Firearms (Amendment) Bill

HL Deb 20 July 1988 vol 499 cc1395-474

8.4 p.m.

House again in Committee.

Clause 15 [Visitors' permits]:

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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—

1. (a) his present permanent address and whether it has changed in the preceding five years and if so stating the previous address;
2. (b) his passport number (or where appropriate his identity card) stating the date and place of its issue;
3. (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 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:

1. "(a) his present permanent address and whether it has changed in the preceding five years and if so stating the previous address;
2. (b) his passport number (or where appropriate his identity card) stating the date and place of its issue;
3. (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 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. 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 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 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 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 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 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.

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 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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. 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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—

1. (a) that person has not been in Great Britain for more than thirty days in the preceding 12 months; and
2. (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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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—

1. (a) the transport is approved by the chief officers of police on both sides of the Irish Sea, and
2. (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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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. 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: 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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—

1. (a) the possession, use or keeping of, or transactions in firearms;
2. (b) weapon technology; and
3. (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 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 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 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, 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 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,

1. (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
2. (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 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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 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—

1. (a) security and safekeeping of firearms;
2. (b) the proper use of firearms; and
3. (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—

1. (a) if he approves it, lay it before both Houses of Parliament; and
2. (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 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—

1. (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—

1. (a) if he approves of it, lay it before both Houes of Parliament; and
2. (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 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 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 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 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 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 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—

1. (a) in the sidenote to section 44 leave out "Appeals from Police decisions under Part II" and insert "Appeals";
2. (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 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 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 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 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 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 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.

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 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 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 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 moved Amendment No. 133: Page 12, line 38, at end insert— ("(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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.