Lord LYELL

I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, once again. I see his reasons for wishing to include this Amendment, and I think it is highly desirable. I am a little disturbed that he thinks that those of us who live North of the Border will wish to institute our own proof house. I understand that the standards that are insisted upon by the two existing proof houses in Birmingham are regarded as the standards which are desirable world-wide. Indeed, the purpose of the Convention is to bring European and world standards up to the standards of what I might call British standards, which are indeed applied from London and Birmingham.

So long as the Secretary of State can keep in touch with those persons or companies who might wish to use these standards, or to whom the Bill, and we hope the Act, will apply, then I am sure we would have no quarrel, and I am sure that the Committee would agree with the noble Lord's sentiments. I hope that there will be no need to have piecemeal implementation of this Bill. I know that that is not the desire of the two proof houses, nor indeed of the gunmakers trade. I use that description in a fairly broad sense; not necessarily the Gun-makers Company but the leading gun-makers of the United Kingdom, who, I know, wish to see this Bill enacted as quickly as possible.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.

Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.

Schedule 3 [Minor and Consequential Amendments]:

Lord WINTERBOTTOM

Before we start a discussion of the various Amendments to Schedule 3, may I say that it was put to me by my advisers that we might take all these Amendments together, but I wish to be bound by the wishes of the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, and whether he wishes to take the Amendments to the Schedule step by step. He has expressed a wish to me that we should not hurry this matter in view of the short time that we have had to prepare ourselves. I do not know whether I should take the advice of my advisers and take them en bloc. I myself, in order to avoid confusion, should like to take them step by step, but I should like to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, has to say about this.

Lord LYELL

Would it be in order if I notified the noble Lord, Lord Winter-bottom, that I have queries on four of the remaining Amendments? Would that be in order? I see the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, sitting there. My advisers are not necessarily with me, but could I suggest that I have four minor queries on Amendments Nos. 6, 11, 16 and 18, and I doubt whether any of these queries would take more than 30 seconds of the noble Lord's time at this stage. Would it be agreeable if we could take the remaining Amendments en bloc except for these four Amendments?

Lord WINTERBOTTOM

With the agreement of your Lordships, we shall take them in the form suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Lyell.

Lord WINTERBOTTOM moved Amendments Nos. 4 and 5:

Page 7, line 2, leave out ("definition") and insert ("definitions")

Page 7, line 4, after ("Act") insert—

(""statutory maximum", in relation to a fine on summary conviction, means—

  1. (a) in England and Wales, the prescribed sum within the meaning of section 28 of the Criminal Law Act 1977 (£1,000 at the passing of the Gun Barrel Proof Act 1977);
  2. (b) in Scotland, the prescribed sum within the meaning of section 289B of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 (also £1,000 at the passing of the said Act of 1977); and
  3. (c) in Northern Ireland, £1,000.").

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Lord WINTERBOTTOM moved Amendment No. 6:

Page 7, line 17, at end insert—

(" . In section 21 of the Act of 1868—

  1. (a) for the words "Justices for the Borough of Birmingham" there shall be substituted the words "justices for the petty sessional division of Birmingham.";
  2. (b) for the words "the Council of the said Borough" (twice) there shall be substituted the words "Birmingham City Council"; and
  3. (c) for the words "Mayor for the Borough" there shall be substituted the words "Lord Mayor".

. In section 28 of the Act of 1868 for the words "deemed guilty of a misdeamour" there shall be substituted the words "guilty of an offence and liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years".

. In section 30 of the Act of 1868 for the words from "for every such offence" to "as a Guardian", in the second place where those words occur, there shall be substituted the words "be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum and on conviction on indictment to a fine" and for the words "Recovery of such Penalty" there shall be substituted the word conviction".").

The noble Lord said: This again is one of these fascinating pieces of history that we are working upon in this Bill. I hope your Lordships will forgive me, as to find one's way through this is complicated because of the short notice we have had. The reasons for the insertion of the words on page 7, line 17, arise from the fact that Birmingham has ceased to be the Borough of Birmingham and has become one of the new large local government organisations. For instance, "the Council of the said Borough" is to be substituted by the words "Birmingham City Council"; the "Mayor for the Borough" becomes "Lord Mayor". As for the changes proposed by the Amendment, this is a re-writing of an ancient law and I shall be interested to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, whether he accepts it or has a question to ask.

Lord LYELL

I am grateful to the noble Lord and the Committee for acceding to my small request. The only query I had about this Amendment concerned Section 28 of the 1868 Act and the repeal. The Amendment refers to that section and to the words "deemed guilty of a misdemeanour": I have been wondering whether the proposed change of words might not have the same effect as the 1868 Act because I understand that it is intended that the provisions of that Act should be continued for false declarations. However, the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, has resolved my query and has even gone in for what I think, in this context, one could call "over-kill", and I am grateful to him.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

12.11 p.m.

Lord WINTERBOTTOM moved Amendments Nos. 7 to 10 en bloc:

Page 7, leave out lines 27 to 30 and insert—

(" . In section 95 of the Act of 1868 for the words "Byelaws" there shall be substituted the word "rules".

. In section 106 of the Act of 1868—

  1. (a) for the words "The Gunmakers Company" there shall be substituted the words "The Two Companies respectively";
  2. (b) after the word "their" there shall be inserted the word "respective"; and
  3. (c) after the words "by them" there shall be inserted the word "respectively".").

Page 7, line 36, leave out ("deemed guilty") and insert ("for every such offence")

Page 7, line 37, after ("words") insert ("be").

Page 8, line 15, leave out from ("words") to ("to") in line 16 and insert (" "for every such offence be subject to a Penalty as follows" there shall be substituted the words "be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum and on conviction on indictment" ").

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Lord WINTERBOTTOM moved Amendment No. 11:

Page 8, leave out lines 20 to 23 and insert—

(" (c) in paragraphs (1) to (3) and (5) to (7) the words from "shall for every" to the end shall be omitted; and

(d) in paragraph (4) the words from "shall for every neglect" to "Twenty Pounds", in the second place where those words occur, shall be omitted.").

The noble Lord said: This is the first Amendment in a group designed to "modernise" offences or penalties created by the 1868 Act and to remove certain anachronisms. The following Amendments come into this category.

Lord LYELL

I am grateful to the noble Lord for pointing out that there are certain anachronisms. If he has an opportunity of examining Section 122 he will find it long, nearly three pages, and rather complicated. I had thought that the words in Amendment No. 11 were purely grammatical because I had been wondering whether the penalties described in Section 122 were covered elsewhere in the legislation. This is probably a matter into which we can go at a later stage, and these remarks will act as posting a warning notice to the noble Lord.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord WINTERBOTTOM moved Amendments Nos. 12 to 15 en bloc.

Page 9, line 13, leave out ("either alone or").

Page 10, line 31, leave out ("deemed guilty") and insert ("for every such offence")

>Page 10, line 33, at beginning insert ("be")

leave out lines 35 to 37 and insert—

(" 15. In section 143 of the Act of 1868 for the words "for every such offence forfeit not exceeding Fifty Pounds" there shall be substituted the words "be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum and on conviction on indictment to a fine".").

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 4 [Repeals]:

Lord WINTERBOTTOM moved Amendment No. 16:

Page 11, line 4, column 3, at beginning insert— ("In section 21, the words "the Borough of", in the second place where those words occur. In sections 23, 38, 40 and 56, the words "the Borough of", Section 87.").

The noble Lord said: Schedule 4 is the repeals Schedule. The purpose of this and other Amendments in this group is to give effect to the partial repeals of Sections 21, 23, 38, 40, 56 and 122 of the 1868 Act, and to the repeals in toto of Sections 87, 100 to 105, and 142 of the 1868 Act. They are a logical consequence of the other Amendments.

Lord LYELL

I am afraid this might come close to a mischievous intervention. If the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, cares to consult Section 89 of the 1868 Act he will find that in that section, which covers the power to provide branch proof houses, Birmingham, which is to be repealed, is mentioned, and there is mention of the City of London. I wondered why London had been left in and Birmingham had been taken out, when my understanding is that the purpose of the Bill is to provide power to the Government, I presume to the Secretary of State, to institute branch proof houses anywhere in the United Kingdom. The noble Lord produced a stunning list of sections which are being repealed and, while I did not note them, I will read his remarks in Hansard.

Lord WINTERBOTTOM

As I said earlier, I am grateful, as will be the Committee and the Department, to the noble Lord, Lord Lye11, for the thoroughness with which he has studied the legislation. I shall make certain that my legal advisers take note of what he said, and on Report I hope to give him a satisfactory answer. He has preceded me through the jungle of this piece of private legislation and I will see that the thoroughness which he has applied to the earlier Act is copied by my Department.

On Question, Amdndment agreed to.

Lord WINTERBOTTOM moved Amendment No. 17:

Page 11, line 7, column 3, at end insert— ("Sections 100 to 105. In section 122, in paragraphs (1) to (3) and (5) to (7) the words from "shall for every" to the end and in paragraph (4) the words from "shall for every neglect" to "Twenty Pounds", in the second place where those words occur.").

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord WINTERBOTTOM moved Amendment No. 18: Page 11, line 14, column 3, leave out ("Section 144") and insert ("Sections 142 and 144")

Lord LYELL

I have one minor query on this last Amendment. As I understand it, the effect of Amendment No. 18 is to repeal Sections 142, 143 and 144. The one aspect that disturbs me concerns Section 144. The noble Lord, Lord Winter-bottom, has been very kind and has said that I have been thorough. It may interest your Lordships to know that it took the Library of your Lordships' House 15 minutes to find this particular Act, so I am not surprised that the noble Lord is in difficulty; nor, indeed, the Department, despite all their resources. I understand that this particular Bill crosses the borderline between two Departments, both the Department of the noble Lord and, I think he mentioned to me, another Department.

What worries me is to find that Section 144 of the 1868 Act specifically says that the Act is not to extend to Scotland or Ireland. I am particularly worried to know whether sportsmen in Scotland, or indeed in Ireland, North or South of the Border, as we have been hearing earlier from the noble Lords, Lord Melchett and Lord Belstead, have been guilty of misdemeanours or offences, or any criminal acts, all these years since 1868, which is, I think, about 110 years. Have we been guilty of various misdemeanours through using unworthy barrels or gun barrels which are in an unsafe condition? I am very interested. Why does this Amendment now wish to take out Section 144, which up till now has specifically excluded Scotland and Ireland from the provisions of the Gun Barrel Proof Act, which I presume has applied only to England and Wales?

Lord WINTERBOTTOM

I think the noble Lord has made a very nice point. I have a feeling that I go through life committing offences under earlier legislation about every day of the week; but I will try to put the noble Lord's conscience to rest when we come hack to this matter at Report stage of the Bill by letting him know that he has been behaving perfectly legally for the last hundred years.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.

House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendments.

Forward to