HL Deb 09 July 1986 vol 478 cc351-65

7.20 p.m.

Lord Swansea rose to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the order [S.I. 1986 No. 986] be annulled.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should declare an interest as a lifelong shooter. I have taken an interest in shooting in all its forms. I am a member of the council of the National Rifle Association, and I am at present the acting chairman of the British Shooting Sports Council. This body was formed some years ago and now comprises ten national governing bodies of various shooting sports representing every aspect of shooting throughout the United Kingdom. It co-ordinates the views of all those bodies and acts as a channel of communication with the Home Office. It is recognised by the Home Office as representative of all shooting interests.

We have had firearms control in various forms since about 1920. The present legislation is based on the Firearms Act 1937, which was consolidated with other subsequent Acts into the Firearms Act 1968, the Act which is at present in force. For many years the fees for grant, renewal or variation of a firearm certificate were purely nominal; in other words, five shillings for a first grant and two shillings and sixpence for a renewal or variation. It was recognised at the time that the renewal fee could be much lower than that for a first grant. In 1969, however, these fees started an unpleas-ant upward spiral. The fee for a grant became £2 10 shillings and for renewal £1 5 shillings, and progressed upwards in successive increments until fixed in 1980 at £25 for a first grant and £20 for a renewal. Throughout the period, a differential was maintained between the grant and renewal, the latter varying between 50 per cent. and 80 per cent. of the fee for a first grant.

After a lengthy period of discussion in the Home Office, a new scale of fees is proposed in the present order. Generally speaking, the new fees are broadly acceptable bearing in mind that there has been no increase since 1980. They can therefore be said to reflect the rate of inflation since then. Indeed, I must welcome the fact that the fees for shotgun certificates remain unchanged and that the fees for variation of a firearm certificate and its replacement have actually been reduced. However, it is now proposed to raise the fee for renewal of a firearm certificate to £33, the same as for an initial grant. It is this aspect of the order in particular that I wish to bring to your Lordships' notice. I feel that it is unacceptable, unreasonable and illogical.

There has been no change in the substance of the law since the 1937 Act. Section 27 of the current act of 1968 sets out the criteria by which a chief constable must be guided in assessing an application for a firearm certificate. Subsection (3) says that the same considerations apply for a renewal as for a first grant. It is reasonable that proper inquiries should be made regarding a first grant to establish the bona fides of an applicant. The certificate comes up for renewal every three years. If there has been no change in the circumstances in the meantime, it is reasonable to assume that the renewal should not call for the same exhaustive inquiries. This, I believe, is reflected in the fact that from the very beginning of firearms legislation there has always been a differential between the fees for a grant and for a renewal.

The present system has worked for the last 49 years as well as any licensing system can be expected to work. However, the fee for a renewal is now to be raised by 65 per cent., the same as the fee for a grant. I hope that my noble friend will be able to tell your Lordships what justification there can be for this, and in what way the circumstances of the working of the Act have changed to necessitate this quite outrageous increase after 49 years.

The Home Office working party which reviewed the working of the Act two or three years ago produced some worksheets that purported to show the length of time taken by the police over the various stages of the processing of applications for grant and for renewal. It obtained the figures from a survey of a sample of police forces over the country. Not surprisingly, it got a very wide variety of replies, with the Metropolitan Police leading the field by several lengths. With such widely differing figures, the survey is really of little value. It is obvious that there is little, if any, uniformity in practice among police forces. I have heard from several sources that there is little effort in some forces to make economic use of manpower. There are examples of sending two men on an inquiry when one would do and of failing to telephone before a visit to ascertain whether the applicant is at home so that a visit which is abortive has to be repeated. I do not believe that much credence can be attached to the timings on the worksheets. I certainly do not believe that in 99 per cent. of cases of renewal it is necessary to spend exactly the same length of time on each stage as for a grant. In the case of a variation, where one might expect some further inquiries to be made to establish the need for another firearm, the fee is actually to be reduced. This is what makes the order so illogical.

In the report of the Home Office working party no mention is made of the intention to regard renewal of a firearm certificate as bearing the identical workload of an initial grant. Even more serious is the total omission to state that a provision of the law that has been ignored for nearly 50 years is now to be enforced without warning. Whether this omission was deliberate on the part of the working party with intent to deceive or whether it was through forgetfulness is immaterial. The result is that the shooting public feels strongly that it has been conned.

The fees in recent years have been supposed to balance the costs of administration. But if one looks at the services rendered in other respects by police forces, one finds that no fees are charged. There is no fee, for example, when a crime prevention officer comes along to your house to advise on security. The scale of fees is reaching a point where it is a major disincentive to legitimate ownership of firearms. Shooting in all its various aspects is a sport that is growing in popularity among all classes and among all income groups in this country. It is no use saying that shooters are all rich, wealthy men, because that is simply not the case. We have seen the great success by shooters from Great Britain in international competition in recent years especially in the Olympics where our shooters gained four medals. That had never been done before by shooters from this country.

Let us consider the case of a young person who wishes to take up target rifle shooting. He applies to join a club—and the cost of that in itself is going up all the time. He has to undergo a period of probation before the club will back up his application for a firearm certificate. He cannot therefore obtain a rifle until he has been an active member of the club for some time. He may be lucky enough to get hold of a fairly inexpensive rifle—a beginner's rifle if you like—which might cost £50 or considerably more. On top of that he has the cost of his firearm certificate which will now be £33 in the first instance and £33 at every renewal. One cannot therefore be surprised that many young people are deterred from taking up shooting as a sport simply because of the cost.

We must then consider those for whom a rifle is a tool of their trade. A farmer may need a .22 rifle for vermin control on his farm. It is possible to find a cheap rifle for, say, £5 or £10 but when one adds to that the cost of the firearm certificate one gets an entirely different picture.

Then there is the gamekeeper, the stalker and the professional deer culler. The latter's work is very necessary in some parts of the country where numbers of deer have to be kept under control. Deer cullers are therefore employed, but here again the cost of their firearms certificates is a very important aspect in their budgeting. It is getting to the stage where the scale of fees is becoming a tax on a recreation. I do not think any of your Lordships would welcome that.

The shooting interests, regrettably, were not brought into direct consultation on the level of fees. We were presented with it as a fait accompli when the order was about to be laid. It has happened again, as it has in the past, that the order has been laid very shortly before a parliamentary recess when there was little time in which to table a Prayer and have it debated.

A few weeks ago I went with a deputation from the British Shooting Sports Council to the Home Office and had a long discussion with my noble friend's honourable friend in another place. We were unable to persuade him to vary the order. In fact, it was due to be laid only a few days after that meeting. The only crumb of comfort we were given was that a Home Office review body would take another look at the working of the fees and in particular the police timings on which the costs are based, and perhaps review the fees in two or three years. However, if the Home Office are prepared to hold such a review in two or three years one must wonder why they are not prepared to have a second look now before this order comes into effect.

I dare to hope that it is not too late even now for the Government to withdraw this order for further consideration, and I hope that we may get some encouragement from my noble friend. I beg to move.

Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the order [S.I. 1986 No. 986] be annulled.—(Lord Swansea.)

7.35 p.m.

Lord Cottesloe

My Lords, as one who was, so to speak, born and bred on firearms and has devoted to their use a lifetime of interest and practice, I wish to support most warmly what my noble friend Lord Swansea has said. I can say this, though he cannot: he is one of the most brilliant and consistent rifle shots of his time.

I have to declare an interest, though not a financial one, as having been for some years the chairman of the National Rifle Association and as currently being the deputy president of that organisation. Our president is His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales. It is an organisation founded in 1860, to foster markmanship throughout the Queen's Dominions and to give permanence to the volunteer forces of the Crown". I am told, and I believe it to be true, that in the United States of America the incidence of firearms crime is almost non-existent in the agrarian states of the Middle West where there is virtually no firearms control, and greatest in such states as New York, where the control is so strict that it is almost impossible for a citizen legally to possess a firearm at all. That should be a lesson to anyone, be he in the Home Office or in the police force, who thinks that severe restriction on firearms will stamp out firearms crimes. Such restrictions will serve only to defeat their own purpose.

I therefore support most warmly the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Swansea. I understand that it is not the custom to divide the House on such a Motion, but I hope that the Government will take to heart the dramatic lesson that I have outlined.

7.38 p.m.

Lord Burton

My Lords, I also should like to support my noble friend Lord Swansea. I see from what my honourable friend the Minister said in another place that this order is intended merely to recover the costs of issuing certificates or licences for weapons and not, as some suspect, to price people out of keeping weapons. It is clear from the Government's statement what their intentions are but there are those who have a sneaking suspicion that this is not what the police intend.

When the working party to investigate these matters was set up a great mistake was made. The working party consisted of Home Office officials and police. I understand that no users' representatives were on this committee. The method used of calculating the costs was typically laborious and inefficient, in accordance with so many practices used by our police forces today. A system of worksheets was established which have produced vastly varying answers.

The order does not apply to Scotland but I take it that an exactly similar order will follow for Scotland as soon as this order is passed. It is not inappropriate to make some references to Scotland which are totally in line with England and Wales, particularly as the working party guidelines will apply to Scotland.

The Northern constabulary—which I think covers the biggest land area of any of our police forces—has a highly efficient firearms department. They have under their jurisdiction over 23,000 firearm certificates or shotgun licences. They have large numbers of visiting foreigners who require firearm certificates to permit them to stalk deer. They thus issue over 10,000 certificates every year. Having such a large area to cover their inspection charges could be expected to be higher than for many other areas, but even on these worksheets for costing their expenses came out below the £33 average for firearm certificates for the country as a whole.

However, this department employs one constable and two civilian clerks. It would not be unreasonable to assume that their wages amount to no more than £25,000—they may not amount to as much as that, but I do not know precisely what they are. On these wages alone therefore their costs for issuing licences and certificates are no more than £2.50 per document. On top of this of course there will be insurance, office equipment and telephone charges, and all the usual overheads. We then have the expenses of the inspection of the weapons, and, not to be forgotten, the time it takes the chief officer of police to sign his name.

However, what is important is that the documentation costs are in fact substantially lower than those brought out by the work sheets. If these are wrong, is it not possible that all the costing are wrong, and is it not possible that there is an in-depth need for investigation into our police efficiency?

I understand that there are nearly 700 burglaries a year in which shotguns are stolen—I do not know how many rifles are stolen. Therefore, over 700 weapons per year are currently being stolen. Is not this alone a reflection on the law and order state of our country? How many, I wonder, of these weapons are recovered. In Switzerland almost every household has a firearm, as the part-time army keep their own weapons in their own possession. What a difference here, my Lords! I wonder how many certificate-holders become involved in an armed crime in any one year. Very few I suspect; but yet they are being penalised for the inefficiency of our police in detaining those who are misusing firearms, and having to pay for this.

Some forces spend a great deal of time, and thus expense, on inspecting land on which these innocent individuals wish to use their weapons. Some of the individuals subjected to this scrutiny are far more experienced users of weapons than the officers making the inspection. I know of cases where unreasonable restrictions have been placed on these innocent individuals, who have been taken to the Crown Court. In one case in particular the superintendent represent-ing the police was given the most monumental dressing down by the judge—and he richly deserved it. I gather that that case alone will have cost the police £5,000 in expenses. That is enough to have given 150 free firearms certificates at the currently proposed rate.

I, after holding a certificate for 40 years, had a restriction placed on my certificate last week. I refused to accept this, pointing out that the police had contravened the working party's recommendations on two counts and had also contravened the Firearms Act. I told the police that I intended to appeal to the sheriff. I am pleased to say that I heard this morning that my certificate has been reinstated. However, I understand that this is a widespread state of affairs throughout the country, and much police time is, as a result, being wasted.

Briefly, there are one or two other points which should be scrutinised. Overseas visitors coming here for a week's stalking are having to pay a considerable sum for permission to use a rifle—they have to pay nothing to use a shotgun. It seems quite unreasonable that, as my noble friend Lord Swansea has just said, a renewal should cost as much as an initial application. My noble friend also drew attention to the question of inspections without prior notification. This is exactly what happened to me last week. On two occasions not one policeman, who is all that is necessary, but two policemen came out to my house. On both occasions I had not been notified and I was not at home. However, as it happened, on the second occasion I met the police car coming down the drive. I wondered what the trouble was, stopped it and we returned and inspected the weapon. However, it was quite unnecessary expenditure, and yet we are being asked to pay for this.

Finally, there are those of us who would like to help the police, but here we have a typical example of innocent persons being harassed, of police time being wasted and the liberty of the subject being infringed.

7.45 p.m.

The Earl of Shannon

My Lords, I too should like to speak in support of the Prayer moved by the noble Lord, Lord Swansea. It would appear that there are two reasons which one can suspect for making this order. One must surmise that the first is in order to achieve a policy of restrictions by financially penalising the innocent. I suppose that this has been done by authorities throughout recorded history, and no doubt it will be difficult to dissuade the Government from treading this well-worn, if very reprehensible, path.

Secondly, we believe that this is in order to cover the costs of the administration of the scheme, and here, like other noble Lords who have spoken, I think we want to look at the facts. Again, like other noble Lords, 1 shall have to rely on my own personal circumstances. I have held a firearm certificate for well over 40 years, and for many of those years I have been happily renewing the certificate by post without any trouble at all.

However, some years ago, again without warning or previous appointment, an inspector and a sergeant from the local county constabulary arrived at my house. Fortunately, I was in and I asked them what they wanted. They said that they had brought the renewal form for my firearm certificate. So I thanked them very much. Then they wanted to offer assistance in filling in the form. I forbore to tell these young gentlemen in uniform that I had been filling in this form quite happily before they were even born. However, we settled down and I filled in the form. They then noiced that I was asking for a variation, and so the inspector very clearly told me that I would have to pay an extra fee. As politely as I could I pointed out that the variation was downwards and no fee was payable. Oh, no, he knew much better; after all, he was a police inspector, and he insisted on having the extra fee. Therefore, I paid it because, after all, the fee might have been changed without my knowledge. This meant that about two or three weeks later back had to come another police car with two members of the local constabulary to return the certificate and the money, because of course the fee was not payable.

On a later occasion, involving a different local county constabulary, I changed my address so I had to tell the local police that the address then on my firearm certificate needed changing; and also that I no longer required a shotgun certificate and I should like to surrender that, which I did. This was all happily done and my certificate came back bearing the new address. However, suddenly a fortnight later through the letter-box popped an envelope with a brand new shotgun certificate which I had neither asked for nor paid for. I must admit here that I was guilty of being rather slow in returning it to the local police, and I regret to say that 10 days later another shotgun certificate popped through the letter-box.

On a later occasion I did at least receive a renewal form by post from this local constabulary, and of course it carried the usual notice that I should fill in the form and return it to the local police, because if I failed to do so and held weapons without the certificate being renewed, it would be a terrible offence, and so on. Therefore, as I was instructed not to send it by post but to hand it in to the local police station, I filled it in within three days and handed it in to the local police station.

Some seven weeks later (by which time the certificate was very well out of date, so I suppose that I was guilty of holding the weapon without having renewed the certificate) a member of the constabulary arrived—I must admit only one this time—again without warning or appointment. Again, fortunately I was at home and he said that he had come to inspect the weapon. I was a little surprised. I explained that they had been a long time returning my certificate to me and that I supposed the weapon was unlicensed.

I inquired rather tentatively whether he had read the file. The reply was, "Oh, no". He explained that he had found a piece of paper on his desk that morning telling him to call on me and inspect the weapon. I explained that the certificate required that this weapon should be kept in the armoury of a rifle club, which is where it was, and so it was not at my home, and if he had looked at the certificate, he would not have had this unnecessary journey to inspect a weapon which the certificate clearly said should be somewhere else. I also tentatively suggested that I would rather like the certificate back again, and that they had been rather a long time about it. He explained that they were rather busy.

It is not all bad. Once, when I was producing and testing bullet-resisting glass in my company, I was in the metropolitan police area. I had on my firearms certificate a large number of assorted weapons with ammunition to suit for testing purposes. Here there was only one short visit, with an appointment, by a well-briefed inspector of the metropolitan constabulary who declared himself fully satisfied with the security of the weapons and ammunition, and we heard nothing more. It was quickly and efficiently done.

I do not flatter myself that I have had any special treatment. Plenty of other people must have had similar experiences. Therefore, personally I consider that when it comes to wasting police time the public are absolute amateurs; the police are much more efficient at it themselves. I think clearly they do not need any extra money. What they need in many local constabularies is to tidy up their own internal administration. That is why I support this Prayer.

Lord Mishcon

My Lords, the House is indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, for his courage and his ability to take advantage of a procedure not often taken advantage of; namely, to challenge, as he is entitled to do, by way of asking for the annulment of an order that comes before us. Too many orders go through our House—ones that require affirmative resolution and those that require negative resolution—and they go through on the nod. It is a correct procedure of our democratic rights that we have listened tonight to a Prayer for an annulment of an order relating to firearm fees.

We have also been entertained to a remarkably interesting debate. I was almost moved to tears and then to laughter by the various adventures through which the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, has been in the course of the last 40 years while holding a firearms certificate, including his adventures in recent years. I was so glad that the story, which seemed an awfully sad one from the police point of view and the time they had expended, ended up with a compliment to the Metropolitan Police by whom he was treated with great efficiency and promptitude.

There are a few issues here that are quite serious and worthy of the attention of the House. The first is that we always ought to be looking at the question of proper administration, and seeing that our procedures, be it in regard to licence fees or whatever, are carried out with due efficiency by either government departments or authorities such as the police authorities. It does no harm; in fact it does a lot of good.

The history of firearms and the fees attached to them is not a happy one. It did not start with the experiences of the noble Earl, Lord Shannon. It started with an embarrassed Minister of State whose name was Leon Brittan, and it was in 1980. When he then introduced, with considerable embarrassment, an increase in fees which was then challenged, he promised to review the situation—and I quote him—"in months and not years", and he hoped that things would be properly streamlined in the course of that review.

One of the things that goes wrong in administration is when Ministers make promises of that kind, no doubt supported at the time by their efficient civil servants, and the review does not take place within months at all. This one took quite a few years. When the Minister of State at that time said that there ought to be a review he referred to figures that have not been mentioned specifically in this debate, and it was said that there was great disparity between various regions and police forces. We are having this debate during the dinner hour and therefore I am not taking up the time of those engaged upon the Gas Bill, which is possibly of greater importance than the firearms order, although at times I am not all that sure. I think that possibly I can say what the disparity was. It was said when the estimates were produced by the various authorities that it cost over £127 to issue a firearms certificate in London, but in Wiltshire it cost £15. The Metropolitan Police thought that it cost them £34 to issue a shotgun certificate, but in Wiltshire, which seems to be extremely efficient (or certainly it was in 1980) the job could be done for £6.

This is not a very satisfactory history, because when the result of the review was eventually produced again it was challenged. Now we have another review promised and this time not in months—but one feels that something is going a bit wrong with efficient administration in the Home Office in regard to this matter.

I move quickly to the next point. Is it of importance socially, quite apart from any other consideration, that the fees for firearms certificates and their renewal should remain very reasonable? I suggest that it is. I had a different record from the noble Lord, Lord Swansea. I had a record of being a complete danger to my fellows who were participating at Bisley. I was looked upon as a complete danger, certainly to my neighbours. I had the reputation in my own regiment, which was a proud one during the war, of being more of a danger to my fellow soldiers than I ever was to the enemy. My reputation here is very different from that of the noble Lord, Lord Swansea.

However, it is a fact that there are many young people who are taking up this sport and doing it perfectly honourably and properly. We are all interested in seeing that our young people observe the law and observe regulations, and to discourage the observance of the law by having unreasonable fees is to start many young people off on the wrong course. That worries me. People might be tempted to use a firearm without a certificate because of the high cost of the original licence fee and then the renewal fee. Once they have broken those regulations they might break others. From that point of view it is an important social question.

I hope that the Minister, who is a reasonable Minister, will say that he has been so influenced by the examples that have been given this evening of the possible injustice in the renewal fee being the same as the original fee, and is so anxious about the suggested inefficiencies, that he will do something about this regulation. If it has to go through this evening, because we cannot challenge this in a Division—as indeed the noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe, pointed out—I hope that there will be at least a promise that this matter is not just going to be looked into in the general sense of that term, but examined very closely.

I have one other observation to make before I sit down. I hope no one will regard it as irrelevant. I cannot let the opportunity of a discussion on firearms pass without reminding the House of something I have raised before and which I have certainly raised with the Minister; that is, the uncontrolled sale of imitation firearms to youngsters. I sent the Minister an example of an offer, with the most fascinating pictures of firearms, that came through a letter box with a very colourful brochure addressed to a youngster of 16, to the horror of his parents, inviting him to purchase these firearms, which were very good imitations. I hope that the Minister will not think I have introduced an irrelevancy. I have given him notice of the fact that I intended to raise it, and I hope he can say something by way of assurance about the control that definitely ought to exist, if indeed it is not a restriction, on the purported sale of these imitation firearms, especially to young people.

8 p.m.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Glenarthur)

My Lords, I have listened with care to the views of my noble friend Lord Swansea and others of your Lordships this evening. I know that my noble friend's decision to move this Motion was not taken lightly and that it stems from a very real and deep-rooted concern for the future of shooting sports. In his capacity as acting chairman of the British Shooting Sports Council, he speaks on behalf of a large section of the shooting community.

I think my noble friend knows that I thoroughly enjoy shooting of all kinds. To that extent, as I am the holder of both sorts of certificate, I suppose I ought to declare an interest as well; but I so much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and with my noble friend Lord Swansea that shooting is a pastime which young people should be encouraged to participate in, particularly through club activities for those who enjoy small bore or even full bore rifle and pistol shooting. We can be proud of our achievements internationally in that field, and we look forward to further success at the forthcoming Commonwealth Games in Edinburgh, when my noble friend Lord Swansea is representing Wales for the fifth time.

However, regrettable though it may be, the recreational use of firearms is one which must be controlled in the public interest by a licensing system, and it has been the policy of successive governments that fees and charges should as far as practicable reflect the cost of the procedures to which they relate. As my noble friend said, there are, of course, other fees which have not in the past covered costs. This Government are determined that they should do so, and all the fees for which my right honourable friend the Home Secretary is responsible are regularly reviewed. Since 1980, when the firearm fees were last increased, controlled drug licensing, aliens registration and vehicle removal charges (which, incidentally, involve a considerable use of police resources) have been increased considerably to reflect more fully the administrative costs. In the financial year 1985–86, it is estimated that the cost to the police of administering the firearm licensing system in England and Wales outstripped income from firearm fees by about £650,000, and will do so in the current financial year by about £700,000. It would clearly not be right to allow this situation to continue.

My noble friend Lord Swansea and the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, went into some of the background to all this. Perhaps I can pick it up in 1982, when my noble friend Lord Whitelaw, then Home Secretary, established a joint Home Office and Association of Chief Police Officers Working Party to try to achieve a more uniform approach to the administration of the Firearms Act 1968. Its report published in April 1984 made a number of important recommendations aimed at streamlining police procedures. I am glad to say that most of these were welcomed by the shooting community and have now been implemented. The working party also drew up a series of standardised procedures in the form of the worksheets we have heard about, and recommended that these be used to review the level of fees to recover costs.

Accordingly, the fee levels proposed in the current order have been costed strictly on the basis of those worksheets, with the exception of the shotgun issue and renewal fee. In accordance with the working party recommendation, the shotgun issue fee would have been subject to a slight reduction and the renewal fee would have been increased slightly, but since the one would have balanced the other in terms of total cost recovery we have decided to leave both at their existing levels. I am glad that my noble friend Lord Swansea welcomes that, as your Lordships will know there is also, rightly, a good deal of public concern about the use of shotguns in crime and we should clearly want to avoid any indication that shotguns could be obtained more easily, which might be the effect of a reduction in the shotgun issue fee.

I turn now to the point which I know chiefly concerns my noble friend Lord Swansea; that is, the size of the increase for the renewal of a firearms certificate. He suggested that perhaps more time should have been allowed for consultation before laying the order. The fees have been costed on the basis of the worksheets in the working party repon. which was published over two years ago. The shooting press accurately predicted what the level of fees would be more than a year ago, and my honourable friend the Minister of State gave the BSSC advance notice of the new fee levels in a letter dated 22nd May; so I cannot really accept that the Government have acted precipitately, given the fact that these fee levels were based on a report published two years ago.

The reason for this increase lies in Section 27(3) of the Firearms Act 1968, which requires that the same considerations should apply to the renewal of a firearm certificate as to the grant. The chief officer must be satisfied that the applicant for renewal has a good reason for having the firearm and that he can be permitted to have it in his possession without danger to the public safety or to the peace. In conducting their inquiries the police must follow through the same procedures as with the initial application to ensure that he applicant's circumstances have not changed. This was reflected in the worksheets that were published quite openly in the working party report over two years ago. But I should stress that we are talking here about the time it takes to process an average application of all types. I am not sure whether my noble friend Lord Burton fits into that category. It may well be that an application from a longstanding member of a rifle club who owns but a few firearms can be processed by the police without undue difficulty. But not all applications are of this type. Some will involve land checks both in local and other force areas, and others will necessitate longish journeys, such as the one my noble friend Lord Burton referred to, by the conducting officer in rural areas.

If we are to maintain the integrity of the controls on Section 1 firearms, a thorough review must be conducted at the time of renewal, and overall we believe that the proposed fee is a fair reflection of the cost involved in processing an average application of this type. There is no suggestion that we are trying to price people out of the use of firearms in the way that has been indicated. Perhaps I could say to the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, that at the time of renewal applicants can seek to vary the certificate without additional charge to confirm the point that he made.

As to the matter of differential, my noble friend Lord Swansea quoted the fact that hitherto there had been a differential of 25 per cent. or so between the issue fee and the renewal fee. The sample surveys on which fees were costed in the past have been shown to be inaccurate. What we now have is a system which, as objectively as possible, seeks to standardise and assess the actual work carried out by the police in issuing the various certificates. In its examination of the matter the working party assessed that the issue and renewal fees should be the same.

Of course I share the views that have been expressed by a number of your Lordships about the need for economical use of police manpower. I do not go quite as far as my noble friend Lord Burton in his strictures about the police. He slightly overdid it; but it is important that those who need to renew their certificates keep closely in touch with their police forces to avoid the need for excessive journeys, and police will see to that as well. I am sure they do.

To go some way towards meeting the concerns expressed, we have decided to set up a small working party, on which the British Shooting Sports Council will be represented, to re-examine the worksheet relating to the renewal fee. If the working party assesses that the fee is excessive, we shall seek to introduce a further fee order in advance of the introduction of the normal fees order in about two or three years' time. I do not think that we can be much fairer than this, although my noble friend Lord Burton suggested that we ought to be able to do it sooner. It is important that this is looked at and that is what has been said by my honourable friend in another place and I gladly repeat it now.

As to the shooting community not being represented on the original working party, as I think my noble friend Lord Burton suggested, this was considered very carefully at the time but it was decided that such representation would not be appropriate because the administration of the Firearms Act 1968 is entirely the responsibility of chief officers of police. But the working party certainly invited interested bodies to submit written evidence and that was taken into account.

The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, raised a separate matter and kindly gave me notice about it. It was about imitation firearms. I certainly share his concern about some of the material of which he furnished me with copies. While there are no general controls on the importation, display or sale of imitation firearms, it is an offence under Section 18(1) of the Firearms Act 1968 to possess an imitation firearm with intent to commit an indictable offence or to resist or to seek to prevent arrest. Such offences carry a maximum penalty of 14 years' imprisonment at present but the Criminal Justice White Paper proposes to increase this to life imprisonment. Under the Firearms Act 1982, any imitation firearm which is readily convertible to fire live ammunition is subject to the stringent controls imposed on actual firearms by the 1968 Act.

As to the plans for the future, I can tell the noble Lord that consideration has been given to introducing further controls. The difficulty is that there are probably millions of replicas and toys in circulation, many of which resemble actual weapons and, to be effective, any ban on imitation firearms would need to be co-ordinated with some kind of amnesty to retrieve those already in circulation. In practice, this would prove difficult to achieve. Even if controls were introduced, criminals could still make imitation firearms which, under conditions of stress, might well be accepted as the real thing. Nevertheless the noble Lord raises an important point. I have assured him, and I assure him again now, that this is a matter on which we shall, of course, continue to keep a very close eye.

It has been suggested that police time could be substantially saved if the period of validity of certificates was to be lengthened, although this matter has not been raised tonight. All that I can say to this is that, although it would be a way of reducing the cost, we have looked closely into this possibility but our view remains that neither could be achieved without amendment to the Firearms Act 1968 and there are no plans to do this at present.

In conclusion, of course, I accept that increases of fees are never welcome but it is now six years since the firearms fees were last increased. Costs have risen substantially, particularly police costs. A firearm and shotgun certificate is valid for three years and the increases for the issue and renewal of a firearm certificate amount to approximately £3 and £4 a year. It has never been our policy to set deterrent fee levels in the way that was suggested and it can hardly be said that the net effect of this package will be to price the shooter out of his chosen sport. We attach considerable importance to recovering the cost of administering the firearm licensing system. We believe that the proposed level of fees will go some way towards achieving that, so I hope that my noble friend will be reassured to some extent anyway and perhaps particularly by the fact that we will look again at the work sheets in the way that I have suggested.

Lord Swansea

My Lords, there is much that I should like to say but I feel that I must not trespass too much on your Lordships' goodwill. Time is getting on and I think that the House is anxious to return to a subject of slightly greater national importance. My noble friend's reply was not unexpected. I just wonder how much his own heart was in it. I must not be unkind to him because he has been a member of a team representing your Lordships in our annual match against the other place that takes place at Bisley every year and I think that he has some sympathy with the shooting interests. I am grateful to other noble Lords who have taken part in this debate and, arising from what some of my noble friends have said, I have personal experience of (shall we say?) inefficiency on the part of the police, but I shall not embarrass my noble friend by telling him that story now. I may tell him privately another time.

It was necessary for me to lay a Prayer simply because of the procedure laid down in the Bill for orders such as this. They are subject to negative resolution procedure and, therefore, the only way of getting them talked about is to lay a Prayer such as I have done today. I have thought for a long time that orders made under this Act—and the Act affects public safety and various other matters—should be subject to affirmative resolution so that the government of the day would be obliged to lay them before Parliament and have them debated. But that would involve amendment to the Act, which we cannot expect during the lifetime of this Parliament.

Another thing that we should like to see is an extension of the period of validity of a firearm or shotgun certificate. That, too, would need primary legislation so we cannot expect that in the immediate future. But those are ways in which, as it were, the blow could be softened towards legitimate users. As it is, we are promised this review, which we hope will take place reasonably soon. I am glad to have my noble friend's assurance that the shooting interests will be represented on that working party and brought into consultation. Bearing in mind that it is the convention in your Lordships' House that we do not vote against an order, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Back to
Forward to