Lords Sitting of 20 July 1988

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

Tercentenary of the Revolutions of 1688–89 and of the Bill of Rights and the Claim of Right
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now proceed to Westminster Hall for the purpose of presenting the humble Address which the House ordered on Thursday, 7th July to be presented to Her Majesty; and that thereafter the House do adjourn during pleasure and do meet again in this Chamber at half-past two of the clock.
Moved, That the House do now proceed to Westminster Hall for the purpose of presenting the humble Address which the House ordered on Thursday, 7th July to be presented to Her Majesty; and that thereafter the House do adjourn during pleasure and do meet again in this Chamber at half-past two of the clock.—(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Whereupon the House proceeded to Westminster Hall, the Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern) being accompanied by Presiding Officers of the Upper Houses of Commonwealth Parliaments.
And the Lord Chancellor there presented to Her Majesty the humble Address from the House of Lords in accordance with the Resolution of Thursday, 7th July.
The Address from the House of Lords was as follows:
"Most Gracious Sovereign,
"We, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, welcome this occasion to commemorate and celebrate with Your Majesty and with Members of the House of Commons the anniversary of the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and the occasion on which the Prince and Princess of Orange were declared Joint Sovereigns of these Islands. By their acceptance of the Declaration of Rights, presented to them on the 13th of February 1689 in the Banqueting House in Whitehall, subsequently enacted by the Bill of Rights; and by their assent to the Claim of Right of Scotland, their late Majesties King William and Queen Mary concluded a solemn compact with their people; thereby were vindicated and asserted the ancient rights and liberties of the dutiful and loyal subjects of Your Majesty's predecessors.
"In consequence of this deliverance from arbitrary power and affirmation of the people's rights, this nation has, since 1688, enjoyed security under a constitutional monarchy. The experience of three hundred years has shown that it is the Crown in Parliament which guarantees the liberty of the subject and upholds the rule of law. Our
1300
Parliament, consisting of Crown, Lords and Commons, has proved enduring and has provided an example to those nations overseas which have chosen to regulate their affairs in freedom by means of parliamentary government. Since that time, Your Majesty's Royal Predecessors have adhered to the spirit underlying the Coronation Oath taken by his late Majesty King William to govern according to the statutes in Parliament agreed upon, and the laws and customs of the same, and have thereby made it possible for parliamentary and democratic government to evolve within Parliament without interruption and without recourse to violent revolution. For this we give thanks to Almighty God and we pray that we and those who come after us may continue to enjoy for many years the blessing of freedom under the law safeguarded by the protection of the Crown."
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor then spoke as follows:
"May it please your Majesty,
"We are gathered in this ancient Hall today to celebrate a major turning point in our constitutional history; when a new relationship was created between Your Majesty's Royal predecessors and their subjects and which has developed and flourished into what we are proud to call our 'constitutional monarchy'.
"We should recall for a moment that it was in this Hall 23 years ago that we commemorated the first stage in the evolution of our parliamentary institutions: the Parliament of Simon de Montfort in 1265. In the centuries that followed, that forum of prelates and magnates together with representatives of the shires, cities and boroughs became two distinct Houses of Parliament. But Parliament was an irregular institution, sometimes fêted by the monarch, sometimes scorned; and the tension between the two finally erupted into civil war.
"Today it is our great honour to commemorate with Your Majesty the events 40 years after that conflict which brought about the peaceful union of Crown and Parliament. Parliament renewed its allegiance to the Crown confident that the Crown would protect Parliament's declared freedoms. In due course the Crown was to be above, but not of, government; and under the Crown's protection parliamentary democracy could evolve by reforms of Parliament itself and not by violent overthrow of the state.
"This voluntary linking of the Crown and Parliament found expression in the two statutes which underpin these cherished freedoms; for the Bill of Rights and the Claim of Right wrote into our law many of the rights and freedoms which we enjoy today and which have had such a lasting influence beyond these shores.
"So it is singularly appropriate that we share this celebration of the events of 1688 and 1689 with our distinguished guests from overseas. From that time a lasting alliance was secured between this country and the Netherlands and it is our great pleasure today to welcome His Royal Highness Crown Prince William and the Presidents of the two chambers of the States General of the Netherlands

1301
as living symbols of the close link between our two countries.
"From the Bill of Rights itself derived the concept of individual rights which came to be embodied in constitutions around the world, notably in North America. As witnesses to this common heritage we welcome our distinguished guests from the College of William and Mary, Virginia, recalling that the State of Virginia drew upon our Bill of Rights for its own Declaration of 1776. This in turn provided a model for the Bill of Rights of the United States of America.
"The example of our parliamentary system has been followed in many countries, most notably in those which recognise Your Majesty as Head of the Commonwealth. It is therefore most fitting that on the opening of the Ninth Conference of Commonwealth Speakers we should have with us the Presiding Officers and Speakers of Your Majesty's Commonwealth Parliaments, to whom we offer a hearty welcome. Together we can reaffirm our loyalty to Your Majesty and renew our commitment to the principles of freedom under the law that guided our forebears, and continue to guide us."
Then Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Commons (also assembled in the Hall), presented to Her Majesty an Address from that House.

Her Majesty's Reply
Her Majesty's gracious Speech in reply to the Addresses, delivered to the Members of both Houses, was as follows:
"My Lords and Members of the House of Commons,
"I thank you for the loyal and dutiful Addresses which on your behalf the Lord Chancellor and Mr. Speaker have presented to me on this Tercentenary of the Glorious Revolution.
"In celebrating the Glorious Revolution with you, I too give thanks to Almighty God and pray that we may here rededicate ourselves to the principle of freedom under the law which animated the authors of that constitutional settlement 300 years ago.
"My Lords and Members of the House of Commons,
"It is fitting that the whole Parliament should assemble in this place to celebrate the events of 1688 to 1689. It was here, as the Lord Chancellor reminded us, that we met to commemorate the 700th anniversary of Simon de Montfort's Parliament of 1265. The four centuries which separated that Parliament and the Glorious Revolution saw some turbulent and violent episodes, but it was the momentous events of the 17th century that brought the fundamental constitutional issues to a head. The successive swings between the arbitrary rule of The King and arbitrary rule of Parliament became intolerable and it was by their acceptance of the Declaration of Rights and assent to the Claim of Right in
1302
Scotland, that King William and Queen Mary ended almost a century of constitutional turmoil and uncertainty in the two Kingdoms.
"Their peaceful joint accession symbolises the friendship which has so long flourished between the British and Dutch people. The warm and generous reception we received on our recent visit to the Netherlands was ample evidence that the three hundred years since William and Mary have only deepened that friendship, which we in Britain greatly treasure. It is therefore with especial pleasure that I welcome His Royal Highness the Prince of Orange, the Presidents of the two Houses of the Dutch Parliament and our other Dutch guests.
"It is an irony of history that James 11, by uniting the major political interests in opposition to him, unwittingly produced a balanced Government not of King nor of Parliament but of the Crown in Parliament. Thus King William reported to the Convention which was to become Parliament, `there is no sure Foundation of a good Agreement between a King and his people, but by a mutual Trust. When that is once broken, a Government is half dissolved.'
"That mutual trust formed the basis of the constitutional monarchy, and may well have spared this country a more violent revolution. The Revolution Settlement put into practice the cardinal principles of the sovereignty of the Crown in Parliament and the separation of powers, ushering in an epoch of freedom under the law in which, happily, we still live. Experience has taught that peoples can enjoy the full fruits of liberty, security and justice only when they are represented in a sovereign legislature whose laws are interpreted by an independent judiciary.
"The Bill of Rights and the Scottish Claim of Right of 1689, still part of statute law, are the sure foundation on which the whole edifice of Parliamentary democracy rests, and had great influence abroad, especially in the United States of America and in the Commonwealth. I am particularly pleased, therefore, to join in the welcome to the Chancellor and a delegation from William and Mary College, Virginia, with their wives, who attend by a Resolution of Congress, approved by the President.
"I also welcome most warmly the Speakers and Presiding Officers of the Commonwealth and their wives, and the officers of their Parliaments, and offer my best wishes for the Ninth Conference of Commonwealth Speakers and Presiding Officers. May the principles of freedom and tolerance inspire your conference.
"The Glorious Revolution won its title because it was initially achieved without loss of life, and with wide popular support. It was the beginning of a political process which has continued to the present day. More people were admitted to the active political life of the Kingdom, a trend which culminated in the introduction of universal franchise. It also marked the beginnings of a new era of religious tolerance. No one could claim even today that that state has been perfected. In multi-

1303
cultural Britain, there is still a long way to go. But after 1688 there were signposts to point the way.
"At the ceremony on 13th February 1689 in the Banqueting House, at which William and Mary accepted the Crown and the Declaration of Rights, the constitutional monarchy was set on the course which it has followed for 300 years. I look forward to visiting the Banqueting House with The Prince of Orange to see the exhibition which illustrates those events. Earlier this year, whilst in Canberra. I was delighted to open the new Parliament Buildings, which enshrine, in a handsome modern edifice. the same principles of the Crown in Parliament. However, this Hall, as the first and enduring symbol of our constitutional development, is of all places the most appropriate in which to celebrate the Glorious Revolution and to remind ourselves of the responsibility which rests on all of us to uphold the Parliamentary democracy which it put in place."
The House was adjourned during pleasure.
The House resumed at half-past two clock: The Lord Chancellor on the Woolsack.

Local Authority Housing
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
What were the annual completion figures for local authority housing for the years from 1974 to 1979 and from 1983 to 1987.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, an average of 109,000 dwellings a year were completed for local authorities in Great Britain in 1974 to 1979 and 26,000 a year in 1983 to 1987.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for those figures, but do they not indicate that government policy is very largely responsible for the present housing crisis in the country? Is it not a fact, taking the global figures since the Government took office, that if we had been building houses for the public sector at the same rate as in 1979 we should have had more than half a million houses extra in the public sector today? Does it not seem madness that the Government continue to withhold from local authorities the money that they have raised from the sale of capital assets which, had it been made available in full, could have made a tremendous impact and dent in these appalling figures?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the figures that were requested in the noble Lord's Question were averages. As he knows, and as I am sure your Lordships know, after the high of 1975, house building went down in 1976 and again in 1977, 1978 and 1979.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, compared with those figures that my noble friend has given the House, can he say how many private sector houses were built in
1304
the comparable periods and has he formed any forecast of how much rented accommodation will come on to the market in years to come as a result of the new Housing Bill?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I cannot give a figure today for the increase in the rented market as a result of the Housing Bill because that will be for the market to decide. However, I know that my noble friend will wish to support me in keeping alive the private sector rented market. The starts and completions in the private sector in 1987 were the highest since 1973—over 190,000 starts and 170,000 completions.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that although he indicated that there had been a decline in the number of public sector houses built between 1974 and 1979, at the end of that period even the lowest figure for houses built under Labour was higher than that for any year under this Government? Will the Minister take this opportunity to confirm that local authority house building still has a prime part to play in providing rented accommodation? Will he tell the House the measures that the Government are taking to encourage local authorities to build houses for rent?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Graham, is wrong. House completions in 1980 were more than those in 1979.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, the noble Earl has not answered the question.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the Housing Executive in Northern Ireland is allowed to spend, and spends, the whole of the proceeds that it receives from the sale of council houses in the year in which it is received? Why could not the same tolerance be allowed to regions in England outside London and the South-East?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the reason that there is a restriction on the amount that local authorities can spend has been covered many times in your Lordships' House. As it is part of public expenditure it needs to be taken into account by the Chancellor.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, did not the two periods selected by the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, also demonstrate the very marked shift from the building of new houses to the refurbishment of some of the disastrous housing estates that had been built in earlier years by governments of all parties'? Does not this programme of refurbishment and the estates improvement on which the present Government were embarking at that point represent a major improvement in the quality of rented housing by local authorities?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. Since April 1979, in England over 1·1 million renovation and improvement grants have been paid to private owners and tenants. In addition,

1305
125,000 housing association dwellings have been converted. The average annual rate for the number of improvement grants made to the private sector and housing associations is up 44 per cent. from 98,000 to 141,000 compared with the Labour administration between 1974 and 1979.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, in reply to a previous question the noble Earl mentioned the private rented sector. Does he recall that the government survey on privately rented houses in multiple occupation in 1987 revealed that there are 2.5 million people living in rented accommodation in the private sector in houses in multiple occupation? The report described the conditions under which they lived as being an indictment of national and local government policy over many years. In view of the fact that the present Housing Bill does nothing to redress that situation, can he tell us what plans the Government have to deal with the serious situation that the report threw up?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I believe that is a little wide of the Question on the Order Paper, but I know that much of the ground the noble Lord has mentioned will be covered in our housing debates.
Lord Plummer of St. Marylebone: My Lords, can my noble friend say how many unoccupied and unused dwellings there are in local government hands?
The Earl of Caithness: Yes, my Lords, I believe I can. There are 110,000 empty dwellings.
Lord Hankey: My Lords, if the Government gave permission to the local authorities to spend the reserves that they set aside for housing, would that not tend to reduce the price of housing, which is pushing up inflation? Would it not also ease the pressure on people trying to find housing so that they can take up the employment that is available?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, there is the great debate that although we want more housing and there is a demand for more housing, as the noble Lord will know, there is also a very strong demand to keep the green belt intact; and perhaps that is just as relevant to house prices.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I am once again surprised at the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, whom I and many other people consider was the architect of the appalling housing situation that we find ourselves in today by the measures that he helped to introduce against local authorities? Having in mind that it is established that we would have had half a million extra houses in the public sector to let, is it not a fact that the shortage and unavailability of those houses must have had a tremendous effect on house prices and the upward explosion of homeless people in the areas of greatest need? Will the Minister comment on what he thinks might have happened to house prices had those half a million houses been available to let?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it would be wrong for me to hypothecate on what housing prices might have done had there been more or less houses around.
Lord St. John of Fawsley: My Lords, will my noble friend perhaps tell us why the noble Lord, Lord Dean, is attacking the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, since he is no longer a member of the Labour Party?
Noble Lords: Wrong man!
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, the noble Lord knows to whom I am referring. I am of course referring to the former Secretary of State, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I really cannot answer my noble friend. The Opposition always seems to criticise us.

Nurses' Pay Award: Funding
2.50 p.m.
The Countess of Mar The Countess of Mar asked Her Majesty's Government:
To what extent they will fund the recent pay award to nurses.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Skelmersdale): My Lords, for the United Kingdom as a whole an extra £566 million has been provided from the reserve to meet the estimated cost of the award in excess of the provision in the relevant cash limits.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Is he aware that because management guidelines for clinical regrading are unclear, and that in certain cases it is now apparent that some health authorities have not been allocated sufficient funds, many nurses are being under-graded? Does that not defeat the object of the exercise?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I do not know why the noble Countess regards the carrying out of the exercise as unclear when guidance to health authorities was issued on the subject by my department. I am well aware of suggestions that the funding may—and I stress the word "may"—be inadequate. I advise her that no region has given detailed consideration to even preliminary figures from all their districts so it is totally unprofitable to speculate. I know that the noble Countess has a particular interest in the West Midlands. This morning I was advised that no district in the West Midlands has yet submitted detailed regrading proposals.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that grave anxieties have been expressed by the Confederation of Health Service Employees and other representatives of nurses? Can he now give the House an assurance that their anxieties can he

1307
subdued completely because there will be no impediment and certainly no hiccup from any source in honouring the award which the Government have declared shall be given to Britain's nurses?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, there is absolutely no question that the extra £566 million to which I referred in my initial Answer will be curtailed in any way.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, the Minister must realize—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, does that answer mean that the noble Lord cannot tell the House whether the estimated figure given by the Government will meet the needs? Will the Minister accept that, as a result of some of their recent actions, the Government have done a great deal to improve morale in the nursing profession and the relationship between nurses and the noble Lord's department? Will he also accept that to renege on certain promises, or to insist on nurses' pay being paid at the expense of patient care, will be a guaranteed prescription for undoing the good which has recently been done?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, there is no intention to undermine the good that has been done and that is why I was absolutely firm in my answer to the noble Lord, Lord Molloy. We believe that the assumptions which underlie the review body's estimate of the costs of the award are reasonable. Clearly the review body thought so, otherwise it would not have recommended the award in the first place. It provides 15-3 per cent. extra in the total pay bill.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that there is an air of real urgency in the matter? For example, does he know of the situation at St. Peter's Hospital in Covent Garden? Does he accept that nurses are leaving their profession? Will he look into the matter to see what can be done in the immediate future to try to reassure some of the nurses?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, yes, that is exactly the reason why the Government accepted the review body award. Of course, there are two problems: first, in certain specialities nurses are leaving the profession; secondly, for demographic reasons, they are not entering the profession.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, is the Minister saying that there will be no more money over and above that which has already been paid? Is he not aware that, according to the estimates from regional health authorities, over £100 million is under-provided in terms of fulfilling or covering the nurses' pay award? Does he accept the fact that the Secretary of State gave an absolute assurance in the other place and it was repeated in this place—that the Government would fully fund the nurses' pay award? Does he recognise the fact that if the additional money is not provided not only will there be cutbacks in patient
1308
care from health authority to health authority but, among nurses and indeed Members of your Lordships' House, there will be a great sense of anger because a parliamentary commitment will be breached?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, there is absolutely no question of a parliamentary or any other commitment being breached. The full-year costs of the award will be £803 million in the United Kingdom. That money is already provided for and that money will be paid.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the confident assurances that he has given to the House this afternoon cannot be obtained from regional health authorities? That is the aspect which worries the national associations when they receive reports from their regions. If when the issues were discussed with the regional health authorities all the regions gave the same answers as those given by the Minister this afternoon there would not be a great amount of anxiety. Will the Minister please be good enough to look into that aspect of the Question?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, as I explained earlier, I have already done so. I came to the conclusion that it is too early to predict the outcome of the clinical grading review. As I said earlier, no region has given detailed consideration even to preliminary figures from all its districts. Therefore it must be totally unprofitable to speculate on the outcome.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, will the Minister look at the wording used by his right honourable friend the Prime Minister in answering Questions in another place when, as I understand it, she expressed herself clearly on the basis of the estimates but did not say that if there was a difference between the review body's estimates and the reality of covering the pay award that additional money would be found? Will the Minister look at that matter again?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, yes, of course, I shall look at any authoritative source, including that of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, in this or any other area. What she has said, she has said; what I have said to your Lordships this afternoon, I have said.
Lord Ennals: It would be nice if they matched up.

Government Departments: Location
2.46 p.m.
Lord Sefton of Garston Lord Sefton of Garston asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to move some of their administrative headquarters, and in particular the headquarters of the Department of Education and Science, out of the South East; if so, how many and what sites are under consideration and if not, for what reason.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, departments have been asked to review the location of all their activities (which includes headquarters functions) in accordance with the policy outlined in my right honourable friend the Paymaster General's Written Answer of 31st March in another place to the honourable Member for Hazel Grove. When decisions have been taken regarding significant moves, these will be announced by the relevant Minister.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, does the Minister accept that within the Department of Education and Science there are real concerns about the conditions in its offices and that it has been looking forward to a move for a very long time? Does he also accept that both the Leader of the House in another capacity and the noble Lord, Lord Young, promised the House that they would look into the question of moving government departments out of the South East, especially in order to assist the area to overcome its terrific problems in regard to congestion and to relieve some of the demands on office space so that the private sector can function more efficiently in the South East? Does the Minister accept that unless some of those problems in the South East are cured and government offices are not left clogging-up the place, the private sector will probably jump across the Channel and move to the Continent?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I have tried to say that the Government are looking into the problem of relocating government offices elsewhere. The Department of Education and Science has not yet taken a firm decision on any further moves of DES posts away from their present location, but the matter is under review. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services recently published a report which identified up to 2,000 DHSS headquarters' posts which were potentially suitable for transfer away from London. Other departments are also looking into what can be done.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that a decision was taken to transfer the Property Services Agency from London to Middlesbrough and that both the Government and the local authority spent vast sums of money to enable that to be carried out? In the event the scheme was cancelled. Middlesbrough has long been considered as a suitable area to house a government agency. Is there any prospect of that happening in the not too distant future?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I cannot give details of the PSA's plans on this occasion. However, as I said earlier, departments will be reviewing their work locations with a view, in suitable cases, to finding locations offering advantages in terms of recruitment and retention of staff, value for money and other considerations relevant to service delivery and management. I am sure that when they do that and plan to relocate work, they are required to give regional policy and territorial departments an
1310
opportunity to suggest suitable locations. Therefore, it might well be that Middlesbrough would be one of those.
Lord Hankey: My Lords, will the Government consider this point? Under the Education Reform Bill, to which we have given so much attention, we shall need a Ministry of Education with tremendously increased responsibility and efficiency. If the Ministry is rehoused, will that be done as efficiently as possible to produce the best possible conceivable machine to deal with the responsibilities which it will have?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, that must be one of the aims. If there is any move planned to take place, it must be done efficiently. There will always be a need for a headquarters staff of some sort in central London to service Ministers who in turn have to service Parliament.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, is the Minister aware that only a few years ago, despite the protests of resident London civil servants, we moved the Forestry Commission headquarters from 25 Savile Row, WI, to Edinburgh? The comparative rents in Savile Row are now over £60 per square foot. In Edinburgh they are between £8 and £9 per square foot. Would that not suggest that the example of the Forestry Commission might be copied by other government departments?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, perhaps I may give the noble Lord a further example of a government department which relocated in Scotland, to East Kilbride. That was not a whole government department but considerable parts of the Overseas Development Agency. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland announced on 30th June that taking account of all quantifiable costs and benefits, that is estimated to have produced a significant saving in national resource terms of some £14-9 million. Furthermore, the overwhelming majority of the staff who transferred expressed the opinion that the quality of life was higher in East Kilbride and they preferred their new location.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that when the present Government came into office they inherited a programme for relocating government departments? I know that because I was chairman of the Cabinet Committee which worked out that policy. For example, the Government chemist department was to be moved to the constituency of the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw. This Government cancelled the whole programme when they came into office. Is he aware that we moved two sections of the Department of Education and Science to Darlington and they are very happy there? There is no earthly reason why the whole of that department, apart from a small ministerial group, should not be moved to the provinces. They might then learn something about education.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I believe that I have covered everything so far in my Answer. This

1311
situation is being looked into. I do not see why they should learn any more about education there than in London.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, does the Minister accept that in 1979 plans were afoot to move 3,500 civil servants to the North West, and that immediately on assuming office this Government cancelled the plan? Is he not also aware that since 1979 when they moved certain numbers of civil servants out to the provinces, the Government have always paid tribute to the fact that the move has been efficient, satisfied the civil servants so moved, that conditions have improved and the Government have saved millions of pounds? Does he not accept from me that many people are showing concern that in view of the record of success achieved by decentralisation, this Government are apparently determined not to do anything or support the promises that were made to look at specific cases of moving government departments out of London?
Noble Lords: Speech, speech!
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, I did not think I was making a speech. I asked a question. I have a final question. Will the Minister give an assurance that he will look into the problem and produce a report as to the possible cost savings that can be made by moving departments from London?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I should point out that four-fifths of the Civil Service is located outside Greater London, and since 1979 some 5,560 Civil Service posts have been transferred from London under the Government's dispersal programme. In addition, departments have on their own initiative relocated well over 6,000 posts out of London and the South East. As I said earlier, we shall continue to look into the matter.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister to consult his noble friend Lord Young, who gave me figures that do not correspond with the figures which the Minister has given me.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the figures I have given to the noble Lord are exactly the same figures which I gave to him in a Written Answer on 15th March this year.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, in order to avoid administrative friction, has any consideration been given to moving the Treasury a little further away from 10 Downing Street?

Magistrates Appointment Committees
Lord Morton of Shuna,Lord Morton of Shuna, on behalf of Lord Taylor of Blackburn, asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether discussions have taken place between the Lord Chancellor's Department and the office of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster regarding the publication of the composition of local advisory committees for the appointment of magistrates.
The Lord Chancellor: Yes, my Lords.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that short reply. Will he take steps to see that wide publicity is given to the decision that he and his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster have taken?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the answer is yes again.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord say who will be responsible for publishing the lists? Will it be his department or the local advisory committee? Can he say when that is likely to take place?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as your Lordships know, the advisory committees are local organisations, and we have asked them to take steps to make themselves known. About half of the advisory committees for which I have responsibility—95 altogether—will have made their identity public by the end of this year. We have said that all should do so by 1992 for reasons unconnected with another important matter in 1992. On the Chancellor of the Duchy's committees, I understand that it is likely that they will start making themselves more public from the beginning of next year.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, on the question of time, can the noble and learned Lord explain why such a long time is needed to publish? Why wait another three years?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, we consulted widely on this matter. We have encouraged local advisory committees to go public immediately. Many of them have done that. However, there are some people who took membership on local advisory committees under a regime when their identity was not public. We felt it right to go to 1992 in order to enable those people, if they wish, to retire from the committees, all of which will be constituted by 1992. I felt that it was reasonable to bring this in gradually. It is a voluntary matter. People have so far done it voluntarily. It will become compulsory by 1992. Those who have taken office on the committees on the understanding that their identity would not be revealed would have the option of retiring from their committee before it happens to their committee. That is, if there are people in that position.
All the indications I have are that this move has been generally welcomed, and I believe that the advisory committees themselves generally welcome it. I do not believe that many people will wish to take advantage of that option. However, in making the change, we thought that we should give people that opportunity; but we expressed the hope that they may be willing to have their names made public as soon as possible.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, why has the composition of these committees always been secret? Is it anything to do with the fact that they are believed to have been appointed partly because of their

1313
political affiliations or is there some other reason that they should be secret?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am not a complete repository of the history of these committees, and I do not know exactly why they have not been made known until now. However, it seemed to me to be a good idea.
One of the reasons given when the matter was looked into by an inquiry some years ago was that it might cause people on the advisory committee to be lobbied for particular magistrates. Clearly that would be rather undesirable. That may have been the reason. Certainly it has nothing to do with political affiliations, so far as I know. The Lord Chancellor—and I am sure I speak for my predecessors too—has always been anxious to secure a proper balance as regards political influences. There is no question of secrecy in order to preserve a political interest. I believe it is possible to deal with the lobbying matter in other ways and we have made suggestions about that; for example, that those who lobby in an undesirable way would not be regarded as suitable persons to be magistrates.

Business
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Committee stage of the Firearms (Amendment) Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7 p.m. for approximately one hour and that during this adjournment the Second Reading of the Solicitors (Scotland) Bill and the Corneal Tissue (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 will be taken.
Bredero (Bon Accord Centre, Aberdeen) Order Confirmation Bill
Considered on Report.
Highland Region (Lochinver Harbour) Order Confirmation Bill
Considered on Report.

Housing (Scotland) Bill
3.1 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sanderson of Bowden)Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report. —(Lord Sanderson of Bowden.)
On Question. Motion agreed to.
Clause 55 [Application to exercise rights conferred by this Part and offer to sell]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 33, line 48, leave out from ("above") to end of line 3 on page 34.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a small amendment but it carries considerable significance. Subsection 6(d) states:
"that the applicant would, within a reasonable period carry out such works as are reasonably necessary to put the house into the state of repair required by the landlord's repairing obligations".
The existence of this assumption within the statutory formula for completing the market value is unnecessary. It is unnecessary because the market value should already have taken into account the state of repair of the house.
It is unrealistic because it is difficult to see how the district valuer is to be satisfied that works exist that,
"are reasonably necessary to put the house into the state of repair required by the landlord's repairing obligations".
That could give rise to considerable dispute between an applicant and the local authority landlord. In addition, it is not clear that applicants shall, within a reasonable period. carry out any works to any house under the terms of the Bill.
The Minister sought to clarify that earlier by stating that valuations will be carried out on a new capital value basis rather than the customary and straightforward basis of valuation by comparison with the market transactions for similar houses in the area and that negative values arc expected to result. That renders this clause particularly damaging to the interests of the transferring local authorities.
Written as it is, this subsection would result in tenants who remain with local authorities in local authority housing paying for the cost of the transfer. The remaining tenants would continue to service the outstanding debt on transferred property and they could also be liable to pay part of the renovation costs on the property already assumed in this transfer value.
I should have said earlier that it has been agreed between the Minister and this side of the House that with Amendment No. 56 we should take Amendments Nos. 57 and 58. Therefore, perhaps 1 may speak briefly to Amendment No. 58. As well as imposing statutory restrictions on the market value of houses transferred under Part III, the Bill proposes the enforced sale of individual houses, initiated by approved persons or by Scottish Homes, to be effected at a price determined by an employee of the Government; that is, the district valuer would make the valuation for a branch of the government. We believe that that is patently unreasonable and contrary to natural justice.
This potentially could allow the district valuer to set unrealistic values and that would deprive public sector landlords of resources which could have been applied to the improvement and repair of the retained public sector stock. There could be disputes about the level of compensation payable to the owner of land or property being acquired by Scottish Homes

1315
compulsorily under the powers in the Bill. Why should public sector landlords be denied the same right of appeal when the provisions of the change of landlord scheme are applied?
One reason has been given. In Committee the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, said in reply to a comparable amendment that it would be a wrecking amendment because of the delays which would be introduced with an appeals mechanism. We feel it to be an unusual innovation that potential delay is considered to be a reason to perhaps permit an injustice to a party whose assets are being transferred. I can think of no other example where it is the case that delay is a good enough reason to deny an appeal. I hope that the Minister has reflected on what he said earlier, that he will give some thought to this amendment and perhaps make some concessions. I beg to move.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I speak in support of this group of amendments and deal specifically with Amendment No. 57. Due to the rules of the House it appears that it is not proper to speak after the Minister has spoken. Therefore, the Minister will speak last to his amendment, which seems a curious way to proceed.
There is considerable difficulty about the provision regarding valuation. It appears to be foreseen that in certain cases local authority houses will he valued at a negative value, or nil. That means that the local authority is to pay someone to take the houses away—in this case, Scottish Homes. The difficulty is that it leaves the local authority with the debt on the houses. In a case which no doubt the Minister has seen in today's Scotsman the point is raised that this might, in one instance in Edinburgh, result in about £4 million of debt left with no assets relating to it. That would mean either an extremely large increase on the rents of local authority homes in Edinburgh which are not being transferred to Scottish Homes or to sell to the private market instead of Scottish Homes. The private market, having a different valuation process, would be prepared to pay what could be called the proper market value.
The position here is that the market value as proposed, as we understand it and on the information with which I have been supplied, is on something known as the rent capitalisation technique. No doubt the Minister is fully aware of that. It is a method which has not been used in valuing local authority houses until now. It is of very dubious value, if I may use that word, when one has a situation where other people are prepared to pay quite considerable sums for blocks of houses which, under this valuation technique which the district valuers apparently intend to use, produces a negative value.
I suggest that there is something wrong when big private enterprise companies like Wimpey and others are prepared to pay millions for something as regards which the district valuer says that the local authority should pay millions for someone to take it off its hands. Therefore, there is a considerable worry that the technique which is being brought forward by the Government is grossly unfair to what at the moment are the local ratepayers who will be saddled with the
1316
Bill and the payers of business rates and the poll tax. What we are suggesting is a far better method with some appeal provision so that in a case of dispute the value can be considered by the Lands Tribunal. That is a method used in the Bill under Clause 2(5) for compensation payable to owners of land and other property being taken over by Scottish Homes if they are not local authorities. It seems to me absurd that it is not proper to use the same method when Scottish Homes are taking over from a local authority. Presumably the Minister, whom I know to be usually a very reasonable person, will agree and will accept our amendment.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, I have never heard of the procedure to which my noble friend Lord Morton of Shuna has referred. Was it under this kind of procedure that certain cemeteries were sold for 15 pence and which almost immediately had a value of several million pounds?
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, on the face of it I should like to support the proposition put forward on the question of valuation by the noble Lords, Lord Carmichael and Lord Morton of Shuna. I am sorry to say that, despite the anger which was expressed in the columns of the Glasgow Herald by the leader of the city council and the fact that a lobby of Peers was to be organised to resist the inequities of the Government's proposal, the lobby did not reach me and neither was I briefed by the city council. It appears that it uses rather exclusive channels in expressing its anger and disappointment.
I refer to the statement made by Councillor Lally in which he said:
"Central to the amendment is a new valuation"—
which is part of this discussion—
"which would create negative values for council houses."
For example, he quotes the case of a house valued at £2,000 but requiring £10,000 worth of repairs. He continued by saying that:
"improvements would have a negative value of £8,000. Councils would then require to pay this sum to the new landlords when the house transfers.".
On the face of it that represents to me a very considerable and undesirable burden on a local authority in disposing of a property as suggested in the Bill. I very much welcome the Minister's comments on that case.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, in speaking to this amendment I also speak to Amendment No. 57. I begin by dealing with Amendment No. 56 which corresponds to amendments which have been discussed at earlier stages in the passage of the Bill through this House and another place. Subsection 55(6)(d) is I believe necessary to make it clear that, while the price on transfer should reflect the current state of the house to be acquired, it should also assume that the new landlord will, within a reasonable period, carry out works reasonably necessary to put the house into the state of repair required by the landlord's repairing obligations. Where a house has been properly maintained by the

1317
local authority, very little or no work will be necessary, and there will be a correspondingly minimal (or nil) effect on the valuation. But if the property is in a run-down state, I believe it right that the valuation assumptions should take the works necessary properly into account.
The legal effect of Clause 55(6)(d) is to require the district valuer to assume for valuation purposes that the applicant acquiring the property will reasonably promptly carry out works reasonably needed to fulfil his general repairing obligations under the Housing (Scotland) Acts, which apply to landlords of all kinds, plus any specific repairing obligations in the tenants' existing tenancy agreements with the landlord.
District valuers will take these obligations into account without the need for legislation, but only up to a point. Left without subsection (6)(d) it is possible that prices will be increased and would reduce the applicant's ability to remedy any legacy of disrepair left by the previous landlord. The new landlord would need to spend more to take over the property and would have less resources available for the necessary rehabilitation. As noble Lords will realise, therefore, Clause 55(6)(d) is largely a technical provision. However, I believe it is a necessary and useful part of this valuation clause.
I have, however, studied the briefing which CoSLA has provided to noble Lords, in particular the points made by Glasgow district council. As regards the point of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, I have listened carefully to the arguments put forward in the House today against the idea of valuations being carried out on a capital value basis. In the light of the points made, and of recent further discussions between my department and the Inland Revenue valuation office, I have to say that in Scotland the capitalisation of rents of let houses is not an appropriate means of assessing market value. In practice, the fundamental basis of compensation for compulsory purchase of one kind or another under statute and case law since 1845 has been "value to owner". This concept is preserved in Clause 55(6), in the wording,
"… the price which on the relevant date the house would realise if sold on the open market by a willing seller".
I would like, therefore, to correct previous references to valuations on a capital value basis and to put on record now that we will be inviting district valuers to follow the "value to owner" approach on tenants' choice valuations. I believe that this course of action will be welcomed by councils. I hope that noble Lords opposite will study what I have said in this regard and realise what announcement I am making today on this particular issue.
The purpose of Amendment No. 57 is to make clear that the property transferring under the tenants' choice provisions in Part III can have not only a positive or zero value, but also a negative value. While most houses in the public sector in Scotland have been maintained to a reasonable standard, there are some tenanted properties where this is not so. These properties now need significant renovation to bring them up to the desired standard. The cost of bringing such property into a reasonable state of
1318
repair may exceed the value of the property after the necessary rehabilitation work has been completed. In other words, if the new landlord were to pay any price for the property, or even if it was transferred to him at nil cost, he would face making a loss on the transaction. In such circumstances, no new landlord is likely to be willing to participate in the purchase of public sector housing under the powers in Part III of the Bill, or he would only be willing to do so in return for rent payments well above the going rate for such housing, and therefore well above the level which the tenant will be prepared to pay.
We see the tenants' choice provisions in the Bill being particularly attractive to those tenants in the minority of local authority housing which is in a had state of repair and who are therefore least satisfied with the service provided by the local authority. We believe that there should be no artificial impediment to such tenants changing landlords. If we did not specifically permit negative valuations, and if we did not oblige local authorities to make payments equivalent to the amount of the negative valuation, the result would indeed be an impediment to transfers.
This proposal has been described by some as asset stripping. I cannot agree. If a house is in such a poor state of repair that it would cost more to rehabilitate than the house would be worth when the work is done, the house in its present state is a liability to an authority, not an asset. In such circumstances rent payments are probably insufficient to cover the cost of the maintenance work necessary to prevent the house deteriorating further. The local authority would inevitably very soon have had to spend substantial sums to bring the property up to scratch. By transferring the house to a new landlord the local authority is relieving itself of the liability to meet such costs. The concept of negative valuation is therefore sensible and fair to all parties. I commend this amendment to the House.
There has been a certain amount of discussion about the cost of this matter to local authorities. I have been asked how authorities will be expected to treat payments to prospective landlords where a property has been valued in negative terms. I would expect authorities to make payments from their HRA capital account. The loan charges resulting will be taken into account in the determination of housing support grant, and thus where an authority is eligible to receive HSG it will recoup its costs.
Finally, perhaps I may return to Amendment No. 58, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael. I have again considered carefully the thrust of the amendment but I cannot recommend its acceptance. It would give the Lands Tribunal for Scotland an appeal function if a public sector landlord disputed the valuation reached by the district valuer. I know that Glasgow District Council believes that the district valuer is not sufficiently independent to carry out the task set by the Bill. That is not a view I share. The district valuer acts in the public interest in the widest sense and I am completely satisfied as to the impartiality and independence of district valuers in matters of this kind. Moreover, there will be an undoubted benefit to the district valuers undertaking all valuations under the tenants' choice provision as

1319
this will lead to a high degree of consistency in valuations.
All these factors will combine to make an appeal mechanism wholly unnecessary. In addition, if we were to accept the amendment it would build into the procedure quite unacceptable delays, as has been mentioned by the noble Lord. Lord Morton of Shuna, and as such would seriously dissuade persons from seeking to exercise their rights. I cannot therefore accept this amendment. I have given it consideration. I believe I am right in saying that at the previous stage of the Bill I said I was looking at the matter in the light of the 1980 Act in a discussion in which I recall the noble Lord, Lord Galpern, took part. During the passage of that Bill the question of appeals on valuations in right to buy cases was raised. While the Lands Tribunal is being given an appeal role in a number of matters relating to tenants' choice provisions, its locus will closely parallel the role it discharges in right to buy cases.
I see no change in the situation from that date when my noble friend Lord Mansfield pointed out that the tenant could choose whether to accept the local authority's choice of valuer or the district valuer. Once the tenant had done that and the valuer had made his valuation it would be beyond appeal; so said my noble friend Lord Mansfield at that time. I see no good reason for giving the Lands Tribunal a wider role in the tenants' choice legislation, particularly as no volume of evidence has built up to suggest that the operation of the right to buy legislation is hindered by the absence of an appeal provision.
However, I am quite prepared to take the matter away. I shall consider whether at Third Reading I might bring forward amendments to bring the valuation procedures under tenants' choice more closely into line with those in the right to buy legislation in as much as they make provision for valuations to be undertaken by an agreed private valuer or the district valuer. This could allow some flexibility in valuation procedures. With this assurance I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Morton, will consider withdrawing his amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, it would be churlish not to be grateful for the Minister's statement that he has given the matter considerable thought. From what he said, it seems possible that some of our representations have not fallen on stony ground. For that we are extremely grateful. The noble Lord will also realise that as this is extremely complicated legislation we shall want to study his words carefully, see exactly what they mean in practice and naturally have some assessment from outside experts on the full potential of his words.
In these amendents. and particularly in Amendment No. 58, we are dealing with an important matter. I am glad that the noble Lord said that he will have another look at the question of appeal. He suggested that there had been few appeals under earlier legislation. In this respect we are not necessarily dealing with troublesome people. After all, the local authorities are advised by their own professional valuers who are not likely totally to
1320
disregard the assessmentof the district valuer. I have had dealings with district valuers. I used to telephone them and ask them to have another look at a problem. I think in particular of a local gasworks of which we were disposing. It was rather important that the district valuer took a look at the potential use of the ground.
I can give one example in Glasgow which became a quite notorious case. A block of houses was ultimately demolished, perhaps rather sadly. The value given by the district valuer was not very high, and a housing firm offered a slightly better figure. The district valuer is by no means infallible. However, with the promise the
Amendment by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 57:
Page 34, line 3, at end insert—
("( ) Where the circumstances are such that, on the relevant date, a house, if offered for sale in accordance with subsection (6) above, would not realise any price then—

(a) for the purposes of that subsection, the price shall be taken to be—

(i) such amount as would require to be paid to Scottish Homes or a person who, on the relevant date, was approved under section 54 above in order that it or he would willingly so acquire the house, expressed as a negative: or

(ii) where Scottish Homes or that person would willingly so acquire it for no consideration, nil;

(b) the market value of the house may he determined under that subsection to he a negative value or nil;

(c) where the market value is so determined, the reference in subsection (5) above to a price equal to the market value shall be construed accordingly and references in this section to selling a house and the purchaser of it shall he construed respectively as references to disposing of it and the acquirer of it: and

(d) where, by virtue of paragraph (c) above. the price of the house is in the negative. the obligation to pay shall be upon the landlord.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 58 not moved.]
Clause 60 [Consent for subsequent disposals]:
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 59:
Page 36. line 22, after ("Act") insert ("including any person who acquires any property under this section").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is suggested that along with this amendment we discuss Amendments Nos. 60. 61 and 62. These amendments seek to enhance the safeguards available to tenants who exercise their right to choose an alternative landlord under Part III of the Bill. The Minister responsible for the Housing Bill in another place spoke of the need to ensure that houses which are disposed of under tenants' choice remain available for letting and that tenants' rights are safeguarded. The best way to secure these objectives in this Bill is to give Scottish Homes greater control over the disposals by approved landlords of the houses it acquires under tenants' choice.
As the Bill stands, the consent of Scottish Homes is necessary before any property is disposed of but there are no explicit criteria for the granting or withholding of this consent. Consent can be given for

1321
classes of disposals, thus making it unlikely that each case will be examined on its merits. Disposals in particular areas can be given blanket consent. The administration of consent in such a fashion provides few safeguards to tenants. There is no statutory requirement that Scottish Homes should seek and consider the views of the tenant. It is these problems which the amendments seek to remedy.
The first amendment, Amendment No. 59, is an attempt to bring this Bill into line with the Housing Bill. One of the difficulties with which we have to deal as regards this Bill is that the Housing Bill is going through the House on different days, it has reached a different stage of its proceedings, and has different provisions. However, the point of the amendment is to bring this Bill into line. It omits mention of class consents and thus obliges every case to be considered on its merits. Without this provision, other measures to provide safeguards for tenants would be difficult to apply.
The next amendment provides that consent for disposals will he given only to approved landlords. This is most important because as the Bill stands it only appears to deal with the initial change of landlord and not with subsequent landlords. Tenants may be put in the position of opting for a landlord approved by Scottish Homes, only to find that the approved landlord disposes of the house to a non-approved landlord and thus the safeguards fly off.
In the fourth amendment, Amendment No. 62, the aim is to provide that tenants should he informed and consulted about disposal plans and that their views are taken into account by Scottish Homes in the granting or withholding of consent. The wording of the subsection is derived from Clause 64(3) of the Housing Bill which refers to disposals by housing action trusts. 1 trust that the Minister knows more about those provisions than I do, but it may be that we are both equally at sea on that issue. However, it is equally appropriate in the Scottish context because without this the tenants' wishes could be entirely ignored and that, we understand, should not be the purpose of the Bill. The Government's clear, stated objective of,
"encouraging greater individual control over the conditions in which people live"—
which is a quotation from Housing: the Government's Proposals for Scotland—would appear to be relevant here. For those various reasons I beg to move Amendment No. 59.
3.30 p.m.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, and with the leave of the House, I shall address my remarks to Amendments Nos. 59, 60, 61 and 62. I have listened carefully to the arguments put forward in support of this group of amendments, all of which were tabled during the Committee stage of the Bill's proceedings. I am aware that the amendments have the backing of the Institute of Housing in Scotland.
As the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, indicated, his amendments are linked by a common theme. The basic argument is that tenants' rights
1322
would be better safeguarded if Scottish Homes were given greater control over the disposal by approved landlords of houses they acquire under the provisions in Part III of the Bill.
I cannot recommend that these amendments should be accepted. I believe we must strike a balance in which we take into account the interests of tenants, the willingness of new landlords to be involved in taking over public sector houses under the tenants' choice provisions, and the need for involvement by Scottish Homes.
The first of the amendments suggests that Scottish Homes' approval should be necessary for all subsequent disposals of property transferred under Part III. That seems to me to be particularly undesirable. We believe, as 1 said previously, that there must be some mechanism to ensure that it is not possible to circumvent the approval process however unlikely any landlord whom Scottish Homes is prepared to approve as a receiving landlord would be to pass on houses taken over to another owner soon afterwards. We have considered again the points made in Committee on this issue while also taking on board the noble Lord's comments today. But I still believe that we should not impose a requirement that Scottish Homes should be associated with the future ownership of the property for all time. We must remember that any tenant who transfers to a new landlord under the provisions in Part III has chosen to do so. He has seen advantages in moving from the public sector and he has done so under his own free will to gain advantage from what the private sector has to offer. Therefore he is in much the same position as any other private sector assured tenant.
However, there is the control of the first subsequent disposal, which is an additional safeguard. In considering applications for approval, Scottish Homes will have regard to much the same conditions as apply in approvals under Clause 54. But, as I say, I believe that we must draw the line after this first subsequent disposal. I do not think that it is necessary, desirable or sensible for Scottish Homes to be involved thereafter with all property which happens at one time to have been transferred under Part III.
Nor do I believe that Scottish Homes should be obliged only to approve first disposals if the purchaser is another "approved landlord". Although under normal circumstances I would expect Scottish Homes only to consent to a disposal if the house were to continue to be available for rent at rent levels within the reach of those with income levels characteristic of that half of the population currently housed by the public sector, I do not think that it would be desirable to rule out the possibility of a house being sold into owner-occupation.
My noble friend Lord Sanderson gave assurances before, and I repeat now, that Scottish Homes will look very carefully indeed at the local demand for and supply of rented accommodation before deciding to agree to any disposal for owner occupation. The fact that consents have to be obtained to the initial transfer from the public sector, and also to the first subsequent transfer, means that there is no question whatever of landlords being able to make a quick profit by taking on public sector houses and selling

1323
them quickly with vacant possession on the open market. The protection is given not only by the necessary Scottish Homes' approvals, but also by the normal tenancy agreements and the strengthened anti-harrassment procedures. On the other hand, if a tenancy falls vacant for good reasons—for example, if the tenant decides to move, or if the tenant dies and there are no successors—it may make eminent good sense for a landlord to be able to rationalise his holding of rented property by selling the vacant property on the open market. But let me emphasise again that Scottish Homes approval will be required for such first disposals. That will allow and require Scottish Homes to be very closely involved in the market for rented housing in the area.
The third of this group of amendments seeks to rule out the possibility of class approval to subsequent disposals. I can assure noble Lords that there is nothing sinister in the provisions in subsection (2) of Clause 60. The provisions allow, but do not require, Scottish Homes to give class approvals. Noble Lords will note that such approvals can be subject to conditions. We have already considered the example of sales of houses to sitting tenants. Just as local authorities have what might be termed a class approval to dispose of housing under the right to buy, so I believe it could be sensible for Scottish Homes to give similar class approvals to sales to sitting tenants in transferred properties. There could also be good arguments for giving class approvals to subsequent disposals through sales to, for example, registered housing associations, so long as the stock held by such associations did not exceed numbers which in Scottish Homes' view were manageable. I do not therefore believe that the House should accept Amendment No. 61, as this could lead to extra and unnecessary administrative effort and cost for Scottish Homes without any return for the tenant.
Finally, I should like to say a word on the last of the amendments tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, which concerned consultation by Scottish Homes with tenants. The noble Lord may have had in the back of his mind the worry that this is something which is being emphasised for the English Bill and therefore that we, in our Scottish provisions, should be similarly aligned. Let me emphasise that the situations are not parallel. In Scotland, under tenants' choice, no tenant will require to change his landlord against his will; but in England, where a housing action trust is set up, tenants will inherit the housing action trust as their new landlord whether they want to or not. The English provision refers to housing action trusts only and not to tenants' choice transfers. In such circumstances, the extra safeguard of a statutory requirement to consult the tenant for the first time seems only reasonable. However, I hope—
Lord Grimond: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the Minister, but I think he said that no tenant would be forced to change his landlord against his will. Surely that is exactly what is happening in the Shetlands. There, the tenants wish to go to one landlord and are being told that they cannot do so. Therefore that seems to me exactly what is
1324
happening. However, perhaps I have misunderstood the Minister?
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, with respect, I think that perhaps the noble Lord misunderstood me in regard to Shetland, although I did not mention Shetland just now. As I believe my noble friend Lord Sanderson made clear the other day, no tenant in Shetland will be forced against his will in the way that the noble Lord intimated and fears.
I was comparing the English and Scottish provisions. I hope that your Lordships will feel able to accept that the position for tenants' choice transferees in Scotland is different, and that with the assurance that my noble friend Lord Sanderson gave in Committee, which I now repeat—that under Clause 60, in practice, Scottish Homes will consult the tenants involved—there is therefore no need for a statutory provision of this type in the Scottish Bill.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I am always suspicious of an assurance that there is no need for a provision saying that someone will do something, because in practice they will. If there is nothing in the Bill, in practice they may not. If that is to be the practice, what is the Government's objection to putting it into the Bill and making it a duty? That is the difficulty the Government never seem to face up to. Time and again they come forward with the idea that we do not need a provision in the Bill, because it will be the practice. I have never yet heard them give a satisfactory answer to that conundrum. If something is to be the practice, I still do not understand why the Government do not say that it will be the practice and put it into the Bill.
My second point is that we discussed earlier on Report the meaning of Clause 42. There remains a distinct difference of view among various people as to whether there is individual tenant's choice or a situation where the majority of tenants can force the minority to change landlords. That aspect may only be resolved later in the courts. I do not wish to return to it except to point out that there is a difficulty.
It is absurd that one has an assurance from the Government that tenants are getting some assurance of tenancy when we now know that Scottish Homes can transfer to an approved landlord and the next day the approved landlord can transfer to someone else, who may be the worst type of Rachman-like landlord. I regret to say that I found the Minister's reply unsatisfactory, and I should like to test the opinion of the House.
3.42 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 59) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 74; Not-Contents, 135.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Banks, L.

Airedale, L.

Blease, L.

Ardwick, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Aylestone, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

1325

Briginshaw, L.

Lawrence, L.

Broad bridge, L.

Leatherland, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Longford, E.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Carter, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Chitnis, L.

Milverton, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Molloy, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Nathan, L.

Diamond, L.

Peston, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Dormand of Easington, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Fitt, L.

Rochester, L.

Foot, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Gallacher, L. [Teller.]

Seear, B.

Galpern, L.

Shackleton, L.

Glenamara, L.

Stallard, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stedman, B.

Grimond, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Halsbury, E.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hampton, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hanworth, V.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Henniker, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hughes, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hylton, L.

Underhill, L.

Jeger, B.

Vernon, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Walston, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Kagan, L.

White, B.

Kilbracken, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Kinloss, Ly.

Kirkhill, L.

Winstanley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Eden of Winton, L.

Allerton, L.

Effingham, E.

Alport, L.

Elibank, L.

Ampthill, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Arran, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Atholl, D.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Auckland, L.

Faithfull, B.

Balfour, E.

Ferrers, E.

Bauer, L.

Fortescue, E.

Beaverbrook, L.

Gainford, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Gisborough, L.

Bellwin, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Beloff, L.

Gridley, L.

Belstead, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Bessborough, F.

Blyth, L.

Hankey, L.

Borthwick, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Harvey of Prestbury, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Hayter, L.

Brightman, L.

Hesketh, L.

Brookehorough, V.

Hives, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hooper, B.

Broxbourne, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Burton, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Caccia, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Kimball, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Layton, L.

Carnock, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Cathcart, E.

Long, V.

Chelwood, L.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Colnbrook, L.

McFadzean, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

MacLehose of Beoch, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Mancroft, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Marley, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Merrivale, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Mersey, V.

Dormer, L.

Middleton, L.

Dudley, B.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Dundee, E.

Morris, L.

Eccles, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

1326

Munster, E.

Saint Oswald, L.

Nelson, E.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Newall, L.

Secbohm, L.

Northesk, E.

Shrewsbury, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Onslow, E.

Somers, L.

Orkney, E.

Stockton, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Peel, E.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Ponder, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Sudeley, L.

Porritt, L.

Swansea, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Swinfen, L.

Reay, L.

Swinton, E.

Renton, L.

Terrington, L.

Richardson of Duntishournc, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton. L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Torphichen, L.

Rochdale, V.

Trafford, L.

Rodney, L.

Ullswater, V.

Romney, E.

Wedgwood, L.

Roskill, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Rugby, L.

Wynford, L.

St. Davids, V.

Young of Grafffiam, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
3.50 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 60 to 62 not moved.]
Clause 62 ["Cost,floor" limit on discount on price of house purchased by secure tenant]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 63:
Page 37. line 23, leave out ("5") and insert ("8").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to have some harmonisation between the Scottish and the English in terms of the time after which a property can be sold when repairs have been executed. We are grateful that in Clause 62 the Minister or the Government have brought the operative date forward to 1983. Instead of having a single cut off date, the Government are now proposing a rolling period of five years during which the discount is restricted on a house sold by a local authority.
While we are grateful for this, we in Scotland still feel that we are being slightly cheated because in England the period is eight years. To some extent we have been through this before but during the Committee stage of the Bill the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson, said that:
"the provisions in England and Scotland are at present different: and we see no reason why they should necessarily conform after the change is made…. We do not see any need for the period in which the cost floor operates to be the same in Scotland as in England".—[Official Report, 28/4/88; cols. 299 and 300.]
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton said basically the same thing in Committee in the House of Commons on 1st March 1988 at col. 1123 of the Official Report:
"The hon. Gentleman asked why the situation was different from that in England".
Again he said that the answer was that they would not need to do exactly the same as in England. We accept that, except when it is a disadvantage to Scotland and then we want to do things the same way as in England.
These comments confirm that there is no logical and straightforward reason for this discrepancy of

1327
five and eight years on the rolling programme of the sale of houses. Furthermore, this rule introduces a concept that is used in England of historic costs expenditure rather than outstanding debt incurred in recent years. That makes it all the more difficult to justify the difference between five years in the Scottish Bill and eight years in the English Bill. It is even more important that the eight year rule should apply in Scotland, given that house prices in Scotland do not generally increase in value at the same rate as they do in most parts of England. There are also areas in Scotland where house prices are decreasing. This five-year rule will cause capital losses for authorities and affect modernisations for some of their tenants.
It amazes me that the Government have not so far accepted the amendment which is very simple. We have already had some good news from the Minister and perhaps we may have more. The amendment seeks to have the five-year rule extended to eight years, as in England and Wales. At the very least this will allow more time for house sale prices to grow and reduce the capital losses which would otherwise be incurred by the authorities after houses are modernised. I beg to move.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, this is a matter on which I have received representations from CoSLA and also the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations. Their concern in this matter has been expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael. Basically it is the difference between the eight years in the English Bill as against five years in the Scottish Bill. This is a case where I have argued for uniformity on a number of matters affecting Scotland and England, particularly as regards rating. I now wish to have a degree of uniformity with the new legislation proposed for England. Both CoSLA and the National Federation of Housing Associations are not opposed to the principle of a rolling cost floor but they are concerned about the timescale. For local authorities, for example, the five-year rule will be an inadequate period for price increases to offset the remaining debt. It may also inhibit local authorities from carrying out modernisation work or even new build projects if the possibility exists for tenants to buy these houses five years later with the full discount entitlement.
In the case of the housing associations, whose cause is dear to the heart of the Minister, their concern is slightly different. Their major concern is viability. It is not in the interests of housing associations which are trying to attract private finance if their viability is founded on an asset base which is eligible for sale to sitting tenants who could receive up to 70 per cent. discount.
It occurs to me that this is not a violent political matter at all. It is a matter of accommodation. I accept that Scottish housing is different from English housing in some respects, but in regard to this case I think that there is a very strong claim for uniformity. That would be well received by the representative organisations I have quoted.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I should like to underline the very important point which the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, has just made.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I apologise for not rising, I thought I was going to hear a longer speech. This matter has been debated at length in another place and an identical amendment was discussed here in Committee.
It appears that the main purpose behind the noble Lord's amendment is to bring the English and Scottish proposals on this matter into line. As noble Lords will know however, there are already differences in the legislation north and south of the Border on this issue.
We believe that in the case of public sector landlords such as local authorities a five-year rolling cost floor arrangement is sensible and workable. It will mean that, unless the full market value itself is lower than the cost, no authority will be required to sell immediately a new build or newly improved property for less than the cost of providing or modernising it. Nor should an authority be tempted to allocate to newly built housing only tenants with relatively short periods as public sector tenants, therefore with a relatively low discount entitlement. Moreover, if we make reasonable assumptions on house price inflation—and I shall come back to that in a moment—and if we allow for the likelihood of a range of discount entitlements among the tenants who exercise the right to buy these new houses and the probability that all tenants will not exercise the right to buy immediately the five-year period comes to an end, any supposed losses which local authorities might sustain by selling houses will in our view be small. Most houses which are purchased under the right to buy will, I am sure, continue to be sold at prices above the cost of provision.
I should assure noble Lords that the remaining tenants of these local authorities selling houses for less than the debt outstanding on them are unlikely to have to meet any substantial additional costs through their rents. Where an authority at present receives housing support grant (that is direct housing subsidy from the Government) the formula for this subsidy will act to compensate the authority for any loss sustained. If an authority is not at present "in" housing support grant, but the sales at below outstanding debt cause loan charges per remaining council house to rise, and hence rents to rise above the figure which the Secretary of State takes as the threshold for housing support grant, then this grant will once again become payable. For remaining tenants therefore any rent increase as a result of sales will be limited. I remain convinced that these proposals, based on a five year cut-off period represent a satisfactory compromise.
Any move to an eight year cut-off period would, in the short term at least, be of little benefit to tenants in Scotland. Indeed given that we are moving away from a reducing outstanding debt component replacing it with a fixed historic cost amount, there could he cases where an eight year cut-off period would be a disadvantage to tenants seeking to purchase.
At the previous stage of the Bill the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, talked quite a lot about Angus district and the problems of house prices in Montrose going down and the problems that that would cause.

1329
I made it my business to look into the overall situation in Angus district. I gave the noble Lord the Scottish figures for which I believe he is grateful. But he said that that did not affect Angus district and he wanted to know about the situation there.
I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, that in 1987 the average selling price of a house purchased under the right-to-buy provisions in Angus district was £10,720, representing a discount on average of 48.7 per cent. But the important thing is that the amount of outstanding debt per house held on the authority's housing revenue account was £2,888. Sales are therefore well above the outstanding debt level generally, and in this case some £8,000 above it. I hope that helps to convince the noble Lord that while there may be cases such as on the East coast of Scotland where the depression in the oil industry presents problems, I do not think that in the overall context, even in the case of the district council of Angus, this provision should present an overwhelming problem. However, I recognise the point that the noble Lord made at the previous stage of the Bill.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, as regards housing associations (in which I am extremely interested), I would say that we discussed this matter in Committee. I see no grounds for anxiety. As I said at that time, any loss is directly borne by the Government. As a general rule, housing associations' debt is only 10 to 20 per cent. of the capital cost and discounted selling prices can hardly fail to cover that. In this case, as regards housing associations, this is not a relevant matter. I must therefore resist the amendment standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael.
4 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I am grateful for the trouble the Minister has taken to explain the Government's thinking once again in the light of some of the points that were made in Committee, when he said that he would look into the cost floor. The amendment was not moved with any purely chauvinistic thoughts in mind. It was moved as a result of a very practical consideration. Local authorities were concerned that they would be selling houses where the outstanding debt was considerably more than the price that they were able to secure for the houses.
The Minister raised a number of new points. I do not know whether we shall be coming back to them; but after sober consideration, we may decide that we want further explanation of the new points. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 64:
After Clause 62, insert the following new clause:
("Schemes for payments to assist local authority tenants to obtain other accommodation.
62A.—(l) In accordance with a scheme made by a local authority and approved by the Secretary of State under this section, the authority may make grants to or for the benefit of
1330
qualifying tenants of the authority with a view to assisting each person to whom or for whose benefit a grant is made to obtain accommodation otherwise than as a tenant of the authority either—

(a) by acquiring an interest in a house; or

(b) by carrying out works to a house to provide additional accommodation; or

(c) by both of those means.

(2) A scheme under this section shall contain such provisions as the local authority considers appropriate together with any which the Secretary of State may require as a condition of his approval and, without prejudice to the generality, a scheme may include provisions specifying, or providing for the determination of—

(a) the persons who are qualifying tenants for the purposes of the scheme;

(b) the interests which qualifying tenants may be assisted to acquire;

(c) the works for the carrying out of which grants may be made;

(d) the circumstances in which a grant may be made for the benefit of a qualifying tenant;

(e) the amount of the grant which may be made in any particular case and the terms on which it may be made;

(f) the limits on the total number and amount of grants which may be made; and

(g) the period within which the scheme is to apply.

(3) The Secretary of State may approve a scheme made by a local authority under this section with or without conditions and, where a scheme has been approved, the authority shall take such steps as it considers appropriate to bring the scheme to the attention of persons likely to be able to benefit from it and shall take such other steps (if any) as the Secretary of State may direct in any particular case to secure publicity for the scheme.
(4) The Secretary of State may revoke an approval of a scheme under this section by a notice given to the local authority concerned; and where such a notice is given, the revocation shall not affect the operation of the scheme in relation to any grants made or agreed before the date of the notice.
(5) Where a scheme made by a local authority under this section has been approved, a person dealing with the authority shall not be concerned to see or enquire whether the terms of the scheme have been or are being complied with; and any failure to comply with the terms of a scheme shall not invalidate any grant purporting to be made in accordance with the scheme unless the person to whom the grant is made has actual notice of the failure.
(6) In this section, "local authority" and "house" have respectively the meanings assigned to those expressions by section 338(1) of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 64 I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 102. New Clause 62A would give local authorities, with the consent of the Secretary of State, specific powers to make payments to their tenants to help them to obtain other accommodation. I hope and believe that this clause will be welcomed by the House. It is an enabling provision, designed to allow the local authorities to draw up schemes—which will require the Secretary of State's approval under which they will be able to offer payment to tenants to move out of their council houses. Such payments would, for example, be used as deposits on the purchase of houses in the private sector. The resulting council house vacancy will then be available for letting to, for example, homeless families or to people on the waiting list.
As the new clause says, the local authority may include in such a scheme such provisions as it believes appropriate. The Secretary of State may also, in considering whether or not to approve such schemes, take into account and make as a condition of approval, the following factors: which tenants should be eligible for such payments; what property tenants moving out should be eligible to acquire or adapt; the amount of grant which might be paid to

1331
any tenant and under what conditions; the limits on the total number and amounts of grants which may be made; and the time within which the scheme should apply.
The new clause will also require an authority where a scheme has been approved to bring the scheme to the attention of those who might benefit from it.
Subsections (4) and (5) are included to protect the tenants involved. Subsection (4) allows the Secretary of State to revoke any approval given, but without prejudice to any payments made by the authority prior to such a revocation. Subsection (5) is a standard provision to ensure that if a local authority fails to comply with any of a scheme's requirements, an innocent recipient of assistance does not have to repay grant.
I believe the attractions of this new enabling provision are obvious. The tenant is helped with a payment from the local authority to get started on the owner-occupation ladder. The local authority obtains a vacant house at the price of a payment which will be less than the cost of building a new house. The accommodation available for the homeless, and to those on the council's waiting list, will be increased. Indeed, relief of homelessness, which we have debated throughout the course of the Bill in this House, is the main justification as we see it for bringing forward this new provision. The Secretary of State will have particular regard to the levels of homelessness in an area when he considers whether or not to approve a scheme of this type; and he will of course wish to be satisfied that value for money will be obtained for the payments made by the local authority.
Noble Lords may know that a number of authorities in England have run pilot schemes of this type. My right honourable friends the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Scotland have looked particularly at schemes which have been operated in the London boroughs of Brent and Bromley, whose findings have now been published. They showed that relatively modest payments to tenants could secure a useful number of vacancies which could then be used, directly or indirectly, to house homeless families in proper, permanent homes rather than in unsatisfactory bed-and-breakfast accommodation. It is interesting that all but one of the 72 houses in the scheme which were vacated in Brent and two-thirds of the 92 houses in Bromley were relet to homeless households. Most grant recipients were under the age of 40 as opposed to the right-to-buy applicants who were, in the main, over 50.
Our consideration of these experimental schemes has led us to believe that local authorities should be given specific powers to make such payments. A similar provision was introduced in the Housing Bill in another place. Tenants who receive cash payments to move will, for example, be able to choose new accommodation in areas more in accordance with their own preferences and requirements. The new clause specifically provides that payments may be for an extension to an existing house as well as towards purchase. This could allow a grant to he given, for
1332
example, where an elderly person wished to live with a son or daughter and it was necessary to extend a home or build a "granny flat".
Let me emphasise that the new clause would not oblige local authorities to offer cash incentive payments. Nor would it give tenants a right to a payment. Nor will any tenant be forced to move. Local authorities will be able if they wish to come forward to the Secretary of State seeking approval to schemes for making such payments. The nature and extent of cash incentive schemes will be for local authorities themselves to devise. However, I have outlined the sort of matters the Secretary of State would expect to see covered in such schemes.
It will need to be made clear which tenants are eligible (perhaps tenants with more than a certain period of public sector tenancy), and what size of payments can be made. With value for money very much in mind, it will also be necessary to ensure that cash assistance to move goes to those tenants who do not have the resources to buy property without such assistance. However, I emphasise that we do not propose to set hard and fast rules. It will be up to each local authority which may be interested to justify the details of any scheme it puts forward. The new powers will I am sure be welcomed by all those who share our concern to reduce the problems caused by homelessness. I repeat that, with this purpose particularly in mind, authorities where the homelessness problem is most acute will have the strongest case for having cash incentive schemes approved.
This new clause is not the complete answer to the problem of homelessness which we have debated at great length. It was one of the major factors in the discussions in this Chamber on this Bill. The effect of cash incentive schemes may not, in itself, be huge; but I believe they will make a useful contribution. So will the new measures in Part II of the Bill which concern the private rented sector and which will encourage private sector landlords to make more accommodation available for letting. I am convinced that the Bill as a whole will have a substantial positive impact in alleviating homelessness. With that in mind, I have pleasure in commending the new clause to the House.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, the explanation of the clause which the Minister has given is of great interest. However, by the nature of things he was not able to give us as much detail as we should like. We welcome anything which brings flexibility in dealing with housing to let. The earlier suggestion of the building of granny flats was very acceptable.
One of the problems raised by the new clause concerns tenants who have been in a house for a considerable time and the matter of the 70 per cent. discount. It is possible that such a tenant might not have the available cash for even 30 per cent. of the price. Would a cash amount which might be paid in such circumstances take account of the long-term tenancy? Would that entitle the tenant to the discount? The assumption is that there will be houses available for such people to move to. I believe that the Minister will agree that the schemes in Brent and

1333
Bromley are still in the early stages and that the numbers involved are small. However, it is helpful to have evidence that people may be able to choose the houses they want.
The biggest single worry of many of us who live in industrialised areas with a high percentage of local authority housing is the possibility of ending up with ghetto housing. It is possible that people will be only too pleased to move out of the less desirable parts of an area and leave houses behind for the use of those who were previously homeless. While the crude belief is that someone who has been homeless will accept any accommodation, I am sure that the Minister will know that that is not true. People may feel trapped in the housing machine when they have been offered a large number of houses in an area and have not accepted any of them.
There are many good points in the new clause and it would be churlish not to accept that. Many of the comments which have been made in this House and in another place must be taken into consideration. Having said that, I give a guarded welcome to the new clause.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, there are cogent arguments to he made in favour of the new clause. If it comes into effect and succeeds in reducing homelessness and the use of bed-and-breakfast accommodation, that will be a step forward. Nevertheless, I believe that the clause has implications for housing management. I hope that lessons will he learnt from the experiences of the past—in particular that it is a great mistake to concentrate families and tenants with numerous personal problems in one district or area. In the past. I stayed on a housing estate in north Edinburgh where one could see exactly what had gone wrong and how potentially good housing had been reduced to an almost unlettable condition.
The other matter that concerns me is that there is no guidance given as regards the amount of grant or loan which may be made. That is to be arranged at some future date between the local authority and the Secretary of State. Tenants of charitable housing associations in England could ascertain the amount of their portable discount in advance. Therefore, there was some certainty. I hope very much that under this clause there will be equal treatment for people in equal circumstances.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Carmichael, I find much of the new clause attractive. The Minister made reference to the pilot schemes in two London boroughs. In doing so, he indicated a difference between age groups. He said that the people who exercised their right to buy with a discount tended to be older. The limited evidence from the two London schemes indicates that it is generally people under the age of 40 who take advantage of such schemes.
Am I correct in thinking that the new proposals will be of particular advantage to people who wish to
1334
own a house but do not wish to buy the house in which they are living and who will therefore not receive the benefit of a discount? Alternatively, will people who live in a house and wish to be the owner-occupier of it qualify for a discount only at the lower level? Assuming that the clause is in operation, presumably such people will expect to receive a payment for acquiring another house which will be greater than the discount which they would have acquired if they had bought their current residence. Will payment for an acquisition of another house or for the adaptation of an existing house be more advantageous financially than acquiring the house in which those people are currently living?
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, perhaps I may say a word about people who are living in the council housing of rural local authorities. I believe that the provisions of the clause will be extremely helpful and attractive if the council housing in which they live is not where they wish to stay indefinitely or housing which they wish to buy. It is possible that many people will wish to buy a house in another area. The new clause may even enable people to buy houses on farms which are no longer required and which farmers wish to sell but which may need a lot of money spent on them. It may be possible to receive a grant in those circumstances. Such a scheme would be attractive to a rural local authority because it would enable the authority to free houses for the use of homeless people or those on waiting lists.
Perhaps the Minister can tell the House whether the dwelling for which a person obtains a grant must be situated in the same local authority area. I think that that question will arise when people hear about these provisions. I see no mention of that matter in the new clause.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I believe that, on the whole, the scheme is very good. The danger must be the possibility of ghetto housing where people do not wish to buy a house in an area which is undesirable but will accept a grant to move out.
It must be a good thing if people in their forties who could not afford a deposit for a house can receive a grant which will start them off in buying a house outside the area. However, I still think that the Minister ought to touch on the question of the creation of a ghetto, which appears to me to be likely in some cases.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords and my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour for their contributions to the debate. I look forward to studying the points that they have made. The general concept has been welcomed. We are perhaps breaking new ground: all we have to go on at this particular stage are the experiments in Brent and Bromley; and it is very difficult to draw conclusions on such a narrow base.
Turning to the possibility of the worst council houses being vacated, most of the houses vacated in Brent and Bromley were either flats or maisonettes. Only one-in-six of those receiving grants said that their council homes were in poor repair. Approximately 60 per cent. said that their council

1335
homes were in fairly good repair, and about a further 25 per cent. said that they were in very good repair. In Brent 67 per cent. of grant purchasers had full central heating in their council homes while in Bromley approximately 60 per cent. had central heating.
I well understand the points made about ghettos. That is obviously something that the local authority will have to consider. It should be remembered that it is on the local authority's initiative that any policy decision is taken. The authority will have at its command knowledge of its own area and the likely effects of such decisions. In putting up a scheme to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, local authorities will no doubt bear that in mind. Certainly it is something that the Secretary of State would have to be very clear about when giving approval.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, will the Minister give way? Would that mean that a local authority could put forward a scheme relating to a certain part of the housing stock, or does it have to apply to the whole of the housing stock at one time?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, with the leave of the House, it is my understanding that it is up to the local authority to bring forward a scheme of its choosing. It gives it the power to decide exactly what to bring forward to the Secretary of State. It does not apply to the whole of the housing stock.
As I have said before, we do not intend to set hard and fast rules. It will be for the local authority to justify the details of any scheme, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, understands. However, experience in the experimental schemes in Brent and Bromley suggests that, in Scottish conditions at least, authorities might wish to consider payments of several thousand pounds, perhaps between £5,000 and £10,000, in individual cases. Amounts might, for example, vary according to the time a tenant has spent in public sector accommodation, much on the lines of the discounts available under the right-to-buy scheme.
The Government definitely wish to try to alleviate some of the problems in relation to homelessness which have been raised by noble Lords. If this amendment presents a way forward and is one that can be cost-effective—and we think that local authorities when they study the scheme will understand that it can be cost-effective—then I believe that there is a real chance that we shall be able to tackle some of the problems of homelessness in Scotland.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may ask my noble friend if he can answer my question about the area in which the house has to be located.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I apologise. The answer is no not necessarily.
On Question, amendment agreed to.1336
Clause 63 [Abolition and capitalisation of certain subsidies and contributions]:
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 65:
Page 38, line 25, leave out ("instalments") and insert ("payments").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the amendment simply achieves consistency with the other references to "payments" rather than "instalments" in subsection (3) of the clause. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 66:
Page 38, line 44, leave out ("Board") and insert ("Commissioners").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, Amendment No. 66 is a purely drafting amendment. It will produce a reference to the Public Works Loan "Commissioners" rather than "Board", which is the more usual expression in legislation. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 67:
Page 39, line 21, leave out subsection (8) and insert—
("(8) Paragraph 1(b) of Schedule 16 to the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 (duty of local authority to credit slum clearance subsidy to slum clearance revenue account) shall cease to have effect on 1st April 1989.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 67, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 97 and 100.
Under paragraph 1(b) of Schedule 16 to the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987, local authorities are required to credit to their slum clearance revenue account payments of slum clearance subsidy. However, under the provisions of this clause the only payments to be made to local authorities in respect of expenditure on slum clearance on or after 1st April 1989 will be capital payments made under subsection (3). Slum clearance subsidy itself will disappear. Such capital payments will be credited to the appropriate capital account and not to a revenue account. Amendment No. 67 therefore replaces the existing subsection (8) with a more definite provision to remove the duty on local authorities to credit subsidy payments to the slum clearance revenue account with effect from the beginning of April 1989. Amendment No. 100, as a consequence, adds paragraph 1(b) to Schedule 16 to the repeal schedule. The repeal will take effect from the beginning of April 1989. Similarly, Amendment No. 97 amends Section 207 of the 1987 Act, which at present refers to Section 200 of that Act, so as to import the relevant parts of Section 200, which is being repealed, explicitly into Section 207.
In summary, the points are therefore technical and consequential on the rest of the clause. I commend the amendments to your Lordships. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 66 [Rent officers: additional functions relating to housing benefit etc.]
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 68:
Page 40, line 5, after ("instrument") insert ("which, except in the case of the first order to be made, shall be").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 68, I shall also speak to Amendment No. 69.
Before going on to explain the need for the Amendments, I should emphasise that Clause 66 is simply an enabling power allowing my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to make orders related to the work of rent officers in carrying out their new functions in connection with housing benefit subsidy.
Your Lordships will be aware that, as currently drafted, Clause 66 provides that the orders to specify the functions of rent officers in relation to housing benefit subsidy are to be subject to negative resolution of either House of Parliament. On reflection, and following strong representations from honourable and right honourable Members in another place, the Government have decided that the first order, which will detail exactly how rent officers will carry out their new task, should be subject to affirmative resolution. Any subsequent order will, however, be subject to negative resolution. That is the purpose of the amendments and I commend them to your Lordships. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 69:
Page 40, line 10, at end insert ("; and the first order under this section shall not be made unless a draft of it has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendments No. 70 to 72:
Page 40, line 10, at end insert—
("( ) At the end of section 21(6) of the Social Security Act 1986 (regulations prescribing maximum family credit and maximum housing benefit) there shall be added the words "and regulations prescribing the appropriate maximum housing benefit may provide for benefit to be limited by reference to determinations made by rent officers in exercise of functions conferred under section 66 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988".").
Page 40, line 11, leave out ("the Social Security Act 1986") and insert ("that Act").
Page 40, line 24, leave out ("the Social Security Act 1986") and insert ("that Act").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall move Amendments Nos. 70, 71 and 72 together. Amendment No. 70 brings the Scottish Bill into line with the English one. This is necessary since the housing benefit system, with which the rent officers will become involved through Clause 66, covers the whole of Great Britain.
The effect of the main amendment is simply to allow my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services to take into account the determinations made by rent officers under Clause 66 if he makes regulations limiting the maximum amount of housing benefit that may be paid in certain circumstances.
It clearly makes sense to allow my right honourable friend to use the information arising as a result of Clause 66 in this case: not to do so would
1338
require wasteful duplication or lead to unacceptable inconsistency.
Amendments Nos. 71 and 72 are simply consequential drafting points. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
4.30 p.m.
Clause 68 [Amendments to the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 and other enactments and repeals]:
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 73:
Page 40, line 44, after second ("Act") insert ("(being, respectively, amendments connected with the consolidation of enactments effected by that Act and minor amendments)").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, with the leave of your Lordships, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 73 and 75 together. During consideration in Committee of Schedules 7 to 9, my noble friend Lord Balfour and other noble Lords suggested that the presentation of consequential, miscellaneous and minor amendments in these three schedules was confusing. As I explained at that time, there is need for the Bill to show clearly which amendments flow directly from and are therefore consequential on earlier provisions and which, although connected, do not arise as a direct consequence of provisions in the Bill. I hope that these amendments, which include an explanation of the purpose of the schedules in the body of the Bill, will clarify the matter. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 74:
Page 41, line 1, leave out ("set out") and insert ("specified").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment brings the wording of Clause 68 into line with similar references elsewhere in the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.,
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 75:
Page 41, line 2, at end insert ("(being amendments consequential upon the provisions of this Act and other minor amendments").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 70 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 76:
Page 41, line 10, after ("force") insert ("as follows—

(a) section 65 and section 68 (so far as relating to Schedule 7) and this section and that Schedule, shall come into force on the day this Act is passed;

(b) sections 33 to 37, 62, 63 and 67 and section 68 (so far as relating to Schedule 8 and to the entries in Schedule 10 in respect of—

(i) sections 62(11) to (13), 151, 200, 254, 255, 296 and 297 of; and

(ii) provisions of Schedules 13 and 14 to,

the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987),
and Schedule 8 and, in Schedule 10, those entries shall come into force at the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed;

1339

(c) section 68 (so far as relating to the entry in Schedule 10 relating to paragraph (1)(b) of Schedule 16 to the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987) and that entry shall come into force on 1st April 1989;

(d) the remaining provisions shall come into force.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment provides specifically for certain sections of the Act to come into force at certain times. This has the advantage of giving those who have an interest more notice of the commencement dates than would be possible if commencement were determined by a statutory instrument.
It commences, immediately the Act is passed, those sections which correct errors made in earlier enactments and which have retrospective effect for that reason. It commences at the earliest reasonable date thereafter, which we consider to be two months after the passing of the Act, those sections which we see no good reason to delay. These are: the sections which provide further protection for tenants against illegal eviction and harassment; the section which makes change to the cost floor limit on discount on right to buy houses; the section which abolishes certain specific exchequer subsidies to be replaced by support through the rate support grant system; and the section which extends the powers of development corporations to dispose of housing land; as well as associated minor and consequential amendments to other enactments.
Finally the amendment provides for the commencement of the repeal of that section of the 1987 Act governing the payment of slum clearance subsidy on 1st April 1989 after which time support will be provided through the rate support grant system. I am sure your Lordships will agree that this is a sensible timetable for the introduction of these provisions. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 77:
Page 41, line 17, leave out from ("or') to ("extend") in line 20 and insert ("sections 3 and 68 and Schedules 2, 9 and 10 as relates to enactments extending to England and Wales, section 4 and Schedule 3").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, with the leave of your Lordships I shall speak to Amendments No. 77 and 98 together. These amendments remove from this Bill certain references to and repeals of the Housing Associations Act 1985, rendered unnecessary as a result of amendment to the Housing Bill made in another place. I am sure your Lordships will agree that it is sensible to bring together in that Bill those amendments to the 1985 Act which arise out of the establishment of both Scottish Homes and Housing for Wales. I therefore commend the amendments to your Lordships and beg to move.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, this amendment, as the last words indicate, deals with Schedule 3. Perhaps the Minister can explain what is happening to Schedule 3. In Clause 59(4) of the Housing Bill there is the remarkable assertion:
"Without prejudice to the operation of Schedule 3 to the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988 in relation to anything done before the day appointed for the coming into force of this section, for the purpose of giving effect to the amendments in Part 1 of Schedule 6 to this Act, the said Schedule 3 shall be deemed never to have come into force".
1340
Exactly what are the Government playing at? It is extraordinary to have a schedule coming into force on the date to be appointed by the Secretary of State and then—perhaps we shall be discussing this point tomorrow—to have a provision that the schedule is never to have been in force or is to be deemed never to have been in force at all. That demands some explanation and perhaps the noble Earl will give one.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I should like to take up the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Morton. Perhaps I may also point out that the amendments in Schedule 3 to the Housing Associations Act are very different from the amendments which are in Schedule 6 to the Housing Bill that is also before us, so that again there is confusion. I wonder which will affect what. If Schedule 3 is to apply only to Scotland, some amendments to that effect need to be tabled in relation to this Bill or equally to the English Housing Bill. Something needs to be cleared up.
I have always felt that in studying legislation it is important to consider also the amendments to existing legislation in the schedules. Wherever the two contradict, it is very complicated for anybody who wishes to understand the legislation to know what is what. I should like to give your Lordships one example. At the top of page 51 of the Housing (Scotland) Bill there are emendations to Section 15A of the Housing Associations Act which was introduced because of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1986. The English Bill introduces a completely new Section 15A, although I admit it is under the same title. I find that sort of thing extremely confusing and so, no doubt, do other people who are supposed to understand the legislation.
For that reason, I feel that some explanation needs to be put forward and that both the English and the Scottish Bills should make absolutely clear which amendments affect what. This is particularly important for an Act such as the Housing Associations Act 1985, which is bound to concern a great many charitable organisations and others. It is something that I find totally mystifying at the present moment.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I am grateful to both the noble Lord, Lord Morton, and my noble friend Lord Balfour for their interventions on this matter at this stage. To the noble Lord, Lord Morton, I can say that this provision is intended to avoid the need for a complex series of amendments to amendments. In practice, it is not intended that Schedule 3 to this Bill should come into effect before the Housing Bill provisions. As I said, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I shall read what he has said and come back to him on any implications of his remarks that we should take into account.
In answer to my noble friend Lord Balfour, the Housing Bill will apply to Scotland as well as to England and Wales. It is intended to reproduce the effect of Schedule 3 to this Bill which it will render redundant. My noble friend Lord Balfour gave the House the specific example of Section 15A. The Housing Bill reserves the effect in Scotland of Section 15A, even though the drafting may have been tidied up, in the same way that consolidation Bills do.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I do not understand this. We shall shortly deal with Schedule 3. The Government are putting forward amendments to Schedule 3. We are told that the schedule will never be brought into force. Why then are we bothering? If it is intended that the schedule will never be brought into force, why is there not an amendment to take it out? If the schedule is to be enforced, what is the point in having the provision even for a week or so when at some later date a court will look at it and say that it shall be deemed not to have come into force? If someone acts on the provision in Schedule 3, if it is ever enforced, and Schedule 6 to the Housing Bill is eventually brought into force and, with retrospective effect, abolishes Schedule 3, what is a court to do? Is it to say that the person acted on something that it now deems never to have existed? This is a ridiculous position.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, perhaps I may refer to another point that the Minister made. There are provisions affecting Scotland in the Housing Bill before the House. When a Scottish Bill is going through its stages in the House, should not everything affecting Scotland be in that Bill rather than partly in the Bill now under consideration and partly in another Bill? After all, there is another stage yet to be taken in this House, and it should not be impossible for the Government to include provisions in the Scottish Bill and take them out of the English Bill.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, if Schedule 3 shall be deemed never to have come into force in the English Bill. there must surely be an amendment to the Scottish Bill that Schedule 6 of the English Bill shall never come into effect in Scotland. As it is, the situation is very complicated. I entirely support what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. When I looked through the English Bill I was surprised by the number of references made to Scotland in regard to Scottish Acts and the Housing (Scotland) Bill. In the area of housing there are quite a number of differences between England and Scotland. Let us not make the differences even more confusing than they already are.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I shall reply first to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. The explanation for the apparent anomaly to which he has drawn attention is that the other place wished to have time to discuss matters first. The noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, asked why, if Schedule 3 is not intended to come into effect, the provision is necessary. The answer is that it is just in case everything does not proceed as planned.
As I said earlier, I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions on the matter at this stage and for drawing attention to possible anomalies. I shall look at the matter again and see whether we can effect any improvement before Third Reading.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister will consider the phrase in the Housing Bill to the effect that the schedule shall be deemed never to come into force. If the schedule
1342
comes into force and Parliament subsequently approves legislation which provides that the schedule is deemed never to have come into force, can the Minister explain how a court will interpret it and how a person will act on a schedule which at some later date will be torpedoed apparently by executive action and deemed never to have existed? It is difficult to see what a person acting on Schedule 3 when it is in force will do when it is taken out of force.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Scottish Homes]:
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 78:
Page 43, line 52, at end insert ("or loss or diminution of emoluments").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, paragraph 10(3) of Schedule 1 permits Scottish Homes to compensate employees who suffer loss of office or employment by way of payment of pension, allowance or gratuity. The amendment is designed to extend the paragraph to pay compensation to those employees who suffer loss or diminution of emoluments. It brings the wording of the paragraph into line with the equivalent paragraph of the new schedule to the Housing Bill setting up housing for Wales. I commend the amendment to the House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 79:
Page 44, leave out lines 26 and 27.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we debated Amendments Nos. 79, 80 and 81 in Committee and a reply was read to us by the Minister which unfortunately seemed not very satisfactory. I therefore return to the problem. In moving Amendment No. 79, 1 shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 80 and 81.
All the amendments deal with the question of employees who transfer from the Scottish Special Housing Association, and more particularly the Housing Corporation. Paragraph 1 1 of the schedule provides that Scottish Homes shall make an offer of employment to each person employed immediately before such date as the Secretary of State may determine,
"and any question as to the persons to whom an offer of employment is to he made under this paragraph shall he determined by the Secretary of State".
In Committee I raised the question of why those lines were included. I was told it was intended that every person employed would be given an offer of employment. We queried why the Secretary of State should determine the question. If an individual considers that he or she is a person who should have been made an offer, what does the individual do? Does he or she write to the Secretary of State or have the right of appeal? How is the question to be decided by the Secretary of State?
The provision seems unnecessary. However, if it is to exist, people should have the right to appeal to the courts to decide whether they fall within or outwith the right. The position concerns particularly a small number of people who are in what is called the

1343
registration supervision division of the Housing Corporation. They are classified as outposted staff. They work in Scotland, but are outposted from the head office of the Housing Corporation in England. Are they intended to be classified as working in Scotland? It is not clear.
Amendments Nos. 80 and 81 relate to a rather peculiar position. These people having received an offer of employment have three months in which to accept it. If they do not accept, they have three months dating from the date of the offer to apply to a tribunal. The normal industrial provisions specify that it should be three months after the cessation of the employment or six months from such a notice. It appears reasonable that there should be three months after the cessation of the offer in which to lodge the appeal.
No satisfactory answer was given in Committee. Therefore, the amendments come forward again. If a person has until midnight on 31st March to accept an offer, it seems ridiculous that he or she is required to have delivered an appeal to the industrial tribunal before 5 o'clock on 31st March, which is effectively what he would have to do under the provision. Therefore my amendment seeks to increase the period to six months from the offer so as to make the position logical and in line with employment law in general. I beg to move.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, these amendments were debated in some detail (as the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, knows) during Committee stage. I have listened carefully to the points made by him then and today; but I am still of the view that these amendments are both unnecessary and undesirable.
One general and important point which I should make on all three amendments is that the Scottish Office have received no approach whatsoever from representatives of the staff of the Housing Corporation or the SSHA suggesting that there are any practical grounds for anxiety arising out of the Bill as drafted. However, in view of what the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, has said about outposted staff, I shall immediately look at the situation in relation to those personnel now that he has raised it; but it is the first time that it has been brought to my attention or to the attention of my department. It would in my view be wrong to amend the Bill to meet theoretical problems when, if there were genuine fears of practical problems. It would have been perfectly possible for the staff or their unions to have raised those problems with us. I would have hoped that this might have taken place at any point during the months leading up to this moment and this stage of the Bill. However, turning to the technicalities raised by these amendments, I deal first with the Secretary of State's role—
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, does that mean that if I raise something in Committee in this House it is of less significance than if a member of the union raises it in another place? Do I understand that because I raised it and the unions have not raised it that it was of no significance? I can assure the noble Lord that I raised it because the union raised it with
1344
me. It seems unnecessarily complicated that there should have to be two occasions. I understood that this place was of significance to Ministers of the Crown; but perhaps I am wrong.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I believe that snide remarks of that kind do not do much to further the cause of the Bill in this Chamber. So far as I am concerned, 1 believe that those who have a proper problem to raise usually face it up fairly early when they know the circumstances. However, now that it has been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, I treat the matter extremely seriously. It will receive my extremely careful consideration, and extremely careful answers will be given to those affected.
Turning to the technicalities raised by these amendments, I shall deal first with the Secretary of State's role in determining questions arising as to the person to whom an offer of employment should be made. It is obviously much more convenient, less costly, and quicker for all concerned if such determinations are made by an administrative agency, such as the Secretary of State, rather than by the courts, and I see no good reason to believe that it is any less appropriate. It is worth noting that a similar provision is included in the Housing Bill, referring questions arising out of offers of employment by Housing for Wales, to the Secretary of State for Wales.
To return to practicalities, my colleagues and I have given unequivocal undertakings about offers of employment, and I am not aware of any employee of the Housing Corporation or the SSHA whose circumstances would give rise to any difficulty in determining whether or not an offer of employment for Scottish Homes would be appropriate.
Turning now to Amendments Nos. 80 and 81, which propose the extension of the time limit for acceptance of an offer of employment for Scottish Homes from three to six months—
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt again, but my amendment is not intended to do any such thing. It is intended to leave the three months for acceptance of the offer but to give a further period of three months for the lodging of an appeal to the industrial tribunal.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: Yes, my Lords, we are dealing with the timescale for an appeal as well as the lodging of the offer. I know that there are other statutory provisions which contain a six months' time limit. The choice of time limit must depend on the circumstances in which it will have to be applied. But in returning to my general point, no one has suggested as a matter of practicality in relation to the absorption of the Housing Corporation in Scotland and the SSHA into Scottish Homes that three months is in any way inadequate. Finally, we must bear in mind that the three-month period is not absolute because it can be extended if an industrial tribunal is satisfied that it was not reasonably practical for complaint to be presented before the end of the period of three months. I hope that that answer will satisfy the noble Lord Lord Morton of Shuna.

1345
Turning to registration and supervision staff, my department is well aware of the position of the staff concerned and I understand that there is no practical doubt about their future. Those employed on this work in Scotland will be offered employment by Scottish Homes. In view of these explanations I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Morton, will seek leave to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I am glad that these points are now to be considered seriously. I shall shortly ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Before doing so, I should point out that the words "reasonably practical" that occur in the provisions about the extension of time are borrowed from the employment legislation. There is a vast amount of case law on what is and what is not "reasonably practical" and it is interpreted very strictly indeed. One has to be laid up in hospital with both arms in a sling before it is "reasonably practical" not to have complied with a time bar. I may return to this at a later stage, but in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 80 and 81 not moved.]
Schedule 2 [Amendments consequential on establishing of Scottish Homes and abolition of SSHA]:
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 82:
Page 48, line 35, at end insert—
("Local Government Act 1988.
16. In section I (1)—

(a) after paragraph (j) there shall he inserted the word "and";

(b) paragraph (1) and the word "and" immediately preceding it shall cease to have effect.

17. In Schedule 2, the words "The Scottish Special Housing Association" shall be omitted.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I also speak to Amendment No. 101. These amendments will ensure that Scottish Homes does not inherit the application to the SSHA of the wider competition requirements to be introduced in the course of 1989 by the Local Government Act 1988.
The competition requirements are intended primarily for local authorities but apply to some bodies which are very similar to local authorities, as the SSHA is at present. They do not apply to the Scottish Development Agency or the HIDB and they are inappropriate to a wide-ranging body like Scottish Homes. This amendment will simply put Scottish Homes on the same footing as the SDA in this matter. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Scottish Homes: Amendments of Housing Associations Act 1985]:
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No 83:
Page 50, line 5, at end insert—
1346
("(3) In subsection (4) of that section, after paragraph (a) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
"(aa) a grant or a loan under section 2(2) of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988;"").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment corrects a technical omission in the Bill.
Section 6 of the Housing Associations Act 1985 allows a registered housing association to request its removal from the register of housing associations presently maintained by the Housing Corporation on condition that the housing association has not received certain payments of grants or loans.
Paragraph 4 of Schedule 3 amends the 1985 Act to apply Section 6 to the register which will be maintained by Scottish Homes. It does not, however, extend the provisions of that section to refer to grants or loans which may be paid to a housing association by Scottish Homes. This amendment rectifies that omission by adding to the list of restrictions the receipt of a grant or loan from Scottish Homes under Clause 2(2) of the Bill.
I am sure your Lordships will agree that this is an entirely sensible amendment which will ensure that Scottish Homes maintains proper control over housing associations in receipt of public funds. I beg to move.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I should like to ask my noble friend shortly to look at what is being said in the English equivalent Housing Bill. This subsection has been amended quite dramatically in a different way; just another example of the differences between England and Scotland.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, 1 am always ready to listen to what my noble friend said. I shall look at this and write to him.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
5 p.m.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 84:
Page 50, line 48, leave out ("15(3)") and insert ("15—
(a) in subsection (2) at the end there shall be added the following paragraph—
"(f) in the case of housing associations registered in the register maintained by Scottish Homes, payments made or benefits granted by such an association with the approval of Scottish Homes (which approval may be given only in relation to a class or classes of case)."
(b) in subsection (3)").
The noble Lord said: I am very pleased in moving Amendment No. 84 to speak also to Amendments Nos. 96 and 99. When I announced at Committee stage the Government's views on various matters concerning tenancies let by housing associations, I indicated that there was one point of considerable concern to housing associations on which I was not in a position to report the Government's conclusions. We have now reached a decision on that point, the granting of tenancies and other benefits to those involved in the running of housing associations or their close relatives. This amendment gives effect to that decision.
Amendment No. 84 will enable Scottish Homes to define classes of case in which the granting of benefits

1347
will be allowed. It is a flexible power which will enable Scottish Homes to use the close knowledge of the affairs of housing associations which it will inherit from the Housing Corporation in Scotland to balance the need for some relaxation of existing controls against the continuing need for safeguards against abuse.
This is a very important balance. The safeguards against abuse introduced in 1980, and consolidated in Section 15 of the Housing Associations Act 1985, were brought in for very good reasons. There had been instances of abuse in England about which the Public Accounts Committee had rightly expressed grave concern and this Government acted to clamp down firmly on any possibility of further abuse. The safeguards have proved very effective and it is important that we maintain that effectiveness.
On the other hand, the blanket safeguards as originally introduced in 1980 have been shown to inhibit some perfectly above-board actions by housing associations. They are also seen to be increasingly in conflict with the move towards tenants' participation in the management of their own homes.
This Government introduced some changes as regards Scotland in 1986. I well remember the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, taking part. Granting of tenancies was allowed for committee members, or close relatives of such, of designated community-based associations. However, that relaxation did not entirely remove the restriction on perfectly proper actions by associations, particularly those which are not community based. No doubt several noble Lords have received representations, as have I, from individual housing associations drawing attention to deserving cases and to the unfortunate effects which the existing restrictions can produce. In particular, dedicated voluntary committee members of associations have found themselves forced to stop making their contribution to the wellbeing of the community in order to ensure that they did not debar a member of their family from a housing choice which was freely available to others.
In the light of this experience, it is apparent that there is a case for some further relaxation. It is also apparent that there is a need for the mechanism for allowing that relaxation to be a flexible one, so that we can avoid going either too far or not far enough. This amendment, by giving Scottish Homes the power to designate classes of case where benefits and payments may be permitted, will allow it to introduce exceptions to the general prohibition which are tailored to particular circumstances as they emerge. By confining this power to classes of case, rather than applying it to individual cases, we are ensuring the evenhanded treatment of those closely involved in the running and decision-making of individual housing associations. That will be of potential benefit to voluntary committee members, employees of associations and close relatives of either group.
I know that this subject has concerned noble Lords and members of all parties in another place and I am very pleased to be able to meet the concern which has been expressed. The chairman of the Scottish
1348
Federation of Housing Associations has written expressing its satisfaction with the amendment. It may be helpful if I quote from his letter. He says:
"The amendment which the Government has proposed for the Report Stage in the House of Lords will, we believe, serve to terminate the difficulties which housing associations and co-operatives have experienced over this issue".
Amendments Nos. 96 and 99 are essentially technical amendments. Part of the effect of Section 15A of the Housing Associations Act 1985 is to allow community-based housing associations to make payment to a committee member, or a member of his or her family, where the association is purchasing the house owned by that person for improvement. Section 15 of the 1985 Act would otherwise prohibit such payments.
As it stands, Section 15A provides that a payment can only be made where the improvement project is to receive housing association grant. There are two reasons for dispensing with this detailed qualifying condition. First, it is probably of little or no practical effect since there have been, and are unlikely to be, housing association rehabilitation projects which involve no housing association grant at all. Secondly, housing association grant will not be a term which has a statutory meaning in Scotland once this Bill comes into effect. It will continue on an administrative basis, within the terms of subsection 2(a) of Clause 2, but that is not an adequate basis for a reference of this kind. I beg to move.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I should be churlish not to be grateful to the Minister for having at long last persuaded the Government to accept the amendment. He has a great deal of experience of housing associations and therefore I know that he supported the proposals put forward in the Housing Bill, of which he spoke earlier, and which we raised in the earlier stages of this Bill.
He will realise that a number of points arise. He was fortunate in finding a way of tabling such an amendment; I could not find a method of doing so. As soon as the amendment was tabled we were approached by the housing associations and the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations. They had a number of questions and I am sure that the noble Lord is aware of them.
The first question is not theirs but occurs to my noble friend Lord Morton and myself. Is the condition now incorporated in Schedule 6 to the Housing Bill? That is a technical point but it is important. I should like to ask whether reasons will be given as regards the classes of cases. Will a schedule or a codification be available to housing associations for their guidance which will not be kept too secret so that associations' affairs will be as open as possible?
Finally, I should like to point out that the implementation of the proposal must wait until the establishment of Scottish Homes. That will not take place until nine months from now—in April 1989—and therefore some associations believe that it would be helpful if the proposal could be put into effect as soon as the Act is on the statute book. I know that when one is thinking of long-term legislation although I have the feeling that little housing legislation is long term and I know that that

1349
view is shared by most Members of both Houses—it may appear that April 1989 is no time away.
However, if you are waiting for a house and believe that you have all the qualifications and that you should have a house; if the housing association has reached its last two or three modernisations or new-build projects; if then you realise that you will be missed out only because of the date; and that if you had been slightly earlier you would certainly have been seriously considered, that period becomes a very long wait. Perhaps the Minister will look into that matter and let us know his views at the next stage of the Bill.
Other than that, I am pleased to accept the amendment and I am grateful to the Minister. I am sure that it has given some help to some housing associations.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, I speak as president of the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations. I am glad to say that the chairman—who is a different person and who does all the work—has written to say how acceptable the amendment is. It will definitely remove from housing associations a matter which was a source of earlier grievance on the part of people who were working hard for that movement.
Let me add that I should have welcomed the explanation had the Minister thrown away the brief and put it into his own words. I am certain that in two or three sentences he would have convinced the House of the value of the amendment.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, like other noble Lords who have spoken I should like to congratulate the Minister on achieving this result. It may be recalled that the question was aired at Second Reading. Most noble Lords who are close to the Scottish housing scene realised what an important contribution housing associations have made. Their contribution to community involvement has been invaluable. It was wrong and unjust that they should suffer from any disqualification.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, I tried to find an appropriate amendment in Committee but found it difficult. With his abiding interest in the welfare of housing associations and his experience in the field, the Minister has managed to do so. We must all be pleased that that has been accomplished. Moreover, it is a tribute to the value of this House in discussing the provisions of this housing Bill that an amendment of this kind can be accepted here. 1 support and congratulate the Minister.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to thank those noble Lords who have helped me to achieve this result. I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, that I would be delighted to throw away my brief but I am not a lawyer. We have to he very careful to get everything just right.
Lord Hughes: You will gain more courage when you have been longer in the job.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: This will do much for housing associations in Scotland. Of that I am absolutely convinced.
On the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, about the housing Bill, the answer to his first question is: not at present. Secondly, in relation to matters raised by the Scottish federation in a letter which I have seen concerning the classes and the definition of classes, I envisage that that will be arranged in discussion between Scottish Homes and the federation. Of course, we hope that they will come to suitable conclusions which are in the interests of both bodies.
The date of implementation is not something which we can readily bring forward. I realise that it is nine months away; but the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, started this discussion in 1986. Therefore, I hope he does not mind waiting because we are going to get it right. I am sure that it will do a great deal of good for the housing association movement in Scotland.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Grounds for possession of houses let on assured tenancies]:
Lord Sanderson of Bowden:Lord Sanderson of Bowden: moved Amendments Nos. 85 to 91:
Page 57, line 49, after ("or") insert (", where the immediate landlord is a registered housing association within the meaning of the Housing Associations Act 1985,").
Page 58, line 7, leave out ("commencement") and insert ("creation").
Page 58, line 14. leave out ("commencement") and insert ("creation").
Page 58, line 17, leave out ("commencement") and insert ("creation").
Page 58, line 22, at end insert ("and the tenant refuses to do so"). Page 58, line 24, after ("house") insert ("and the tenant refuses to do so").
Page 58, line 27, after ("or) insert ("part or).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps I may move Amendments Nos. 85 to 91 en bloc. They make relatively minor but nonetheless important adjustments to the drafting of Ground 6 to Schedule 5.
First, Amendment No. 85 limits the circumstances in which a superior landlord may repossess a property using Ground 6. Your Lordships may recall that during the Committee debate on the Bill I gave as an example of a superior landlord wishing to gain repossession the local authority which sub-lets an empty property to a housing association but later decides to redevelop. This is a legitimate and acceptable reason for a superior landlord to seek repossession but the current drafting of the ground goes wider. The Government have therefore decided to limit repossession by superior landlords to that case only where the immediate landlord is a registered housing association.
Secondly, Amendments Nos. 86 to 88 replace the word "commencement" in paragraph (a) of Ground 6 by the word "creation". This is partly to achieve consistency with drafting elsewhere in the Bill but it is also to close a possible loophole. The policy intention behind this part of Ground 6 is to ensure

1351
that a landlord wishing to repossess under Ground 6 should not have bought his interest in the property after the start of the tenancy since this would unreasonably prejudice tenants' security. As currently drafted it is possible that a landlord could have bought his interest in the house after creation of the tenancy agreement but before its formal commencement. In those circumstances the landlord could circumvent the restriction intended in Ground 6. By substituting "creation" for "commencement" that possibility is removed.
Finally, Amendments Nos. 89, 90 and 91 restore unintended omissions from the ground. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 92:
Page 58, leave out lines 48 to 50.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this matter has been discussed before but I hope the Minister may think again about Ground 9 and the re-possession of a property or house. The problem is that with all the other available grounds for taking over a property, a further one is added that is all-embracing. Under the heading,
"Grounds on which Sheriff may order Possession"
the Bill states:
"Suitable alternative accommodation is available for the tenant or will be available for him when the order for possession takes effect".
That is an extremely wide power given to the landlord, despite the fact that one has to go before a sheriff. If one thinks of the test of reasonableness which has to be applied by the sheriff and given the other grounds available, it cannot be considered reasonable to move tenants for no stated reason. That being the case, this ground should be deleted to avoid wasting the valuable time of the sheriff's courts and creating undue anxiety for tenants. That is the brief of the Scottish Council for Single Homeless who have considerable experience of that.
It must be the case that tenants are allowed to consider the rented house their home and feel that they have some sort of permanence. To have spelled out in the tenancy agreement the likely reasons for repossession and then suddenly to be asked to move because the landlord wishes a transfer is quite wrong.
I believe that all of us involved in the earlier housing Bill who heard about the case in the High Court relating to the definition of homelessness and the suitability of a home must be rather wary of anyone making a subjective decision on suitable alternative accommodation. I cannot remember the pronunciation in that case; perhaps the Minister can. It became quite famous in our debates. The judge decided that strictly according to the reading of the Act, accommodation could be anything so long as it was wind and water tight. There was a repossession in the Feltham area of London on that basis.
We feel it is unnecessary to add that particular ground for repossession and we are rather concerned about the interpretation of suitable alternative accommodation. Perhaps the Minister can reassure me and the single homeless on this point. I beg to move.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I have to admit that I was surprised to see this amendment on the Order Paper. In another place Members on all sides argued strongly that this ground for possession—that suitable alternative accommodation is available—should be discretionary rather than mandatory. The Government responded to those arguments and, as your Lordships are aware, the ground is now subject to the sheriffs discretion.
In those earlier debates, no one argued that the ground should not be available at all. I have of course listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, and to those who have brought forward the idea of this amendment. However, I have not been convinced that the ground should be dropped. There are many conceivable circumstances in which a landlord could not invoke any of the other grounds but could have a reasonable case for repossession. I am thinking for example of a landlord with a relative who, perhaps because of a serious accident, needs to move closer to the landlord so that he or she can better be looked after. In those circumstances I would consider it eminently reasonable for the sheriff to grant possession so long as the tenant had suitable alternative accommodation to go to. On the other hand, I am quite satisfied that making the ground subject to the sheriff's discretion properly protects tenants against unjustified evictions.
The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, talked about suitable alternative accommodation and the definition thereof. The definition of suitable accommodation in Part III of Schedule 5 is very tightly drawn so that the ground is not as wide-ranging as the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, suggests. 1 hope that I have convinced him that having been over this matter in another place at an earlier stage, when we put this measure in on a discretionary rather than mandatory basis, he will see fit to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, did the Minister say ground 3 of Schedule 5?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I said Part III.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I thank the Minister. I certainly understand the examples he gave. There was the possibility of a landlord having a reasonable right to suggest alternative accommodation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 6 [Amendments of Schedule 1 to Rent (Scotland) Act 1984 (c. 58)]:
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendment No. 93:
Page 62, leave out from beginning of line 2 to end of line 4 on page 63 and insert—

NEW SCHEDULES 1A AND IB TO RENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1984
1. After Schedule I to the Rent (Scotland) Act 1984 there shall he inserted the following Schedules—

SCHEDULE 1A
STATUTORY OR STATUTORY ASSURED TENANTS BY SUCCESSION IN A CASE TO WHICH SECTION 3A(l) APPLIES
1. The provisions of paragraph 2 of this Schedule shall have effect for the purpose of determining who is the statutory tenant of a dwelling-house by succession after the death of the person (in this Schedule referred to as "the original tenant") who, immediately before his death, was a protected tenant of the dwelling-house or the statutory tenant of it by virtue of his previous protected tenancy.
2.—(1) The original tenant's spouse where the dwelling-house was that spouse's only or principal home at the time of the tenant's death shall be the statutory tenant so long as the said spouse retains possession of the dwelling-house without being entitled to do so under a contractual tenancy.
(2) For the purposes of this paragraph, a person who was living with the original tenant as his or her wife or husband shall be treated as the spouse of the original tenant.
(3) If, immediately after the death of the original tenant, there is, by virtue of sub-paragraph (2) above, more than one person who fulfils the conditions in sub-paragraph (1) above, such one of them as then has occupancy rights under section 18 of the Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Act 1981 (rights of cohabiting couples) or, if neither or none of them has such rights, such one of them as may be decided by the sheriff, shall he treated as the surviving spouse for the purposes of this paragraph.
3 Where paragraph 2 above does not apply but a person who was a member of the original tenant's family was residing with him in the dwelling-house—

(a) continuously for the period commencing six months before the date of coming into force of section 43 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988 and ending on the tenant's death (where the person was so residing on the said date); or

(b) at the time of and for the period of two years immediately before the tenant's death,

then, after the tenant's death, that person or if there is more than one such person such one of them as may be decided by agreement, or in default of agreement by the sheriff, shall be entitled to a statutory assured tenancy of the dwelling-house by succession.
4. A person who becomes the statutory tenant of a dwelling-house by virtue of paragraph 2 above is in this Schedule referred to as "the first successor".
5. If immediately before his death, the first successor was still a statutory tenant, the provisions of paragraph 6 below shall have effect for the purpose of determining who is entitled to a statutory assured tenancy of the dwelling-house by succession after the death of the first successor.
6. Where a person who—

(a) was a member of the original tenant's family immediately before that tenant's death; and

(b) was a member of the first successor's family immediately before the first successor's death,

was residing with the first successor in the dwelling-house at the time of, and for the period of two years immediately before, the first successor's death, that person, or if there is more than one such person, such one of them as may be decided by agreement or, in default of agreement, by the sheriff, shall be entitled to a statutory assured tenancy of the dwelling-house by succession.
7.—(1) Where after a successor becomes the tenant of the dwelling-house by the grant to him of another tenancy, "the original tenant" and "the first successor" in this Schedule shall, in relation to that other tenancy, mean the persons who were
1354
respectively the original tenant and the first successor at the time of the succession, and accordingly—

(a) if the successor was the first successor, and immediately before his death he was still the tenant (whether protected or statutory), paragraph 6 above shall apply on his death;

(b) if the successor was not the first successor, no person shall become a statutory tenant on his death by virtue of this Schedule.

(2) Sub-paragraph (I) above applies even if—

(a) a successor enters into more than one other tenancy of the dwelling-house; and

(b) both the first successor, and the successor on his death, enter into other tenancies of the dwelling-house.

(3) In this paragraph "succession" means the occasion on which a person becomes the statutory or statutory assured tenant of a dwelling-house by virtue of this Schedule and "successor" shall be construed accordingly.
8. Paragraphs 5 and 6 above do not apply where the statutory tenancy of the original tenant arose by virtue of section 20 of the Rent Act 1965.
SCHEDULE 1B
STATUTORY ASSURED TENANTS BY SUCCESSION IN A CASE TO WHICH SECTION 3A(2) APPLIES
1. The provisions of this Schedule shall have effect for the purpose of determining who is the statutory assured tenant of a dwelling-house by succession after the death of the person (in this Schedule referred to as "the first successor") who, immediately before his death, was the statutory tenant of the dwelling-house by virtue of paragraph 2 or paragraph 3 of Schedule I above.
2. If, immediately before his death, the first successor was still a statutory tenant, the provisions of paragraph 3 below shall have effect for the purpose of determining who is entitled to a statutory assured tenancy of the dwelling-house by succession after the death of the first successor.
3. Where a person who—

(a) was a member of the original tenant's family immediately before that tenant's death; and

(b) was a member of the first successor's family immediately before the first successor's death.

was residing with the first successor in the dwelling-house—

(i) continuously for the period commencing six months before the date of coming into force of section 43 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988 and ending on the tenant's death (where the person was so residing on the said date); or

(ii) at the time of and for the period of two years immediately before the tenant's death,

that person, or if there is more than one such person, such one of them as may be decided by agreement or, in default of agreement, by the sheriff, shall be entitled to a statutory assured tenancy of the dwelling-house by succession.
4.—(1) Where after a succession the successor becomes the tenant of the dwelling-house by the grant to him of another tenancy, "the original tenant" and "the first successor" in this Schedule shall, in relation to that other tenancy, means the persons who were respectively the original tenant and the first successor at the time of the succession, and accordingly

(a) if the successor was the first successor, and immediately before his death he was still the tenant (whether protected or statutory), paragraph 3 above shall apply on his death;

(b) if the successor was not the first successor, no person shall become a statutory tenant on his death by virtue of this Schedule.

(2) Sub-paragraph (1) above applies even if—

(a) a successor enters into more than one other tenancy of the dwelling-house; and

(b) both the first successor, and the successor on his death, enter into other tenancies of the dwelling-house.

(3) In this paragraph "succession" means the occasion on which a person becomes the statutory assured tenant of a dwelling-house by virtue of this Schedule and "successor" shall be construed accordingly.
5. Paragraphs 2 and 3 above do not apply where the statutory tenancy of the original tenant arose by virtue of section 20 of the Rent Act 1965.".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we debated this amendment with Amendment No. 41. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 8 [Miscellaneous Amendments to the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 (c. 26)]:
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee moved Amendment No. 94:
Page 65, line 17, at end insert—
(". In section 61 (secure tenant's right to purchase) after subsection (2) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(2A) For the purposes of subsection (2)(c), where the house was provided by a housing association which, at any time while the house was so provided, was not a registered housing association, the association shall, if it became a registered housing association at any later time, be deemed to have been a registered housing association at all times since it first provided the house."
In section 62 (price of house being purchased by secure tenant) in subsection (4)—

(a) after "(3)" there shall be inserted" (a) "; and (b) at the end there shall be added "; and

(b) where the house was provided by a housing association which, at any time while the house was so provided was not a registered housing association, the association shall, if it became a registered housing association at any later time, be deemed to have been a registered housing association at all times since it first provided the house." ").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment introduces two changes to the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 in order to clear up doubts which appear to exist regarding the qualification of time spent in certain housing association tenancies for the calculation of the right-to-buy and discount.
By these changes we shall eliminate any doubt that if a purchaser under right-to-buy occupied a house which at one time was let by an unregistered housing association, and that association subsequently became registered, then the period of tenancy before the association's registration shall count towards the tenant's entitlement to purchase and, hence, discount.
As I have indicated, this provision is for the avoidance of doubt. There is no change of policy. On that basis I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 9 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Lord Sanderson of Bowden Lord Sanderson of Bowden moved Amendments Nos. 95 to 102:
Page 67, line 42, at end insert—
(". In Schedule 1 (statutory tenants by succession) in paragraph 2 for the word "his" there shall by substituted the words "that spouse's".").
Page 68, line 5, at end insert—
(". In section 15A(1)(a)(i) (permitted payments by community based housing association in Scotland) the words from "being" to "Act" shall cease to have effect.").
Page 69, line 16, at end insert—
(". In section 207 (local authority's duty to keep slum clearance revenue account) for paragraph (b) of subsection (2) there shall be substituted the following paragraph—
"(b) such of the expenditure of the authority in respect of houses and other property, being expenditure not included in paragraph (a), together with any income related to that expenditure as may be approved by the Secretary of State and falls within any of the following categories—

(i) any payment under section 308 (payments to certain owner-occupiers and others in respect of houses not meeting tolerable standard which are purchased or demolished) other than any such payment in respect of an interest in a
1356
house which has been purchased by the local authority for the purpose of bringing that house or another house up to the tolerable standard;

(ii) any payment under section 304 (payments in respect of well-maintained houses) other than any such payment in respect of an interest in a house which has been purchased by the local authority for the purpose of bringing that house or another house up to the tolerable standard;

(iii) any payment under section 234(5) or (6) (payment of removal and other allowances to person displaced);

(iv) such other expenditure as the Secretary of State may direct.").

Schedule 10,
Page 70, leave out from beginning of line 58 to end of line 7 on page 71.
Page 71, line 7, at end insert—

("1985 c. 69.

The Housing Associations Act 1985.

In section 15A(1)(a)(i)the words from "being" to "Act"").

Page 71, line 47, column 3, at end insert—

("In Schedule 16, paragraph 1(b).").

Page 71, line 47, at end insert—

("1988 c. 9.

Local Government Act 1988.

In section 1(1), paragraph (1) and the word "and" immediately preceding it.

In Schedule 2, the words "The Scottish Special Housing Association".").

In the Title,
Line 7, after ("tenants") insert ("to provide for the making of local authority grants to assist local authority tenants to obtain accommodation otherwise than as such tenants;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to Amendments Nos. 95 to 102 and I beg to move them en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.

Firearms (Amendment) Bill
5.25 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ALPORT in the Chair.]
The Earl of Balfour The Earl of Balfour moved Amendment No. 65:
After Clause II, insert the following new clause:
("Revocation of certificates.
.—(1) Where a firearms certificate or a shotgun certificate has been revoked under section 30 of the principal Act, the holder shall arrange for all the firearms, shotguns and ammunition to be handed over to a constable.
(2) Where a firearms certificate in respect of a prohibited weapon or prohibited ammunition had been authorised by the Secretary of State under section 31 of the principal Act has been revoked the holder shall arrange for all firearms and ammunition to be handed over to a constable.").
The noble Earl said: In the principal Act there is special provision for a firearms certificate to be revoked, but I found nothing in either the 1968 Act

1357
or any other legislation which states what shall happen to the guns or prohibited weapons when that occurs. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that weapons in those circumstances are handed over to the police in the shortest possible time.
There is a procedure under Section 40 for appeal. In other legislation there is the provision that the courts may decide, but I do not think that that is altogether satisfactory because the time from the case being brought until it is actually heard in court can be several months. Surely the police are the only authority that should take responsibility for the weapons. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: My noble friend's new clause deals with the fate of firearms and ammunition belonging to a person whose certificate has been revoked. This is an important issue.
A firearm or shotgun certificate may be revoked in the interests of public safety, or if the holder of a firearm certificate fails to deliver it up for the purpose of variation of a condition. On revoking a certificate the police are required to notify the holder in writing and he then has 21 days from the date of the notice in which to surrender his certificate—and, by implication, to dispose of his guns—or to lodge an appeal against the revocation. If an appeal is brought, the certificate holder is not required to surrender his certificate unless the appeal is abandoned or dismissed and, if it is, he has 21 days from that date to surrender the certificate.
The police do have the power of search with a warrant, under Section 46 of the 1968 Act, and may seize and detain any firearm or ammunition in respect of which there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that an offence has been, is being, or is about to be committed. This would cover many occasions on which a certificate is revoked. Moreover, where a person is convicted of an offence under the 1968 Act, or of any other serious offence, the courts may order the cancellation of his certificate and the forfeiture of his guns and ammunition. In such cases a constable may immediately seize and retain the guns and ammunition, although 21 days are allowed for the surrender of the certificate.
However, there are occasions when the police may have cause to revoke a certificate because a holder can no longer safely be allowed to possess a firearm and yet no offence is involved, and so the firearms concerned cannot be seized. This may be where, for example, the holder has become mentally unstable, or is habitually drunk. It seems to us, therefore that there is a strong case for saying that, where the chief officer has grounds for revoking a firearm or shotgun certificate because the continued possession of firearms or shotguns would pose a threat to public safety, any weapons and ammunition held should be surrendered to the police immediately, pending the result of any appeal.
It would not, however, be right to go so far as to allow the police to seize these weapons in cases where public safety is not at risk; for instance, where a certificate is revoked on technical grounds. An example might be when the chief officer varies the
1358
conditions of the certificate. He notifies the holder to send in the certificate and the holder fails to do so. For failing to do so, the chief officer may revoke the certificate. It would not be right, though, to seize the weapon in those circumstances. We must be careful, therefore, to limit any discretion which chief officers have for seizure only to those cases where the person is unfitted to be entrusted with the weapon.
My noble friend is on to a good point and I should like to consider this further without any commitment on what the result might be.
Lord Burton: That is an encouraging answer for the first amendment this evening. I wish we could have had more on Monday. However, I have one point to raise. We need not consider it too seriously but I should like to draw attention to it.
Certain chief constables are already operating as if the Bill had been enacted, particularly in regard to the revocation of certificates and the removal of weapons from certificates. I ask my noble friend to inquire into the position because clearly it is not right that chief constables should jump the gun.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Can the noble Lord, Lord Burton advise which chief constables are alleged to be doing that? The noble Lord will be aware that if a chief constable behaves unlawfully—and the noble Lord suggests that is being done—the person affected can appeal to the courts.
Lord Burton: I do not think there was too much harassment in the case given to me. There was a case in Angus where a certain noble Baroness in this House was questioned regarding her shotguns. I have just been told of another case which I understand comes from Bedfordshire. Mr. Mayhew, who has given permission for his name to be used (I do not know him) has been somewhat harassed by the chief constable of Bedfordshire. There are other cases, and all I am doing is asking that this should be investigated.
5.30 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: I am delighted with the immediate response of my noble friend. It is most encouraging and I hope that he will keep up this happy attitude towards the Government and their helpful legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, is quite right. Chief constables can only operate under the law as it is at present. If my noble friend has positive matters about which he is concerned, I shall be grateful if he will let me know the details. I realise that others may be anxious and I put this point to the noble Lord. We anticipated that there might be some confusion as regards the handling of applications after the events of Hungerford. At the request of the Home Secretary a letter was sent to all chief officers of police on 8th September of last year.
I believe that it quite properly asked each chief officer to,
"review his criteria under the law as it stands in respect of applications to acquire, or to continue to possess,"
self-loading rifles. The point was stressed that each

1359
application should be looked at on its merits having regard to the present law in the light of the reasons given for continued possession. There was no suggestion that all applications for self-loading rifles should be rejected. To my knowledge, no police force has adopted such a policy. However, if my noble friend is further concerned about it and gets in touch with me, I shall pursue the matter.
The Earl of Balfour: I am very grateful that my noble friend will look again at this amendment, and with that assurance I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Balfour The Earl of Balfour moved Amendment No. 66:
After Clause 11, insert the following new clause:
("Powers of search.
The chief officer of police shall be granted a search warrant to enter any premises, where he has reason to believe that any firearms, shotguns or ammunition are being held by any person who does not have the necessary certificate under this Act.").
The noble Earl said: I am sure that the Committee will agree with me that we are interested in the police being able to obtain weapons illegally held. Where a chief officer of police has definite suspicion that firearms are held illegally by someone, he should have the power to seek a search warrant to enter the premises for the purpose of retrieving the weapons. A gun of any kind is a fairly large object and I believe that it can be found fairly easily in a house without unnecessarily upsetting the house. I feel that the chief of police must have this kind of power. I beg to move.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: I support this amendment very strongly but there can be no doubt that there are some snags in the way. If that is so, I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will tell us what they are. Without doubt there are people who have firearms without a firearms certificate.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I shall be very surprised indeed if there are any difficulties with the present law as regards the police obtaining a search warrant if they have reason to believe that someone has firearms or anything else without the appropriate certificate. It seems to be an unnecessary clause.
Earl Ferrers: This amendment will not be suitable because it says:
"The chief officer of police shall be granted a search warrant".
That would be a judicial act and one cannot tell the courts what they can do. There is already power to grant such a warrant under Section 46(1) of the 1968 Act which states that a justice of the peace or magistrate may, if satisfied that there is a reasonable ground for suspecting that an offence has been, is being, or is about to be committed, grant a search warrant authorising the police to enter and search any premises.
This power covers most firearms offences and would include a situation where a firearm, a shotgun or ammunition was held by someone without the necessary certificate. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend will be content with that reply.
Lord Renton: What I wish to say is only just off the point covered by this amendment and dealt with by my noble friend. I can imagine circumstances in which the police might feel that in order to catch somebody who has been using firearms they should have the right to follow that person into any premises where there is reason to believe that firearms are kept and that they are already concerned in the commission of an offence elsewhere. There may be other weapons. Perhaps between now and the Report stage my noble friend will consider whether the present powers are adequate to allow the police to enter for what is virtually crime prevention in those circumstances.
Earl Ferrers: I shall certainly look at the point that my noble friend made. He is very much more versed in the law than I ever shall be. However, if the police wish to enter premises to search for items and they are private premises, they will need a search warrant. Without that the police would be constrained from entering for reasons that we all know and accept. I shall take advice on the point that my noble friend has made, and if I am wrong I shall get in touch with him.
The Earl of Balfour: Once again I am most grateful to the Members of the Committee who have spoken to this amendment. I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 [Firearms dealers]:
Viscount Dilhorne Viscount Dilhorne moved Amendment No. 67:
Page 6, line 9, leave out ("(annual renewal of dealers registration certificate)") and insert ("(registration of firearms dealers)").
The noble Viscount said: This is a very short drafting amendment. I shall be grateful to have the view of my noble friend on it because when one looks at the Bill it can be seen very clearly that the terms that I wish to amend are in brackets; namely:
"(annual renewal of dealers registration certificate)".
Those words come immediately after the words "the principal Act". If one then directs attention to the principal Act, one sees "Registration of firearms dealers". It is a short point that I wish to make, and it is this. I am not clear whether it is the intention of the Government as regards this provision in the Firearms (Amendment) Bill to change the heading of that section of the Act or whether that is merely a general description of the content of Section 33(5). It is a little misleading if it is put in that way. If it were put in the way that the main Act is headed—in other words, "Registration of firearms dealers"—it would be very much clearer and one would not have to wonder whether one has the right position. I beg to move.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Are we discussing Amendments Nos. 67 to 71 inclusive? I thought that we were, and no doubt someone will clear up that matter.
Viscount Dilhorne: I believe that we are and I shall he very happy to deal with them together. I beg the Committee's pardon. Amendment No. 67 stands on

1361
its own though it is related to the others. Amendment No. 68 proposes the introduction of the words "bona fide". The whole of subsection (2)(1A) on page 6 of the Bill, particularly the third line of paragraph (1A), seems to be so broadly worded that it is very hard to see what are its exact parameters. Amendment No. 68 is to amend that, so that before the words "firearms dealer" there should be inserted a "bona fide" firearms dealer.
It is impossible to look at that without considering the other phrases used in that sentence. "Bona fide" has a clear meaning and it is used in other Acts. It means a person who acts in good faith without an intention to deceive. There is a plethora of legal decisions on it in many English-speaking countries in the world. Therefore I move that that should be included before the words "a firearms dealer". I am sure that that does not conflict with any views which the Government may have.
I have just said that that leads on to my next amendment, Amendment No. 69, which 1 share with the noble Lord, Lord Brain, and also to Amendment No. 70, which relate to the words "to a substantial extent". I am unable to find in the Firearms (Amendment) Bill or in the Firearms Act any guidance or indication as to the exact parameter of those words. I am sure no one would dispute with me the view that a statute should express clearly and without doubt the will of the legislature. These words are so broadly based that there is no limitation of their use and there is no indication either of how lawyers or the general public should construe them to find out whether they come within the provision or outwith it. If they cannot discover how they stand, how can one then go to the next stage to derive any legal meaning from them?
I have looked up as best I can what the words "substantial extent" can mean. I have checked whether there is any legal authority or whether there is any definition for them in that sense. Obviously one can look at the Oxford English Dictionary. There is legal authority that "substantial" can mean not unsubstantial. That has been held to be just enough to avoid the de minimis rule. As lawyers will know—and I hesitate to use Latin tags in this Chamber because it usually upsets a few people—de minimis non curat lex means that the law does not bother with trifles. The use of the word "substantial" seems to be unfortunate because I am sure that it is not the Government's intention that this should be reduced to a mere trifle. Therefore I have proposed in Amendments Nos. 69, 70 and 71 that the words "to a substantial extent" should be left out.
If the words "to a substantial extent" in Amendment No. 70 have to stay there should be words qualifying them to describe their parameters. I do not feel any special attachment to the words I have put down. They are put down to demonstrate that fact,
"within financial criteria to be published by the Secretary of State"
and so on. Amendment No. 71 is first cousin to what I have said. The word "essential" is another immensely broad term. The extent of its meaning is
1362
very hard to find in relation to this Bill. Does it really have to be,
"an essential part of another trade, business or profession"?
If it does, what is excluded from it? If a large company like ICI or one of the great industrial giants wanted to set up a gun merchant's shop, would that be an essential part of its trade, business or profession? It would be a very small proportion. Is it intended to exclude companies of that size from participating? I cannot believe that that is the intention behind the measure.
I have said enough on these points. I have proposed wording which to me would make better sense. Instead of "an essential part" I have suggested "as a necessary adjunct", because that would not quantify exactly that it had to be essential. It may be very hard to know whether one comes within it 01 outwith it. In this Chamber we have probably different views about what is essential. If a vote were taken now we would probably disagree with each other. I have said enough. I am sure that the points I have made will have been clearly received. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alport): I called Amendment No. 67. Although the noble Viscount spoke to Amendments Nos. 68 to 71, it is Amendment No. 67 that is called at the moment.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: I am not a lawyer but I know that in many statutes there is the word "reasonable". Why not have the word "substantial"? I think it is far better than the words "as a necessary adjunct". Without being rude, what is the purpose of arguing over words like "substantial"? We can go on arguing for a very long time and I do not think that in the end we will get much further.
Lord Ironside: In speaking to Amendments Nos. 68 and 69 I should point out that I raised these points at Second Reading. Like my noble friend Lord Dilhorne I am not a lawyer and I should like to speak in a more practical way about this issue which revolves around the phrase "to a substantial extent". Amendment No. 68, which introduces the words "bona fide", would be difficult for the police to interpret because they are not lawyers either. They could not interpret the provision unless the Home Secretary was able to give some specific guidance on what is meant by the words.
As I understand it, before being considered for registration as a dealer, applicants are not required to demonstrate that they have qualifications. Many of them obviously have qualifications but it is apparently not a prior requirement. Perhaps it should be; and I believe that the trade is ready to define standards if it is asked to do so. If standards are introduced we can then talk about recognised dealers. That would be more appropriate and would make much more sense. There would be no need then to talk about a bona fide firearms dealer. As the definition of firearms dealers is covered in Section 57 of the principal Act, it would appear that the phrase

1363
"bona fide" is therefore superfluous. I cannot say any more.
In Amendment No. 69 my noble friend Lord Dilhorne has highlighted the words which create a new role for the police. In addition to assessing the applicant against the criteria of public safety and peace they will be required under this clause to assess the extent to which the applicant will engage in business. I know of only one way to do that—by looking at the turnover figures.
The new clause seems to compel the police therefore to look at the books, which I am sure is not intended. Perhaps my noble friend Lord Ferrers can assure the Committee about what the police will assess and explain why the Home Secretary needs this financial information. We shall not get sight of the guidelines to the police before the Bill passes so we have no way of assessing what the Home Secretary really wants.
I support my noble friend's amendment but I am concerned about applicants who are involved with the development of undefined accessories. They cannot develop these accessories convincingly and compete internationally without in most cases being certificate holders or registered dealers. Perhaps they are involved with thermal imaging, image intensifiers, composites, direct energy devices, laser ignition or electro-optics—one can go on for ever with these new phrases—and could risk rejection by the police because the police do not understand whether the subject is (shall we say?) a substantial part of the applicant's business. Let us remember that the Ministry of Defence as customer encourages firms to compete internationally in small arms. We do not want to see the Home Secretary stifling competition.
The qualification in the clause helps to some extent those who have a special sideline; but I do not think that that is sufficient. I support the deletion of words "to a substantial extent". But I hope that my noble friend Lord Ferrers will be able to look again at the wording of the clause, because I think the wording is most untidy. I should like to suggest the following:
"The chief officer of police may refuse to register an applicant unless he is satisfied that the applicant will engage in business as a dealer in firearms and component parts thereof, or accessories whatsoever".
Surely that would allow the police to assess the applicant and the type of business; whether he is a firearms dealer as defined, or a dealer in other goods who wants to be registered. It would also allow them to assess the applicant according to the guidelines which I understand will be set by the Home Secretary.
Lord Brain: I do not wish to get involved with the first two amendments—namely, Amendments Nos. 67 and 68—because I do not think that I am competent to comment upon them. I should not be very happy with Amendment No. 70—and my views will come out as I explain my reasons for tabling Amendment No. 69. I should perhaps comment on the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Ironside, because I have a feeling that the "essential part" which is being deleted in Amendment No. 71 would cover just what he has been talking about. A firearms licence would be an essential part in the research and
1364
development work of some of the devices he mentioned. The need for a firearms licence would be an essential part of the business in which they are involved.
I now turn to the words "a substantial extent". I think, as has already been stated, that the words are vague in the extreme. How does one decide that an ironmonger's store or a general store in the Highlands of Scotland that stocks a limited stock of 12-bore cartridges is an "adjunct" but not an "essential part" of being a general store? How does a very valuable supplier to the neighbourhood who buys 500 cartridges at a time get covered if he has to be a firearms dealer to "a substantial extent"?
The same applies to a certain extent to rifle club secretaries. They carry the club's stock of, let us say, 22 ammunition, 90 per cent. to 95 per cent. of which is used on their own ranges. However, if it is a country club, the local farmers buy the odd box for their rabbit shooting from the rifle club secretary because he is a convenient stockist. Therefore he needs to hold ammunition not as a club secretary under his certificate as such; he needs a firearms dealer's licence.
There is also a much trickier problem which needs to be looked at. Not only does a person commit an offence, if he does not have the certificate, for manufacturing, selling or transferring. He also needs one to repair a shotgun. For example, suppose there is someone who is skilled as a fine precision engineer and who is required occasionally, let us say, in Scotland, North Yorkshire or somewhere else, to do that; or perhaps he is someone who is a precision engineer by hobby and does repairs almost as a sideline. He will still expect to be paid for that, and he is then considered to be in a trade or business. Therefore to say that these very small but valuable service people in the firearms industry must he engaged to "a substantial extent" is unreasonable. I support the noble Lord's views on the matter.
Lord Morton of Shuna: Perhaps I may stress my puzzlement as regards Amendment No. 71. I cannot see the difference between "essential" and "necessary". Therefore I took the opportunity of looking up the words in the dictionary which is on the Table of this Chamber. The word "necessary" is said to be "equivalent to indispensable". When one looks up the word "essential", one finds that that is also "equivalent to indispensable". So what is the difference that the noble Viscount is attempting to achieve by changing the word "essential" into the word "necessary"? I cannot see any difference at all.
I turn now to Amendment No. 70. The issue, I think, is an impossible one. How is the chief officer of police to be satisfied that a person will in the future conform to financial criteria? That is what is being asked. The chief officer of police has to say that he is satisfied that in the future this person will be dealing. How is the person in the future to know what financial criteria he will measure up to? I should have thought that the Bill as drafted on this section—with whatever deficiencies it may have—is better than the amendment.
6 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: I shall deal first of all with Amendment No. 67. This is an amendment of style rather than content. But I do not think it is necessary because the descriptive words in subsection (1) are intended to refer specifically to Section 33(5) of the 1968 Act which is concerned with the annual renewal of a dealer's certificate of registration. The Bill refers to a particular subsection; my noble friend's amendment would in fact refer to the whole section.
Amendment No. 68 would require the police to be satisfied that an applicant will engage in business as a bona fide firearms dealer. That is precisely the difficulty which faces the police at the moment and the reason why we have introduced subsection (2). Indeed, I was glad to see that my noble friend Lord Ironside found himself with the same difficulty.
Amendment No. 70 would require the police to apply a set of defined financial criteria. My noble friend Lord Ironside asked what such financial criteria would be. According to the amendment they would be to applications for dealers' registration, instead of making a judgment as to whether the applicant will engage in business to a certain extent. I think it would prove very difficult in practice to compile financial criteria which would cover all applications from a small retail business to a large manufacturing company. It would also be difficult to apply fixed criteria of this nature in respect of new applications where the only information available would be estimates. We think this approach would involve a lot more time and work on the part of both the police and the applicants, not to mention a lot of bureaucratic red tape. In the circumstances, we believe that the police should be allowed to make a judgment on the extent of business with the benefit of guidance which we will provide.
As regards Amendment No. 71, I have no doubt that where there is a genuine need for a business to be registered, the police will recognise that fact and grant registration. This amendment would only weaken the police's grounds for refusing an application.
The meaning of the words "essential part" is fairly obvious; however, the meaning of the words "necessary adjunct" is not. Although the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, said that he was not quite sure what the difference between the two was, I am not too sure that he is not a good deal more certain than most people because I believe he put down an amendment on another Bill of a very similar nature to replace "necessary" with "essential".
If one looks at the wording in the Bill, it says:
"The chief officer of police may refuse to register an applicant unless he is satisfied that the applicant will engage in business as a firearms dealer to a substantial extent or as an essential part of another trade".
If one says that the dealing should be a necessary adjunct, that is different. The question the police will be asking is, "Do you deal in firearms to a substantial extent?" They will not be asking, "Is firearm dealing a substantial part of your business?" If that criterion were to be used, we should cut out a firm such as Harrods which has a reputable and substantial business dealing with firearms, but no one would
1366
suggest that it was a substantial part of their main business or a necessary adjunct to it.
Police officers will be guided as to what to do. The guidance will be drawn up by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. That will be done in consultation with firearms' dealers and those who are concerned with such matters.
Viscount Dilhorne: I thank my noble friend for what he has said. However, it leaves a number of questions that I still find difficult to resolve. Will the criterion be whether the work is full-time? Is that what is meant by "substantial extent" or does "substantial extent" relate to the financial side of the business? Those aspects are at the heart of my amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, found difficulty understanding what lay behind Amendments Nos. 70 and 71. I am sorry if they caused more difficulty than the clause they were seeking to improve. They were framed as an alternative definition of "substantial extent". I am left rather unhappy that "substantial extent" remains and that my noble friend has not accepted my amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 68 to 71 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 12 shall stand part of the Bill?
The Earl of Balfour: Perhaps I may speak on Clause 12 stand part for a moment. I shall be brief because I did not put my name down on this point. One of the problems is that there is no separation of the firearms dealer who wishes to deal with—for want of a better word—the ironmongery side of the business and the person who wants to sell shotguns and cartridges. In many cases it is easy for a person to obtain a full firearms dealers licence to sell cartridges, rifle bullets and so on. As far as I can gather the only other way a person would be allowed to sell shotgun cartridges is through a local authority licence at a fee of £17.50 under Section 15 of the Explosive Act 1875 Chapter 17. That is a long time ago, and I am not familiar with the legislation of the last century. I have often felt that those who sell ammunition and guns should have separate licences.
Earl Ferrers: I do not see that there is much difficulty here. There is no reason to give those who sell ammunition and guns different licences. All we are seeking to do is to establish a system of dealer registration which applies to those people who genuinely deal or who have a hobby and have the advantage of a firearms dealers certificate to pursue it. With the greatest of respect to my noble friend I do not see that there should be any difficulty either over this matter or in providing for those who wish to sell ammunition.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Auctioneers, carriers and warehousemen]:
[Amendments Nos. 72 and 72A not moved.]
Clause 13 agreed to.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs Baroness Ewart-Biggs moved Amendment No. 73:
After Clause 13, insert the following new clause:
("Offence of selling firearms etc by mail-order.
—(1) It is an offence to sell or let on hire any firearm or ammunition by mail order.
(2) A sale or letting on hire is by mail order where the offer is communicated by the postal service, or by telephone, telegraph, facsimile transmission or similar means, or by advertisment in any newspaper, journal, magazine, periodical or circular, and the acceptance is communicated by such means, or by delivery of the goods.
(3) A sale or letting on hire is not prohibited by this section if at any time after the offer and before delivery, the purchaser (or his agent duly authoriised in writing) attends at the premises of the vendor and there produces his certificate for inspection by the vendor.
(4) An offence under this section shall be punishable on summary conviction with imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or both.").
The noble Baroness said: The object of the new clause is self-evident; namely to make it an offence to sell firearms or ammunition by mail order. I am sure that the Minister agrees that the Opposition have been supportive of the Bill's aims to provide a tighter control of guns and to decrease the number of guns in circulation. We have shown that we are committed to and in agreement with the need to do that and are pleased that the Government have brought forward the Bill. It is for that reason we are surprised that the Government have fallen short of plugging the loophole of enabling people to acquire guns by allowing their purchase through mail order.
My noble friend Lord Mishcon made that point on Second Reading when he said that there was no mention in the Bill of mail order sales, which was one of the most dangerous ways, especially with regard to young people, of buying weapons. He was supported by the noble Lord, Lord Knights, who said that he was concerned about the decision not to ban mail order sales. He said that if the Government were introducing powers to require photographs to be placed on firearm and shotgun certificates that was presumably so that the police and dealers would be able better to identify the person who was presenting the certificate. He asked how, if that were the case, it could apply in respect of mail order where the certificate is sent to the dealer by post.
It is a matter of speculation as to whether mail order sales will increase once tighter controls are introduced generally. Subject to the existence of a statutory definition of "mail order", of which we are unaware at the moment, the new clause has been drafted on the basis that the advertisement will normally constitute an invitation to treat; the response by the purchaser will be the offer; and the acceptance will usually be the dispatch of the goods. It is conceivable that the offer may be incorporated in the advertisement. The application for a firearm or ammunition would constitute the acceptance of that offer. It is hoped that the drafting of subsection (2) of the new clause will cover all permutations. It will cover transactions which may not fall readily within
1368
the common understanding of mail order, provided that the vendor and purchaser do not meet.
Subsection (3) of the new clause is optional in the sense that it relaxes the prohibition if the purchaser attends to produce his certificate. Our understanding is that the main objection to mail order sales is that the vendor has no way of knowing whether the purchaser is genuinely the holder of a certificate. It could be argued that it would be preferable to delete the words in brackets in subsection (3):
"(or his agent duly authorised in writing)".
Again this weakens the restriction. On the other hand it might be thought unreasonable to demand that the licence holder always attend in person at any purchase.
The penalty in subsection (4) is similar to that provided in Clause 5 proposing a restriction on the sale of ammunition for smooth-bore guns and in Clause 13 dealing with various offences by autioneers, carriers and warehousemen. The terms "firearm", "certificate" and "ammunition" are defined in Section 57 of the 1968 Firearms Act as incorporated by Clause 23(1) of the Bill. They cover shotguns as well as other firearms. As the law stands a person who wishes to purchase a shotgun or firearm ammunition by mail order must send in a shotgun or firearms certificate. We believe that the danger of those certificates getting lost or stolen in the post adds to the arguments against permitting weapons to be purchased in this way.
Finally, from the point of view of certificates getting lost but mainly from the aspect of pure common sense, the sale of weapons by mail order would decrease the control of the purchase of weapons and increase the number in circulation. It is the aim of the Government in this legislation to bring about greater control and a decrease in weapons. Therefore we ask the Minister to look at the new clause very seriously indeed. I beg to move.
The Earl of Balfour The Earl of Balfour moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 73, Amendment No. 73A.
Line 2, leave out ("ammunition") and insert ("shotgun").
The noble Earl said: I have put down Amendment No. 73A because I feel that ammunition needs to be separated. There are people living, for example, in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland or away down in Devon who must be able to buy ammunition through the post. Otherwise I wholeheartedly support Amendment No. 73. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, and her colleague for having put it down.
I am very much against mail order firms being able to deal in firearms to the extent they do at present. Furthermore, most of us who shoot are well aware that many firearms dealers live in the community, are part of the community and have a responsibility to the community. Mail order firms could not care less whom they sell to. They are interested only in selling. Some of the firearms dealers at home, if a stranger comes into the shop, will often ring up the police and say, "Do you know this character? Can you tell me something about him?" And they do so before supplying any firearm or, for that matter, ammunition. I feel that if someone living miles away

1369
is unable to get ammunition, it must be sent through the post. Otherwise, I support the amendment wholeheartedly.
Lord Gisborough: I should like to support the sentiment behind both amendments very strongly. I first came across this problem when I was interested in air guns. It was quite obvious that air guns were being sent by mail order to people who were not of an age to receive them and there was no control because the guns were going through the post. One can imagine stolen certificates and all sorts of things going through the post on a mail order basis. There is a great opportunity for fraud and the obtaining of a gun by someone who is not allowed one.
I can see the practical answer that a person living in the islands who uses cartridges should go to a dealer and buy them and subsequently write in. That seems a perfectly reasonable suggestion because the dealer will know usually with whom he is dealing. I hope that the Minister will give much consideration to the sentiments behind both amendments.
6.15 p.m.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: I wish to know whether "ammunition" includes rifle ammunition. If high velocity rifle ammunition is being sent, like ·275, ·303, and ·243, it has to be extremely securely packed. To send high velocity heavy ammunition and rifle ammunition by mail order would be dangerous. It could easily be intercepted.
Lord Swansea: I believe that the amendment arises partly from a popular misconception which has appeared in the press that almost anything can be obtained by mail order. That is just not so. Any transaction by mail order is subject to exactly the same conditions under the Firearms Act as a transaction over the counter. In other words, a firearms certificate or, as the case may be, a shotgun certificate must be produced—certainly, in the case of a firearms certificate. If the amendment were to state that goods should be sent to the address shown on the firearms certificate, that would be a safeguard against stolen firearms certificates.
Members of the Committee may be reassured by a letter which I received today from a body called the Periodical Publishers Association on this very subject. All magazines of whatever kind depend to a very large extent on revenue from advertisements. Magazines covering shooting interests are no exception. They depend largely on advertising revenue.
It appears that following the publication of the Government's White Paper last winter, the Advertising Standards Authority has been in discussion with the Home Office with regard to the control of advertisements of this kind. The authority in turn consulted the Periodical Publishers Association and a working party was set up to assess the systems of control which operate at present and to explore the need for further guidelines. The result of the working party's deliberations was passed on to the Home Office.
1370
Subsequently, a new rule covering advertisements for firearms has been adopted for inclusion in the next edition of the British Code of Advertising Practice. I understand that the Home Office has expressed its approval. So it should be clear that magazine publishers operate in a responsible manner and keep a very close eye on the sorts of advertisements which appear in their publications. If Members of the Committee think back, the Government White Paper states that there is no evidence that mail order sales are being used to evade the law. That is largely due to the vigilance of the publishers of magazines. I believe the amendment to be quite unnecessary. I hope that the information I have given will help the Committee.
Lord Burton: I agree to some extent with the sentiments of the amendment, but I am a little apprehensive as to what would happen if it went into the Bill. I totally agree with what my noble friend Lord Balfour said about ammunition. I think he made a slight slip of the tongue because it is illegal to send any explosive substance through the Royal Mail. But that is by the way. It could come by carrier. It is much more likely that ammunition would be carried in such a way, probably by a firm such as Securicor.
If, by any chance, I found I had enough money, which is probably very unlikely, and I found I wanted to order myself a new Purdy, if this amendment were passed I should have to come to London to obtain it. I could not ring a supplier or write to one in London to order the gun. That is how I understand the amendment.
Subsection (2) of the proposed new clause mentions "the offer". I think it might help if it stated "the offer to sell". Obviously an offer to buy is not intended, but the amendment does not actually say that.
Earl Ferrers: I am aware of the concern regarding the sale of firearms by mail order. I realise the anxiety that the noble Baroness has on this matter. She has also been so far very supportive of the Bill. I shall try and explain the position.
I am happy to say that I find myself agreeing with my noble friend Lord Swansea whose intervention was extremely helpful. The problem of mail order purchases is mostly presentational. A person purchasing a Section 1 firearm or ammunition, or a shotgun, by mail order has to send in his certificate. In future, a shotgun certificate will also have to be produced for the mail order purchase of shotgun ammunition. This will, of course, bear the holder's home address so it would not be easy for anyone else to use it for mail order purchases. A possible weak link in the purchase of guns and ammunition by mail order is their security in transit, and this is one of the reasons why, under Clause 13, we are introducing a requirement for carriers of firearms and ammunition to take reasonable precautions to ensure their safe custody.
My noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard referred to airguns. It is an offence to sell an air weapon to a person under the age of 17. It is normal practice for advertisements to require a purchaser by

1371
mail order to sign a declaration stating that he is over that age.
Subsection (3) of the new clause exempts from prohibition those transactions where, after the offer and before delivery, the purchaser or his agent (with his written authority) visits the vendor's premises and produces the appropriate certificate. Yet in the great majority of cases such a transaction would be a direct, and not a mail order, sale and it seems very unlikely that there would be any call for a mail order system where, after having sent off for a purchase through the post, one then had to appear in person as well.
If this amendment were accepted, it would probably harm a sizeable sector of the gun trade. I am not sure that we would wish to do that, if there were no great benefit to be obtained by it. No evidence whatever has been brought to our notice to suggest that there is a problem over mail order sales of firearms and shotguns. I think the situation should be tighter as a result of the Bill. We should be careful not to impose unreasonable burdens on legitimate shooters who wish to make their purchases by way of mail order.
My noble friend Lord Balfour quite rightly asked what he would do if he wished to purchase a weapon as he lives in Scotland. My noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard said that he would have to come to London to purchase his ammunition. Those were very valid points. If this new clause were introduced it would pose a problem for the farmer or the marksman living in a remote part of the country who may not have time to travel to his nearest dealer to purchase guns or ammunition and who at present can do so quite satisfactorily by mail order. Indeed, there may be some enthusiast living miles away in the Highlands of Scotland who wishes to make a specialist purchase from a London dealer.
There are controls applying to mail order purchases as there are to purchases over the counter. The new security requirements in respect of carriers will ensure the safety of the goods in transit. We could, of course, go further on this matter, but we consider that there is no particular need. There would not be any real advantage in changing the present position; indeed, to do so would cause inconvenience to shooters.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I wish to follow up the speech of the noble Earl. I am bound to say that I did not find his contribution today quite as persuasive as I have on all previous occasions during this debate.
As the noble Baroness pointed out. there is a new requirement as regards photographs. The noble Baroness specifically raised that point and 1 believe it was also mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Knights. What on earth is the point of requiring photographs to be introduced as a means of tightening the controls and at the same time allowing a mail order business to continue? With great respect to the noble Earl, that does not appear to make any sense whatever.
Lord Gisborough: In addition, there is the question of advertising revenue. Surely the normal practice is to see a gun advertised. Then when one has selected the
1372
gun one wishes in the newspaper one goes to a shop and, as in the case of any other item—for example Daz—one makes a purchase. Advertising has the purpose of making one want a product, but not necessarily to want it by post.
As the Government's whole object is to reduce the number of people who want guns and who hold guns just as in the case of cigarettes where the Government are trying to reduce consumption, why should the Government encourage people to advertise guns?
Lord Burton: I wish to reply to the noble Lord, Lord Harris. He said that it was a new requirement to have photographs attached to one's application. But, if he refers to the 1968 Act, he will see that Section 26(2)(a) states that the Secretary of State may:
"require any application for a certificate to be accompanied by a photograph of the applicant".
In the whole 20 years that the Act has been in operation, that requirement has never been found necessary. That is why it is not currently done.
Earl Ferrers: I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, did not find my contribution as persuasive as he normally does. I think that is probably because he took a different view and was not quite as broadminded as he normally is.
The mail order business exists and works. We have not come across a great many infringements of the law as a result of the mail order business. The noble Lord asked what the point was of having photographs if one could then obtain weapons via mail order. The whole point of having photographs is to help to identify the holder who is in the possession of a certificate. It is perfectly true that if one wishes to cheat and if one wishes to go against the law and put someone else's certificate through the post one can do so. One could claim that one's name was Harris when in fact it was Ferrers when one was sending the certificate of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, through the post. That can be done and in that case an offence would be committed.
But on the principle that there is a certain amount of quite legitimate business carried on, and that those who wish to purchase by mail order will have to go through the same processes as those who wish to purchase over the counter, it would be a pity to constrict the mail order business, particularly for those who, as has been mentioned, live in remote parts of the country.
I should like to make several observations, but I shall constrain myself to making only one to my noble friend Lord Gisborough. It is not the Government's intention to reduce the number of people who keep firearms of any nature. It is the Government's intention to ensure that there is control over those who keep them and that we should know where they are.
The Earl of Balfour: I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 73A.
Amendment to Amendment No. 73, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: I am disappointed that the Minister did not appreciate the important points that I felt I had made. Nor did I find convincing the problems suggested as regards shooters in Scotland who would suddenly find themselves unable to purchase guns. I should have thought that in Scotland there would have been a great number of suppliers in many areas through whom those people could obtain guns.
As I said when I moved the amendment, we have two objectives in tabling it. The first is that we are worried about the loss or theft of certificates which are sent by post. Secondly, we feel that allowing the purchase of weapons by mail order will do nothing to decrease the number of weapons in circulation. I believe that that is one of the Government's objectives in bringing forward this legislation. It is a matter of common sense that more guns will be sold if they can be bought by mail order. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, pointed out the futility of requiring photographs on certificates if weapons can be bought by post. That esposes the absurdity of the situation.
It is disappointing that we have not been able to help the Government to make a better Bill. We shall consider what is to be done at Report stage. We feel strongly about the measure. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 14 [Rifle and pistol clubs]:
Lord Swansea Lord Swansea moved Amendment No. 74:
Page 7, line 7, leave out from ("practice") to end of line 8 and insert ("and competition with small-bore rifles and pistols or full-bore rifles and pistols or any combination of them").
The noble Lord said: Clause 14 deals with rifle and pistol clubs. I believe that subsection (2) needs to be redrawn. There are many types of ranges. Some are enclosed, indoor ranges and are used mostly for small-bore rifles and pistols. Outdoor ranges are mostly military ranges. They are subject to inspection by the School of Infantry, which is delegated by the Home Office to inspect the ranges and issue safety certificates. Those safety certificates mention certain calibres of weapons which may be used on a particular range.
It is generally understood that the greater calibre includes the lesser and that on a range approved for full-bore rifles and pistols, small-bore rifles and pistols may also he used. The subsection is vague as it is presently drawn. The amendment attempts to define it more closely. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Simon): I have to inform the Committee that if Amendment No. 74 is agreed to, I shall be unable to call Amendments Nos. 75 and 76.
Earl Ferrers: Clause 14(2) provides that the Secretary of State's power to approve a gun club may be limited to apply to target practice with such types of rifles or pistols as are specified in the approval. The amendment would make no difference as regards current or intended practice in this respect. It specifies that the types of weapon for which approval may be
1374
granted may be limited to small-bore rifles and pistols and full-bore rifles and pistols. These are the only limitations which are placed on approvals, and to that extent such specific reference to them is unnecessary.
However, we cannot entirely rule out the possibility that such a future limitation may need to include a particularly unacceptable make or model of firearm, nor would we wish to do so. In so far as the amendment seeks to add competition to the purposes for which approval may be given I believe the amendment goes too far. The purpose of a Clause 14 approval is to allow members to engage specifically in target practice without the need for a firearm certificate. This enables those who have just embarked on a shooting career, or who cannot afford a gun, to do so without having to obtain a certificate. But we believe that those who wish to go on and compete in outside competition should have to obtain a certificate. I do not think that that is asking too much.
Lord Brain: Perhaps I may pick up one small point which the noble Earl has made. Where is the boundary for beginners between target practice and competition? There may be small internal competitions. Will those he excluded? I wholeheartedly agree with the noble Earl that if beginners go to other rifle clubs for competition purposes, they should be covered. Even then, there are sometimes side-by-side competitions between junior members of rifle clubs who do not own rifles. They may go to another club and take part in friendly target practice. However, it is also competitive. It is a small point and the noble Earl may not wish to answer immediately.
Earl Ferrers: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Brain, for putting that question. I can only answer him with a generality. The general purpose of the clause is to allow young people who are starting to shoot to go to clubs and use the guns and facilities without having to have a certificate. If they go on to become more proficient, then they should obtain a certificate.
I believe that the noble Lord means that if he is a young man who is a member of a gun club and I am also a young man who is a member of a gun club, it is perfectly all right for either of us individually to shoot at targets. However, if we both shoot at a target together, we are competing. I believe that that is a nicety. I hope that the noble Lord will accept the general principle.
Lord Swansea: I believe that my noble friend and I have been speaking to two different points. I shall study what he has said. Perhaps I shall return to the matter at a later stage of the Bill. I was referring to the types of rifle or pistol which might be used on a range. My noble friend was concerned with the use by members of a club of that club's rifles or pistols without a firearms certificate. I shall consider whether to return to the matter at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Dilhorne Viscount Dilhorne moved Amendment No. 75:
Page 7, line 7, leave out ("types of").
The noble Viscount said: Perhaps it will be for the convenience of the Committee if, in speaking to Amendment No. 75, I also speak to Amendments Nos. 76, 83 and 84. Amendments Nos. 75, 83 and 84 propose that the words "types of" should be left out of the relevant subsections. The words cannot be considered independently. In two of the amendments I have proposed that the words "calibre and muzzle energy" should be inserted after the word "pistols". The sentence at line 7 would then read: "with only such rifles or pistols of such calibre and muzzle energy". Amendment No. 76 would add matters mentioned by my noble friend Lord Swansea when he spoke to the previous amendment.
The same words are used in three places in the Bill. I believe that the words "types or does not add anything to what is contained in the Bill. The amendment which concerns calibre and muzzle velocity is an attempt to describe clearly the criteria by which safety to the public can be judged. It seems to me that the alternative is just to describe the weapon that is used—for example, a Kalashnikov. That does not seem to me to have any scientific attraction; certainly it does not have such an appeal as the words "calibre and muzzle energy". If one uses a specific name such as that other meanings so often attach themselves to it, particularly after the sad events of Hungerford. That is the reason for my proposal in the four amendments. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: These amendments seek to specify further that the approval should only be given for rifles and pistols of the calibre and muzzle energy listed on the range safety certificate, which will have been issued by the Ministry of Defence for the firing range to which the club has access.
I do not believe that the amendment would make any practical difference as regards current or future practices. Home Office approval for gun clubs is given in terms of small-bore and full-bore weapons, whereas the range approval from the Ministry of Defence details calibre and muzzle energy. Obviously the Home Office would only approve a club for those categories of weapons covered by the range safety certificate. To that extent I do not believe that specific reference to these matters is necessary. However, we cannot entirely rule out the possibility that it may be necessary at some future date to deal with some particularly unacceptable, or acceptable, specific model of firearm; nor would we wish to do so.
Viscount Dilhorne: I appreciate what my noble friend has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 76 not moved.]
Lord Swansea Lord Swansea moved Amendment No. 77:
Page 7, line 11, at end insert—
("(3A) A person aggrieved by the refusal of the Secretary of State to approve a club, or to renew the approval of a club, or by the imposition of conditions, may in accordance with section 44 of the principal Act appeal against the decision.").
The noble Lord said: The amendment relates to the question of the approval of a club. It is possible that approval might be refused, withheld or be subject to certain conditions. Perhaps my noble friend could enlighten the Committee further about the possible circumstances in which approval might be refused.
The Bill as it stands makes no provision for an appeal against refusal of approval. I think that that is quite unjust and should be put right. That is especially so now since approvals are to be valid only for six years. It is very important that it should be possible for shooting to be carried on at a club under such reasonable conditions as are laid down by the Secretary of State.
If approval of a club is withheld for whatever reason there should be a means of appeal. That appeal, I believe, should probably lie under the procedure laid down in Section 44 of the principal Act. There is already a precedent for appeals of this kind. I believe that it is highly desirable. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Monson: I urge that the Government give way at least on this one amendment. The whole Bill is a massive exercise in overkill—overkill which has been brought about, one suspects, largely if not entirely because of populist pressures from the tabloid newspapers. The consequence is that many thousands of law-abiding people will be deprived of rights they have held for generations.
I understand the electoral pressures upon the Government but I do not believe that acceptance of the amendment would cost them one single vote—rather the reverse. Surely simple fairness demands that this very modest amendment be accepted.
Earl Ferrers: I hope that I shall be able to help my noble friend Lord Swansea on this issue. I do not believe that there is cause for him to be unduly concerned.
The amendment would give a right of appeal both against a refusal by the Secretary of State to approve a rifle or pistol club, and also against any conditions attached to the approval of the club. The amendment refers to Section 44 of the 1968 Act. However, that is concerned with appeals against decisions by chief officers of police which is a very different matter. Although the police may assist with local inquiries concerning clubs seeking approval, it will be the Secretary of State who makes the final decision whether or not to approve a club.
I do not think that it is right for there to be an appeal against the Secretary of State's decision. We shall lay down guidelines on the criteria to be fulfilled, and it will be up to clubs to apply if they wish to do so. I do not think that my noble friend can suggest that the criteria—a proper constitution, that the club is run by fit and proper persons, and with access to an approved range—are either onerous or so complicated as to be capable of infinitely variable interpretation. If clubs do not qualify, or decide not to apply, the members can still pursue their shooting interests elsewhere, but they will have to have

1377
individual certificates or else join another club that is approved. The decision of the Secretary of State will have to be a reasonable one, or it will be open to judicial review.
The real point is that before approval of a club it has to show that it meets certain conditions. If it cannot satisfy those conditions it can attain them, or if it does not wish to do so it is not unreasonable that the club should not be approved.
My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary made a statement the other day in answer to a question. which I shall repeat to my noble friend because he may find it of help. He said:
"On the basis of inquiries made by the chief officer of police for the area concerned, my right honourable friend has to be satisfied that:
(i) safety certificates for the categories of firearms to be fired are in existence for the ranges to he used".
That does not sound unreasonable.
"(ii) the security arrangements for the storage of club firearms and ammunition are satisfactory".
That does not seem unreasonable.
"(iii) the application is being made by or on behalf of a bona fide club",
and that does not seem unreasonable.
"and (iv) there are no other considerations that would make the club unsuitable for approval".—(Official Report, Commons, 15/1/88; col. 446).
I think my noble friend will realise that those are fairly reasonable conditions.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I agree with what the noble Earl has just said. With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, I believe that it is going too far to say that this is an exercise in overkill. It is, in my view, a very moderate response to an extremely serious situation. As I indicated in the earlier debate it is the view of the police service, virtually unanimously, that the Bill does not go far enough.
The point about the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, which I find a little difficult to understand is that the noble Lord and his friends have been saying consistently that they want a national standard to be applied. They have indicated that they are very uneasy about 43 separate chief constables in England and Wales applying different criteria. This particular provision, under which the Secretary of State will make a decision, in fact applies national criteria, which the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has quoted, set out by his honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary.
It seems to me an extraordinary proposition to say that a Secretary of State's decision on a matter of this kind, based on the criteria which have been set out, should be appealable to a Crown Court. Offhand I can think of no precedent for any such requirement in any other piece of legislation. I am not for one moment saying that there is not, but offhand I can not think of one. Therefore I very much agree with everything that has been said by the noble Earl and I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendment.
Lord Swansea: I have no intention of pressing this amendment but I find the concept put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, that any government are infallible an interesting one. Governments can and do sometimes make mistakes. It is comforting to know that we are dealing with decisions on a national basis made by the Secretary of State rather than by a chief constable, and one hopes that those criteria would apply throughout the country. I am sure that they would do so.
I am very grateful to my noble friend for outlining those criteria, which go some way toward reassuring me concerning the standards to be laid down for approval of clubs. I do not think that we need to pursue this matter further at this moment and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Swansea Lord Swansea moved Amendment No. 78:
Page 7, line 12, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Lord said: Clause 14(4) of the Bill provides for a fee of £33 to be paid for the grant or renewal of an approval of a club. That is something which we have not had before at any time. I realise that a club does not have to have a firearms certificate, but even so it seems a little unreasonable to bring in a fee of this scale at this stage. The clubs do all the administrative work in regard to the rifles that they own and there is little if anything for the police force to do. There can he little justification for the police to charge a fee for approval. It seems quite unnecessary to embody this subsection in the Bill and my amendment seeks to remove it. I beg to move.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I hope that I am not making too much of this matter, but as the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, will realise this amendment was supposed to have been discussed, in terms of the suggested grouping of amendments, together with Amendment Nos. 74 and 77. I hope that in the remaining stages of this Bill we shall be able to keep to the groupings; otherwise this Committee will sit extremely late tonight.
Earl Ferrers: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for that intervention. As he made it, he looked at me and wagged his head as though it were my fault, but I can assure him that it was not. I agree that if we had taken the amendment earlier, it might have proved more expeditious.
I shall make my remarks as brief as possible and say to my noble friend only that he seeks to remove the fee of £33, but I do not see why the taxpayer should take on this charge. Fees are payable to cover the costs of issuing shotgun firearms certificates, visitors' permits, museum licences and for registration as dealers. The point of the fee is just to cover the administrative costs involved. I do not see why clubs should be treated any differently from others. When one takes account of the fact that the fee is £33 and will last for six years—so the charge is £5 a year and for that the club obtains a free firearms certificate which itself would have cost £33 for only three years—the fee is not unreasonable.
Lord Swansea: I am sorry that my noble friend has not taken on board the substance of this amendment. Many clubs are quite small affairs which are run very cheaply indeed on an absolute shoestring. Even if the fee only averages out at £5 a year, it is still a consideration that has to be taken into account in the budgeting of the club. When put on top of the other expenses that a club may have to pay for its ammunition, hire of the range and so forth, the sum mounts up very considerably. However, I do not intend to press this amendment at this stage and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Brain Lord Brain moved Amendment No. 79:
Page 7, line 16, leave out subsection (5).
The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to delete the whole of subsection (5). It is not tabled in the belief that the constable, chief constable or somebody should not visit premises. I support the principle behind subsection (5).
Earl Ferrers: With the reprimand from the noble Lord, Lord Harris, ringing in my ears, I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Brain, is speaking to Amendments Nos. 79, 80, 81 and 82.
Lord Brain: I am speaking to Amendment No. 79. The reasons for not speaking to the other amendments will become clear as I go along. However, I am quite happy that they should be considered with this amendment, and I shall continue the discussion in that way. I beg the Committee's pardon.
As I said, I am quite happy with the idea that there is a need for inspection. I am concerned at the way the clause as at present worded brings into operation that inspection. It starts with a constable. Is it intended that a sergeant may not he authorised in the same way to go out and do the same thing if it is felt more appropriate?
Earl Nelson: I beg pardon for interrupting the noble Lord, but the designation "constable" does not mean a police constable. The words "A constable" are a reference to any officer in the police service.
Lord Brain: I apologise. The point is that he is duly authorised by a chief officer of police. How many will be authorised? Will it just be those officers in the firearms section? Can a vast number be authorised? For example, can any officer—and I use the word advisedly because I do not want to cause any confusion—who is going out in a patrol car for a purpose in the area be duly authorised? It seems to me to be a very broad term in this context.
It is not stated that he has to be in uniform. There have been a number of occasions, and in particular one in Leicestershire, where people carrying bogus warrant cards and representing themselves to be police officers raided a firearms dealer's premises. Although the warrant cards appeared to authorise them to go in, there were problems. The dealer was beaten up and his stock was stolen. Should it be an operation carried out in uniform?
1380
Subsection (6) states that it is an offence if a person intentionally obstructs the constable. Does that mean that he cannot telephone the station to find out whether the constable is supposed to be doing that job? Does the constable have to notify someone at his base that he will be doing it? Can he just do it at his own whim, at any time of the day or night?
He may,
"enter any premises occupied or used by a club".
I know that in many cases this will be absolutely clear, because there will be a range and perhaps drinking premises, a bar, cloakroom or something attached. But let us take a case, which I know prefectly well, in which a social club had a small rifle section that used a range belonging to the Army Cadet Corps.
Apart from drinking, none of the premises was ever used for the purposes of the rifle club. The secretary lived somewhere else and it was his name on the rifle club certificate. In that case, is his home the premises that may be visited by the police at any time, and how is his wife, if she is there, to know that this is what can be done, and so on? There is a need—I shall read carefully what the Minister has said—to tighten this up, possibly by means of some specific words—"in uniform"; "having informed his station office" and suchlike—that could usefully be incorporated in the clause.
Unlike the noble Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, I did not feel competent to draft amendments to reflect my concerns. Although I do not think that his amendments are particularly relevant to the broad points that I make, I support them to the extent that he has done something that I did not attempt to do. 1 beg to move.
7.00 p.m.
Viscount Dilhorne: I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 80, 81 and 82 in my name, which aim at changing the wording of subsection (5). There are two particular passages that I do not like, which I ask my noble friend to consider.
The clause as drafted entitles a constable, provided that he is authorised by the chief constable of police in writing, to enter premises. There is nothing wrong with that, and I do not take exception to it. However, I take exception to what follows, which is what the amendment seeks to remedy:
"producing, if required his authority"
Perhaps I may spend a short time on that.
Amendment No. 80 effectively requires him to produce his authority and to be quite open about it. As the clause is worded, the policeman may be tempted to enter on some pretext or other and to carry out a covert examination without having to produce any authority. When the policeman arrives at a rifle or pistol club, I think that it should be made clear in the Bill that he is required to produce a document saying, "I have come here for these purposes". The amendment is directed to providing clearly what those purposes are so that those receiving police officers into their club, having been given that information, can assist them fully. If the constable duly authorised in writing does not

1381
produce the authority but then starts on a surreptitious search, there is a danger that he may draw the wrong conclusions, which he would not have done had he had the full co-operation of the club.
Amendment No. 81 seeks to change wording that is capable of various interpretations, some of which could be amusing, but in which I shall not indulge myself. The amendment seeks to leave out the words,
"anything on them, for the purpose of ascertaining".
The amendment proposes the insertion of "to ascertain", or to find out.
At the time that I drafted Amendment No. 82, I was well aware that the last part of subsection (5) states:
"for the purpose of ascertaining whether the provisions of this section and any limitations in the approval are being complied with".
It is not easy for the owner of a rifle or pistol club to carry in his head the provisions of the section. The amendment is designed to prevent a constable going to premises on such a general provision that it amounts to a fishing expedition. It too has the purpose of informing the person who is being visited what is taking place, which seems to me right and proper. He should know when the constable is coming and the purpose of the visit. In order to obtain a certificate, he has had to satisfy the authorities that he is a good citizen and worthy of the certificate.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I should have said earlier that, if Amendment No. 79 is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendments Nos. 80, 81 and 82.
Earl Ferrers: As I understand it, the noble Lord, Lord Brain, is concerned about how this will be dealt with; but I think that his concern need not be as substantial as he has made it out to be. If there is to be club approval, the system has to be properly administered and monitored; and, if the public are to have faith in it, there must be a way of independently verifying the club's practices. The police are the obvious body to do this. There would be no point in having a system of approval if there was no way of ascertaining whether a club is complying with the requirements. It is quite true that a police officer may be in uniform, and in that case everybody knows who he is.
Amendment No. 80 introduces a requirement to provide a copy of the authority for retention by the club concerned. I do not believe that there is any need for this. I do not see what purpose it would serve. The document would contain no useful information, but would simply indicate that the chief officer's authority for the visit has been given. This is provided in the Bill in a standard form, and I see no reason for departing from that.
I remind my noble friend Lord Dilhorne and the noble Lord, Lord Brain, that subsection 1(5) states:
"A constable duly authorised in writing in that behalf by a chief officer of police may, on producing if required his authority".
If anyone wonders what he is doing, he has to show it.
1382
When my noble friend Lord Dilhorne said that there might be covert examination, I thought that he was stretching the imagination a little far. If an odd person came to the club, presumably the first thing that one would say is, "Who are you?". If the visitor is a police officer, he will say, "I am a police officer coming for some special reason, and here is my authority". I believe that my noble friend's imagination has run ahead of him.
Amendment No. 81 specifically omits the reference to the inspection by a constable of "anything on them", that is, club premises. It is obviously likely to be necessary in the course of a visit to inspect things on the premises such as the firearms that the club is using to ascertain whether it is complying with any limitation that may be attached to the approval.
Amendment No. 82 provides that the authority should specify the reasons for the visit. I do not believe that this is necessary. The reasons for the visit will be quite obvious. Subsection (5) sets out that the reasons are to ascertain
"whether the provisions of this section and any limitations in the approval are being complied with".
The constable's authority can be granted only for that reason.
Given that, the amendment appears to me to be not only unnecessary but also misleading in suggesting that there could be other reasons.
Lord Brain: I thank the Minister. I am satisfied that "the authority" and other matters will cover it. As the Minister says, the local firearms unit must build up confidence and ensure that it will not do anything unnecessarily harassing but will exercise fairness in its operation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 80 to 84 not moved.]
Clause 14 agreed to.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, perhaps this would be a convenient time to take the dinner hour business. In moving that the House be resumed may I suggest that we return to the Firearms Bill at 8 p.m. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Solicitors (Scotland) Bill
7.11 p.m.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The main purpose of the Bill is to give the Council of the Law Society and the Scottish Solicitors' Discipline Tribunal powers to discipline solicitors who do poor professional work; that is, work which is not of the quality which could reasonably be expected of a competent solicitor. The powers which the Bill provides are broadly similar to those given to the English Law Society by Section 1 of the Administration of Justice Act which experience has shown in general works satisfactorily.

1383
The Bill, promoted by the Law Society of Scotland, has found general favour with Members from both sides of the House. We should be grateful to Mr. Alistair Darling, the Member of Parliament for Edinburgh, Central, who steered the Bill through another place. The Bill has widespread support from consumer interests and will be appreciated by the small minority of clients who find that they have a complaint about their solicitor.
Under the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980, the Law Society of Scotland has a duty to promote the interests of the solicitor profession in Scotland and the interests of the public in relation to that profession. The 1980 Act provides for making of rules by the Council of the Law Society regulating professional practice, conduct and discipline. These rules require to be approved by the Lord President of the Court of Session. The Act also provides for complaints to be made to the Scottish Solicitors' Discipline Tribunal of cases of apparent professional misconduct and for the tribunal to investigate such complaints. A range of disciplinary powers is available to the tribunal. This Bill, however, would expand these powers to cover cases where the standard of professional service was inadequate although not necessarily of a standard which might be regarded as falling within the generally accepted meaning of professional misconduct. The new measures should help to reduce public dissatisfaction at the present over-rigid distinction between matters of conduct, where the disciplinary machinery applies, and matters of negligence where the client can only find a remedy through raising a civil action in the courts.
Complaints about the work of solicitors vary. In some cases a complaint may be fairly minor, perhaps about work which has not been done to the standard sought by the client. At other extremes there are fortunately rare cases which attract widespread publicity, where a solicitor's conduct falls very far short of what is expected. The more extreme cases are already provided for in legislation which provides a framework for investigating complaints and disciplining solicitors through the Scottish Solicitors' Discipline Tribunal. The tribunal has many of the powers of a court and it can censure, fine or even strike-off a solicitor who is found guilty of professional misconduct. There is nothing in these provisions to provide a quick remedy for the client. What is provided in the Bill is a system for investigating the less serious type of complaint in cases where the services are not of a quality which could reasonably be expected of a competent solicitor. The Bill gives powers to the Law Society to investigate such cases and, if it upholds the complaint, to prescribe certain remedies. A solicitor might be asked to refund part or all of the fees paid by the client; or to take steps at his own expense to correct shoddy work; or to instruct another solicitor to rectify the deficiency.
The purpose of the Bill is, first, to extend the powers of the Council of the Law Society to enable it to investigate complaints against solicitors of inadequate professional services and to require solicitors, where such complaints are established, to take action to provide a remedy to the client.
1384
These powers would be in addition to, and distinct from, the existing powers which the council already has for dealing with misconduct. The Bill also contains substantial provisions to protect the solicitor from unjustifiable complaints. As well as the wide discretion available to the Council of the Law Society as to whether or not to use its disciplinary powers, the Bill provides for an appeal procedure to the discipline tribunal and to the Court of Session.
Secondly, the Bill seeks to extend the role of the discipline tribunal so that it can deal with inadequate professional services as well as performing its existing function in relation to professional misconduct. The tribunal would maintain its function as an appeals body to which solicitors aggrieved at a decision of the Council of the Law Society can turn. As an appeal body it would have powers to quash, confirm, or vary any determination or direction by the council. It would also have an enforcement function to ensure that solicitors comply with decisions of the council.
Thirdly, the Bill gives the Lay Observer for Scotland power to report complaints directly to the discipline tribunal. The Lay Observer is the independent person appointed by the Secretary of State to investigate complaints from members of the public about the Law Society's handling of allegations against solicitors. The Lay Observer sees the Law Society's files, can issue an opinion analysing the case and set out her conclusions. These may include recommendations that the Law Society should take certain actions on the complaints. This opinion is not however legally binding on the Law Society. It has been said that the Lay Observer for Scotland holds an office which has no teeth. The Bill deals firmly with criticism of that kind by giving the Lay Observer power to report cases direct to the discipline tribunal. The new power is included in the Bill largely in response to representations from the Lay Observer herself, from consumer organisations and the public generally who have been concerned that the Lay Observer has no real power and can only work through unenforceable criticism of the Law Society's handling of a complaint. The Law Society, however, would retain responsibility for dealing with complaints against solicitors in the first instance and the Lay Observer would only become involved after the Law Society had reached a final decision on a complaint. The Lay Observer is not empowered to conduct cases at the tribunal, merely to report cases to the tribunal.
The Bill would also allow the Law Society to suspend a solicitor's practising certificate in cases where it believes that there has been professional misconduct arising through grossly overcharging fees to a client. Here again there are provisions for the solicitor to appeal to the court.
Since the Bill has been discussed in another place some of its provisions have been criticised, I suspect due largely to misunderstanding. Some solicitors have raised the question of whether the giving of legal advice should be the sole preserve of solicitors. That has never been the case. Accountants, tax advisers, and planning consultants and many more require to give legal advice when carrying out their professional work. This has always been and will remain the practice. What also remains unaltered by the Bill is

1385
that it is still a criminal offence for anyone to represent himself as a solicitor if he is not a solicitor.
The other matter which has been raised is whether people will be able to gain access to a lawyer's papers against the client's will. This is a total misconception of the Bill. A person "having an interest" may make a complaint. Such a person would be the client himself, somebody related to the client such as a beneficiary under a will or the client's executor or family. It could not be the client's opponent in the litigation.
The power is given to the Law Society to require production of papers and not to the person making the complaint. It does not require the Law Society to make papers available to the person who makes the complaint. It is necessary that the Law Society should have the powers to see the solicitor's papers to find out if there is anything in the complaint.
The Bill also makes a number of miscellaneous amendments to the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980. They include important provisions which are necessary to enable the Law Society to gain full recognition as a professional body under the provisions of the Financial Services Act. An important survey carried out by the Consumer Council in Scotland showed that 84 per cent. of clients were satisfied with their solicitors. The system for investigating complaints against solicitors, which the Bill will improve, has a part to play in maintaining that trust. Public standing of the solicitor profession is high and that is due partly to the rigorous system of support and supervision exercised by the Law Society. It is very significant that the Law Society should have seen fit to seek further powers to improve that important function.
I suggest that the Bill is a sensible and worthwhile measure. It contains a number of valuable provisions which will prove to be of considerable benefit to clients and solicitors and it will strengthen the relationship built on trust which exists between solicitors and their clients. I commend the Bill to your Lordships and I beg to move.
Moved, that the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Morton of Shuna.)
7.21 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I welcome the Bill because, in spite of the Law Society's present powers, there still exist hundreds of stories of incompetence by solicitors. They appear to go unpunished and certainly there is no redress for the client.
I hope that adequate professional competence includes the management of people's money. One of the worst cases of which I know is that of some old cousins of my grandfather. My father thought that they were becoming progressively better off because as another died they received a little more money. However, they appeared to him to be getting poorer. Eventually he discovered that the solicitor had left their money in government bonds at the end of the war and they were becoming poorer and poorer. My father obtained control of the money and, although
1386
a simple farmer, managed to double their income in a short space of time.
Another example is that of a French lady of whom I know who in 1949 married a Scotsman. She had a son in 1950. Eighteen years later she was much bothered by the French Army calling up her son in spite of her solicitor having written to explain that she was a British citizen. Eventually she had to write and she discovered that her solicitor had given her marriage date as 1959, her son having been born in 1950. It is the kind of mistake which can be slightly embarrassing and which is repeated in many cases. Therefore I am glad that the profession is keen to introduce measures which will help.
A number of issues have been raised by the Scottish Law Society. I believe that the definition of the phrase "adequate professional competence" is a little difficult but that it must be broad. The only way in which one can assess that is by competent solicitors and competent people deciding what is competent. I believe that several of the complaints have some ground, and the noble Lord who is promoting the Bill dealt with one or two of them. As regards a solicitor having to defend a case which is rubbish but which costs him money, it might be as well if he could claim his expenses. There will certainly he frivolous and imaginary complaints brought against solicitors.
I find interesting the phrase "grossly excessive fees". Do I gather that excessive fees are all right hut that they must be grossly excessive to he caught by the Bill? Or is it merely a question of the difficulty of definition?
I welcome the Bill. It is necessary for the profession to police itself. It needs the backing of law and the Bill appears to be necessary. I wonder what is meant by Clause 1(2)(b) on page 2 of the Bill. It states:
"to direct the solicitor to secure the rectification at his own expense of any such error, omission or other deficiency arising in connection with the services as the Council may specify".
Does rectification apply if he has lost the client a great deal of money by failing to put forward an offer on a house or to buy a share? Or does it apply only to his fees? It is a little unclear and it appears that under the present law one must sue. However, if that is the meaning of the provision I believe that it is a good thing.
I welcome the Bill and I should be pleased to have an explanation of the points that I have raised.
7.26 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, in such august legal company I should briefly like to welcome the Bill. My noble friend Lord Morton of Shuna should be congratulated for having taken up the baton from my honourable friend in another place, Alistair Darling. We should also thank the Law Society for going into a great deal of detail in order to answer many of the calls that it has had over the years concerning solicitors and including those on the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackie, spoke of the hundreds of stories that one hears. Many of them are apocryphal and I am sure that we could cite our own examples of solicitors who have not been quite up to the mark. I believe that it is right that the layman

1387
should be given some protection. There is a certain fear or strangeness when confronting a solicitor who apparently knows his way around. Perhaps the Bill will go some way towards reducing the law's delays, at least as regards those caused by dilatoriness on the part of solicitors. We may have another Bill from the Law Society or the Society of Advocates to abolish some of the law's delays which occur in the courthouses.
Embodied in the Bill is the fact that on occasions a solicitor needs protection from clients, and that is also important. It is not one-way traffic. From what I have seen of the Bill, and from what my noble friend Lord Morton has described, I understand that there is a certain protection for solicitors from clients who are perhaps unreasonable.
I am sure that the Bill is needed. I believe that we should thank the Law Society for taking the work seriously. It has a great deal of experience of complaints from solicitors and I hope that the existence of the Bill will improve the service to the clients. One does not know who will be the solicitors' clients the next day or the next week, so the Bill could apply to almost anyone in the land. The Bill may give solicitors a better framework in which to work. At least they will know where they stand as regards discipline and the powers of the Law Society. The Bill should be beneficial all round and I welcome it.
7.30 p.m.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Cameron of Lochbroom): My Lords, this Bill has the full support of the Government. We were very pleased to lend the Law Society of Scotland assistance with its drafting. I echo the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, in congratulating Mr. Alistair Darling, for introducing the Bill in another place on behalf of the Law Society and I would further congratulate the noble Lord for introducing it in your Lordships' House. Perhaps I may describe him as a worthy advocate for a solicitor's Bill since he has practised on both sides of the profession.
I know from consultations which have taken place that there is wide support for the Bill among such groups as the Scottish Consumer Council and the Scottish Association of Citizens' Advice Bureaux which may reasonably be said to represent the interests of clients. The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, in giving a welcome to the Bill, made a reference to hundreds of cases of dissatisfaction but perhaps I may remind him, as the noble Lord, Lord Morton, said in opening, that the Scottish Consumer Council carried out a survey just over a year ago and found that 84 per cent. of the public were satisfied—and that says a lot for the profession.
I am also aware of anxiety about some aspects of the Bill from groups with the solicitor profession itself. I think there has been some misunderstanding of certain of the Bill's provisions, and I was glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Morton, deal with those in opening. It has not perhaps been fully appreciated that the basic structure of the legislation affecting solicitors, including the discipline provisions, remains unaltered.
1388
In the vast majority of cases, clients are fully satisfied with the services provided by their solicitor. In a few unhappy instances, however, this is not so. The powers contained in this Bill will enable the council of the Law Society to take appropriate action to deal with the less serious disciplinary cases. The noble Lord, Lord Mackie, referred to grossly excessive fees. That is clearly a provision which the Law Society wished to see included and I can understand why they felt that that was appropriate in a Bill dealing with discipline.
The basic principles of the Bill are quite simple and, I suggest, hard to challenge. Few people can object to a system which gives redress to the client who has received services which fell short of what might reasonably be expected from a competent solicitor. The Bill contains nothing to alarm the solicitor who provides a satisfactory service. Not only has great care been taken to ensure that the solicitor has a fair hearing before the Council of the Law Society reaches a decision on a complaint, but there is provision for appeal to the discipline tribunal and, thereafter, to the Court of Session, as the noble Lord, Lord Morton, reminded us.
I welcome the new power given to the lay observer to report a case direct to the discipline tribunal where a dissatisfied client has reported the case to the Lay Observer and the latter is unhappy about the outcome of the case after investigation by the Law Society. This power, as well as the main provisions of the Bill dealing with inadequate professional services, has been available in England and Wales for a few years now and I suggest it is appropriate that Scotland should have it also.
I should underline that the lay observer would not utilise the new power until the Law Society had reached a decision on a case. Primary responsibility for investigating complaints about solicitors will remain with the Law Society. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland intends to issue a direction in this sense to the Lay Observer in respect of the new power if the Bill is enacted.
The procedures which will apply in the event of a report from the Lay Observer to the disciplinary tribunal are matters appropriately to be dealt with under the disciplinary tribunals rules. These will be reviewed by the Lord President of the Court of Session after the enactment of the Bill.
I am grateful to the Council of the Law Society for supporting the inclusion in the Bill of a small number of amendments to the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980 which were the subject of consultation at the end of last year by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. They are designed to simplify the legislation relating to solicitors and reduce the extent to which the profession is controlled by statute.
I am conscious that there is opposition in some quarters to the removal of the reference to "legal advice" from Section 33 of the 1980 Act. That section prevents unqualified persons from suing for recovery of a fee for carrying out certain business. Many professional people already give advice on the law as part of their services to clients, for example, as the noble Lord said. on finance or planning matters. This

1389
does not mean that anyone can offer their services as a solicitor since, as the noble Lord, Lord Morton, reminded us, under Sections 31 and 32 of the 1980 Act, it is a criminal offence for an unqualified person to pretend to be a solicitor or to use any name, title or description implying that one is qualified to act as a solicitor.
Returning to the main provisions of the Bill, I know of the unease felt in certain quarters about the implications of the new discipline powers. As with any new system it is often easy to allow fears about exactly how it will operate in all imaginable situations to overshadow the benefits especially when these will fall on another party, in this case the as yet unidentified client. The Government hope these new disciplinary powers will soon he introduced. We believe they are well conceived and prescribed. But we will be taking a close interest in how the system works in practice and will be ready to discuss with the Law Society any problems which cannot be settled within the existing legislation.
I am sure that your Lordships will recognise this Bill as a valuable and welcome measure.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Corneal Tissue (Northern Ireland) Order 1988
7.38 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Lyell)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Lyell) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 28th June he approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the order is intended to bring the law in Northern Ireland on the removal of eyes or parts of eyes for corneal grafting and for medical education and research into line with the rest of the United Kingdom.
Noble Lords may recall the passage through the House of a Private Member's Bill, introduced in another place by my honourable friend the Member for Exeter, then presented in your Lordships' House by my noble friend Lord Cullen, to become the Corneal Tissue Act 1986. That Act amended the law in Great Britain to allow staff employed by health authorities, who are not medically qualified, to remove eyes from deceased persons subject to proper safeguards. This order replicates those provisions for Northern Ireland. "Replicates" is a word which I do not always use but I understand that it means to repeat identically both the operations carried out as well as the legal requirements. I shall use that word later on.
The purpose of the order is this. As was the case in the rest of the United Kingdom prior to the 1986 Act, the existing law in Northern Ireland—the Human Tissue Act (Northern Ireland) 1962—requires the removal of organs from bodies for medical purposes to be carried out only by registered medical practitioners. In the case of most transplantable organs, such as kidneys, hearts, livers and pancreases, this restriction is necessary and will
1390
remain in force. However the removal of eyes is different from the removal of other organs in that it is a comparatively simple technique which does not require the skills of an experienced surgeon and can be carried out several hours after death. The order will amend the existing Northern Ireland Act to permit technicians who are suitably trained and supervised to perform this task.
The point of this is, of course, to increase the supply of tissue for corneal grafting. While there is much interest and support in the Province for corneal grafting we have a shortfall in supply of corneal tissue. The present requirement that corneas be removed only by a qualified doctor is a serious constraint in obtaining tissue. Medical staff have busy clinical schedules and in practice have considerable difficulty finding time to remove corneal tissue from donors, especially those who happen to die elsewhere than in hospitals that have an ophthalmic surgery department. This in turn means that many corneal grafts are performed as emergency procedures as and when suitable tissue becomes available. By allowing suitably trained non-medical staff to carry out this comparatively simple procedure it will be possible to increase the supply of tissue from donors whether they die at home or in hospitals.
Tissue—as it is called—can be stored at the eye bank at the Royal Victoria Hospital for up to 14 days. By enabling more tissue to be available for storage the draft order should result in a number of major benefits. First, there should be an increase in the number of corneal grafts carried out. Secondly, ophthalmic surgeons should be able to use their time more effectively because corneal grafting operations can become planned procedures carried out during normal ophthalmic theatre sessions. Thirdly, more tissue will be available for medical education and research purposes.
Of course, there are safeguards in this procedure. It is recognised that where removal of corneas from bodies is to be undertaken by staff who are not medically qualified, safeguards are necessary to ensure that the procedure is undertaken competently and sensitively. The safeguards need to be flexible enough to ensure that the procurement of tissue is not unnecessarily constrained yet firm enough to ensure that the interests of the donor are protected and due regard is given to the sensitivities of relatives. There are four safeguards in the order designed to achieve this delicate balance.
The first safeguard is that only employees of a health and social services board will be permitted to remove corneal tissue. This should ensure that tissue is removed only by technicians who have been properly trained and who are subject to whatever procedures their employing authority considers necessary. At the same time any private hospitals wishing to undertake corneal grafting will be able to obtain tissue either by making an arrangement with a board or through their own doctors collecting tissue.
The second safeguard is that non-medical staff may remove eyes only if they are acting under a doctor's instructions. The doctor would, of course, be professionally accountable for any instructions he gave. The third safeguard places a responsibility on

1391
the doctor who gives the instructions to satisfy himself that the staff he instructs are suitably trained and qualified.
I stress that the medical profession is happy to accept this responsibility. Noble Lords will be interested to know that following the coming into operation of the Corneal Tissue Act 1986, the United Kingdom transplant service in Bristol has set up an eye retrieval course to train technicians to carry out this task and I am happy to say that the course will be available to Northern Ireland staff.
The fourth safeguard will ensure that the certification of death will remain very firmly the prerogative of the medical profession. It would be totally wrong for corneal tissue to be removed before death has been properly certified by a doctor. However, to make for the easier application of the provisions of the order the doctor who certifies death must not necessarily be the same doctor as the one who gives the instructions for tissue to be removed.
The provisions of this order have the full support of the medical profession as a whole and the specific agreement of ophthalmic surgeons in Northern Ireland. Corneal grafting is a procedure which can safeguard or, far better, restore sight. Your Lordships will agree that it is of the utmost importance that an adequate supply of tissue is available to keep the eye bank at the Royal Victoria Hospital well stocked. No one in need of this type of operation should be denied that opportunity because of the shortage of tissue. Corneal tissue has not in the past been collected from many potential donors. This order will remove the single greatest impediment to the collection of that tissue; namely, the need for it to be collected by a doctor.
I referred to the Corneal Tissue Act which was instigated by my honourable friend the Member for Exeter and conducted through this House by my noble friend Lord Cullen. That Act, which came into force two years ago, has operated with much success in Great Britain—that is, on the mainland of England, Scotland and Wales. I commend both my honourable friend the Member for Exeter and my noble friend Lord Cullen for their efforts in bringing forward that legislation which had the full support of the Government. We believe that it is highly desirable that patients in Northern Ireland should enjoy the benefits of similar legislation. With that in mind I commend the order to your Lordships.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 28th June be approved. (Lord Lyell.)
7.45 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, we give our warm and unqualified support from these Benches to the Minister and his colleagues in bringing forward this order. I am delighted that in doing so the Minister paid tribute to the work of the honourable Member for Exeter, Mr. John Hannam, who is well known to me and who has my highest respect in this and many other matters. It was right that the Minister should draw the attention of the House to the part played by the noble Lord, Lord Cullen. As we know, the noble Lord had a major parliamentary victory yesterday in this House on another matter
1392
relating to eyes. That bears repeating, at least from this side of the Chamber if not from the Government side.
The raison d'être for the order is well understood. I am grateful to the Minister for the care he took in his very lucid speech. There will be many people who read the proceedings of this House—and I am one—who are not always aware of the nuances of matters of this kind. Therefore, I express my sincere thanks to the Minister. However, the noble Lord can perhaps tell us why a measure which was seen to be wholly appropriate in 1986 has taken two years to reach this House in respect of Northern Ireland. There can be no argument about the good sense of the measures contained in the Corneal Tissue Act 1986. I should have thought that we might have seen this order a little earlier. I look forward to hearing the Minister's comments in that respect.
I understand the raison d'être for the order. It is related to pressure on the time and the ability of properly qualified people to be able to deal expeditiously with needs as they arise. However, can the Minister tell the House whether there is anything different in the Northern Ireland scene compared with any other part of the British Isles in regard to special needs? I understand, of course, the difference between Northern Ireland legislation and legislation for the rest of Great Britain. But is there anything foreboding in the Northern Ireland scene which calls for special treatment? We know that, tragically, there are many differences about life in Northern Ireland compared to that on the mainland.
The Minister said that the primary purpose of the order is to increase the supply of tissue in order to meet a shortage. He said—without giving statistics, which I respect—that there must have been many instances where there has been a loss to potential recipients of a graft as a result of a deficiency in the law which this order corrects. We certainly understand that.
I put to the Minister a number of questions related to the main body of this subject on page 2 of the order. The Minister rightly drew attention to the manner in which a person in the employment of a health and social services board acting on the instructions of a registered medical practitioner is given new powers or opportunities under the order. Can the Minister give some designations of what and who those people will be? For instance, it simply states:
"a person in the employment of'.
What is the designation and the status of the individuals who will be represented by those words? Whoever the persons are they will he competent and qualified. The medical practitioner has to be satisfied that the persons in question are sufficiently qualified and trained. Can the Minister say what they will be called? I was particularly interested in what the Minister told us as regards the eye retrieval course at the UK transplant centre in Bristol. I am wondering whether there are qualifications, diplomas or certificates which will make it easier to identify the individuals concerned.
The terminology at page 2 (4) quite properly makes direct reference to the examination of the body to

1393
ensure that life is extinct. That must go without saying, but can the Minister say whether there have been any tragic circumstances in which an attempt was made to deal with the need for a corneal graft and transfer when in fact—horror of horrors!—the body has not been extinct? Perhaps the Minister can say whether it is right that those words should be in the Bill. Can he also tell us whether what we are discussing is based upon some sad experience?
The order states under (4A)(a):
"a registered medical practitioner, who must have satisfied himself by personal examination of the body that life is extinct, or (b) a person in the employment of a health and social services board".
The Minister said that that person will be under the instructions of a qualified medical practitioner. How are those instructions to be conveyed; are they to be conveyed in writing? One understands that when mistakes occur very often there is some uncertainty as to precisely what were the orders. Not everyone who is found to be at fault is prepared to own up immediately.
When we are talking about someone who is under the supervision of another, how are the lines of communication to be established? Is it a question of by word of mouth; is it a question of a general understanding based upon the qualification of the person? I shall be glad if the Minister and his colleagues give some thought as to how it is that the powers of the supervisor are to be transferred to the supervised person in order that there can be no doubt. I am not talking about any shady practice, but about the care to be taken to ensure that whoever carries out these duties is clearly instructed and supervised. We certainly give a very warm welcome to this order.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Graham, and for the attention that he has paid to this short but complicated and, I hope, fairly sensitively presented order. I wish to thank him for the encomium that he has paid to my honourable and noble friends who will read what has been said this evening. I note particularly what the noble Lord said last night about my noble friend as regards reading. Fortunately, I am still able to read, though from time to time I find it hard to identify your Lordships on the other side of the Chamber in conditions of poor light.
Quite rightly, the noble Lord pointed out that this order and the Corneal Tissue Act 1986 are fraught with a certain delicate area where relatives of a deceased person may have to be asked sensitively if they have any objection to the deceased relative becoming a donor. As your Lordships will be aware, on the mainland (and as far as I am aware also in Northern Ireland) persons may carry a donor card. That will refer to the removal of other organs about which I have spoken earlier.
The main thrust of the order before us this evening deals with the removal of corneas and corneal tissue particularly in view of the delicacy of the time factor. I stated that time was of the essence. I understand that a reasonable time is anything below 14 hours after death. This is subject to all kinds of conditions. The first note I have refers to delay and not
1394
necessarily as regards the removal of the tissue. The noble Lord asked why it had taken quite so long (nearly two years) to bring Northern Ireland into line with Great Britain. So far as I am aware, this is the first opportunity that we have had to bring an order before your Lordships. I suspect that there is also a period of consultation in Northern Ireland as regards the carrying out of this procedure.
I am quite sure that the technicians and the qualified people, though not fully medically qualified—they are not doctors—are qualified to carry out this fairly simple operation. I suspect that there have been consultations and that once necessary consultations had been completed, then the normal legislative procedure was started. That would account for the delay. If there has been any major obstacle, I shall write to the noble Lord.
As far as I am aware, on a statistical basis there is no major difference in eye maladies—if I may call them that—in Northern Ireland other than the normal divergencies. I understand that corneal transplants or the transplant of corneal tissue, is useful in a number of ophthalmic diseases or problems. I am not aware of any divergence from the average in Great Britain. Certainly, there is no serious shortage of corneal tissue; but as your Lordships will be aware, every single person who can either regain his sight or have it improved or maintained by this miraculous new technique, provides an additional blessing.
The noble Lord asked me three questions. The first related to the qualifications of persons who will carry out what he called the eye retrieval. I understand that those qualifications will be precisely the same as those for a similar person carrying out the removal of corneal tissue in Great Britain. It is for this reason that I stressed the availability of what the noble Lord called the eye retrieval course at Bristol. There are already two technicians, I understand, who will be taking part in this course which I believe lasts for one week. I am convinced that there will be opportunities for people from Northern Ireland who wish to obtain the qualification to carry out this operation.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, is the Minister saying that the basic qualification will be taking the course at the eye retrieval centre in Bristol? I am happy to accept that, because quite clearly the noble Lord and his advisers will be satisfied as to the quality and calibre of such a course. However, if he then goes on to say that two people are there now and that there is space for others, I wonder what ambition the Government may have in respect of the numbers.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, if the noble Lord will have patience I shall come to that point. I am not aware of all the precise qualifications which these technicians would require; whether A-levels or O-levels in science, or whatever. I shall endeavour to obtain this information and write to the noble Lord saying exactly who they would be, what such people are doing at present and what the course at Bristol will do for them. The course will be a source of continued improvement in techniques for this delicate operation. I shall write to the noble Lord on that point.

1395
I am not aware of any case of removal of corneal tissue where life had not been certified as extinct. This would have been covered under the 1962 Act, to which I referred at the outset. As I say, I am not aware of any case where removal of corneal tissue has taken place where a doctor has not certified that the life of the donor is extinct. In some cases, which are permitted under the order, as the noble Lord will have noted, the doctor who authorises the qualified person to remove the corneal tissue will receive certification from a second doctor that life is extinct. This will mean that there will not be a wasted journey, perhaps the whole way across the Province, from Belfast to the other side. A doctor in the donor's home town can certify that life is extinct and then the qualified person can obtain the corneal tissue.
Perhaps the noble Lord will remind me about his third question because I am afraid I have lost it.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords. I was interested in the manner in which the person who will now be covered by the order will carry out what he is allowed to do. When one certifies that a person is dead, how will the responsibility of the supervisor be passed to the supervised? Will it he in writing or in some other form?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, this should be a relatively simple operation. I shall find out and answer the noble Lord, 1 hope, in two lines.
The noble Lord has been perspicacious and kind in the welcome he has given to the order. I do not think your Lordships will wish me to say any more and I commend it to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Firearms (Amendment) Bill
8.4 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Clause 15 [Visitors' permits]:
Earl Peel Earl Peel moved Amendment No. 85:
Page 7, line 43, leave out from ("possession") to ("ammunition") in line 44 and insert ("purchase or acquire any firearm or").
The noble Earl said: I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 87. This means that I shall be moving away from the suggested groupings, but as one clause is conditional on the other I shall obviously have to do so. In any future amendments that I move, I shall not, with the leave of the Committee, adhere to the suggestions for the groupings because I do not believe that they have been put together very succinctly.
Clause 15(1) provides for a visitor's firearm permit which authorises the possession of a Section 1 firearm but not its acquisition. On the other hand, a visitor's shotgun permit authorises the possession and acquisition of such weapons. This is an anomaly. The amendment would enable someone coming to this country with a visitor's firearm permit to purchase or acquire a Section 1 firearm as well as to possess one.
If a visitor is a fit person to possess a Section 1 firearm in Great Britain I can see no good reason why he should not be able to purchase one here at the same time. Indeed, there are good reasons for encouraging a visitor to buy a sporting firearm in Great Britain because if he purchased one here it would ensure that the firearm is within Section 1 of the Firearms Act. Secondly, it would ensure that the firearm complies with the standards of the international proof body known as the CIP; and, thirdly, it would attract foreign currency to this country, something which I am sure we would wish to encourage wherever possible.
It is perhaps also worth my pointing out that if a visitor was to purchase a firearm in this country it would save him a considerable amount of money. Under the present system it would he sent to his country of origin and he would have to pay packaging and postage costs and so forth. which add a considerable amount to the purchase price of such a weapon. An immediate delivery of the purchase is an incentive to export sales in particular as many overseas buyers prefer where possible to export a purchase as baggage rather than as freight.
Section 14 of the principal Act, which provides for overseas visitors to purchase and export shotguns in this way, has been of great importance to export sales and I can see no reason why firearms should not come under the same category. It has been pointed out many times during the course of the Bill that the police are far more concerned about the criminal use of shotguns than of rifles. That is perhaps another reason why we should seriously consider allowing such visitors to purchase firearms while they are here.
The proposed visitor's firearm permit would not be a carte blanche for either possession or acquisition. The system which operates for purchase or acquisition on an ordinary firearms certificate would be used. The visitor's firearm permit would therefore specify the firearm to be bought by class—rifle or pistol—and by calibre. The seller would enter details of the firearm in the permit and would notify the police of such a sale. The police would be kept fully informed of all transactions through the notification procedures already set out in the Bill. I believe that the amendment would give a boost to the gun trade without detriment to the spirit of the Bill or the proper control of firearms in this country. I beg to move.
Lord Burton: I rise wholeheartedly to support my noble friend in this amendment. It seems to be an appropriate moment to ask my noble friend what will happen in 1993 when we join the single European market. Surely there should be nothing to restrict European visitors from coming to this country. I believe that in another place the Minister said that the Government intend to ignore this order from the EC. If they do that surely they will then become liable for an action in the European Court. I should like to know how the Government intend to deal with the question of permits for visitors from Europe. My noble friend had in mind visitors from America, who will not be affected, but I should be interested to know how the provision will be reconciled with European law.
Earl Peel: I was in fact referring to all visitors and not just those from America.
Lord John-Mackie: I think that the principle behind the amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Peel, is a very good one, as is the principle behind many of the amendments tabled under Clause 15. I come from an area in Scotland where, especially in the hills behind the farm where I was, the shooting was good. Nearly the whole of the shooting was let to visitors from abroad. That did a tremendous amount of good to the local villages.
As the noble Earl, Lord Peel, said, it seems to be quite ridiculous that you can bring in a gun to this country, but you cannot purchase one. He made the point that it would of course help trade in this country if you purchased the gun here. Further, I gather that you can also first-purchase it cheaper.
I think that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, should look at the matter carefully—as I am sure he will—because like the noble Earl, Lord Peel, I cannot see the difference between some one coming in and buying the gun if he has a certificate and bringing one in.
Earl Ferrers: I think that there is a difference. That is that the cardinal principle upon which the Bill operates is that firearms need a higher level of control than shotguns. It is perfectly true that a person can come in with a shotgun; he can use it here; he can purchase one here; and he can use it and he can take it away. But a firearm is considered to be in a very much higher category. That is the reason why the provisions in the Bill at the moment permit people to come here and buy a firearm, but not to possess one while they are here. The point made by the noble Lord. Lord John-Mackie (that it would be good for trade because a visitor can buy a gun) would still stand; but he can only buy it providing he exports it; he cannot buy it and use it in this country.
There is a good reason for that. A visitor, by the very nature of things. does not have a firearm certificate. The whole point about the firearm certificate is that it lists the firearms and says what they are. Moreover, the chief constable has to know that the person has a good reason for using a firearm. But he does not know about a visitor. The visitor has a permit to come and shoot here. But if he goes into a gunsmith's and buys a gun—admittedly it may be recorded on the dealer's book—he does not have a firearm licence, nor does the chief constable have any say or any jurisdiction over the purchase. That is the reason, which I think is a good one. It indicates the greater level of control, but it does not stop the person, as a visitor, from purchasing a gun and saying, "Will you send it to me at my home in America?" or, wherever he may live.
Lord Brain: I wonder whether there is not just a small anomaly here. The gun that the visitor has in his possession may by some manner be a brand new gun. I shall not necessarily go into the details of this because the gun may he loaned to an estate and therefore be an estate gun and be perfectly legal. The visitor, during his residence here, uses it legally under a firearms permit. At the end of his stay he says, "I
1398
like this rifle, please may it be sent home to me?" I believe that that is exactly the same thing. I just wonder what the difference is. Perhaps the noble Earl can explain it to me.
Earl Ferrers: I think that the difference is—and I come back to the fact—that if a visitor comes to this country and purchases a firearm, it ought to be on a firearms certificate. That is what happens if you are a resident in the United Kingdom. You go along with your firearms certificate and you explain to the chief constable, "I want to have this firearm because it will be used for this, that and the other purpose." The serial number is then put on the certificate. That is what happens when a resident makes an application. When a visitor comes, he has no firearms certificate and therefore it cannot be registered and so the police have no control over who that person is. Indeed, there would he an anomaly if we were to say that a visitor should have an easier form of control over his firearms than does a normal resident in the United Kingdom. Where the visitor has used a gun and wishes to take it away, that may be a different matter. He can still purchase one and have it sent abroad.
I turn now to a point made by my noble friend Lord Burton about the EC. We are not required to accept the European Community's directive in its present form; it is still under negotiation. The Single European Act allows each state to take such action as is necessary to preserve its own security. My noble friend is quite right to refer to the matter. I can only say to him that all such matters are very much under negotiation and one cannot tell him more than that at present because there are several years to go before we reach 1992.
8.15 p.m.
The Earl of Northesk: Is it not likely that the visitor who is going to purchase a firearm will want to try it out somewhere? Surely no sensible person would buy any kind of gun without first attempting to see whether he can shoot the thing. It seems a little hard if he has to buy the gun and take it home without ever having tried it. Surely he must have some sort of permission to use the firearm under certain circumstances.
Lord Brain: I think perhaps if we all read Hansard tomorrow, we may find that there will be a loophole that can be usefully used by gunsmiths, purchasers, and so on for having firearms perfectly validly on certificates during the period in which they are used in this country by a visitor. I think we can all obey the rules—perhaps not quite as the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, would like—under the spirit of the Act.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: One of the problems about the point made by the noble Lord (which at first sight appears reasonable) is that he has not considered its full implications. If you have a provision whereby any foreign citizen can come into this country and acquire a firearm and take it away from this country, that man may well have a string of criminal convictions for acts of extreme violence. Therefore it seems to me that in such a situation very

1399
few reasonable people would in fact oppose the Government's position on the matter.
Earl Peel: I have listened with interest to what noble Lords have said. I must say that I received the answer I expected from my noble friend on the Front Bench. I was most grateful to the noble Lords, Lord John-Mackie, Lord Brain and Lord Northesk for at least supporting in principle what I said.
In all these matters, if the Home Office has the will to do it, it will be done. Obviously in this case the Home Office has not. My noble friend on the Front Bench said that firearms need a higher level of control than shotguns. I am not sure that that is altogether true. I think it has been established categorically that shotguns, especially so far as concerns the police, are more of a concern than firearms. If that is the case, I see no reason whatsoever for a visitor coming over here and buying a firearm under the firearms permit system. I shall not press the amendment any further. However, I think that there is support for the broad principle behind the amendment, and I therefore ask my noble friend to perhaps give this some thought so that we may consider the matter again. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Burton Lord Burton moved Amendment No. 86:
Page 7, line 47, at end insert—
("(1A) A hotelier shall not commit an offence by reason only that. not holding a firearm or shotgun certificate, he takes into safekeeping a firearm or shotgun lawfully possessed by one of his customers.").
The noble Lord said: I am not altogether happy with the amendment as it stands. I tabled it because I think that there is a considerable problem. If one has foreign visitors or people visiting different parts of the country they will need accommodation. A number of visitors stay in hotels or boarding houses. Some shoot on a number of different properties. When they arrive with their firearm, or shotgun for that matter, what are they to do with it? Do they take it to their rooms? Many people, such as the maid or a carpenter repairing something, may have a key to the room. Can that room be considered a safe place? If not, what are they to do with the weapon?
The hotel keeper may have a safe big enough to hold the weapon. The chances are that he will not. Unless the hotelier is a keen shooting man, he will not have a certificate. Even if he has a certificate, the weapon will not be on it. He will then be taking possession of the weapon and locking it up for someone else. He commits a crime. It would be wrong for the visitor to carry the weapon around with him all the time. He would not be popular if he took it down into the dining room. How is it expected that the visitor will keep such a weapon in safe custody? It would get over part of the problem if the hotelier were considered to be a safe person to look after the weapon. He may have somewhere safe to lock it up. I beg to move.
Viscount Mountgarret: I am not happy with the amendment. I believe that it is probably surplus to requirements. If the situation that my noble friend described arises, the visitor is entitled to ask the
1400
hotelier to look after or to place his weapon somewhere for safe keeping. I am sure that when your Lordships go away on holiday many of you ask the proprietor to look after your wife's jewellery, or something like that. The owner of the weapon is responsible for taking reasonable precautions to look after it. If one asks the hotel staff, or uses the hotel facilities, to take reasonable care and to lock up the weapon, surely there is no need to give a hotelier the power to retain the weapon when he may not have a certificate to do so. That power could be used in the wrong way if the hotel keeper were the wrong type. I should not like to see the amendment written into the Bill.
Lord Gisborough: If we do not have the amendment, the hotel keeper can reasonably say that he will not keep the weapon. The only alternative open to the owner of the weapon is to put it in the boot of his car. We know from a recent case that to lock one's gun in the boot of a car is not a defence.
Earl Ferrers: I see what my noble friend Lord Burton is getting at, but I am bound to say that my noble friend Lord Mountgarret is correct. Anyone who takes a gun with him has to take reasonable precautions. If that person goes to a hotel, it is perfectly reasonable for him to say to the hotelier, "Do you have a safe into which I can put my gun?" If the hotelier says, "Yes, I have", that is fine; the weapon is kept in a safe place and the owner is vindicated. If the hotelier says, "No, I haven't", it is for the gun owner to find some other place. If the only place is beneath his bed, it becomes a matter of degree as to whether that is considered to be a suitable place. If he is lying on top of the gun, then perhaps it is. If he leaves it in his bedroom and goes down to dinner, it is not.
I realise that my noble friend will not stick on this point, but if his amendment were passed it would give the hotelier carte blanche to be free of all responsibility. There is no definition of a hotelier. What is a hotelier? Are you a hotelier if you run the Ritz or if you run a bed-and-breakfast place? If the amendment were to be passed, it would mean that a person staying in a hotel could say to the hotelier, "Here is my gun. Will you keep it?" If the hotelier inadvertently leaves it on the bar and someone removes it, it would be impossible to prosecute the hotelier because the amendment states:
"A hotelier shall not commit an offence by reason only that, not holding a firearm or shotgun certificate, he takes into safe keeping a firearm or shotgun lawfully possessed by one of his customers".
The amendment has the effect of removing the responsibility or liability from the hotelier.
I understand my noble friend's concern, but the answer must be that a person who goes out shooting must be responsble for his own weapon in the same way as my noble friend Lord Mountgarret said he would be if he were staying in someone else's house.
Lord Burton: Before I came South last week, I took the trouble to contact the local police and after some considerable deliberation they considered that there was a flaw in the Bill. It seems that the northern constabulary disagrees with my noble friend Lord

1401
Mountgarret and with my noble friend the Minister. It is not for me to say who is right and who is wrong.
At the moment if the owner of the hotel or boarding house takes one of these weapons into his possession, which is what he does when he locks it up, he commits an offence because he does not have a firearm certificate to hold that weapon. I do not wish to argue the point, and I am obviously not going to press the amendment. There is a point here which wants looking at. I see that my noble friend has an answer. I shall not withdraw the amendment until he has made his comment.
Earl Ferrers: I am grateful to my noble friend. He prompted me to get to my feet, and, having been prompted, I have now forgotten what I was going to say. I remember now what it was. He made a classic flaw, if I might so put it. I f' he were to stay in an hotel and say to the hotelier, "Will you look after my weapon?" he does not give the responsibility to the hotelier. He may use the hotelier's facilities, but that gun is my noble friend's and he does not hand over responsibility for it to the hotelier.
Lord Burton: With that assurance, which I am sure will be a relief to a number of people, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 87 not moved.]
The Earl of Balfour The Earl of Balfour moved Amendment No. 88:
Page 8. line 13, at end insert—
(.( ) A visitor's permit shall not be granted under this section by the chief officer of police unless that visitor can produce evidence in writing that he has a qualification from his own country permitting him to possess a shotgun or a firearm and that he has the right to buy ammunition.").
The noble Earl said: The amendment is designed merely to ensure that a visitor produces some qualifications to show that he is a suitable person to possess a shotgun or firearm in this country. He must produce some evidence. The Bill, as it stands, is too wide in this respect. This country must not be the happy hunting ground for any odd person who wants to learn how to shoot. I beg to move.
Lord Swansea: However well intentioned my noble friend's amendment is, some EC countries and some other countries do not require any certification for shotguns and sporting firearms. People may own them freely. Therefore it would be difficult for any such visitor to produce written evidence of his authority to possess such a firearm or shotgun.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I have some sympathy for what the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, is trying to do; but I am bound to say that I do not think we could possibly accept this amendment, partly for the reason which the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, has given. It is that in certain states of the United States, there is no certification procedure because of the political power of the National Rifle Association. Therefore it would be extremely inequitable were one to pass an amendment framed in the form of the noble Earl's
1402
amendment. It simply says that a visitor's permit shall not be granted unless the visitor can provide this evidence. That evidence in a number of cases would not exist.
While I am on my feet, I must make one additional point. Not perhaps for the first time 1 disagree with the general thrust of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Swansea. I think it will be far too easy for visitors to be able to get these weapons in this country. That has caused the police the deepest concern. They have made their position and their anxieties felt in the most emphatic terms to the Home Office. They are concerned that visitors to this country will be able to acquire some weapons, notwithstanding the fact that there will be no proof that these people do not have an array of previous criminal convictions. I think that is a point which it is necessary to make repeatedly, the continuing concern of the police service that this Bill, far from being an overreaction, as it was described by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, is in some respects by no means strong enough.
Earl Peel: Has the noble Lord, Lord Harris, any evidence at all to show that visitors coming into this country have ever been involved in crimes involving shotguns?
Lord Harris of Greenwich: A question of that sort is by its nature impossible to answer. I am not a chief officer of police; I do not have access to this type of information. The point which I am making is that this Bill has been introduced in order to strengthen controls over firearms and shotguns. In a number of respects it does not go far enough.
Earl Peel: The noble Lord has stated that the police would like to see controls of shotguns for foreign visitors, the buying of shotguns by foreign visitors. I come back to the point that I am not expecting the noble Lord to cite endless cases in this matter; but perhaps he will be good enough to mention just one specific case in which a visitor has been involved in such a crime using such a weapon.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I cannot answer the point of the noble Earl, I am not a chief officer of police. I do not have access to information on criminal records—
Earl Peel: But—
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Please let me answer the point—quite rightly too. Criminal records are confidential records kept by police forces. I could not possibly be given information of that sort. The police would not be carrying out their responsibility for the confidentiality of their own records. That is the first point.
The second point (which the noble Earl does not seem able to accept) is that we are strengthening the law as far as it concerns United Kingdom subjects. We are doing that because we believe it is in the national interest so to do. The concern of the police service is that there is a very substantial omission as regards foreign visitors coming to this country.
Viscount Dilhorne: On what basis does the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, draw these conclusions if he has no evidence upon which to make those assertions?
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I answered the question by saying that it is the view of the Association of Chief Police Officers, who probably know as much as the noble Viscount or myself in terms of the merits of this argument.
Earl Peel: I accept that we are strengthening the law in this matter, but I thought that the whole purpose behind the Bill was simply to strengthen the law when it was necessary to do so. In this case there is no evidence whatsoever.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I have now made the point on three or four separate occasions. It is just possible that the noble Earl and I are not going to agree. What I have told the Committee is that the group of people whose views most people in this country would consider it appropriate to listen to with some degree of respect take the view that there is a serious omission in this Bill as it applies to foreign visitors to this country. They may be right; they may be wrong, but it is their view. They have rather more detailed knowledge inevitably than any of us can have.
Lord Burton: I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, has not been fully briefed by the chief officers of police on this subject. I do not know what happens with shotguns; but visitors cannot get a firearms certificate in this country until they produce a certificate from the police in their own area verifying that they are of good character. I hope that that will be sufficient proof for the noble Lord. I think that things are quite secure enough already; this certificate should be perfectly adequate.
Earl Ferrers: I wonder whether I might help the Committee by coming back to the amendment. Perhaps I might say that I think my noble friend Lord Swansea was quite right, it would be difficult to accept this amendment because in a number of places such as some states of the United States of America no form of qualification or authorisation is required to purchase or possess a firearm and in some cases even a shotgun. Thus the effect would be that, if the noble Lord's amendment were to be included in the Bill, it would preclude large numbers of perfectly respectable legitimate shooters from coming here to shoot, not only on private estates, but elsewhere and in competitions.
The Earl of Balfour: This is clearly yet another amendment of mine which is defective, and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Dilhorne Viscount Dilhorne moved Amendment No. 89:
Page 8, line 13, at end insert—
("(2A) Upon making a first application to acquire a firearm or shotgun permit to be used by a person intending to visit or visiting Great Britain, the prospective visitor or a person either acting as
1404
his United Kindom agent or a resident in the United Kingdom shall provide to the chief officer of police for the area intended to be visited the following information—

(a) his present permanent address and whether it has changed in the preceding five years and if so stating the previous address;

(b) his passport number (or where appropriate his identity card) stating the date and place of its issue;

(c) a certificate from the country where the visitor is resident or ordinarily resident, attesting to the visitor's good character, issued by a responsible person in that country and if in a foreign language to be translated and sworn to as to its accuracy by a certified and registered translator.").

The noble Viscount said: In moving this amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 90 and 91. Although they are not grouped together, they affect the same subsection which I am seeking to amend. The amendment may seem to be unduly lengthy. It is not intended to be complicated or complex; but one or two things come out of it. The purposes for which I have drafted it are these, namely: clearly, some control must exist for visitors to come to this country. I have that control drafted in this way. Under Section (2A) there is a series of requirements and they are all capable of amendment. They are not exhaustive. I have had suggestions since I drafted the amendment that other requirements should he inserted. If this type of form were filled in on the first visit of a visitor to this country then it would not have to be repeatedly filled in on subsequent visits. All that would happen on subsequent visits would be that if any material change had taken place there would be an obligation on the visitors to disclose that to the police.
Surely this information could be kept in a place accessible to all police forces so that when a visitor came here he was welcomed and able to go and shoot where he wanted to and stay with different people. He would not necessarily have to go to one police chief constable although he could if he wished. He could go to any area at all.
Noble Lords will see the various provisions I have made under paragraphs (a), (b) and (c). To those, we could possibly add further details such as place and date of birth, any other names used by the prospective visitor and such things as in respect of prospective visitors, not being in possession of a current firearm, shotgun or hunting licence and whatever they have. If they do not have that, then a fallback position would have to be arranged which would meet the points already discussed like a reference as to good character from the country from which the visitor comes. There would have to be something which would arise on the initial visit. It would take a little time, but it would enable reference checks to be made on the initial visit to make sure that this was not a Mafiosi or a Cosa Nostra member or some other undesirable coming here to get firearms.
There are two points on this. First, it must be made easy for visitors to come here and not to have to go through a whole lot of bureaucracy each time they visit. Secondly, when they come here they should be able to go where they want to with their shotguns rather than have such controls that they cease to come here. They are a very good earner for this country.
On Second Reading, my noble friend Lord Swinton, I recall, commented that ladies were often brought who were not wives. I added that they increased the expenditure which took place. If they are not made welcome they will not come. That seems to be a very great pity. 1 think I have said all the things that need to he said to support my amendment. I have spoken, as was said, to three amendments, Amendments Nos. 89, 90 and 91 although only Amendment No. 89 was called. Amendment No. 91 intends that the permit under this clause shall entitle the holder to participate during its currency in sporting and competitive events throughout Great Britain.
There are other amendments which achieve the same effect. I shall not use the word felicitous as regards that effect, as my noble friend on the Front Bench had some trouble the day before yesterday separating his c's from his s's. It appears that the drafting of the other amendments may be better than that of my amendment. However, my amendment achieves the same object. I beg to move.
Lord Burton: My noble friend is probably better briefed on this amendment than I am. I mentioned on the previous amendment that a certificate, certainly a firearms certificate, had to be secured. I am not sure of the position as regards a gun licence. If the certificate is secured, the holder's permanent address is already available. Instead of a responsible person guaranteeing that information, the police in the area where the visitor is staying are responsible. I should have thought that was a better reference than that of a responsible person. Consequently, I am rather doubtful whether there is any need for Amendment No. 89. There may be a need in the case of guns; I stand to he corrected on that. But there does not appear to be a need in the case of firearms certificates. Consequently, the amendment itself would appear to be unnecessary.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: The problem with Amendment No. 91 is exactly the same as that relating to the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Balfour. In a number of countries one does not have to have what is described here as a,
"valid current firearm or shotgun certificate".
The language used makes that an obligation. It would mean that anyone who came from certain parts of the United States would not be able to get the benefits that the noble Viscount aims to secure by his amendment.
Lord Burton: It may be that a Northern chief constable is more on the ball than English and Welsh ones, as he certainly requires a certificate from the police in the area from which the visitor is coming.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: The noble Lord gives a number of interesting illustrations of what various unnamed chief constables do. All I am saying is that on the basis of the amendment moved by the noble Viscount, it would, it seems to me, be impossible for a visitor from some parts of the United States to
1406
produce a valid shotgun or firearms certificate simply because there are no such things in particular states.
Earl Ferrers: All these amendments seek to impose yet further conditions on people who come from abroad. I should have thought that, on the whole, the Committee would have felt that this was not necessary. Clause 15 already provides a sensible level of control for visitors who wish to possess firearms or shotguns in this country. There has to be an' application. That application has to be made by a person who is resident in this country to his local chief officer of police on behalf of the visitor. The chief officer must be satisfied that the visitor has a good reason for possessing the firearm, or, in the case of shotguns, for possessing, purchasing or acquiring them.
A permit will not be granted if the chief officer is satisfied that an applicant is prohibited by the principal Act from possessing the weapons or ammunition or that possession of such weapons represents a danger to the public safety or to the peace. The amendments of my noble friend would add a lot of extra conditions. A visitor's application would have to include the following requirements:

"(a) his present permanent address and whether it has changed in the preceding five years and if so stating the previous address;

(b) his passport number (or where appropriate his identity card) stating the date and place of its issue;

(c) a certificate from the country where the visitor is resident".

That adds quite a lot to the bureaucratic regime which many of my noble friends have criticised. I do not believe that that is desirable.
Viscount Dilhorne: I am disappointed with that reply. My remarks do not appear to have landed on any ground at all. I shall deal with the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Harris. I said in proposing the amendments that a visitor from a country where there was no regime of firearms would have to have recourse to a good referee. I thought that the best evidence available of that person's integrity. I believe that answers the point.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: With great respect that does not deal with Amendment No. 91. I think there is some confusion between myself and the noble Viscount as we cannot hear one another too well. Neither of us is sufficiently close to a microphone. All I am saying is that unfortunately the interpretation placed by the noble Viscount on his Amendment No. 91 does not appear in the amendment itself.
Viscount Dilhorne: The other point my noble friend on the Front Bench does not seem to have taken on board is that although more is required by this provision—in that respect, he is right—the intention is that the conditions have only to be fulfilled once. However, the sum of the parts of the provisions of Clause 15 will add up over the years to considerably more bureaucratic information. It will be constantly repeated, without any change. I hope that the noble Earl will reconsider the essence of my amendment before Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 90 and 91 not moved.]
8.45 p.m.
Earl Peel Earl Peel moved Amendment No. 92:
Page 8, line 13, at end insert—
("3A) A visitor's permit granted under this section shall be valid for all parts of the United Kingdom.").
The noble Earl said: this is a slightly more simple version of the previous amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Dilhorne. But, of course, he is a lawyer and I am not.
Before dealing with the principles behind the amendment, perhaps I should explain that I contacted the Public Bill Office with a view to obtaining the words "United Kingdom" changed to "Great Britain". Unfortunately that was overlooked; it has not been done. I think however that I am entitled to speak to the amendment as if those words had been changed. I hope that the Committee will regard "United Kingdom" in this context as "Great Britain". I shall, of course, keep Northern Ireland out of my remarks.
This is the first of a number of amendments standing in my name which are designed to overcome what my noble friend Lord Swinton described on Second reading as,
"numerous little discouragements towards foreign visitors coming to this country".
My noble friend perhaps did not stress the discouragements quite strongly enough. The word "little" is not quite the right terminology. Some of the discouragements are, I believe, very important and rather significant.
Although the amendment comes under the part of the Bill referring to a single person's permit, because each individual is listed on the group permit it is intended to refer to a group application as well. I need hardly remind the Committee of the significance of foreign visitors who come and a shoot in this country. An enormous amount of revenue is generated through this business. Many agricultural properties are having to rely more and more on the income from that particular sport. I should declare an interest. On my own property in North Yorkshire, I rely very much on income from foreign visitors. I can state quite categorically that without it I could not retain the property.
If I could not keep the property, what would the outcome be? I suggest that the answer is very simple. From a conservation point of view—that is very much the theme at the moment—the estate would deteriorate very quickly indeed. I hope that the Committee will take that point on board when considering the revenue raised from this source. It is not just a simple question of revenue going into the hands or the pockets of large landowners; it is what they do with that revenue that is important. It is also worth making the point that a lot of revenue is generated by subsidiary activities such as hotels, shops, and so on.
If visitors to this country are to be impeded by restrictive bureaucracy, they will go elsewhere. The opportunities are there and I am sure that they will take them. I believe that the consequences to this country would be disastrous. I do not wish to come into conflict with the noble Lord, Lord Harris, again.
1408
However, I believe that there is no evidence to demonstrate that foreign visitors have behaved in a way which would warrant additional restrictions.
I accept that we shall lose the 30-day rule. What is proposed in the Bill is acceptable within limits. A single application, made by one individual on behalf of a single person or group, should be sufficient to deal with such cases. People who come over may, during the course of their stay, shoot on many different estates in many parts of the country. That happens frequently. The qualifications of the resident applicant —the person who will be applying for permits on behalf of an individual or a group—should be sufficient for a chief officer to make his decision.
A resident of this country who applies for a shotgun certificate or a firearm licence may be required to name a place where he is likely to use it. However, he will not have to name every estate in the country where he may be shooting or inform every chief officer of police. That would be a nonsense. Why should visitors be treated differently? It is totally illogical.
I am not aware of any other country which has territorial restrictions on firearm licences. I see no justification for the United Kingdom to impose such a restriction. We are attempting to obtain, in this clause, a system whereby one application by one resident on behalf of an individual or group is sufficient. That is the way forward. I believe that that is the only system which will be acceptable to applicants and to visitors. We must not impose territorial constraints over and above those which are imposed on residents of this country. I beg to move.
The Earl of Northesk: I support the amendment, to which my name should also be attached. My noble friend has spoken as a provider of sporting shooting; I speak as one to whom such shooting is provided. With apologies to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, I am a visitor. I do not have a criminal record. I even have a clean driving licence.
Perhaps I may briefly explain my position when I come to this country to shoot. My experience might apply equally to visitors from the United States or any other part of the world. Depending on which way I travel, my port of entry may be Lancashire, Yorkshire, County Durham, Middlesex (if I come to Heathrow) or, if my flight is diverted, any county that one may care to mention.
When I land, whether I am travelling on a scheduled or private flight, I must present myself and my guns to Special Branch. If I were a visitor from outside the British Isles, I would present myself to Customs. I then travel from my port of entry to the place where I have taken shooting or been asked to shoot. That may be and usually is in several different parts of the country. It may be Yorkshire; it may be Inverness; and it may be anywhere from Land's End to John o' Groats.
To have to apply for a permit to shoot in every area in which I may be shooting and every area to which events which are beyond my control may take me would involve much time, money and trouble for me and for the licensing authorities. It is necessary to

1409
have a permit which is recognised and acceptable to Special Branch, Customs and anyone who may ask me to prove my right to possess the guns which I am carrying. I emphasise the word "guns" because most Americans and Europeans who visit in order to shoot grouse or pheasant will be travelling with no fewer than two guns.
I am thinking not only of the many estates whose existence depends to some extent on shooting. I am also thinking of the ancillary businesses which have been mentioned and which provide employment and revenue. A tremendous amount of money is at stake. For instance, three days' grouse shooting for a group of Americans in Scotland represents something like £20,000. A day's shooting in Gloucestershire for a team of Australians may cost as much as £8,000. The revenue from such parties would represent a considerable loss. I fear that my Texas friends would say that the obtaining of all those permits would be just too much hassle. They would not bother to come shooting in the United Kingdom.
At the other end of the scale, one must consider the clay pigeon shooter. He may visit this country in order to take part in a series of competitions in different parts of the country. He will be in the same position. However, in his case the extra expense and problems caused by having to apply for a number of permits in various areas may be prohibitive. It is essential to have a permit which, if it is issued in Yorkshire, will be recognised by all the authorities in every area.
Lord Swansea: I should like to support my noble friend in his amendment. I hope that my noble friend Lord Ferrers will be able to reassure us on the point. A firearm or shotgun certificate for a resident of this country may be varied throughout the country. I hope that my noble friend will be able to tell us that the same will be true of a visitor's permit. I am sure that many Members of the Committee are concerned about the point.
9 p.m.
Lord Gisborough: This is one of the most commonsense amendments that we have yet seen. It would be absurd to have to apply to more than one chief constable, perhaps to several—three or four—for one visit.
We all know that there is high unemployment in the countryside. Great efforts are being made by the Development Commission and other authorities to try to reduce unemployment. Efforts to plant woodlands through the new agricultural policies will lead to more shooting opportunities for foreigners. I believe that shooting by foreign visitors makes a great deal of difference to employment in small villages. I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment.
Viscount Mountgarret: I listened with interest to what my noble friend Lord Northesk had to say. I think we are being a little inward looking. Perhaps we should be outward looking and consider the position when a British person is invited or goes to shoot in a foreign country. I went for a weekend's pheasant
1410
shooting in France many years ago. My noble friend goes to shoot partridge in Spain. One obtains a permit and one can shoot anywhere one wants. The permit is valid for X number of days—30 days or whatever it might be. Why, therefore, should we act differently from our counterparts across the Channel? On that basis I very strongly support the amendment.
Earl Ferrers: My noble friend Lord Peel rather threw me when he put down the amendment, or rather when he spoke to it. My noble friend Lord Gisborough said that it was the most sensible amendment. I am bound to tell him that I cannot accept the amendment because it has an effect which I think that my noble friend did not realise. It says:
"A visitor's permit granted under this section shall he valid for all parts of the United Kingdom".
That of course would include Northern Ireland, and this Bill does not apply to Northern Ireland.
Earl Peel: I explained at the beginning of the debate that I had attempted to have the amendment changed through the Public Bill Office and that I was speaking in relation to Great Britain.
Earl Ferrers: I am afraid that I had not taken that into account. Nevertheless, that threw me when I saw the amendment.
I should like to clarify the position because it is very important. We realise that foreign visitors who come to the United Kingdom bring a great deal of trade which is a very important part of the livelihood of many of the estates which provide pheasants, grouse or whatever it may be. Shooting is a business which is of great importance. We do not want to do anything that would curtail the number of foreign visitors or that would make life difficult. On the other hand, obviously we have to have some control as to what happens. Otherwise people could come from abroad with their guns and nobody would know what was happening.
I should like to assure my noble friend Lord Peel that a visitor's shotgun permit will be valid throughout Great Britain. When a visitor wishes to shoot in different areas, that can be achieved easily by attaching a condition allowing him or her to shoot on any other land with the owner's permission. If a visitor asks only, for instance, to shoot with my noble friend Lord Peel, that will be stated on his permit. If, however, he wishes to shoot in other areas the condition will allow him to shoot on my noble friend's land and on any other land, provided he has the owner's permission. What we clearly could not do is to allow people to shoot anywhere without the owner's permission.
If the foreign visitor has permission to shoot on any other land and that is stated on his permit, he is free to do so. The sponsor can ask the police to change the condition on a permit. For instance, a person might come to shoot with my noble friend Lord Peel, and that might be all that his permit allowed. While he was staying with my noble friend someone might say to him, "Come and shoot with me in Somerset", and somebody else might invite him to Wales or Scotland. He would have to go to the chief

1411
constable and ask for the permit to be altered. He would not have to go to every chief constable in whose area he intended to shoot.
I hope that that has clarified the position. I can see that many of my noble friends are quite understandably concerned that either people would come to shoot here only on certain land or if they wished to shoot elsewhere they would have to apply to the chief constable of each county. That is not so. It is merely provided that the permit states the nature of the places where the applicant wishes to shoot, and the applicant can shoot there.
Lord Swansea: Is it really necessary for the places to be specified? Can the visitor not just have a blanket permit to shoot on any land over which he has the owner's permission to shoot instead of naming every hit of ground over which he wishes to shoot?
Earl Ferrers: It depends on what the applicant asks for. If somebody comes from Portugal to stay with my noble friend Lord Peel he will ask for permission to shoot with my noble friend and that will be stated on the permit. If, on the other hand, he wants to shoot all over the place then he will apply to shoot on any other land on which he has permission from the owner. If that is stated on his permit, he may do so.
Lord Torphichen: That sounds fine, but my noble friend Lord Ferrers has not indicated clearly enough that an applicant from a foreign country will have to know that he will have to ask for the appropriate wording to be added to his permit. I can see that someone from a country which does not place territorial restrictions on visitors' permits will assume that his permit covers the whole of Great Britain. It will not occur to him that he has to ask specifically.
Earl Ferrers: I think that my noble friend Lord Torphichen is not correct. It will be for the sponsor to apply. The sponsor will apply for the visitor to shoot where he wishes to shoot. I can only assure my noble friends—and I want to be as clear as possible because I know that this is a matter which causes concern—that if a sponsor wishes to obtain a permit for a person to shoot on his land then he applies for him to shoot on this land. If that person wishes to go and shoot in six different areas and knows that he will do so, then the permit will list those six areas. On the other hand, if the applicant says, "I wish to be able to shoot anywhere in England on land for which I have the owner's permission", then that will be put on the permit.
Lord Brain: Is there not likely to be yet again a way round that in that everybody will automatically apply for permission to shoot on all land over which they have the owner's permission? In that case the Bill itself will become a nonsense. I think that we are taking the risk, however small, of legislating a piece of nonsense.
Earl Ferrers: It is difficult for me because at one moment my noble friends say, "This is disgraceful because the applicant will have to go to every single chief constable for every place on which he wants to
1412
go and shoot" and when I try to explain that is not so, the noble Lord, Lord Brain, says, "It is stupid because everyone will invite themselves to shoot everywhere".
There is one cardinal principle: the person has to have a sponsor and the sponsor has to believe and demonstrate that that person is a reasonable person and is coming to shoot on his land and is not just coming on spec. I do not think that that is unreasonable. If I might say so, I believe that many of the apprehensions which my noble friends have understandably voiced are apprehensions which they need not have.
Lord Swansea: For the avoidance of all doubt would it not be possible for my noble friend to reconsider this matter and if necessary put down an amendment himself at the next stage of the Bill along the lines of this amendment, in order to make everything absolutely clear?
Earl Ferrers: Of course I shall take account of what my noble friend has said. However, I should not have thought that it was necessary to put it in the Bill if my explanation is accepted. People are concerned that they should not have to apply for permission to shoot everywhere. I am bound to tell the Committee that there must be some form of control of visitors and weapons that come into this country. Did I hear a note of dissent from behind me? I think that there must be some kind of control; otherwise people will flood in all over the place with guns.
The only control that we suggest is that should someone wish to invite a foreigner who wishes to come to this country to shoot, that visitor cannot just come on spec. He must come to a certain place, and he must have a permit and that permit will state where he intends to shoot. if he wants to shoot all over the country on land on which he has the owner's permission to shoot, then the permit can state that; but of course the sponsor must be responsible for him. It is in the sponsor's name that he comes.
Viscount Mountgarret: I find my noble friend's remark most extraordinary. The control to which he refers is control by the existing laws of the land. If a person has a shotgun certificate and possesses a shotgun he can shoot anywhere he wants and at any time that he wants provided that he obeys the laws of the land. If he shoots on land which does not belong to him or on which he does not have permission to shoot he is trespassing or poaching and is dealt with accordingly. It is exactly the same with a visitor.
I cannot understand the reference to a sponsor. Are we not making awfully heavy weather of this matter?
If for instance one applies for a firearms certificate, one states why it is wanted, and presumably it is because one has been invited to stalk somewhere. The visitor to this country who has an invitation to shoot can go to the appropriate British consulate in his country and say that he has received the invitation, give evidence of the agent and the money he has paid and say that he would like to have a permit for 30 days to shoot in the United Kingdom. He should be allowed to have that without any further hassle. If he

1413
goes shooting on land on which he has not been invited or for which he has not paid, then he is breaking the law. Those are the controls that we have at the moment. I hope that the Government will be kind enough to accept this entirely sensible and very necessary amendment.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: The noble Earl. Lord Peel, has reasonably pointed out the defect in his own amendment. He says that the amendment that we have before us at the moment relates to the United Kingdom. He said that he wanted it to read "Great Britain". However, the form of words before the Committee at the moment is defective in any event.
I understand the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret, but he must appreciate that were the Committee to accept this amendment it would be making arrangements not only for Great Britain but for Northern Ireland as well. I find it hard to believe that the noble Viscount is advocating such a course.
Earl Peel: I think I am right in saying that my impression—and perhaps my noble friends will confirm it—is that I stated clearly at the beginning of the discussion that I wished to substitute the words "United Kingdom" for "Great Britain". That is the amendment to which we are speaking.
Lord Hylton: In defence of Northern Ireland, perhaps I may point out that there is some quite good wildfowling and snipe shooting there. I hope that that will be just as available to legitimate foreign visitors as any shooting in Great Britain.
Lord Monson: Perhaps I may point out to the noble Lord. Lord Harris. that yesterday we passed an amendment, one moved from his Benches what is more. which was acknowledged by the Government to be defective. Nevertheless it was accepted on the understanding that it would be corrected at Report stage. Exactly the same thing can be done with this amendment.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: The amendment will surely profoundly liberalise arrangements in regard to Northern Ireland. We must sometimes take account of the situation in Northern Ireland and not push it aside quite as easily as the noble Lord suggests.
Lord Hylton: Does the noble Lord deny that there are at present tourists and visitors to Northern Ireland who engage in sporting activities?
Lord John-Mackie: I listened carefully to what the noble Earl, Lord Peel, said in moving the amendment. I understand that he corrected the amendment at the Public Bill Office, but the correct version is not what appears on the Marshalled List. We are therefore discussing the incorrect version on the Marshalled List.
Earl Peel: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie.
1414
I am sorry to say that I am disappointed with what my noble friend said. I do not believe that it should be necessary for the owner's permission to be on the permit in regard to every estate. I think that a single application to cover the whole of Great Britain should be adequate.
Earl Ferrers: My noble friend said that he was disappointed with what I had said. Everyone in the United Kingdom who owns a firearm or shotgun must have a firearms certificate or a shotgun certificate. That shows that he has good reason to possess the firearm. Indeed, in the Bill the chief officer is allowed to reject an application if the person does not have good reason to possess a firearm. It would be unfortunate if we were to permit foreigners coming into the country to have a position superior to that of people in the United Kingdom if they cannot show good reason for holding a gun. If we have no control, anyone can come into the country with guns and rifles and say they want to go shooting and stalking. We say that if a person wishes to come, a sponsor may say, "I want this man to come, and he will shoot with me"; or, "He is going to come and shoot on a variety of other places". He would be able to shoot on any land in the country provided that he has the owner's permission.
My noble friend Lord Mountgarret says that that is unnecessary. I find it astonishing that he thinks that a person should come into the country and shoot on land over which he does not have the owner's permission.
Viscount Mountgarret: If my noble friend will give way, I should like to point out that I never said that at all. I said that this is covered by the existing laws of the country. Of course one does not accept that people come hither and thither and just shoot where they want. I never suggested that. I hope that my noble friend will withdraw what he said.
Earl Ferrers: I certainly take it back entirely if I misinterpreted what my noble friend said. In that case there is nothing between us. All the permit will say is that the person may shoot on land over which he has the owner's permission, in which case my noble friend and I are in agreement.
The Earl of Northesk: I would have to apply for a permit because I am a visitor. I am very muddled. Perhaps I may ask a practical question, the reply to which may help my noble friend Lord Peel.
If I apply to my son who lives in Sussex to act as sponsor for a permit—I hope that he will assume that I am a responsible person—I would say to him, "I want to shoot at Fairoak, I want to shoot with my noble friend Lord Peel, I want to shoot in Inverness and I will be invited to several other places but I am not quite sure where yet". Is that all that I have to do? If so, it is perfectly acceptable.
Earl Ferrers: It is always dangerous to give an off-the-cuff answer to a specific problem. I think that I should be right in saying that if my noble friend wished to apply to come to this country and asked his son to be a sponsor to get a permit for him but said

1415
that he did not know where he wished to shoot, apart from the original invitation, he would be permitted to shoot in this country on land over which he had the owner's permission.
Lord Monson: What is the position of overseas visitors who want to go wildfowling on public land?
Earl Ferrers: They could go wildfowling in the same way as they could go shooting deer or pheasant provided that they had the appropriate authority.
Lord Monson: I am talking about the foreshore—wildfowling on common land.
Lord Hylton: Between the high and low water marks.
Earl Peel: We have had an extended discussion on this amendment. I repeat what 1 said when I attempted to wind up on it before; namely, I am disappointed with what my noble friend on the Front Bench has said. The discussion has gone far enough and I have no option but to divide the Committee.
Earl Ferrers: Before my noble friend does that, may I point out to him—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Airedale): The noble Earl is moving the amendment in the words which appear on the Marshalled List.
Earl Peel: No, I am moving the amendment with the words "Great Britain" substituted for the words "United Kingdom".
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Before the noble Earl divides the Committee, what are the rules of the Committee? I say that simply because I do not know the answer. I believe that the Committee should be aware what we are voting for. I am sure that the noble Earl will agree with me.
Earl Ferrers: I understand that my noble friend's amendment is equivalent to a manuscript amendment at Committee stage. Therefore my noble friend is entitled to move that amendment in the way in which he wishes.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Therefore the Question before the Committee is that Amendment No. 92 be agreed to in the following form:
"("3A) A visitor's permit granted under this section shall be valid for all parts of Great Britain.")".
9.23 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 92) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 30; Not-Contents, 28.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Auckland, L.

Milverton, L.

Brain, L.

Monson, L.

Burton, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Craigavon, V.

Mountgarret, V.

Craigmyle, L.

Northesk, E.

Crathorne, L.

Peel, E. [Teller.]

Dilhorne, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Sharples, B.

Gisborough, L.

Swansea, L. [Teller.]

Greenway, L.

Swinton, E.

Hylton, L.

Torphichen, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Ullswater, V.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Vestey, L.

Mancroft, L.

Wynford, L.

Margadale, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Balfour, E.

Harvington, L.

Barber, L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Beaverbrook, L.

Hooper, B.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Kimball, L.

Belstead, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Blatch, B.

Lyell, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Nelson, E.

Carnock, L.

Nicol, B.

Dundee, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Ferrers, E.

Trafford, L.

Hampton, L.

Trumpington, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Windlesham, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
9.30 p.m.
Earl Peel moved Amendment No. 93:
Page 8, line 16, leave out ("weapons") and insert ("firearms").
The noble Earl said: This amendment seeks an explanation. There appears to be some imprecision in the way in which words are used to describe various sorts of firearms. In Clause 2(2)(a) a "shotgun" is referred to and there is reference in Section 57 of the 1968 Act to a "firearm". Nowhere is there a definition of "weapon". In this instance "firearms" would seem appropriate. Obviously, there should be consistency throughout the legislation. I simply ask my noble friend whether that was intended. This is merely a point of clarification but I should be grateful if my noble friend could answer it.
Earl Ferrers: I shall be only too happy to assist my noble friend with clarification of the Bill. Amendment No. 93 seeks to substitute the word "firearms" for the expression "weapons" in paragraph (a) of Clause 15(3). However, the use of the word weapons here is intentional. Paragraph (a) is referring back to subsection (2) which deals with both visitors' firearms permits and visitors' shotgun permits and there is a risk that it might be construed as a reference only to the firearms covered by the visitors' firearm permit.
Earl Peel: I am grateful for my noble friend's response. That clarifies the point and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Dilhorne Viscount Dilhorne moved Amendment No. 94:
Page 8, line 22, at end insert ("if known").
The noble Viscount said: This amendment was discussed on Monday and relates to visitors' permits. The proposal is to put "if known" at the end of line 22. The Bill demands that the serial number of firearms be given. As we heard on Monday, a number of guns do not have a serial number. My noble friend Lord Kimball made some very sage observations on that point. I consider that this amendment is necessary to allow such guns into the country. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: It would be a fairly rare occurrence for a firearm not to contain a serial number whereas,
1418
although the situation is improving, it is more common to come across shotguns without any numbers; for example old Belgian and other continental models. Furthermore a visitor's shotgun permit authorises the holder to purchase a gun in this country and it is unlikely, at the time when the permit is granted, he, or she, will know the serial number of the gun or guns which will subsequently be purchased. A shotgun permit does not allow the holder to purchase a firearm. We considered therefore that we should make this specific provision in respect of shotgun permits but that it was not necessary or appropriate in respect of a firearms permit.
Viscount Dilhorne: I am obliged to my noble friend and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Balfour The Earl of Balfour moved Amendment No. 95:
Page 8, line 28, at end insert—
("(4A) In section 11 of the principal Act at the end of subsection (5) of that section there shall be added the words "or in the presence of any employee of the occupier".")
The noble Earl said: As the legislation stands in Section 11(5) of the principal Act a person may, without holding a shotgun certificate, borrow a shotgun from the occupier of premises and use it on those premises in the occupier's presence.
In seeking to add the words,
"or in the presence of any employee of the occupier",
I have in mind circumstances where I am happy to lend a gun to a friend and suggest that he goes out shooting with my gamekeeper. That is the principle of the amendment. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: This amendment would dilute the controls too far. It would give us the prospect of a person who does not hold a shotgun certificate using a shotgun in the presence of another person who may or may not have a shotgun certificate who, in his turn, is an employee of someone who may have a shotgun certificate. There is nothing in my noble friend's amendment to say that the employee supervising the guest must be a certificate holder or that he must be familiar with guns and how to use them safely. There is little accountability. The employee might even be a kitchen maid from some other country. I do not believe that that is what my noble friend intends.
The Earl of Balfour: I did not intend the amendment to be worded quite as widely as that. I felt that there was some desirability for a visitor or a person not holding a shotgun licence to be entitled to go out with my gamekeeper who would automatically have a licence. Perhaps I have not drafted the amendment very well and therefore I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Northesk The Earl of Northesk moved Amendment No. 96:
Page 8, line 30, leave out ("six") and insert ("twelve").
The noble Earl said: This is an attempt to save issuing authorities, sponsors and visitors, time, trouble and money. The Bill does not appear to take into account that competition shooting is not seasonal. It continues throughout the year. A six-month permit may be reasonably satisfactory for game shooting or stalking but it is not satisfactory for people who visit this country for competition shooting.
In any one year a regular competitor from overseas may wish to come here on a number of dates separated by more than six months and will therefore need to apply for two permits, thus causing a great deal of unnecessary extra work for the issuing authority and extra time and trouble for the sponsor and the visitor himself.
There is also the added cost. I briefly give an example. I know of an overseas group of four people who in April came to Scotland to shoot in a clay
1420
competition. They need to return for another competition in August in order to mark up sufficient scores, which is a requirement that allows them to compete at a certain level. They intend to return in November, this time to shoot game. Therefore, they will have to apply twice for permits for which they will have to pay £24—that is, £12 each permit. That is the same cost as for an ordinary shotgun certificate valid for three years. There is some justification for a visitor's permit being valid for six years, but we are only asking that it be valid for 12 months rather than six. I hasten to add that we make that suggestion not for reasons of cost as much as for the convenience of both the visitor and the issuing authority. I beg to move.
Lord Swansea: I support the amendment moved by my noble friend. It is quite true, as he said, that visitors from overseas may come to this country for fairly long intervals and for longer than six months in a calendar year. It is entirely reasonable that the period of validity for a visitor's permit should be 12 months and not six.
Viscount Dilhorne: I support the amendment. There is one further point that I wish to add to what my noble friend said. There is another group of visitors that finds difficulty with the provisions; namely, persons from overseas who are working in the United Kingdom under contract. Very frequently the contract is for a period of three of four years. They are not citizens of the United Kingdom and they cannot obtain certificates here. Very often they are employed by the British branch of an international or overseas company. Can my noble friend on the Front Bench explore the possibility of making some arrangements for these people who fall in a rather different category from the visitors about whom we have been speaking for most of this evening. In terms of the income tax law they are ordinary residents for that period of time.
Lord Burton: This seems an eminently sensible amendment. If the persons concerned are not a security risk for six months, surely they are unlikely to be so for a period of 12 months. This Bill will cause a lot of extra work and expense and it will possibly take police off the beat. This amendment will produce a saving in the cost of administration and I believe it is an eminently sensible suggestion.
Earl Ferrers: The purpose of the clause as it stands at the moment is that by definition a visitor is someone who spends a short time in this country. Though permits will normally be issued only to cover single visits, there is a provision in subsection (5) for them to be issued for up to six months where a person is making a longer visit or where he or she intends to return for a second visit to the country within a short space of time. That should be adequate to meet the needs of most visitors and I believe that it is. However, in view of the fact that there are one or two visitors, as Members of the Committee have explained, who come here for longer periods, it seems that there will not be a great deal of harm done if we accept the amendment. I am happy to do so.
The Earl of Northesk: I am very grateful to my noble friend on the Front Bench. His friends in the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands will be absolutely delighted. As I said at Second Reading, when my noble friend has time to come to the Isle of Man he will be made that much more welcome.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 97 not moved.]
9.45 p.m.
The Earl of Northesk The Earl of Northesk moved Amendment No. 98:
Page 8, line 33, leave out (" not more than twenty").
The noble Earl said: This amendment is another attempt to try to save the issuing authorities, the sponsors and the visitors time, trouble and money. I think the best way of explaining the details is to describe as briefly as possible what happens when a group of people come from overseas to compete, say, at Bisley. I am assured that as regards Section 1 firearms it is only at Bisley or in unusual circumstances such as the Commonwealth games, that there are likely to be teams of more than 20 people.
The following information comes from Brigadier Preston, secretary of the National Rifle Association, who is a personal friend of mine and with whom I have spoken at some length about this. In the case of a team travelling together one application form is sent to the team captain for him to complete and return to the NRA. The application form is particular to the Surrey constabulary and is supplied by it.
Having filled in the form with his own particulars, the team captain then attaches a list of the names of his team together with the particulars of the firearms they will bring. On receipt of the form the NRA checks that it is correct. If it is not, the NRA takes steps to correct it through the records which it keeps of all its overseas competitors. It can, if necessary, authenticate applicants through the relevant national body through which most of the entrants are entered, though this is rarely necessary because most visitors are regular competitors and are known to the NRA in any case.
It having been confirmed that the form is correct, it is returned to the Surrey constabulary which then issues one permit only in the name of the team captain. To this is attached a list of all the team members and details of their firearms, which list consists of up to, but historically never more than, 25 names. As regards other groups of more than 20, it does not, as I am sure will be realised, apply to any form of sporting shooting. The only other occasion when it might apply—and in this connection I have spoken to Keith Murray, who is chief executive of the Clay Pigeon Shooting Association—is when a clay pigeon competition of international standing such as the Commonwealth Games or the Grand Prix is held here, when teams of a maximum allowed number of 24, so I am told, might apply for a group permit.
As it appears that a maximum number for a group permit is never likely to be more than 25, I should like to ask that not more than 20, which appears to be a
1422
completely arbitrary number and is taken so to speak out of a hat, be if not amended then at least reconsidered. If the time comes when such numbers become a problem it can be considered by the proposed consultative committee. While on the subject of a group permit, perhaps I may ask my noble friend to look into the question of the cost under Section 7. I believe that £12 for a visitors' permit for up to six people is surely expensive enough, but when one considers that the only thing the issuing authority does is to provide a form and stamp it, £60 might prove to he an embarrassment. I beg to move.
Lord Swansea: I should like to support the amendment. As my noble friend said just now, teams from overseas come to participate at Bisley and at other events. Indeed, the Bisley meeting of the National Rifle Association is going on right now. I have been prevented from taking part today in the first stage of the Queen's Prize because I had to be here. That is by the way. Teams of varying sizes come from overseas and some of them may well have more than 20 members. I should prefer not to see a specific number stated. The choice of the number 20 is quite arbitrary.
While a team is in this country it is entirely possible that, as well as taking part in one series of competitions at Bisley, it will split up during its visit. Some members of the team may go to Wales to shoot against a Welsh team and another part of the team may go up to Scotland to take part in an event there. If a block permit is issued to the team as a whole I do not know how the splitting of a team in those circumstances might be catered for. Perhaps my noble friend can enlighten us on that point. Further, before the team arrives in this country, or very shortly before it arrives, there might be a last-minute change after the personnel of the team has been notified to the sponsoring authority. Perhaps my noble friend can also enlighten us on that aspect?
Lord Burton: I should like to express my support for the amendment, especially in regard to the £60 fee. After all, it may be £60 now but if the Bill goes through in its present form it is likely to be substantially greater.
Earl Ferrers: The Government introduced the idea of a group application in recognition of the fact that where six or more visitors, up to a limit of 20, wished to come here for exactly the same purpose their applications could be dealt with by the police on the basis of the same inquiry and therefore at a reduced fee.
Amendment No. 98 would remove the upper limit of 20 people for a group application. It has been a principle throughout the Bill that fees for certificates, permits and authorities which are issued by the police should cover the costs of issuing them. Were the limit of 20 to be removed, the police might be faced with the prospect of issuing group permits for much larger numbers of people. Under the present system, if there are more than 20 people two lots of permits will be issued, providing they are all going to the same place.

1423
Of course, should they wish to go to different places, then they can apply for individual permits. The whole point of the group permit is to facilitate the paperwork and to provide a cheaper fee.
Lord Swansea: Perhaps I can tell my noble friend the current practice for overseas teams competing at Bisley. The names are sent in advance to the National Rifle Association's offices by the governing body in the country concerned. All the names of those in the team and details of their rifles, together with the serial numbers, are sent. The administrative work is done at our offices at Bisley at no cost to the police. When the administrative work and the compiling of details has been completed at Bisley, the application is passed to the Surrey police. The permit is then issued straightaway at no charge, because there has been no cost to the police.
The Earl of Northesk: I ask only that the cost should be considered. The amendment actually deals with the number "twenty", which seems arbitrary. It bears no relation to what happens today. I am told that the largest team attending Bisley is from Canada; it has 25 members. The largest team for clay pigeon shooting at the Commonwealth Games, or at the Grand Prix if it was ever held in this country, would consist of a maximum of 24 people. Therefore, it is the number "twenty" that we are trying to amend.
Earl Ferrers: I can see that my noble friend is trying to amend the figure 20. All I was trying to explain to him was that for simplicity it was considered that it might be desirable for a number of people coming together to be processed on the same application. My noble friend Lord Swansea said that it does not cost the police anything. I would be surprised if he knew of any business that processed additional work without there being a cost. The fee for each person would be £12. If there are 20 individuals it comes to £240. The group fee is £60. That is a considerable advantage.
I omitted to reply to one point made by my noble friend Lord Swansea with regard to last minute changes. The police will be happy to respond as quickly as possible, but we cannot give authority to the sponsor to change the names on his own account. The present arrangements for visitors are not strictly covered by the law. That is why we are trying to put them right now.
I hope that my noble friend Lord Northesk will consider that it is not unreasonable to have a fee of this nature for a group application of such a size.
The Earl of Northesk: I repeat that the amendment has nothing to do with the fee. I only asked that the fee might be considered. As I understand it, the amendment asks to leave out "not more than twenty". I ask that a group permit may be for any number required. I am obviously not going to press the amendment. It is not a matter of life and death. As I have tried to explain, the maximum number of any group is never likely to be more than 25. Will my noble friend consider altering 20 to 30, if a figure is required. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Peel Earl Peel moved Amendment No. 99:
Page 8, line 37, leave out ("the same") and insert ("one or more").
The noble Earl said: The amendment applies to groups of people who come to this country. It would appear that the flexibility to allow a group of competition shooters to move to different venues is covered by subsection (6)(b). However, it appears that such flexibility of movement with regard to non-competition shooters—in other words, those people who come to this country for game shooting—is restricted.
I have already impressed upon the Committee the importance of commercial shooting. It is necessary to allow such groups to move from estate to estate. This amendment is to some extent consequential to the previous amendment that I moved. I shall not say any more about it. I hope that my noble friend will accept it in the logical way that I believe it should be accepted. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: The amendment seeks to provide that a group permit should allow holders to shoot on one or more private premises. I assure my noble friend that subsection (6) already provides for that. Paragraph (a) makes it clear that the holders of a group permit may use their guns for sporting purposes on the same private premises during the same period. It does not matter which private premises. It may be any number of private premises on more than one occasion provided that it is the same private premises during the same period; that is to say, provided that everyone who holds a group permit shoots at the same place at the same time. In view of the decision which was taken earlier, I wish to consider whether this affects the amendment. I do not believe that it does but I should like to consider it.
Earl Peel: Since my noble friend has said that he will consider the matter, I think that is a very satisfactory answer and I am grateful to him for it. As a result I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10 p.m.
Earl Peel Earl Peel moved Amendment No. 100:
Page 8, line 40, at end insert—
(" (6A) If he is satisfied that the person making the group application or an application on behalf of another does so in the course of organising a recognised sporting activity the chief officer of police may agree with him that another person may be substituted for the person on whose behalf the application was orginally made provided that he notifies the chief officer of police within 48 hours of the substitution occurring or being arranged, whichever is the sooner.").
The noble Earl said: This amendment is drawn up to try to overcome what I regard as potentially a quite considerable problem with regard to visitors' permits. Again I speak very much from personal experience in this matter. As I have already explained to the Committee, I entertain a number of foreign visitors on my estate. One of the difficulties is that at the last minute—and by last minute I am referring to, say, 48 hours; that is the number of hours mentioned in the amendment—individuals, for whatever reason, drop out. There could be a family bereavement, a

1425
severe crash on the Dow Jones—many different reasons resulting in people dropping out. It happens a lot.
This amendment is designed to try to allow a degree of flexibility so that we can permit people to substitute for those who drop out, for whatever reason. I have explained the importance of commercial shooting. I want to stress once again the point that if foreign visitors are to feel that there are degrees of restriction on coming into this country they will go elsewhere. There is no doubt about that. I believe that we must have this flexibility to allow people to change their minds at the last minute. I shall not say any more. I think I have put all the various arguments. I beg to move.
The Earl of Northesk: I also speak from personal experience because from time to time as a visitor I act as an unpaid agent or organiser, I arrange shooting for small groups of visitors coming to this country. Such is the nature of game shooting, as I am sure the Committee knows, that it is usually necessary to arrange the shooting many months before it takes place. The same could also be said for competition shooting in as much as it may be necessary to complete and send in an entry form some time before the day of the competition.
The right numbers of people matter considerably. Some noble Lords will know that a shoot will be arranged for a specific number of guns. The same can apply to a competition where, say, groups of four or six are entered as a team. When at the last moment some person drops out because he is ill or his wife is ill, or whatever, it can be most inconvenient. I think that the estate owners and competition organisers concerned, as well as we visitors, would be very grateful if the noble Earl could accept this amendment.
Viscount Mountgarret: I should like to support my noble friend on this. I suggest that he is being most reasonable in putting forward a time-limit of some 48 hours. It is astonishing the number of people who for some reason or another find it necessary to withdraw from a day's shooting, at much less notice than that. I should have thought that it would not be difficult to be able to substitute people at whatever hour, not just at 48 hours' notice. Anyway, this is the amendment we are discussing and I hope very much the point has been taken on board by my noble friend.
Lord Swansea: I mentioned this point earlier in connection with another amendment. It applies also to competitive teams, for example at Bisley. I suggested that my noble friend should say how such circumstances would be dealt with under the Bill. I mentioned also the question of splitting a team to take part in competitions in different parts of the country. I do not think that my noble friend replied to that point either.
Earl Ferrers: The amendment provides that when a party of overseas shooters comes over here, having made a group application for visitors' permits, a member of the group can drop out and be replaced by another and the police only have to be notified within
1426
48 hours before or after the substitution. It is difficult to see how that would operate in practice.
Visitors' permits will be issued to named individuals and will not therefore be transferable. If a visitor arrives at Customs with guns and ammunition and a visitor's permit in someone else's name, officials will have no option other than to impound those articles. I do not think that we could countenance a situation in which an overseas visitor used a permit in another person's name to justify the purchase or possession of guns when in Great Britain. It may not be possible for the police to vet the proposed substitutes if they are given only 48 hours in which to do so. The amendment would place great pressure on the police to agree nonetheless.
It is important to remember that we have to try to exert reasonable controls on firearms which come into this country. I accept that, in the case my noble friends make, very often the people concerned are bona fide. But it would be wrong to give away the right of the chief constable to control these weapons simply by saying that if someone else is substituted he must be accepted. What happens if two, three or four people suddenly find that they cannot come and two, three or four substitutes come in their place? Obviously, the police will do the best they can, and they will be given guidance to do the best they can, in the quickest possible time. But it would he unreasonable to impose an obligation on them that this must be done within a specified time by law, because they may not physically be able to do so.
Lord Burton: Can my noble friend give any idea of how long he considers is necessary as regards this provision? Surely these teams or groups coming over are sponsored by the team captain or the group leader. As far as I can make out, the police are not going to make a specific check on each individual. If a reliable group is coming, it is unlikely that it will bring over with it one totally unreliable person.
Earl Ferrers: I understand that point. But it is obviously difficult if someone arrives with guns and ammunition and someone else's permit. I hope that my noble friend will be reasonable and understand that the police will check out that situation at the earliest possible opportunity. That could well be within 48 hours, but I think it is pushing it a little far to make a statutory obligation forcing the police to undertake that check within 48 hours.
Earl Peel: We must come to terms with this matter. I think the only way we can do so is by putting a statutory limit on it. My noble friend has talked about the additional administrative problems as regards the chief constable. But, of course, we are not talking about that many people in the context of the overall responsibilities of the police. We are talking in terms of a great deal of money as regards individuals, but that is a different matter.
It cannot be beyond the ability now of the chief constable and his office, with modern communication systems, to make a change along the lines that I suggest quickly and efficiently. I go back to the point I made about the 48 hours. This is a perfectly reasonable amendment which, I think, will make life

1427
very much easier not only for those people who have commercial shooters coming to their part of the country but also, as my noble friend Lord Swansea said, for those people coming over for competition shooting. It will also make life easier and more reassuring for the foreign visitors themselves. If we make life too difficult for them, they will not come here. We all know the ramifications.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Perhaps I may say that it is virtually impossible for the police to take such action within a period of 48 hours in every case. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has said that in a number of cases it will be possible. However, if we make that an absolute obligation, I must say to the noble Earl that, in my view there will be a number of cases where it will be impossible for a chief constable to discharge his responsibilities. That is the position. I believe that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, is right.
Earl Peel: I shall be interested to hear what my noble friend on the Front Bench regards as being a sensible number of hours. Before we can resolve the matter, the Committee must have more information. I therefore put that question to him.
Earl Ferrers: I wish to be as helpful as I can to my noble friends. I see the difficulty that they are in. I am concerned that if we write into the Bill an obligation that on all occasions the police must issue or reject a certificate within 48 hours, we shall put an unreasonable demand on them. It may well be that in many cases the police will say, "Yes, that is perfectly all right".
However, perhaps I may put a question to my noble friends. If they had a party of eight people coming from Italy to shoot and at the last moment four people dropped out and four Sicilians came instead, would my noble friends be happy that they were not members of the Mafia? Would the police be quite happy with four people coming from that part of the world without checking up to make sure that they are reasonable human beings? It would be wrong in that case to say to the police, "You must give us an answer within 48 hours". I am sure that in the majority of cases it will be possible to give an answer within that time. However, we must be chary of putting too strict an obligation in terms of time on the police. I wish to be as helpful as possible to my noble friends.
Earl Peel: I would be worried about such people as well. However, the point is surely that it will not make much difference in terms of nationality whether someone is coming in 48 hours or in three weeks. The police will never be able to check up in any case and it will not make a great deal of difference. I believe that the applicant in this country takes the responsibility.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Will the person in this country know enough about every person who is named on a certificate to meet such a responsibility? I do not think that the noble Earl is fully meeting the point which has been made by his noble friend on the Front Bench. When I was chairman of the Parole Board, I had to deal with large numbers of people
1428
who had committed serious criminal offences in this country. A number of them were foreign nationals. There is no point in pretending that we will not have, on some occasions, a real problem arising with people who come to this country for nominally sporting purposes and who have other intentions.
The noble Earl also said, "Let's not waste time because in most cases the police will not be able to check up within a period of three weeks". However, if the police have reason to suspect that there is a problem in some case, they will have the opportunity over a longer period of time to make their checks through Interpol and on some occasions directly with foreign police forces. It is quite impossible to write a time limit of 48 hours into the Bill. That would result in an impossible position in a minority of cases.
10.15 p.m.
Viscount Mountgarret: Since the section dealing with group applications is creating enormous difficulties—we cannot do this, we cannot do that, we cannot do the other, yet we need to do something—is it necessary to have a group application at all? If every person who comes to this country applies for and is issued with a permit for the weapon that he uses, whether a shotgun or rifle, is it necessary to have a group application? If not, the question does not arise.
The applicant is unlikely to have a clue about the people who will be coming to shoot with him if they come from abroad as paying guests. He is not likely to have a very good idea. Why does there have to be a group application?
Lord Burton: It saves an enormous amount of administration. The team leader or sponsor will be the person who will vouch for the people who come. Furthermore, for individual applications it will be necessary to apply to the police two or three weeks beforehand.
Viscount Mountgarret: In that case my noble friend's amendment must be considered very seriously.
The Earl of Balfour: Perhaps I could add just one further remark. As this amendment is worded, the police "may" agree—it is not a question of "must" agree. So far as I can see, if the time limit is too short the chief officer of police has the right to say, "Sorry, you're too late, chum." As it is, there will he the opportunity for a substitution to be made.
Let us face it, some of those visitors spend £3,000 or £4,000, or more. They come as a group in the first instance. Many visits are planned months ahead. As my noble friend Lord Peel has said, through unfortunate circumstances two or three may drop out at short notice, or even a group of 15. I do not think that the amendment is unreasonable. I think that the expressions of opinion have shown that without it the Bill could have a disastrous effect on the number of visitors coming to this country.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: One begins to veer towards tedious repetition in some of the arguments tonight. I apologise, therefore, for troubling the

1429
Committee again. However, I hope that we shall hesitate before using words such as "disastrous". There could he other disastrous consequences were people with very substantial records of criminal violence to enter the country because we had not paid sufficient attention to the language of this statute.
The point made by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, was a very fair one. In some cases there might be an indication that some people being substituted in the group had a background of extreme violence. It would seem to me to be incredible were we to insist upon a provision of 48 hours in such circumstances, notwithstanding the warning given by a Minister of State at the Home Office with direct responsibility for the police, that in a number of cases it will be quite impossible for the police to discharge their responsibilities in that period of time.
Earl Ferrers: Before my noble friend concludes, I wonder if I might just say this to him, because I realise that he is concerned about this question. In the majority of cases the police would almost certainly deal with the matter very quickly and there would be no trouble. All that I am saying to my noble friend is this. Do not let us put an obligation upon them which it would he quite impossible in a few rare cases for them to meet. There may be some occasions when they would have to check. It is very unlikely but I think that we ought not to place that obligation upon them.
I understand my noble friend's concern. I shall look to see whether there is any way in which we can get round the problem. Quite frankly, I do not see that there is but I am prepared to look at the matter. However, I can give no guarantee.
Earl Peel: I am grateful for my noble friend's remarks. Perhaps I may come back to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and say that of course one can never have a guarantee against criminals coming to this country. I repeat yet again that there is no record to date of people coming to shoot in this country who have behaved in an illegal fashion or whose arms have been used for illegal purposes. I know that we have pursued this matter a great deal, but it is an argument that has been used and one which I believe is wrong in these circumstances.
Having said that, I have listened carefully to what my noble friend has said. He says that I am unhappy about this matter. I am deeply unhappy about it. I understand that perhaps there could be administrative problems if one were to impose a 48-hours restriction on the police. However, I should he grateful to my noble friend if he would consider discussing this matter with me at a later date and certainly before Report stage. I am sure that he will. Assuming that he will, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 101 not moved.].
On Question, Whether Clause 15, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Monson: I should like to take this opportunity to raise a question about the level of maximum penalties provided by Clause 15(9). It
1430
seems to me that where there may be no more than accidental technical infringements of the law, the penalties provided are quite excessive. It is true that things are not as bad as under the provisions of Clause 4, by which someone can he sent to prison for six months for lending a shotgun for 49 hours rather than 48 hours. Unfortunately I missed the boat on Clause 4 and will have to return to that point at the next stage of the Bill.
Reverting to Clause 15, whereas I agree with the Government that a maximum sentence of six months' imprisonment is entirely appropriate for someone who is guilty of an offence under subsection (9)(a)—making a false statement for the purpose of obtaining a permit—surely it is too high a maximum for the many offences of a minor technical nature covered by subsection (9)(b).
Lord John-Mackie: I am sure that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has appreciated the feeling that there is about Clause 15. I must declare an interest in that I let my shoot and, as the noble Earl, Lord Peel, pointed out, it makes a big difference to the finances of the farm. That is on a very small scale, however.
I should like to make the point that where I lived in Scotland there were three glen shoots let to people from abroad and it made a tremendous difference to the economics of the villages concerned—Auchenblae, Fettercairn and Edzell—which benefited to a tremendous extent, because those foreign visitors usually did all their shopping in the area (unlike people who came up from England and who usually brought with them goods from Fortnum and Mason). I must say that it made a big difference to the economy of the people in that area. It has changed a little since that time. I am speaking of 40 or 50 years ago when Pierpoint Morgan, the American banker, and other people like that arrived.
I think that the noble Earl should consider anything that inhibits foreign visitors from coming and which would not make any difference to the main objects of the Bill. I am sure he will take note of it.
Earl Ferrers: There is no conceivable way that one could have listened to this debate on this clause without taking note of that. I shall certainly take note of it and, as I have told my noble friend, I shall be only to happy to see whether there are any ways round the problems that he and his noble friends have adumbrated.
In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, who wondered whether the penalties were a little high, I can say that they are in line with those for the offence of making false statements to obtain other permits under the 1968 Act. I remind him that they are maxima. It is for the courts to decide what the penalties should be, and no doubt the courts will wish to take into account whether or not there were previous convictions.
Lord Monson: I agreed earlier that making a false statement is a serious offence, for which the maximum penalty is entirely appropriate. For technical breaches of the law under subsection (9)(b), however, I think that the maximum penalty is somewhat high.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 16 [Firearms acquired for export]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: If Amendment No. 101A is agreed to, I shall not call Amendments Nos. 102 and 103.
Viscount Dilhorne Viscount Dilhorne moved Amendment No. 101A:
Page 9, line 6, leave out subsections (1) and (2) and insert—
("(1) A person may, without holding a shotgun or firearms certificate purchase from a registered firearms dealer a shotgun or a firearm to which section 1 of the principal Act applies if—

(a) that person has not been in Great Britain for more than thirty days in the preceding 12 months; and

(b) the shotgun or firearm is purchased for the purpose only of being exported from Great Britain without coming into that person's possession.").

The noble Viscount said: Subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 16 provide similar wording, but there is a distinction between them.
Subsection (1) enables any person who is in the country for not more than 30 days to purchase over the counter a shotgun and to walk out of a shop with it in his hand. There is the qualification that it has to be not more than 30 days in the preceding 12 months.
In subsection (2) there is an entirely different regime. This deals with a firearm to which Section 1 of the principal Act applies. The first distinction is that the person is not allowed to possess it. He cannot buy over the counter. The second occurs in paragraph (b), which requires the person from whom he buys it, the supplier, to send it to the airport so that it is exported by flight and cannot be used in this country. After the full debate about visitors' permits today and the debate last Monday about other permits for shotguns, it seems extraordinary that someone can come in without a shotgun certificate, walk out of a shop with a gun, remain here for 30 days and then take out the gun.
The amendment proposes to avoid the potential risk of anyone coming here and doing just that by requiring the supplier of the gun to do the same with it as he would with a Section 1 firearm. If the person wishes to use the gun, provision already exists—this was fully debated today—to enable him to acquire a visitor's permit and use it where he wishes. After what we have heard this evening, I am sure that such an application would be properly and fairly looked at.
The Earl of Balfour: It was with this thought in mind that I put down Amendment No. 102. I was asked by two firearms dealers to look into the matter. In their view they could be left in a very embarrassing position under Clause 16(1) if they sold a gun to a person who is bound to be a complete stranger to them. That was the reason. I thought that for the sake of brevity I would speak on my own amendment at the same time.
Lord Burton: Perhaps I could do the same with Amendments Nos. 103 and 104 because I was told that if one was passed the others would fall. My amendment is slightly different because it is not intended for anyone who will use the weapons in this country. These are weapons which will be sent straight for export. My amendment is intended to try to help our export market.
If an overseas firm is buying a British weapon, especially at auction, it does not matter how long its representative has been in Britain. The buyer's
1432
representative may be a British citizen, resident here, and there is no reason why the purchaser in this case need ever have the weapon in his possession, particularly if the weapon is going straight for export. If the buyer is the overseas firm then the weapon need never come into his possession in this country. Clearly we want to encourage our export market. This clause would be a restriction on the export market, or, at the very least, an impediment. I can see no good reason for the clause and therefore suggest that it be removed. If there is a good reason for putting it into the Bill perhaps there could be some rewording so as not to impede our export market.
Lord Morton of Shuna: If I may, I shall return to the amendment that I thought we were discussing, Amendment No. 101A. I have great sympathy with what is intended and I support it, but is there not a defect in it? The only shotgun to which Section 1 of the principal Act applies is one with a barrel of less than 24 inches. Should it not apply in Sections 1 and 2 of the principal Act which would achieve the purpose to which the noble Viscount spoke?
Viscount Dilhorne: I am having difficulty in understanding the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna. The amendment relates to Clause 16 in the Bill. That states very clearly that a person may:
"without holding a shotgun certificate, purchase a shotgun from a registered firearms dealer and have that shotgun in his possession if … that person has not been in Great Britain for more than thirty days in the preceding 12 months".
Then there is a different regime for a Section 1 firearm. It was the shotgun I was trying to put on the same terms as the Section 1 firearm.
Lord Morton of Shuna: If the noble Viscount looks at the amendment, he will read:
"purchase from a registered firearms dealer a shotgun or a firearm to which section 1 of the principal Act applies".
Section 1 of the principal Act applies only to shotguns with barrels of less than 24 inches. Section 2 of the principal Act applies to what we would call the normal legal shotgun and therefore all I was suggesting was that if we were to have what the noble Viscount said he was intended the amendment should read:
"Sections 1 or 2 of the principal Act".
Viscount Dilhorne: I bow to the noble Lord's superior legal knowledge and research. He is quite right.
Lord Swansea: I feel that it is all a question of how one reads the amendment. It is possibly capable of misinterpretation and that is what I feel has happened in this case. I believe it should be interpreted as:
"a shotgun, or a firearm to which section I of the principal Act applies,"—
or perhaps the two should be reversed to read:
"a firearm to which section I of the principal Act applies, or a shotgun".
Either of those solutions might help the situation.
Earl Ferrers: I do not know whether or not that clarifies this for most people, but I find that I am more confused than I was at the beginning. I do not mean that to be in the slightest discourteous to my

1433
noble friend. It is purely that my capacity for comprehension is lagging.
My noble friend has expressed his concern that Clause 16(1) in its present form would allow an overseas visitor without a visitor's permit or firearms certificate not only to purchase but also to possess a shotgun. His amendment would put the purchase of a shotgun in such circumstances on a par with section 1 firearm that is to say the gun would be purchased for export only and would not come into the purchaser's possession in this country. The origins of Clause 16(1) are to be found in Section 14 of the 1968 Act. That allows short-stay visitors to purchase and possess shotguns in this country and to take them back overseas.
We looked long and hard at the question of whether to permit visitors to take possession of shotguns when buying for export purposes. We were concerned about the need to avoid restrictions which would have a substantial adverse effect on the sale of shotguns to visitors to this country. On balance we decided to permit possession, subject to the added safeguard in Clause 16(5) that within 48 hours the dealer will be required to notify the police of any such transaction. Among other matters, the notice will contain details of the purchaser's passport number and place of issue.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: On this happy occasion I find myself in total agreement with the noble Viscount. After many hours of debate it is something of a "first" that we find ourselves on the same side. I believe that he is entirely right. With great respect to the noble Earl, I am quite sure that the Government considered the matter. I regret to say that I believe that they came to entirely the wrong conclusion. It does not seem sensible to maintain a provision of this kind in the Bill. I believe that everything the noble Viscount has said is entirely right. I do not know what he proposes to do, particularly in the light of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna. However, if he returns to the matter at Report I shall he glad to sign the amendment with him.
Lord Torphichen: I should like to return to the words,
"coming into that person's possession".
I have had the same problem previously and tried to obtain clarification on the matter. At the beginning, apart from my mistake in misreading it, is the phrase; "to have in his possession a weapon". I thought I knew what that phrase meant until we reached Clause 14(1) which exempts target practice from the rules and regulations on possession of a firearm. I presume that any other possession is not exempted in the usual way. My noble friend Lord Ferrers said that a competition would not be included but simple target practice was different.
When discussing whether a hotelier would be able to keep a weapon for safe keeping, I was further confused by the meaning of the phrase "in possession". Will the Minister answer as to what is a fishing expedition and give the meaning of the phrase "in possession of a firearm"?
I do not have a firearms certificate of any kind; I do not own any weapons. If a colleague visits my house and wishes to leave in my safe, or locked up on some
1434
part of my house, a Section 1 firearm, am I in possession of the firearm? Will I accidentally fall foul of the law? If I offer to carry the firearm in my car to a range purely for his use, do I become in possession of that firearm? If I borrow it from him on a range where a competition is taking place, do I become in possession of the firearm? If I borrow it from him for target shooting am I in possession of the firearm? Does it make any difference whether, when I borrow it from him to fire, he is standing over me making sure that I do nothing wrong with it? Can the Minister clarify what is meant by the phrase "in possesion of a firearm"?
If a foreign buyer, as part of the package of the firearms dealer from whom he buys the firearm, goes to a range or premises of the dealer and, under the supervision of the dealer, is allowed to fire it, is the dealer in possession of the firearm while it is being fired or is the foreign visitor in possession of the firearm which would then be exported through the control of the firearms dealer and not the foreign visitor?
The Earl of Balfour: Perhaps I may raise one other point. When the Bill was originally printed in another place, Section 14 of the principal Act was to be repealed. I no longer find that provision in this Bill.
Earl Ferrers: I do not believe that I can help my noble friend very much on this matter. He asks: what is possession? Possession means having something. Possession is not transferred either to the hotelier or the taxi driver or anyone else. If my noble friend has a cold and I lend him my handkerchief, he does not possess my handkerchief. It is still mine but I have loaned it to him. I do not believe that I can take the matter much further because possession means having the thing.
Lord Burton: On Amendment No. 103, I was pleased to hear my noble friend on the Front Bench say that he was confused, because I am too. I believe that the amendment of my noble friend Lord Dilhorne probably covers the point I was trying to make. The worry I have about the amendment of my noble friend Lord Dilhorne is that I believe the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, was correct about Sections 1 and 2; in which case, the amendment of my noble friend Lord Dilhorne is defective.
Perhaps my noble friend could give an assurance that there is a point here because there is clearly no point in someone who is never going to have the weapon in his possession having to have either a shotgun or a firearms certificate if it is going straight out of the country. Therefore, I hope my noble friend will assure us that on Report there will be an amendment on this matter which is properly worded and satisfactory in this respect.
Viscount Dilhorne: Perhaps I may come back on Report and produce an amendment in correct form, bowing appropriately to the tortuous and convoluted language of the legal draftsmen which is required, to which the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, drew my attention. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment and bring it back for consideration on Report.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 102 not moved.]
Lord Burton Lord Burton moved Amendment No. 103:
Page 9, line 16, leave out paragraph (a).
The noble Lord said: I did not receive an assurance from my noble friend on the Front Bench. Perhaps he can say whether he believes that there is some substance in these amendments. If there is, perhaps the Government will draft an amendment. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: I do not believe that there is substance in them, but I shall consider what Members of the Committee have said. At the moment, I do not believe that there is.
Lord Burton: I am very disappointed to hear that, because if this weapon never gets into the person's hands why does he have to have a certificate? It is going straight out of the country. All that does is to make it harder to export and is in no way causing a security difficulty.
Earl Ferrers: Perhaps I can help my noble friend because I do not believe he has correctly addressed himself to this matter. The clause states:
"A person may, without holding a shotgun certificate, purchase a shotgun from a registered firearms dealer".
He does not have to have a shotgun certificate.
Lord Burton: Clearly this matter will be looked at before Report stage and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Burton Lord Burton moved Amendment No. 104:
Page 9, line 22, leave out ("or(2)").
The noble Lord said: This covers a slightly different point. Where weapons are exported there should be no need to notify the police as required by subsection (3). It is irrelevant because the police hold no detailed records of the weapons. The police have no record of what stocks dealers hold. Unless there is a national register the police never will have a record. Therefore, there is nowhere from which the police can delete the number of a weapon which is exported.
If it is desired to set up a national register, and one wishes to prepare for that, it would be unwise to delete the weapon until it had been exported. When it is leaving the country the Customs and Excise could and should pass to the national police register, should it be set up, a copy of the export licence certifying export. I beg to move.
Lord Torphichen: Does the weapon come into that person's possession if it is merely on approval? That will clarify my earlier problem.
Earl Ferrers: A person will not be able to take possession of a gun if it is on approval. He either buys the gun or he does not buy it. If he buys it he is in possession of it.
The requirement for a dealer to notify the police of the sale of a Section 1 firearm to an overseas visitor has the virtue of ensuring that the police have comprehensive records of sales of firearms to private
1436
individuals. There may also be occasions when an overseas police force has reason to contact their counterparts in Great Britain in connection with a gun purchased in this country. It is right that the police should be notified. In any case, it would have to be put in the dealer's register.
Lord Burton: The dealer will be handling the weapon and it will never go into the hands of the person who is purchasing until it is exported. I hope my noble friend will take that point.
Earl Ferrers: Of course I take the point. I hope that my noble friend will also take the point that where a dealer in this country sells a gun to someone, whether in this country or abroad, and it is to go abroad, it is not unreasonable that, for the reasons I have given, the police should know where it is going. There may be some occasions when other police forces will wish to know about it.
Lord Burton: It is a fairly minor point but of some importance because it deals with the export trade. Our export trade, particularly in firearms, is of importance. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 16 and 17 agreed to.
Clause 18 [Firearms and ammunition in museums]:
The Earl of Balfour The Earl of Balfour moved Amendment No. 105:
Page 10, leave out lines 7 to 15 and insert—
("( ) The Secretary of State may by order prohibit the transport of firearms or ammunition across the Irish Sea unless—

(a) the transport is approved by the chief officers of police on both sides of the Irish Sea, and

(b) such conditions as may be specified in the order or imposed by the chief officers of police are complied with.").

The noble Earl said: This amendment merely suggests that the Secretary of State should consider restricting the transfer or arms both ways across the Irish Sea. I have tabled the amendment to give him the opportunity to consider this point. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: In one sense my noble friend has made the clause too wide and in another sense too narrow. The amendment goes too wide in referring to,
"chief officers of police on both sides of the Irish Sea".
That could be taken to include the Commissioner of the Garda in the Republic and all the chief officers in England, Wales and Scotland rather than the chief officers from whose areas the firearms are to be removed.
The clause does not, and cannot, extend to the Republic of Ireland. Nor does it cover, as my noble friend's amendment might suggest, movements of firearms and ammunition from Northern Ireland to Great Britain—that is a matter for Northern Ireland law. It would be absurd to require the consent of chief officers in the North of England or Scotland to removals from the South-West of England.
My noble friend has made the clause too narrow by referring to transport "across the Irish Sea.".Were we to adjourn to the Library and acquire an atlas we would sec that there are a number of perfectly possible, if improbable, routes from Great Britain to

1437
Northern Ireland which do not go across the Irish Sea. The unlikelihood of those routes I suggest could be an attraction to those who might not want to attract the attention of the police. As it is drafted, I believe that the clause makes it clear that it covers all movements of arms and ammunition from Great Britain to Northern Ireland whatever the route taken.
The Earl of Balfour: I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 [Payments in respect of prohibited weapons]:
Viscount Dilhorne Viscount Dilhorne had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 106:
Page 10, line 19, after ("persons") insert ("who have been registered as firearms dealers and").
The noble Viscount said: The purpose of this amendment is to make it clear that not only individual persons but also those who are registered as firearms dealers will qualify for compensation. It is a fairly bold matter to try to attempt to amend a clause in a Bill where the Secretary of State, in accordance with the scheme, will make payments. All one has to go on is what my noble friend the Minister said at Second Reading. Therefore, there are a number of matters that I hope the noble Lord will take into account when he produces the scheme. I hope that will be before the Report stage so that we can see the particulars of it and then consider and debate them.
The first point is that it is hard to understand what is meant exactly by "persons". Who is included and who is excluded? There is nothing in the Bill to define the word. It could be corporate persons and they could be registered firearms dealers. It could be partnerships. One is left to surmise what is meant. This amendment does not make clear the extent of the payment or the operation of the scheme. At the Second Reading it was said that it was to be 50 per cent. of the market value. My amendment is aimed at producing a value which is a fair one in order for people to obtain the right amount of compensation; namely, a sum approximate to the market value.
An arbitrary date has been taken, that is to say, 22nd September. I have had no way of finding out, but it may well be—
Earl Ferrers: I wonder whether I may interrupt my noble friend because he is dealing with the wrong amendment. He is speaking to Amendment No. 107 while we are discussing Amendment No. 106.
Viscount Dilhorne: I beg the pardon of the Committee. I had better not move that amendment. My tackle is in disorder.
[Amendment No. 106 not moved.]
Lord Brain Lord Brain moved Amendment No. 107:
Page 10, line 22, leave out ("22nd September 1987") and insert ("17th December 1987 or the date of passing of this Act if the weapon was not at that time specified in the Act").
The noble Lord said: I am seeking here to change a date. I have a suspicion that, as drafted, I have made a slight mistake in the latter part of my amendment because "that time" could be interpreted as either 17th December or the date of the passing of the Act. I do not wish to confuse the issue. The significance of 22nd September is that it is the day when the Home Secretary made a speech to senior police officers. I do not have a recording, but in his televised speech he spoke about a ban on semiautomatic machine guns which I believe carries a very wide degree of misunderstanding. Even the White Paper which appeared on 3rd December did not include my favourite article from my first amendment, the pump-action rifle.
It was only when the Bill was first published on 17th December, which is the significant date that I have chosen, that the major part of the categories were clearly specified as to what was or was not to be a prohibited weapon and shifted from a shotgun to a firearms certificate, and so on. I have tried to tidy-up my amendment to include things which may subsequently have been changed during the passage of the Bill through the two Houses of Parliament. There may have been no need and I shall be happy if the noble Earl says that there was no need. As far as I am concerned, those changes will probably be marginal and I shall be quite happy to settle for the date of 17th December. It is totally unfair that people who having heard a garbled version of a speech to police officers on 22nd September—misreported, not issued in a press release and not widely published—should be held to believe that that was exactly what was going to he in subsequent legislation. We are Parliament. Had it been made in a Statement to Parliament I would have accepted the 22nd September without question. I feel that I have a just case. I should like to hear the noble Earl's comments. I beg to move.
Lord Swansea: With great respect to my noble friend Lord Brain, I feel that this amendment is unnecessary. I have a clear recollection of the Home Secretary's announcement on 22nd September to police officers. At that time Parliament was not sitting and so that was the only way in which his announcement could have been made public. It is quite clear in my recollection that self-loading rifles were specifically mentioned in that statement. I have a copy of it at home. The amendment is unnecessary.
Earl Ferrers: I find myself in agreement with my noble friend Lord Swansea. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary announced on 22nd September last year his intention to prohibit certain types of firearm. This Bill, which will give effect to this intention, was introduced in another place on 17th December. People owning such firearms had adequate warning about the Government's intentions, and it is our view that money should not be paid to those who chose to ignore this warning and to buy such firearms in the knowledge of the Government's intention. I hope therefore that the noble Lord, Lord Brain, will agree that the Bill is right as it is.
Lord Monson: Were not many people on holiday on 22nd September last year? September is a normal

1439
time for people in this country to be on holiday. Is there any precedent for an announcement made to a body such as the Police Federation being treated as if it were holy writ or the equivalent of a parliamentary Statement or a White Paper?—Surely not.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: The only way in which to meet the noble Lord, Lord Monson, would have been to recall Parliament for the purpose of making a Statement which would seem to me to be a considerable overreaction. The noble Lord, Lord Swansea, and the Minister have put forward an absolutely convincing argument to the amendment.
Lord Brain: I do not disagree with self-loading rifles. I believe that pump-action rifles were not mentioned. However, I have no wish to detain the Committee. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Brain Lord Brain moved Amendment No. 108:
Page 10, line 28, leave out ("section 1(2)") and insert ("sections 1(2) and 7").
The noble Lord said: The reason for inserting Clause 7 in addition to Clause 1(2) is to be found in the words at the top of page five of the Bill:
"would at any previous time have been such a weapon if those sections had then been in force".
This appears to indicate that if, prior to our dear date, the 22nd September, a self-loading rifle had been converted into a single-shot rifle, it would be caught by subsection (2)(b) whereas it would not have been caught by Clause 1(2). I beg to move.
11 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: This amendment seeks to include within the buy-in scheme for firearms which will become prohibited those firearms which, as the noble Lord said, have been converted to a lower classification under existing legislation, but which will revert to their Section 5 status under the terms of Clause 7 of the Bill. We do not believe that any great numbers of guns, which would generally be those converted from fully automatic to single-shot fire, are involved. However, it is clear that shooters who lawfully held such weapons prior to September 1987 may suffer a degree of financial loss in the same way as those who hold self-loading rifles.
I am prepared to give further consideration to the matter. I accept the point in principle, and if the Committee is content perhaps I can take it away and see whether it is possible to come back with a suitable amendment on Report.
Lord Brain: In view of the good news from the noble Earl, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord John-Mackie Lord John-Mackie moved Amendment No. 109:
Page 10, line 28, at end insert—
("( ) Payments made by the Secretary of State under the scheme described in subsection (I) above shall be in accordance with the market value of such firearms.").
The noble Lord said: Before I say anything about the amendment, I must declare an interest in that my younger son—who manages a farm with me—was
1440
left three rifles by his father-in-law, who was a chief inspector of police in Inverness, and a very keen rifle shot. He will now have to give up one of them which I understand is a very valuable rifle.
Apart from that, I have received a letter from one of the club members who shoots on my farm in Essex in which he says that his automatic rifle is worth £1,000. I have heard from other people on the same matter who say that it is unfair to have an almost arbitrary figure as compensation when these rifles have to be given up. I suggest that surely it is fair to have the market value.
The noble Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, has tabled a similar amendment which follows mine, although it is worded somewhat complicatedly—if that is the right word. But I tried to make mine as simple as possible. I hope that the noble Earl will take account of this, because I know that many people will feel very badly done by when they give up their rifles. I beg to move.
Lord Burton: I should like to support the amendment as far as it goes. I am afraid that there is a slight flaw in it. It says "the market value", but at what date is that market value set? After all, once the weapons have become illegal the market for them is considerably less. If the noble Lord had put in a value at a date before the Secretary of State's announcement that would have been a fair one. I think it would help if he were to insert a date, and perhaps he will consider this.
Earl Ferrers: My noble friend Lord Burton is quite correct. The amendment as drafted would mean the value which the guns would currently fetch in the market place. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary announced his proposals last September and since then the market value of those guns—in the United Kingdom at least—has quite understandably plummeted. We can see therefore that the payment under this amendment would be far less than the Government are offering. If the payments are to represent fair recompense, we must consider the price which the guns would have fetched on the open market before my right honourable friend's announcement had the effect of depressing the prices.
That is precisely what the Government's scheme does, for the buy-in scheme is intended to take account of the market value of such guns immediately before my right honourable friend's announcement last September. In a large-scale scheme such as this, it is simply impossible to arrive at a subjective valuation for each individual gun concerned, and we have therefore produced a formula which we think will operate fairly in the majority of cases and reflect, as nearly as may be, the value of such guns to their owners. I suspect that it is that formula which is the cause of the misunderstanding.
We have said that we will pay 50 per cent. of the average retail value of guns prohibited under the Bill as at the end of the summer of 1987, with the option of a flat-rate sum of £150 for owners of self-loading rifles. The operative part is 50 per cent. of the retail value, not 50 per cent. of the market value. Those are two different things. The retail value is the price at which something sells. The market value is what the market—in other words, the dealer—will pay for it.

1441
Our formula is based on a careful analysis of market prices in the summer of 1987 and will, in most cases, give the owner the approximate market value of his gun at the tiime; that is to say, the price it would have fetched at auction or had he sold his gun to a dealer. That is the market value and not the retail value, which would include the dealer's profits and the handling charges. Clearly, we cannot ask the taxpayer to pay for them. I hope that that clarifies the position.
Lord John-Mackie: It does to a certain extent. What arc the Government going to do with all the rifles and guns? Arc they going to sell them for the market value and make a great deal more money?
Earl Ferrers: The police will dispose of them.
Lord John-Mackie: Where?
Earl Ferrers: Where the police normally dispose of such things.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: Where is that?
Lord Torphichen: The police in Edinburgh recently had a problem over how they dispose of guns. It is not a certain thing.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: As that case came within my jurisdiction, I say to my noble friend that it was an exception which was the cause of a prosecution. That merely proves the general rule. The police dispose of weapons which come into their possession through forfeiture or otherwise.
Lord Torphichen: I entirely understand that. I hope that I did not say anything out of line.
Lord Burton: I wonder whether my noble and learned friend is entirely correct. Someone (who I think is now dead) had a fine collection of weapons which had been confiscated by the court. He bought them hack from the sheriff clerk. I know of another case where the sheriff clerk sold the weapon to the lawyer of the chap who had had it confiscated. The lawyer handed it back to the man who had had it confiscated. All he did was buy it back.
Lord John-Mackie: The Minister may say that the matter is clear, but the noble Lords, Lord Burton and Torphichen, did not make it all that clear. Despite that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 19 agreed to.
Viscount Dilhorne Viscount Dilhorne: moved Amendment No. 110:
After Clause 19, insert the following new clause:
("Basis on which payments are to he made.
.—(1) Payments to be made under section 19 above shall be the open market value on the basis of a willing seller and a willing buyer, excluding therefrom any element of a trader's markup, on or before the 22nd September 1987 dependent upon the type and condition of the firearm surrendered.
(2) Payments to be made to registered firearms dealers shall be at the cost at which they acquired the relevant firearms, or shotguns without markup.
(3) The value of the firearm shall include the value of accessories forming an intergral or detachable part of the firearm or shotgun surrendered.").
The noble Viscount said: I am greatly helped by what my noble friend the Minister has just said. I shall try to avoid repeating what has been said, but I am still concerned about persons to whom the payments will be made. I should have spoken to Amendment No. 110 with Amendment No. 106, but they were not grouped together. Fifty per cent. of the average retail value sounds a generous figure superficially.
The previous clause to which I refer in the amendment provides that a scheme, the outline of which we have, will be set up. It is rather akin to the Chancellor's Budget Statement. If one is a tax accountant one usually gets it wrong. When one sees the small print one has to reform one's initial ideas. The amendment is moved partly blindfold.
I hope that what the amendment tries to achieve will be considered effective by my noble friend. I have spelt out the right level of compensation as that at a time when the market had not been affected by impending knowledge of the statement made on or about 22nd September. On the basis of a willing seller and a willing buyer what that weapon dealer should have received must then be decided. If he should have received the retail value of the weapon, then, to be fair, that is the price of the compensation. The figure should not be too difficult to find out. I hope that before Report stage my noble friend Lord Ferrers will tell us the exact basis for arriving at 50 per cent. of the average retail value being the equivalent of an equation he has calculated in relation to the market value.
At the momemt, it is impossible to draw any conclusions. We have to accept with reservations what the Minister has said. I entirely support the previous amendment in its spirit and intention. Subsection (2) of the amendment which I am moving includes payments made to registered firearms dealers. These persons had bought the weapons—they were not prohibited at the time—with a view to re-selling them. I hope that they are included in the word "persons" under the Bill.
The other aspect which has not been addressed concerns the accessories purchased with the weapon. Very often, I am given to understand, the weapon that might have had to be surrendered will be the only one that person had. He was not privileged to own a pair of shotguns. I know they are not prohibited, but my point is that he was not privileged to have a great legal armoury at his disposal. He had one legal gun. And he should receive fair compensation. I would not go so far as to say that what my noble friend on the Front Bench has suggested is outright pillage—or even pillage. But it is a very sharp market price which a dealer would give. Some might have to give more. I think that in this case I would need further convincing that compensation at 50 per cent. is fair. I hope that my noble friend will give more information before Report stage. I beg to move.
Lord Swansea: I must support my noble friend's amendment. The basis of compensation already announced is parsimonious beyond belief. I doubt whether the Home Secretary really appreciates how much the owners of these firearms paid for them in the first instance. Many could have cost anything up

1443
to £1,000. When accessories are included—stainless steel barrel, bipod, flash hider and whatever—the sum is considerable. An owner told me not long ago that the cost to him had been about £4,000. Even allowing for the trader's markup, half the rental value of that rifle would barely be sufficient.
It is surprising, I think, that there is no mention in the Bill of dealers with stocks of such firearms bought in good faith. The owners who have them at present bought them in good faith; they have owned them legally. If the Government are going to tell them that they can no longer have them, they must be prepared to pay fair compensation. The dealers should also be entitled to fair compensation.
As regards subsection (3) of the proposed new clause, some accessories, as my noble friend said, are dedicated. That means that they are suitable for a particular firearm but for no other make of firearm. If the firearm itself is taken away from its present legal owner, he is left with a number of accessories which are quite useless to him because they will not fit any other rifle. I hope that my noble friend will give careful thought to this amendment.
11.15 p.m.
Lord Monson: The noble Viscount has made out a superb case for the amendment. I remember well the searing criticism that emanated from the Conservative Front Bench over Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn's derisory compensation terms for the naval shipbuilders at the time of the 1976 Act. If I remember rightly the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, was one of those whose criticism was particularly scathing. Surely the Government do not wish to incur the same odium that that Labour Government incurred.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: As I said on Second Reading, and as I hardly need to repeat, I am wholly persuaded of the need for the Bill. But I indicated on Second Reading that I had some doubts about the compensation terms. I realise that the noble Earl will not be in a position to move this evening on this question because it is really a matter for the Treasury rather than the Home Office. But I hope that he will represent to the Home Secretary that there remains some disquiet on this question. I very much hope that he will he able to come back with something rather better at a later stage of the Bill.
Earl Ferrers: My noble friend Lord Swansea said that the compensation arrangements were parsimonious beyond belief. He said that people should be paid what they paid for the weapon in the first place. I think that is really extending logic a bit far. If my noble friend goes and buys a car and uses it for 12 months or two years he cannot really be expected to be given the same price as he paid for the car. He can expect to receive the price at which the car would have sold had he sold it.
We have said that it would be unreasonable to pay the selling value of the weapon, in other words the cost that the person would pay for the weapon if he went and bought it from a shop because that would include the dealer's profit and the markup.
Lord Swansea: I apologise for interrupting my noble friend. I did not say that the owner should be
1444
compensated to the tune of the price he paid for the firearm. Perhaps I should have elaborated on that point. I did not suggest that the owner should receive what he paid for the weapon. At the same time the compensation could he calculated on the basis of the current value which could be gained, for example, from advertisements in the shooting press and various trade sources.
Earl Ferrers: We are making a survey of the prices that these weapons commanded last summer to see what they were. My noble friend will know that there are a whole host of weapons of all different types which could have compensation paid for them. When these weapons are sent in, we shall be able to find out their price. It will be 50 per cent. of the price which pertained before my right honourable friend's statement was made. I do not believe that is parsimonious. To give 50 per cent. of the retail price is a reasonable shot at the market price. I accept that one will never get the thing absolutely 100 per cent. right, but I think that is as near as we can reasonably get.
My noble friend Lord Dilhorne asked whether we would compensate dealers. My noble friend Lord Swansea was concerned about that. He said that they had quite reasonably and rightly purchased these weapons in order to sell them. That is perfectly true, but dealers are in a different position from private individuals. Trading in any commodity carries with it an inherent commercial risk. In any case dealers will be much better placed than private individuals to dispose of their guns on the international market. They will have the advantage of dealing in bulk, too. Therefore, I do not think that the outlets for dealers are as constricted as are the outlets for individuals. That is the reason why we think it proper to compensate individuals but not dealers.
Lord Morton of Shuna: Does the noble Earl mean that although dealers can sell those illegal arms abroad, the police, having taken possession of such arms from private individuals, will destroy them? Will they be allowed to sell the weapons to dealers abroad? That is not entirely clear.
Earl Ferrers: I shall endeavour to make it totally clear. Dealers are entitled to sell weapons abroad which are legal abroad but which are illegal in this country. They have access to the international market. The police will not sell the weapons they take in. Those weapons will be smelted.
Viscount Dilhorne: I am very disappointed by the response of the Front Bench to my amendment. The car analogy seems to me to be a bad one. There are many occasions on which the value of a car goes up. That is not taken into consideration. Another aspect about which I am not clear is the example given by my noble friend Lord Swansea. He said that he had heard of a man who had bought a rifle and spent a lot of money on it, thereby making it a better rifle. Will that person obtain the average price for an average bottom-end model of the rifle that he bought?
My noble friend has said nothing about accessories. As regards compensation to firearms dealers, dealers may not be in the preferential

1445
position that my noble friend asserts. They will be trying to sell their products in what one might call an SLR lake in Europe. The traders will know that a lot of SLRs will be coming along. Being traders, they will give a low price and dealers will have to part with them for very little. That will be caused by the Government's action. My noble friend has said nothing about why dealers should be treated differently from individuals. They are both persons. However, in the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 111 not moved.]
Clause 20 [Firearms consultative committee]:
The Earl of Swinton The Earl of Swinton moved Amendment No. 112:
Page 10, line 31, leave out ("less") and insert ("more").
The noble Lord said: Clause 20 brings us to the very important matter of the Firearms Consultative Committee. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, was particularly scathing at Second Reading about this very emasculated committee. Many other noble Lords echoed him. I am delighted to have the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, and the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, as well as that of my noble friend Lord Dilhornc, associated with mine in some of my later amendments to the clause.
The series of amendments is proposed in order to give the committee some teeth by two methods. The first is controlling the membership, and the second is giving the committee something to do. Amendment No. 112 would stop the committee from becoming a talking shop. There are many fringe organisations which might be represented on it. A number of people say that a committee of one is the right answer. However, I believe that a committee of 13 is absolutely adequate. Therefore, the amendment, which removes the word "less" and substitutes the word "more", means that the figure of 13 will not be exceeded. The committee may actually get someting done and not simply become an enormous conglomerate, talking a lot of rubbish and wasting a lot of time. I beg to move.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I support the amendment. It seems slightly unfortunate to me that there is no grouping of amendments on the clause. However, it is important, as my noble friend Lord Mishcon said at Second Reading, that the committee should not be an emasculated body with no powers other than those the Secretary of State cares to give it. It should be an effective committee. The smaller the committee the better. I support the amendment.
Viscount Dilhorne: I should also like to support this amendment, vigorously and fully. I have put down a later amendment in which I have jiggled with the numbers. The noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, is quite right. It is a pity that we could not have combined them and put in one amendment rather than the other.
I believe that a number such as that proposed will enable the committee to make proper decisions, provided that there is not a preponderance—an in-house loading, one might call it—of the Home Office,
1446
the military and the police over all other comers. That point comes out in another amendment. I support the amendment.
Earl Ferrers: It is always difficult to strike the right balance in any committee. We do not want an arbitrary restriction on the size of the committee which might prejudice its ability to represent fully the various interests. We want to strike a balance between a very small unrepresentative group and one that was so big as to be unwieldy and incapable of ever coming to a view on anything. If we cut the committee down a number of interest groups would turn round and say it is not fair because they are not represented. We have heard, particularly at Second Reading, that certain interests ought to be represented. If we cut it down many of those interests could say that they are not represented. If we make it too large it may be unwieldy.
The only reason we have put this figure in the Bill is because we think it is a reasonable figure which will give the committee a broad spectrum of views without its being too large.
The Earl of Swinton: I am rather flabbergasted by my noble friend's answer, because it seems to me that the committee could be any size. If it cannot be fewer than 12 there is no reason why it should not be 112 or 1,012. It seems to me a very strange answer indeed. I hope that my noble friend will give me an indication as to how many people he thinks might he on the committee.
Earl Ferrers: My noble friend will realise that my right honourable friend is not an idiot and will not make the committee hopelessly unwieldy with over 100 members or anything like that. The object is to have a committee of reasonable size. If one makes it fewer than 12 I think that most people would agree that it will be too small. All we say is, let it be more than 12. I cannot tell my noble friend at this moment whether it will be 14 or 13, 18 or 25. However, it will not be unwieldy.
The Earl of Swinton: I am not particularly happy but at this hour of the night I would not want to do anything other than withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 113 not moved.]
The Earl of Swinton The Earl of Swinton moved Amendment No. 114:
Page 10, line 33, leave out ("one or more or) and insert (", and representing a fair balance of interest between,").
The noble Earl said: In a way I have been rather overtaken by the reply which my noble friend gave in respect of the last amendment which I moved. It was my hope that the members of the committee would be appointed for their acknowledged competence and not as representatives of a large number of organisations and interests. I am afraid that he has rather shot that one before I got round to it.
The amendment seeks to help in this way and ensure that the committee is not overbalanced in one direction. I beg to move.
Viscount Dilhorne: I also support this amendment. I think that this is almost a more important

1447
amendment that the previous one moved by my noble friend Lord Swinton.
It is very important that there should not be an imbalance on the committee in favour of the Home Office, the police or the military, or people who will represent the Civil Service in one form or another. It must have on it an equal number of independent people representing a certain number of bodies. They must have certain powers. I hope that before we reach Report stage we shall have a better idea of how the committee will work, what its terms of reference will be and therefore some idea of what it will try to achieve.
11.30 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I do not entertain quite the same dark suspicions of the present Home Secretary as do some noble Lords opposite. I think that it will be his desire to have a reasonable, balanced committee. Frankly, if the committee is to have any position and acquire any kind of reputation, it will only do so if it represents an honest gathering of the various specialist groups who have knowledge of the subject as well as some independent persons who do not have any involvement with the shooting interests, the Home Office or the police.
In such a situation I think that it is right to leave this matter to the Home Secretary. The Home Office has a great deal of experience in appointing committees of this kind and very rarely is there argument afterwards about the composition of the membership.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I have rarely heard a more convincing argument for the amendment than has been produced by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. He said that the Home Office would never do anything other than produce a fair balance of interests. In those circumstances no doubt the noble Earl will accept the amendment.
Lord Burton: I rather agree with the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, on this occasion. One point that has not yet been made concerns the appointment of the chairman. I think that he certainly needs to be an independent person and one of some standing. I would suggest that someone like a retired judge would be ideal.
Earl Ferrers: My noble friend Lord Swinton said that he did not want people on the committee to represent anything but that he wanted them to be people of broad knowledge. Yet my noble friend Lord Dilhorne said that he wanted a balance of interests. It is difficult to get the balance quite right.
Turning for one minute to the Bill, the Committee will see that it states that the Home Secretary will appoint such persons:
"appearing to him to have knowledge and experience of one or more of the following matters—

(a) the possession, use or keeping of, or transactions in firearms;

(b) weapon technology; and

(c) the administration or enforcement".

It does not say that they have to represent those interests. All that they have to do is to have knowledge of them. It would not be good enough to put on the committee a person who is a cat owner, because he may not have any knowledge or interest in
1448
those three areas. It may well be that he is a cat owner as well as having a knowledge of those subjects, but the purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the members of the committee should have an interest in one of those areas.
Lord Swansea: The shooting interests regard the consultative committee as of the greatest importance because it could obviate many of the arguments and discussions that have taken place in the past. The Committee will remember that in the Standing Committee in another place the amendment to set up this committee was carried against the Government's wish. At the next stage of the Bill in another place the Government amended the provisions relating to this committee, removed most of its powers and left it relatively toothless.
It is most important that it should be properly constituted and represent all interests so that no one interest is in a small minority and is permanently outvoted by the others. It should also be of a manageable size—not too large—and carry out its duties as originally intended.
There are a number of amendments to this clause on the Marshalled List and I hope that it will help to expedite our proceedings if we include some of the other amendments in our discussion on this one.
The Earl of Swinton: I am not terribly pleased with the reply and may well come back at Report stage, but at this advanced hour of the night I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Swinton The Earl of Swinton moved Amendment No. 115:
Page 10, line 37, at end insert—
("and
(d) sport, recreation and competition.").
The noble Earl said: This carries on the issue very much in the same vein but I think that this is a most important amendment. Clause 20(1)(b) will certainly enable forensic experts to sit on this committee and Clause 20(1)(c) will certainly allow the police to be represented. Clause 20(1)(a) is far too wide—although I do not advocate its removal—and I am sure my noble friend will say that it includes those with a knowledge of sport, recreation and competition. It is essential to have on the committee people with knowledge of sport, recreation and competition, and this should be shown on the face of the Bill.
Earl Ferrers: I cannot help but find my noble friend's argument quite amusing, if I may say so. A short while ago he said that he wanted the committee to be nice and small so that it could make progress. He then said that people must not represent any particular interests. He now puts forward an amendment that a particular interest should be represented. The fact is that sport, recreation and competition are all covered under Clause 20(1)(a). It was the intention that they should be covered under the clause. Many people of course are not specifically referred to. There is no reference to farmers, gamekeepers, pest controllers and those involved in land management, all of whom have an interest. Once one starts to specify one category of people that must

1449
be represented, ipso facto, one excludes others by implication.
I hope that my noble friend will accept my assurance that my right honourable friend is fully seized of the desire to ensure that those interests are represented. It is for that reason that the clause has been drawn up as presently drafted.
Earl Peel: I support my noble friend Lord Swinton. Sport and recreation constitute the greatest use of firearms in the country. As I said on Second Reading, it is all very well to have on the committee people who understand the technical side of weaponry, but there must also be people who appreciate how it will be used in practice on the field. The inclusion of the words proposed would strengthen the committee enormously.
Viscount Dilhorne: I am sure that my noble friend the Minister knows exactly what my noble friend Lord Swinton means when he describes the type of person that he wishes to have on the committee. They are people with a good, broad outlook and understanding. I suspect that my noble friend means that he does not want a lot of technical boffins sitting there scratching their heads and arguing technicalities about muzzle energy, and so on. There is no difference between what I said earlier and what he now says about competition. It is important that the committee should be comprised of people with broad views who enjoy the sport of competition shooting and the use of firearms and shotguns.
Earl Ferrers: There is no suggestion that the people on the committee will not be broad-minded and people of experience. Of course they will be. Those qualities do not necessarily rest only in people involved in sport, recreation and competition; others can have such qualities.
It is our intention to have a committee that is sound and effective with people of good, broad knowledge. If one category of person is to be represented, then what about dealers, (who are important people), manufacturers of the weapons, defence manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers, who are all deeply involved with weapons? I just hope that my noble friend will accept my assurances which arc given in good faith that the interests which he is concerned to see represented are covered by the wording of the Bill.
The Earl of Swinton: I believe I am more puzzled by my noble friend who found me amusing. I find his argument somewhat strange when he talks about dealers. Surely they are the very people who are specified as being in,
"the possession, use or keeping of, or transactions in, firearms".
I should have thought that anybody who transacted in firearms was probably a dealer. My noble friend also mentioned weapon manufacturers. Surely they are covered by "weapon technology". I do not understand the purpose of paragraphs (a), (b) or even (c). One might just as well say that these people
"have some knowledge of the field of firearms".
I feel that the Bill affects above all—as my noble friend Lord Peel said, and I am grateful for his intervention—people who shoot for pleasure,
1450
recreation, sport, game or target shooting. They are the kind of people who are being punished by the Bill. They are the one kind of person who should be spelled out on this Firearms Consultative Committee.
Will my noble friend agree to have another look at this, otherwise I feel very strongly inclined to divide the Committee?
Lord Burton: I can remember many years ago when noble Lords set up a committee on firefighting in woodland. I was put on that committee and found myself a lone voice with many firemen and civil servants who were quite determined that there should not be any change. I believe that we want to be very careful that this committee is not established on the same kind of basis.
Earl Ferrers: I find myself in some difficulty here because I do not know how to explain any more clearly to my noble friend what is intended by the clause. I have told him that the interests that he wishes to have represented are already covered. He wants that written into the Bill. It is always possible to write anything into a Bill, but if that is done it is automatically assumed to exclude others. I shall certainly consider this point because I realise what my noble friend is concerned about, but I cannot give any guarantee that I shall come up with a magical answer because I believe that he might be guilty of putting into the Bill just one section of people and specifying them particularly. But I shall certainly look at it.
The Earl of Swinton: People are specifically put in now under paragraphs (a), (b) and (c). However at the same time my noble friend has said that he will consider the matter and with that undertaking I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Dilhorne Viscount Dilhorne moved Amendment No. 116:
Page 10, line 38, at beginning insert—
("( ) The membership of the committee shall consist of representatives drawn from subsection (1) above, amongst whom will be represented the Home Office, the Police, serving members of the armed forces, firearms and shotgun users and their associations such that the representatives of the Home Office, Her Majesty's Constabulary of Police past or present and serving members of the armed forces shall not exceed fifty per cent. of the total membership of the committee; furthermore,

(a) the Chairman thereof shall be elected by a majority of the votes cast by the full committee and in the event of a split decision the duly elected Chairman shall exercise a casting vote to determine the matter at issue; and

(b) ").

The noble Viscount said: I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 123 because the two go together. I have very little to say on this at this stage of the night and after what has already been said. This is an initial attempt to try to lay out the formation of that committee without condescending to say how the other 50 per cent. is likely to be made up. The pith and moment of what I have to put down I have already stated. It is very important to see that there is not a preponderance of the Home Office and the police on the committee so that they have the

1451
casting vote and the weight on it. They do not really then have to take too much account—or they only have to take account of how much they want to—of the other representations made.
Amendment No. 123 is intentionally proposed to give an unfettered discretion to the committee to get advice from other prople if they wish, to invite people to attend upon it and to answer certain questions. Obviously people do not have to participate, but I should imagine that if there is a difficult matter that has to be discussed that provision would be of great benefit. It would have been of great benefit if the committee had existed before the Bill came into effect and those procedures had been followed. I beg to move.
11.45 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: In view of the Government's position, which I have already stated, on the composition of the Firearms Consultative Committee, I do not believe that Amendent No. 116 is necessary.
We have made it clear that the committee will embrace the shooting interests, the gun trade, the police and the home departments. We have also made clear, that we envisage that the chairman will be a person of independent standing rather than a representative of any particular interest. It is not intended that the choice of chairman should be left to the committee. I believe that to do so will cause only more difficulties if, as is suggested by the amendment, he is given a casting vote.
Given the wide variety of interests which may be represented, it is conceivable that the committee may find itself unable to appoint a chairman. It would then never get off the ground. I believe that it is right for my right honourable friend to find a person of stature to be the chairman of the committee.
Amendment No. 123 seeks to give the committee the right to consult experts outside its membership. However, it already has this power. There is nothing to stop it from seeking specialist advice from whatever quarter. Members of the Committee will appreciate that the committee will be be made up of people who are expert in this field. In the unlikely event of supplementary advice being required, it will talk to the appropriate people. However, I do not believe that it is necessary to give it statutory power to do so.
Viscount Dilhorne: When I tabled the amendment it was necessary to be speculative about what I now discover has been disclosed by my noble friend Lord Ferrers. There was a lack of any provision stating the way in which the committee would be made up—it was couched only in the broadest of terms—and therefore I felt it necessary to draw that cover in order to discover his intention.
I am pleased to hear that the committee will have the power which I drafted in Amendment No. 123. At this time of night I am reassured by what my noble friend has said and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Mountgarret Viscount Mountgarret moved Amendment No. 117:
Page line 3, leave out ("(c)").
The noble Viscount said: This is a small amendment and it is self-explanatory. When there is a committee consisting of people who will have knowledge of the use or keeping, or transacting in, firearms, and of weapon technology, manufacturing, dealers and so forth, I do not understand why one of the Committee's functions should not be:
"the working of the provisions mentioned in subsection (1)",
as opposed to subsection (1)(c). I beg to move.
Viscount Dilhorne: I wish to support the amendment although I shall not speak to it at length because of the time of night. My noble friend's remarks appear to have a great deal of sense and for that reason I put my name to the amendment. It appears extraordinary that in subsection (4)(a) only one paragraph, (c), is applied. One looks to see what (c) stands for and it is:
"the administration or enforcement of the provisions of the principal Act, the Firearms Act 1982 and this Act".
I can see no reason why that should have a preponderance, particularly after the amendment recently moved by my noble friend Lord Swinton to include a paragraph (d). Nor do I see why paragraph (c) should have a preference over either paragraphs (a) or (b). I do not think that more can be said. If it is deleted it would make a great deal of sense and not give an indication that there is one form of interest which has a greater sway over the others in the structure of the committee. Perhaps it is for that reason that other amendments have been tabled.
Earl Ferrers: If my noble friend were to look at the Bill he would see that:
"It shall be the function of the committee … to keep under review the working of the provisions mentioned in subsection (1)(c)".
My noble friend wishes to remove subsection (1)(c). We are specifically referring to the provisions of the 1968 and 1982 Acts. Only subsection (1)(c) makes any mention of those provisions. Therefore, to leave out subsection 1(c), as the amendment suggests, would be a nonsense. The committee will still retain ample scope to consider matters relating to the development, possession and use of firearms as they arise.
Viscount Dilhorne: Perhaps the noble Earl will give way. His reference to the principal Act is extraordinary because Clause 20 makes no reference at all to that. It is a homeless persons clause. There is no reference to where it is to be found in the principal Act. We are left in glorious, excited expectation of how it is to be fitted into the Act. I remind my noble friend that the Bill is entitled:
"An Act to amend the Firearms Act 1968".
There is no reference as to how it is to be fitted into the Act. My noble friend has cited a reference to that Act which the clause does not provide.
Earl Ferrers: I am hesitant to take issue with my noble friend who is a distinguished lawyer. However, if he looks at Clause 20 1(c) he will read,

1453
"the administration or enforcement of the provisions of the principal Act, the Firearms Act 1982 and this Act".
The principal Act is referred to.
Viscount Mountgarret: I do not understand it all. When we get the legal profession at it, I become completely lost. I should have thought it would be a good idea for the committee to consider every aspect of anything to do with guns. However, if my noble friend does not like that, so be it. Perhaps he might like to think again about the matter. I should have thought it made sense. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Swinton The Earl of Swinton moved Amendment No. 118:
Page 11, line 7, leave out ("if requested by the Secretary of State to do so,").
The noble Earl said: I shall also speak to Amendment No. 119. The amendments are not grouped together but they cover the same point. I cannot understand the reference in Clause 20(4)(b).
"if requested by the Secretary of State to do so".
Clause 20(4)(a) states,
"to keep under review the working of the provisions mentioned in subsection (1)(c) above and to make to the Secretary of State such recommendations as the committee may from time to time think necessary for the improvement of the working of those provisions".
Therefore, the committee can look at the provisions, decide that some are not working very well or should be working better and may then recommend to the Secretary of State that they should be improved. However, it cannot make proposals about improvements unless requested by the Secretary of State to do so. This is an absolute nonsense. The committee cannot do its job properly. I beg to move.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I strongly support the amendment together with Amendment No. 119 and, when we come to it, Amendment No. 121. I suggest that these are almost the most important amendments to the clause with the possible exception of Amendment No. 122 which refers to the code of conduct.
The Government are proposing a committee which has no power at all. It is a sort of emasculated, toothless animal which cannot do anything unless the Secretary of State chooses to ask it to do so. As the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, said,
"if requested by the Secretary of State to do so"
is pointless. It makes the situation absolutely absurd. The committee has advised itself of what is necessary but cannot tell the Secretary of State until he asks. It is like a letter saying "I would think of asking you to this if you would first say yes; and if you would reply that you might he minded to say yes, we will then ask you the question". It is an absolute absurdity. The same could be said about referring to the committee. There is nothing to stop the Secretary of State referring any matter he wishes to the committee, but why on earth cannot the committee go to the Secretary of State and say, "We thought of this; can we ask you to consider it?" The drafting of the clause is absurd.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: This is one of those rare occasions when I find I am not in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna. I give him an example which will, I hope, indicate to him that what he said does not carry a great deal of weight.
One of the errors made by the present Government when they first came into office in 1979 was to abolish the Advisory Council on the Penal System. It was a body which had won remarkable respect, and I believe most people in the area of criminal justice policy mourned its passing. However, it could only consider matters which were referred to it by the Secretary of State. It was not, as a result of that, an entirely toothless organisation. It had substantial support from a wide section of those connected with criminal justice policy. In short, I do not believe that by this amendment the committee will be made a more worthwhile organisation. The experience of the Advisory Council on the Penal Systems indicates that that would not be so.
Lord Swansea: It is highly important that this committee shoud be able to exercise some initiative of its own and not deal just with such matters as are referred to it by the Secretary of State. It is conceivable that at some time in the future a Secretary of State may feel that there is a point which might give rise to some embarrassment to him or his department and therefore refrains from referring it to the committee. It could be swept under the carpet for ever. Therefore, it is most important that there should be two-way traffic and that the committee should be able to make proposals to the Secretary of State on its own initiative.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I come back for a moment to the noble Lord, Lord Harris. There is no similarity between a committee looking at the whole of penal affairs and a committee considering a firearms Act and its operation. We need only consider what we have done in the past 12 months with the Criminal Justice Bill, which did not go over the whole aspect of criminal law, and perhaps the 400-odd Commons amendments which we have to consider on Friday. That is a far wider sphere and therefore there is logic in saying that the Home Secretary only refers certain matters to such a committee and does not give it a wide brief. In this case the committee is operating in a restricted sphere and can surely think for itself.
Lord Monson: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, that this is an important amendment and that without it the committee will, in effect, be emasculated. If we successfully insist on the amendment tonight we should also accept the following amendment, No. 119, without which the clause will be somewhat defective.
Lord Burton: I support the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna. There is just one point to add. This is a technical subject. It is important that the technicalities are considered. It is possible that the Secretary of State and perhaps some of his advisers are not aware of those technicalities.
Earl Ferrers: The interesting fact about this Committee is that one can never be certain on any amendment who is going to side with whom. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, was on his own but I am grateful to him for saying that even with the Bill drafted as it is, in his view at least it is not the emasculated, toothless animal which the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, believes it is. One could hardly think of a more hideous description. However, I see what he is trying to get at.
I do not believe that the committee is as toothless as is made out. It is for the committee to make an annual report, and it can say in that report exactly what it likes, whether the matter has been referred to it by the Home Secretary or not. It is perfectly entitled to say it thinks that certain actions should be taken. That decision will be taken to Parliament for it to be discussed if Parliament thinks fit. We are anxious to get the committee to work well and to be successful. I can understand what my noble friend's amendment seeks to do. He wishes the committee to have the power to look at matters without being requested to do so by the Secretary of State. It seems a reasonable amendment and I am happy to accept it.
12 midnight
Viscount Mountgarret: This is the second time this evening that I have been flabbergasted. I certainly say that my noble friend Lord Ferrers is not a toothless and emaciated Minister. I am very pleased that he has taken this course, and I am delighted.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Swinton The Earl of Swinton moved Amendment No. 119:
Page 11, line 8, after ("provisions") insert ("if it thinks fit").
The noble Earl said: This amendment is consequential to the previous one and I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Mountgarret Viscount Mountgarret moved Amendment No. 120:
Page 11, line 8, after ("provisions") insert—
("( ) to advise the Secretary of State regarding guidelines for Chief Constables relating to the issue, renewal or revoking of firearm and shotgun certificates;").
The noble Viscount said: This amendment is quite clear. I believe it to be a good idea for this function to be spelt out specifically so that the committee has it in front of it. I shall be interested to hear whether that meets with approval. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: I believe that subsection (4)(a) already adequately covers this point by allowing the committee to make such recommendations as it thinks necessary for the improvement of the working of the controls. That covers the point that my noble friend seeks to make.
Viscount Mountgarret: I am sorry, but perhaps I did not say as much as I should have done on that point. There is a wide disparity of views among chief constables when they come to consider the granting or otherwise of shotgun and firearms certificates. It might be constructive and helpful to constabularies
1456
to have the guidelines laid down and this would be a function of the committee. I wonder whether it is covered as well under subsection (4)(a) as my noble friend suggested.
Earl Ferrers: I can say only that my noble friend can wonder. I am advised that his wonderment is unnecessary because it is covered. I do not know how I can help my noble friend any further. The point that he seeks to make is covered in the Bill
Viscount Mountgarret: I am grateful to my noble friend, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna moved Amendment No. 121:
Page 11, line 10, leave out ("which he may refer to the committee").
The noble Lord said: This amendment was spoken to when supporting Amendment No. 118. We have had the argument on this and it is the mirror image of Amendment No. 118 which the Minister accepted. Without further argument, I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: I believe that the need for this amendment is not so clear when subsection (4)(a) already allows the committee ample scope to make recommendations in the working of the firearms control. The sole purpose of subsection (4)(c) is to enable my right honourable friend to seek the advice of the committee on virtually any matter connected with firearms control where he sees a need for it. There may be a few areas where it would be inappropriate for the Secretary of State to seek advice from the committee for the reason that there are areas where it is inappropriate for him to act whether by means of legislation, guidance or advice or whatever. One such matter is the operational discretion and control of a chief constable. It would be unacceptable that the committee should be able to offer advice on matters on that kind.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I do not want to be too technical and legal at this time in the morning but subsection 4(a) entitles the committee,
"to keep under review the working of the provisions"
and to make recommendations that the committee thinks necessary for the improvement of the working of the provisions. Subsection (4)(c) is related not only to the working of the provisions but to anything relating to the provisions. In considering the working of the provisions it may come to something on which it might want to advise the Secretary of State relating to the provisions and not particularly to the working of the provisions. Therefore I can see no reason why it should not do so. Under the clause as it stands it cannot do so unless the Secretary of State refers it. That is why I said the amendment is the mirror image of the amendment in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Swinton. It seems to me that there is nothing to stop the Secretary of State referring to it without the power and there is a reason why the committee should be able to advise that there is something relating to the provisions without the Secretary of State having to ask it. That is why I move the amendment.
Earl Ferrers: I see that point but I do not believe that it is a mirror image. Subsection (4)(b) allows the committee to make proposals for amending those provisions. Subsection (4)(c) requires the committee,
"to advise the Secretary of State on any other matter relating to those provisions which he may refer to the committee".
There are certain matters such as the instructions which he gives to chief constables which are very much the responsibility of the Home Secretary. I do not think that this is quite the mirror image that the noble Lord thinks. Perhaps I may write to him about that after I have clarified the position a little more.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I am very much obliged. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Swinton The Earl of Swinton moved Amendment No. 122:
Page 11, line 10, at end insert—
("(4A) The Consultative Committee shall prepare, and shall revise from time to time as they think fit, a code of practice for users of firearms on—

(a) security and safekeeping of firearms;

(b) the proper use of firearms; and

(c) such other matters as the Secretary of State shall determine.

(4B) When the Committee propose to issue the code, or amendments thereto, it shall transmit a draft to the Secretary of State who shall—

(a) if he approves it, lay it before both Houses of Parliament; and

(b) if he does not approve of it, publish details of his reasons for withholding approval.

(4C) If the draft is approved by resolution of each House of Parliament, the Secretary of State shall issue the Code and it shall come into effect.
(4D) In all criminal and civil proceedings any such code shall he admissible in evidence; and if any provision of such a code appears to the court conducting the proceedings to he relevant to any question arising in the proceedings it shall be taken into account in determining that question.").
The noble Earl said: This is an important amendment even at this hour of the morning. We heard much during the first day of the Committee of the Government's much publicised memorandum of guidance. It seems like a year ago but it was only on Monday evening and night of this week. My noble friend Lord Ferrers made much of the fact that it is to be published. We also heard that this will have no force in law. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, pointed out that each chief of police has a unique power in his own area and because we do not have a national police force we cannot control them centrally. I hope and believe that this code of practice, through constant reference to it by the courts, will gradually establish common standards and practice across the country and will make things better as it goes on.
This amendment has followed the precedents of the Employment Protection Act 1975 which permits ACAS to issue a code of practice except that if the code is approved by both Houses of Parliament the Secretary of State in this instance rather than the committee will be responsible for issuing it. Subsection (4)(d) comes straight from Section 67(11) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. I therefore believe that this amendment is technically correct as well as highly desirable. It will give the
1458
committee some real teeth and will help with a code throughout the country. I beg to move.
Lord Swansea: I should like to support the amendment. It is highly important and it could lead to much greater uniformity of practice thoughout the country. This is one of the biggest problems to bedevil shooting interests in different parts of the country. We have discussed this many times with Home Office officials. A chief constable has very wide discretion in his area. It is quite understandable that different chief constables apply and interpret the law in widely differing ways. That fact is recognised by the Home Office which says that the chief constable has such discretion.
On the other hand, the chief constable may say that he is bound by the Home Office guidelines. So the poor shooter is in a pig-in-the-middle situation which cannot he good for anyone. If a code of practice, such as the one suggested here, was established it would go a long way towards improving the situation.
On security and safekeeping, some chief constables have tried to lay down detailed specifications; for example, steel cupboards. They have specified cupboards and materials which are not commonly available on the market. Again, some chief constables have tried to lay down unreasonable territorial conditions for the use of firearms. Those are just two examples of ways in which the code of conduct could be most useful. Therefore I strongly support the amendment.
Viscount Dilhorne: I too should like to support the amendment. However, there are one or two things about which I am not quite clear. Perhaps my noble friend will be able to help me. I am delighted to see in subsection (4C) that this will be done by resolution, by means of a statutory instrument. If that is the case, I wonder why there is provision in subsection (4D) for the code to be "admissable in evidence". Surely, once it has been passed by this place and comes into effect by means of a resolution, that makes it perfectly good law.
Lord Morton of Shuna: The obvious answer to the point raised by the noble Viscount is that one should think of the Highway Code. It is issued, but can only be referred to in evidence as setting a standard because of the Road Traffic Act. It is only a code of practice; it does not have the force of law. I strongly support the amendment which would add a code and lay down standards. I hope that the Government are minded to accept that there should be such a code.
Lord Burton: I should like to support what my noble friend Lord Swansea said. However, I am a little bit worried that the amendment as it is presently worded would not in fact do what the noble Lord requires. It refers to,
"a code of practice for users".
I think that if it was a code of practice on firearms then we might get uniformity throughout the country. But, so far as I can see, it will have no effect whatsoever on the way that the law is administered by different constabularies in different parts of the country.
The Earl of Balfour: I should like to ask one question in this respect because I think that it might be the only opportunity in the proceedings to do so. We were assured by my noble friend the Minister that the Firearms Rules of 1969 would be revised in tandem with this Bill. Is there any chance of this revision being produced before we reach Report stage?
Earl Ferrers: The amendment would give the committee the added responsibility of preparing and subsequently revising a code of practice for firearms users, which would be approved by the Secretary of State and by Parliament. Obviously the safe use of firearms should be encouraged. But I am not sure that it would be easy to produce such guidance as the amendment envisages; it is possible that this could end up in conflict with the guidance which has been given to the police. If the code were admissible in court it could be construed as having the force of law and the committee might inadvertently be usurping the proper function of the Government in putting forward law for approval by Parliament. It could conflict with the chief officer's role in the enforcement of firearms legislation.
12.15 a.m.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I do not understand the point that the Minister has just made. If the code is prepared, it cannot be approved by Parliament unless the Secretary of State approves it first. I do not see how the Secretary of State could approve something which contradicted the guidelines that he was issuing to chief officers of police. Perhaps I am not following the Minister's argument. It seemed to me that there was inconsistency. If one looks at subsection (4B) one sees that the Secretary of State has to approve the code before Parliament can have a look at it.
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord, Lord Morton, was following me perfectly. If he had contained himself a little longer I might have been able to explain the problem to him. Subsection (4B)(b) provides:
"When the Committee propose to issue the code, or amendments thereto, it shall transmit a draft to the Secretary of State who shall—

(b) if he does not approve of it. publish details of his reasons for withholding approval".

That is fairly important because everyone then knows why the Secretary of State does not agree with the committee's proposals. He could he pilloried for not so agreeing. I do not know that that is a good thing.
The code may, for instance, say that the weapons should be kept under lock and key. When the chief officer visits some premises he may find that while the weapons are kept under lock and key the lock and key are so flimsy that the whole thing is insecure. It is possible that he could bring a prosecution, and the defendant might say, "This should not have been done, because I have kept the weapon in accordance with the code". It detracts from the authority of the chief officer of police to ensure that the weapons are looked after properly. I give that as an example.
I understand the point that the Committee is anxious to make. I do not believe that this set of proposals is correct.
The Earl of Swinton: I am grateful to all noble Lords from all sides of the Committee, especially the noble Lord, Lord Morton who have spoken in support of the amendment. I am afraid that I cannot answer my noble friend Lord Balfour as to when the memorandum will be published. It is a matter for my noble friend. He may want to answer now; he may not.
Earl Ferrers: I am sorry. I meant to refer to that point. The answer is that I am afraid that the memorandum will not be published by the Report stage.
The Earl of Swinton: My noble friend questioned the provision in subsection (4B)(b) which states:
"if he does not approve of it, publish details of his reasons for withholding approval".
That comes straight out of the Employment Protection Act 1975 under which ACAS proposed to issue a code of practice.
I quote from Section 6(4):
"If the Service determines to proceed with the draft, it shall transmit the draft to the Secretary of State who shall—

(a) if he approves of it, lay it before both Houes of Parliament; and

(b) if he does not approve of it, publish details of his reasons for withholding approval".

At least one of my noble friend's right honourable friends has to put up with that provision. He seems to live with it, and I am not sure why the Home Secretary could not live with it.
Having said that, I believe that the amendment has merit. I take the point made by my noble friend Lord Burton that it may not be properly drafted with regard to the practice for users of firearms. I shall have a look at what my noble friend has said. I may well return on Report with a similar amendment.
Earl Ferrers: Before my noble friend withdraws the amendment. I shall take into account the point that the Committee has made and look at the matter before the next stage.
The Earl of Swinton: I am even more grateful to my noble friend. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 123 not moved.]
The Earl of Swinton The Earl of Swinton moved Amendment No. 124:
Page 1, line 10, at end insert—
("(4A) The Secretary of State shall consult with the Committee on any proposals to amend the principal Act or this Act or orders made under these Acts").
The noble Earl said: I think this amendment is absolutely self-explanatory. Had the Secretary of State had to consult the committee before introducing this Bill, the Government might have had a much easier ride in getting it through both Houses of Parliament. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: I have no doubt that the government of the day would consult the committee, which is after all a recognised body of experts on the administration of the Act, just as the Government

1461
have consulted members of the shooting organisations about this Bill. I do not believe that this need be a statutory requirement.
Lord Swansea: If that is the case, one might ask why the Government did not do precisely that in relation to the proposals in the present Bill, before the Home Secretary announced his conclusions in September.
Earl Ferrers: With respect, that is a different matter. What I said was that I have no doubt that if there was a change or if the Home Secretary wished to change the law he would consult the committee about changing it. That is totally different from deciding that the law should be changed.
The Earl of Swinton: I am quite happy with my noble friend's answer. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 125:
Page 11, line 12 at end insert—
("( ) The Secretary of State may make to members of the committee such payments as he may determine in respect of expenses incurred by them in the performance of their duties.").
The noble Earl said: What a surprise! These amendments are straightforward. Amendment No. 125 provides for the payment to the chairman and members of the Firearms Consultative Committee of expenses they may incur in the course of their duties. We are talking here of travelling and subsistence costs and the like, and it is clearly right that the Government should meet these expenses.
Amendments Nos. 131 and 132 provide that the Secretary of State's expenditure in making these payments and in relation to the committee shall be met out of money provided by Parliament. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Swinton The Earl of Swinton moved Amendment No. 126:
Page 11, line 13, leave out subsection (6) and insert—
("(6) The committee shall exist in the first instance for five years beginning on the day on which section 1 of this Act comes into force, and shall continue thereafter unless the Secretary of State provides by order made by statutory instrument for it to cease to exist, and no such order shall be made unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.").
The noble Earl said: I am sure that the Committee will be delighted to know that this is the last amendment on the clause that I am moving tonight. This is another very important amendment. It removes the sword of Damocles which is hanging over the committee. It ensures that it will continue unless the Secretary of State, with the approval of Parliament, decides to dispense with it. That is instead of what is in the Bill at the present time; namely, that it shall cease after five years unless the Secretary of State decides to continue its existence. I should have thought it would be much more sensible, much more encouraging for the committee if its future was described in the way set out in my
1462
amendment and not in the way set out in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Morton of Shuna: I strongly support this amendment for exactly the reasons the noble Earl has given. There is nothing further that I need say.
Earl Ferrers: I think that the committee should be allowed to continue at the discretion of the Secretary of State according to how useful it has proved itself to be during the five-year period. It is an odd thing, but in another place those in favour of this body argued that it should be established for a limited period initially in order to enable it to prove its worth. It is right that its existence and its cost-effectiveness to the taxpayer should be kept under review. I think the clause as it stands allows for a review every three years and I should have thought that that was reasonable.
The Earl of Swinton: I am not altogether happy with my noble friend's reply. It seems to me that the noble Earl has used a contrary argument to the decisions which were taken in the other place during the course of this debate. He is taking one which suits him this time. The amendment still gives the Secretary of State powers to dispense with the committee if he thinks it proper. However, at this late hour of the night I shall not press the point. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.
Viscount Dilhorne Viscount Dilhorne moved Amendment No. 127:
After Clause 20, insert the following new clause:
("Appeals
.—(1) Section 44 of the principal Act (Appeals from Police decision under Part II) shall be amended as follows—

(a) in the sidenote to section 44 leave out "Appeals from Police decisions under Part II" and insert "Appeals";

(b) in subsection (1) leave out "an appeal to the Sheriff" and insert

"A person aggrieved by any refusal, variation or imposition of terms or conditions by the Secretary of State or by any chief officer of police under this Act may appeal to the Crown Court and in Scotland in accordance with the Act of Sederunt to the Sheriff." ").
The noble Viscount said: The problem that this amendment addresses is that there are provisions, as we know well, in the principal Act granting a right of appeal. In the Bill there are no provisions for an extension of those powers. A number of clauses are inserted without reference to how they fit into the main Bill, so one does not know whether they will come within the parameter of the 1968 Act or out-with it. At this stage of the life of this future Act we should have liked to know what the scheme of things was or what it was going to be. Sections 26, 29, 30, 34, 36, 37, 38 and Schedule 5 of the 1968 Act deal with rights of appeal. A lot of new powers are given in this Bill to the police and to the Secretary of State which affect—I nearly said interfere with, but I think that affect is a better word—many people with many varied interests.
I have not been through the full extent of the Bill to pick out these different powers which will affect so many people. But I believe that some of those powers

1463
should be justified by means of a right of appeal either through the Crown Court, or in the case of an appeal against the Secretary of State, by means of judicial review in the High Court. That would be a much more expensive procedure. But that should be no deterrent for that course of action to be included in the Bill.
Subsections (1) and 1(a) of my proposed new clause are consequential on the content of (1)(b). The wording of (1)(b) is well known. It is also used in the Town and Country Planning Acts. It states:
"A person aggrieved by any refusal, variation or imposition of terms or conditions by the Secretary of State or by any chief officer of police under this Act may appeal to the Crown Court and in Scotland in accordance with the Act of Sederunt to the Sheriff."
That is a far from perfect wording. It is an initial attempt at an appropriate wording. In the circumstances it was the best that I could do bearing in mind that it was very hard to see how the Bill fitted in. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will consider before Report exactly what provisions will be subject to appeal so they can be debated more fully on Report before the Bill is enacted. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: A right of appeal against a refusal by a chief officer of police to issue a firearm or shotgun certificate is already enshrined in Section 26 of the Firearms Act 1986. Section 29 of the Act gives a right of appeal against a refusal to vary conditions on a firearm certificate.
As regards firearm and shotgun certificates, therefore, this new clause would add nothing of substance. But the new clause also proposes a right of appeal against refusals and conditions imposed by the Secretary of State. This would apply to the Secretary of State's power to approve rifle and pistol clubs and to grant authority to possess or deal in prohibited weapons. There is, at present, no right of appeal in relation to these powers, and I am not persuaded of the need for such a right.
With regard to the Secretary of State's authority to possess or deal in prohibitive weapons, in view of the kind of weapons involved we think that an authority should not be issued if there is any doubt whatever about an application. Likewise, the imposition of the most stringent conditions will invariably be justified. We need not only to protect the public against the possible misuse of these weapons in this country, but also to ensure that authority is not given to individuals or companies who, because of the profits involved, may be tempted to trade irresponsibly or illegally on the international market.
There are all kinds of checks on the abuse of power by the Home Secretary, including judical review, and I really do not think it is right to provide for appeal to the Crown Court against decisions of the Home Secretary for which he can already be called to account, not least by Parliament.
Viscount Dilhorne: I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Ferrers for his response. I pointed out that there was a right to judicial review against a decision of the Home Secretary, although it is drafted slightly differently. In the circumstances, and in view
1464
of the late hour, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 21 [Minor and consequential amendments and repeals]:
Lord Kimball Lord Kimball moved Amendment No. 128:
Page 11, line 21, at end insert—
("(1A) For section 11(5) of that Act (sports, athletics and other approved activities) there shall be substituted the following subsection—
"(5) A person may, without holding a shotgun or firearm certificate, borrow a shotgun or firearm from the occupier of private premises or from a keeper or stalker employed by such occupier and use it on those premises in the presence of such occupier, keeper or stalker." ").
The noble Lord said: This amendment arises out of what I can only describe as an undertaking to give further and favourable consideration to this particular point. The point at issue is the problem of the estate rifle. That is a rifle which is kept on the firearm certificate of an owner of a piece of land and is also on the firearm certificate of any employee of the owner of the land—a gamekeeper, stalker or anyone who is authorised to go on the land with the owner's Class 1 firearm.
We wish to continue what is an accepted general practice, particularly in Scotland. If someone who does not own a firearm is asked to come and stalk, that person is allowed to borrow the estate rifle and use it in company with a stalker or keeper on whose firearm certificate it appears. In the case of someone who is under the age of 18, the practice would be perfectly legal because that person would be under supervision.
The practice does not increase the number of firearms in circulation and it includes a strict territorial condition so that the firearm will only be used on the piece of land for which permission has been granted. Unless we can find a way of meeting the problem we shall have a situation in which, if I ask my noble friend to stalk with me and he does not own a rifle, he will have to apply for a firearm certificate for a weapon that he does not own and pay a full fee.
I hope that my noble friend Lord Ferrers has found a way round the problem. I wrote to him originally and said that I thought most Members of the Committee on this side of the Chamber would be satisfied if the matter could be covered by an instruction to chief constables. However, I think that the advice which he has received is the same advice as I have been given by various lawyers which is to the effect that we must write a provision into the Bill. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend can tell the Committee what further consultations he has had on the matter and whether he will be able to solve the problem. I admit that my amendment probably does not solve it correctly. However, I hope that the Committee will accept it in the spirit in which it is moved—an attempt to legalise a practice which is fairly widespread. I beg to move.
Viscount Dilhorne: I entirely support the amendment. My Amendment No. 101 was couched in much the same form. That is why I did not move

1465
it. I should like to add one small comment to the thorough dissertation which my noble friend Lord Kimball has just given us. He said that the amendment would not increase the number of firearms in circulation. I should put the matter differently. An estate rifle will cut down on the necessity for those who stalk infrequently to own rifles.
Viscount Mountgarret: I support the amendment 99 per cent. The remaining 1 per cent. is the area where I am concerned about allowing an employee to lend weapons to whoever he chooses. That is dangerous. I believe that I am right in saying that in law an employer is responsible for the actions of his employee where he performs them as part of his job. Therefore, it must follow that if a keeper or stalker were to allow someone to use a firearm on his employer's property and with his employer's knowledge and consent, that matter would be covered by the law. The amendment as moved by my noble friend Lord Kimball is absolutely essential. However, we must be careful about extending lending permission to employees.
Lord Burton: I agree with my noble friend Lord Mountgarret. I should like my noble friend Lord Ferrers to consider a slight variation as regards the amendment. A situation may arise where someone who is stalking is not very fit, and his stalker may be allowed to carry a rifle but not allowed to use it. If the person wounds a stag it is a matter of humanity that the stalker should be allowed to take the weapon and kill the animal. As the Bill currently stands, he can take the weapon but he cannot use it. I hope that when my noble friend looks at this question he will also look at that point.
Lord John-Mackie: We should like to support this amendment. It is very awkward if one has a guest who says that he would like to have a shot and one asks whether he has a gun licence and he says no. It is on your land and you can see no harm in it. However, I must admit that I once had a guest whom I took out on a shoot and discovered he had never held a gun in his hands before. I was glad when the lesson was over. Nevertheless, I think that it is something that we could safely allow. I hope that the noble Earl will agree to the amendment, with some of the reservations of some of his noble friends sitting behind him.
Lord Swansea: I should like to support the amendment very strongly. It may be that it is not perfect in its drafting. My noble friend on the Front Bench may wish to accept the principle of the amendment and perhaps, let us hope, produce a further amendment at a later stage of the Bill. This is a problem of very long standing. Most of us have been aware for years that the law is often technically broken in this respect. A blind eye is turned to it, but it is high time that the law took cognisance of this point and the matter was put right for good.
Earl Ferrers: I quite see the problem which my noble friend Lord Kimball seeks to resolve with this amendment; but I think that my noble friend Lord
1466
Swansea is quite right that the drafting is not perfect. The amendment would allow the use of someone's gun without a certificate in the kind of circumstances which I think my noble friend Lord Kimball may not have envisaged and might not have wished for. For example, the owner of a full-bore rifle or pistol, even if his certificate restricted his use of the gun to approved ranges, would be able to lend the gun to his friends for target shooting in his front garden. I cannot believe that my noble friend would wish for that.
The amendment would also weaken the proposed club approval system, since any certificate holder would be able to set up a club by lending or hiring out his own firearms. The use of such weapons would not be restricted to ranges with a Ministry of Defence safety certificate, as it is under the club approval system. In other words, an exemption along the lines suggested by my noble friend would be open to substantial abuse.
However, I should like to consider this matter further and see whether we can find a way of resolving my noble friend's problem.
Lord Kimball: In view of that reply and the undertaking from my noble friend that he will give further consideration to the point that a weapon can only be used on land to which the territorial restriction on the firearm certificate applies—which would meet the point that he made about somebody else being allowed to use a gun in his front garden—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Gisborough Lord Gisborough moved Amendment No. 129:
Page 11, line 36, at end insert—
("(2A) In section 26 (3) of that Act for the words "three years" wherever they occur there shall he substituted the words "six years".").
The noble Lord said: At present firearm and shotgun certificates run for some three years. It has long been argued that much money and bureacracy would be saved if their life was extended to six years. That move has been strongly advocated by Government Ministers over the year. Indeed, in 1982, the then Home Secretary said:
"I support the suggestion that the period of validity of shotgun certificates should be extended from three years to six years, coupled with a requirement to notify changes of address, and I welcome this proposal which would relieve the police of an administrative burden, without impairing the effectiveness of the controls".
Again, in 1986, the Minister of State at the Home Office at the time said that the Home Office would consider such a reform in any future major review of the law, indicating that the main obstacle was the lack of plans at that time to amend the Act. Now that we are amending the Act "for the next twenty years" there is no excuse for not implementing that undertaking.
In this Bill it is suggested that only 80 additional staff, mainly civilian, will be required, yet in a Written Answer on 18th January this year, it was admitted after consulting the police that this was a rough assessment. It represents 60 in England and Wales and 20 in Scotland. I believe that that is a gross underestimate.
At present there are fewer than 200,000 firearm certificates. The Bill will increase that number and add further checks to nearly another 1 million holders of shotguns. Using the Home Office's own figures from the working party report of 1984, the Bill will increase police work by 1½ million man-hours. That is estimated to require 220 policemen and 50 more civilians. There are various calculations to support those figures.
The police are concerned about the manpower implications. Kent County Constabulary has already issued a questionnaire with renewal reminders to shotgun certificate holders in an effort to assess the likely increase in their workload when the Bill is enacted. The amendment provides a straightforward means of cutting down on bureaucracy without jeopardising public safety.
There is no reason to suppose that, if someone is given a certificate and judged to be responsible, he will become irresponsible over a six-year period. But should that happen, there is nothing to stop that certificate being taken away. It is quite easy by using computers to keep a check on where people are and, indeed, changes of address of certificate holders would have to be notified. Losses of guns would have to be notified so there should be no reason for having to control them every three years.
The cost of £33—I think that it is £12 for a gun licence—will simply put off many enthusiasts and confine the holding of weapons to those who can afford them. I beg to move.
Lord Swansea: I should like very strongly to support this amendment. Again it covers a point that shooting interests have discussed with the Home Office for a good many years past. I can see no reason why this provision should not be put into effect and work perfectly well. With improvements in computer record-keeping and communications between different police forces, it should be perfectly easy for the police to keep tabs on certificate holders over a period of six instead of three years.
As my noble friend Lord Gisborough said, it would also relieve the police of some of the office work necessary in processing applications for firearm and shotgun certificates. If they were renewable every six years instead of every three years, the workload of the police would be much lighter. The cost to the individual would also be less if the fee for a certificate was spread over a longer period. I strongly support the amendment.
Earl Ferrers: We have provided for the expiry dates of firearm and shotgun certificates to be brought into line so that both can he issued simultaneously thereafter, together with a reduced fee of £5 for the issue of the shotgun certificate. I believe that there is considerable value for both parties in continuing contact between the police and certificate holders. I think that any lengthening of the period of validity of certificates would result in an insufficiently frequent review of the circumstances pertaining at the time of granting or renewing the certificate.
1468
My noble friend Lord Gisborough referred to some comments that had been made previously by Ministers. He is quite correct of course, but we are now responding to a certain lack of confidence in the existing controls and I think that it would be wrong to relax them. Six years is a long time to allow someone to hold a weapon in circumstances which can change drastically. I think that we should be careful, after the events at Hungerford and other recent incidents, that Parliament does not appear in this way to be relaxing controls.
12.45 a.m.
Lord Burton: I think that the enormous amount of extra work that will be involved in the initial stages has not been appreciated, covering as it will 1 million shotgun certificates and a great many more weapons. I was interested to hear my noble friend Lord Gisborough confirm the figures that I gave the other night, which were queried by the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow, and not approved by the Front Bench, I think, in view of the muttering that I noted. The figures given by my noble friend Lord Gisborough of the amount of extra labour required in the initial stages are far in excess of the Home Office estimate.
Lord Gisborough: I am very disappointed. There have been statements from previous, Ministers advocating what is now proposed. Even with the £5 renewal for the gun, the amount involved every three years will he £38 and there will be delay in acquiring the licence. Because of that one incident relating to a firearm held incorrectly, which was the result of poor supervision by the police, a great deal of damage will be done to all those who genuinely have guns and look after them properly.
Only a few Members of the Committee have supported the amendment. I therefore have no option but to beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Peel Earl Peel moved Amendment No. 130:
Page 11, line 49, at end insert—
("After section 50 of the principal Act, insert—
"(50A) Within his area, the chief officer of police shall ensure that the enforcement of this Act is under the control of an officer of police not below the rank of Superintendent who has successfully completed a course of training in matters relating to firearms law approved by the Secretary of State." ").
The noble Earl said: Throughout the course of the Bill, not only in this House but in another place, much reference has been made to the unfortunate incident at Hungerford—and indeed in other places—and much speculation has gone on as to how such an incident could have occurred. Many have suggested that the police on that occasion were not as expedient as they might have been.
The intention of the amendment is to ensure that the firearms law will be carried out as efficiently as possible. In addition to the police having technical knowledge of firearms, I mentioned in the discussion of other amendments the importance that I place on their having a knowledge of field use. This point is recommended in the working party report on the

1469
administration of the 1968 Act. Under the amendment, a course of training in matters relating to firearms and firearms law would be approved by the Secretary of State. This would go a long way to ensure that the provisions of the 1968 Act and indeed of this Bill would be carried out as effectively as possible.
I do not wish to open a can of worms at this late hour. Once we start speaking of Hungerford and other emotive subjects, the discussion could become heated. The main point of the amendment is that, no matter how effective or well-drafted the legislation is, unless the police are able to ensure that it is carried out properly it will not work. On each force there has to be a qualified officer who is a specialist in these matters and who has undertaken a course of training as suggested in the amendment. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: Operational matters, including the deployment of officers and the grading of specific posts, are, quite properly, the responsibility of individual chief police officers who must take account of the priorities in their own areas. Given the cost of retraining senior officers, the chief police officer may wish to appoint as the head of his firearms department a less senior officer who has experience of firearms legislation.
I am not convinced of the need for a special training course in firearms which is to be approved by the Secretary of State. A revised version of the comprehensive Home Office memorandum of guidance to chief police officers on the administration of the Firearms Act is in preparation and will be circulated to all police forces. Special training courses would I believe probably cover the same ground at considerably greater expense. I believe that it is right to leave these matters to the good sense of chief officers.
Earl Peel: I received the answer that I expected from my noble friend. I still make the point that I believe it is very important that there are experts on each force to deal with these matters. I am sure that my noble friend will take that point on board, particularly when the guidance memorandum is circulated. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 21 agreed to.
Clause 22 [Expenses and receipts]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendments Nos. 131 and 132:
Page 12, line 7, after ("14") insert ("or 20").
Page 12, line 8, after ("19") insert ("or 20").
The noble Earl said: Amendments Nos. 131 and 132 are consequential upon Amendment No. 125 which the Committee agreed to earlier. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 23 [Interpretation and supplementary provisions]:
Lord Swansea Lord Swansea moved Amendment No. 133:
Page 12, line 38, at end insert—
1470
("(5A) The power to make rules under section 53 of the principal Act shall be exercisable by statutory instrument and no such rules shall be made unless a draft of them has been laid before and approved by each House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: The present rule-making power of the Home Secretary enables him to make rules without parliamentary approval. Only if someone lays a prayer against a statutory instrument would it ever be debated by Parliament. The Home Secretary will have power to make rules under the Bill, and it is very important that those rules should be right and subject to parliamentary scrutiny. If the amendment is agreed to, it will make those rules subject to affirmative resolution of both Houses so that there shall be no mistake about the rules not coming under proper scrutiny. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: Section 53 of the 1968 Act enables the Secretary of State by statutory instrument to make rules prescribing a number of matters. These include the form of firearm and shotgun certificates—including the general conditions to be attached to them; the form of dealers' registers and other statutory documents and:
"any other thing which under this Act is to be prescribed".
The power is not at present subject to any parliamentary scrutiny; but my noble friend wishes, by means of Amendment No. 133, to apply the affirmative resolution procedure to any statutory instrument made under this clause.
I do not believe that it is necessary or appropriate to do that. The overwhelming bulk of the rules will relate simply to the prescribed form of certificates, permits and application forms. To apply the affirmative resolution procedure to routine administrative matters of this kind, requiring a debate in both Houses of Parliament on any new rules, seems to me an inappropriate use of parliamentary time for this level of matter.
Lord Swansea: My noble friend evidently does not like the amendment. I shall not take up the time of the Committee at this very late hour; but it is a point which we are somewhat concerned about because more and more problems arise from time to time where firearms and shotguns are concerned. We are approaching a state where we have government by decree. I should have thought that Parliament ought to have a say in the rules when they are made; also, although not covered by the amendment, a say on the level of fees charged for a certificate. However, that is another question. I shall not take up the Committee's time and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
Clause 23 agreed to.
Clause 24 agreed to.
Clause 25 [Short title, citation, commencement and extent]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 134:
Page 13, line 23, leave out from ("instrument") to end of line 24 and insert ("and any such order may appoint different days for different provisions or different purposes and contain such transitional

1471
provisions as appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient in connection with any provision brought into force.").
The noble Earl said: Subsection (3) of Clause 25 provides that the provisions of the Bill may be brought into force at different times for different purposes. The purpose of Amendment No. 134 is to enable transitional provision to be made in respect of these provisions where necessary. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 25, as amended, agreed to.
In the Schedule:
Lord Eden of Winton Lord Eden of Winton moved Amendment No. 135:
Page 14, line 26, at end insert ("provided that such conditions shall not require the firearms in question to be altered in any way from their original form.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the amendment standing in my name on the Marshalled List. It proposes that certain words be added to paragraph 1(4) of the schedule. The schedule deals with museum firearms licences. The museums to which the schedule applies are listed in paragraph 5. They include the Imperial War Museum and a number of distinguished service museums and service-related museums. They also include the armouries, known as the Royal Armouries, of which I have the honour to be chairman of the board of trustees.
Paragraph 1(4) defines the circumstances in which the licence to be granted to the museum shall be issued and provides for the possibility of conditions to be specified by the Secretary of State. The preceding sub-paragraph refers to the fact that the Secretary of State shall not grant a licence unless he is satisfied that the arrangements for exhibiting and keeping the firearms and ammunition in question are such as not to endanger public safety or the peace.
I know that there have been debates on these matters in another place as a result of which the wording in sub-paragraph (4) was changed. The Minister in the other place introduced the words which are now at the end of that sub-paragraph—
"for securing the safe custody of the firearms and ammunition in question"—
in order to meet concerns expressed on behalf of museums. As has already been mentioned during the course of earlier proceedings in this Chamber, owing to the fact that a timetable Motion applied, the matter was not properly debated in the other place. Since it is not wholly clear that the point of concern is fully met I have tabled this amendment in the hope that the reply from the Minister will give complete satisfaction on the points which have worried the museums.
The points are these. The firearms and ammunition in the collection of these museums are of artistic, historic and scientific interest. Many are the subject of international study and research. Their value as such would be badly affected if there were any requirement that they be altered or changed in any way. I ask my noble friend to make it absolutely clear that the words,
"for securing the safe custody of the firearms and ammunition"
ensure that there will be no question of the museums
1472
being required to alter them in any way. I press the point because the Bill says that the Secretary of State has to be satisfied with the arrangements for exhibiting them as well as keeping them.
I understand that the reference to "the safe custody" is to their housing, care and guardianship and to the general environment in which they are kept. However, I should like to be certain that those words also cover the state in which the weapons concerned are kept.
I should also add, although I accept it is not covered in my amendment that it needs to be borne in mind, certainly in the case of the Royal Armouries, that there is a very substantial collection of sporting weapons. These weapons are not solely of an historic nature. We are adding to the collection and making sure that it is maintained up to date. Therefore, there are shotguns of recent origin in the collection. Indeed, the board of trustees of the Royal Armouries very recently commissioned a most superbly made shotgun which is now on exhibition in the White Tower in the Tower of London. These are points which need to be borne in mind.
I ask my noble friend to confirm that the reference to the firearms licence to be granted—and indeed the title of the schedule refers to museum firearms licences—also embraces shotguns. I suspect that it does and I am sure that that is the intention but I should like the Minister to answer that so that I could have complete clarification. Can the Minister assure the Committee that the museums will be able to maintain their collection of these weapons, be they shotguns or firearms, and the ammunition related to them or other forms of ammunition and, indeed, in our case other weapons which comprise the collection in such a manner as they will not be required to be altered in any way at all. With that, I hope my noble friend will be able to give me the assurances which I seek.
1 a.m.
Earl Ferrers: My noble friend Lord Eden of Winton is a stalwart to have stayed this length of time in order to move his only amendment to the Bill and I hope that I can give him the satisfaction which he seeks.
Concern was expressed in another place at the original wording of the relevant paragraph because it could be interpreted to empower the Secretary of State to attach conditions requiring the physical alteration or deactivation of firearms which are held as exhibits.
It has never been the Government's intention to use this power in that way. In recognising that such alterations might conflict directly with the statutory duties of certain museums to preserve and keep exhibits in their original form, my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State tabled an amendment in another place to ensure that such conditions relate solely to the custody of firearms and ammunition. I am bound to tell my noble friend that "firearms" includes shotguns. That, proposal supported, and paragraph 1(4) which grants the power to attach conditions to the licence now clearly relates to conditions which affect safe custody. That

1473
means conditions concerning suitable display or storage arrangements such as cabinets, locks, alarms and the like, but not the physical condition of the exhibits themselves. I hope that my noble friend will find that to be the reassurance that he seeks.
Lord Eden of Winton: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. With that assurance from him I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Burton Lord Burton moved Amendment No. 136:
Page 16, line 33, at end insert—
("Any private collection which is open to public inspection which includes or is to include firearms.").
The noble Lord said: I take some encouragement from my noble friend's reply to the previous amendment. Will some consideration be given to the many private collections of weapons, often of considerable historic and artistic value? I had hoped for some information on how great would be the mutilation of weapons to de-activate them. I asked for that on Monday and my noble friend may not yet be able to give me that information. If not, perhaps he will write to me.
There is considerable concern about what will happen to these historic weapons which are often of considerable national interest. It would be wicked vandalism if they have to be destroyed.
Lord Eden of Winton: I support the intention of the amendment. As the Minister will know, museums are now being strongly encouraged to ensure that as much as possible of their collections is on view to the public. With that in mind, they are being encouraged to make loans of parts of their collections. Some of those loans may well find their way to houses owned by institutions or even by private individuals which are open to the public. Some of those weapons therefore may be on display in places other than the actual premises of the museum. In so far as they satisfy the requirements of safe custody and guardianship, I hope that they meet the requirements of this schedule. Perhaps the Minister can give an assurance on that point.
Lord Swansea: There is one question that I wish to put to my noble friend. He may not be able to give an immediate answer. I refer to what I believe to be the finest collection of modern weapons in the country—the Pattern Room at the Royal Ordnance Factory, Enfield Dock, which is not specifically mentioned in the schedule to the Bill. It is a highly important collection, especially to students of design of military firearms.
Possibly that collection is the responsibility of the Ministry of Defence, but I am not sure of its position as the ROF has been privatised. Can my noble friend give the Committee some information on that collection?
Earl Ferrers: The schedule is intended to regularise the position of those major national museums whose status was affected by the National Heritage Act which was enacted in 1983. We have taken the view
1474
that it would be impracticable for museums which house large firearms collections to comply with the normal certification requirements of the 1968 Act. The schedule therefore provides for those museums to apply for a single museum firearms licence.
We do not believe it is right to extend this measure to those private museums whose position, let us remember, has not changed. Private museums generally have smaller collections and it is likely to be just as convenient for them to obtain a firearms certificate as at present. It would also be difficult to distinguish between genuine private museums, and keen private collectors who may wish to avoid the usual controls.
As regards the question from my noble friend Lord Swansea concerning the Royal Ordnance factory, I will find out about it and write to him. My noble friend Lord Burton asked me about de-activation. Weapons of any category, if de-activated in accordance with Clause 8, may be held by a private individual without a certificate. A mark on the gun made by one of the proof houses will be regarded as evidence that the gun has been properly de-activated. The precise work that is needed to be done in order to de-activate a gun will depend upon its type and design. The detailed guidance on the standards of de-activation will be drawn up in consultation with the Home Office forensic science service, the gun trade and other shooting interests.
We are aware of the need to keep to the absolute minimum the alterations that are done to potentially valuable guns, consistent, nevertheless, with the need for irreversible de-activation in order to ensure public safety.
Lord Burton: I hope that we shall get the details of the de-activation before too long, and certainly before the Report stage. The other point that was raised was whether these weapons would be allowed to stay on firearms certificates. There was a case very recently when the judge upheld the police case and a man was restricted to merely six weapons. I hope that this will not be the case as regards antique weapons. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Education Reform Bill
Returned from the Commons with certain amendments agreed to; with certain other amendments agreed to with amendments; and with the remaining amendments disagreed to, but with amendments proposed in lieu thereafter and amendments to the words so restored to the Bill; the Commons amendments ordered to be printed.
House adjourned at thirteen minutes past one o'clock.