Lords Sitting of 18 July 1988

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Worcester.

Message from the Queen: Tercentenary of the Revolutions of 1688–89
The Lord Chamberlain (The Earl of Airlie): My Lords, I have the honour to inform you that Her Majesty the Queen has appointed 11 o'clock on Wednesday 20th July in Westminster Hall to be the time and place at which Her Majesty will be attended by this House to receive their address on the occasion of the commemoration of the tercentenary of the Revolutions of 1688–89 and the Bill of Rights and Claim of Rights and has given her permission for your Lordships to be accompanied by presiding officers of the Upper Houses of Commonwealth parliaments.

British Industry: Investment Intentions
2.42 p.m.
Lord Rodney Lord Rodney asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the latest information available concerning the level of investment planned by British industry for 1988–89.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, the latest investment intentions survey carried out by Her Majesty's Government indicates that the level of investment, including leased assets, planned by manufacturing industry for 1988 amounts to £8.7 billion, an increase of 16 per cent. over the 1987 level. Indications for 1989 suggest a further, though smaller, increase.
Lord Rodney: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. In view of the increased interest rates do Her Majesty's Government anticipate any slackening of these very encouraging investment rates?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, it is no doubt obvious to many of your Lordships that higher interest rates in themselves will not encourage investment. However, industry has far more to fear from a resurgence of inflation. A 1 per cent. rise in interest rates, even if sustained for a full year, adds to costs only a quarter of the amount that a 1 per cent. increase in wage settlements would add. I believe that the stable state of the economy will enable business to plan far better for the future than it has for many years.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is not the interest rate weapon a very blunt one? Does it not mean that at the same time as reining back consumer consumption and consumer credit, the Chancellor
1054
and the Government are also reining back investment and industry which are desperately needed to help keep down inflation?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, as I have just said, investment is running at a very satisfactory level and at the moment is at a rate somewhat higher than the estimates in the FSBR. However, it is important to make sure that the growth in the economy is at a sustainable level. It would be quite irresponsible of government to let inflation run away. As I told your Lordships last week, the interest rate weapon is the Government's principal weapon in the war against inflation.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, while it is encouraging to note that industrial investment is increasing, will the Government hear in mind that tomorrow's investment in industry is based on today's research? What is being done to stimulate research in industry?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, 1 know that the noble Lord attaches a great deal of importance to the matter of research, but it is a somewhat different question from the one on the Order Paper. If the noble Lord would like to table a Question on research. I should he happy to answer it.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell the House what kind of figures illustrate the difference between what is planned on any occasion and what is achieved?
Lord Beaverbrook: I think, my Lords, that it is something called hindsight.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I welcome the pick-up in investment this year but may I ask the Minister whether he intended to place his Answer in the context that the ratio of investment to gross domestic product, both as a ratio and relative to that of our own competitors, has been lower during the lifetime of this Government than it was during the previous Labour Government and also lower than it was during the Conservative Government of the early 1960s?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, that may be the case but I think that the business sector can plan with far more confidence than was possible in the 1960s or 1970s. As I said, the Government attach the utmost importance to controlling inflation, and I believe that businessmen can have confidence that the Government's policy is to contain inflation. After all, an increase in inflation would be the most serious threat to business confidence.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is not the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, simply an indication of the gross domestic product having risen so satisfactorily as a result of the economic policies of Her Majesty's Government?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right and the level of investment is also very satisfactory.

Freehold Ownership of Flats
2.43 p.m.
Lord Jacques Lord Jacques asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, following the report of the working group in July 1987, they will introduce legislation on the subject of freehold ownership of flats and other interdependent buildings.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, as I said in a Written Answer to my noble friend Lord Swinton on 8th June 1988 (Official Report, Vol. 497, col. 1486), the Government have arranged for legislation to be prepared at the Law Commission giving effect to an integrated scheme comprising the proposals set out in the group's report and the remainder of the proposals in the Law Commission's report on land obligations, The Law of Positive and Restrictive Covenants. I understand the work is now in hand.
Lord Jacques: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for his reply. Perhaps I may put to him two supplementary questions. First, the working party declined to state any view on the subject of compulsion. Have the Government a view on the subject? Secondly, when can we expect the legislation?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, my answer to the noble Lord's second supplementary question is, as soon as parliamentary time is available. So far as concerns the first question, as he rightly said, the report left the question of compulsion open. At the moment legislation is being prepared but no final decision has yet been taken as to whether, and to what extent, there should be an element of compulsion. The noble Lord will know that other countries successfully operate condominium schemes without compulsion. The question of compulsion remains under consideration.
Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe: My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord confirm that under the terms of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 the landlord is obliged to give the tenants the right of first refusal or first option if he decides to sell the freehold?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I think that that is so, but I am speaking from memory. I have not had an opportunity to check it. I believe that that is probably right.
Lord Jacques: My Lords, can we expect such compulsion where a negligent landlord is not carrying out his obligations? Will the would-be freeholders be able to seek compulsory purchase?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, that is a situation which I should certainly wish to bear in mind in considering whether we should have compulsion and, if so, to what extent.

Docklands Highway: Rehousing of Tenants
2.46 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are aware of the circumstances under which over 450 families at present living in council housing will be moved from their homes in Tower Hamlets to make way for a new docklands highway, to serve Canary Wharf.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, yes. Some 450 families living in sub-standard flats will be moved to better quality accommodation. In addition, 200 council homes will be refurbished. The cost of all this will be met by the London Docklands Development Corporation. We welcome this example of co-operation between the corporation and the local council.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I have no desire to stand in the way of redevelopment either in London docklands or in other urban development areas. However, I noted that the Minister referred to consultations with the local authority in the final part of his Answer. The local authority does not necessarily represent the views of the tenants who are being moved. Will the Minister ensure, in order that good will remains, that wherever large groups of families are being moved in this way the utmost consultation will take place with the tenants and not just with the local authority?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I note with considerable interest the emphasis that the noble Lord is putting on consultation with tenants rather than necessarily with the local authorities. I hope that we all bear that in mind in the Housing Bill. But of course there will be consultation with the tenants.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is it right that there were consultations with the tenants, the tenants' association, the local authority and the London Docklands Development Corporation, and that there was a concordat? The trouble now arises because a section of the tenants do not agree with the move. In a democracy we always have minorities. Can the Minister confirm that those bodies were consulted and agreement was reached?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I understand that there was indeed very wide consultation with all those who would he affected, the local authority and the tenants, by the development corporation. This is an example where co-operation will be to the benefit of the tenants and indeed to all the community, because in addition there is a £30 million social project.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, if consultation took place with the tenants, can the Minister tell us what has been done for those tenants who objected very strongly to being moved?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as the noble Lord will know, at the moment there are heads of

1057
agreement. They are not legally binding and the final details are being worked out.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, of the 250 dwellings to be refurbished, can the Minister tell us how many are to be refurbished and made suitable for physically disabled people?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I do not know.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, the Minister referred to heads of agreement being worked out. Does that indicate that he will ensure that adequate provision is made for those tenants who disagree with the move? What will happen to them?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, at this stage it is not a matter for the Government. It is a matter for the London Docklands Development Corporation.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, can the Minister say to where these tenants are to go? What is the location that is proposed for them? Is it near or far? Where is it in relation to their present housing?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am told that it is near.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is a very special community spirit in that part of London? Is it not very important for good relationships with the new people coming into that area that that spirit remains?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my noble kinswoman is absolutely right in saying that one should retain the community spirit. I believe that moving the tenants into better accommodation will seek only to reinforce that.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, will the noble Earl be good enough to elaborate his answer to my question? Where are the tenants to go? I gave an easy opening for the answer, "Somewhere near". But where will that be?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as I understand it, the replacement housing will be determined by tenant preference. Tenants being displaced will be offered a choice of two new or refurbished Housing Association units. Where the tenants decline those offers, the London Borough of Tower Hamlets will rehouse them in existing council stock.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, as this is the only recent example of people being disturbed by the wholesale developments in the South-East, can the Minister say whether the Government have any idea about the total disturbance which will be made by all the developments? If so, what are they going to do about it? Is it not about time that they responded to Mr. Heseltine and had an inquiry into the problems of the South-East?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord seeks to enlarge the Question quite considerably, but
1058
I am sure he will agree with me that where one is providing better accommodation for tenants that is to be welcomed.
Lord Mellish: My Lords. is the noble Lord aware that you will never have massive redevelopment of any kind and get complete unanimity? It is impossible. You can pay for it, but you do not get it.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord is right.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, in one of his responses the Minister said that a minority of the tenants were strongly against the move. Therefore he must be aware that if those tenants stand by their ultimate rights it would take court action to evict them, which would mean a most expensive delay in terms of money for the redevelopers and everyone else'? Can the Minister use his best endeavours to ensure, wherever he can, that the fullest consultation takes place beforehand in order to avoid such a situation, which would benefit no one involved in the exercise?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I take note of what the noble Lord, Lord Dean, has said. It is important. But it is up to the London Docklands Development Corporation rather than the Government at this stage. However I am sure that everyone wants the scheme to proceed as quickly as possible for the right reasons.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, when tenants are compulsorily removed after this fashion can the Minister tell me whether they carry with them the length of period during which they lived in their former home as a right towards the purchase of a freehold, should they wish to do so?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am afraid that I do not know the totally correct answer to that question. I think that I know what the answer ought to he hut, as I am not entirely sure, it would be wrong for me to respond to the noble Viscount.

Thyssen Collection
2.52 p.m.
Lord Grimond Lord Grimond asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to make an offer for the Thyssen-Bornemizsa collection of pictures, and, if so, how much money and what facilities they are prepared to make available.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have put proposals for the future of the Thyssen collection to Baron Thyssen-Bornemizsa and his representatives. Details of these proposals and any discussions must at this stage remain confidential.
I apologise if I misheard my noble friend Lord Fanshawe the other evening during the debate on his

1059
Unstarred Question. My remarks were in reply to his and I should have picked up the figure of £100 million mentioned by him. The Government have not given any figures and I do not intend to do so this afternoon.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that Answer. I hope that in time she may be able to be a little more forthcoming, but I quite understand that negotiations are taking place. Does she know that the willingness of the Government to pay very large sums for this collection is most welcome as it shows an apparent new interest in the arts? Will she agree that our first obligation is to the living arts and indeed to existing collections? Some institutions cannot show all their pictures and some, such as the Royal Holloway College, are actually in danger of losing their pictures. If the purse strings are now much looser, will she ensure that our existing collections and our living arts— for example, opera, ballet, and so on—will receive their fair share?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the Thyssen bid represents a unique opportunity. At this stage it would not be helpful to speculate on any alternative use for money which has been allocated to support the UK bid to house this important collection.
Lord St. John of Fawsley: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend will accept congratulations to the Government for this bold attempt. However, will she bear in mind—if I may dare to use an agricultural metaphor—that it could turn out to be a mare's nest? If, unfortunately, it does so, will she ensure that the money is devoted to other arts projects—however large the sum may be—and principally to the Royal Opera House, the National Theatre and the Royal Fine Arts Commission?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I do not know about a mare's nest, but, speaking from the horse's mouth, I must make it clear that there would be no detrimental effect on the arts budget as presently set out.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I am sorry that the Minister, after having said £150 million during the debate which took place the other day, withdrew the £150 million and replaced it with a figure of £100 million. If by chance this offer does not come to fruition, will the Government he prepared to take that sum—even if they do not use it for the performing arts—and use it for the visual arts by starting to reactivate the purchase grants for museums and galleries, which have now been frozen for four years?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I have already said that it would be a pity to anticipate anything in this matter.
Lord Moyne: My Lords, may I ask whether consideration has been given to housing the pictures—if they come— across the river, next door, in County Hall?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, options have been identified which take account of preferences expressed by the Baron. I can give no further details on the options. Any final decision on the future home of the collection rests entirely with the Baron and his trustees.
Lord Annan: My Lords, will the noble Baroness bear in mind that there are collections of paintings in this country whose value and worth far exceed those in the Thyssen collection? Further, should they come on to the market —owing to death or any other cause—will she give an assurance that the Government will not blench at acquiring them. however high the cost?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am aware of the many important collections that are in private hands in this country. We shall continue both through tax concessions designed to save heritage items, and by other means, to ensure that wherever possible such collections will be saved for the nation should the owners' circumstances place them at risk.

Business
2.56 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Committee stage of the Firearms (Amendment) Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7 p.m. for one hour and that during the adjournment the Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order 1988 will be taken.

Bristol Development Corporation (Area and Constitution) Order 1988
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the First Report from the Hybrid Instruments Committee be agreed to and that the Bristol Development Corporation (Area and Constitution) Order 1988 be referred to a Select Committee.—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

London Local Authorities Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Housing Bill
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Housing Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order—

Clause 1,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 2 to 7,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 8 to 24,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 25 to 39,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 40 to 46,

Schedule 5,

Clauses 47 to 59,

Schedule 6,

Clauses 60 to 62,

Schedules 7 and 8,

Clauses 63 to 76,

Schedule 9,

Clauses 77 and 78.

Schedule 10,

Clause 79,

Schedule 11,

Clauses 80 to 107,

Schedule 12,

Clauses 108 to 116,

Schedule 13,

Clauses 117 to 126,

Schedules 14 and 15,

Clause 127,

The title.—(The Earl of Caithness.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Firearms (Amendment) Bill
2.58 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): 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.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 1[Prohibited weapons and ammunition]:
[Manuscript Amendment No. Al not moved?.]
3 p.m.
Lord Brain Lord Brain moved Amendment No. 1:
Page I, line 16, leave out ("or pump-action").
The noble Lord said: I should first like to declare an interest in that I am a holder of a shotgun certificate and I have held a firearms certificate. Therefore I have an interest in the Bill. In the group we are discussing are Amendments Nos. 1 to 8, 18, 19, 21 and 29. I am particularly interested in Amendments Nos. 1 and 4 and shall speak to those.
1062
I support Amendments Nos. 18, 21 and 29 but shall wait to hear what the movers of the amendments have to say.
Amendment No. 1 leaves out the word "or pump-action" in the rifle section of the Bill. It gives the definition of:
"any self-loading or pump-action rifle other than one which is chambered for 22 rim-fire cartridges".
The amendment catches two groups of rifle which I believe cause no risk to the public and arc caught unnecessarily. Both groups have fixed magazines of limited capacity; five is the normal number. The first group largely contains vintage or veteran weapons made prior to 1939. Almost all are chambered for proprietary cartridges which are no longer available. They are very much collector items and, as far as I am aware, are not used in any form of target shooting. The second group largely contains American rifles but also a number of other foreign makes. They are typically of deer-stalking calibres of 243 or -270 inches. I am concerned that they may be brought in by overseas visitors coming to stalk in Scotland. The visitors may have the problem that their favourite rifle is impounded by Customs as a prohibited weapon. That is no good to the promotion of stalking activities in Scotland which are a good currency earner.
I emphasise that those rifles have fixed limited-capacity magazines. One cannot change the magazine and increase the rate of fire or the total capacity of the magazine. They must he reloaded after the magazine is empty. I understand that the speed of fire of the pump-action rifle is no faster than the efficient use of the bolt-action rifle or the lever-action rifle. I can see no reason why those categories should be caught as prohibited weapons and I shall be interested to hear the Government's view as to why that is so.
Amendment No. 4 is a probing amendment. Many revolver-calibre cartridges cover genuine rifles. However, during the 1914–18 war some genuine Luger and Mauser pistols were made but some had the facility of having stocks attached to them, as do one or two modern machine pistols. I understand that if a pistol does not have the appropriate attachments it is not caught in the Bill. It is a pistol; it is not a prohibited weapon but a category of firearm that can he licensed. Just because it happens to have the lugs, let us say, even if it is without a stock, it may be caught in a collector's hands. If it has the lugs and the collector has the stock I believe that there is a strong probability that it is caught.
Those are mostly collectors' items and it would be sad if one collector were caught, while another, because he has an extra piece of equipment or a slightly modified weapon, is not. Those are the points that I should like to make in respect of Amendments Nos. 1 and 4. I beg to move Amendment No. 1.
Lord TorphichenI should like to ask my noble friend Lord Ferrers to explain how the amendments to the Bill, which is an amendment to the 1968 Act, fit in? In Section 1 (1) (a) of the 1968 Act the prohibition is for a person:
"to have in his possession, or to purchase or acquire, a firearm".

1063
When one reads Clause 1 of the amendment Bill into the Act it becomes:
"any firearm which is so designed or adapted",
and so on. But there is no sentence prohibiting the possession of those firearms. Can my noble friend tell the Committee where the prohibition now is in the Bill?
Lord Swansea: I should like to begin by declaring an interest as chairman of the British Shooting Sports Council. I hope that it will not be necessary for me to do so each time I rise to my feet during the Committee. I should like to support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Brain, and in particular Amendment No. 1 which refers to pump-action rifles.
I support the amendment because the pump-action rifle is manually operated. In no way can it be classed in the same category as a self-loading rifle. The method of operation differs only in detail from a bolt-action or lever-action rifle. Thank goodness those types are still to be permitted and I can see no reason why pump-action rifles should be lumped together with self-loading rifles. They are fish of an entirely different colour.
On Second Reading I spoke at length about self-loading rifles, with which we are also concerned in this group of amendments. For over 40 years such rifles have been used legally in this country by civilians indulging in what has become known as "practical rifle shooting". It is now an international discipline and one in which our national representatives have achieved some success. They have carried on in that discipline for over 40 years without an accident occurring. The only incident which was linked with the use of those rifles was the tragedy at Hungerford last year when an individual went completely off his head.
In no way can that tragedy be connected with the legitimate use of firearms of that kind. Users of those firearms are being penalised for a crime that they have not committed. They have observed the law and held the firearms legally for many years. Only as a result of the Hungerford incident has any blame fallen on that type of firearm. It is manifestly unfair that, after they have been legally used for over 40 years, the Government should now move the goal posts.
One does not find that problem in other countries. In Switzerland, for example, after a period of national service every able-bodied male must remain on the reserve list for a certain number of years. He is obliged by law to keep his firearms and ammunition at home and to turn out for practice whenever required to do so. In that country the incidence of armed crime does not figure in the national statistics. I must apologise for my voice; something funny has happened to it and I hope that I shall be able to carry on. However, the whole crux of the matter is that in other countries the Government trust the people. Apparently in this country the Government are not prepared to trust the people. Those who have observed the law faithfully for a long time now find themselves being ruled out of order.
1064
The other point I should like to mention concerns Amendment No. 18 in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, about the means by which a person might be permitted to retain ownership of a self-loading rifle. That covers various categories of people; for example, disabled people. I am sure that many of your Lordships know people who by reason of some disability—perhaps a war wound—may not be able to handle a bolt-action rifle very conveniently. That is an example of the kind of person who would be permitted to continue to own a self-loading rifle. He would be someone who has held a firearms certificate for a continuous period of three years before this application and someone who is thoroughly vouched for by a club affiliated to a recognised national association as being a well-established, bona fide target shooter and a thoroughly responsible person. That requirement seems to have been entirely overlooked by the Thames Valley police when they granted a firearms certificate to Michael Ryan. There is still a cloud of doubt hanging over that particular point.
The other category of person to whom 1 suggest this would be applicable is a left-handed person. There arc a great many left-handed people in this world. I am sure that many Members of the Committee are left-handed. Those people find it difficult or inconvenient to handle a rifle with a bolt action. That is another instance where a self-loading rifle or a pump-action rifle, which has been mentioned earlier, will be very useful to a left-hander.
Viscount Hanworth: Many of us believe that the Bill cannot have any immediate useful effect. In fact, it may have quite the reverse, because there are undoubtedly illegally held shotguns which will appear on the black market. However, I believe that those of us —and I include myself—who support the Bill are concerned with the future. There is no doubt that a few years ago there were very few armed robberies. However, at present, in the Metropolitan area alone I believe that there have been something like 1,700 armed robberies. Therefore, I am afraid that the argument put forward by the noble Lord who has just spoken that these weapons and others have been held for many years perfectly safely does not carry great weight with me. We must look at the increasing crime rate and the increasing use of guns. I believe that that is what the Bill is about and it should not be weakened.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: I support Amendment No. 1. For over 50 years I have owned rifles and shotguns and even revolvers, but 1 have no ammunition for revolvers. I had my army revolver and my grandmother had a silver revolver. I do not know why she had it—perhaps she feared that something might happen to her. I also do not know where she secreted it. I now also own two revolvers which my father owned.
I particularly support Amendment No. 1. I have a pump-action 22 rifle which is now very, very old, and is invaluable for shooting rabbits when one is going along in the evening on the edge of a cornfield. I do not think that rabbits are very intelligent.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: One can bowl over one or two with a rifle —bang, bang—and they do not seem to worry unduly. One has to do that about four times before they come on the alert.
I believe that it would be a great pity not to allow pump-action 22 rifles. My noble friend behind me and the mover of the amendment has explained the reasons for the amendment which I support.
3.15 p.m.
Baroness Strange: Perhaps Members of the Committee will forgive me if I intervene briefly to speak on behalf of my noble friend Lord Swansea. If by chance a lunatic got hold of a Rover car, drove down the street and killed a whole lot of unarmed pedestrians, would we then be justified in immediately trying to ban all Rover cars? It seems to me that there is the same illogical over-reaction on this occasion.
Lord Burton: I wonder if the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, has any idea how often illegally held firearms have been used for crime. I should be very interested to know whether he could give us any figures on this matter. I understand that illegally held firearms, particularly rifles, are used very seldom indeed, if ever. I believe that the only time that a self-loading automatic rifle has been used was in the case of Michael Ryan. Therefore I believe the noble Viscount should be very careful, and I should be interested to know if he could give us any facts.
The Earl of Balfour: I should like to make a comment about pump-action guns. Once they become worn, particularly the 16-bore type of shotgun, it is sometimes extremely difficult to be quite certain that that gun has been emptied of its eight shots. I have known a person to work the pump like mad, believing that everything is out of the gun, then to pull the trigger and the last shot has still been there and has been fired on the floor.
Another matter is that as I understand it, from talking with firearms dealers—referring to lines 14 and 15 of the Bill—although the trigger may have to be pulled each time, one only needs to file off the head of the bolt and the eight shots can be fired off in a row without again pulling the trigger. That is the only other comment on the grounds of safety which I believe is worth mentioning.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I believe that it is possibly worth considering what might have happened had Michael Ryan run loose in Switzerland where a very large proportion of the adult population keep automatic rifles in their houses for civil defence purposes. Somebody would surely have popped into his house, popped out again with his rifle, and shot Michael Ryan. There would then have been no problem.
Lord John-Mackie: Perhaps I may intervene briefly on this very difficult subject of the self-loading or pump-action rifle and shotgun mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, a moment ago. There is no question that there is very strong feeling in clubs about this matter. The whole question of disabled
1066
people and women who are not quite so strong to pull the coil and so on, is something which the Government must consider as carefully as possible with due regard to the object of the Bill; namely, to try to control firearms as much as possible.
I suppose that I should declare an interest as have many others in this Committee. I have shot all my life with rifles and shotguns. I have two clubs which come to the farm regularly to shoot. I have discussed the question about pump-action guns and so on with them. It may intrigue your Lordships to know that they think of the point that Lord Balfour made about not being sure whether a pump-action gun, whether it be a rifle or not, is safe, because there have been many accidents, particularly when somebody has been holding a gun pointing downwards, has pulled the trigger and blown off someone's foot. That has happened quite often; I have two friends to whom that has happened. They are very careful, particularly with double-barrelled shotguns, to ensure that when one is carried it is broken, whether the gun is loaded or unloaded.
An ingenious man invented a dummy cartridge. I have one here. It goes into a pump action shotgun to ensure that it is safe. As one pulls the trigger the dummy cartridge is hit and nothing happens. Somebody has said that it will not fit into the case, but the man who invented it is ingenious and the cartridge folds up so that it can be put into the case. That demonstrates that these people are taking an interest in safety as regards these pump-action guns.
I appeal to the Government to give the matter very close thought indeed, having due regard to the object of the Bill.
The Earl of Northesk: I think these groupings are a little unfortunate because, although all these amendments attempt to achieve more or less the same thing, Amendments Nos. 18 and 29 attempt to achieve it in a slightly different way. I think these are the most sensible of all the amendments. Most of this clause attempts to legislate against guns. As we all know, it is not guns that kill people; it is people that kill people. These are two amendments which attempt to legislate against people, which seems to me to be the most sensible way of' going about it.
I am not the only person who has advocated for many years that there should be tests of some kind before one is allowed to possess a firearm or a shotgun. One has to take a test in order to drive a motor car, which is just as lethal as a gun; one has to take a test in order to be a solicitor, and a solicitor can perhaps be as lethal as a gun. There should be a test for competence; there should be a test for behaviour; there should be a test for recognition of species; above all, there should be a test for safety. I wonder how many of us would pass? However, that is a different question. The right approach must be to attempt to legislate against people rather than against guns.
Viscount Dilhorne: I have tabled a number of amendments. I missed a manuscript amendment, for which I apologise to the Committee, but I am sure that it was not contentious and that I shall be able to

1067
make amends later on. It was purely a drafting matter. There are a number of amendments standing in my name within the groupings that we have been given. I think that probably the best way of dealing with them is to take them in what I consider to be the most convenient order. I should like, first, to speak to Amendments Nos. 5 to 12, and then go on to the amendment about which my noble friend has just addressed your Lordships. Amendments Nos. 5 and 12 are couched in exactly the same language.
Earl Ferrers: May I interrupt my noble friend? I do not like to do so but I think that there might be a procedural complication. We were discussing Amendments Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 but not 12.
Viscount Dilhorne: I shall speak to Amendment No. 5 and will not repeat myself when we come to Amendment No. 12. The points that I wish to make on both these amendments are the same.
The words that I wish to see inserted are:
"or which was manufactured before 1st January 1937".
The reason for the amendment is that it seems to me that it would be a pity if we were to lose the heritage or history of firearms prior to that date if those firearms became prohibited weapons and had to be surrendered. There are not a lot of these weapons about. This is in a sense a fallback amendment if the other amendment in my name relating to pump-action shotguns and SLRs does not succeed. If the Government succeed, it seems that these old weapons, which have an intrinsic value, would be prohibited. There is no provision in the Bill for them to be kept except perhaps, one presumes, in forensic science laboratories. There is no provision for museums to keep them unless they receive a special dispensation, and it is impossible to say today whether or not a museum will have that.
These guns are part of our heritage, part of the history of firearms. I therefore beg to commend to my noble friend the Minister the amendment to page 1, line 17, which is the same as the one to line 22.
Earl Ferrers: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Dilhorne for his intervention and I am sorry if I disturbed him in his flow. I was not surprised that he was not here to move his amendment because he tabled no less than four manuscript amendments today and even I had difficulty in obtaining the manuscript version. I received it five minutes before coming into the Chamber. I daresay the noble Lord was on his way here but did not succeed in arriving in time. I am grateful to him for having explained his views about this matter.
I should like to reassure my noble friend Lord Torphichen over the problem he mentioned regarding Clause 1 which he did not feel fitted happily into the Act as it is. This section of the Bill does not, of course, refer to Section 1 of the 1968 Act; it refers to Section 5 of the 1968 Act. I think that when my noble friend looks at that part he will see that the Bill as drafted sits comfortably within the original Act.
1068
All the amendments which have been moved and spoken to are, I realise, aimed at one of the major hearts of the Bill which concerns a great many people who have quite legitimately used their weapons and feel that they will be encumbered by the proposed legislation. It is right to attempt to see why that is so. All the amendments in this group are directed at the Government's proposals to inhibit high-powered self-loading and pump-action rifles. We thought it proper to do this because of the incident, about which your Lordships will not need reminding, when a self-loading rifle was used last year by Michael Ryan in Hungerford on a day which we shall all remember. That incident has led the Government to look very carefully at all the circumstances surrounding these dangerous and lethal weapons. In the light of that incident, the Government had to consider whether it was responsible and proper to continue to allow the private ownership of weapons of such awesome and lethal power.
Although lethality—as it has been generally called—was the prime factor in our decision, we also looked at the extent of the legitimate use of such weapons. The noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, said he hoped that the Government would think hard about that proposal, and I can assure him that we have done so. A great many representations have been made to us, rightly and perfectly properly; and we have tried to find the correct balance. It is certainly not our intention to disrupt legitimate shooting activities where that can be avoided, but we estimate that only 5 per cent. of the firearms certificate holders in Great Britain out of a total of about 200,000 own weapons which are either self-loading rifles or pump-action rifles. They are used in practical shooting and in a few service rifle competitions in which some civilians participate. However, the service competitions give priority to servicemen and few civilians take part. Indeed, I think that only 24 out of 1,300 clubs affiliated to the National Rifle Association predominantly use self-loading rifles.
I recognise that the ban on self-loading rifles will adversely affect practical rifle shooters who will not be able to continue their sport using such weapons. It may be of little consolation to them to know that; but they will be able to continue to use the traditional bolt-action rifles or to participate in other practical shooting events using pistols or shotguns. I realise that that will not be a convenience to people who have been using, rightly and legitimately, self-loading or pump-action rifles. However, the limited sporting use of those weapons, in the Government's opinion, is far outweighed by their destructive potential and the risk that they pose to the community. Perhaps I may say that the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, was right to draw attention to that. The risk of further abuse is not a risk which, frankly, the Government can accept or feel that they can ask the community at large to accept.
My noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard expressed concern that he would not be able to shoot rabbits with a pump-action 22 rifle. He need not

1069
worry, because self-loading rifles which are chambered for 22 rim-fire ammunition—and are widely used for vermin control, as my noble friend uses them —will remain under Section 1 control as at present and they are not put under Section 5. They are lower powered and less accurate than the centre-fire models.
All the amendments that have been tabled, understandable though they are, in fact seek to water down the Government's proposals over self-loading or pump-action rifles. I accept that people feel their liberties are being curtailed. I can only make the point, as clearly as I can, that it is not a curtailment which we like to see but we believe that in the interests of public safety such weapons are not safe in the hands of anyone.
My noble friend Lord Swansea said that left-handed people found these weapons convenient to use. Others have said that the disabled find them convenient to use. I accept that point of view, but one comes hack to asking whether it is right to allow people who have certain constrictions nevertheless to use an instrument that is so dangerous that even in the hands of those who are fully able it is considered not appropriate for them to be available.
My noble friend Lady Strange asked whether, if a Rover motorcar had run into a number of people, we would ban all Rover motorcars. I believe my noble friend Lord Swansea put forward that suggestion at Second Reading. My noble friend Lady Strange is wrong. I said at Second Reading—and I think it is right that motor cars are lethal instruments and as such must he curtailed. The innocent motorist who is prefectly capable of driving a car at great speed is not allowed to do so in the interests of the whole community. It is the same for these dangerous weapons. In the hands of many people they are perfectly safe: hut in the interests of the whole they must be controlled.
My noble friend Lady Saltoun put forward the proposition and extended the imagination somewhat—a little unhelpfully, I thought—that had Michael Ryan been in Switzerland the sort of events in which he was involved would not have happened because someone in legitimate possession of a self-loading rifle would have come out and shot him. I do not think that is the kind of format that my noble friend believes should be introduced into this country. The argument for including self-loading rifles among legitimate weapons is totally destructive. My noble friend's argument destroyed her own case because it would be totally unsuitable for people to run around shooting others even though those shot were considered to be dangerous.
I absolutely accept that this is a difficult matter. I realise that there will he people who will find themselves curtailed from that which they have been allowed to do in the past. However, I hope the Committee will accept that the Government have done their best to meet, where possible, the interests of various lobbies. Nevertheless, we feel that self-loading rifles and pump-action rifles should be in the prohibited category. That is why I hope the Committee will agree that we have it right.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I hope that the noble Earl can clarify my mind about these weapons. I immediately say that I know very little about firearms. I have not used them a great deal in my life. Like everyone else, I was horrified at what Michael Ryan did in Hungerford. I live fairly near Hungerford and therefore it was a shock which affected me, as a near local, as it did everyone else.
I am not sure that this Bill will achieve what the Government seek to achieve. The noble Earl spoke about lethality. Is it correct that under this clause a pump-action ·410 shotgun would be banned, whereas a bolt-action·303 rifle or a single loader pistol would not be banned? In terms of lethality, even I know that a ·303 rifle is much more lethal than a ·410 shotgun, which in terms of lethality is almost a toy with a very restricted range.
It may be that I am wrong. It may be that the noble Earl will be able to tell me that the ·410 pump-action shotgun is not covered in this clause and will not be banned. However, perhaps it would be better if l now sat down and allowed the noble Earl to give me some advice.
Earl Ferrers: I shall give the not,:e Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, such advice as I can. I start by telling him as courteously as I can that he is wrong. We are dealing there with rifles. The difference between a rifle and a shotgun is one of the distinctions that we must make in this Bill. It is easy with ·22 shotguns and ·22 rifles to get them confused in one's mind. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, said that he does not know much about firearms. I can assure him that if he had had the advantage, or disadvantage, of studying this Bill very hard, as some of us have been obliged to do, he would have ended up knowing a great deal more than at the beginning—which has been my fate; even though there is much to be learnt.
The point is that we are dealing with self-loading and pump-action rifles, which are dangerous. They are considered to he so dangerous that they are put into a category where they should not be used. Shotguns come into a different category; namely, Section 2. Ordinary bolt-action rifles are in the Section 1 category. What we are doing here is to move the self-loading rifles out of the Section 1 category and into Section 5. That is because a rifle is considered to be, and is, very much more dangerous than a shotgun.
Viscount Thurso: May I ask the noble Earl a question?
The Earl of Northesk: I refer specifically to Amendments Nos. 18 and 29 because they are the ones which ask for some kind of test. During the course of the noble Earl's explanation he said that these guns are not safe in the hands of anyone. That is exactly the point. These amendments ask that people should take some kind of test and once they have they are no longer just anybody; they are people who are qualified, as I understand it, and capable of holding and using, for want of a better expression, a big bore self-loading rifle.
I ask my noble friend to refer specifically to this, and also refer it to his experts. Perhaps the noble Earl

1071
will consider referring it to the consultative committee (which I believe is to be formed as a result of this Bill) for consideration as something which may be reintroduced at a later date.
Earl Ferrers: It is perfectly fair of the noble Lord to raise that matter and to say that people should be permitted to take various tests. But I believe that he misses the onus of this clause, which is that these weapons are considered to be so dangerous that they should not be available for use. However, that does not mean to say that there are not plenty of people who would be perfectly capable of using them, because they would be in the right hands. The thrust of this clause is to say that these weapons should not be available.
My noble friend made the observation that perhaps one should have a test, rather like a driving test, to show that one can use such weapons, but that does not answer the point. What we are trying to do is not to be horrible to the legitimate shooting community, but to protect the community as a whole from dangerous weapons which can get into the wrong hands. The only way that this can be done is by having a system whereby some are not available and others should be subject to some kind of certification.
Viscount Thurso: I may be extremely stupid. I see the danger of a gas-operated rifle, which is one that reloads itself from the recoil of the cartridge, but can the noble Earl explain the essential difference between a pump-action rifle and a bolt-action rifle? As I understand it, a bolt-action rifle is one where the cartridge is ejected by pulling back the bolt and the rifle is loaded by pushing forward the bolt. With a lever-action rifle such as the Winchester the same thing is done; namely, the cartridge is rejected by pushing the lever forward and a rifle is loaded by pulling it back. In the case of a pump-action rifle exactly the same movement is done. The cartridge is ejected and one reloads. I can see that this method is useful for people who are disabled, but the action is no faster, more efficient or deadly than that of a bolt-action rifle. A gas-operated or a self-loading rifle is a totally different weapon, as indeed is a recoil-operated rifle. I do not see why a pump-action rifle is so much more deadly than a bolt-action rifle.
3.45 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: The simple answer—if one ever dares give a simple answer to anything of this nature—is that bolt-action rifles are legitimately used for a number of purposes such as stalking and other pursuits of the kind that happen in the part of the world from which the noble Viscount comes. In those circumstances the weapons are quite legitimately used and will continue to be. However, pump-action rifles have very much quicker fire power and therefore their lethality becomes much greater.
Lord Brain: Can the detailed information on this subject be put into the Library? Those of us who have received briefings on the subject understand that a pump-action weapon is no faster than an efficiently
1072
operated bolt-action rifle. Please may we have the information, because it is not good enough simply having a smoke screen.
Lord Swansea: It is a complete fallacy for my noble friend to say that a pump-action rifle is faster to operate and therefore more dangerous and lethal—if there is such a thing as degrees of lethality—than a self-loading rifle. It is sheer nonsense to equate a pump-action rifle with a self-loading one.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: It is true to a certain extent that with a pump-action weapon one does not have to divert one's aim at all. However, with a bolt-action rifle one has to move one's head to a certain extent.
Viscount Dilhorne: I wish to ask my noble friend a question. One can obtain a bolt-action rifle with a magazine with a capacity for up to 15 cartridges. There is a rifle called a Tikka. There is also the SLR, which has a limited magazine capacity and fires no quicker than experts can fire it. I am left-handed and about 15 years ago on the range I got off over 30 cartridges left-handed with a bolt-action rifle. It seems that there is no distinction that can be drawn between a rifle with a magazine and an SLR with a magazine. To say that the SLR is more lethal is not true. My noble friend has not given any evidence to prove that that is the case. It is simply a bald assertion.
If one abolishes the SLR and it is not restricted to the normal regime of rifle shooting, one throws away a rifle which is now used competitively worldwide. It is approved for shooting by different organisations around the world. One was used at Bisley this weekend and I believe it is called an SA80. This weapon beat all-comers from all over the world in competitive shooting. At Bisley this week the British weapon beat weapons from all countries including those of the East European bloc. It seems a great pity that a change which began long ago in Korea when it was known that the bolt-action rifle was becoming out of date and that something should be done to replace it should now be put aside and that no civilian should be allowed to own such a weapon but only the military. That weapon has been proved to be better in competition and it is a pity that it should be abolished. I ask my noble friend to answer the question as to what is the logical difference between a bolt-action rifle with a magazine and an SLR with a limited magazine that would be part of the provision of this Bill?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I was asked about pump-action rifles by the noble Viscount and he asks why it is considered that this kind of weapon is more dangerous than one with a bolt-action. I can tell him as a matter of factual presentation that it is possible to have a bolt-action rifle which one can shoot perfectly reasonably and perfectly successfully. In the hands of the wrong person a pump-action rifle has a fire power far greater than a bolt-action rifle.
Noble Lords: No!
Earl Ferrers: My noble friends behind me say "No"; but they forget the fact that a self-loading rifle

1073
held perfectly legitimately caused great devastation. accept that many of my noble friends feel distressed about this matter but I ask them to address their minds to this problem. Although they have a perfectly legitimate interest to put forward they must also see the other side of the coin as the Government are obliged to do; namely, the interest of public safety. I can only revert hack to the, if I may say so, not very forceful argument about the motor car. If one has motor cars, one has to constrain them because they are lethal. These weapons are also lethal. The Government accept that by making constrictions they are inviting a certain degree of unpopularity, as the postbags of most noble Lords would admit. However, there is the point that if the public are to have confidence that these weapons will not be held in the public's hands, one must then turn round and say that these weapons ought to be included in Section 5.
My noble friend Lord Dilhorne was very persuasive when he questioned whether SLRs are more lethal. I can only repeat what I have told him; they are considered to be more dangerous. They have a limited sporting use because the bolt-action rifle has a considerable sporting use. These other weapons have much more limited use. if pump-action rifles were permitted and self-loading rifles were not, the chances are that there would be a considerable increase in the use and possibily the importation of pump-action rifles. We considered—and I believe that I will take the Committee with me over this that in the interests of public safety and while acknowledging that some people will face a certain degree of curtailment, nevertheless, these weapons are correctly held in the Section 5 category.
Viscount Brookeborough: When the army goes to a range, draws weapons from an armoury and uses them on that range, the public are quite happy. Why cannot the limited number of people who take part in practical shooting hold their weapons centrally—not centrally in the whole country but close to their range—so that they can then be drawn out for use on that range? We do not have madmen in the army killing masses of people on the range and there is no reason to suppose that if shooting clubs had those restrictions we would run into any trouble.
Earl Ferrers: It is easy to confuse the use of these weapons by the army with their use by civilians. The army has people specially trained in the use of weapons for certain purposes, primarily against the enemy. The use by the army and the use by civilians are different things. When my noble friend Lord 13rookeborough says that weapons can be held and brought out on special occasions I am bound to come hack to the point I made earlier. In the hands of private individuals, even though they are capable private individuals, these weapons are considered to be so dangerous that in the interests of public safety it would be better for them not to he in private hands.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I shall add only a few words. I apologise at the outset for not having been present at the beginning of the debate. That is why I have remained silent for a fairly significant time. After the Hungerford shootings the Home Secretary
1074
made a Statement in the House of Commons. The Government were then criticised from all sides of the House for not having proceeded with greater speed. It was, I think, right to take this matter at a more leisurely rate because inevitably some people believed that their liberties were to some extent being infringed by the provisions of Clause 1. However, having said that, I must also add this. As I said at Second Reading, I do not regard the provisions of the Bill as a grave blow to the liberties of the people of this country. After the Ryan shootings there was an explosion of public feeling and a great deal of anxiety to the effect that our firearms legislation was not framed in more stringent terms. Any government which ignored that would have done so at their peril.
It is right for me to add that there would be grave concern in the police service if amendments of this character were to be passed. As the noble Earl is aware, it is the view of the police service that the Bill is not couched in adequately strong terms. For the Committee to pass amendments of this kind would be a serious error and would cause the deepest disquiet among the public and the police service.
Lord Burton: Can my noble friend tell me the maximum number of rounds that Ryan fired at any individual? As I understand it, in most cases he fired only one or two shots. If that were the case the rate of fire has no bearing on the matter.
Earl Ferrers: I find it extremely difficult to get through to my noble friend the basis on which this legislation has come forward. Had he heard, as I am sure he did, the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, he would have realised that there was great public outcry about the fact that these weapons were available. Whether one individual fired one round, two rounds or eight rounds is relatively immaterial. The fact is that these weapons were used. They were dangerous and we are trying to secure a reasonable degree—and it is only a reasonable degree—of protection for society.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, is absolutely right. The police service thinks that the Bill is not strong enough, and the police force is responsible for trying to stop these weapons being used and for trying to find the perpetrators when they are irresponsibly used. The noble Lord was quite right to say that there is another side to this argument pitched right at the other end of the spectrum from that which we have heard from my noble friends behind me, which argument I respect and entirely understand. However, it is a question of getting the balance right.
Lord Swansea: The inclusion of pump-action rifles in this clause of the Bill is based on a complete misconception on the part of the Government. I can think of no other reason for it. Like so many other provisions of the Bill it is based on ignorance combined with prejudice. I should like to know why my noble friend thinks that a pump-action rifle can be considered to be as dangerous or as lethal—if he likes to put it that way—as a self-loading rifle and more dangerous than other types of rifle, all of which are only as dangerous as the person behind them.
Earl Ferrers: I do not wish to rise more than I should but I feel that I cannot let my noble friend's very courteous remark go by the board. He said that the Bill was brought forward as a result of ignorance and prejudice. I suggest that he uses those words to the people around Hungerford and elsewhere and see whether they think that that is so.
Lord Marsh: Does the noble Earl agree that it seems to be fairly obvious that the reason every modern army around the world has shifted from bolt-action rifles to self-loading rifles is precisely because they are more efficient vehicles for killing people?
4 p.m.
Lord John-Mackie: If I may, I correct the noble Lord, Lord Marsh. They have not moved to self-loading rifles; they have moved to automatic rifles which is a different matter altogether.
I appreciate the Government's difficulties, and those of the noble Earl and appreciate what the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said about public feeling. I could not agree more. This debate concerns particular rifles and guns—I forget the name of the noble Lord who sits at the back of the Chamber and who has later amendments—but it is not a question of a rifle or a weapon but of the person who owns and uses it. That is the important matter. The noble Lord has mentioned statistics, but I am not keen on statistics as they cannot prove anything. There are some police statistics which show that out of 157 crimes of one kind or another including criminal damage, wounding, homicides and robberies, 101 were committed with the aid of shotguns. That emphasises the argument. We should be concerned with the people who use the gun and who own it rather than the gun itself.
I appreciate the difficulties of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and the Government have to do something about it, but I should like to see some extremely firm licensing of guns that would help people such as the noble Lord, Lord Wynford, and other disabled people.
Lord Brain: I said a little earlier that I felt that the noble Earl was putting up a smokescreen and was not giving us specific answers to specific questions. For example, he has totally ignored my comments about the definition of pistols and self-loading rifles in relation to Amendment No. 4. He has not done me the courtesy of saying a single word about it. I am surprised.
I wonder whether we have not also been discussing much too wide a group of amendments. We were talking specifically about pump-action rifles to begin with and I spoke about two specific types but received no response. He has spent his time talking about self-loading rifles. He has studiously avoided the question as to the speed of action of bolt-action or lever-action compared with pump-action. The noble Earl says, without substantiating it at all, that in the hands of an incompetent person they can be used more efficiently. Perhaps what he means is that they can be used from the hip much more efficiently than the others. If that is the case, why not say so?
1076
Concerning law and order and the police forces, I know that immediately after Hungerford people were speaking on the radio on behalf of the Association of Chief Constables, the senior officers and Police Federation. At that time one would have expected them to have reacted more violently and said, "We need greater controls". However, instead they agreed that the present controls are adequate and needed to be more efficiently and effectively applied, perhaps with minor amendments.
The Government have taken a steamroller to try to crack a nut, not just a sledge hammer. I should like to read what has been said or what has not been said and perhaps then come back to this matter at Report stage. As the names on this amendment also include that of the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, should he wish to proceed to a Division on the amendment I shall support him and we shall see what the Committee feels. But at the moment I am minded to withdraw and to come back at Report stage when I have read what has been said.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Wynford Lord Wynford moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 16, after ("one") insert ("which is incapable of having a magazine with a capacity greater than four cartridges, or").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 2 stands on its own. Amendment No. 3 is wrongly on the Marshalled List and I have been authorised to say that it was cancelled and should have been cancelled and not printed on the list. Therefore Amendment No. 3 does not concern me and I shall not be moving it.
Amendment No. 2 is directed at the interests of the disabled or other handicapped rifle shooters. Whether they are men or women, confined to wheelchairs or not, all have difficulty with bolt operation. I must declare an interest because obviously I am disabled, although my preference at the moment is for the shotgun rather than the rifle. 1 was lucky enough to have made contact immediately after the war with old Mr. Churchill, the famous gunmaker and government expert adviser on forensic matters. He was a specialist in one-handed guns. He fitted me out with one of his specials and I use it today.
My long Army service made me very familiar with rifles and competitive range shooting, whether target or practical. I mentioned the interests of the disabled in my Second Reading speech. I wish now to re-emphasise one or two of their needs and aspirations. All members of the Committee will recognise what I mean when I refer to the fierce determination of disabled people to challenge, to compete and to try to succeed if possible on equal terms with their luckier fellows. I know that myself; it is my own inclination. Rifle shooting is an area which has great scope for such people. It carries the world-wide reputation of excellence which our country has built up in skill at arms, always in the forefront since time immemorial, going back, as I said at Second Reading, to the bowmen of Agincourt. The disabled thrive on this challenge. To deny it to them would be an awful blow. The public will think very badly of it. We simply must not do this.
The amendment is clear and simple. I ask the Committee not to confuse it with other amendments at paragraph (ab) on page 1 of the Bill. These amendments will be considered later.
Self-loading and pump-action rifles have come to be specially mistrusted by the Government as we have heard already this afternoon at considerable length. They are mistrusted also by the media and some sections of the public, though not all. That is a misconception. They are not more dangerous than bolt-action, self-loading and pump-action weapons, and they are today the basic infantry weapon of our Army and allies and possible enemies. Neither type is an automatic burst-firing weapon. We all ought to be clear about that. We are talking about the self-loading rifle which has no automatic burst capability. That is a different kettle of fish and a most dangerous weapon. Such weapons are already banned under the existing law. Discussion in another place disclosed much government anxiety about self-loading rifles with large magazines, which are naturally considered to be especially dangerous. But not all self-loading rifles have large magazines.
Self-loading and pump-action rifles have two advantages. They have no manual bolt operation and they have less recoil against the shoulder. Some disabled people, left-handers, lightly built men or women, young people and elderly people, whom I will call the disadvantaged, cannot shoot with bolt-action rifles. Self-loaders may be preferred by some people for deer culling or stalking, but I shall leave that matter for others to go into. In none of those cases is a large magazine used or needed. For those reasons, amendments were moved in Standing Committee F in another place to allow continued ownership, on Section 1 certificates, of self-loading and pump-action rifles with limited magazine capacity.
The case seemed overwhelming. The Minister in charge of the Bill seemed to agree. He expressed (at col. 326) his understanding of the different threat posed by small and large magazine rifles. He said that as a self-loading rifle would fire three, four or five rounds over an extended period it was difficult to argue that the gun was more lethal than the traditional 10-shot bolt-action. Therefore, there was a case for that limited range of rifles, but a wholly different argument applied to large magazine guns. In other words, small-magazine self-loaders could be reconciled with government policy as against large-magazine loaders. The Minister went on to make it clear that that applied only to guns with magazines that could not be enlarged (at col. 330). That made good sense to Standing Committee F. It accepted the Minister's undertaking to study the matter seriously. As a result, it did not press the matter to a vote, which would almost certainly have established the concession. Since then the Government have backtracked.
For reasons unkown to me, the Government now seem to think that small magazines must be treated the same as large, no matter who or how many people are hurt in the process. "How many" is important. People are hurt. Some Members of the Committee will have received a letter which I sent last week in
1078
which I described four disabled male shooters and how they would be affected by the Bill. They were called John Gruff, Clifford Owen, Dave Adams and Colin Marshall. I sent out 150 copies of the letter. I shall try to paraphrase it because I know that we must not waste time.
Clifford Owen has held a firearms certificate since 1937. He was wounded in the spine and wrist at Normandy. He shoots roe deer and red deer in this country and red deer and wild boar in Poland. He uses a rifle that can shoot from either shoulder. He chose a Remington pump-action rifle. He spent much time and effort modifying it to meet his special needs. It has a capacity of four rounds only. It will be banned by the Bill.
John Gruff of Merseyside has been a shooter all his life. He is now crippled with arthritis throughout his body. Occasionally, when he is assisted into position, he can fire with his old self-loading rifle. Dave Adams lives in Scotland. He had a serious accident when he tried to fire a full-bore rifle with a normal recoil. He received a sensation of 240 volts passing through his body. He takes part in sport and deer management. He has a Heckler knock, three-shot self-loading rifle. The ban will rule him out.
Colin Marshall lives in Carlisle. He is a disabled ex-serviceman who suffers from polyneuritis. He is a target shooter and uses a self-loading rifle. It has a big magazine, and he knows that he will have to change it to a small magazine. If they are allowed, he will at least be able to continue his sport.
I have quoted four serious cases only, but there are many others. They cover all grades right down to the left-handed man who, like me, is otherwise perfectly fit. I do not pretend that the numbers are large. We are not talking about large numbers. However, since when have we refused to help the disabled and disadvantaged because they were not numerous? That is not a good reason. Those in another place, and I hope many Members of the Committee, want so to organise things that the disabled and disadvantaged can take part in the growing sport, hobby or recreation.
Self-loading riffles with small magazines are in good supply. The Browing Bar is easily the largest selling stalking rifle in the world. It has a three or four-round magazine. Its present sales are 30,000 per annum worldwide and 3,000 per annum in Europe. The rate of production could easily increase. Present sales in the United Kingdom are small, but the weapon is in use by the Forestry Commission in Scotland for red deer stalking.
Rouger has said that it can modify the mini fourteen with integral magazines of any preferred size. An integral magazine is one that is not and cannot be removed from the rifle. Mr. Marshall would exchange his rifle for one of those with a magazine specified by the Home Secretary, as provided in my later amendment.
The amendment I now propose follows government preference expressed in another place. It limits magazines to four cartridges. The rifle must not be capable or taking a larger magazine. I have shown that such rifles are commercially available. The onus is on the Minister to show why this humane and safe

1079
proposal is not acceptable. There is no added danger to the police or the public. There is a clear and positive gain for some of our citizens.
I shall be moving an amendent later which tries to deal with another group of people, the practical shooter. This will suggest a solution to the problem of large magazine rifles. But that situation is quite different from this one, which stands on its own. It does not follow that if the Government accept Amendment No. 2 on four cartridges, they are committed to anything else. Taken on its merits, this amendment must succeed. I beg to move.
The Earl of Portsmouth: I support this amendent so ably and eloquently moved by my noble friend Lord Wynford. As he says, it is primarily aimed at disabled, elderly and women shooters who either cannot operate a bolt-action rifle or who are unable to cope with the recoil of a full bore bolt-action rifle.
I raised this point at Second Reading and my noble friend Lord Ferrers very kindly took the trouble to write to me on this and other points. In his letter he says that the number of shooters who suffer from a physical handicap so severe that they cannot operate a bolt-action rifle at all and yet can use a small bore self-loading rifle is likely to be very small indeed. On the total number of shooters he may be right. However, great strides have been made in recent years in improving the quality of life for disabled people. Shooting has undoubtedly played a part here. I find it particularly depressing that among those shooters who will be affected will be some who have been wounded in the service of their country. The banning of self-loading rifles of the type which this amendment will permit will not make any measurable contribution to public safety.
My noble friend Lord Ferrers in his opening speech at Second Reading said that the Government remained ready to listen to legitimate concerns on matters of detail. I am sure that all noble Lords will agree that these categories of shooters fall within that area of legitimate concern. I hope therefore that this amendment will be agreed to.
The Earl of Swinton: I should like to support this amendment. I did not speak to Amendment No. 1, as my noble friend may have noticed, but if the noble Lord, Lord Brain had pressed it to a Division, I should have been in somewhat of a quandary as to whether I should follow him through the Lobbies. If my noble friend decided to press this amendment I should have no hesitation in following him. The excuse which I have heard—and I hope my noble friend Lord Ferrers will not use it—is that this group of disabled people is so small that they are not worth bothering about. I do not think that that smacks of a Conservative Government, or indeed of any government, in this country. I hope it is not an argument to be put forward. I think that this amendment proposed so admirably by my noble friend Lord Wynford will bring much comfort for those who are disabled and enjoy the sport.
If my noble friend on the Front Bench cannot accept the amendment as printed, I hope at least that he will take it away and look at it. Then perhaps he
1080
will give an undertaking to consider something that might be worked out at a future stage in order to safeguard the interests of disabled people.
Earl Peel: I too should like to support what my noble friend Lord Wynford said in what can only be described as a persuasive and moving speech. Your Lordships' House has undoubtedly a first-class reputation as regards the way the disabled have been treated recently and I hope that this case will be no exception.
In practical terms, I should not have thought that four cartridges would give any additional risk to the proposals for firearms which the Government are trying to control. I do not think there is any doubt that many of us will be disappointed that a Minister in another place—I do not want to put the point too strongly—went back on the impression he gave of his intentions.
One other practical point which I should like to make is on the question of rifle shooting, particularly in connection with deer. I do not think there is any doubt that many people prefer this type of weapon purely and simply from a humane point of view. If unfortunately a beast is wounded, such a weapon can be used effectively and efficiently without the user having to re-sight the weapon. From that point of view alone I think there is justification for retaining it. However, I hope that my noble friend will consider very carefully what has been said. It is principally for the reasons of the disabled that I support this amendment.
Viscount Dilhorne: I also support the amendment because my Amendment No. 6 is couched in the same terms, with the same objective. It is phrased slightly differently, but it achieves exactly what my noble friend Lord Wynford has proposed. It would be a great pity to deprive the disabled—and I think it would be very wrong to do so—of a sport in which they can participate and which the prohibition of this weapon would prevent.
There was one further point which I wished to put on this. I should be very interested to know at some convenient time later from the Minister whether any other countries in the world actually ban SLRs from civilian use and if so which countries.
Earl Ferrers: My noble friend Lord Wynford made, if I may say so, a very persuasive argument why these rifles should not be included in the Section 5 category if they do not have magazine capacities greater than four cartridges. He put forward with some considerable feeling, understandably, the position of the disabled. He said that there was a fierce determination of the disabled to compete. I accept that entirely. When a person has been disabled he has every intention of doing his best to overcome that disability. For those who have up to now used self-loading rifles, one can quite see how that has been of help to them.
However, he said that my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary had undertaken to look at that. My noble friend Lord Peel said that the Government had gone back on their word. I do not think that is so. This was mentioned in another place

1081
and my honourable friend said that he would undertake to consider whether there was a case for exempting self-loading rifles of up to five-shot capacity. We undertook to do that and examined it. On examination, we found that only one or two models were on the market. We concluded, as my honourable friend explained on Report in another place, that this did not justify making an exemption from the total ban on self-loading and pump-action rifles, being the weapons that they are, for the reasons which I gave at the previous debate. I do not think it would help practical shooters who readily acknowledge that they need large magazine capacity.
My noble friend Lord Swinton said—I thought in a slightly cavalier and manifestly unjust way—that he hoped that the Government would not say that the disabled were so small in number that they were not worth bothering about. I do not think that the Government have ever said that. Certainly I have never said it and it is not my intention to do so.
I am bound to say to the Committee that if Parliament decides that this type of weapon, whoever uses it, is so dangerous that it ought to be put in a restricted category and not to be allowed to be used, I find it quite difficult to say that with all the handicaps of those who are disabled, for which we have enormous sympathy nevertheless they ought to he entitled to use these weapons which are extremely dangerous. I find it hard to believe that that is a correct approach.
I do not rest the argument there on this amendment, because if my noble friend's amendment were accepted this would apply not only to the disabled; it would apply to everyone. All self-loading rifles with a magazine capacity of under four would he readily available for everyone. That bursts open the whole principle that they should be put into a Section 5 category.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: I should like to add a few words. I have supported everything that the Minister has said up to now, but I wish to make the point that it is important that disabled people should not be disqualified from doing something because of their disability. That case has been very strongly put this afternoon. As the Minister has said, the amendment before us now would mean that others besides the disabled would be allowed to use these weapons. Will the Minister put forward an amendment which would make a specific case for the disabled to be able to use these weapons, which are the only kind of weapons that they can use on account of their disability?
Lord Swansea: There are very few areas of sport and recreation in which disabled people can take part, although that depends on the nature of their disability. However, shooting is a sport in which they can take part. If the nature of a person's disability permits him to hold a rifle and fire it at a target, I can see no earthly reason why he should not be allowed to do so. The governments of nearly every other Western country are much more liberal in their attitude and they trust people. Why do this Government not trust the public?
Lord Harris of Greenwich: No doubt one of the reasons why the Government in this country are more cautious is that they have looked at what has happened in the United States and seen the appalling level of casualties affecting both the civilian population and the United States police service. It would be astonishing were we to accept the argument that, because in the United States there is no adequate federal legislation on firearms as a result of the power of the National Rifle Association, we should therefore move to a similar position in this country. That is totally unacceptable.
Lord Swansea: The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, forgets that the law varies considerably from one state to another in the United States. Some are fairly liberal but others are very much more restrictive than this country.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: I did not wish to intervene, but with great respect I must correct my noble friend as regards the position in the United States. By a curious quirk of the American constitution Article 2, I believe, of the so-called Bill of Rights states that nothing shall prevent the citizen from carrying arms. That applies to the whole of the United States and would be enforced by the Supreme Court. No doubt the regulations in different states differ to a great extent, but they cannot infringe the constitution of the United States of America.
Earl Ferrers: In reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, who asked whether the Government would put down an amendment specifically relating to disability, I remind her that we shall come to an amendment regarding disability later. My view on that amendment is the same as it is on this amendment. If these weapons are considered to be of such a dangerous character that they should not be used, I think it is right that they should not be used even by disabled people. That does not mean to say that one is not concerned about disabled people. There is enormous concern. My noble friend Lord Wynford gave four impressive examples. But there is a saying that hard cases make had law. That applies in this case.
There cannot be many disabilities which entirely preclude the use of a bolt-action rifle but would allow the use of a self-loading or pump-action rifle, as has been said. I can conceive of a disability which would mean that a shooter could use a self-loading rifle more readily than a bolt-action one, but that is not the same thing. Therefore, I hope that for those reasons the Committee will agree to maintain the premise that these weapons should be put into the Section 5 category for whatever purposes they may be used.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: The noble Earl has just said that hard cases make bad law. Surely Hungerford was a hard case, but look what we have in front of us?
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lady is quite right. That was a very hard case and that is the reason why we are taking action.
Lord Torphichen: The question I am about to ask would hang better on Amendment No. 6 than on this amendment, but the noble Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, may not move that amendment. What do the Government feel will happen to the standard British Army weapon, in use from about 1957 to 1987, which I understand is a single-shot self-loading rifle based on the Belgian FN weapon? I do not know how many of these there are, but their predecessor, the Mark IV Enfield, found its second use as everybody's first training weapon in schools and Army cadet forces.
As I understand it, this Bill would totally outlaw any kind of self-loading rifle whether single shot or more than a single shot per squeeze of the trigger. Where do the Government expect the weapons for the next generation of school pupils to train on to come from? Where do the Government intend the surplus 1957 to 1987 weapons, for the sake of a label for them, to go to?
Earl Ferrers: All rifles which are of a self-loading or pump-action nature will come into this category. They will not be used by schools.
Lord Torphichen: I apologise for intervening again. I was referring to the physical disposition of the weapons. Will the Army's weapons be scrapped, thrown down a mine or otherwise destroyed? If not, what market will they be put on to?
Earl Ferrers: This Bill has no bearing on military weapons used by the military.
Lord Torphichen: I find it difficult to understand the Government's thinking behind this provision. The numbers of these weapons will be very large. There must be some understanding of whether the Government are going to pulp the weapons or scrap them or whether they will be resold.
Earl Ferrers: I do not know whether it is profitable to pursue this example. However, I shall certainly look into what my noble friend has said to see whether there is a point which I have missed. There is certainly some slight confusion in my mind, if not in my noble friend's, as he referred to a single shot self-loading weapon. Either it is a single shot weapon or it is self-loading, in which case it is more than a single shot weapon. That might be the cause of some of the confusion.
Lord Torphichen: I am sorry to return to this point again. I intended to make a distinction between the burst fire weapons, the sub-machine guns, the Kalashnikovs, and the replacement British Army weapon, which may be fired either single shot or burst, and the weapon that the British Army used between 1957 and 1987, which had to have the trigger squeezed once and repeatedly once more each time the soldier wanted a single round to be fired. There is a distinction there.
Earl Ferrers: I shall pursue that point and write to my noble friend about it.
Lord Wynford: My noble friend the Minister has once again used the phrase "enormously dangerous"
1084
as a description of this self-loading rifle. I cannot accept that. I believe there are other Members of the Committee who cannot accept it too. Any rifle is dangerous. The Lee-Enfield—I could go further back—and other rifles were all dangerous. All firearms are dangerous. But I cannot see that this one is enormously dangerous. It reloads itself. It does not fire bursts. It requires a separate trigger pressure for every single shot that is fired. That is the mechanics of it. It is not an automatic weapon; it is a semiautomatic weapon. That is the point with which I have difficulty.
Secondly, I do not see why the concession to the disabled and disadvantaged should lead to a general provision relating to everyone. I have stated specifically that the restriction would apply to certain people. I have tabled two further amendments which will provide for a greater tightening up of firearms licences.
Earl Ferrers: Perhaps I may interrupt my noble friend for a moment. He stated that he had specifically said that his amendment is restricted to certain types of people. That may be what is in his mind. However, it is not what the amendment says.
Lord Wynford: I believe that the reference to the United States is a red herring. That is a very different matter. I shall divide the House on the issue.
4.42 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 38; Not-Contents, 162.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Abinger,L.

Mar, C.

Ailesbury, M.

Milverton, L.

Blatch, B.

Monson, L.

Borthwick, L.

Mountgarrett, V.

Brain, L.

Northesk, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Peel, E.

Burton, L.

Portsmouth, E. [Teller.]

Clitheroe, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Renwick, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Cross, V.

Savile, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Shannon, E.

Erroll, E.

Strange, B.

Halsbury, E.

Strathcarron, L.

Killearn, L.

Swansea, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Swinfen, L.

Lawrence, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Mackie of Benshie, L

Thurso, V.

Mancroft, L.

Wynford, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Belstead, L.

Ampthill, L.

Bessborough, E.

Ardwick, L.

Blease, L.

Arran, E.

Blyth, L.

Attlee, E.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Auckland, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Balfour, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Banks, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Caithness, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Beloff, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

1085

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Lockwood, B.

Carnock, L.

Long, V.

Carter, L.

Lurgan, L.

Cathcart, E.

Lyell, L.

Chandos, V.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Chelmer, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Mais, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Manton, L.

Cox, B.

Marley, L.

Craigavon, V.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Croham, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Mayhew, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Merrivale, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Mersey, V.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Donegall, M.

Munster, E.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Nelson, E.

Dundee, E.

Newall, L.

Eccles, V.

Nicol, B.

Eden of Winton, L.

Norrie, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Onslow, E.

Ennals, L.

Orkney, E.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Faithfull, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Falkland, V.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Ferrers, E.

Pender, L.

Fortescue, E.

Penrhyn, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Peston, L.

Gainford, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Gallacher, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Galpern, L.

Porritt, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Portland, D.

Glenarthur, L.

Richardson, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Gray of Conlin, L.

Rochester, L.

Greenway, L.

Rodney, L.

Grey, E.

Romney, E.

Gridley, L.

Rugby, L.

Grimond, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

St. Davids, V.

Sandford, L.

Hampton, L.

Seear, B.

Hanworth, V.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Sharpies, B.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Shepherd, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Harvey of Prestbury, L.

Slim, V.

Havers, L.

Somers, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Stedman, B.

Hesketh, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hives, L.

Strathspey, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hooper, B.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Hughes, L.

Terrington, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Teviot, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Thurlow, L.

Jacques, L.

Tordoff, L.

Jeger, B.

Trafford, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Trumpington, B.

John-Mackie, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Underhill, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Kennet, L,

Wigoder, L.

Kimball, L.

Wigram, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Windlesham, L.

Layton, L.

Wise, L.

Listowel, E.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.50 p.m.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Lord Brain Lord Brain had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 17, after ("rim-fire") insert (", recognised pistol or revolver calibre").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I hope that when the Minister has read the Official Report he will be kind enough to write me a letter. If he will do that, I shall be very happy not to move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
Viscount Dilhorne Viscount Dilhorne had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 17, at end insert (-or which was manufactured before 1st January 1937").
The noble Viscount said: I have already spoken to the amendment earlier in the debate, and therefore it is not moved.
[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
Lord Wynford Lord Wynford moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 1, line 17, at end insert ("or which complies with magazine specifications that the Secretary of State shall from time to time by order determine, and which is possessed by a person who holds a firearm certificate issued on conditions required by section (Conditions attaching to the possession of self-loading rifles) of this Act.").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 7 is linked to Amendment No. 29, which is a short new clause. I beg leave to speak to both amendments at the same time and to treat them as one.
This pair of amendments concerns those people who use self-loading rifles mainly for the distinct sport and discipline of practical shooting. I say "mainly" because ordinary static target shooting can also be undertaken: competitive, or with a view to experimenting for sighting, wind layoff, quick reloading or body positioning.
Practical shooting is a highly organised sport which involved competitors moving down the range from one firing point to another, perhaps running, and then while they are on the move shooting at moving targets or at fixed targets. The sport is practised in approved clubs, and safety considerations are of the highest. I think my noble friend Lord Portsmouth will be adding some remarks about that. The sport is a discipline in the true sense. There are about 18,600 members of clubs belonging to the United Kingdom Practical Shooting Association who shoot with rifle or pistol or both. That is certainly not a negligible number, and it is larger than that for those practising basketball, fencing, water skiing or weight lifting.
Limiting it to those who use only the self-loading rifle, the number is more than 6,000; but I am unable to say how much more. There is a growing schedule of international competitions throughout Europe, involving competitors from America and some from Africa. While it is not yet an Olympic sport it is expected that it will be. No other country imposes a ban to prevent their responsible citizens from developing, practising and competing in the sport.
The proposal to relegate self-loading rifles to the prohibited class has been rejected by all United Kingdom governments of whatever persuasion since the matter was put forward in the 1973 Green Paper. The proposal was not simply shelved; it was generally agreed that it should be totally rejected.
In all the discussions since August 1987 the Government have been unable to cite one certain case other than that of Hungerford in which a self-loading rifle of the type proposed to be banned was being used in crime. Pump-action rifles have never featured.
Government policy made a wrong start because the policy was based on the weapon and not on the shooter. There is no logical reason for the distinction which the Government make between different types of weapon. From the very beginning the Secretary of State has had to admit that the Bill would not have prevented another Hungerford. Indeed, just as many horrible deaths at Hungerford were caused by a weapon not to be banned as were caused by a weapon now proposed to be banned. Prevention of recurrence can best be achieved by ensuring that only those fit to hold a firearm may do so. It is pie in the sky to hope that anything will be perfect, but controls can be greatly tightened.
The only government proposal has been that there should be a declaration by the signatory of the identifying photograph that he knows of no reason against the applicant's possession of a firearm. On the other hand, the Opposition suggest amendments for medical certificates and for the checking of referees. My amendment suggests a simpler, safer, and thus an altogether surer and more effective method. Those who know best whether a person is fit to have a firearm, and who have most to lose if they get it wrong, are those who practise and love the sport. They know how swiftly the public will judge them if they are lax. They know that they, the shooters, must spot the maverick, the unreliable, the sick or the rogue. They see their fellow sportsmen frequently, and if they do not see enough of them they will take action. My amendment uses that practical control.
The new clause, Amendment No. 29, imposes in addition four statutory controls over and above those to which I have already referred. First, a certificate to hold a self-loading rifle will not be given to a novice or to a probationer. Secondly, he will have been a member of a rifle club for three years and thus be well known to many members. Thirdly, he must join a club approved for practical shooting both by the two governing bodies of the sport and by the Secretary of State. So the Home Secretary will be able to distinguish between clubs that will be able to house practical shooting and those that will not. Presumably, he will impose necessary conditions on the clubs that he approves. Finally, the applicant will have to complete a practical shooting course specially set up by the governing bodies.
Those are four new, severe and practical safeguards, all of them under the control of the Home Secretary. However, my amendment goes still further. Many believe that as there is no logical reason to distinguish between one type of rifle and another, the proposal that I have just outlined in any new clause should be sufficient. I have taken into account the fact that the Government have become hooked on what they call the central pillar of their policy. As Mr. Hogg expressed it in another place, they define self-loading rifles as,
"full-bore, fast-firing, large-magazine guns with lethal properties".—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee F; 3/3/88, col. 281]
The new clause that I suggest incorporates an amendment to Clause 1(2)(ab), which limits the kind of self-loading rifle that will be allowed. The amendment gives the Home Secretary the responsibility to set out the specifications which he requires for acceptable magazines. Let it be for the Home Secretary, with advice, to decide the limits. It seems likely that those concerned with practical shooting can meet with the Home Secretary and work out specifications which are reasonable and effective. They will have the new consultative committee to help them if they so wish.
My two amendments, Amendments Nos. 7 and 29, improve the law in that they greatly strengthen government and police control over the kinds of people who can own and use lawfully an SL rifle. They allow for careful discussion in order to satisfy those involved in the sport and the needs of public safety while ensuring that self-loading rifles remain under firearms certificate control. I beg to move.
5 p.m.
The Earl of Portsmouth: I support the two amendments of my noble friend Lord Wynford. Their principal purpose is to enable the sport of practical rifle shooting to continue. In common I believe with many noble Lords, I had never heard of practical shooting until the introduction of this Bill, although it is a recognised shooting discipline involving marksmanship against the clock for which a full bore self-loading rifle is essential.
My noble friend Lord Ferrers has referred to practical rifle shooting as a minority sport. I am not sure what constitutes a minority sport, but a figure of 6,000 plus represents a significant minority. Practical rifle shooting has been portrayed in certain quarters and in certain sections of the media as a sport designed for survivalist fanatics and therefore a sport the demise of which is to be welcomed. Far from it. The sport has a long tradition, originating with practical musketry competitions which took place before the turn of the century. I have seen for myself a demonstration of practical rifle shooting. I was impressed by the high degree of range safety and discipline observed by the shooters and the range personnel.
In practical shooting competitions organised by the United Kingdom Practical Shooting Association, which is the governing body, only full members of the association may take part and before being allowed to enter any UKPSA competition a member of an affiliated club must first attend and pass a basic training course in range safety procedures and competition technique. UKPSA-accredited range safety officers must officiate. There is a match director, range master and chief range officer who run the match. In addition, there is a range safety officer who is directly responsible for each individual competitor when shooting. It should also be said that practical shooters are concerned about their public image and actively discourage civilian participants from wearing para-military gear. In addition to a high level of supervision, the practical shooter in this sport must also go through the process of obtaining a firearms certificate. That process, I know from personal experience, is extremely rigorous.

1089
The proposed new clause, as my noble friend Lord Wynford has explained, is a most sensible additional safeguard. It is entirely welcomed by the shooting fraternity as it involves a strong element of self-policing. After all, for obvious reasons, club members have a clear interest in ensuring that they do not have in their midst unsuitable or unstable individuals armed with lethal weapons.
I turn to the amendment to Clause 1 which proposes an insertion at line 17. The amendment deals with the vexed question of magazine capacity which I know has given the Government headaches. It places the decision squarely in the hands of the Secretary of State who, it is to be hoped, will be advised by the consultative committee that is to be set up under the provisions of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, made reference at Second Reading to the fact that while self-loading rifles were to be prohibited, automatic pistols would remain on Section I. I agree entirely with him about the illogicality of this state of affairs. As I am sure noble Lords will appreciate, automatic pistols which can easily be concealed about the person have far more potential for harm in the wrong hands. It is also entirely possible that many of those who will lose their self-loading rifles under the provisions of the Bill will switch to automatic pistols, thereby swelling the number in circulation. That development, I am sure, no one would welcome.
Among the reams of paper on this Bill with which I have been deluged, I have received many letters from obviously responsible and law-abiding shooters who ask why they will no longer be able to own self-loading rifles. They see the abolition of a sport, widely acknowledged to be the safest of the rifle shooting disciplines. Apart from the tragedy at Hungerford, they argue, there is no record of a legally held self-loading rifle having been used to commit a crime. I am glad that it is not my lot to have to justify the decision, because there is no real justification.
At Second Reading my noble friend Lord Ferrers made repeated reference to the need to achieve the right balance. These amendments not only represent a significant tightening-up of existing laws but give the Secretary of State a much greater degree of direct control, thus providing the balance sought by my noble friend without destroying the central pillar of his policy.
The Earl of Northesk: My name is also attached to this amendment. I have already spoken to it having been a little perturbed about the grouping of Amendments Nos. 18 and 29, to which my noble friend Lord Wynford, whether rightly or wrongly I am not altogether sure, has attached Amendment No. 19. I repeat what I said when I spoke earlier. This is an attempt to legislate against people rather than against guns, which surely must be the right approach in understanding how firearms should be used.
Lord Swansea: I should like to support my noble friend in the amendment that he has moved. It is entirely logical and provides a satisfactory machinery for allowing the continued possession of self-loading rifles. The national associations, together with their affiliated clubs, are entirely willing to help and co-
1090
operate with the police in any possible way by supervising their members and by giving their recommendation to an application for a firearms certificate only if they know the member thoroughly and are satisfied that he is a bona fide shooter and a responsible person. They, as much as anyone else, are anxious to preserve the good name of their sport and not to allow it to fall into disrepute, or to have the "Rambo" image attached to it.
This type of competition shooting is carried out under the strictest safety precautions, which are rigidly enforced. Apart from anything else, if we had a national emergency—which heaven forbid!—in which a large number of the population was called to arms, we should have, as a result of this Bill, a population of adult males of military age without experience in the use of firearms in the national defence.
The National Rifle Association was founded in 1860 under a royal charter for the express purpose of maintaining the standards of musketry in Her Majesty's volunteer forces. I like to think that competitive rifle shooting will continue to serve that purpose, and that it will continue to provide a body of people with experience in the use of firearms which I hope will never be necessary for national defence. However, one never knows what may happen one day. It is painful to think that we may no longer have a pool of people who are experienced either as shooters or as instructors in shooting.
Lord Torphichen: The amendment uses the expression "self-loading rifles" in the last sentence. It takes the words from Clause 1(2)(ab) and (ac) in the Firearms (Amendment) Bill. The noble Lord. Lord Wynford, quoted a definition of a self-loading rifle from the other place which was totally at odds with the idea that I had of a self-loading rifle. Can my noble friend Lord Ferrers define what is a self-loading rifle? In what way does it differ from the 1968 Act definition in Section 5(1)(a), which states:
"Any firearm which is so designed or adapted that, if pressure is applied to the trigger, missiles continue to be discharged until pressure is removed from the trigger or the magazine containing the missiles is empty".
There are both single-shot and automatic types of self-loading rifles. The Committee will wish to be sure which it is intended to define.
Earl Ferrers: On the last point of my noble friend Lord Torphichen, what goes into a Section 5 category is self-loading rifles. They are those which can carry more than one burst, or one burst at a time. They will all be in the Section 5 category.
In moving this amendment, my noble friend Lord Wynford said that the Government's policy was wrong and that they had approached the matter in the wrong way because their policy was based on the weapon and not the shooter. My noble friend is quite right. That was the basis on which the matter was approached. My noble friend and I may differ, in that he says it is the wrong approach. However, he is right in thinking that it was the approach.
The reason is simply this, as I have tried to explain. There are such weapons which are very dangerous. In drawing up the provision we tried to consider which
R1

1091
were the most unsuitable to have in the public domain. These weapons were considered to be unsuitable in the public's hands and I believe that most people would agree.
My noble friend Lord Portsmouth said that this amendment, and Amendment No. 29, would be a good addition to the Bill. He said it was a sensible additional safeguard. However, that is not so, with the greatest respect. It explodes the whole principle. The beginning of Amendment No. 29 states:
"A firearms certificate may authorise a person to possess, purchase or acquire a self-loading or pump-action rifle".
The purpose of the Bill is to ensure that people are not able to purchase, acquire or possess such a rifle. Therefore, although I understand my noble friend's concern, I am bound to say, because this issue is one of the central pillars of the Bill, that he cannot be quite so ingenious as to argue that his provision could easily be accepted.
I hope that my noble friend will realise that for those reasons I cannot advise the Committee to accept his amendments.
Lord Wynford: I find it difficult at the moment to gather up all the arguments from the Minister. I did not hear him clearly. I do not see why this amendment should be smeared with the accusation that it is not what it says it is. It provides very considerable additional safeguards. However, I should like to read the record of these exchanges. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Earl Ferrers: Before my noble friend withdraws the amendment perhaps I may clarify one matter. I did not mean to smear anything that he said. He said that these amendments add additional safeguards. They add additional safeguards only once one has exploded the principle that these weapons should not be available to the public. Having destroyed that principle—which my noble friend wishes to do—he then puts in the safeguards. I was trying to tell my noble friend that the amendment demolishes one of the central pillars of the Bill.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Burton Lord Burton moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 1, line 17, at end insert ("or which is certified as designed and manufactured before 31st December 1936").
The noble Lord said: I hope that this amendment is in a rather different category although it applies to the so-called self-loading rifles. They are very old weapons. The amendment refers to a weapon which was designed and manufactured prior to 1937. They are therefore at least 50 years old. These weapons were designed for a rather different ammunition from that which is fired by modern weapons.
This point has not been brought out today. It is the ammunition which is more devastating than the weapon. Some of these modern bullets are extremely damaging. The main reason that I inserted this cutoff date is that it would be pre-1938, the start of the war. Furthermore, it would be before the Garand rifle. This was an extremely successful and efficient
1092
weapon which had not at that time come into being. Therefore many of these weapons are aged weapons.
In 1986 there were only 27 serious notifiable offences involving rifles. But I do not know how many of those offences concerned failure to notify the police, poaching, or whatever. I should be most surprised if even one of those 27 offences involved any of the fairly scarce weapons which I am now discussing. I think that it would be most unlikely that they would ever be involved. The weapons would be retained under a Section 1 certificate.
I draw the Committee's attention to remarks made from the Front Bench in this place in 1981 by the late Lord Avon when he was Minister of State. He said:
"Research has conclusively shown that there is no link between the level of crime and the number of guns held under a firearms certificate".
Then, again, the Home Secretary in 1983, when speaking to the Police Federation, said:
"The link between armed crime and the private possession of firearms is not clear-cut as is sometimes imagined. There is, in fact, no clear unambiguous evidence that the tightening of controls would have a significant effect on crime".
I feel that it would be a criminal act if such weapons were to fall within the terms of the Act, because they are old weapons and part of our national heritage. My noble friend on the Front Bench referred to the fact that they "should not be used". I am not quite sure what he meant by the word "used". Most of these weapons, being 50 years old, are not likely to be fired. It may be said that they would be taken out for exhibition but I am not sure how you define the term "use". I hope that when he said they will not be used that he was in fact referring to firing.
I feel that it would be a grave mistake if this part of our national heritage were to be destroyed because of this simple matter which is in no way likely to affect crime. I beg to move.
Viscount Dilhorne: With respect, I thought that it was 1919 and not 1936 as stated in the amendment.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: It is 1936.
Viscount Dilhorne: I am much obliged. I should like to express my support for the amendment but can add very little to what my noble friend Lord Burton said. If these weapons, which are part of our national heritage, had to be deactivated or in any way changed that would in fact reduce their value. That factor should also be taken into account. They are part of our heritage and I think that that aspect should be considered by my noble friend the Minister.
Lord Swansea: I should like to support my noble friend in this amendment. The number of self-loading rifles tried and made before the date mentioned in the amendment is fairly small. They were nearly all experimental rifles or prototypes. There are not many of them about, but such rifles as there are should be preserved. They are of value to collectors; they are of interest to students of military history and they are also of value to museums. I do not recommend that many of them should actually be taken out to the range and fired now, with modern ammunition, but such as there are in this country should certainly be preserved.
Lord Renwick: I, too, should like to add my support to the amendment tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Burton on the basis that the Bill as a whole will involve a great deal of work for the authorities. Therefore, if we can exclude such weapons which are of a certain age and are most unlikely to be used in a situation such as the one which I believe caused this Firearms (Amendment) Bill to be put forward, I am sure that the Minister will look sympathetically at this amendment and the following one.
Earl Ferrers: I am most grateful to my noble friend for explaining the purpose of the amendment tabled in his name. He seeks to make a date before which it would be perfectly all right to have such weapons. Several dates have been put forward; for example, there is one in Amendment No. 8, the next one in Amendment No. 9 refers to the 31st December 1918 and in an earlier one, Amendment No. 5, reference is made to the 1st January 1937. All those dates are inevitably arbitrary.
Our proposal to prohibit high powered self-loading pump-action rifles is based on their lethality and not on the date when they were made. Efficient, self-loading rifles existed before the date which my noble friend has put down and many are still in circulation. Moreover, I suspect that we could expect large numbers of such guns to be imported from the United States and elsewhere to fill the gap left by the ban on more modern weapons.
It is worth remembering that many models of guns which would be affected by these amendments were manufactured from early this century right through to the 1960s without any significant change in their specification. They are therefore just as lethal if they were made before 1936 or 1937 as they are if manufactured after that date.
When my noble friend Lord Dilhorne said that such weapons are part of our national heritage, I think we must be clear—if one can be clear in this area—about what he is talking. When one talks about heritage one tends to think of items which belong to the past. Antiques come under the category of "heritage". Indeed, the Firearms Act 1968 exempts from the certification procedures antique firearms which are sold, transferred, purchased, acquired or possessed as a curiosity or an ornament. Therefore antiques are covered and are not affected by the Bill. What my noble friend seeks to do is to suggest an arbitrary cut-off point. I am bound to tell him that I would find it difficult to accept that because a weapon made before a certain date can be just as dangerous as one which was made after that date.
Viscount Dilhorne: I wonder whether my noble friend can help me on this point. The date of 1936 which was fixed was not in fact an arbitrary cut-off date; there was a reason for it. As I understand it, in 1937 one started to get in America mass production of SLRs—especially the Garand, which has an integrated magazine. Therefore the amendment deals with weapons which were not mass produced but which were specially made, probably by special order. My understanding was, although I may be wrong—if I am, I am sure my noble friend will tell
1094
me—that one is not talking about a great number of weapons that would fall within that category.
Earl Ferrers: That may well be so. However, the fact is that if it is considered to be undesirable to have self-loading or pump-action rifles because of the nature of the danger they pose, then it does not matter whether they were made before or after 1936. I am afraid I cannot help my noble friend any more than that.
Lord John-Mackie: I should like to make the point that such weapons would surely be in the Imperial War Museum and if anyone wanted to see them they would be able to view them there.
Earl Ferrers: That of course is perfectly all right.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: It is already covered.
Lord Burton: I am very disturbed. I am sorry if I was incoherent when I made my submission. However, I thought I had made it quite clear why we picked 1936; as my noble friend Lord Dilhorne said it was not an arbitrary date. It was picked for a specific reason; namely, that the bulk of such weapons were not then in operation. Many such weapons are now in private collections and have never caused any trouble anywhere, so far as I am aware. They must be 50 years old and during that time they have caused no trouble. I cannot understand why my noble friend suggests that they might now do so; it seems to be illogical. A red herring was introduced about importing from America. Surely import restrictions can be imposed.
I am referring to the few weapons which are in the hands of private collectors at the present time. Antiques are said to be covered, but these weapons will never become antiques. They should do so; that is the object of the amendment. The very articles which will be of great interest in 50 years time will be destroyed and for that reason I move the amendment.
Earl Ferrers: My noble friend says that he cannot understand my argument. It was that many models of guns were manufactured from early in the century until the 1960s with no change in their specification. We are worried about whether they can he used. The fact that they have not been used is of great advantage. As regards banning such guns, I should like to point out that if a bullet goes up the spout it will do so with the same speed and accuracy whether the gun was built before or after a certain date. 1 am bound to tell my noble friend that for that reason I find it difficult to accept his amendment, although I understand his concern.
Lord Burton: I am sorry, but clearly I have little option other than to withdraw the amendment. I hope that my noble friend will look carefully at what has been said. I believe that to destroy such weapons is vandalism. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Burton Lord Burton moved Amendment No. 9:
Page I, line 18, after ("gun") insert ("other than one which is certified as designed and manufactured before 31st December 1918").
The noble Lord said: I do not believe it can be said that these are highly dangerous weapons; it is a question of our national heritage. On this occasion I have gone back to 1918. That is not an arbitrary date but a date from which many of the weapons became well established. There are only a few weapons in existence which were made prior to that date. They are now 70 years old and, as far as I know, none has been used in crime during that period. Yet according to the Bill these old weapons must be destroyed. I cannot follow that and I hope that this time I shall receive a more reasonable answer from my noble friend.
In the Standing Committee in another place it was agreed that these old guns should not be banned and that they should be excluded from the Bill. The committee in another place agreed that but the Government removed the provision on Report with a three-line Whip. I do not believe that that is reasonable.
My noble friend will see that 1 have fallen over backwards to try to be reasonable. I hope only that he also will do so. In agreeing to the amendment he will in no way be endangering public security. I beg to move.
Earl Nelson: I cannot see how my noble friend, Lord Burton, can argue this amendment any better than he argued the previous one. The fact of the matter is that these guns are still in existence and up until 1960 they were little changed in design. The Shooters Rights Association propaganda magazine freely states that self-loading rifles have been used by shooters in this country since 1905. I suggest that the date to which one goes back is rather academic.
Earl Ferrers: I agree whole-heartedly with my noble friend Lord Nelson. I wondered how my noble friend, Lord Burton, would be able to argue the amendment any better than he argued the previous one. Indeed, he used almost the identical words. He said that before 1918 only very few weapons were made and he used almost identical words in respect of 1936 as proposed in a previous amendment.
The fact is that worldwide at least 100,000 self-loading rifles were manufactured by 1910. Therefore, if my noble friend tries to use that as a date he is using another arbitrary weapon. If he uses the same argument that not many weapons were made prior to those dates, as he did in respect of an earlier amendment, it means that not many weapons could have made between 1918 and 1936.
The same argument applies in respect of this amendment as applied to the previous one. It is that if they are capable of firing in the way in which they were manufactured so to do, they are dangerous weapons. The date of manufacture is relatively irrelevant.
Lord Burton: The difference is that in respect of these weapons the Committee in the other place agreed to the amendment. With a three-line Whip the
1096
Government arbitrarily took it out. I have noticed that the only other speaker apart from the Minister and myself has been the voice of the police. I can assure Members of the Committee that that is the great worry in respect of the Bill. It will give so much power to the police, some of whom have voiced the fact that they do not wish to have any firearms left in this country. This is a big step on the way towards that and that is why I am so worried about the Bill. However, I obviously have no option but to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Dilhorne Viscount Dilhorne moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 1, line 18 after ("gun") insert ("excluding all air weapons").
The noble Viscount said: The purpose of the amendment is to remove from prohibition all air weapons, which must be included at the moment. I suggest, perhaps impertinently, that the Government have got it wrong and have done so from their point of view, not from those which have been propounded this afternoon.
It is clear that air weapons are included in the section as it is drawn. There is no definition of "pump-action" and to expel an air slug from the sharp end of an air gun one must pump air into it. That is a pump gun, but there is no definition of it. I suggest that the matter should be remedied by the Minister unless he wishes to exclude air weapons in the action of pump guns.
There is a little more to the issue than that. As regards the different types of air guns the Diana, a popular gun, has air pumped into the chamber in the way I have described. The air is then released behind the slugs, which go out one at a time. If instead of that air gun one buys what is called a "Saxby Palmer", in that case the cartridges are pumped into the gun. One can have 10 slugs in the chamber and the air operation is slightly different. Will the Minister make clear whether air weapons are included by omission or whether my amendment should be inserted into the Bill? I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: An air gun is excepted from the certification requirements of the 1968 Act unless it is classed as being especially dangerous; that is if it is capable of discharging a missile so that, on being discharged from the muzzle of the weapon, the missile has kinetic energy in excess of 6 foot pounds in the case of an air pistol or in excess of 12 foot pounds in the case of any other air gun. Air guns which are especially dangerous fall under Section 1 of the Act and an owner must obtain a firearms certificate.
My noble friend is concerned about air guns and their use. The compressed air gun is exempt from the 1968 Act. If it is very powerful, it can be controlled under the dangerous air weapons rules. Therefore, that comes under the firearms legislation. Gas fired air weapons are not exempt and come under Section 1. Therefore, I believe that my noble friend's amendment is not necessary.
Viscount Dilhorne: I am obliged to my noble friend for explaining the matter so clearly. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Brain Lord Brain moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 1. line 22, leave out ("40") and insert ("36").
The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment and I have deliberately chosen the figure 36 which is significantly below the figure 40 so that we do not become involved in an argument as to whether I mean 39, 391 or 38. I suggest that there is a figure lower than 40 which one should consider as an acceptable length for a self-loading or pump-action shotgun.
The main reason for that is that I have a catalogue which in standard form for ladies' or youths' guns mentions in the case of a pump-action gun an overall length of 40 inches and in another case of a self-loading I 2-bore shotgun an overall length of 391 inches. Let us suppose that the person wishing to purchase this gun is of shorter stature or has a shorter arm than the standard. The gunsmith would normally fit the gun to the purchaser by reducing the length of the stock. That would immediately bring what was in one case a perfectly permissible gun and in the other case a non-standard gun into the nonstandard category.
I should like to know the Government's reasons for settling on 40 inches rather than a lesser figure. I shall not press my amendment. I want to hear the information and to see whether on Report it is possible to reach a compromise figure which we could all accept and agree. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: These amendments relate to Clause 1(2)(ac) which defines those self-loading or pump-action smooth bore guns which are to become prohibited. Both amendments seek to change the definition. Amendment No. 11 proposes a lower maximum length for such guns for the purpose of prohibition; Amendment No. 12 proposes a cut-off date for prohibition.
We have considered where the line on these definitions should be drawn very carefully. We have identified no legitimate sporting use for those weapons which have a shorter overall length of less than 40 inches, and do not consider that the public interest would be served by adjusting this. Although the noble Lord was kind enough to say that he would not press his amendment, if it were accepted it would weaken the provisions in the Bill as they are at the moment.
Lord Brain: Yet again I do not believe that the Government have answered the point. I have a catalogue showing sporting guns which are normally available, the length of which is right on the margin of the 40 inch length which the Government propose. 1 do not believe that it is an answer to say that the Government have done their homework and 40 inches is the right length. I believe that there is a need for greater statistics. Perhaps the Government would
1098
like to consider the matter and give me a little more information and if that is forthcoming—
Earl Ferrers: I believe that the noble Lord would like me to say something. The noble Lord said that I had not answered his point. I answered the matter as best I could. I did not answer the specific point which he raised because he has the advantage of a catalogue which I do not have. However, I shall certainly take the noble Lord's point into account and write to him on the matter.
As with all these matters, I do not believe that there is a specific magic about 40 inches as opposed to 391 or 401 inches. One has to draw the line at what appears to be an appropriate place. However, I shall write to the noble Lord on the specific point raised.
Lord Brain: In that case, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Dilhorne Viscount Dilhorne had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 12:
Page 1, line 22, at end insert ("or which was manufactured before 1st January 1937").
The noble Viscount said: I shall not move this amendment because it has already been spoken to.
[Amendment No. 12 not moved.]
Lord Swansea Lord Swansea moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 1, line 23, after ("gun") insert ("Much has four or more chambers").
The noble Lord said: This amendment refers to the proposed prohibition on any smooth-bore revolver gun. Because of the concession which the Government made in a Standing Committee in another place, self-loading pump-action shotguns with a magazine capacity of not more than two cartridges were exempted from that prohibition. That still remains the case in this Bill.
However, there is a class of revolver guns with a cylinder containing a certain number of chambers. They are not very common. At present they are mostly collectors items. However, one must not overlook the possibility that at some time in the future that type of gun may become more common for economic reasons because I believe that they would be less expensive to construct than a current double-barrelled shotgun. Therefore, I believe that it is conceivable that these guns may become more commonly used in the future.
I believe that our sportsmen and manufacturers should not be unnecessarily restricted in the type of guns which they are allowed to make. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: Here we are of course dealing with smooth-bore revolver shotguns which are presently manufactured with a magazine capacity of up to 12 rounds. The Dragon and the Striker are two examples of that type. Our understanding is that they are used for riot control purposes by some countries overseas. They are not used for any sporting purposes and the Government do not intend to use them for riot control here. Therefore, we have decided to raise them to the prohibited category.

1099
I was grateful to my noble friend Lord Swansea for saying that the type of guns which he wishes to see exempted are those with a capacity for three shots in the revolving chamber. We have not been able to identify any such guns manufactured with three chambers or less. To our knowledge none is envisaged at present. If my noble friend has information that this sort of weapon is likely to be manufactured in any number then we should have to take account of that. Our information is that that is not likely to happen as there seems to be no need for a revolving shotgun with three chambers rather than 12. That is why we thought it appropriate to keep them in that category.
Lord Swansea: I believe that my noble friend's attitude to this amendment is the same as that to his own Amendment No. 23 as regards development which might arise in the future. The type of gun with which this amendment is concerned may not be commonly used—certainly not for sporting purposes. It may be used for riot control. Personally, I am not concerned with that type of shotgun, but possibly people who shoot may be. In any case, I can see that there are technical difficulties here and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Brain Lord Brain moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 1, line 24, after ("for") insert (". 22 or").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is an attempt to bring paragraph (ad) into line with paragraph (ac). Under (ac) one is permitted to have a pump-action or smooth-bore gun if it is chambered for ·22 rim-fire cartridges, which are used for ratting or similar purposes. I understand that there are also in use and in circulation smooth-bore revolver guns, again using the identical ·22 shot-loaded rim-fire cartridges. It seems a nonsense to me to permit this in a magazine-type gun but not in a revolver-type gun. In this amendment I seek to bring the two categories into line and I hope that for once we have found an amendment that the Government view favourably. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: We have at earlier stages gone quite a long way to meet the concerns of the shooting community by exempting from prohibition those short-barrelled pump-action or short-barrelled self-loading smooth-bore guns chambered for·.22 rim-fire cartridges, but I think that a distinction has to be drawn with revolving smooth-bore shotguns. Those guns are generally smooth-bore conversions of Section 1 revolvers—rifles rather than purpose-built weapons, and the availabilty of the more lethal bulleted·22 rim-fire ammunition, in addition to the shot cartridges which they are intended to be used with, has led to their being used in crime. We should therefore be hesitant about including them.
Lord Brain: While there may be a few, I understand that there is also a significant number of specially made long-barrelled weapons in this category.
With regard to the latter remark, there is available—albeit not often in this country—9mm
1100
rim-fire ball ammunition which could equally well be used in the 9mm revolving chamber shotgun. I find it difficult to follow the Government's argument but perhaps on reading it in Hansard I may see it more clearly. In view of that, I shall withdraw the amendment. If, on thinking about it, the Minister has any thoughts that he might like to write to me about I shall gratefully receive any letter.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Dithorne Viscount Dithorne moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 1, line 29, at end insert—
("(af) any rifle or smooth bore gun designed or adapted to reduce the velocity of propelling gases on the existing barrel to a velocity of less than the speed of sound:").
The noble Viscount said: Amendments Nos. 15, 16 and 17 all affect the same matter. One doubt I had about them is that perhaps they would be better placed in Clause 2 of the Bill headed "Weapons requiring firearm certificate". The purpose of these amendments is that silencers, or sound moderators, which I understand is a technical term, should come under Section 1 control. That means, if I understand it correctly, that the holder must have, and must give, sound and good reasons to have, hire, possess, purchase or acquire them, in the same way as he would for a pistol, revolver or rifle. The -22 silencer, which is a fairly popular one, is used on air rifles. That is not on the certificate. The same silencer can be used on a rim-fire rifle, which has to be authorised on a Section 1 certificate.
By this series of amendments I seek to propose that my noble friend the Minister should look more closely, between now and the Report stage, at the effect of having silencers on weapons and consider whether or not they should form part of a prohibition. At the moment one may have silencers on shotguns, which is a very popular ruse of poachers. The amendments that I have put down would prevent poachers from possessing them, in the main, and would enable the police to prevent the use of these weapons by taking them away. What happens, I understand—some of your Lordships may be more knowledgeable in the way of the poacher—is that the cartridge is emptied, the silencer is put on, candle wax is put into the cartridge and, while it is soft and not solidified, as many shots are put in so that a one-ball pellet surrounded by candle wax goes out through the silencer and cannot be picked up. Such a pellet can kill a deer. That is a dangerous weapon. I am not sure whether that is or is not covered by Section 1 of the Act. If it is not, I hope that my noble friend will make clear why it is not covered.
If you have a ·410 and you put a silencer on to it, that silencer can be used on ·45 calibre Colt revolver—the revolver which was used in Vietnam by the Americans. It seems to me that, if the Bill is directed towards allowing sportsmen to continue their sport within the limited context that we have heard this afternoon, there is no gound for anyone to have silencers that can be used on shotguns to poach game and other things in the dead of night—which is when it is usually done—when there is no chance of

1101
their being picked up. The use of a silencer can be an aid to a deadly weapon and can prevent a crime being picked up.
As I said when moving these amendments, it may be that they fit more felicitously into Clause 2 of the Bill: I looked at that clause and wondered whether they would or would not. I have probably backed the wrong 50:50 choice by putting it in here, but I shall be happy to amend that at a later date. This was a matter that was discussed at some length in Standing Committee F in the other place and, I think, left rather in the air. It is for that reason that I ask my noble friend the Minister to consider the points in the amendments I have put forward. I beg to move.
Lord Swansea: I think my noble friend may perhaps have overlooked one point in his Amendment No. 15. What controls the velocity of a bullet is not the gun itself but the cartridge which is used in it. Some cartridges produce a muzzle velocity in excess of the speed of sound and some produce a muzzle velocity below the speed of sound. There are a good many ·22 rim-fire cartridges which produce the latter velocity, and it has been found by manufacturers that the best accuracy for competition purposes is produced by this ammunition which is below the speed of sound. My noble friend may perhaps not have been previously aware of this point, but it has an important bearing on his amendment.
The Earl of Balfour: The idea of having a sound moderator on a gun is, clearly, to cut down the amount of noise. I have a ·22 which has a sound moderator but I had to get the modification specially included on the firearms licence in order to obtain it. It is vitally important, if one is using a sound moderator, to have shot which is below the speed of sound in order to avoid the sharp crack when the shot goes through the sound barrier.
I have to say that the idea of using a sound moderator on a shotgun is alarming. I have not come across it but no doubt it exists. With a ·22, when one is after rabbits or vermin, a silencer makes all the difference in the world. It gives the chance of a second shot.
6 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My noble friend Lord Dilhorne wondered whether the amendment might be fitted more felicitously—that was, I think, the word he used—in another part of the Bill. I am not sure whether that is the case. My noble friend said that poachers use sound moderators and silencers, which is perfectly true; but so do farmers and other people who legitimately use shotguns fitted with sound moderators and silencers for vermin control. Therefore, if the Government were to suggest that they should be banned I fear that my noble friend might find even greater opposition than there has been to this modest amendment before us.
I do not believe that we can justifiably raise this sort of device, or even shotguns with an integral silencer, into the prohibited category. However, any
1102
accessory to a Section 1 firearm—which is not the same as a shotgun—designed or adapted to diminish the noise or flash caused by firing the weapon is already subject to certification. Any firearm or shotgun which is so designed or adapted is subject to the same level of control as one which is not. The existing controls on both silencers and the weapons to which they can be fitted are adequate in the context in which they are used.
Viscount Dilhorne: I wish to correct my noble friend on one small matter. I was not aware that I used the word "banned" but no doubt Hansard will show that I did. I said that I wished that sound moderators could be put in the category in which they were controlled; not banned, as SLRs are banned. I want them brought under control, as are rifles, and registered so that they are part and parcel of the whole.They are used with revolvers and with other weapons and in those circumstances that would be reasonably acceptable. I do not think I said that they should be banned.
Earl Ferrers: I dare say my noble friend did not use the word "banned" but that is the effect of his amendment. To use the word "banned" would put them into the prohibited category.
Viscount Dilhorne: There is nothing further I can add. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Grantchester): Is Amendment No. 18 not moved?
Viscount Dilhorne: Not moved.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I now call Amendment No. 19.
Viscount Dilhorne Viscount Dilhorne moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 1, line 29, at end insert—
("(2A) (i) No firearms certificate shall authorise a person to possess, purchase or acquire a self-loading, or pump-action rifle to which section 5(2)(ab) below applies unless that person—

(a) is a physically disabled person prevented by that disability from using other types of rifle; or

(b) has held a firearms certificate for another type of rifle for a continuous period of three years immediately preceding his application under this section; and

(c) has served a period of probationary membership and qualified for full membership of a society, club or association approved by the Secretary of State as being suitable for sporting, target, or competition shooting with self loading action rifles; and

(d) has stated in the application for approval the type, style, calibre and description of rifle and cartridge for which authority is sought.").

The noble Viscount said: This amendment has already been largely discussed, put before this Committee and withdrawn.
Earl Ferrers: Perhaps I may interrupt my noble friend. I think my noble friend said "not moved" to Amendment No. 18. We are now on Amendment No. 19.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Amendment No. 19 is the amendment called.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: The confusion is possibly my fault. I was prompting my noble friend, I hope correctly, because he has already spoken to Amendment No. 18 in a previous speech.
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: I thought that my noble friend was not going to move Amendment No. 18 and that he wanted to say so.
Earl Ferrers: I think my noble friend Lord Dilhorne reacted to the prompting from my noble and learned friend because I thought I heard him say "not moved".
Viscount Dilhorne: I thought I said "not moved" to Amendments Nos. 16 and 17. 1 then thought I heard Amendment No. 19 called. However, I have not spoken to Amendment No. 18.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: 1 call Amendment No. 18 in the name of the noble Viscount. Lord Dilhorne.
Viscount Dilhorne: Perhaps I may be permitted to speak to Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 together if that would be of assistance to the Committee.
Amendment No. 18 is similar to the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Wynford, but drafted in a slightly different way. I know that I have the barrier—if I may so call it—of having to convince my noble friend on the Front Bench, if this amendment is to succeed, that these SLR weapons are not of such an enormously dangerous character. I will be brief because it is a large wall to climb over and I am not very agile.
Amendment No. 18 is intended to provide a means by which people could, with sufficient controls, own SLRs. It is, I hope, a way to overcome the difficulties regarding the disabled and ladies, who find SLRs useful weapons to use, and the competitive shooters. There are four main provisions which lay down the ground rules. The Committee will see that the amendment begins by excluding pump-action self-loading guns. Incidentally, the reference to Section 5(2)(ab) should read Section 5(1)(ab) which is in line with the amendment of my noble friend Lord Wynford and relates, of course, to the principal Act.
Paragraph (a) of the amendment allows physically disabled persons, prevented by their disability from using other types of rifle, to use self-loading or pump-action rifles. The provisions that I recommend in any move towards allowing SLRs, even in a limited form, so that people can compete with them, are slightly different from my noble friend's proposals. One difference is that such people must hold a firearms certificate for another type of rifle. That has been very fully addressed by my noble friend. By some chance the period of three years is the same. There is no conspiracy to table two amendments at the same time on the same subject; it is by accident that it has occurred. The three years is a requirement before a
1104
person may be allowed to proceed with any application under that subsection to own a SLR or pump-action gun.
In referring to pump-action guns, there are guns which are not mentioned in the Bill at all and I do not know where they stand. These are automatics which are often described as lever guns. They have a lever that sticks out. There may have been an innocent drafting omission. If not, it would be useful to know for what reasons these guns are treated differently to pump-action guns.
I have elaborated under paragraph (c) the probationary membership and qualification required. I have slightly altered the terminology to "society, club or association" because to include one would exclude the others. I shall not put that into Latin because I am not very good at it. I have forgotten most of what I ever knew of the language and in any case I am sure that there are other noble Lords more than capable of fulfilling that task.
The fourth condition requires an application for approval to state,
"the type, style, calibre and description of"
the weapon required. That is again an omnibus requirement to put in every particular about the weapon someone wishes to acquire. I am the first to admit that there is a lacuna, a gap, in that amendment. If someone wishes to use such a rifle for sporting purposes—for example, stalking —there would need to be an amendment to (c) or (d). From the way in which I have drawn the amendment one would need to be a member of "a society, club or association" before one could go stalking. I am sure that many who participate in the sport are not members of clubs or associations or the other category of membership. However, they may be and I believe that it would be wrong for them to be excluded from it.
I now speak to Amendment No. 19 which is taken from the Act. Its purpose is this. If one has an SLR and limits the capacity of the magazine to a certain number of cartridges about which I am not feeling at all dogmatic—it may be three, four or five cartridges as in the case of a bolt-action rifle—anything beyond that would be illegal and totally prohibited. The use of the weapon with that magazine would be prohibited. I believe it to be within the capability of those abused, hardworked and overworked statutory draftsmen, to devise a wording sufficient to deal with that matter. The wording in the Act seems to me to be satisfactory but it may be that the wording of Amendment No. 19 does not cater for the problem. This amendment goes a little further than that tabled by my noble friend Lord Wynford. I beg to move.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: There are a few observations that we wish to make about this amendment. We do not believe that a provision aimed at the disabled should be wrapped up with an entirely different category and in particular with the category of person who,
"has held a firearms certificate for another type of rifle for a continuous period of three years immediately preceding his application under this section;".
The Committee rejected Amendment No. 2 which was said to be aimed exclusively at the disabled

1105
though the proposed amendment in that case was wholly general in character. Here we have an amendment which is directed in part at the disabled, but it is wrapped up with other categories and that cannot be right. If there is a case for some easing of the controls as regards the disabled in order that they should not be prevented substantially from enjoying rifle shooting, surely it should be dealt with specifically and not in the context of other subjects.
We do not believe that the Committee should be impressed by any amendment which attempts to bring in a general loosening of controls upon these weapons on the back of the Committee's natural sympathy for the disabled sportsman or woman. We feel that this amendment is guilty of such an attempt because it couples physical disability with preventing the use of other kinds of rifle, with a general exception for those who have held for three years certificates for rifles and who belong to approved rifle clubs. When the noble Earl replies to the discussion we should welcome it if he could tell the Committee what consideration the Government have given to the special needs of the disabled and whether in the Government's view there can be any amendment which can apply exclusively to the disabled. We are firmly of the view that there should be no general loosening of control over guns on the back of a generalised sympathy for the disabled.
As regards the drafting of the amendment, we find rather ambiguous the use of the word "or" after (2A)(a) and the word, "and" after (b) and (c). Perhaps the noble Viscount can explain to the Committee whether he contends that conditions (c) and (d) apply only to (b) cases or to (a) cases as well. As the amendment stands it is not clear.
There is a more fundamental question upon which we should like assistance. The noble Viscount corrected his amendment from Section 5(2)(ab) to 5(1)(ab). If a rifle is a rifle to which the new Section 5(1)(ab) applies, is there any scope for a firearms certificate to be granted at all? Is it not a prohibited weapon under the principal Act? If so, it may not be possessed or acquired without the authority of the Secretary of State. I believe there is some assent to that. I believe it is not the intention behind these amendments that the Secretary of State should be able only to give his authority in the cases specified in this amendment, thus tightening the controls upon self-loading and pump-action rifles still further. if I am right then I cannot see the purpose of the amendment.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Auckland: I have listened very carefully to my noble friend and I bow to his great legal knowledge. However, I believe that there is one fundamental objection as regards paragaph (a). Who is to decide the amount of physical disability? Will a medical certificate be necessary? Obviously, one sympathises with people who are disabled whether it concerns shooting or playing cricket or any other kind of sport. We are here discussing weapons of a very dangerous and serious nature. While one has sympathy for those who are handicapped, as my noble friend the Minister said, we must at all times, albeit reluctantly, think in terms of the safety of the general public.
1106
There is also an objection to paragraph (d). The police already have enough difficulty in the issuing of firearms certificates. My interpretation of the amendment may be completely wrong, but many other kinds of information will need to be given which will add a great deal to the workload of the police authorities and the magistrates. For those reasons I do not think that these amendments should be accepted.
Earl Ferrers: My noble friend Lord Dilhorne said that he had a difficult wall to climb and I believe that he has. I also have a difficult wall to climb because I have tried to persuade my noble friend that the Government's view is that these weapons are of such a nature that they should not he in private hands. That has not prevented my noble friend, quite reasonably I suppose, tabling such an amendment. This amendment would give people the ability to use self-loading and pump-action firearms. Both Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 propose that a shooter should hold a firearms certificate for at least three years and should meet certain other criteria. Those criteria are so widely drawn that more or less anyone who meets the three-year requirement would be able to make out a case for acquiring one of these guns. As soon as one does that, one undermines one of the central pillars on which the Bill is based.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, who said that he did not feel that we should loosen the strict provisions in the Bill. As the noble Lord said, everyone has great sympathy for the disabled and one would not wish to take action to inhibit what they do unless it is necessary. We believe that it is necessary. I appreciate the concern that handicapped shooters may be disadvantaged by the Government's proposal to prohibit such guns. However, a blanket entitlement for handicapped shooters to possess these weapons, as my noble friend suggested, would be inappropriate.
My noble friend Lord Auckland put his finger on the point when he asked about the definition of "disabled". There are different types and degrees of disability, many of which would have no effect on a person's ability to use a bolt-action rifle. Unless the definition of "disabled" were carefully restricted, I think that quite a number of shooters would suddenly discover a disability which neither they nor anyone else had previously noticed.
It is difficult to envisage a disability which would entirely preclude the use of a bolt-action rifle but allow the use of a self-loading or pump-action one. I find it difficult to think of a disability which would mean that a shooter could use a self-loading rifle more readily than a bolt-action one, but that is not quite the same thing. Modifications can he made to bolt-action guns; and padded jackets can be used. One of the most effective measures is to change to a calibre and cartridge loading known to generate low levels of recoil.
Alternative measures can be taken by the disabled. I realise that that may be inconvienient to them but the inconvenience for the number of people who would be affected justifies keeping these weapons in the Section 5 category.
Lord Monson: I hope the noble Earl will forgive me if this question has been put to him before. How many crimes have been committed over the past 20 years or so in which self-loading or pump-action weapons have been utilised?
Earl Ferrers: I do not have the figures with me; but even if I had they would not really be very helpful. The whole point is that there is a requirement—not necessarily by those who participate in the shooting lobby but in the country as a whole—to tighten up the law in regard to weapons of extreme danger. That is the whole purpose behind the Bill. The noble Lord knows perfectly well that these weapons have been used on occasions. The public are concerned that these weapons, dangerous as they are, should not be in the hands of private individuals. That is why we have taken these measures.
Lord Gisborough: Is it not a fact that the only ones that have been used have not been held on certificates? Therefore it is only a matter of law enforcement.
Lord Ferrers: I do not think that is so. However, if it is so, that is an even stronger argument for having the law so that one can know where the guns are, which at the moment we do not.
Viscount Dilhorne: In view of what the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, have said, I should like at this stage to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 19 not moved.]
Lord Brain Lord Brain moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 2, line 8, at end insert ("other than one designed for use for pyrotechnic purposes or in a signalling apparatus.").
The noble Lord said: I move this amendment in the hope that the Government will tell me that it is totally unnecessary. Any sensible wildfowler going on to the marshes, over the sea wall at any time, day or night will have in his equipment—because mists may blow up, tides may come in or he may have an accident—12-bore cartridges. They will be loaded either to fire a coloured flare which will fire and show up as a rocket, going up the whole time and flaring, or go up and burst, again as a flare, or draw attention to a flare. The cartridge produces a sound that is in no way like the sound of normal 12-bore shotgun. It is a signalling device. As presently worded subsection (3)(c) on page 2 of the Bill probably bans these cartridges. For the noble Earl's information I have a leaflet which I shall pass to him later on in case he is not aware of the type of cartridges to which I am referring. This is a serious safety matter. If they are covered by subsection (3)(c) we should allow them to be permitted for this valuable purpose. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Brain, was kind enough to say that he tabled the amendment in order that I might assure him that it is totally unnecessary. I can so assure him. The amendment would specifically exclude from prohibition rockets or shells which are designed for use in pyrotechnic
1108
apparatus or in signalling equipment. Subsection (3) of Clause 1 already restricts the prohibition to rockets and shells designed to explode immediately before impact. By so doing that excludes the flares used for signalling and also rockets and shells where the explosive is used primarily for pyrotechnic effect. The amendment is therefore unnecessary.
Lord Brain: I thank the noble Earl very much. I thought that that was the case but I felt it necessary to probe for certainty. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Burton Lord Burton moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 2, line 8, at end insert—
"(3A) After subsection (3) there shall be inserted—
"(3A) An authority shall be given under this section where the Secretary of State is satisfied that the person possesses a firearm of historic, artistic or scientific interest which should not he altered from its original form.".").
The noble Lord said: In this amendment I am again seeking to protect the country's heritage and without this time any possibility of causing danger to the public. So far as I can see we have been given no details about how weapons are to be immobilised. This is absolutely crucial in regard to several parts of the Bill. Will it be adequate to remove the firing pin? If not, how severely will we have to mutilate our weapons before we can say that they are immobilised? This is important because there are a good many fine weapons of considerable artistic and sentimental value. It is only reasonable that we should know to what extent we are expected to destroy these weapons. I only hope that in this case the Government will not show too much vandalism. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: The whole purpose of this part of the Bill is to seek to ensure that pump-action or self-loading weapons should go into the category which prevents them from being used at all. That is the whole philosophy. My noble friend's amendment does not alter that very much. The whole purpose is that these kinds of rifles should not be in public hands because of their lethality.
Lord Burton: That still does not answer the question. How seriously shall we have to vandalise a weapon before it is allowed to remain in private hands? This is fundamental. As I said, some extremely valuable weapons are liable to be destroyed. I have spoken on previous occasions about the pigeon post and not receiving answers. Perhaps my noble friend did not recieve it the first time. I hope that this time there will be an answer because I believe it is fundamental to many parts of the Bill that we must know about this. There has been talk about marking weapons and other kinds of issues. But it is important that we know what we are expected to do.
Earl Ferrers: Weapons which are of historic interest can he held in museums under a special museums licence, but they cannot be held in private possession.
Lord Burton: We still do not have the answer. Weapons can be held in private hands if they arc properly immobilised, or certain weapons may be. But nothing has been said about how they are to be immobilised. Museums are already over-loaded. There seems no reason why a fine collection of weapons, if immobilised, should not be allowed in a person's possession when authorised by the Secretary of State. But how seriously do we have to immobilise the weapons?
Lord Gisborough: These weapons are allowed in museums, but not in private hands. Are they allowed in a private museum? For example, many houses have areas which are effectively museum rooms. Would they he allowed there?
Earl Ferrers: My noble friend is concerned about how he can keep weapons which have been deactivated. In Clause 8 he will see that certain processes can be gone through which would have to be agreed by a proof house to show that a weapon has been deactivated. I cannot tell my noble friend exactly what the process is because it would depend on the weapon in each case. But if weapons are taken, deactivated and certified as deactivated, then my noble friend will be able to keep them.
Lord Burton: We can return to this on Clause 8. To avoid wasting time perhaps we may then have the answer to my question: what is necessary to deactify a weapon? I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Before I call the next amendment I should inform the Committee that if Amendment No. 22 is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 23 to 26.
Viscount Dilhorne Viscount Dilhorne moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 2, line 9, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Viscount said: The provisions of subsection (4), it seems to me, are widely drawn and bestow very considerable powers. I have proposed that the subsection shall be left out totally. I make no point concerning the words:
"If it appears to the Secretary of State that the provisions of the principal Act"—
down to "or ammunition which". I am concerned with the words in paragraphs (a) and (b), and particularly the following words,
"he may by order add it to the weapons or ammunition specified in that subsection".
The powers given to the Minister seem to me considerable. If those powers had been included in the 1968 Act my understanding is that we should not be here today because the SLRs and other weapons would by order be prohibited. It seems to me an excessively strong power and highly authoritarian. I feel that it is a matter which should be put before Parliament if there are weapons that come on sale
1110
lawfully in Great Britain in substantial numbers at any time before 1988. That leaves only six months.
I am not clear either what the words mean. They seem to me to bestow a power which states that any weapons that come on sale after 1988 can be ordered to be prohibited. I am sure that this is probably only a drafting matter; it may easily be resolved by my noble friend the Minister. As the clause is drawn, there is no fetter on the exercise of his power or that of his successors to order what they like. I feel that that is very strongly drawn. I beg to move.
Lord Swansea: I should like to support my noble friend in his amendment. Shooting interests have been caused a great deal of concern. Who can say what might be prohibited in the future? It could be something that has not yet appeared on the market, something that we do not know about. We seem to be seeking to ban something which does not yet exist. To give the Secretary of State such wide-ranging powers as this without any hope of reversal is, I believe, entirely mistaken. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will think carefully about whether this clause is desirable.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: I believe that I should point out to my noble friends that subsection (5) makes these orders subject to the positive approval of both Houses of Parliament. Thus the arguments that my noble friends have presented are totally without foundation.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: We urge the House not to support this amendment. We support the retention of Clause 1(4). It is clear that the prohibited list contained in Section 5 of the 1968 Act is a valuable and essential means of ensuring that the most dangerous types of weapon, those of which there is least need to have private possession, do not circulate freely within society. Much of the Committee's time has been taken up in debating how Section 5 of the principal Act ought to be amended so as to enlarge the category of prohibited weapons. I wonder whether any members of the Committee would go so far as to deny that there is a clear need for at least some enlargement of the class of prohibited weapons.
We suggest that there is an undisputed need for change. That need has come about substantially, though, as the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, explained, not exclusively through technological change. Weapons are now available which did not exist in 1968. Doubtless there are other weapons which were in theory available at that time but where the technology had not advanced to a stage where they were produced or distributed in significant numbers.
It must be the case that the pace of weapons technology will not slacken in the future. It is more likely, surely, to accelerate. There must also be a risk that the Bill will itself constitute an incentive to the development of new and lethal weapons designed to fall outside the strict language of Section 5 as amended. We cannot believe that it is right that the law should not be able to catch up with such new weaponry until parliamentary time can be found for changes to the primary legislation. We are very conscious that there may not always be a Hungerford

1111
to concentrate the mind of the Government of the day. Indeed, the desire to pre-empt and not merely to react to such a tragedy is one of the reasons for supporting the retention of Clause 1(4).
It is better to make the statute technological-proof, as it were, than to have a government amend and reamend the primary legislation. It is, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, pointed out, always subject to Clause 1(5). The Opposition do not approve of the tendency of Parliament to legislate in the barest outline and to give Ministers virtual carte blanche to make sweeping changes in the law. In the course of the Legal Aid Bill the Opposition objected to that. However, a power to keep primary legislation abreast of new technology in this area is unobjectionable so long as it is accompanied by proper safeguards. There are proper safeguards in Clause 1(4). The power to add to the prohibited category can be exercised only in the case of new types of firearms. There is also the safeguard that the weapon must appear to the Secretary of State to be especially dangerous. We see no scope for abuse.
Lord Burton: On this occasion, I am pleased to say that I have some sympathy with the Government's views. However, we are not at all happy, as has been made clear this afternoon, about a good deal of the advice that the Government are receiving. That may become even more apparent when we deal with the following amendment. At a later stage of the Bill, might it be advisable to include something such as, "subject to consultation with the Advisory Committee"?
Earl Ferrers: I am deeply indebted to my noble friend Lord Burton for saying that he has some sympathy with the Government. I knew that there would be a turning point in his views. I was not too certain when it would come, but it has arrived. The clause is essential. It merely provides that the Secretary of State can put into subsection (5) weapons or ammunition which are not:
"for the time being specified in subsection (1) of Section 5 but appears to him to be specially dangerous; and
(b) in the case of a firearm, was not lawfully on sale in Great Britain in substantial numbers at any time before 1988".
As the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, rightly said, that is a part of the Bill which is designed to look to the future. I believe that to be correct. We hope, by means of the power, to deal with plastic guns and weapons which may be capable of escaping detection by metal detectors.
My noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham put, in a characteristically trenchant way, to my noble friend Lord Dilhorne, that he was wrong because he had not addressed himself to subsection (5), and had he done so he would have seen that it does not give unfettered right to the Secretary of State or his successors to do what they like. He has to come to Parliament with the proposals which would have to be debated under the affirmative resolution procedure. I hope that with that explanation my noble friend will agree that it is right to keep the subsection in the Bill.
Viscount Dilhorne: I accept that explanation. I must apologise. The noble and learned Lord was right with his comment. I had overlooked that subsection, if I may add that gloss to what he said and be completely honest. I can only say, more haste less speed. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.45 p.m.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: if Amendment No. 23 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 24.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 2, line 11, leave out from ("to") to end of line 15 and insert—
("(a) any firearm (not being an air weapon) which is not for the time being specified in subsection (I) of section 5. was not lawfully on sale in Great Britain in substantial numbers at any time before 1988 and appears to him to be—

(i) specially dangerous; or

(ii)wholly or partly composed of material making it not readily detectable by apparatus used for detecting metal objects; or

(b) any ammunition which is not for the time being specified in that subsection but appears to him to be specially dangerous,").
The noble Earl said: The amendment takes power to add to the list of prohibited weapons by order any firearm which by reason of the material of which it is composed appears to the Secretary of State to be not readily detectable by apparatus used for detecting metal objects. There are plastic guns and other metals which might turn up in the future. I beg to move.
The Earl of Balfour The Earl of Balfour moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 23, Amendment No. 23A:
"Line 2 leave out ("not being an air weapon").
The noble Earl said: The amendment leaves out "not being an air weapon" in the amendment moved by my noble friend the Minister. I shall speak also to Amendment No. 23B, which inserts "or projectile" after "ammunition". The powers available to the Secretary of State should not restrict him to excluding an air weapon. From what I can gather, the only legislation remaining on the statute book is Statutory Instrument No. 47 of 1969, which has been referred to. It deals with 6 foot pounds and 12 foot pounds of kinetic energy for the various guns. It is not in our best interests that air weapons should be excluded when the Secretary of State may come across something new.
As the Committee will know from my speech on Second Reading, I was concerned about the steel crossbow, which is why in Amendment No. 23B I suggest that we add "or projectile" after "any ammunition", which is not for the time being specified in that subsection. Otherwise I wholeheartedly support Amendment No. 23.
Lord Gisborough: I support the amendment because there has been a great deal of trouble from air weapons for a number of years. They are lethal. There are almost too many uncontrolled air weapons at the moment. Anything that can be done to control them a little is welcome.
Lord Swansea: I know why the amendment has been introduced by my noble friend the Minister. It has all been sparked off by the invention of certain automatic pistols originating in Austria, some parts of which are composed of plastic (non-metallic). Most of that weapon will not show up on an X-ray machine. It is absurd to describe such a weapon as one which would pass an X-ray machine. So long as there are steel barrels, metallic springs and metallic ammunition, that concept is pie in the sky.
Nearly every firearm has a wooden or plastic stock. I wonder whether that has occurred to the noble Earl. It could rule out practically every firearm or shotgun in existence. I think that needs looking at again very seriously and I suggest to my noble friend that he should not press this amendment today but should take it away and think about it again.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: From these Benches we support Amendment No. 23 moved by the noble Earl. It appears to us to be right that even if a firearm is not especially dangerous it should be capable of being prohibited if not readily detectable by metal detectors.
I wonder whether the noble Earl, when replying to the debate on Amendments Nos. 23 and 23A, could say whether firearms not readily detectable by metal detectors are already lawfully on sale in Great Britain in substantial numbers. If they are then his new amendment would not cover that situation. It may be that there is no substance in the concern which I expressed, but if there is substance in it then surely the amendment should expressly cater for that possible situation.
Lord Monson: I sympathise with both the noble Earls, Lord Ferrers and Lord Balfour, in respect of the amendments. I must say that I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, that crossbows are just as dangerous as air rifles and probably more so. I wonder whether the projectiles he has in mind include crossbow bolts. It would be interesting to know.
Would the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, explain the phrase "in substantial numbers"? Is this not a rather vague phrase to use in an Act of Parliament?
Earl Ferrers: With regard to the last point, I think that "substantial numbers" means what it says; namely, that they are there in large numbers. The whole purpose of the amendment is to cover things which are likely to happen after 1988. If it were to be found that there were one, two or three already in existence before 1988, clearly that prohibition should not be excluded just because one or two were available before 1988. That is why we have suggested these words, so that it covers only the new forms of weapons which might be used in the future.
When my noble friend Lord Swansea asks whether we are aware that there are some weapons which have stocks made of wood and so forth and that they might not be covered, I think perhaps he should look at the amendment and subsection (a)(ii) which refers to a weapon which is:
"wholly or partly composed of material making it not readily detectable".
1114
So that even if the detectable weapon had a wooden stock and was made from the same plastic which was not readily detectable by a detector, it would nevertheless be caught under this provision because it is wholly or partly composed of such material.
My noble friend Lord Balfour explained that his concern lay with crossbows and air weapons. I think we are all concerned about the use of those. But the incidence of the misuse of crossbows is relatively rare. The great majority of owners are responsible people who take considerable care of their weapons. They present no problem to public safety or peace. Crossbow archery is a well established sport. There are apparently 200,000 crossbows in circulation in this country although relatively few owners belong to clubs.
The overall picture of misuse tends to become distorted through the prominence given by the media to individual incidents. Under the Crossbows Act 1987 it is already an offence to sell a crossbow to a person who is under the age of 17 or for someone under 17 to purchase a crossbow or to have one in his possession, unless accompanied by a person aged 21 or over. In addition, the actual misuse of a crossbow usually constitutes an offence under a wide variety of other existing legislation.
With regard to air weapons, there are already a number of regulations controlling their purchase, possession and use especially by juveniles. Again, given the very large numbers of air weapons in circulation, the rate of misuse is comparatively low. It is encouraging that the criminal statistics for 1986 showed a decline in the number of notifiable offences involving air weapons, compared with 1985 and 1987. The 1987 figures, although they are still provisional, point to a further decrease.
We are keeping a particularly close eye on crossbows but my noble friend's amendment which would provide the power to ban such weapons outright is not a road down which we particularly wish to go. One doubts that crossbows are that dangerous. They are dangerous but one wonders whether they are especially dangerous in the same way as a self-loading rifle, a fast-firing shotgun or an automatic sub-machine gun. Those are especially dangerous and they are the types of weapons to which this Bill refers.
In any case, the reserve power is essentially a mechanism by which new technological developments in firearms which will escape the definition of this Bill can be tackled. That is why firearms on sale in substantial numbers before 1988 are exempted. Crossbows have been with us for a long time, since medieval times, and I believe in some forms since Roman times. I think that rapid and innovative technological development in that sphere is unlikely, given the score over the last few hundred years.
If the amendment were made, the types of crossbows which are currently available could not be affected by the reserve powers because they were available before 1988. So even if we accepted my noble friend's amendment, I do not think it would achieve his purpose.

1115
The amendment also mentions projectiles. Perhaps my noble friend fears that the term "ammunition" used in subsection (4) is too narrow. I think I can reassure him on that point. Section 57(2) of the 1968 Act explains that the expression "ammunition" means ammunition for any firearm and includes grenades, bombs and other like missiles, whether capable of use with a firearm or not. I hope that my noble friend will agree that this definition would cover any projectile which we are likely to want to add to the prohibited category.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: I do not want to prolong this debate but just to say to the noble Lord on the Cross Benches and to my noble friend Lord Swansea that what we are discussing is the power which the Secretary of State would have, if my noble friend's amendment is passed, to bring before Parliament a draft order for its approval. Therefore the short answer to what the noble Lord on the Cross Benches has said is that it would be part of the case which any Minister would have to bring before this House and the other place that the weapon under discussion was not present in substantial numbers. That is a question of fact and degree, about which this House at any rate would expect to be reassured.
Of course, the fact and degree would depend on the circumstances at the time. The same is true in answer to my noble friend Lord Swansea because he would also have to show that subsection (a) (ii) of the proposed amendment was not applicable. In the case of wooden stocks and things like that, what has to be shown is that it is wholly or partly composed of material "making it"—which I take it means the weapon under discussion—
"not readily detectable by apparatus used for detecting metal Objects".
In the case postulated by my noble friend, that would not arise when the Government of the day came to make their case to the two Houses of Parliament.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: I do not wish unduly to prolong the debate, but the noble Earl did not reply to the specific question which I invited him to respond to in my short contribution. I may be wrong, but I simply draw attention to what may be a deficiency in his amendment. If it is the case that there were in 1988.
"lawfully on sale in Great Britain in substantial numbers"—
I emphasise "substantial numbers" and not the "small numbers" that the noble Earl mentioned—the plastic guns to which he referred, which were,
"wholly or partly composed of material making it not readily detectable",
his amendment would not reach that situation. Therefore I invite the noble Earl to give thought to the factual possibility that they may have been on sale in substantial numbers in 1987. If so his amendment should reach that situation, but it does not.
Earl Ferrers: I apologise to the noble Lord for not having replied to that point earlier. I had intended to do so. We are not aware of any firearms currently on the market which would escape detection.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: I wish to say a few words on crossbows, of which I have had experience. They are highly lethal, far more so than an air gun. They have a flat trajectory up to 100 yards. They have telescopic sights. They are silent and they fire a steel bolt which is nearly a foot long. Several people have been shot by them. If they hit somebody in the chest they go right through and kill them. I hope that the Government will keep a close eye upon these weapons. I have nothing against them for target shooting, but how can one prevent people who are using them for target shooting committing a criminal act and killing somebody? They are of course also often used for poaching.
Lord Burton: Will my noble friend have another look at the wording of (a)(ii). When I initially looked at it, I obtained the same impression as my noble friend Lord Swansea. My noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone has explained the situation. However, I think the wording could be misleading, and possibly a slight revision of it might help.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I am a little surprised to hear the Minister's defence of crossbows for sport and target shooting when he is not prepared to allow self-loading rifles or pump-guns for disabled shooters. Has he seen photographs of animals that have been shot with crossbows? Those weapons are by no means all in responsible hands. Some are in very irresponsible hands. The wounds and the pain that they inflict on animals are horrific.
Earl Ferrers: I did not seek to suggest that crossbows could not do substantial damage. I said that there was no evidence that their misuse was very frequent. I think that the noble Lady will agree that they are not the same as a self-loading rifle or a pump-action gun. They are motivated by different forces and their ranges are different. Of course we keep crossbows under very strict control. They have their own laws by which they are controlled. If there is evidence that they are getting out of control, we shall take note of it and take the necessary action. But that is not the same thing as saying that they are equivalent to self-loading rifles.
The Earl of Balfour: At this stage I think it would be quite right if I withdrew Amendment No. 23A. However, at the same time I wish to ask one other question in view of part of the question of the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg. When Amendment No. 23 refers to Great Britain, does that include Northern Ireland?
Noble Lords: No!
The Earl of Balfour: It does not. That is fair enough. Is it the Government's intention that it should not cover Northern Ireland? However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 23B, as an amendment to Amendment No. 23, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 23 agreed to.
The Earl of Arran: This might be a suitable moment at which to break for dinner. I suggest that we return to the Committee stage of the Bill at 8.5 p.m. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order 1988
7.5 p.m.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Glenarthur)The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Glenarthur) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 20th June be approved [30th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords on behalf of my noble friend Lord Trefgarne I beg to move.
The purpose of the order is to continue in force for a further year the Army and Air Force Acts 1955 and the Naval Discipline Act 1957, which together provide the basis for the disciplinary arrangements in the three services. The concept of annual parliamentary approval for the special legal position of the serviceman—subject as he is to the constraints of service discipline, as well as the rule of civil law—is a long established one in British constitutional practice. Every fifth year the opportunity is taken to review in depth the needs of the service disciplinary systems, and an Armed Forces Act is passed, making such amendments to those systems as are considered necessary. As noble Lords will recall, the last such Act was passed in 1986.
My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces mentioned last week in another place a number of subjects affecting discipline and welfare in the Armed Forces to which we have been paying particular attention. I would pick out in particular the comprehensive package of measures now being implemented to tackle the problem of bullying, about which concern has rightly been expressed; the review of all Armed Forces allowances, which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence announced in May; and also I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to the pamphlet we have recently introduced setting out in plain language the rights and responsibilities of servicemen.
I am pleased that this order provides an opportunity for such issues to be debated. The order keeps in place a disciplinary system that balances the rights of a serviceman as a citizen with his special responsibilities as a member of the Armed Forces. It plays an indispensable role in the maintenance of the services' high standards and professionalism, to which I am delighted to pay tribute today.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 20th June be approved [30th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Glenarthur.)
Lord Irving of Dartford: My Lords, as the noble Lord has said, the order is part of the traditional practice of taking an annual look at the disciplinary
1118
arrangements for the Army, Navy and Air Force with a five-yearly opportunity to introduce a Bill and to make more fundamental changes.
Many things can influence the discipline in our Armed Forces. The one which could affect recruitment most is the one that the noble Lord has mentioned. It has given rise to much publicity in the past year or two. Since 1986, 45 allegations of bullying have not only been made but have been substantiated and have resulted in disciplinary action. So that is not a fantasy of someone merely looking at the services without knowing the facts.
Nothing could more discourage young men—especially at a time of demographic changes and the competition from a rapidly growing economy—from joining Her Majesty's Forces. It is not easy to make a proper distinction between the toughness of the Army, which we need if it is to be an effective fighting force, and bullying. But I think that it is absolutely clear that the distinction should be made. It should be made clear that bullying will not be tolerated under any circumstances and neither will the rather bizarre initiation ceremonies which have humiliated a number of young soldiers. The sentences which are awarded should show our disapproval of such behaviour and our determination to stop it.
I very much welcome the package of measures which the Minister has announced tonight. When shall we be able to see them in detail? I welcome the new pamphlet which he has mentioned—The Armed Forces: Your rights and responsibilities—and I should like to echo the point made by my honourable friend in another place when he said that it should be issued not only to recruits but also to all members of the Armed Forces.
Racism in the Armed Forces should be discouraged. It is difficult to determine whether it is a factor of any significance, because anyone suffering in that way is encouraged to go to his commanding officer and discouraged from engaging in publicity. Does the Minister have information on that matter? We hope that racism is at a very minimal level and that everything possible is being done to stop it if it exists. It is important in recruitment to get a proper mix commensurate with the balance of ethnic groups in our society as a whole.
I believe that the allegation has been made and substantiated that in a number of cases, because of inadequate work done by private contractors, some commanding officers, perhaps very naturally, have urged their soldiers to make good defaults by private contractors. That would be a signal failure on the part of the army authorities. It would do a great deal to lessen the morale of the Armed Forces. A soldier does not join the Army in order to make good the failures of other people.
I have difficulty in understanding the treatment of widows' pensions between the years up to 1973 and the following years. The explanation given by the noble Lord's honourable friend in another place is quite inadequate. He said that the reason was lack of resources. In that area we should not allow lack of resources to penalise anyone. Any intelligent and sensible soldier who joins the Army will want to know that, if the worst happens to him, his widow

1119
will be left in reasonable circumstances. I find any excuse of that kind totally unacceptable.
Another matter which was raised in the other place was disclosure of information. My honourable friend in another place pointed to the fact that Section 24 of the Armed Forces Act 1971 says:
"It shall he a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section that he did not know and had no reasonable cause to believe that the information disclosed related to a matter upon which information would or might be directly or indirectly useful to an enemy".
The proposed reform of Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911 recommends that:
"It should not be necessary for the prosecution to adduce evidence of the likely damage to the operation of the security forces or intelligence services when information relating to security or intelligence has been disclosed by a member or former member of the services".
There is clearly a conflict. Can the Minister tell me whether there will be a change and whether Section 24 will be amended?
7.15 p.m.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, sometimes we pass orders without any discussion. Sometimes, as the noble Lord, Lord Irving, has just done, we raise a wide range of matters affecting the Armed Forces. I have decided to ask questions on the subject of setbacks in the Polaris production programme. I do so because of the unwillingness of the Government to answer questions about the matter candidly.
I have a fairly long experience of parliamentary handling of defence questions. I am bound to say that the Third Report of the House of Commons Defence Committee entitled The Progress of the Trident Programme is a revelation in terms of the language which is used, the lack of candour displayed by the Government and the unwillingness to give straightforward unclassified information.
Perhaps I may quote one or two paragraphs from the report. Paragraph 45 of Part IV states:
"For three years the Government has made reports on the progress of the sonar suite"—
that is the sonar equipment for Trident—
"which did not include important facts about serious problems and delays which had arisen. This is unacceptable … Such demonstrable lack of frankness in respect of one element of the programme will inevitably tend to cast doubt on other elements which are accurately reported and where there is no cause for concern".
Another part of the report states:
"some features of the MoD's reports to the previous Defence Committee do not encourage us to accept such reports unquestioningly in the future … We consider that the MoD have little cause for complaint if future assurances are not taken at face value".
The matter is very serious. I take this opportunity to invite the Government to clear up the situation. I put a number of questions this morning to the MoD to give the Government an opportunity to clear the air on a subject which gives increasing concern. The report was produced by an all-party committee consisting of distinguished and unusually sober-minded Members of Parliament. The statements are not made lightly.
I therefore wish to ask the Minister several questions. What steps have been taken to overcome
1120
the shortage of scientific staff'? Perhaps I may quote again from the report:
"The latest figures given to us for the shortfall show the position at 1st March 1988: I 1 1 in the Administrative, Executive and Clerical grades, 65 specialists, and 40 craft industrials".
Those figures refer to Aldermaston. What steps have been taken to overcome that serious shortage?
I also wish to ask the Minister about the production of nuclear weapons. It seems that existing production facilities are sufficient for the first submarine. That is not certain but it seems possible. The Ministry says constantly that it can meet the in-service date for Trident. However, it is not clear what that means. for the second and subsequent submarines, altogether new facilities for nuclear warhead production will be needed. It is by no means certain that those new production facilities—the A.90 production complex—will be ready in time. Can the Minister assure us that when the Ministry says that it can meet the in-service date for Trident, it means that there will be enough warheads in time for the Trident fleet?
Does the ministry have it in mind to extend the life of the Polaris fleet? For some little time we have been expecting a statement on whether the Polaris submarine "Resolution" is going to be refitted. We have not had that statement. Will fewer warheads be fitted in each submarine? There may be other good reasons for that, but it would be ironical if the Government felt compelled to do it simply because the warheads were not there.
These are some of the important questions to which I think we are entitled to answers. I feel we are entitled to expect full and candid answers, unlike those that were given to the House of Commons Defence Committee.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their comments. Those of the noble Lord, Lord Irving of Dartford, were of particular relevance to the order before us and perhaps I may take his points first.
I agree entirely with the noble Lord when he says that bullying is a serious matter and one to be deplored. That applies too to some of the so-called initiation ceremonies which are alleged to have taken place. I confirm that bullying and ill treatment have no place whatever in service life. I assure the noble Lord that each allegation is viewed most seriously. That fact is reflected both in the sentences awarded to those found responsible and in the comprehensive package of measures being implemented to stamp out the problem in the Army.
The noble Lord asked whether or not I had full details. I have. They are set out at cols. 551 and 552 of the Official Report of another place of 7th June. The noble Lord will find, I think, the information he seeks. Naturally, should further cases come to light, that would lead to further reviews, but I believe that the problem has been effectively and firmly dealt with.
On the question of ethnic monitoring and any form of racial discrimination within the Armed Forces, I assure the noble Lord that the Services are fully integrated non-discriminatory organisations and

1121
that no discrimination is tolerated. The recent report of the Defence Committee of another place is generally welcomed and the Government have now responded to it. The results of the first year of monitoring the ethnic origins of applicants and recruits will be published later this year.
The noble Lord raised the matter of Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act and Section 60 of the Army Act. Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911 which deals with the wrongful communication of official information contains no defence of lack of knowledge of the effect of disclosure. At present a serviceman suspected of making such a disclosure could in theory be charged under either Section 2 or Section 60 of the Army Act, or the equivalent section of the other service discipline Acts. In practice, a prosecution under Section 2, which would require the consent of the Attorney-General, would be brought in the most serious cases only. That will remain the position if the White Paper proposals are implemented; but the defence of lack of knowledge will be available to all defendants except those working in or closely associated with the security and intelligence services. I believe that that provides the degree of reassurance which the noble Lord seeks.
The noble Lord asked about contractors and also raised the matter of pre-1973 widows. I regret that 1 do not have much to add to the points made by my honourable friend in another place when he answered a debate on a similar Motion. I can only acknowledge that he and my noble friend Lord Trefgarne are aware of that point. We believe that in this case the trade unionists, the Services and the Ministry of Defence all have a common cause in making sure that service personnel do not assist contractors in the fulfilment of their contractual obligations. I understand that service commands will be reminded that such assistance should not be given. I hope that that goes some way towards meeting the noble Lord's concern.
As to widows' pensions, I know that the noble Lord feels the answer that it is a matter of resources is an insufficient one. However, as I know from my own experience as a Minister in the DHSS, it is a matter which continually concerns Ministers in that department. They are well aware of the concerns and it is a matter they are looking at. The noble Lord may feel that it is not a matter of resources. But it very largely does come down to a matter of resources and the fact that the other benefits available to widows of servicemen post-1973 are an improvement in some detail on what was previously available. However, I should like to study the noble Lord's remarks and to respond to him more fully in due course.
The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, has strayed into an area in which I know he has a particular interest. I hope that I can answer shortly the points he raised. First, he raised the concern about the Sonar programme for Trident. Obviously, I cannot anticipate the formal response of the Government to the Defence Committee's recent criticisms. The noble Lord will not expect me to do that. All I can say is that the Government will shortly be responding in detail to those points. I can however tell him that the Sonar 2054 programme is on track to meet the Trident timescales.
1122
With regard to scientific staff shortages in the strategic weapons system area, it is hoped to fill the remaining vacancies during an ongoing recruiting initiative. However, we shall continue to use contractors as a means of offsetting the shortage for as long as may be necessary. It is important to bear in mind the reasons why the shortage might have arisen. The competitive nature of recruitment, both nationally and in the Thames Valley area, calls for continuing and intensive recruitment activity in order to combat natural wastage from retirements and resignations. But it is a matter which is in hand along the lines that I have suggested.
The noble Lord asked for a categorical assurance to build upon remarks that have been made by others about warhead production and allegations that it is a major risk to the Trident programme. All I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, is that the Ministry of Defence remains confident that the in-service date of the mid-1990s for Trident will be met, and I would add that there will be no shortfall in the planned number of warheads. I cannot conceive how it is possible to be more categorical than that. I hope that that at least goes sonic way towards meeting the noble Lord's concern.
As regards HMS "Resolution", the noble Lord may be aware that that matter is being considered at present. I cannot give him an answer now, but I would expect that it will soon be possible to make an announcement on a final decision.
Those were, I believe, the main points raised by the noble Lord and by the noble Lord, Lord Irving of Dartford. I believe that this order, which is for a particular and important purpose, is one that the House will welcome. I beg to move.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Viscount Long: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.5 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.30 to 8.5 p.m.]

Firearms (Amendment) Bill
House again in Committee on Clause 1.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Hayter): As Amendment No. 23 was agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 24. I therefore call Amendment No. 25.
Lord Swansea Lord Swansea moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 2, line 15, at end insert—
("or that those provisions should no longer apply to any firearm or ammunition at present specified in subsection (I) of section 5").
The noble Lord said: This amendment makes no material change to the wording of the Bill but clarifies it somewhat. Because of the concession made by the Government in Standing Committee in another place, self-loading and pump-action shotguns with a magazine that will hold not more than two cartridges can now stay in Section 2. However, there is an undesirable side effect because, although originally

1123
Clause 2 concerned self-loading and pump-action shotguns, when amended it dropped the reference to self-loading and simply mentioned a gun which:
"has no magazine or has a non-detachable magazine incapable of holding more than two cartridges."
The effect is to catch some bolt-action magazine-fed shotguns which were excluded from the previous description. I am assured that it had not been the Government's intention that such guns should fall into this net.
There are quite a lot of them. They are former military rifles which have been bored out to smoothbore to take ·410 cartridges. There are an enormous number of them about—I think that more than 1,000 have been converted to shotguns. The trouble is that those former rifles which are now shotguns have a box magazine which was designed and manufactured to accept.303 rifle cartridges. They are not capable of holding 410 shot cartridges, so in effect this gun which has been converted from a rifle is in fact a single-shot shotgun because it cannot be used with the magazine. Although the magazine is capable of holding 10.303 cartridges, it is not capable of holding any 410 shot cartridges. In effect the gun is a single shot although the magazine could formerly hold 10 303 cartridges.
This amendment refers to a gun having a magazine incapable of holding more then two cartridges. This would—
Lord Brain: I am finding it difficult to follow which amendment we are on. I believed that we were on Amendment No. 25. I have a suspicion that the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, is speaking to Amendment No. 27.
Lord Swansea: I beg the noble Lord's pardon. The noble Lord, Lord Brain, is quite right. 1 must start again. I apologise.
Amendment No. 25 concerns the clause with the residual powers of the Home Secretary to add to the list firearms hitherto unknown. At present the clause concerns a one-way traffic. Once an item has been included in Section 5 of the Act it cannot be taken out. That is something which the amendment is designed to rectify.
There could be circumstances in which a firearms weapon or ammunition may be mistakenly included in Section 5. The Government should have powers to withdraw it from that section without having recourse to primary legislation. No government is infallible—Parliament is not infallible either. They sometimes make mistakes; I think that everyone acknowledges that. If the amendment is passed, the Government can then by order make an amendment to withdraw an item from the prohibited list as well as to add one.
Then there is the question of technical change. Firearms which today may be considered as especially dangerous may not always be regarded in that light. Special safety devices may be invented. There may be technological advances of one kind or another which may make it unnecessary to retain a certain item on the prohibited list.
1124
The Government have made the amendment even more necessary by their own amendments, the last of which we dealt with before we rose for dinner. That amendment extended possible bans to firearms made of material not readily detectable by metal detectors. The system of security and detection could radically change and affect the means by which such firearms may or may not be detected. The amendment places no obligation on the Government to remove anything from the prohibited list. It simply gives them power to do so. It ought to be a two-way traffic. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: These amendments would empower the Secretary of State to make orders to remove weapons and ammunition from the prohibited category in cases where controls under Section 5 of the 1968 Firearms Act were no longer considered necessary. This power would apply not only to firearms which may be prohibited in the future, but also to weapons which are already controlled under Section 5, such as fully automatic weapons, and those which this Bill will prohibit, such as self-loading rifles.
My noble friend said that some firearms might be mistakenly put into the wrong category. I find that hard to believe. Weapons and ammunition are not, and will not be, prohibited lightly. Where both the Secretary of State and Parliament are satisfied that a particular type of firearm or ammunition is so specially dangerous as to warrant raising it to the prohibited category, I think it most unlikely that, in the foreseeable future, a decision would need to be made to relax controls on that sort of weapon or ammunition.
My noble friend said that security and detection alter. In the previous amendment we had taken account of that. Security and detection may alter but the ability of a weapon to cause the destruction which puts it into a restricted category is unlikely to alter. I do not think that this amendment would be appropriate.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: We also oppose these amendments and support what has been said by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. Despite the elegant way in which the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, represented the even-handedness that there would be between the power to add to the list of prohibited weapons and the power which he proposes to remove weapons from that category, we suggest that there is no true parallel. There is a great difference between the two powers. The Secretary of State needs the power to add to the list because developments in weapon technology may lead to lethal and appalling weapons being insufficiently controlled.
As I ventured to observe earlier, Parliament cannot constantly be expected to legislate afresh. The Act therefore needs to be technology-proof. However, by contrast, on the footing that the Bill passes into law, it will have been the conscious decision of Parliament that the weapons and ammunition specified should be prohibited. If certain of the categories now covered had not been included in the Bill, some of us

1125
on this side would certainly have wished to bring them in by way of amendment.
We say that it would be quite wrong for the Secretary of State to have power to undo that which Parliament has quite deliberately decided should be done.
Lord Monson: The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has been somewhat less than fair to the amendment. Unless at some future date we have some totally irresponsible Secretary of State—surely an unthinkable proposition—then acceptance of this amendment could not do any harm and may very well do some good.
Lord Swansea: As regards the last amendment which was agreed to before we rose for dinner, the Committee agreed to give the Secretary of State powers to place on the prohibited list something which is at present unknown; and we cannot foretell what that may be.
My amendment seeks to do the same thing in reverse. It seeks to make provision for the removal of something at present unknown from that prohibited list if the circumstances arise which justify it. That is all that I am asking my noble friend to agree to. It places no obligation of any kind on the Government. It simply gives them powers to make this a two-way valve rather than a one-way valve.
Earl Ferrers: My noble friend puts his persuasive argument on this amendment very clearly. He says that if we have the ability to put various weapons into a certain category let us have the ability to take them out. With the greatest respect to my noble friend, he has not addressed his mind to the likely circumstances that would permit a weapon—which is considered so dangerous as to be put into a certain category—suddenly to become less dangerous so that one takes it out of the category again. If that were the case, the Government could always come to Parliament and ask for permission to do so. However, I honestly think that that is not likely to happen. My noble friend puts the amendment very attractively but I do not think that such power is very likely to be used.
Lord Gisborough: Is not the obvious answer this? Enormous effort is being made in the Falkland Islands to develop machines—whether X-ray, or whatever—to detect the presence of plastic mines. If that is effectively achieved, then presumably the same apparatus would detect the plastic guns about which we talked earlier. If it then became possible to detect plastic guns, then all the previous arguments would no longer be valid.
Earl Ferrers: I think that my noble friend Lord Gisborough is misdirected in the matter. What the amendment deals with is nothing to do with plastic guns or new types of weapon; it is those weapons which have been put into a certain cateogory because they are so dangerous. The amendment proposed by my noble friend suggests that there might be circumstances when they ought to be pulled out of that category and made widely available again. All I
1126
am trying to say, as courteously as possible, is that that eventuality is most unlikely to come about.
Lord Swansea: I hope, as my noble friend says, that that situation is as unlikely to come about as the invention of a wholly plastic firearm,which was dealt with under the previous amendment. I can only express the hope that when the placing of any item on the prohibited list which is not on it now is contemplated by the Government they will go through the proper process of consultation with shooting interests and with the trade before deciding what they will put on the list and presenting it to Parliament. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 26 not moved.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Re-definition of exempted shot guns]:
Lord Swansea Lord Swansea moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 2, line 34, leave out sub-paragraph (ii) and insert—
("(ii) is not a self-loading or pump-action gun which is capable of having a magazine with a capacity greater than two cartridges").
The noble Lord said: There are many shot guns in existence that have been converted from former military rifles bored out to smooth-bore and adapted to take a ·410 shot cartridge. Therefore at present they are classed as shotguns. Most of those converted rifles still have their original magazine attached to them, which was intended to
take 10 ·303 rifle cartridges, a former military cartridge, and they are not capable of accepting ·410 shot cartridges. So in effect that shotgun is a single shotgun and is not capable of taking any cartridges in the magazine. I think that it was accepted in another place by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary when he said that such a converted rifle is in fact a shotgun and would fall within the purview of Section 2 of the principal Act.
As I understand it, a great many such rifles—some 60,000—have been converted to 410 in the past 25 years, so there must be many of them about. I hope that the amendment will commend itself to the Government. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: The amendment seeks to alter the new definition of a shotgun which is set out in Subsection (2) of Clause 2. This provides that a smooth-bore gun will be treated as a shotgun for the purposes of Section 2 of the 1968 Act if it has a barrel not less than 24 inches in length, and a bore not more than 2 inches; it either has no magazine or has a non-detachable magazine capable of holding no more than two cartridges; and it is not a revolver gun. It is the second of the three requirements which my noble friend's amendment addresses. It has the effect that any smooth-bore gun with a detachable magazine, or a non-detachable magazine of more than two rounds, will in future be subject to Section 1 control. My noble friend seeks to restrict this to self-loading and pump-action guns, thereby excluding bolt-action and lever-action guns and allowing them to remain on Section 2.
We believe that there are a fair number of bolt-action shotguns in circulation: many of these have,

1127
we understand, detachable two-shot magazines. There is no reason why they should be treated any differently than pump-action or self-loading shotguns with detachable two-shot magazines. The same is true of lever-action shotguns, which are rather less common. The revised definition of a shotgun in Clause 2 meets the concerns expressed in another place that pump-action and self-loading smoothbore guns, which are popular with a wide range of sportsmen, should still be available on a shotgun certificate. Where they have a non-detachable magazine of no more than two rounds, this will be the case, and bolt and lever-action guns will be similarly available. Where they have a higher magazine capacity, or a detachable magazine, they will need a Section 1 certificate. This principle should apply to any smooth-bore gun, and there are no grounds for exempting bolt and lever-action guns as my noble friend proposes.
Lord Swansea: I am not entirely certain that my noble friend has grasped the full purport of the amendment. It is a perfectly innocent one and simply refers to shotguns which have been converted from former military rifles. They will have the detachable magazine on them which was intended for the original cartridge, but they are not capable of taking shot cartridges. I should have thought that that could have been quite happily classed as a single shotgun and would then come under Section 2 of the principal Act. However, I shall not press the point at this stage; but I may reconsider it for the next stage of the Bill's proceedings. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
Lord Brain Lord Brain had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 28:
Page 2, line 36, after ("cartridges") insert ("other than ·22 rim-fire cartridges;").
The noble Lord said: I shall be very brief in speaking to this amendment. It is a follow-up to the one I talked to earlier about revolver ·22 cartridges and their use in revolver guns and smooth-bore. I should make one point about that. When the noble Earl replied he commented about the fact that such guns could take solid ammunition. That solid ammunition is already controlled by Section 1 and I was mildly surprised about that.
All I ask in regard to this amendment is that the noble Earl looks at it in the same light as the rest of the ·22 rim-fire ammunition and the use of magazines. I hope that he will bear that in mind when he writes to me. I therefore do not need to move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 28 not moved.]
Clause 2 agreed to.
Lord Wynford Lord Wynford had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 29:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
("Conditions attaching to the possession of self-loading rifles.
—A firearm certificate may authorise a person to possess, purchase or acquire a self-loading or pump-action rifle to which section 5(1)(ab) of the principal Act applies if that person—
1128

(a) has held a firearms certificate for at least three years, and

(b) has been a member of a rifle club for at least three years, and

(c) is a member of a club affiliated to the National Rifle Association or the United Kingdom Practical Shooting Association and which has been approved by the Secretary of State as a club suitable for target shooting with self-loading rifles, and has satisfactorily completed a course of service rifle or practical rifle shooting approved by either of these Associations.").

The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment earlier in conjunction with Amendment No. 7. I was dealing with both amendments together and I said so at the time. I withdrew Amendment No. 7 and consequently now I shall not move Amendment No. 29.
[Amendment No. 29 not moved.]
Clause 3 [Grant and renewal of shot gun certificates]:
[Amendments Nos. 30 to 32 not moved.]
8.30 p.m.
Lord John-Mackie Lord John-Mackie moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 3, line 13, at end insert—
("(IAA) No such certificate shall be granted if the number of shotguns to be specified in it exceeds the maximum number specified by the chief officer of police in accordance with subsection (4) below".).
The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 49. I do so because I have had experience in talking to the police. I had a neighbour who owned two or three shot guns which were stolen and afterwards the police discovered that one had been used in an armed robbery. During the discussions we have heard stories about people who own eight or 10 shotguns. Other than someone running a big shoot and having visitors from abroad, I can imagine no one who requires to own that number of shotguns.
I pointed out earlier in the proceedings that statistics show that sawn-off shotguns are the main weapons used by criminals in armed robberies. I recently asked someone how many shotguns he had. He replied that he owned three or four but he was not sure. It is essential that during the obtaining of a certificate the number of shotguns owned should be controlled. The situation must be controlled because the statistics show that the shotgun is the main armoury of those who carry out armed robberies and so forth. We wish to make certain that the number of shotguns and the reason for holding them is shown on the Certificate. I beg to move.
Earl Peel: I believe that the amendment is unnecessary and restrictive. Under the Bill the conditions imposed on the chief officer of police when assessing the suitability of an applicant should be sufficient in deciding whether a person should hold a shotgun. To pose a restriction on the number of shotguns held is going a little too far down the line. We have not yet had an opportunity of debating the question of safety, but I hope that the Committee will do so when I move the next amendment. Presumably when the chief officer of police sees the number of guns owned by an individual he will assess his suitability according to the safety covering those guns.

1129
I should like to raise in particular the question of consistency; that is not only with the Bill but also with the 1968 Act. I believe that it is imperative that chief officers of police must have instructions from the Home Office which will result in their being even towards all applicants. I hope that that matter will he discussed later during the course of the Bill. If the amendment is successful it will be a matter for chief constables of police and no doubt there will be a great variance throughout the country in the number of weapons that individuals are allowed to keep. That would be totally wrong.
The Earl of Swinton: I should like to support my noble friend Lord Peel. It will come as no surprise that I have tabled Amendment No. 45 which proposes exactly the opposite of that now proposed by the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie. I declare an interest in that I am one of those fortunate people with a pair of guns of my own. I also have a pair of guns which were left by my grandfather to my younger brother and which he does not use very much but I tend to use if something goes wrong with mine. I have a selection of guns used in the control of pests by my farm men, keepers and foresters and also various guns of various sizes used by my children. I believe that it would be wrong for a chief of police to make such a decision. I can think of at least one chief constable who may say, "The Lord Almighty has told me that a man should have only one gun". I believe that that chief constable is inclined to receive messages from on High. It is a most dangerous amendment. I hope that the Minister will listen to what has been said by my noble friend Lord Peel and by me and will not support the amendment.
Lord Burton: During Committee stage in another place the Minister gave a considerable undertaking that the Government would not limit the number of shotguns. I hope that on this occasion my noble friend will be as intransigent as he has been in respect of other amendments that have been tabled today.
I say that for various reasons. For example, I know of a shooting lodge in the Highlands which is let commercially. It has a most interesting and valuable collection of shotguns belonging to famous people including royalty and it is of considerable interest to the clients. It is securely kept and is of no risk to the public. I can see no reason why those fine old weapons should be restricted to a private individual.
I am concerned that the Bill as presently worded will allow chief constables to limit the number of weapons. Under the Firearms Act a dealer was recently limited to six weapons. When the case went to the Crown Court the judge found for the police. If that case were to stand it could apply equally well to shotguns. I believe that that is a dangerous situation and I hope that the Committee will support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Swinton, which appears to be perfectly reasonable. I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will stand firm.
Lord Monson: I also oppose the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, asserts that shotguns are often used in armed robberies. That may
1130
well be so—indeed it is so—but whether an individual owns five, six or seven shotguns is neither here nor there as regards the incidence of armed trobbery.
There are two reasons why some people own an unusually large number of shotguns. First, many people have children who shoot and their friends and cousins also shoot and wish to have guns available when they stay. Secondly, some people own antique guns. I have inherited an eight-bore gun with a barrel of about 5 feet in length. It is never used and I doubt whether ammunition is available, but it exists. I do not believe that the amendment has any merit whatever.
Lord Swansea: I am afraid that the amendment is a non-starter. If it is agreed to it could open the door for wide interpretation by individual police constables. It is already well known that many interpret the law in widely differing ways. The way in which the Bill is presently worded is open to misinterpretation. If this amendment is agreed to misinterpretation will be a certainty.
There is no need to put a statutory limit on the number of shotguns which individuals may hold. The principal of shotgun certification over the past 20 years has been to license the individual and not the guns. Hitherto there has been no limitation on the number of shotguns which a person may own and there is no need for it. 1 understand that it is not the Government's intention to place a limit on the number. However, if that is their intention, perhaps they could improve the wording of this subsection to remove any uncertainty.
Viscount Brookeborough: I cannot support this amendment because later in the Bill we come on to the numbering of guns on certificates and I believe that when that part of the Bill is reached it will provide the security for people who cannot remember how many shotguns they own and therefore, if they lose them and those weapons are found, it can at least be seen where the weapons came from.
The point about chief constables deciding matters keeps coming up in the Bill and I am not sure that it is totally understood as regards how much power chief constables will have and how much they will know about what is going on. In Northern Ireland—and I know that this Bill does not apply to Northern Ireland—we have a system under which the chief constable can supposedly control the number of weapons or how and when they are used. However, we have a firearms branch within the police force which deals with the matter, as I suspect would happen in the rest of the UK. The chief constable cannot be worried the whole time by individuals who require a firearm for this or that. It is the people in the firearms sections well below the level of chief constable who will decide. Therefore, the idea that the chief constable will decide may not be true. It may be a chief inspector or a sergeant who decides on the number of arms held by an individual. When those weapons are numbered it will not matter how many weapons a person has, because they will be traceable.
Lord Brain: I believe that the last speaker is very optimistic because, as I understand it, the shotgun

1131
certificate is to allow one to use certain guns and not just to own them, especially if they are numbered. I can see a situation where a group of three or four people will own a particular wildfowling gun as a syndicate. They will all have that gun on their certificate but only one will use it at any one time. Should it become lost the police will have to go to the four people to see who has lost it. However, the law will say only that the person who sells the gun has to inform the chief constable that he has sold it and it will then be removed from his certificate. The other three people will still have it on their certificates and even more confusion will follow.
Coming back to the number of guns on a certificate, we have already had examples of pairs of guns. Two pairs make four guns. There are special clay pigeon guns, wildfowling guns and the numerous guns for children which will be duplicated because the child will have the gun on his certificate and the parent, because he looks after and houses the gun, will have it on his certificate. I believe that this will so complicate the enforcement of an already complicated and difficult law that it will cause more rather than less confusion. I shall oppose this amendment.
8.45 p.m.
Viscount Brookeborough: Perhaps I may correct the last speaker as regards what happens in Northern Ireland. The primary owner of a weapon has that weapon on his certificate. Anyone else who wishes to use it has it on loan. When a weapon is sold and the certificate goes back to the firearms branch, the branch automatically corrects the other certificate holders. That problem does not arise.
Lord Burton: Perhaps I may just add one further matter. It has occurred to me that one may have a second pair of barrels for one gun. How is one placed then?
Lord John-Mackie: It may be that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, wishes me to reply to the debate myself. I have never heard so many people, in opposing something, so effectively giving away their case. They have referred to the guns being spread over keepers, farmworkers and children. That was the point I was making. These guns are spread over so many people that it is impossible to keep track of them. The only person who made a valid point was the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, when he said that if all the guns are numbered properly then they can be traced. At present, there are literally millions of guns in the country spread over all these people whom Members of the Committee have mentioned. That is why it is necessary for the chief constable to have some control over people buying eight, 10 or 20 guns.
The Earl of Swinton: Perhaps I may just say that my guns are kept in a separate gun room behind a steel cabinet which is locked. There is a key. If one of my employees comes to ask for the key he has to sign for it and sign it back in the evening and somebody else makes sure that the gun is locked up in that cabinet. I should hate the noble Lord to feel that I
1132
have armies of people wandering over North Yorkshire firing from the hip with my guns, because I believe that would be totally unfair.
Lord John-Mackie: There are exceptions to the rule, of course.
Earl Ferrers: I feel a certain sorrow for the noble and poor Lord, Lord John-Mackie, because he has not found many adherents to his amendment this evening. My noble friend Lord Burton asked that I should be as intransigent on this amendment as I have been on others, but it is not a question of being intransigent but of trying to get it right. On this occasion I am happy to find myself siding with my noble friends behind me, Lord Swansea, Lord Peel, Lord Swinton and Lord Burton.
My noble friend Lord Swinton said that he hoped the Government would listen to him. We do listen, and have listened for this reason; namely, that we believe there would be little benefit in terms of public safety in imposing arbitrary limits on the number of shotguns which may be held on a shotgun certificate. It is even more difficult to see the advantages of a system under which each chief officer of police could set a limit on the number of shotguns to be held on a certificate in his force area. My noble friend Lord Peel said that this amendment would be unnecessary and restrictive, and I believe that he is right. Each force could require different limits. There would be no consistency—a point which my noble friend was anxious to make.
No provision is made for an existing certificate holder who moves to an area where the maximum number of guns on the certificate is fewer than he already holds. I believe that that could have some bizarre consequences. I am puzzled by the proposal that a person who, in applying for a shotgun certificate, specifies a greater number of guns than the maximum permitted in that area should not be given a shotgun certificate at all. I believe that these amendments would make a shotgun certificate system unworkable. It would also cut right across one of the fundamental characteristics of a shotgun certificate, which, under Section 2 of the 1968 Act, authorises the holder to possess shotguns without limitation. Acceptance of these amendments would require a fundamental reappraisal of provisions of the 1968 Act. For those reasons, I hope that the noble Lord will be content with the Bill as it is.
Lord John-Mackie: I have held myself up to the strictures of Members of the Committee. The amount of support I have received from behind me does not warrant that I do much more than beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Peel Earl Peel moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 3, line 13, at end insert—
("(1 AA) No such certificate shall be granted or renewed unless the chief officer of police has required from the applicant a written undertaking that reasonable care will be taken to maintain the gun or guns in safe keeping.
The chief officer of police shall inform the applicant when requiring this undertaking to be made that the duty of care owed is that which it is appropriate to expect from anyone in possession of a potentially lethal weapon.").
The noble Earl said: To date no mention has been made in this Bill of the question of security. Of course, that is largely because the security aspects of the Bill are going to be dealt with under the firearms rules, which will not be debated in this Chamber.
Obviously it is recognised that the whole question of security is an integral part of this Bill. It is for that reason that I move this amendment, in the belief that, because of its importance, it should be a condition of the Bill. Before the chief officer of police is prepared to issue a shotgun certificate, obviously he has to be satisfied that the applicant's security arrangements for such weapons are adequate. One of the questions I should like to ask my noble friend is how this is to be done. I come back to the question of consistency which I hope will exist throughout all police forces with regard to this question.
The effect of this amendment would be to transfer a proportion of the responsibility for security to the owner of a shotgun, which 1 believe to be a basic requirement for any sensible shooter. I envisage from this amendment a standard security form which would be issued by the police. The applicant would satisfy the police officer concerned that one of the major considerations when assessing an applicant's credibility had been met. We are all conscious of the fact that it will be impossible for the police to check on the ability of every single applicant to keep his guns in a secure place. I hope that the amendment will go some way towards satisfying the police and that it will make their job easier.
The question of consistency concerns me—not just on this matter but on all matters regarding current legislation and the proposals contained in the Bill. I believe that the amendment would help to establish a uniform requirement on security. It would streamline the job of the police and give them more confidence in the applicant's ability to prove that his security was up to standard. The shooting public would also know where they stood and it would reduce the likelihood of conflict between the police and shotgun owners, something which I believe we must try to achieve wherever possible. I beg to move.
Viscount Mountgarret: I do not wish to cross swords with my noble friend but I am not sure that he is going about this matter in quite the right way. The amendment seeks to put the responsibility on the applicant for a certificate. I am sorry to say that in this instance I feel very strongly that the responsibility must rest yet again with the unfortunate gentleman, the chief officer of police, who seems to be a very busy man throughout this Bill. It is not very difficult for the police to ensure that an applicant will take reasonable care of his shotguns. On re-application for, or issue of, a shotgun certificate a police constable at the moment—at any rate in our part of North Yorkshire—visits one and asks specific questions about where one keeps one's guns how they are kept, and so forth. It does not take very long. He simply wishes to be satisfied that they are kept under reasonable care. While agreeing entirely with my noble friend that ensuring security is a prime requirement in this Bill, I should have thought that we should place the onus on the police rather than
1134
require the applicant to sign a certificate. It is very easy for anyone to sign a piece of paper and get away with it. The chief officer of police must ensure that security is adhered to.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: At the moment there is no statutory obligation on the possessor of a shotgun licence to follow the advice of the police. You would not put yourself at risk of losing your licence if you did not take proper steps to ensure the security of your weapon. The noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret, referred to the position in North Yorkshire. I would suggest that the chief officer of police there regards it as a crime prevention measure so far as some of his officers are concerned. Personally I think it essential to ensure that people are put at risk of losing their licence if they do not take proper care of their weapon. 1 hope we shall hear from the noble Earl that that is the position of the Government. I suspect that that is the case; I very much hope that it will be confirmed.
I strongly support what the noble Earl, Lord Peel, has said. However, I am extremely doubtful whether it is possible to achieve absolute consistency in every police force area. I think the noble Earl or one of his colleagues asked an hour or so ago if the Home Office would give "instructions". The Home Office cannot give instructions to any chief officer of police. The only way they could give instructions would be if we had a national police force, which we do not have. Most of us in this Chamber, I believe, would not be in favour of a national police force.
I suspect the position in many force areas, including the major metropolitan areas. will be that the police want to assure themselves that possessors of licences have taken adequate steps to protect the security of their weapons. Again, I should he very glad to hear from the noble Earl whether I am right. I suspect I am. The noble Earl, Lord Peel, has raised a useful point. This is to some degree a probing amendment, as I understand it; we all look forward to hearing from the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, what the position of the Government is.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: It is not easy for a gamekeeper living in a small cottage. He can keep his gun or rifle under the bed. In the daytime, if his house is empty, it is difficult to hide it. It is far easier in a large house. Your Lordships will probably know that some extremely strong gun safes are made: quite a few people now have them. It is very difficult for burglars to break them open. However, they are very expensive. If a man cannot afford one, he cannot afford it. As far as gamekeepers are concerned, probably an employer would see that the firearms used on the estate were safely protected. It is quite a problem for some people.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: It seems to me not at all difficult to impose certain security requirements on the safekeeping of shotguns in the home of the owner. However, what will happen when the owner takes his shotgun and goes to stay in an hotel for a shoot? The hotel may not have any approved security arrangements. It seems to me that there is a great

1135
problem here, and I wonder what the Government's thoughts are on the matter.
Lord Burton: The noble Lady has raised a point which I had very much in mind and which I shall raise later when dealing with my own amendment concerning foreigners visiting this country and what they are to do with their weapons.
My noble friend Lord Peel has a good point in putting the onus more on the owner of the weapon. As has been said, circumstances vary. My noble friend Lord Mountgarret may have a fortress in which to maintain his weapons while he is not using them. I believe he was only thinking of where he kept them when he was not using them, if he is now allowed to. Just in the last week, as I was wondering what the position would be, my keeper drew up at the front door of the office. And there, on the rack behind him, was his shotgun. Was he to take it into the office or leave it in the Land Rover? He had solved the problem by bringing along in the car a fierce dog which would have eaten anyone who tried to take the gun. I think that in that particular instance the weapon was secure.
There are difficulties and my noble friend Lord Peel possibly has a solution in leaving it to the discretion of the owner or handler of the weapon. rather than asking the police to enforce legislation.
9 p.m.
Lord Monson: I draw the Committee's attention to some curious wording in the amendment. The second paragraph describes a shotgun as "a potentially lethal weapon". A shotgun is not potentially a lethal weapon; it is a lethal weapon pure and simple. Its lethal characteristics are precisely what people buy a shotgun for. Apart from clay pigeon shooting, which is a rehearsal for the genuine thing, people do not buy shotguns for target practice; they buy them for killing game or vermin.
That brings me to the main point of the amendment. In practice, a motor car is a vastly more lethal weapon than a shotgun. At least a thousand more people are killed every year by motor cars than are killed by shotguns. However, no motor car owner is required to give a written undertaking as a condition of receiving his licence.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Does not the noble Lord realise that if the owner of a car behaves irresponsibly he can lose his licence? That is the issue.
Lord Monson: If the noble Lord will bear with me I shall come to that point. No motor car owner is required to give a written undertaking that reasonable care will be taken in the driving or parking of his car. He is not obliged to lock his car when leaving it. He is entitled to leave it on a hill with the handbrake not properly adjusted. That is potentially extremely dangerous. He will not lose his licence merely for doing that. He ought to, perhaps, but as the law stands at present he will not do so. Therefore, I do not think that shotgun owners should be required to give a written undertaking which is not also imposed upon the owners of motor cars.
Lord Gisborough: In following that up, what about owners of knives, pickaxe handles or anything else? All such items are thoroughly lethal weapons. Logic would suggest that the owners should also sign an undertaking.
Earl Ferrers: My noble friend Lord Peel has introduced an important amendment and I understand exactly what he is getting at. He wishes to ensure that these weapons are properly kept in safe places. There is no difference between us on that. The Government have already announced their intention to amend the firearms rules so that in future a safekeeping requirement will appear as a condition on the face of a shotgun certificate, as it already does on a firearms certificate.
The safe-keeping requirements envisaged in my noble friend's amendment have no sanction. It is proposed that an applicant for a shotgun certificate, before he can be granted a certificate, should be required to sign an undertaking that he will keep his gun, or his guns, secure. However, once he has been granted a certificate the amendment provides no sanctions for failure to fulfil that undertaking. However, breach of a condition which is attached to a certificate is an offence.
Subsection (2) of the amendment would require chief constables to inform applicants of their duty to look after their guns, but there are no provisions to ensure that that advice is heeded. It would simply be creating further work for the police without any likely benefits. Given the terms in which subsection (2) is couched, I suspect that many shooters would find the advice somewhat patronising.
There is a further consideration. There is no requirement for the applicant for a firearms certificate to give such an undertaking. We would be placing applicants for shotgun certificates in a worse position than applicants for firearms certificates. Therefore, this amendment would achieve significantly less in terms of fairness and in ensuring public safety than the proposed safe-keeping requirements which the Government have in mind.
My noble friend Lord Peel asked how security would be assured. Under the 1968 Act, firearms must be kept at all times in a secure place with a view to preventing access to them by unauthorised persons. Shotguns will be treated in a similar way. Exactly how that is to be achieved will be discussed with shooting interests. The rules will provide standard safe-keeping conditions for shotguns when they are in actual use and when they are in transit. I have no doubt that those rules, when they are produced, will cover what happens when the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, stays in a hotel surrounded with her guns.
I agree that there should be consistency. That is best achieved by the guidance in the memorandum which the police will have on the operation of those rules. Putting all that on the face of the Bill will not help to ensure consistency of application by chief officers of police, but I understand the motivations which prompted my noble friend to table his amendments.
Earl Peel: I take heart to a degree from what my noble friend said. Clearly I am delighted to hear that

1137
the rules are to be reviewed. I accept that the amendment has shortcomings. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Monson, who pointed out the aspect concerning the words "potentially lethal weapons". Frankly, it does not concern me overmuch and I do not wish to be pedantic because the amendment was tabled principally as a probing amendment, as I said when moving it.
However, I am still unhappy to a certain extent about security. I come back to the point about consistency—consistency in security and consistency in all aspects of this Bill as regards the instructions to be given to the chief officers of police. I put one question to my noble friend in the hope that he can give me an assurance. Are the requirements for the safe-keeping of shotguns—I use those words carefully—to be uniform throughout various police forces in this country? Perhaps my noble friend could answer that specific point.
Earl Ferrers: The requirements for safe-keeping are, as my noble friend will realise, for the individual chief officers of police. The way in which we hope to get consistency is by publishing, as we are doing, the memorandum which gives guidance to the police on what they ought to do. That memorandum has not been previously published but it has been given out to police officers. However, to meet the points of concern of my noble friend, among others, we have decided to publish this guidance so that people may comment and criticise if they wish. They will be able to see what the guidance is.
As the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said, one cannot instruct chief officers of police because if that were the case there would be a national police force. All one can do is to give guidance. My noble friend will be able to see what is the guidance and by that we hope to achieve consistency. I point out to my noble friend that in each area the chief constable is responsible. He has to be assured that these weapons are kept in secure conditions. That is his final responsibility.
Viscount Brookeborough: Surely the problem is the vagueness of the term "safe keeping". My noble friend Lord Ferrers says that he cannot instruct chief constables. The Government have no say over speed limits or many other matters. Would it not be simple for a definition of "safe keeping" to be that these weapons should be held in a metal cabinet built for the purpose of safe keeping? Admittedly, there would be slight variations in the amount of security supplied but every gun owner in the country would have a cabinet for the purpose of safe keeping.
Earl Ferrers: That is one solution. I have suggested that exactly how safe keeping should be achieved is a matter for discussion. The shooting interests will he considered during these discussions and we shall therefore try to get the matter as right as we reasonably can.
Earl Peel: I am glad that the memorandum of guidance is to be published and everyone will welcome my noble friend's statement on that point. It is not enforceable, as I understand it, so I fear it means that, no matter how clear are the instructions
1138
to the chief officers of police, there is no guarantee that we shall have the consistency that I believe is so very important. I do not intend to go any further with this matter. I shall read very carefully what my noble friend said. However, I believe it is a matter that we shall return to at the Report stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Dilhorne Viscount Dilhorne had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 35:
Page 3, line 14, leave Out ("(b) of subsection (1A)") and insert ("(c)") of subsection (1)").
The noble Viscount said: The purpose of this amendment is to leave out a passage in page 3, in line 14. Having pulled for the Chamber's successful team against the House of Commons, I am in some disarray. I believe that the Committee will wish to know that we won and others of the team are enjoying themselves celebrating their victory. I believe that I had better not move this amendment and delay the working of the Committee. I shall move it on another day.
[Amendment No. 35 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 36 not moved.]
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy Lady Saltoun of Abernethy moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 3, line 16, after ("purposes") insert ("whether or not the applicant at the time of the application knows where the gun will he used").
The noble Lady said: The purpose of this amendment is to prevent a possibly over-zealous police officer, probably in a city and with no understanding of game shooting and how it works, demanding that an applicant for a shotgun certificate shall say where he will be using his gun. That is what usually happens at present when one applies for a firearms certificate. In such a situation, if one owns an estate or a farm one usually has no problem because one says that one will be using one's rifle on one's estate and on any other where one may he invited to stalk or shoot deer or whatever.
However, if one does not have suitable property of one's own, one may well be refused a firearms certificate because one cannot say, before being invited or before one has arranged to rent stalking, where one will be stalking. In the case of the firearms certificate and the rifle there is not usually a problem because one uses the estate rifle, which is illegal if one is under 17. That is a situation which a later amendment is designed to rectify. However, if the same were to apply to applications for shotgun certificates, it would blight the lives of many people who, while obliged to reside in a town or city in order to earn their livings and having no estate or farm of their own, very much enjoy shooting and who, in the season, are accustomed to accept invitations to shoot at the weekends, sometimes at quite short notice. While it is reasonably satisfactory to use a strange rifle, a shotgun is a different matter. It is a little like a suit; it has to fit. No estate can be expected to own a whole arsenal of guns of all sizes—for the right and left eye, for the right-handed and left-handed and so on—to lend to, say, six, eight or more people for a

1139
pheasant shoot or a grouse shoot. It really is impossible.
In a letter the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has assured me that there will be no power for police forces to attach individual conditions to shotgun certificates. In the first place I am not entirely clear whether "individual conditions" covers territorial conditions, which is what I am talking about. Secondly, I do not anticipate that there will be anything in the draft memorandum to encourage the police to require to know where a shotgun is to be used. The memorandum is merely guidelines and does not have the force of law. We do not have a national police force and therefore the memorandum can only be guidelines and may be disregarded.
As to Clause 3 as it is presently drafted, I very much fear lest proof of the intention to use the gun for sporting or competition purposes or for shooting vermin might be demanded by some overzealous officer who was possibly biased against blood sports in any case. I should very much like to have on the face of the Bill a safeguard against that happening. I beg to move.
9.15 p.m.
The Earl of Balfour: I support what the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, has said and I should like to raise another point. One is still required to have a shotgun certificate to use a shotgun even if one does not necessarily own a gun oneself. I had a shotgun certificate quite a long time before I actually owned one outright. This was in addition to the game licence and the other papers one must have. Members of a syndicate could be shooting miles away from their own homes or just at invitation shoots. The only time many of us go shooting is when we are invited to go somewhere. This point must be taken into consideration as well.
Viscount Mountgarret: While I sympathise with the aims of the noble Lady, is not the amendment somewhat superfluous? The point which she made about unexpected sporting invitations or competitions is already covered in the Bill as it stands. Clause 3(1)(1B) states:
"an applicant shall, in particular, be regarded as having a good reason if the gun is intended to be used for sporting or competition purposes".
Surely one has only to show that that is the requirement and Bob is one's proverbial uncle.
Lord Burton: My noble friend is wrong again. I totally agree with the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun. In many parts of the country the police have been trying to impose territorial conditions on firearms. If that is extended to shotguns there is little doubt that certain places will also try to impose them for shotguns. A provision in the nature of what the noble Lady has suggested would ensure that that did not happen.
My noble friend Lord Dulverton had a territorial condition imposed. I am pleased to say that that was removed. The last time I renewed my firearms certificate the police tried to say that if ever I was asked to stalk elsewhere I would have to ask
1140
permission before I went there. I am pleased to say that I had that removed. This idea has been creeping in with rifles; and there is little doubt that if we do not change the Bill this will also happen with shotguns.
Lord Monson: I should like to support my noble friend's excellent amendment. Before we adjourned for dinner, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, in resisting calls for stricter controls on crossbows, reminded the Committee that crossbows have been with us for a long time. I should like to remind the Committee that shotguns have also been with us for a long time, albeit for decades rather than centuries.
For the past 100 years or so shotguns have almost automatically been available, unless someone has been convicted of a relatively serious offence or is deemed to be a person of bad character. That state of affairs should continue. I see no reason for imposing heavy restrictions and regulations on shotgun owners. Therefore I fully support the amendment and give notice that I shall resist amendments to come, such as Amendment No. 38, which are designed to make it more difficult for people to hold shotgun licences.
Viscount Brookeborough: I support the noble Lady's amendment from the point of view of experience. We have this rule in Northern Ireland. It is impossible to get permission from the police at short notice for shooting on somebody else's land by giving a day's notice or whatever. However it could be easily worked out—assuming that one is a law-abiding person permitted to have a gun in the first place—and it should be possible to state on a certificate that weapons may be used on land where one has permission to use them. There would be absolutely no problem with that. To have to go back through the police at a weekend or on a bank holiday is unreasonable and too restrictive.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: I briefly support the noble Lady's amendment. Often one is asked to shoot in different places, sometimes even abroad, so it is difficult to say where one will be shooting. One can shoot at home, which presumably is all right, but for rifles it is a different matter. One may be stalking on one's own ground or asked to stalk somewhere else, and one can even be asked to go abroad with a rifle. I agree with the amendment. I do not believe one needs to tell the police because it would be difficult to tell them where you will be keeping your gun because you may be fairly mobile.
Viscount Brookeborough: I should like to point out also that a lack of understanding of shooting prevails among the police. When we started getting restrictive practices in Northern Ireland, I mentioned to the police in a written letter accompanying my application that I might wish to take my rifle abroad to shoot wild boar in Germany or stalk in Scotland and they put on my certificate that I had permission to shoot wild boar in Scotland and West Germany!
Earl Ferrers: I wonder whether I may help the Committee over this vexed problem, because the Government have taken many reasonable steps to

1141
allay the fears of the shooting community that the new system of shotgun certification outlined in Clause 3 might be used to deny certificates to legitimate sportsmen and others who had valid reasons for the possession of a shotgun. Clause 3 makes clear that except where an applicant is a prohibited person or is unfit to possess a shotgun, a certificate shall be refused only if the police are satisfied that the applicant does not have a good reason to possess, to purchase or to acquire such a gun. We have also gone so far as to specify certain uses which shall be regarded as good reasons for the use of a certificate. But the noble Lady's amendment proposes that we go a step further than that. She suggests that where a person wants a shotgun for sporting or competition purposes we should require a chief constable to issue the certificate, even if the applicant has no idea at all where, and by implication when, the gun will be used.
I believe that that is undesirable. Of course there may be cases where a person is likely at some stage to he invited on a shoot and wants to have a gun handy just in case. Many noble Lords seem to have experienced just that happy situation. But the police will have discretion to issue a shotgun certificate in those cases to that kind of person. They will take into account a person's background and his connections. However, the great majority of the population are, quite frankly, unlikely ever to be invited on a shooting weekend and I believe it would be unfortunate if the police were required, for example, to issue a shotgun certificate to a person living in a block of flats in the city centre and having no past experience of shooting and no evidence of contacts in the shooting world, simply because he claimed that he might want to go shooting at some time in the future.
I understand the reasons that the noble Lady has put forward, but I assure her that the Bill covers the problem to which she referred. I hope therefore that that will not continue to cause her anxiety. Both she and my noble friend Lord Burton referred to the territorial conditions which can be placed upon firearms. There is no power under Clause 3 for the police to impose individual conditions, such as a territorial condition, upon a shotgun certificate. I hope that I have been able to satisfy the noble Lady that, although her fears are understood, I do not believe that her amendment would help the Bill. I believe that her fears are covered, but if her amendment were included in the Bill it would create considerably more problems of the type she might wish to avoid.
Lord Monson: Before the Minister sits down, can he confirm that as the law stands at present the individual living in a block of flats in a city to whom he referred would be almost automatically entitled to a shot gun certificate unless he had a conviction or was deemed to be of bad character?
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord is right. That is the difference. Under the Bill we wish to give a chief officer of police power to refuse a certificate unless he is convinced that it is being used for a reasonable
1142
purpose. At the moment he is obliged to give a certificate.
Viscount Dilhorne: Before my noble friend sits down, one of the difficulties experienced under subsection (1B) is that there are some types of activity which are considered reasonable. Under the normal drafting principles which I understand, if one says that one includes certain types of activity, other activities which are not mentioned are excluded unless there are terms saying that the provisions are not exhaustive or someting like that. There is a danger in subsection (1B)—this is perhaps what is behind the noble Lady's amendment—that certain activities are not considered reasonable when certain other activities are named as reasonable. If my noble friend could give some indication as to whether that could be achieved by a cosmetic change in the drafting, I should be interested to hear it.
Earl Ferrers: I am not certain that I have hoisted on board the problem to which my noble friend alludes, unless it be that because certain uses are conferred in subsection (1B) those which are not referred to are therefore explicitly excluded. I do not believe that that is so. If my noble friend were, with his agile legal brain, to read subsection (1B) he would see that it says:
"For the purposes of paragraph (b) of subsection (1B) above an applicant shall, in particular, be regarded as having a good reason if the gun is intended to be used for sporting or competition purposes or for shooting vermin; and an application shall not be refused by virtue of that paragraph merely because the applicant intends neither to use the gun himself nor to lend it for anyone else to use".
Those words are used to allay the fears of the shooting community that that provision may operate against its interests. Just because those references are made, it does not mean others should be excluded. The whole point is to give a chief officer of police the right to refuse a certificate where he believes that it should not be issued because the applicant is, in his view, deemed not to be suitable to receive it.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I have listened carefully to what the Minister has said, and I shall read it carefully in Hansard> tomorrow. I am not altogether happy about the point because I have a slight suspicion that under the clause as drafted the police could take it upon themselves to want proof of intention. We may be up against one law for the duke and another for the dustman. I do not like that because not all legitimate and very responsible shooters are rich men. Some of them live in council flats in towns or cities. They are perfectly responsible people but they might possibly have problems.
Meanwhile, I shall read very carefully what the noble Earl has replied, as I said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, reserving the right to come back to it at Report stage.
9.30 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: Before the noble Lady withdraws her amendment, perhaps I may say this. She was concerned that there might be one law for the duke and another for the dustman. It would be wholly wrong if that were to be the case. There are certain,

1143
if not dukes, maybe some peers, who might be considered inappropriate to hold a shotgun certificate for various reasons. Similarly there may be some people who, if they were not dustmen, might otherwise be living in a city centre and who might also in turn be unsuitable.
The point is—and this is important—that the chief constable should have the power of saying, "That person is not suitable". But he will do so only if he thinks that the public interest is protected by that reason. If the noble Lady were to have pursued her amendment, it would have removed that ability for the police chief constable to say, "This person is not a suitable person to have a shotgun certificate".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): Before calling Amendment No. 38, I should remind the Committee that if that amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 39 to 42.
Viscount Mountgarret Viscount Mountgarret moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 3, leave out lines 17 to 19 and insert (", the shooting of vermin, sentimental reasons, collection or the safekeeping by relatives for persons under the age of seventeen years").
The noble Viscount said: If I can persuade my noble friend Lord Burton to agree with me on this, I shall have achieved something this evening. He has disagreed with me on two points already.
The purpose of this amendment is to go some way towards meeting the point of my noble friend Lord Dilhorne about things which may not be included in the Bill and may automatically be excluded. Leading on from that, I am very unhappy, quite frankly, that there is provision in this Bill to suggest that the chief officer of police can grant a shotgun certificate to somebody who neither intends to use the wretched thing when he has a certificate, nor indeed to lend it to anyone else. So what in fortune's name, I ask, does he want a certificate for? This must be wrong. Therefore I wonder whether perhaps an amendment such as I have tabled might go some way towards meeting that point.
I have tried to draft the amendment in a way which meets the original drafting. In other words, it will read that in particular we regard it as being a good reason if the gun is intended for sport or for competition purposes, the shooting of vermin and for sentimental reasons. There are many reasons why people might require to have a certificate in order to enable them to retain something of family interest to them. It may have no interest to anybody else, it may be absolutely worthless to anybody else, but that is not the point.
Perhaps I may refer to my personal circumstances. My father had a pistol which he wore during the war. I have never used the pistol; I think I have only shot a pistol once in my life. I did not want to get rid of it; I just wanted to keep it. It was my father's. Why should I not keep it for sentimental reasons? The same goes for many other people. So why should we not specify that in the Bill?
Then the amendment goes on to say "collection". People should have a certificate in order to collect
1144
guns. Many people are very interested in collecting guns. They find them of great interest, and not necessarily guns of great antiquity. There are guns produced for special occasions. I think that not so long ago Holland and Holland had a centenary or an anniversary and produced a pair of double-barrelled guns of great beauty. They probably could be used, but it is more likely that the person who bought them wanted them for collection purposes. They could be of great value in the long-term future.
A gun came up the other day in my part of the world which was, I believe, the third gun of the late Marquess of Ripon. A local person bought it. He was not going to use it; it was a hammer gun. It was bought for a collection, and it will have some value in the future. So it would be unreasonable not to allow a certificate to hold a shotgun to people who wished to indulge in that kind of thing.
Those of what one might call tender years who are under the age of 17 are not, quite rightly, permitted to hold a shotgun certificate. They have already been referred to this evening. But what happens in the case of people of younger years to whom guns have been left by their grandparents or their parents? What should one do in that case? A widow's late husband may have had a pair of guns and have left them to his son. What is the widow going to do? It would be very unfair to tell her that she should hand the guns in and that if they are out of sight they are out of mind. It would be perfectly reasonable to allow that person to have a shotgun certificate to enable the weapon or weapons to be kept for the people for whom they were originally destined. The weapons could then be handed over at the right time. It is for those reasons that I have tried to expand slightly on the drafting of the Bill as it stands.
I do not wish to delay the Committee, but I should refer to my Amendment No. 61. I have tried to safeguard the security aspect of this matter, in the event of Amendment No. 38 being accepted, by stating that no ammunition should be allowed to be possessed by the people to whom certificates are given specifically for collection purposes, safe keeping, or sentimental reasons. I remember the pistol I have on my firearm certificate. The certificate specifically states that I can have the pistol but that I am not allowed to keep ammunition for it. That is perfectly reasonable. If this amendment is not agreed to, there is little point in raising the matter of the possession of ammunition under Amendment No. 61. I hope that that is relatively self-explanatory. I beg to move.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: We oppose this amendment. We would leave these points to the discretion of the police. We entirely agree with the point that was made by more than one noble Lord on Second Reading that there was a need for greater consistency between police forces in the exercise of their discretion and perhaps for a code of practice to that end. But ultimately it is inevitable that there will remain a considerable area in which Parliament inevitably must trust in the discretion and sound judgment of the police.
The position is that no one will be able to obtain a shotgun certificate under the new Section 28 unless

1145
he satisfies the chief officer of police that he can be permitted to possess it:
"without danger to the public safety or to the peace".
That is one protection. Another is that a certificate will not he issued if there is no good reason for the applicant to have the gun. That is obviously right too. The question surely on this amendment is how much guidance Parliament should give about what amounts to a good reason. The present Clause 3(1B) says in effect that sport, competition and vermin control are automatically to be regarded as good reasons. That seems to me to be fair enough.
What this amendment seeks to do is to add to the list of automatically good reasons, sentimental reasons, the forming of a collection and the safe keeping of guns for children. We do not go along with that. Whether or not the forming of a collection is a good reason for having a gun, to take that example, must surely depend on the particular circumstances. It depends on the nature of the gun, on whether the applicant would have the facilities to house a collection and to keep it secure and safe and other things of that kind. A good reason for holding a certificate could be, for example, that a gun was a family heirloom and that it was being kept, let us say, by a widow for her son, until he was of age. It may not be a good reason if someone wants to buy a gun to be held for his new-born daughter, notwithstanding how genuine the intention may be. Surely it all depends on the circumstances.
However, something is capable of being a good reason without being an automatically good reason. The interest of the collector and the person who has an old firearm for sentimental reasons are sufficiently protected by the provision that there may be a good reason although the gun is not to be used. We think that to go further than that is neither necessary nor desirable. We therefore oppose the amendment.
Lord Monson: Quite apart from the fact that the amendment is, to my mind, unacceptably restrictive, perhaps the noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret, will explain why he wishes to prevent people keeping shotguns for relatives who happen to be over the age of 17. Many people living in the country have sons or daughters, nephews or neices, brothers or sisters who happen to live in London or other large cities and have no storage facilities for shotguns. They may much prefer to leave their guns in the country. It seems to me to be quite wrong to prevent them from leaving a gun in the country with a relative who happens to live there.
Viscount Mountgarret: The answer is quite simple. Anybody who is over the age of 17 may apply for a shotgun certificate. Provided that he shows he is keeping the weapon safely, whether it is kept in his own house or in someone else's, there should be no problem. I very much regret what I have heard from the Benches opposite. I do not understand the thinking there. The amendment is quite reasonable. It does not lay down specifically the reasons for keeping a shotgun, as my noble friend Lord Ferrers said earlier. It is a guideline as to what will be regarded as
1146
a good reason. I think that the amendment is constructive. Perhaps it may be taken in a different way.
Earl Ferrers: New subsection (1B) in Clause 3, which sets out the new criteria for the issue of shotgun certificates, makes clear that an application for a certificate is not to be refused solely on the grounds that an applicant does not intend to use the shotgun himself or lend it to anyone else to use.
The purpose of my noble friend's amendment is to specify more precisely the sort of circumstances in which such an application may not be refused on the ground of non-use alone. He has correctly deduced that our main concern when drafting this provision was the situation where someone wishes to retain a gun for sentimental reasons: where a widow wishes to retain her husband's shotgun, for instance, or where a grandfather intends to pass his gun on to his grandson. Again, my noble friend is correct in assuming we also intend to accommodate the person who collects shotguns either for their historical interest or for their value, but who has no intention of using them.
The other element of Amendment No. 38 deals with the safekeeping by a relative of a shotgun belonging to someone under 17 years of age. While I appreciate my noble friend's concern, I am afraid that this proposal does not square with the restrictions on the possession of shotguns by persons under the age of 17 which are set out in the 1968 Act. There is no statutory minimum age limit for the issue of a shotgun certificate, and while a person under the age of 17 cannot buy a shotgun or ammunition, he can possess one and use it under the supervision of a person aged 21 or over. It is also an offence to give a shotgun or ammunition to a person under the age of 15. The aim of these provisions is to ensure that young people using shotguns are under proper supervision at all times. Needless to say, chief officers of police consider very carefully indeed any application for a shotgun certificate from a young person.
My main concern about this amendment, however, is that in seeking to be specific about the sort of case where someone may wish to have a shotgun without using it, it may unwittingly exclude other genuine cases. It is much better to have the sort of general formulation which is already in the Bill, which can prove flexible enough to accommodate all the genuine cases.
Amendment No. 47, which is attached to this one, seeks to provide that a shotgun certificate shall specify the purposes for which the guns listed on it are to be used, but a shotgun certificate can only he granted under Section 2 of the 1968 Act authorising the holder to possess shotguns. It cannot authorise the possession of a gun for a specific purpose. What my noble friend is proposing would involve a fundamental reappraisal of the provisions of the 1968 Act relating to the different treatment of firearms and shotgun certificates.
My noble friend's amendment assumes a level of control over the use of shotguns which we are not seeking to attain, which is to some extent

1147
unattainable and which we feel, and I hope that my noble friend would also feel on reflection, is probably unnecessary.
Viscount Mountgarret: I am very grateful to my noble friend for the courteous way in which he has
1148
explained why he feels that the clause should remain as it stands. I am happy with that explanation and I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.45 p.m.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): Before calling Amendent No. 39 I should point out that if it is agreed to I cannot call Amendent No. 40.
Viscount Dilhorne Viscount Dilhorne moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 3, line 17, leave out ("and an") and insert ("(3) An").
The noble Viscount said: I should like to take Amendment No. 41 with Amendment No. 39 because they are both pure drafting amendments. Put very simply, the proposal is that the words "and an" and "by virtue of that paragraph" are totally surplus to the requirement of the section and should be left out. It would read very much better if it just read:
"an application shall not he refused merely because".
The words "by virtue of that paragraph" add nothing.
I do not wish to waste the time of the Committee on a small drafting point, and I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: Amendment No. 39 appears to be a paving amendment for my noble friend's more substantive later amendments. The words that he proposes are not in fact necessary, but if I may I shall write to my noble friend about it.
Viscount Dilhorne: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Balfour The Earl of Balfour moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 3, line 17, after ("and") insert ("(1C)").
The noble Earl said: With the leave of the Committee in moving this amendment I should like to speak to Amendment No. 43 standing in my name, which is really the amendment that matters.
I am seeking here to grant a person permission to keep a shotgun when he has no intention of using it, but under those circumstances he certainly should not have ammunition as well.
Perhaps I may give your Lordships an example. Just before the war I was given a pair of old Army 4·5 revolvers dating from about 1894. I kept them, and eventually when I got a firearms certificate many years later, in about 1950, I had those two revolvers put onto that certificate, but it stated quite clearly on the certificate that I was not permitted to buy any ammunition.
About 15 years ago there were a few unpleasant burglaries in which firearms were used and I felt that if somebody broke into the house there was too great a risk of their getting hold of the Army 4.5s. I decided the best thing that I could do was to take them to the police and ask them to put them through the guillotine. That was the end of it. Basically I am trying to say that, where a person has no intention of using the gun himself or of lending it to someone else, the fore-end should be removed—so that even if someone steals the gun it cannot be used—and that no ammunition should be kept. It is as simple as that. I beg to move.
The Earl of Swinton: May I ask my noble friend what would happen if someone who was, say, a very good clay pigeon shot were to leave to his grandson a Browning over-and-under gun, which I gather is the best shotgun for shooting clay pigeons and from which the fore-end is undetachable? In that case the wretched thing would have to be sawn off and the gun would be useless for evermore.
Lord Burton: Perhaps I may say that if one has an ordinary double-barrelled shotgun that one can break, one can fire it without a fore-end. On the other hand one cannot eject without one. However, one can at least fire off two shots.
The Earl of Balfour: I thought that all shotguns could be disabled by removing the fore-end, which shows that I am not 100 per cent. correct in that respect. I am grateful to the noble Lord for pointing out that my amendment is defective. Would it be possible to consider that if someone does not intend to use the gun he should not possess ammunition, which is my other point?
Viscount Mountgarret: I can come to the aid of my noble friend and tell him that removal of the fore-end correctly will not eject a cartridge. It is even more true if one uses a gun with the fore-end removed. One cannot then recock the hammers unless one takes the bits and recocks it by hand.
Lord Swansea: I was about to mention the same point. It is perfectly feasible to immobilise a shotgun, so to speak, by removing the fore-end, provided that one first snaps the locks—in other words one releases the tumblers inside by pressing the triggers and then one removes the fore-end. Without the fore-end the action cannot be recocked and, as the locks have already been established, the gun cannot be fired again without being recocked. Also there are some guns—the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, mentioned the Browning over-and-under and of course there are others such as slide-action self-loading shotguns—in which another part of the mechanism such as the belt or breechblock and not just the fore-end must be removed to immobilise the gun.
Lord Gisborough: I should like to dispute the point that has just been made. I believe that it is possible to recock the guns again against a table simply by using force.
The Earl of Balfour: Yes; the ordinary burglar might not know that.
Lord John-Mackie: Am I right in thinking with the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, that all guns are not ejectors? If one takes off the fore-end of an old dog-head gun one can fire it any way one likes, if one is prepared to have one's fingers nipped.
Lord Swansea: Yes, all guns are not ejectors. If a gun is a non-ejector, one presses the triggers to snap off the locks before removing the fore-end. The fore-end is necessary before recocking the gun, so the gun cannot be recocked.
Earl Ferrers: I am bound to say that the Bill is fairly complicated to understand in certain areas. However, that is nothing compared with the mental acrobatics that one is obliged to perform when listening to the professionalism and experience of my noble friends asking what happens when one cocks a certain gun in a certain direction or removes a breechblock and certain other things. I prefer to defer taking part in such a debate for fear that I may become somewhat lost and, as a result, inaccurate. I should prefer to address my few remarks to the substance of the amendment as we see it.
The problem with the amendment, I think, is that it is largely counterproductive. It implies a greater level of control over shotguns than we are envisaging. Under the 1968 Act a chief officer of police may impose specific conditions on a firearms certificate. Where the certificate relates to a collection it is customary to prohibit the holder from possessing ammunition. But there is no power to impose conditions in respect of shotgun certificates reflecting the lower level of control, and we do not intend to introduce one. To make a specific statutory provision to this effect in all such cases would constitute a considerably more severe restraint on shotgun holders than firearm holders. We do not seek to put shotgun controls on a par with firearms control. I hope my noble friend can accept this.
There is the very real likelihood that a person who holds a shotgun which he does not intend to use may subsequently acquire other shotguns, by virtue of his shotgun certificate, which he does intend to use but which if my noble friend's amendment were accepted he would be unable to use because his certificate would prevent him from acquiring any ammunition. The main reason for this provision in the first place is to enable people to retain those guns for sentimental reasons, as a kind of heirloom if one likes, or as part of collections. But there is little point in their doing so unless they are able to display the gun to its best advantage, which at the least means keeping it in an assembled form. For that reason I hope that my noble friend will see why we feel that his amendment would be inappropriate.
The Earl of Balfour: I am most grateful for what my noble friends around me have said. Clearly this amendment is defective. I apologise for wasting the Committee's time to some extent. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 41 to 43 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: If Amendment No. 44 is agreed to I remind the Committee that I cannot call Amendments Nos. 45 to 48.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy Lady Saltoun of Abernethy moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 3, line 20, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lady said: Clause 3(2) has its attractions when first looked at, but there are a number of difficulties. Different types of shotgun of the same make can have very similar serial numbers, thus causing confusion. Some shotguns have no serial number. Apart from these technical matters, there is the question of gathering numbers and descriptions. The only way that the police can do this is if every individual owner of shotguns voluntarily provides them with the information required. Knowing the way that some officers can use their powers, one can foresee that where a police officer felt that he was not being fully informed he could assume that an offence was being committed and come back with a search warrant to search a person's house to be sure that he was being supplied with the numbers and descriptions of all the shotguns.
The system is supposed to be effective in assisting with the prevention and detection of crime. To be able to be effective the fullest information would have to be collected in the first place at constabulary level. This would have to be recorded at national level and the records would have to be meticulously maintained. When it is considered that there may be some 3 million shotguns in this country, a large organisation at national level will be necessary.
Other police forces have looked into this in some detail in other countries. As long ago as 1930 the New Zealand police gave up the idea of listing shotguns as being of no value. I do not see that all these measures will have the effect intended, which is to assist in the fight against crime and in the interests of public safety. They will create a mountain of bureaucracy surrounding the control of shotguns. They will take the police off the street—police who are needed there to fight ever-increasing serious crime, in particular in our large cities. These proposals will do more to remove the police from their proper role to that of a purely administrative role than anything else. I beg to move.
Lord Kimball: There is one other underlying fear behind the amendment which the noble Lady has moved. When information technology is advanced to such a state that all shotguns with their numbers can be held on one central computer—which is quite feasible in the not too distant future—we shall find that, rather like putting the clock back on a motor car, a great many of the serial numbers of some of the best guns in his country, made by the London gun trade, are not totally accurate. That, I believe, is partly due to the war and records being destroyed by bombs. However, there are some guns that carry serial numbers which make them look younger than they are.
The assurance we wish to achieve this evening from my noble friend is that in the event of problems arising over the number of shotguns, there will never be an attempt by the police to stamp their numbers on existing weapons. That is something which many people fear. I hope that we can have an assurance tonight that, whatever muddles may emerge over the serial numbering of shotguns in this country, there will be no attempt by the police to overnumber with their own numbers to meet whatever computer they may bring forward.
10 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: I believe that some members of the shooting community are concerned that the proposed requirement for the details of shotguns held to be listed on a certificate will be used at a later date to restrict the number of guns that an individual may hold.
If that is so, I can assure the Committee that such fears are unfounded. It has also been suggested that listing shotguns on a certificate merely imposes a burden on shooters and the police without any benefits in terms of public safety. There is, however, a justifiable concern that the present shotgun controls do not link guns to their owners and a certificate holder is therefore not accountable for the weapons he possesses. In other words, police have no way of knowing who possesses what. It is not possible to tell whether this results in abuses such as, for example, sales to non-certificate holders, since under the present system no reliable statistics can be compiled.
The Government believe it is now time that shotguns were listed on the owner's certificate, and the notification requirements in Clause 4 will ensure both that the police are kept informed of any subsequent acquisitions or disposals and that transfers are properly recorded on the certificate itself. That seems to me to be reasonable.
The amendment tabled in the name of the noble Lady seeks to remove half of that structure of controls, while at the same time leaving in place the notification of transfers. That would leave us with a bureaucracy which would have little benefit, because the police would still have to record transfers without ever being able to compile an accurate record of shotgun ownership as existing holdings would not be recorded. I think that the amendment would seriously weaken the Government's proposal for improved controls on shotguns. Therefore I hope that the noble Lady will be satisfied with what I have said about that.
With regard to the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Kimball, I know of no reason why the police should stamp other serial numbers on people's guns without their knowledge or permission.
Lord Burton: I am rather surprised at the noble Earl's reply to this amendment. For a long time now—I suppose at least since 1968, but probably before—we have had to make a proper record of all firearms, rifles and so on on our certificate. It seems to me that that has been a waste of time to a large extent. I am not sure what advantage there is. A great deal of police time, apart from one's own time, goes into putting such matters on record. The only check that is made is when you come to renew your certificate and the police come to see whether you still have the same weapons.
There was a case the other day, which I spoke about on Second Reading, when we apprehended a man with a weapon to which he was not entitled and which had clearly been lent to him by someone else. I asked the police, "What happened to the owner of the rifle?" They said, "We do not know who it was". What was the point of having all the serial numbers recorded if they did not know who the owner was?
1154
There was another case where some time ago a murder was committed with a Luger pistol and the police had possession of it. My brother had a Luger pistol and after the murder the police asked him whether he still had it. I understand that some of those guns have similar numbers so it is possible that the weapon owned by my brother had the same number as that which was involved in the murder.
In that case the police did not have a central computer. I believe that if they had it would have caused many difficulties and a great deal of expense. At present the listing of firearms does little or no good and to enlarge it to include the enormous number of shotguns would be a complete waste of time.
Lord Brain: The noble Lady has already said that many years ago New Zealand abandoned a register of shotguns. I understand that in Australia the State of Victoria has had a three-year trial of registering shotguns. It is, in the fourth year, abandoning the trial as a waste of police time and a total source of non-information.
The Bill states that a person requires a shot gun certificate in order to possess a gun. It does not state that only one person can possess that gun; there can be several joint owners. A computer will continue to throw up nonsenses as to who is the joint owner and where the gun is located at any particular time. It may happen that a joint owner lives in London, another in Manchester and another in Edinburgh, while the gun is stored on the family estate in Norfolk and is possibly listed on the parents' certificate. In that case who will chase round the country to find out where the weapon is, whether it is lost or check the certificate when it is renewed? The owners may say that the safe keeping for the gun is in Norfolk. I believe that the police are seeking a bureaucracy which, after five years, they will wish they had never started.
Viscount Brookeborough: I should like to point out that in Northern Ireland the numbering of weapons has been carried out since 1926. The system works, albeit that at present there may be many weapons which do not appear to have an owner or be held legally. If we do not start now, when shall we start? The problem can only become worse. From the point of view of the shooting community, surely it must be right that the weapons are numbered on certificates.
Where joint ownership occurs it is simple for an on-loan certificate to relate to either the smaller shareholders or the people who have loan of the weapon. Having regard to the computers now available, it is not unreasonable that there should be a national register and that the on-loan feature should be listed. When a weapon is disposed of—be it sold or destroyed—the relevant firearm certificate can be altered accordingly by entering it on a computer. The system works in Northern Ireland. As a member of the shooting community there—and I also shoot in England—I see no reason why it should not work here.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I am glad that the noble Viscount has made that point because I was thinking of volunteering the same information. Having discussed the matter with the Royal Ulster

1155
Constabulary I can say that it is quite clear that the form of record keeping which it has established in Northern Ireland is of substantial advantage to it in investigating crime. I believe that to be of more relevance than what may have happened in New Zealand in 1930.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: With respect to the noble Viscount, I should like to ask what a computer will make of a shotgun without a number, or of two shotguns with identical or similar numbers. The mind boggles.
Viscount Brookeborough: Perhaps I may attempt to answer that. There are very few shotguns without a number. In addition, it would be quite feasible from a forensic evidence point of view, should a shotgun be used, to link the empty case to a particular weapon. They would probably not all be test fired on registration but if it were thought advisable that could happen. We have hand guns test fired by the forensic department before a certificate is issued. Therefore, should an empty case be found anywhere in the country, assuming the weapon was lawfully held, that case would match up to a weapon.
Viscount Mountgarret: This amendment is a God sent opportunity to try to bring shotgun certificates into line with firearm certificates. It seems to me that the method by which firearm certificates are issued and the weapons registered and so on should now be translated into shotgun certificates. It may be deemed inconvenient to many people who are not used to handling firearm certificates, but operated properly it is not a great inconvenience. It is the price we should be prepared to pay to try to assist in bringing about some degree of control and preventing weapons falling into the wrong hands.
Earl Ferrers: I am grateful for what my noble friend Lord Mountgarret said and also for the remarks of my noble friend Lord Brookeborough with regard to his experience in Northern Ireland. I do not see any real problem because all we are trying to do, as my noble friend has said, is to list and record the whereabouts of shotguns. If there are shotguns which do not have a number then they cannot be listed. The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, makes rather a meal of this by asking what the computer will do if a gun has no serial number. I do not suppose that it will be the first problem faced by computers or computer operators. However, to use that in support of the argument that there should be no listing of shotguns seems to me somewhat tenuous. All we are trying to ensure is that where shotgun certificates are issued the numbers should be listed.
I hesitate to draw an analogy with something totally different. Let us, however, consider the number of motor cars there are and the problems which people have when motor cars get into the wrong hands and the engine, registration and chassis numbers are switched around. I do not believe that Members of the Committee would say that we should therefore dispose of the listing of registration
1156
numbers of motor cars. That system has been a tremendous help in keeping track of motor cars and those which have been wrongly used. In a similar way, that is what we are trying to do here.
Lord Swansea: Can my noble friend give an assurance that it is not the Government's intention to put a limit on the number of shotguns which can be held by an individual? If that is the case, will he agree that the wording of this subsection is somewhat vague and should be amended at the next stage?
Earl Ferrers: I believe that the answer to my noble friend's first question is yes and, with respect, the answer to the second question is no. We have no intention of limiting the amount of shotguns which a person owns or can keep. As far as I can see, the Bill does not imply that in any respect. I believe that the Bill as it is would cause no problems at all in that regard.
Lord Swansea: Does the Minister not agree that in its present form the Bill is open to misinterpretation, particularly by the police who might seek to impose arbitrary limits?
Earl Ferrers: I believe that my noble friend will have to spell that out more clearly. There is nothing in the Bill which I have seen—and I have looked at it carefully, for the reasons which my noble friend suggests—to make one believe there is any limitation. I do not see that. If my noble friend has any reason to believe that the Bill imposes such limitations, I should be grateful if he could explain.
Lord Burton: I wonder if the Minister has any figures as to the extra number of personnel required to administer the documentation of firearms. I have some figures which have been worked out from the documentation of rifles. It is calculated, as a very conservative estimate, that at least 220 extra policemen will be needed plus 50 extra civilians. I understood that we were already short of police. I should have thought that, if we needed 200 extra policemen for something which is worthless, we should do much better to have them on the beat. Another estimate says that the figure might go up as high as 500 extra policemen.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Will the noble Lord make it clear who is giving these estimates?
Lord Burton: It is quite easily worked out from the amount of time taken—which I think is given by the police anyway—on administering firearms certificates at the present time. The unknown figure is, of course, the number of shotguns. That is why there is the variation between the 220 extra policemen plus 50 civilians and the 500 extra policemen. No one knows how many shotguns there are, so it is difficult to work out exactly the right number. Whatever it may be, it is a very large number. I contend that it would be much better to have those policemen on the beat.
10.15 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My noble friend puts forward an avant-garde suggestion that we should use between 200 and 500 extra policemen, and he says that the figure can be worked out quite easily. I do not know how he worked it out so easily if he was a factor of 100 per cent. wrong.
Some of your Lordships have been concerned about the cost of all this. From our inquiries we know that many forces have adopted the practice of interviewing all first-time applicants for shotgun certificates so that some judgment can be made about their suitability and advice given about safekeeping. Inspection of security arrangements can be built into this interview at very little cost. We anticipate that at the renewal stage home inspections will be carried out much more selectively within existing manpower resources only where there are grounds for concern. Similarly, there may be scope for some compensating reduction in the inquiries that are at present made in straightforward Section 1 renewal cases.
Our proposals with regard to making firearms certificates and shotgun certificates coterminus in their application will also assist. The notification system will clearly impose some additional burdens on the police, but we believe that all these changes can be contained within the manpower increase which is set out in the explanatory memorandum. I anticipate that the shotgun certificate fee will need to be raised. I cannot set a precise figure on it, but it is likely to be below that for a firearms certificate.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: We have had a very interesting debate on this amendment. I am not entirely convinced, but I shall read with great care tomorrow what the noble Earl has said. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Swinton The Earl of Swinton moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 3, line 22, after ("specify") insert ("but not limit").
The noble Earl said: It is with some confidence that I rise to move this amendment in spite of the interruptions during the last amendment of my noble friend Lord Swansea because I was much impressed by the answers given by my noble friend Lord Ferrers, and the robust way in which he answered the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie.
This amendment seeks to insert "but not limit" after "specify" in Clause 3 of the Bill. The Minister said that this was the case. I can see no reason why he should fail to agree to put this on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Burton: I feel that this amendment is very necessary. It must be borne in mind that a statement given by a Minister in either of' the Houses of Parliament does not stand up in a court of law. I have suffered from this. On two or three occasions I have been given assurances by Ministers which have subsequently been found by the courts to be wrong because they were not contained in the Act. I think it is vital that, in spite of the assurances given here and in the other place, this is written into the Act. 1 strongly support my noble friend.
Earl Peel: I also support my noble friend on this. I was encouraged when my noble friend on the Front Bench said that he had no intention of limiting the number of shotguns on a certificate. We must bear in mind that, as the law stands at the moment, technically no such limitation exists, yet it is my information that certain chief officers of police are in fact limiting the number of guns that an applicant may have on his licence. Therefore, bearing that in mind, I believe that this amendment is particularly worthy of support.
Viscount Dilhorne: I too support the amendment. It must be made clear that there must not be a limit. My Amendment No. 46 suggests that the number should be left out because the number will in any case be obvious from the description of the guns on the certificate. It would be only a small addition to include the three words proposed by my noble friend Lord Swinton and remove all shadow of doubt that there is no limit.
Lord Monson: I too support this amendment. I hope that the noble Earl who tabled the amendment will consider testing the opinion of the Committee if it is not accepted by the Government. Those of us who have doubts have been very patient. We have accepted the Government's negative replies to all our suggestions. Now is the time to stand firm.
Viscount Brookeborough: I support this amendment. I do so because when this register of weapons is compiled there will be chief constables who will be amazed by the number of' shotguns involved. It will be their natural inclination to think, "Goodness, that is far too many". Without instructions that they do not have the right to limit the number of guns held on a certificate I feel sure—indeed, we have heard this already —that perhaps some chief constables will feel disinclined to license a person for all his weapons. The only answer would be perhaps a bottle of scotch when the chief constable opens the letter with all the weapons listed on it.
Earl Ferrers: My noble friend is concerned to ensure that there is no scope in Clause 3(2) for chief officers of police to impose arbitrary limits on the number of shotguns which may be held on a certificate. I have explained that there is no intention that that should be done. Where subsection (2)(a) refers to a certificate specifying the number of shotguns to which it relates we are speaking merely of the number of guns listed on the certificate at any one time. There is no overall limit on the number of guns which may be held. The certificate holder is free to increase them or, for that matter, to reduce them. The number of guns on the certificate at any one time is at the choice of the owner of the certificate.
I can assure my noble friend that there is no intention to impose a limit. We do not expect a limit. There is nothing in the Bill to suggest a limit. I understand my noble friend's anxiety but it is misplaced because there is no requirement to impose a limit.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: A few moments ago the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, made a suggestion which I hope, on reflection, he will withdraw.
Lord Blease: I earnestly appeal to the noble Viscount to do that. I feel it was made in the heat of the moment and in a facetious manner. I hope he will withdraw the remark.
Viscount Brookeborough: I withdraw it.
Lord Swansea: I spoke on this point on the previous amendment. I firmly believe that all doubt should be removed from the Bill. The clause as it stands is open to misinterpretation, especially by some police forces which may wish to impose an arbitrary limit. In spite of what my noble friend said, they could read this clause as entitlement to impose such an arbitrary limit.
Lord Gisborough: If a chief constable reads the clause as entitlement to limit and informs someone accordingly, it is highly unlikely that that person will feel confident to challenge the police on a matter of law. He will accept that the police must know the law. Therefore, it is necessary to spell out that there is no limit.
Viscount Mountgarret: I also join my noble friends who have spoken in support of this amendment. It is important that this point is written into the Bill. If my noble friend on the Front Bench cannot support it then perhaps my noble friend will want to find out the views of the Committee on this matter.
Lord Brain: It is open to misinterpretation because the certificate could read, "This certificate is valid for six guns", and describe only four. I believe that that six might then be said to be the maximum. If someone wished to add three more guns to the certificate the chief constable would say, "Sorry, the specified number is six". I believe it is open to misinterpretation and I support this amendment.
The Earl of Swinton: I heard what my noble friend said and I cannot see why he cannot accept this amendment. He agrees that there is no intention to impose a limitation. I do not consider that the addition of these three words makes any great difference to the Bill. I am very grateful for the support I have received from many noble Lords on all sides of the Committee. I agree that this clause could be subject to misinterpretation and I feel that I have no alternative but to test the opinion of the Committee on the matter.
Earl Ferrers: Before my noble friend does that, perhaps I may be allowed to add to what I have said. I realise that the Committee feels concern about this matter. I explained that it is the view of the Government that there is no limit applied or suggested at all. Quite clearly, the Committee is concerned, for reasons which I understand. I accept entirely the principle that my noble friend has put forward but I wonder whether he would be good enough not to press this amendment tonight but to
1160
allow me to take it back to reconsider the drafting. If we are at fault and we can improve it, then we shall try to do so.
The Earl of Northesk: In view of the suggestion that some issuing authorities are already imposing a limit, would it be of some help if we were assured that this idea of no limit was written into the code of guidance? If that were done and the code of guidance were published, I believe we should be that much more satisfied.
Earl Peel: My information is that anything written into the code of guidance would not be binding under statute.
Viscount Mountgarret: My noble friend said that he would take away this problem and look at it again. This is the Committee stage and what seems to be happening is that such points are discussed in Committee, taken away, and the whole matter is then debated again at the Report stage. Is it not time that we came to a decision? There may be points of substance that need to be considered very carefully and we can return to them at the Report stage. However, this is not the point of substance, but a point of fact. There is no argument about it.
Earl Ferrers: With respect to my noble friend he is getting the reins between his teeth a little. I have given my noble friend an undertaking that I will consider this point again. There is nothing between us as to the principle. We believe that the wording in the Act is right. If I give an undertaking to look at the matter again, it is a little churlish of my noble friend to say that, despite that undertaking, we should vote upon the matter. If my noble friend wishes to do so it is a matter for him, but I have told him that I will consider the point and consider it quite genuinely and sincerely. I am prepared to do that.
The Earl of Swinton: I am very grateful for what my noble friend said. I am tempted both ways. I have great faith in my noble friend and in his honesty and integrity and I trust him very far. On the other hand, certain undertakings were given in another place by his honourable friend who later returned to say that the matter had been looked at but nothing further was to be done. Nevertheless, I have great trust in my noble friend and I will not press the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Is it your Lordships' pleasure that this amendment be withdrawn?
Noble Lords: No.
On Question, amendment negatived.
[Amendment No. 46 not moved.]
10.30 p.m.
Viscount Mountgarret Viscount Mountgarret moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 3, line 23, after ("including") insert ("the purposes for which they arc to be used and").
The noble Viscount said: This amendment follows the theme of trying to bring shotgun certificates into line with firearms certificates. A firearm certificate

1161
states the purposes for which the weapon is required to be used. In some ways this conflicts with a previous amendment which was not agreed to. It sought to delete the words in new subsection (1B):
"an application shall not be refused…merely because the applicant intends neither to use the gun himself nor to lend it for anyone else to use".
I suppose that in a way it could be said that events have overtaken this amendment. However, I wonder whether it could be desirable, in so far as it is possible to have a requirement on the shotgun certificate, to indicate the purposes for which it is being used. I should like to know what my noble friend feels about this. I beg to move.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: It gives us an unaccustomed sense of satisfaction for the first time today to join forces with the still serried, although somewhat diminishing, ranks behind the noble Earl to which he has thus far not been able to give very great comfort in Committee. We rather hope that our support will cause him to think with an open and reflective mind about the worth of this amendment.
When speaking to an earlier amendment the noble Earl indicated that under the 1968 Act a certificate only authorises the possession of a shotgun and that the function of the certificate is not to specify the purpose for which the shotgun is held. That is all very well as regards the 1968 Act, but we invite him to say that he will rethink his position in relation to that. There is no reason why the Government should not rethink their position and there is every reason why, in line with this amendment, they should rethink their position.
It seems to follow logically from the new requirement in Clause 3(1A)(b) that the applicant must show a good reason for wanting a shotgun. If he must show a good reason for wanting a shotgun, surely this must involve him stating to the police the purpose for which it is to he used. We cannot see how one can show a good reason for wanting a shotgun without stating the purpose for which it is to be used. Surely, therefore, leaving aside the structure or the object of the 1968 Act 20 years ago, it is right that that purpose should be recorded on the certificate so that a person who obtains a certificate on the basis, let us say, that he wishes to hold the gun in safe keeping for a minor cannot then go out shooting with it.
We believe that it would be right and proper always to confine the holder to his original stated purpose. If he suddenly finds that he wants to use his shotgun for a different purpose, he can go along and ask for the certificate to be varied. There is a great deal of common sense behind this amendment and we hope that reasons other than the thinking as it was in 1968 can be given for rejecting the amendment.
Earl Ferrers: I quite see the view put foward by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, but the difficulty is that a shotgun certificate can only be granted under Section 2 of the 1968 Act authorising the holder to possess a shotgun. It cannot authorise possession of a gun for a specific purpose. What my noble friend proposes in this amendment involves quite a fundamental change in the provisions of the 1968 Act
1162
relating to the different treatment of firearms and shotgun certificates. It would be difficult to put this into the Bill if as a result a shotgun certificate can only be issued to allow the shotgun to be used for a specific purposes. In fact the purpose of the shotgun certificate is to permit a person to possess a shotgun and to use it for what purposes he thinks fit.
Viscount Mountgarret: I really do not follow the argument. It is very simple to state for what purposes one needs a certificate. It is clearly laid down in subsection (1B) that a good reason for having a gun is if it,
"is intended to be used for sporting or competition purposes"—
and so on and so forth. It that is so why cannot that be put down on the certificate? I am sorry, but I do not follow the argument.
Earl Ferrers: I probably explained it extremely badly. I apologise to my noble friend for doing so. The 1968 Act gives permission for the issuing of shotgun certificates. Having given the owner a certificate, it authorises the owner to possess a shotgun. My noble friend is seeking to put on the certificate the purposes for which that shotgun is to be used. In other words, the certificate authorises the shotgun to be used for specific purposes. What happens if on the shotgun certificate the holder states that he wants to use it for vermin control because he is a farmer and then he is invited by my noble friend to go to shoot pheasant? He then apparently is using a shotgun for a purpose for which the shotgun certificate does not give him permission.
If my noble friend wished to do that, it would create quite a change from the 1968 Act because the 1968 Act allows a person to possess a shotgun. It does not say what he ought to use it for. That is why, if my noble friend's amendment were to be accepted, it would mean a complete change in the 1968 Act.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: Will the noble Earl be good enough to explain why the dead hand of 1968 should rule us from its grave?
Viscount Mountgarret: I did not understand that. I thought that the Bill was to change the 1968 Act. I am trying to look up quickly the reference in the Bill, but I cannot find it. Will my noble friend please tell me whether it is a fact that a certificate for a firearm as opposed to a certificate for a shotgun can only be granted provided that the purpose for which it is to be used is specified? I believe that is so, but I may he mistaken.
Lord Gisborough: Surely with the firearms certificate any use is allowed. It is only weapons such as pistols with a special limit attached that are restricted to use for certain purposes. I believe that my noble friend the Minister was right when he said that effectively somebody could obtain a gun in the belief that he wanted it only for one purpose. It would never occur to him that he would want it for anything else until somebody suggests that he should go to a pigeon shoot, and he agrees but finds that he does not have permission to do so. I think it is a crazy idea.
Lord Monson: Surely the other answer to the noble Viscount is that a rifle or a pistol has a much greater range than a shotgun and is therefore much more dangerous.
Earl Ferrers: The whole purpose of a firearms certificate is that it gives a greater degree of control, because of the lethality to which the noble Lord, Lord Monson, referred. The whole purpose of a shotgun certificate is that it does not require that degree of control. The noble Lord, Lord Irvine, said that this is the dead hand of the 1968 Act. Of course it is not a dead hand at all. The Bill is being built on to the 1968 Act, which is the basis of this legislation.
I believe that we should be in difficulties if exactly the purposes for which the shotgun were to be used were to be put on a certificate. The resource implications for the police force would be considerable if they had to chase up and find out the occasions on which those guns were being used and if they were being used for purposes for which the certificate did not permit.
Viscount Mountgarret: I am grateful to my noble friend. My attention has been drawn to Section 27 of the 1968 Act. It does not state that the purpose for which the firearm is to be used is to be stated on the certificate. I should like to see provisions relating to shotguns on similar lines to those for firearms. It would be over-egging the pudding at this stage for us to include the purposes for which the shotgun is to be used. I hope that my noble friend will take the point on board to see whether we should include the purposes for which the weapons are being used. At the moment, it might be best if I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Mountgarret Viscount Mountgarret moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 3, line 24, at end insert—
("(2B) When a possessor of a shotgun certificate is convicted of a criminal offence, the certificate will be revoked by the chief constable for the remainder of its validity and no application for any renewal will be considered for a period of three years after the date of conviction.").
The noble Viscount said: This is a different matter. A chief officer of police, on the recommendations of his assistants, superintendents and constables, considers whether an applicant is a suitable person to hold a shotgun certificate. The chief officer of police sees no reason why the certificate should not be granted. That person obtains a certificate, and off he goes.
Things may change. Things may happen. The holder of the shotgun certificate may do something which would have rendered him unsuitable to hold that certificate if he had done it at the time he applied for it. It is only right and proper that anyone holding a shotgun certificate who commits a criminal offence should have his certificate revoked under the Bill. It puts an unfair burden on the police if they have to decide that the offence is one which should cause the certificate to be removed. It may differ from one area of the country to another.
The 1968 Act gives a court power to revoke the certificate of a person who is convicted of a criminal
1164
offence, whatever that offence may be. The court may choose not to revoke it. If that happens the responsibility rests upon the police. That is an unfair burden for them to have to bear. That is what happened to me. That was fair enough. The court did not say, "You will lose your shotgun certificate". It was left to the police. Thank goodness, and quite rightly, they said, "Oy, this is not good enough", and they revoked my certificate.
The second half of the amendment follows on from that. I believe that it is relevant and fair. I am all for being fair, even if one is hard. If someone commits an offence; for example, assaults someone, that person will know that he will go down for six months, a year or for however long it is. At any rate, the criminal knows now long he will serve. There is no provision under the 1968 Act, or any other Act so far as I am aware, which enables a person who has had his shotgun or firearms certificate revoked, to know when he will have it returned. That is unfair.
We should find some way to write into the Bill a provision that a certificate which has been revoked will not be re-issued for a minimum of three years. The person will then know that he is off the road—for want of a better word—for three years. But he knows where he stands. The police know where they stand: they do not have to think, "Is it fair? Should it be one year, two years or what?" They knows it is three years off the road and then it can be reconsidered. After all, in three years' time a person may have changed substantially and proved that he is a worthy possessor of a shotgun certificate. Therefore, on those two points I think there is something to be thought about. I shall be interested to know whether it has any support or any substance. I beg to move.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I wonder whether it would be wise to make this amendment and whether the noble Viscount has considered the implications. As I read it, any criminal conviction would lead to the certificate being revoked. That is the language of the amendment. Let us say, for example, that someone is convicted of the offence of shoplifting. He has a licence. Is it suggested that automatically he loses his licence? I cannot see any advantage in such a procedure. It seems to me an act of gross injustice to the person concerned. The noble Viscount appears to be surprised. But why should a person who, after a blameless life, is convicted of a single offence of shoplifting, automatically lose his shotgun licence? It seems to me to be a very strange proposition.
Viscount Mountgarret: Perhaps I may come back to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, on that specific point. Yes, I am very surprised. Shoplifting could be one stage before breaking and entering. If someone is prepared to go shoplifting and so on and he is the possessor of a shotgun certificate, it could just be that he is not fit to hold a licence. But I take the point. How else does one word the proposal to satisfy the point one is trying to get at? I agree about the areas the noble Lord has mentioned. But how else can we achieve the aim which I think ought to be considered?
Lord Irvine of Lairg: The revocation of firearms certificates is dealt with by Section 30 of the 1968 Act. That must mean that it is inappropriate for this amendment in any event to be directed to Section 28. However, that is a minor point.
Under Section 30, the relevant chief officer of police is empowered to revoke certificates if among other things he considers that the holder is unfit to be entrusted with such a firearm, or if the holder cannot be permitted to possess a shotgun without danger to public safety or to the peace. These are very wide powers of revocation, the noble Viscount may think. Surely, they amply cover the case of a holder of a certificate who is convicted of a serious criminal offence.
The only effect of the noble Viscount's amendment is to remove the chief officer's discretion and the right of appeal under Section 30(3) in cases to which his amendment would apply and to substitute what I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, is a very, very blunt instrument indeed. It just cannot be right that a person convicted of a parking offence or shoplifting, and who will be punished for an offence of that order in any event, should automatically forfeit his or her firearm certificate and further be barred from applying for another for three years. Even if the offence were a more serious one, but without any overtones of violence, it would be difficult to see why revocation should always follow although often it might be appropriate.
We believe that the discretion of the police should not be fettered in this way. However, we sympathise to an extent with the spirit of the amendment. The police should take the greatest care to see that the criminal fraternity and persons of violent disposition are not permitted lawfully to possess lethal weapons. I wonder whether the noble Earl, when replying, can tell us whether application forms presently require past convictions to be revealed. I imagine that they do, but I do not know. Plainly, they should. I am sure that the Committee would he interested to know the answer.
Lord Monson: I follow the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, in opposing the amendment. I am not a lawyer but as I understand it the distinction between a misdemeanour and a felony was abolished some years ago. I am not saying that shoplifting is not serious, but a lesser offence could be caught by the amendment as it stands, such as doing 35 miles an hour in urban areas or failing to submit one's VAT return before the due date. Is it really suggested that someone should lose his shotgun licence on those grounds? The noble Viscount asked how this amendment could best be worded. If the amendment restricted itself, for example, to criminal offences for which a sentence of imprisonment had been imposed, it might well be acceptable. But as it stands I believe it goes much too far.
Lord Burton: I am delighted to find something in the Bill on which I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. What he said could be a mere technicality under the Bill. It is quite wrong that one should lose one's firearm certificate for three years for
1166
a mere technicality and yet someone could use a shotgun for assault and still only lose the certificate for three years. The whole object of the exercise is that the chief constable should have discretion. Therefore, I agree with the Opposition and I hope that my noble friend will once more stand firm.
Earl Ferrers: I am delighted to have such encouragement from my noble friend Lord Burton. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, is right. The noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, put his finger on it when he referred to the existing powers of a chief officer.
Before I come on to the main substance of the matter perhaps I could tell the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, that offences other than minor traffic offences have to be admitted on an application form for a firearm and a shotgun certificate. Existing firearms legislation already provides that a person who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of three months or more is prohibited from possessing a firearm or ammunition for five years from the date of his release, or for life for sentences of three years or more. A chief officer already has, as the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, said, the power under Section 30 of the 1968 Act to revoke a licence where he is satisfied that the holder is so prohibited. The amendment proposed by my noble friend would therefore only have effect where a custodial sentence of less than three months, or indeed a non-custodial sentence, was imposed by the courts. This would include minor traffic offences, infractions of by-laws and other misdemeanours which would most likely have no bearing on an individual's suitability to possess a shotgun.
In extreme cases, the chief officer also has the power to revoke a certificate where he is satisfied that in the case of a firearm certificate, the holder is unfitted to be entrusted with a Section 1 firearm or ammunition or, in the case of both a firearm or a shotgun certificate, that he constitutes a danger to the public safety or the peace. Yet this amendment proposes to make revocation of a shotgun certificate mandatory in the case of any conviction and the ex-holder will have to wait three years before he can apply for a new certificate. This seems unnecessarily severe, and would also be anomalous unless the same rules were to apply to Section 1 firearm certificates.
Chief police officers can, and do, revoke both shotgun and firearm certificates where a person's behaviour is such as to bring into question his suitability to possess firearms or, at least, without danger to the public. In many cases, a revocation may follow upon conviction of a criminal offence, when the courts, too, can order the cancellation of a certificate. But I believe that the existing legislation strikes the right balance by imposing a mandatory prohibition only for the more serious offences and, in other cases, leaving the decision to revoke a certificate to the discretion of the police and the courts.
My noble friend Lord Burton said that he thought that it was important that chief officers should have discretion. I think that is right. I do not believe that it would be correct to have a fixed period before a person reapplied for a certificate. The point is that

1167
any person can apply for a certificate at any time. It is up to the chief constable to consider whether that person, at the time of application, is a fit and proper person to hold a firearm.
Viscount Mountgarret: I am grateful to my noble friend. I agree that the amendment is surplus to requirements. I therefore beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 49 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Burton: I feel that Clause 3 is very unsatisfactory in many respects. As our debate has progressed, I have become even more convinced of it. Most of the points which I intended to make have already been aired. However, the clause as a whole has caused discussion, argument and disagreement.
I have heard very little complaint about the 1968 Act as regards firearms certificates. I do not see why we cannot return to that Act. The relevant section in the 1968 Act is much the same as the clause as suggested. However, the clause adds several other matters. One is the complete change of emphasis from the automatic right to have a gun to the need to have a good reason for having a gun. It also provides for the marking and recording of shotguns.
Perhaps my noble friend can tell me what is wrong with the section in the 1968 Act. Is it expected that Clause 3 will reduce crime? If so, how? Does the Minister have any good reason for changing the 1968 Act as regards shotgun certificates? We might perhaps strengthen the hand of chief officers of police by imposing medical restrictions. That is not contained in the clause and I shall not go into the matter now because Amendment No. 60, which is to be proposed from the Benches opposite, is concerned with that possibility.
Any changes imposed by the clause will lead to substantial extra work for the police. It will certainly lead to much antagonism on the part of law-abiding citizens from whose co-operation the police could well benefit. The firearms lobby as a whole is most unhappy with the legislation. I fear that it will cause much aggravation.
The Government have done noble work in cutting down unnecessary public expenditure. In this Bill they are promoting totally unnecessary and substantial public expenditure. I mentioned previously that a substantial number of extra police officers will be necessary. It is going to cost—well, it will not cost the country a lot of money. But, no doubt, it is going to be pushed on to the wretched Firearms Act and that again will cause aggravation. I feel that we ought to cut out the clause and keep the provisions of the 1968 Act which appear to have raised no controversy.
Lord Monson: I feel unhappy about the clause as a whole. The Minister has said repeatedly that the essential purpose of Clause 3 and the clauses immediately following it is to prevent unsuitable individuals from owning shotguns. I suppose he
1168
means not only those who have been convicted of offences, as at present, but also those who, it is thought, might be convicted of an offence in the future; or maybe those people who have anti-social tendencies falling short of criminality, or who may be mentally unstable.
Despite the somewhat un-British nature of the intention to judge an individual guilty unless he can prove himself innocent, I suppose we can tolerate that, albeit with reservations. One suspects that the Government's intentions go beyond that. I should like to ask the noble Earl what the Government's feelings are about elderly or perhaps not so elderly individuals, possibly living remote from neighbours, who have been mugged, raped, robbed with violence, repeatedly burgled or had their house vandalised, who do not have any game in the vicinity to shoot and who live in urban areas where there is little vermin. Is it the intention that they should be allowed to keep the shotguns which they possess or not?
11 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: I am sorry that my noble friend feels that this clause is not very satisfactory. It has been debated in much detail, and its purpose is to try to tighten up not so much the control of shotguns but the knowledge of where they are and who owns them. In doing this there is inevitably extra bureaucracy; there is bound to be a certain amount of imposition on people.
I think that most people would agree that where shotguns are used, as they are quite a lot in the criminal world, it is right that the police should know where the guns are. It is not unreasonable for somebody to say, "I have a shotgun; this is my number"', or "I have 10 shotguns; these are the numbers", so that we know where the weapons are kept. If that means a slight imposition on people, I think most would agree that it is not unreasonable.
The main thrust of this clause is to give the obligation to a chief officer of police to refuse the granting of a certificate to a person whom he thinks is unsuitable to hold it. Previously he was obliged to issue a certificate even if he thought that the person was unsuitable to hold it. That is the major change.
Since most people are concerned about violence and criminal acts, I do not think it would be considered unreasonable for a chief officer to deny a person a certificate if he thought that he was unsuitable to have it.
I hope that on consideration my noble friend will not feel that this is a bad clause and that it is one he would like to see expunged from the Bill. I think if he were to do so that he would be quite alone in that.
Lord Burton: I do not think that the Government have got it right. My noble friend referred to trying to tighten up on shotguns to stop them falling into criminal hands, but very few legally held weapons of any sort are used in criminal acts. I do not know how the figures are arrived at, but those who have studied the matter say they think there are at least two illegally held weapons in the illegal pool for every one legally held. When a criminal uses a weapon it almost invariably comes from that pool. This clause will do nothing to change the situation.
Lord Monson: May I ask the noble Earl to reply to my question about the vulnerable individuals who keep a shotgun within the four walls of their house as a means of protection against violent criminals?
Earl Ferrers: That would be for the chief officer of police to determine. But if a person were to go to a chief officer and say "Please may I have a shotgun certificate because 1 want to keep a shotgun in my house and to blow it off in the face of any intruder?" my guess is that most chief constables would say that that was not a proper reason for holding it.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Transfer of shotguns]:
Lord Brain Lord Brain moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 3, line 47, after ("sent") insert ("on the prescribed form").
The noble Lord said: I hope this will simplify matters for the police forces. The clause as drafted requires quite a lot of information to be supplied both by the transferee and the transferor whenever a transfer or transaction takes place.
With motor cars, when such a transfer takes place it is done on a prescribed form which can then be readily computerised. All the information is supplied and there is no risk of error, no following up, no coming back and saying "Did you mean to write this?" or "Where is it?" If there is a prescribed form available, either supplied with the shotgun certificate so that it can be returned whenever a transfer takes place or available from post offices or gunsmiths, I am sure it would be a useful and speedy way of having transactions correctly carried out. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: I think that this amendment would in fact add to the bureaucracy of the system rather than alleviate it, because it complicates the procedure and there is a risk that more people would be dissuaded from complying with the requirement. If the purpose is to notify a chief officer if there is to be a change of ownership, it should not be necessary for a person to put that information on a special form. Indeed, it ought to be adequate to send in such a notification by letter.
What happens if the person cannot get a form? Then he does not notify the police. Or what happens if the police receive a letter to notify them that there has been a change? Are the police then to turn round and say to the person concerned, "We are so sorry, but we cannot possibly register this because it has come by letter and you have to write it on a form"? I think that it would add to the problems and not simplify them. It should be sufficient for people who wish to notify the police to do so by whatever method they think best and not necessarily on a special form.
Lord Brain: I am afraid that I disagree with the Minister because I think that the police will themselves start issuing forms fairly quickly. They will vary for each part of the country, and people will get into a muddle and waste much police time trying to punch things into a computer. If the information is on a form one will simply punch it into a computer in the correct order. One will not have to chase
1170
through a letter, turn over pages and so on. After all, there will be several items, numbers and descriptions of guns, information as to the correct description and such matters.
I hope that when the department reads the record of this debate it will see the logic of my argument and perhaps the Minister will come back at the next stage with something that will meet the situation. In the meantime I shall read in Hansard> what he has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Restriction on sale of ammunition for smooth-bore guns]:
[Amendment No. 51 not moved.]
Lord Brain Lord Brain moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 4, line 12, after ("produces") insert ("or has previously produced").
The noble Lord said: I do not know, but it is possible that this amendment may be unnecessary. However, I suggest that the word "produces" seems to indicate that the relevant certificate has to be produced either in person or by correspondence or something like that each time a transaction takes place.
Let us suppose that somebody regularly orders his ammunition from a firm which is near his shoot in the country and asks for it be be delivered for the following Saturday's purposes. He telephones. Surely if he has already produced his certificate to that supplier, either a photocopy is on file or all the details are suitably recorded. He should not have to produce the certificate each time. He should be able to complete the transaction by telephone.
I think that this is a reasonable amendment, though I have no doubt that the Minister will find good reasons for rejecting it. He has been most successful today in rejecting amendments. Nevertheless, I shall try it on him. I beg to move.
Lord Swansea: I should like to support the noble Lord in his amendment. The certificate holder may be resident in a far part of the country, perhaps in Scotland or Wales. He is accustomed to buying his shotgun cartridges from a certain dealer in London. He likes that brand and will not use any other. It is convenient for him to purchase from that dealer. It should not be necessary for him to produce the shotgun certificate to that dealer for every purchase that he makes when he may be some 200 miles away. He could easily make the order over the telephone, having previously satisfied the dealer on another occasion that he is in possession of a valid certificate. I support the amendment.
Earl Ferrers: The amendment seeks to extend the category of person who may purchase ammunition to a person who has previously produced a certificate. The amendment is somewhat loose in that it does not specify at what stage such a certificate must be produced or indeed to whom. A person who produced his certificate to a vendor 10 years ago

1171
would be covered by the amendment. The vendor would have no way of knowing whether a current valid certificate was still held, or whether it had been revoked or surrendered in the meantime.
What happens if the shop changes hands? The words that the noble Lord, Lord Brain, suggests open up this part of the Bill in a way that is unsuitable. I hope that the noble Lord will agree that it would be better to keep the position as it is, because there is much more control. Not only need the person himself produce the certificate, but he can let a person buy ammunition on his behalf provided that he takes the certificate with him.
Lord Brain: I do not quite follow the argument of the noble Earl. The provision states, "produces a certificate". It does not say "produces a valid certificate". His argument that one would not know whether or not the certificate was valid seems to be just as applicable to his own wording as to mine. I had naturally anticipated that because the certificate had been produced, all the details, including its duration and validity, would have been noted down. That was the purpose of having produced it.
However, I wonder whether the noble Earl would like to comment on whether or not the certificate has to be valid or just "a certificate". I shall then probably feel minded to withdraw the amendment. Perhaps he would like to comment.
Earl Ferrer: Obviously the certificate has to be valid. If a person goes to buy some ammunition and says, "Here is a certificate but as a matter of fact it ran out 10 years ago", the person from whom he was hoping to buy the ammunition would not sell it to him.
Lord Brain: The noble Earl has answered the point. I was suggesting that the provision should refer to, "has produced a certificate" authorising him to do something. It presumably authorises him to do it at this time and not with an expired certificate. Nevertheless, at this time of the night, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Dilhorne Viscount Dilhorne moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 4, line 18, at end insert ("stating calibre, type and quantity.").
The noble Viscount said: As the Bill is written, a person could purchase ammunition for a shotgun on the instructions of the owner of the shotgun. The intendment of this amendment is to ensure that the precise quantity of ammunition is listed on any written authority or instruction shown to the seller. The person buying could purchase any amount—for example, 1,000 cartridges—under the Bill as written and then tell the owner that he had bought under 1,000. There seems to be a slight gap in the provisions.
I know that there are provisions in the Bill to which my noble friend has already adverted and which relate to people who are under age and people of a certain age. But the provision in the amendment for
1172
"calibre, type and quantity" would ensure that when authority is given the precise number of cartridges are given to that person on his, the buyer's, behalf and that there is no gap for someone to go away with the extra 500 or to fiddle the amount, because it will be noted.
At present there is a hiatus between what you get and how you dispose of it. If we are to have a provision then it should be effective. As it now stands it is deficient to the extent that I have stated. I beg to move.
11.15 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: Amendment No. 53 would insert an additional qualification in Clause 5(2)(c) which makes it an offence to sell ammunition for a smoothbore gun to a third party unless he produces the relevant firearm or shotgun certificate, together with the certificate owner's written authority to purchase on his behalf. The amendment requires that kind of written authority to specify the "calibre, type and quantity" of the ammunition to be purchased.
I can see that the amendment tabled in the name of the noble Lord is intended to stop abuse of this provision. However, I think that the amendment would not take us much further forward. For instance, I cannot see that a legitimate certificate holder would authorise someone other than a reliable person to purchase shot on his behalf. The risk to such a person buying shot for his own purposes must therefore be minimal. Further, it would have no effect as regards a stolen certificate as both the authority and the quantity would be forged. Therefore the requirement for a written authority is sufficient and I hope that my noble friend will agree with what I have said.
Viscount Dilhorne: I am most grateful to my noble friend for his explanation. However, I still remain most concerned that a person who does not have a certificate is enabled by a person who does have a certificate to get hold of these cartridges. It seems to me that the amendment is really in the interest of public safety. It also prevents people from being tempted to doing something which they are not entitled to do, in the terms in which my noble friend couched his answer.
However, I am most happy, on what my noble friend has said and in the hope that he will reconsider the matter before the Report stage, to withdraw the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Before we continue, perhaps I may just mention something. Can the noble Earl, or the Leader of the House, give us some indication of how late we shall be sitting tonight? As I understand it the informal agreement was that we would have risen earlier; namely, an hour or so ago. I may in fact be entirely misinformed. But although it gives us all great delight to engage the noble Earl and his colleagues in debate, it is now 11.15 p.m. and it would, I think, be reasonable to give some indication to the Committee as to how long we shall continue.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): On the Government side, we were hoping to reach Amendment No. 84, which would have taken us to page 11 of the Marshalled List. Bearing in mind that we have other business on Wednesday, we thought that that would have given us a good opportunity to finish the Committee stage of the Bill in two days and would have taken us through to page 18 of the Marshalled List.
However, we have important business to deal with tomorrow and the House has had a long day, so perhaps I may suggest that we continue for just one more hour and whatever stage we have reached by a quarter past twelve we will call it a day.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Shortening of barrels]:
The Earl of Balfour moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 4, line 23, after ("shorten") insert ("the overall length to less than 40 inches or to shorten").
The noble Earl said: Clause 6 deals with the offence of shortening the barrel of a gun. I should like to draw the Committee's attention to line 22 of the first page of the Bill, which states:
"less than 40 inches in length overall".
I suggest that, as it is an offence to shorten the barrel, it should also be an offence to shorten the overall length of the gun. Through mail order firms one can unfortunately obtain all kinds of attachments and one needs nothing more than a screwdriver to take off the stock and have something held by two handles. It is as simple as that, and I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: In tabling the amendment my noble friend may have assumed that the special penalty in Clause 6 for shortening the barrels of rapid fire smooth-bore guns relates to the fact that, once the barrels have been shortened, the weapons will in future fall into the prohibited category under Clause l(2)(ac). We are simply preserving the status quo> under Section 4 of the 1968 Firearms Act, which creates the offence of shortening the barrel of any shotgun to less than 24 inches except by a firearms dealer for the sole purposes of resleeving the gun. Clause 2 of the Bill contains a new, more restricted definition of a shotgun which excludes most rapid fire and revolver guns, and Clause 6 is needed to ensure that it remains an offence to shorten the barrels of such guns to less than 24 inches.
Section 4 of the 1968 Act was intended to combat the practice of sawing down the barrels of shotguns for easy concealment for use in crime. The practice has unfortunately not diminshed in the intervening years and there is still an obvious need to prohibit the shortening below 24 inches of the barrel of any shotgun. As a crime prevention measure there is less need to create a specific offence of shortening the overall length of a smooth-bore gun to less than 40 inches because the kind of gun envisaged here could not easily he concealed even with a shortened barrel. The reason for the prohibition of pump-action and self-loading shotguns of overall length in Clause 1(2)(ac) is to remove from the market a specific type of
1174
gun; namely the paramilitary shotguns with large magazines such as the Franchi Spas. It would still be an offence to possess such a gun without a Section 5 authority.
The Earl of Balfour: With that assurance it is clear that the amendment is not necessary and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Brain Lord Brain moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 4, line 34, at end insert—
("( ) It is not an offence under section 5 of the principal Act for a registered firearms dealer to smooth-bore the barrel of a self loading pistol or revolver, or to have in his possession such a smooth bored pistol or revolver, for the purpose of relining a defective rifled barrel with a replacement rifled tube or liner so as to produce a serviceable rifled barrelled pistol or revolver.").
The noble Lord said: Clause 6(2) permits a registered firearms dealer to sleeve a barrel for a shotgun. The new clause which I propose in the amendment tries to cope with the offence created in Clause 1 of having a short-barrelled, self-loading revolver smooth-bore gun. A registered firearms dealer can, in the process of repairing or the equivalent of resleeving a revolver, create a weapon which falls under that catch-all part of Clause 1. If he is to carry out the standard operation of fitting a new rifling to a revolver, self-loading pistol or similar weapon, he will at some stage create a banned smooth-bore weapon.
I have tabled the amendment in order to allow the repair to be carried out; that is the rerifling of the pistol. It is a weapon which is permitted within the firearms section of the Bill. There should not be created a banned weapon during the period of its mechanical and engineering alteration and repair. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Brain, demonstrates a concern that a firearms dealer may be committing an offence while undertaking the re-lining of a pistol or revolver barrel. It seems to be based on the notion that for a period when the barrel is smooth-bored, the dealer would be in possession of a smooth-bored short barrelled self-loading gun, subject to Section 5. A dealer who did not hold an authority under Section 5 may therefore be committing an offence by possessing such a gun.
However, that fear is unfounded. We understand that in carrying out work of this nature, the barrel would normally be removed from the gun entirely. The drilling out of both barrel and chamber would therefore be carried out when the gun is not operable, and we understand that the extent of the drilling would in itself mean that the gun could not be used. It would become usable again only when relined and reassembled. In the circumstances we do not believe that a dealer would be in possession of a Section 5 weapon at any stage, and that the amendment is therefore unnecessary.
Lord Brain: The Minister has put certain caveats in his reply, and I shall read it again in Hansard>. I hope he will also look at what he has said and perhaps seek

1175
certain advice. However, on that basis and at this time of night, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Conversion not to affect classification]:
Lord Swansea Lord Swansea moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 4, line 39, at end insert—
("(1A) Nothing in subsection (1) above shall apply to a self-loading or pump-action smooth-bore gun that is permanently modified to have a non-detachable barrel not less than 24 inches in length.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment relates to self-loading and pump-action shotguns. They come from the factory and are catalogued as having barrels of different lengths available for them. Some are put on the market with short barrels and some with longer barrels. When he purchases or orders such a gun the customer can specify to a dealer what length of barrel he would like to have fitted.
If one of those guns emerges from the factory with a barrel shorter than 24 inches and at the customer's request the dealer fits a longer barrel to it in excess of 24 inches, that brings the gun within the legal ambit but because it formerly had a shorter barrel fitted, it comes under this catch-all Clause 7. If the new barrel when fitted is permanently attached so that it cannot be removed, I suggest that that gun is then legal in all respects and need not be caught by Clause 7. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: My noble friend's amendment would provide holders of smooth-bore, short-barrel, self-loading, pump-action guns with an opportunity to obtain their weapons and have the barrel extended, which would take them outside the scope of the prohibition in Clause 1. The amendment would cut across the Government's policy on conversion.
We regard it as undesirable that weapons which fall within the prohibited category should be converted to make them subject to a lesser degree of control. If an individual wishes to keep a gun which is to become prohibited by reason of the Bill, it will be open to him to have it deactivated under the arrangements set out in Clause 8.
Lord Swansea: If the gun is converted so as to have a barrel of legal length, what harm is there in that? The owner has complied with the law. He has provided himself with a gun with a barrel of legal length.
11.30 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: With the greatest respect, he will not have complied with the law, because the law, if it takes the present form, will say that if a particular weapon was a Section 5 weapon, then once a Section 5 weapon, it is always a Section 5 weapon, and one cannot monkey around with it and make it into a lower category weapon. What one can do is have it de-activated. If one has it de-activated and it is, as the
1176
Americans would say, non-functionable, it can be kept.
Lord Swansea: This exchange only goes to show what a nonsense Clause 7 is. Once a gun has been fitted with a longer barrel which is permanently fixed and not detachable, I cannot see what objection there could be to the owner's retaining possession of it in a functional form. This underlines the fact that Clause 7 really is a nonsense. I will not detain your Lordships at this late hour. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 57:
Page 5, line 6, at end insert—
("( ) For the purposes of subsection (2) above there shall he disregarded the shortening of a barrel by a registered firearms dealer for the sole purpose or replacing part of it so as to produce a barrel not less than 24 inches in length.").
The noble Earl said: This amendment addresses a technical point as regards subsection (2) of Clause 7 which deals with the conversion of certain firearms to which Section 1 of the 1968 Act applies. It refers to a firearm which at any time has had a barrel length of less than 24 inches. The purpose of this is to stop the practice of converting pistols by smooth-boring and extending their barrels so that they can be held on shotgun certificates. It is not our intention to prevent rifles which have been converted into shotguns from being held on a shotgun certificate.
There are two ways in which conversion is achieved. The first, and more common, method is to drill through the barrel to remove the rifling, thereby producing a smooth-bored gun. Subsection (2) adequately caters for this. The second, and less common, method is to reline the existing barrel. The existing barrel is sawn off close to the chamber, the remaining part of the barrel is drilled through and a new smooth-bored barrel is inserted into the stub of the original barrel. This is known as sleeving. This is where the problem lies. During the sleeving process, albeit for only a very short while, the firearm concerned could be regarded as having a barrel less than 24 inches in length. As the subsection stands, the firearm would therefore still be subject to Section 1 control. This is not what we intended and is not what we want.
Amendment 57 rectifies the situation by providing an exception for the case where a barrel has been shortened by a registered firearms dealer to a length less than 24 inches for the sole purpose of replacing the part removed with a different part so as to produce a barrel not less than 24 inches in length. I beg to move.
Lord Swansea: How can my noble friend reconcile what he has just said with what the said to the amendment which I moved previously?
Earl Ferrers: Because they are two different amendments.
Lord Brain: I do not think that that is a fair remark. The principle that the Minister expounded previously was once a Section 5 weapon, always a Section 5

1177
weapon. He has suggested now that one can do a conversion by altering something. A rifle that is shortened becomes a Section 5 weapon—one rebarrels it. That is the nonsense of the whole clause and that is why, in a minute, I shall be talking about the point in much more detail.
Earl Ferrers: I think there really is a perfectly reasonable argument about this. In my noble friend's earlier amendment he tried to show that, if one has a Section 5 category weapon, and one does certain things to it, one can bring it into a lower category. What I said about that amendment was that once it was a Section 5 weapon it was always a Section 5 weapon because one cannot try to bring it down into a different category.
This amendment is different. It covers the case where a person is doing something like re-sleeving, which involves chopping off the barrel. By having the barrel chopped off by a registered firearms dealer, one is inadvertently putting it into a category which it was not intended to be in, and it is then put back into its other category. This was done at the behest of those who are concerned with repairing guns because they found that they would be caught under the Bill if it was not amended. We therefore produced the amendment in order to be ameliorating and considerate to those whose lives are affected by these matters.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 7, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Brain: In some ways the noble Earl has supported my argument. He said that one is permitted to turn a firearm into a shotgun. To the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, the noble Earl now says that a Section 5 weapon may not be turned into a Section 1 firearm.
I believe that it has long been a principle in this country that the status of an item is what it is at the time one is looking at it. A perfectly valid firearms section weapon cannot in any way, if one has removed all the parts, be converted into a Section 5 weapon; even when all the work has been done in a proper workshop by people registered to carry out such work.
I find it difficult to understand why compensation should be paid to people who would be happy with a weapon they can keep and use and would like to retain rather than have it sent in and scrapped. This clause, which was firmly defeated in Committee in another place, is making nonsense of the use of weapons at the time of registration. We are being foolish in passing the clause. I know that it will in the end be passed, but I feel that this broad point must be made here and now.
Earl Ferrers: I am grateful to the noble Lord for making his point. All I can say is that it is perfectly all right to allow rifles to be converted to shotguns because they are converted to a different type of instrument which is kept under a different category. It is one thing to have a rifle in a Section 1 category
1178
and another to have a shotgun in a Section 5 category.
Where I find it difficult to take my noble friend with me is, when you remove something out of Section 5 into a lower category one is letting out of the Section 5 category weapons which are particularly destructive. That is why we have taken the view that once a weapon is a Section 5 weapon, and only a Section 5 weapon, it must remain so.
Lord Brain: I take that point, but one can envisage where a Section 5 weapon is dismantled and the barrel, which is perfectly usable, is refitted to something else. It is a pity that a good barrel cannot be fitted to a new mechanism. I accept that the noble Earl has nothing more to say and I leave it at that. I merely say that it is a pity.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Photographs on certificates]:
On Question, Whether Clause 9 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Blease: I beg the indulgence of the Committee. I invite the Minister to help me with Clause 9. As other noble Lords have been approached and lobbied by various people and organisations with interests in this Bill, one of the matters raised with me has been the Government's proposal to increase from one to two the number of photographs required to be submitted by applicants for firearms and shotgun certificates.
I understand from representatives of the police, especially from the Royal Ulster Constabulary, that they consider that it would greatly help the effective administration of legislation to have three photographs as a statutory requirement. It is strongly held that this should enable one photograph of every certificated firearms holder to be deposited and readily available at the local police station nearest to the permanent residence of the holder. That would result in one photograph being held at police headquarters, one at the local police station and the other will be on the holder's certificate. If the noble Earl considers that there is some merit in the suggestion I shall be pleased to await the Report stage in order to have the Minister's reply.
Earl Ferrers: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Blease, for explaining the purpose of his concern. The rules which are currently in force are those of 1968 and they do not require an application for a certificate to be accompanied by a photograph of the applicant. The 1968 Act prescribes the form of a firearm or shotgun certificate so as to include a power to require such certificate to bear a photograph of the holder. We therefore thought it was suitable to have two photographs and were not aware that it would be appropriate to have three. I shall look into the position and I shall write to the noble Lord about it.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Statements in support of applications for certificates]:
Lord John-Mackie Lord John-Mackie moved Amendment No. 58:
Page 5, line 32, leave out from ("above") to end of line 33.
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 58 I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 60, 62 and 63. We tabled this batch of amendments to back up the point that both my noble friend Lord Mishcon and I made at Second Reading; namely, that the person either buying or using the gun was more important than the gun and that that person should be suitable in every way.
It took me some time today, when looking at Amendment No. 58, to understand why we had tabled it. I believe it was because this amendment alters Section 26(2)(b) in the original Act of 1968. This amendment was tabled because we believed it better that a person should give a reason why he should have a firearms certificate. It does not fit in well with amending the original Bill and I believe the reason to be that somewhere about the middle of last week we ran out of lawyers to advise us. We believe that that amendment can be worded better.
As regards Amendment No. 60 it states that we:
"require any application for a certificate to be accompanied by a medical certificate as to the applicant's mental condition.".
I have spoken with two doctors on this matter and they agree that getting a certificate for firearms of any description should be very closely watched. They did point out that doctors do not know patients unless they have had them for some considerable time. It is not that they would be afraid to give a certificate but they felt that it might be difficult with new patients and so on. I think the noble Earl will agree that Michael Ryan should have been properly looked at by a doctor. Somebody who met Ryan said that it did not need a doctor to know that he was completely unstable and that it was absolute madness that he should have a certificate.
Amendment No. 62 requires an application to be accompanied by two references,
"one of which must refer to the applicant's suitability to own and use a firearm".
It has been suggested than an applicant should be a member of a club for three years and so on. We believe that applications should be backed up by at least two references.
Amendment No. 63 states:
"It shall be the duty of the police to check the reliability of the referees in any application for a firearm or shotgun certificate".
Over many years of employing people and getting references I have been amazed by how careless people are in giving a reference. I am sorry to say that parsons are the biggest sinners in this respect. They think that if somebody goes to church and puts a pound in the plate he is worthy of a reference. This is something totally different from a person's religious beliefs. It is important that the police check the reliability of the referees in any application. If the three amendments were agreed to, we would be satisfied that we were doing our best to ensure that the person—I emphasise the person and not the gun—was suitable for having a certificate. I beg to move.
11.45 p.m.
Lord Burton: There is something to be said for having a medical certificate, but I am not sure that what the noble Lord proposes is right. If one is over 60 one has to have a certificate to drive a heavy goods vehicle. That costs £20 and so I imagine that what he proposes will cost something in that vicinity, which will not be very popular with those who want a firearms certificate. If I thought that there ought to be a medical certificate I would include a provision relating to drink. There is nothing in this amendment to cover alcohol, which in this respect might be one of the most dangerous problems of all.
One of the best references I ever received for an employee, who unfortunately I took on, came from a minister of the church. He gave a glowing reference for a man and his wife. It was only after I took him on that I found that he was one of the biggest thieves in the countryside and that his wife was filthy. The house was in an appalling condition. The glowing reference came from a minister of the church. I am not sure how much use references will be.
Viscount Mountgarret: There is much to commend the amendments put down by the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, and I should like to say a few words in their support. There is no reference in the Bill to the mental state of people, which is a very relevant factor. My noble friend referred to alcoholism. Such matters should be fairly well known locally by those concerned who would be able to judge whether a person was suitable for having a shotgun certificate. The point made about references is 100 per cent. correct. They are the most notoriously unreliable source of information one could ever imagine.
Lord Torphichen: Surely the only way one can check a reference is if one personally knows the person who writes the reference. I cannot see that this can be of any use in this case.
Lord Monson: The noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, has already damned his Amendment No. 60 with the faintest of praise. Of course it is difficult for a doctor who does not know the patient well to issue a medical certificate as to the applicant's mental condition. There is another point. A person's condition may be perfectly all right on the day the certificate is issued. However, it may deteriorate within a week or two afterwards and the certificate will be valid for a number of years.
There are two other curious points about this series of rather bureaucratic and restrictive amendments. Amendment No. 62 is confined to firearms certificates, Amendment No. 63 to both firearms and shotgun certificates, but Amendment No. 60 is not clear whether it applies to both or merely to one or the other. It would be useful to have some elucidation about that.
Lord John-Mackie: I said that we had lawyers drafting these amendments. I am sure that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, understands the spirit of them.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I have no doubt that the noble Earl will be telling us in a moment that there are

1181
great difficulties about accepting these amendments and, I suspect, that there will be problems for the medical profession in giving certificates of this kind without imposing charges. However, having said that, there are substantial problems about this issue.
I am very concerned about people possibly with considerable alcohol abuse problems getting licences far too easily. I am concerned about people possibly with a history of mental imbalance getting certificates too easily. I very much hope that the noble Earl will not shut the door completely on this issue. I have no doubt that the amendments are not phrased in satisfactory language, hut there is a problem here and I hope that he will undertake to consider this matter while the Bill is going through the House, possibly at a later stage.
Earl Ferrers: I understand the problem that has promoted the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, to put this amendment down. I am happy to say that I find myself, however, in agreement with my noble friend Lord Burton, which is a happy position to be in.
We have looked very carefully into the feasibility of a provision such as the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, has suggested in consultation with the British Medical Association. The association expressed the view that a general practitioner could not reasonably be asked to make a judgment as to whether an applicant is a fit and proper person to possess a firearm, though I suppose he could offer a purely factual statement about an applicant's medical and psychiatric history and whether he was at present taking any psychotropic, hypnotic or controlled drugs. It was the association's view that general practitioners should be able to retain the right to decline to offer any such statement, and therefore there ought not to be a legal obligation on them to provide such information. The BMA's view also was, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, guessed correctly, that a fee should he charged.
In view of all this, and the fact that only a negative factual statement could be offered rather than a positive judgmental one, we were persuaded that this course would not take us a good deal further. Amendment No. 62 requires any application for a certificate to be accompanied by two references, one of which must refer to the applicant's suitability to own and use a firearm. I can see little difference between this and Clause 10 as it presently stands. The fact that the amendment requires two referees would not make the verification any more reliable, especially as only one referee is obliged to deal with the applicant's suitability to hold a firearm.
Amendment No. 62 seeks to impose on the police a duty to check the reliability of the referees in any application for a firearm or shotgun certificate. I believe that this is unnecessary. The firearms rules of 1969 make it clear that the counter-signature requirement on shotgun certificates, which relates only to matters of fact, must be filled by a Member of Parliament, Justice of the Peace, minister of religion, doctor, lawyer, bank officer or person of similar standing. This will also be the case in respect of the new statement required in support of both shotgun and firearms applications under Clause 10. It will, I
1182
hope the Committee will agree, be sufficient to ensure that the referees concerned should, despite the experiences of my noble friend Lord Burton, on the whole be reliable without imposing on the police the burden of seeking to confirm it.
Lord John-Mackie: One of the Members of the Committee said that the Minister was very good at putting his case and wrapping the amender's case around it. That is what he has done with my amendment. He has had further consultations with the BMA and top medical people. If he is satisfied that the police can be sure about the references in the way that he suggested, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 59 to 63 not moved.]
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Grant of co-terminous certificates]:
Lord Brain Lord Brain moved Amendment No. 64:
Page 6, line 3, leave out from ("renewed") to end of line 7 and insert ("no extra fee shall he required.")
The noble Lord said: The Bill contains the idea that for simplification and general co-ordination the simultaneous renewal of firearm and shotgun certificates should he encouraged. That will enable one visit to be made on matters of security and the right to possess the certificates, as well as to check the number of weapons and carry out all the bureaucratic paraphernalia that is needed each time either of those certificates is renewed.
In an earlier aside, which I shall not be able to check in Hansard> until tomorrow—or the day after, because I believe that it was only recently said—the Minister commented that visits and checks on new applicants are already being carried out in certain police regions. If one visit only is being made, why charge an extra £5? Why not let us forget the fee and by charging them nothing, encourage people to opt for co-ordination? It would not cost much, and I suspect that £4 of that £5, or something of the sort will be spent on collecting the fee. I beg to move.
Lord Swansea: I support the noble Lord, Lord Brain, who has moved the amendment. I should also like to take the opportunity to say one nice thing about the Bill; that is, to welcome what we have in Clause 11. Making shotgun and firearm certificates renewable on the same date is something for which shooting interests have been pressing for a long time. That provision has at last been put into the Bill, and I welcome it. At the same time, I feel, as does the noble Lord, Lord Brain, that, as little administrative work will be involved in renewing a shotgun certificate at the same time as a firearm certificate, the shotgun certificate fee could be remitted altogether.
Earl Ferrers: It has been the policy of successive governments that the costs of issuing certificates such as those granted under the Firearms Act should be recovered through the fees. By allowing a firearm certificate holder to acquire a shotgun certificate at no extra cost, we should be asking the taxpayer in

1183
general to carry the financial burden of meeting the costs involved in issuing a separate shotgun certificate. It may not be a large sum, but there is a cost, and we do not believe that the taxpayer should stand it. The fact that the fee has been set at a lower figure than both the issue fee, which is at present £12, and the renewal fee, which is at present £8, reflects the fact that less work is involved in issuing the shotgun certificate at the same time as the firearm certificate.
Lord Brain: I am still disappointed because I very much doubt whether £5 represents the extra work. It is supplying one form instead of two, or I suspect that we shall get one joint certificate fairly quickly which will cover both operations on one piece of paper. I am disappointed with the Minister's reply, but hardly surprised. I should have thought that it could have been covered in the firearms certificate or that it could have been perfectly nominal.
However at this time of night and because I hope we shall finish now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11 agreed to.
The Earl of Arran: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

County of South Glamorgan (Taff Crossing) Bill
The Queen's consent signified, and Bill reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
House adjourned at one minute past midnight.