Firearms (Amendment) Bill

HL Deb 18 July 1988 vol 499 cc1122-83

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 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 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.

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 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 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 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, 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 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 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—

1. (a) has held a firearms certificate for at least three years, and
2. (b) has been a member of a rifle club for at least three years, and
3. (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 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.

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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?

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 "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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.