Lords Sitting of 19 October 1988

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

Air Transport: EC Ministers' Council
Baroness Burton of Coventry Baroness Burton of Coventry asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will make a Statement on the air matters discussed and progress made at the informal meeting of EC Transport Ministers on 29th and 30th September; and whether they can confirm that the next meeting of the Transport Ministers' Council is on 26th October and will indicate the main air matters on the agenda.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, the presidency reported on progress towards revision of the inter-regional air services directive and the Commission announced its intention to table the proposal on air traffic control at the next meeting of the transport council which is scheduled for 26th October. Air transport is due to be taken at that meeting as an item of any other business.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, does the Minister feel that he could give the House any detail on progress made towards the revision of the interregional air services directive? Secondly, as chairman of the Permanent Commission of Eurocontrol, does he believe that the commission is making a firm and definite contribution towards the co-ordination of air traffic in Europe? Finally, does he feel that some countries are not being as helpful as they might be in that respect, seeming to believe that nationalism is more important than co-operation?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, on the first question, the commission's proposal is for an amendment to the 1983 directive on the regional air services agreement. It would remove the 70-seat and 30-tonne weight limit; it would remove the 300 kilometre minimum route length; and it would remove the protection for existing direct and parallel services and would permit fifth freedoms. It is hoped that this will be put to the Council of Ministers at the December meeting and we must hope that progress can be made on it. It is of course only an interim measure before the second stage of the entire package comes into force in 1990.
On Eurocontrol matters, I believe that there is a new sense of urgency among colleagues in Europe that this problem needs to be tackled. I was encouraged by the reception of the proposals which we put forward in the July meeting. I am encouraged by the fact that the ECAC meeting tomorrow of Transport Ministers will be devoted solely to the subject of air traffic control. But I shall look forward
1118
to seeing what comes forward at the Eurocontrol meeting in November as to what can be done to improve the situation.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, the Minister will be aware that there was also a report that IATA would he meeting NATO to discuss air space use by the military forces. is the Minister aware that Sir Colin Marshall said that in America something like 3 per cent. extra flying was required because of military flying, whereas in Europe it is about 12 per cent. additional flying miles? Can the Minister say whether this meeting was actually held and, if so, what the result was?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot precisely answer the noble Lord's question. I am well aware that military air space is very much in the minds of European authorities. In this country we are fortunate that we have a joint military-civil operation in national air traffic services. I do not believe that there is much of a problem in this country. If there is, it is kept continually under review and concessions have been made and will continue to be made by the military. In Europe there are problem areas which should be tackled, particularly in Germany. I hope that the various meetings which take place will result in something.

Nuclear Power: Policy
2.42 p.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra asked Her Majesty's Government:
How they propose to accommodate the costs of nuclear power within their plans for privatising the electricity industry.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, we are looking at a wide range of options on how best to ensure a continuing supply of nuclear power. The Government believe that there should be a significant nuclear component within the privatised electricity supply industry.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, does the noble Earl not agree that there is some concern among consumers at a possible increase in prices of electricity that might result from a fixed component of nuclear energy in the privatised sector? Will he not agree that if that is so, it is unfair to burden the consumer with the extra cost based on national policy and that if there is any extra cost that should be borne by the Exchequer generally and not by consumers of electricity?
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, a range of options is certainly being considered to ensure that the new company will have an incentive to seek value for money in its nuclear capacity.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, when considering these costs, will the Government take into account that the nuclear industry is guiltless as regards the greenhouse effect and the ozone layer, while the coal industry—which was presided over with distinction by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, who yesterday at Question Time was much concerned

1119
about the environment—causes serious damage to the atmosphere unless expensive extractive equipment is installed?
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend's remarks.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, if the Minister agrees with his noble friend does he also agree that, even if nuclear power stations do not emit sulphur, they accumulate large amounts of toxic wastes which are at least as dangerous as the greenhouse effect, and that so far this Government have had no sustained policy for disposing of those?
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I cannot accept that the Government have not had a policy for controlling toxic wastes which may arise from nuclear power installations. As regards the future and privatisation, every continuing consideration will be given to make sure that this matter is tackled in the right way.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the relatively small amount of nuclear and radiological waste from our power stations does not present any technological problem and that it is merely a question of finding the right sites and convincing the public that there is no problem?
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, yes; I agree with the noble Viscount.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, will the Minister tell us where the sites are?
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, not without notice.
Lord Peston: My Lords, apropos the Question on the Order Paper, can the Minister clarify the problem? If nuclear power is economic, why must it be protected by statute? If it is not economic, why are the Government interfering with market forces?
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, too great a reliance on fossil fuels would expose us to interruptions in supply and future price shocks. There is a vital strategic need for a non-fossil fuel contribution which can be made for the foreseeable future only by nuclear power.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, after privatisation, in the event of a serious nuclear accident—which heaven forfend—will there be some kind of insurance that private companies will meet the cost, which seems impossible? If the Government are to ensure and give an indemnity against the costs of any such accident, what will be the add-on to the consumer?
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, in that very unlikely event the costs will be met in exactly the same way as they are now. The new company will be covered by the same nuclear insurance provisions as the CEGB currently enjoys.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, will the Minister remind the House of the relative costs? What are the relative costs of producing electricity by nuclear means and by other means such as coal and oil?
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I do not have the answer to that question. However, as I have already indicated, the relevance of continuing with nuclear power is not entirely economic. There are strategic considerations of having diversified fuels. Apart from that point, it is not necessarily the case at all that nuclear power is uneconomic.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, in the light of the problems arising from burning fossil fuels and of the possible dangers from nuclear plants—including explosions and the difficulties of disposing of long-term radioactive waste—would the Government not be better employed in ensuring that their policies work towards renewable sources of energy and energy conservation?
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, the industry's safety record is second to none. There will be no question of privatisation resulting in a reduction in safety standards. As regards the relevance of encouraging non-fossil fuels other than nuclear, the matter is continually being given active consideration and pursuit.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, while we are waiting for the next generation of nuclear power stations will we be able to continue to draw nuclear power from France at economic prices? Is that a long-term contract which will carry on for some time?
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, yes. There will be no restrictions on the possibility of importing nuclear power from abroad.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I refer to my noble friend's original Question. I understand that the Minister was unable to answer my earlier question and may need a thousand years to find the answer. Can he say whether the costs of decommissioning are being taken into account in the costing of nuclear power for privatisation?
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, privatisation will not affect the basic responsibility of nuclear power station operators to undertake appropriate decommissioning operations within the guidelines on safety and environmental protection set by the regulators. The Government are looking at all options to ensure that the nuclear industry thrives after privatisation.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether anyone knows how to decommission a Magnox reactor?
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, all things are possible, and I believe we can agree that technology in the field is becoming better.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, as we have now taken more than half the normal time for

1121
Questions on this first Question, is it not time that we moved on to the next Question?
Noble Lords: Second Question!
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, can the Minister explain to the House who, so far, has shown an interest in purchasing a Magnox or AGR nuclear reactor, and whether he is optimistic about a sell-off?
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, with respect, I think that is a little wide of the Question.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister—
Noble Lords: Order!
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, with respect, I believe that my noble friend Lord Nugent had a good point. Perhaps we can return to this subject on another day.

Respite Care: Income Support Policy
2.50 p.m.
The Countess of Mar The Countess of Mar asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy on social security income support for short-stay respite care in hostels.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Skelmersdale): My Lords, the Government's policy is to make income support available to eligible individuals entering accommodation for respite care. Where this accommodation is a hostel they are entitled to help towards the charge plus meals up to a limit of £70 or £87.50 if they are elderly or disabled.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply. Perhaps he will forgive me if I am wrong in assuming that the introduction of income support in replacement for social security benefits was supposed to make the system simpler to operate? Can he explain why there are more than 120 different ways of calculating income support for people going into respite care? Can he give some hope to these people, who already suffer terrible hardship and complexity in their lives, that there will be some changes in the rules regarding benefit weeks and the days on which they are paid for their hostel charges?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the noble Countess is quite right. The change of circumstance rules governing the rate of payment in each benefit week have been simplified in the changeover from supplementary benefit to income support in line with the general approach to the new income support scheme. The noble Countess very kindly tipped me off about 120 different ways of paying those benefits. I have had them investigated and I cannot see that it is possible either under the new or the old system for there to be 120 different ways. However, there are different rules for calculating the weekly amount of
1122
benefit for those in registered homes and those in hostels or lodgings, of which the latter are the subject of the noble Countess's Question. If she is aware of any other difficulties of specific cases, I shall of course have them looked into.
Lord Carter: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the situation is that if a disabled person is in receipt of income support and he goes into respite care and his benefit pay day is a Monday, if he goes in on a Sunday and comes out on a Tuesday he will receive a full week's benefit; but if he goes in on a Tuesday and comes out on a Sunday—in other words, if he is not in on his benefit day—he will not receive any benefit at all? Does that not convert the whole system into a lottery?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, no, I do not believe it does, because if a person is in respite care for a very short period he will be eligible for all the social security benefits which he was receiving while at home. As regards the weekly payments either in arrears or in advance, I believe that it is all a question of swings and roundabouts. Some people will benefit from the new rules if they are paid in arrears and are in a hostel for only the last day of their benefit week because they will receive benefit at the hostel rate for the whole week. Therefore, there are rather more gainers than losers in all this.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is the noble Lord suggesting that such people are on a swing or a roundabout? Which does he advise?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, unfortunately the rules and the administration prevent an individual applicant from deciding whether to be on a swing or a roundabout.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, can the Minister tell us whether he is taking any steps to inform the exhausted carers of disabled and chronically ill people of the complications to which he has referred? Is it not a fact that many of them find it very difficult to understand their rights in these matters? Can he also tell us whether it is the case that children who go into respite care do not receive benefit unless they go into a local authority hostel and that they lose that benefit if they go into a voluntary organisation for care? Surely if that is the case it does not seem reasonable or fair.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, in partial answer I should say that the local officers in the social security benefit offices have been very well trained. I know that the noble Countess has said that there are some glaring alternatives to this particular statement and she will presumably be letting me know where she knows of such glaring errors.
As regards children, I repeat that anybody eligible for social security benefits in their own homes will continue to take them when they go into respite care.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, does the noble Lord appreciate that the roundabouts and swings happen to concern individual people and that

1123
payments can vary by up to £50 a week? When one is on one's beam ends £50 a week is a lot of money. Does he agree that in the days of supplementary benefit, payment could be on a daily basis? Perhaps I may ask him whether he would look into altering the payment of income support for people in hostels back to a daily basis, as that would simplify matters both for the social security offices and the people concerned.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I shall most certainly look at the matter but my current advice is that to put people who are to go into board and lodgings and hostels on to a daily basis would, far from simplifying matters, make them a lot more complicated. I repeat what I said about the difference between hostel and board and lodging arrangements and the residential care and nursing homes arrangements, which are quite different.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, has the noble Lord seen the figures made public today which show that one-third of all the children in Britain are living in poverty? Why do the Government persist in erecting these complicated bureaucratic barriers against channelling resources to that grossly underprivileged section of our community?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I have indeed seen the reports in the newspapers today of the CPAG's report but I should advise the noble Lord that that is rather a different question from the one on the Order Paper.
Lord Banks: My Lords, can the noble Lord say what kind of response the Government have had to the consultative document on hostel charges and when they expect to produce proposals based upon their reflections on the response?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, not surprisingly we have had a large number of responses and we intend to make a decision on the consultative paper known shortly.

Water Supplies: Nitrate Content
2.57 p.m.
Viscount Hanworth Viscount Hanworth asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they propose to take to prevent nitrates in public water supplies from exceeding the EC limit.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, we are looking at the whole problem of nitrate in drinking water supplies and we hope to make a Statement shortly. In the meantime we have asked water undertakers to prepare programmes which will achieve compliance with the nitrate parameter of the EC Drinking Water Directive as soon as practicable. These programmes have been received and are now being studied.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that reply. Am I correct in thinking that the
1124
EC limits were imposed not on health grounds but to avoid turbidity in the water supply? Is it also true that there may be some danger to small babies and very young children from excessive nitrates in the water? Can he also say whether the same problems are being experienced by other countries in Europe in finding that their water supplies are not meeting the requirements?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, perhaps I may take the last part of the noble Viscount's question first. In terms of geography, I understand that there are greater nitrate levels in some European countries, notably in France and Germany. As regards the safety level, particularly for babies, I assure the noble Viscount that nitrate levels in public supplies are quite safe. No connection with, for example, stomach cancer, has been substantiated; nor has there been a case of blue babies for the last 15 years.
To return to the first part of the noble Lord's question concerning the turbidity, I repeat that all public supplies are safe to drink. However, water undertakers are committed to improving the colour, odour and appearance of drinking water in areas where it is necessary. It is not a widespread problem and does not constitute a health risk. Your Lordships may be assured that, where necessary, steps are being taken by water undertakers to bring the supplies up to the standards required.
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, does not my noble friend agree that the EC limit was set far too high, that it is unrealistic, and that in many areas in this country it will be completely unattainable? Is my noble friend also aware that there is a large body of opinion in this country which is disappointed that the limit was agreed to at Brussels by our Government?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the level of nitrate content in the water was set by the World Health Organisation in 1970. The EC recommended nitrate level in drinking water is 50 milligrams of nitrate per litre. It was originally 80 milligrams but has since been reduced.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, can the Minister say when the Government intend to publish the Halcrow Report? Will he confirm that that report indicates that the present monitoring programme for ground water is seriously inadequate? Does the noble Earl agree that there is an urgent need to introduce water protection zones—we have asked about this on many occasions—especially in high-risk areas and while any proposed trial treatments are being contemplated?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, water protection zones as an option are under consideration at the moment by Her Majesty's Government. I can tell the noble Baroness that a group of government officials, assisted by the water industry, has undertaken research study into alternative ways and the cost of solving the nitrate problem in different locations, including the use of denitrification processes and protection zones. The report is nearing completion.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, can the Minister answer my question about the Halcrow Report, which is already in his hands?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I understand that the report is still being considered.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, can my noble friend reassure the House that the expression "water undertakers" that he has continually used has no conection with the providers of funeral services?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I am more than happy to oblige my noble friend.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, is it not true that the excess of nitrates is due to the excessive use of nitrogenous fertilisers in farming, encouraged by the EC subsidies for grain production? We have not only grain mountains but polluted rivers too. Would it not help if the Government encouraged farmers to return to the rotation of crops and the use of good old-fashioned muck—farmyard manure—instead of sacks of fertiliser?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, there are many reasons for excessive nitrate content in drinking water. The use of fertilisers is one of them but the type of soil and the location in the country are also relevant.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the Government support of the "polluter pays" principle holds good for water? It is unfair that those who are polluted against should have to foot the Bill.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, with respect, that is somewhat muddying the issue.

Business
3.3 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lord Ferrers will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement which is being made in another place on broadcasting and terrorism.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House whether the Government propose to make a Statement following the judgment of this House in the Spycatcher case.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government do not now propose to make a Statement about that judgment. It is being studied and considered with care and my right honourable friend the Home Secretary made a Statement to that effect on the same day as the judgment. Copies of my right honourable friend's Statement have been placed in the Library of your Lordships' House.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, does not the noble Lord agree that in addition to the major issues raised in this important judgment itself, there have since been a number of articles, especially in the weekend press—notably an article by Mr. David Leigh in the Observer—which appear to make a prima facie case that there was a conspiracy to undermine a government in this country? If that is so, there is a further clear case for an inquiry of some kind.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am always ready to reply to a question put to me by the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition. However, if the noble Lord wishes to raise specific issues they ought to be raised through the normal procedures which are open to us all.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for responding to my questions, but I shall be extremely glad if he will confirm to the House that he will convey my remarks to his right honourable friend the Prime Minister.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I shall certainly draw the attention of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister to this exchange.

Firearms (Amendment) Bill
3.6 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Prohibited weapons and ammunition]:
Lord Swansea Lord Swansea moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 16, leave out ("or pump action").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I first declare an interest as a life-long shooter and chairman of the British Shooting Sports Council, which co-ordinates the views of shooting interests throughout the country. I hope it will not be necessary for me to repeat my interest every time I rise to my feet.
I spoke on this subject in Committee and I should like to bring it to your Lordships' notice again because it is illogical that rifles and firearms of this class should be lumped in with self-loading rifles, which the Bill seeks to prohibit. A pump-action rifle is entirely different. Just as any bolt-action or lever-action rifle is manually operated, so also is a pump-action rifle. Some are capable of being operated faster than some bolt-actions but that is no reason, in itself, to prohibit them.
I hope that your Lordships will consider this point carefully because there are a number of such rifles in use. Generally they do not have a large magazine capacity. The magazine capacity aspect was dealt with at some length at various stages of the Bill's progress through the other place and in this Chamber. In my submission it is illogical that rifles of this description should be lumped in with self-loading and other fast-firing weapons. I beg to move.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, your Lordships will recall that the whole purpose of this Bill is to get the most lethal weapons out of circulation. My noble friend Lord Swansea has argued that full-bore pump-action rifles should be exempted from the prohibited category because they do not have the same level of lethality as self-loading rifles.
We discussed this point at some considerable length in Committee. What it boils down to is that my noble friend is saying that a pump-action rifle cannot be fired as quickly and as effectively as a self-loading rifle and is therefore less lethal. I do not agree. The advice I have from the Forensic Science Service—which is, after all, expert on such matters and is called in to give evidence in the courts—is that there is very little to choose between pump-action and self-loading rifles in the hands of an experienced shooter. I am sure that my noble friend will agree that both self-loading and pump-action rifles have a significantly higher rate of fire than bolt-action rifles. That is what we are primarily concerned with.
Pump-action rifles are not commonly used for sporting and competition purposes in this country, and that might explain why they are so rare here. We can be quite sure of one thing; namely, that were my noble friend's amendment to find favour with your Lordships, pump-action rifles would become much more common than they are at present. They would be imported to take the place of self-loading rifles and I cannot believe that that is something that your Lordships would wish to see. That is why I cannot advise your Lordships to accept the amendment.
Lord Swansea: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his reply. This is one matter upon which I must beg to differ from him. He mentioned the question of lethality. It is very hard to see whether rifle A is more lethal than rifle B. Both are equally lethal, and I do not believe there is any such thing as degrees of lethality. Perhaps my noble friend can give me an example of something which is only slightly lethal.
Of course the pump-action rifle can be operated faster than some bolt-action rifles, but in skilled hands there are bolt-action or lever-operated rifles that can be operated almost as fast. Another point I wish to make about pump-action rifles is that they can be operated with equal facility by left-handed shooters as well as by right-handed ones. However, this amendment is not going to succeed and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Portsmouth The Earl of Portsmouth moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 17, at end insert ("except as provided by section [disabled persons]").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I am also speaking to Amendment No. 7. The purpose of the amendments is to allow disabled rifle shooters who, because of the nature of their disability, cannot shoot with a full bore bolt-action rifle, to continue with their sport. Noble Lords who took part during the Committee stage of this Bill will recall that my noble friend Lord Wynford moved
1128
an amendment with a similar aim but the Committee felt unable to agree to it despite the considerable degree of sympathy which was expressed on all sides of the Committee.
In his speech my noble friend gave some examples of disabled shooters who will be affected by the Bill as it stands. They range from ex-servicemen, one of whom was disabled as a result of being wounded in action, to an arthritis sufferer and a man suffering from polyneuritis. I know of a keen rifle shot whose shoulder has been dislocated in an accident and who has had to switch to a self-loading rifle as his shoulder has been put out of joint by the recoil of a bolt-action rifle.
To allay the anxieties of your Lordships and of the Government, my amendments leave the decision to the discretion of the police. The burden of the proof of need is upon the applicant who may well be required to produce supporting evidence in the form of a doctor's opinion or a medical certificate in addition to having to fulfil all the normal requirements pertaining to the grant of a firearms' certificate. I stress that this concession would be exclusive to the disabled shooter. Therefore, there is no question that acceptance of these amendments would open the floodgates to all those who wish to own self-loading rifles.
I also draw the attention of noble Lords to the type of rifle which is specified in the amendment. This firearm is hardly in the same league as the Kalashnikov which was used by Michael Ryan in the Hungerford massacre. Unlike that rifle with its large and detachable magazine, it is incapable of holding more than four cartridges. My noble friend Lord Ferrers,with the support of some noble Lords, has made much of the lethality of the self-loading rifle and has said that this was the prime factor in the decision to ban it. I remind both my noble friend and the House that at the same time the Government have seen fit to leave in Section 1 full bore bolt-action rifles with unlimited magazine capacity together with self-loading pistols.
I am not advocating banning these weapons in any way and that is not the subject under discussion here. I refer to them in order to illustrate my point. There are many firearms experts who agree that a bolt-action rifle with a large magazine has a greater fire power than a self-loading rifle with a magazine which is restricted to four shots only. Self-loading pistols are just as lethal as self-loading rifles particularly at close range and, as the evidence shows, they are used far more often for committing crime.
There are some noble Lords whose minds are virtually closed on the issue of the self-loading rifle. I appeal to them to look afresh at this amendment. We are here dealing with people who do not have the option of changing to a bolt-action rifle. Either they are allowed a self-loading rifle or they will be forced to give up shooting. My noble friend Lord Ferrers said at the Committee stage that the Government had looked at the legitimate use of weapons such as the self-loading rifle. If he can find a legitimate reason for self-loading pistols to remain available in Clause 1 then surely he will agree that disabled shooters have a legitimate reason for being allowed to own self-

1129
loading rifles with this very limited magazine capacity.
I hope that I can prevail upon my noble friend to look at the matter again. I hardly think that this measure, directed as it is to a very small number of people, can be said to be endangering the public any more than it amounts to wrecking the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene in order to let the Minister know how we on these Benches feel regarding this amendment and any which follows a similar line. At the Committee stage the noble Earl was asked by several Members of the Committee whether something could be done for the disabled. The indication was that the Minister would think about that problem, realising as he did the hardship that might be imposed upon those who were disabled without the public being endangered in any way.
In the course of his reply to this and any similar amendment, I wonder whether the noble Earl can give an indication of the Government's thinking on this matter and whether he has anything constructive to offer. I am not in any way trying to weaken the strength of this amendment, but it may well be that if we have a frank statement made before the House as to what the Government are doing for the disabled we and those who are moving amendments might be able to support them. However, if nothing is being thought of to help the disabled, then possibly we may have to take another line. In this sense, can the noble Earl help the House?
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I should like to say a word in opposition to the amendment. It involves an important derogation from the fundamental principle of the Bill that the SLR is far too dangerous a weapon to be held by private individuals whose homes and motor-cars may well be broken into and the SLR sold by the thief to an armed robber. It raises the question of derogation from principle as indeed is proposed in other amendments such as Amendment No. 3 which is grouped with Amendment No. 8.
Amendment No. 2 seeks to impose upon the chief officer of police a mandatory statutory duty, enforceable in the courts of law by judicial review, to issue certificates for SLRs with a four-shot capacity magazine to persons with disability who cannot use any other firearm. Certain questions arise. First, what is the nature of this rare disability? I ask this question with respect and sympathy. As your Lordships know, on many occasions in the House I have spoken in favour of facilities for the disabled, so I speak not without sympathy. I ask an objective question. What is the nature of this rare disability?
Secondly, how is this to be established? Many medical practitioners would not be competent to advise in any categoric terms. Thirdly, if there is to be a medical certificate, is it to be conclusive to satisfy the chief officer? Ought it to be conclusive? Fourthly, how does one control the changing of the magazine by sophisticated armed robbers with access to workshops and perhaps bent gunsmiths? Fifthly,
1130
how many of these SLRs with a four-shot capacity are available? Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, why is there to be a statutory mandatory duty enforceable in the courts?
Of course it is accepted that in a few cases this type of disability would be established—perhaps where recoil is an important and relevant consideration or perhaps where a person has only one arm. But surely one has to balance this limited and restricted personal private hardship against the greater public interest which demands that SLRs are too dangerous to be held by private individuals lest they should find their way by theft into the wrong hands.
One must seek to retain a sense of perspective. I beg leave to point out that no derogation from this fundamental principle is involved in enlarging the scope of Amendment No. 21 to include a young member of the occupier's family under bona fide instruction, which is a matter of interest to my noble friend Lord Mountgarret. Indeed there is no derogation from this principle in Amendments Nos. 32 and 33 which deal with expired certificates of members of Her Majesty's Forces and Crown servants serving abroad. Those are matters which my noble friend the Minister may consider on their merits in due course; as to the merits of this amendment, I hope that your Lordships will not accept it.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I should like to emphasise the fact that the number of cases in which a disabled person genuinely could not use a bolt-action rifle would be very small, and thus that the risk of self-loading rifles falling into the wrong hands would also be very small.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I should disclose that I am a patron of the Greater London Association for the Disabled, and, like my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, I try on occasions in your Lordships' House to speak up for the disabled. However, I am not in favour of the amendment for various reasons, some of which my noble friend has expressed. There is a fundamental defect in the amendment. It would appear to apply to any kind of disability. The rather vague words of limitation upon the discretion of the chief officer of police do not resolve that problem.
We should bear in mind that there are so many different kinds of disability. Only the very rare one could possibly justify this proposal. If the amendment were accepted, disabled people could use such rifles for sporting purposes while people who were not disabled, perhaps alongside them or on the same occasion, would be prohibited from using the same lethal weapons. We should if possible avoid that. It should be avoided on this occasion because I do not feel that the case has been made out.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I should like to speak against the amendment. I have always supported the needs of the disabled. If one permits the use of a self-loading rifle with a magazine that will hold only four rounds, will not a larger magazine that can carry eight or 16 rounds be available? If that were the case, this would not he a very good amendment.

1131
The Government are banning self-loading rifles because of the danger that if they were to get into the wrong hands—into the hands of a psychopath—they could cause the most terrible injury. Is it not possible that such a weapon could get into the hands of a disabled person who was also mentally unstable? Such a person could have a lethal self-loading rifle whereas people who were not disabled in any way would not be allowed to have such a weapon. This is a bad amendment and I oppose it.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I too feel grave anxiety about this amendment. In spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said, I thought there was a general feeling in the House that self-loading rifles were themselves so dangerous that there ought not to be any kind of mandatory obligation on the chief officer of police, even that of the restricted kind suggested in the amendment, compelling him to issue a certificate to enable a person to have a self-loading rifle. That is how I understood it. It is the rifle which is sought to be prohibited, not the person. The provision is not aimed at people. It is aimed at a particular kind of weapon. The danger is not simply that a small number of people might misuse the article. It is that the article should not be available to anybody.
I am obviously disabled. I need not emphasise the point because anyone can see the two sticks in my hands. I hope therefore that I may be excused from any suggestion that I am against disabled people or against special privileges for them. The more I think about the amendment the more I think it is flawed in its conception. Its authors have overlooked the fact that it is the weapon itself, in the wrong hands, that is the source of danger rather than the kind of person who may have the certificate to use it.
Moreover, the amendment leads us into an almost incredible degree of absurdity because it says that before one can take advantage of the amendment one must be disabled to the extent that one cannot use any kind of authorisable weapon. In other words, one cannot even use a little pistol. One has to be as disabled as that. Then, when one can take advantage of the amendment the only advantage one gets is that one will have something one may not want; namely, a self-loading rifle. If one cannot even use the pistol one can get the advantage provided by the amendment, but the only sort of weapon one is then allowed to have, as of right, is a self-loading rifle. That seems to me to be an absurd assertion. I hope therefore that my noble friend on the Front Bench will examine the matter with great care before accepting it.
3.30 p.m.
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, I should briefly like to speak against the amendment for the reason which has already been so plainly brought out: that the type of weapon under discussion should not really, even to a small degree, be in anyone's hands in this country.
However, I should like to say a word or two about the disabled people who might be concerned and disappointed. Like many other noble Lords, I have always tried to support disabled people in the House.
1132
Indeed, I remember well a debate which took place many years ago, which I think was instigated by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, during the Year of the Disabled. During that debate, the noble Duke, the Duke of Buccleuch, made a speech in which he made the strong point that you cannot do everything for the disabled. I think that that is a truism in life; you cannot provide for them all the way down the line. For instance, he cited as an example adapting public transport, and other such matters.
Therefore I sincerely believe that, for the greater good, the very few people who have been mentioned who will be unable to use the bolt on a rifle and who need a four-shot automatic rifle of some sort must, like many of us, turn away from that pastime and sport. They must shrug their shoulders and go off and do other things which they are probably far better equipped to do, if they put their minds to it, and from which they might receive equally as much enjoyment.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I do not wish to repeat arguments which have already been deployed, but I very much agree with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, said. I do so in the context of the situation where my noble friends and I have voted consistently in this House in support of the position of special rights for disabled people. I understand the immense problems that they have in getting through life but I do not believe that such an amendment makes any sense whatever, especially for the reasons given by the noble and learned Lord. The amendment is far too widely drawn and indeed it imposes a mandatory obligation on the chief officer of police which in my view is wholly undesirable in terms of the legislation now before us.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, there appears to be a conviction among the general public, the Home Office and some Members of your Lordship's House that a self-loading rifle is the most dangerous weapon that exists. That is patently not true. It is no more or less dangerous than any other gun; it is the person behind the gun that matters and not the gun itself. That is the essence and reason behind the amendment, the object being that no one should shoot a self-loading rifle until such time as he has proved himself to be reasonably competent to do so.
I doubt whether it is possible to remove the blinkers—the sort of mental blockage that exists—but I wonder whether it is possible to clear up some misapprehensions in this connection. Not all self-loading rifles are Kalashnikov-type guns. They are in fact exactly what their name implies; that is, a gun with a magazine which when it is charged loads itself. It does not fire itself. It is not an automatic rifle. It is not a rapid-fire weapon; it is simply a rapid-loading gun. It takes away the necessity of manual movement of a bolt or lever and produces less recoil because some of the energy is used in re-loading the gun. In essence that means that there is less disturbance to the shooter between each shot which in effect means that he has more time to take aim. As I have already said, that does not make it any more or less dangerous, because it is the person who is more dangerous and not the gun.
Lord Burton: My Lords, I feel that the many misapprehensions which have been expressed so far in the debate are unjustified. There has also been an element of panic. As the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, said, the number permitted would he very small indeed—how correct she is. Further, those that were permitted would only be allowed with the chief officer's consent. I was somewhat confused about the remark made by my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham that it would be mandatory upon him. I cannot see that it is in any way mandatory. The chief officer of police can refuse a permit for any number of reasons.
The number of crimes committed with stolen weapons—that is, with any type of weapon—is very small indeed. I think I am correct in saying that something like I per cent. to 2 per cent. of all crimes involving firearms are committed with stolen weapons. Therefore when one starts off with a minute quantity in the first place, the chance of anything happening is negligible. The vast majority of such crimes are committed with sawn-off shotguns, followed closely by pistols. In fact very few other weapons are used.
As one or two of my noble friends have said, the weapon will have only four rounds. It seems to be totally unreasonable, even if there are only a few people involved, that they should not be allowed to shoot at all and that they should have to give up one of their hobbies just because some people have unjustifiable fears.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I recall when I first came to your Lordships' House, that we had a Firearms Bill before us at that time. Lady Summerskill—who was then alive—was always strongly opposed to boxing and she certainly opposed firearms. I remember her saying, "You won't get very far with this, you know, because their Lordships just want to have these firearms to shoot a few harmless birds and animals."
The point is: what do the disabled want the gun for? I am trying to visualise the kind of sport that they would indulge in. I think it would be slightly difficult and awkward. I have been the recipient of various correspondence from people who seem to think that I am in the gun lobby. It is most curious. One such group has even sent me one of their raffle books so that I may sell tickets for them. I suggest that these people do their homework a little better. Indeed, some of the prizes of the raffle seem to be certain weapons, which I certainly do not want.
However, I seriously suggest that one should never try to introduce exemption clauses into such a serious Bill. The Government have had the courage to introduce the Bill—and it needs courage to bring in such legislation. If only a handful of disabled people are involved, for heaven's sake, let them take up some other sport that they will equally enjoy.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, I should like to follow what my noble friend Lord Burton said, in that I think that some people are getting slightly overexcited about the matter. The concept of self-loading rifles and bullets flying off in all directions at 100 mph
1134
is obviously unacceptable to everyone. However, as my noble friend rightly said, we are only talking about four bullets in a magazine. The noble Baroness has just asked what sort of sport people would want the gun for. Moreover, my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham asked how a doctor would be able to certify whether or not a person is disabled. The point is that if a sportsman is minus an arm he cannot very well reload a rifle. It does not take a doctor to decide whether one has an arm.
There are many sportsmen who have enjoyed all manner of sports with such rifles, on the hill, stalking or wherever. If they have had an accident—perhaps on Her Majesty's Service, may I say—and they do not have an arm and cannot re-load their rifle, it does not seem entirely fair to deny them the right to continue the sport which they have enjoyed.
The amendment is perfectly reasonable and I hope that after consideration your Lordships may consider that it would be right to give the disabled a chance.
Lord Nelson: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Burton brought in the word "panic". No one has said it yet, but I believe it needs to be asked if there is panic anywhere, why is the gun lobby trying to put a wedge into a blanket ban on self-loading rifles?
No one disputes that we all have sympathy for the disabled. Why, oh why do they have to be used in this way? There is no question but that some disabled people shoot. However, no one seems to have considered the other side of the argument. Many disabled people support the Bill. What is their reaction to their name or disability being used as a reason to keep self-loading rifles for a certain section of the public?
If we agree to allow disabled people to have self-loading rifles, which will be the next special case in the line? Who is next? I see the following amendment which could possibly be construed as the next special case in the line. If a self-loading rifle is in the hands of a disabled person, I am sorry to say that other people would find the temptation to use it too great. We must consider what happens if such weapons are stolen from a disabled person. A disabled person by definition would probably have a harder job to hold on to the rifle than an able bodied person if someone wanted to steal it. I cannot support the amendment.
Lord Monson: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down perhaps he can tell us how many people have been killed or wounded by the rifles in question over the past 20 or 25 years. If he investigates, he will find that there have been very few cases.
Lord Swansea: My Lords, I shall follow what the noble Lord, Lord Monson, has said. The whole of the Bill is founded on last year's tragedy at Hungerford when 16 people were killed. However, only about half of them were killed by a self-loading rifle in the hands of a madman. I believe that that is the only case on record of the misuse of a self-loading rifle. The Bill is panic legislation. It is based on that one incident of a self-loading rifle in the hands of one who was mentally deranged. I am unaware of any other example.

1135
We all agree that the disabled person should be allowed to take part in the recreation of his choice if it can be made humanly possible for him to do so. I fully support the amendment.
Lord Rootes: My Lords, I live on the outskirts of Hungerford and have lived in that area for over 50 years. I was therefore especially conscious of the need for some action in regard to firearms after the tragic incidents in Hungerford last year.
In general, the Bill's provisions seem sensible. However, some amendments are necessary. I have listened carefully to the arguments in respect of the amendment. As the Bill stands, there are some disabled sportsmen who would be precluded from taking part in legitimate sports such as stalking. I therefore support the amendment.
Earl Peel: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Nelson referred to how the disabled would feel about being used as an argument for an amendment which they did not desire. The simple answer to that question is that if he does not agree with the amendment a disabled person need not apply for such a weapon.
I should like to pick up a point made by my noble friend Lord Northesk. It was extremely valid. A number of noble Lords, and others elsewhere, have expressed their concern about the self-loading rifle. I fully accept the principle that the self-loading rifle should no longer be available. However, your Lordships should cast back your minds to when the Bill was being discussed at an earlier stage. It was at the last minute only that the Government decided to restrict the use of the self-loading rifle with a magazine capacity of four. Early in the discussions it was much in their mind that that weapon should continue to be allowed to be used.
I shall not take up any more of your Lordships' time. I support the amendment. The points that have been made about the rights of the disabled are so fundamental that I cannot understand why the Government cannot accept such a simple, straightforward and tight amendment.
3.45 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Portsmouth has moved a sensible amendment with great care and moderation. He wanted to see that those who are disabled are provided for. Such an amendment strikes a chord of sympathy with everyone because we are all concerned that those who are disabled should be able to live their lives as fully as possible, and it is up to Parliament to try to ensure that that comes about.
My noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham said that before accepting the amendment he hoped we would consider it with great care. I am bound to tell him that we have considered it with great care and not, as my noble friend Lord Northesk said, with blinkers on.
I shall put the position as simply as possible. If we accept the premise which lies behind the Bill that there are certain weapons which are so dangerous that they should be out of circulation then it is difficult to make an exception. I understand that
1136
many noble Lords feel that there are certain weapons which we have put into the Clause 5 category which should not be there. A posse of my noble friends have explained that point and will doubtless do so again on a later amendment. If one accepts the basic premise that those weapons are so dangerous as to be put out of the light, is there a reason to make an exception?
I do not believe that we can make such an exception. I do not believe that we can make such an exception for the disabled. One of the tragic aspects of disability—there are many—is that it means curtailment of activity. One must realise that if we decide to put certain weapons out of circulation there are groups of people, of which the disabled form one, who have previously used such weapons, legitimately and responsibly, who will find themselves inconvenienced and curtailed.
My noble friend Lord Radnor quoted my noble friend the Duke of Buccleuch, as saying that we cannot always help the disabled. That is right. I ask your Lordships to consider that if the amendment were to be accepted one might well have people attending a shooting exercise where a disabled person can use a self-loading rifle but the next door person, who used to have a self-loading rifle, finds that he cannot. That person will say, "You, although you are disabled, can use this. I, although I am fully able, cannot use it."
The argument stands logic on its head. I do not believe that the point is sustainable. If such weapons are in the hands of disabled people, others will borrow them and others will steal them. The weapons will be in circulation. The whole point of this part of the legislation is to put such weapons out of circulation. For a number of reasons I do not believe that one can make a blanket exemption for disabled or handicapped shooters.
My noble friend Lord Renton mentioned one difficulty. He said that the new clause offers no definition of the degree of disability which would qualify a person to benefit from the provision. He is quite right. There are different types of disability, different degrees of disability, many of which have no effect on a person's ability to use a bolt-action rifle. While I accept that a very limited number of shooters may have a disability which makes using a self-loading rifle easier than using a bolt-action rifle, it is difficult to envisage one which would entirely preclude the use of a bolt-action rifle but would permit the use of a self-loading rifle, save in a very few cases.
As regards the disability, one wonders what happens when, as is sometimes the case, the disability becomes worse. A person given permission to use the weapon because he was disabled might find his disability becomes worse, but he is still entitled to use the rifle. If we are simply talking about the need to reduce recoil, there are many ways of doing that. It can be reduced by choosing a rifle of greater weight which is usually acceptable for various forms of target shooting.
The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, said that there are only a few cases where a self-loading rifle seems the only practical option. She is quite right. There may be only a very few, but I ask her to consider whether that

1137
is a good enough reason for allowing those who are disabled to have in their possession weapons which are thought dangerous for those who are fully able-bodied.
My noble friend Lord Portsmouth drew a distinction as regards pistols, and he used that as an argument against banning self-loading rifles. We have applied precisely the same criterion of the lethality and legitimate use. A self-loading pistol is less powerful and less accurate over distance. It has a very long-established use in competition and to have banned the pistol also—which is where this argument would lead—would have been disproportionate. The fact that we have not done so in any way does not reduce the force of the case for banning the self-loading rifle.
I am bound to say to the House that my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham is quite right. If this amendment were accepted by your Lordships it would prove quite unworkable. It refers to a person who is prevented from using any kind of firearm authorised by Sections 1 and 2 of the Act. This means that any disabled person who could handle the smallest of pistols would not be entitled to obtain a firearms certificate for a self-loading rifle. There can be few occasions when a person is so disabled that he cannot use a pistol. If he were so disabled, one wonders whether it is right for him to use a self-loading rifle. If this amendment were passed, I doubt that it would have the effect intended by my noble friends. For the reasons that I have given, I hope your Lordships will not accept the amendment.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, I wonder whether he can give an indication, as I requested him to do, as regards consideration of the problems of the disabled. Many of us are thinking of ex-servicemen who have been disabled as a result of gallant service. Are the Government able to make any concession in the provisions of this Bill by way of application for licences for firearms, or whatever? Although we realise the general purpose of the Bill, all of us who are in sympathy with the specific case of ex-servicemen may feel that it has been carefully considered and the Government have made some concessions. Is there anything that the Government have to offer them in the course of the Bill?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, quite rightly asked me that question at the beginning. I did not refer to it because I thought that ray speech had answered the question. We have looked at this with the concerns of the disabled acutely in our minds. As regards matters of such substance as this, I do not believe that it is right to make a difference or to make a separate arrangement for those who are disabled to use weapons of great lethality.
The Earl of Portsmouth: My Lords, we have heard the arguments. In view of the reply of my noble friend Lord Ferrers to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, I have no alternative but to divide the House.
3.55 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 27; Not-Contents, 197.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Borthwick, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Broadbridge, L.

Moyne, L.

Burton, L.

Mulley, L.

Cathcart, E.

Northesk, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Peel, E. [Teller.]

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Portsmouth, E. [Teller.]

Ferrier, L.

Rootes, L.

Goschen, V.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Savile, L.

Ironside, L.

Seafield, E.

Liverpool, E.

Strange, B.

Lovat, L.

Swansea, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Torphichen, L.

Monson, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Airedale, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Allerton, L.

Elphinstone, L.

Amherst, E.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Ardwick, L.

Ennals, L.

Arran, E.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Ashbourne, L.

Ezra, L.

Attlee, E.

Ferrers, E.

Balfour, E.

Foot, L.

Banks, L.

Forbes, L.

Barber, L.

Fortescue, E.

Barnett, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Gainford, L.

Beloff, L.

Gallacher, L.

Belstead, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Bessborough, E.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Birk, B.

Glenarthur, L.

Blackstone, B.

Goold, L.

Blyth, L.

Grantchester, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Greenhill of Harrow, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Grey, E.

Broxbourne, L.

Gridley, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Butterworth, L.

Guildford, Bp.

Caccia, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Caithness, E.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Halsbury, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Hanworth, V.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Carnock, L.

Harvington, L.

Carter, L.

Havers, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Hesketh, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Hives, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Hooper, B.

Craigavon, V.

Hughes, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

David, B.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Jeger, B.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

De Freyne, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Kagan, L.

Denman, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Killearn, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Dundee, E.

Kirnberley, E.

Eccles, V.

Kinloss, Ly.

Eden of Winton, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Effingham, E.

Lauderdale, E.

1139

Leatherland, L.

Reay, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Renton, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Long, V.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Longford, E.

Romney, E.

Lothian, M.

Rugby, L.

Lyell, L.

Russell, E.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

St. Davids, V.

McNair, L.

St. Germans, E.

Mais, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Mar, C.

Seear, B.

Margadale, L.

Selkirk, E.

Marley, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Marsh, L.

Sharples, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Shepherd, L.

Merrivale, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Meston, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Middleton, L.

Slim, V.

Mishcon, L.

Somers, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Stedman, B.

Moran, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Morris, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Mostyn, L.

Sudeley, L.

Mottistone, L.

Suffield, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Munster, E.

Terrington, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Nelson, E.

Thorneycroft, L.

Nicol, B.

Thurlow, L.

Ogmore, L.

Tordoff, L.

Oram, L.

Trafford, L.

Orkney, E.

Tranmire, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Trumpington, B.

Pender, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Pennock, L.

Ullswater, V.

Penrhyn, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Peston, L.

Whaddon, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Phillips, B.

Winterbottom, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Wise, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Young, B.

Radnor, E.

Young of Graffham, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Broadcasting and Terrorism
4.5 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement on broadcasting and terrorism which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. The Statement is as follows:
"For some time broadcast coverage of events in Northern Ireland has included the occasional appearance of representatives of paramilitary organisations and their political wings, who have used these opportunities as an attempt to justify their criminal activities. Such appearances have caused widespread offence to viewers and listeners throughout the United Kingdom, particularly in the aftermath of a terrorist outrage.
"The terrorists themselves draw support and sustenance from having access to radio and television, and from addressing their views more directly to the population at large than is possible through the press. The Government have decided that the time has now come to deny this easy
1140
platform to those who use it to propagate terrorism. Accordingly, I have today issued to the chairmen of the BBC and the IBA a notice, under the Licence and Agreement and under the Broadcasting Act respectively, requiring them to refrain from broadcasting direct statements by representatives of organisations proscribed in Northern Ireland and Great Britain and by representatives of Sinn Fein, Republican Sinn Fein and the Ulster Defence Association.
"The notices will also prohibit the broadcasting of statements by any person which support or invite support for these organisations. The restrictions will not apply to the broadcast of proceedings in Parliament, and in order not to impair the obligation on the broadcasters to provide an impartial coverage of elections the notices will have a more limited effect during election periods. Copies of the notices have today been deposited in the Library, and further copies are available from the Vote Office so that honourable Members will be able to study their detailed effect.
"These restrictions follow closely the lines of similar provisions which have been operating in the Republic of Ireland for some years past. Representatives of these organisations are prevented from appearing on Irish television, but because we have had no equivalent restrictions in the United Kingdom they can nevertheless be seen on BBC and ITV services in Northern Ireland, where their appearances cause the gravest offence, and in Great Britain. The Government's decision today means that both in the United Kingdom and in the Irish Republic such appearances will be prevented.
"Broadcasters have a dangerous and unenviable task in reporting events in Northern Ireland. This step is no criticism of them. What concerns us is the use made of broadcasting facilities by supporters of terrorism. This is not a restriction on reporting. It is a restriction on direct appearances by those who use or support violence.
I believe that this step will be understood and welcomed by most people throughout the United Kingdom. It is a serious and important matter on which the House will wish to express its view. For that reason, we shall be putting in hand discussions through the usual channels so that a full debate on the matter can take place at an early date".
My Lords, that concludes the text of the Statement.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, in thanking the Minister for repeating this important Statement which has been made in another place, let us start from one common platform—that is, a complete hatred and detestation of everything that has been done and is being planned by the terrorist organisations to which the noble Earl referred. However, I wish to point out to the House the rather considerable inconsistency and possible lack of wisdom in the step that has been taken.
As regards the inconsistency, the noble Earl repeated in the last part of the Statement these words

1141
that were used by the Home Secretary in another place:
"It is a serious and important matter on which the House will wish to express its view. For that reason, we shall be putting in hand discussions through the usual channels so that a full debate on the matter can take place at an early date".
Earlier in the Statement the noble Earl repeated that a decision had already been taken and that a notice had today been issued. As from today the broadcasting authorities will be prevented from doing what is set out in this Statement; namely, reporting directly any member of a terrorist organisation, or indeed of Sinn Fein which is a permitted and legal organisation at the moment.
The inconsistency is plain. It is a serious matter, a very grave matter, which should be debated by Parliament. I ask the noble Earl to say on behalf of the Government what is the point of initiating a debate on this serious matter in order to obtain the decision of Parliament when the decision has already been taken?
I query—and maybe the noble Earl will be able to answer that query—whether the Government are saying that, if there is sufficient expression in Parliament that this was not a wise step to have taken, the notice will be withdrawn? This Government are not well known for reversing decisions. Once a decision is taken at the top of this Government one finds that it is not varied even if wiser counsels should prevail. That leads me to a great amount of apprehension that the debate—which I assume will take place in both Houses, and obviously the noble Earl will clarify that point —will be a rather useless exercise.
I questioned the wisdom of this step. Everyone on all sides of this House wishes to wage war on the evil of terrorism. However, will not this step be mistaken abroad, especially in places such as the United States which have been favourable to the IRA, for a fear on the part of our Government that any views should be expressed? Have we such a poor view of the members of the public who watch television and listen to broadcasts that we believe that they would accept propaganda in favour of killing innocent women, children and soldiers? I should have thought that the appearance of members of such organizations—especially with a responsible interviewer—would deflect many from upholding their cause. Some viewers may be uncertain in their own minds before they see the face of terrorism and hear the kind of questions which will undoubtedly be put about what the organisations have done and what they intend to do.
I cannot help feeling that there is an odd differentiation between the media of broadcasting by radio and television and the media of the press. The press will be allowed to print a photograph of Adams on the front page of a newspaper above a statement that he makes. That self-same statement and the appearance of the person making the statement will not be permitted on television. I repeat—inconsistent and possibly unwise. Naturally, my friends and I would wish to hear the noble Earl justify the inconsistency, prove the wisdom and satisfy your Lordships that you have not been taken by surprise with a decision which is now unalterable.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in thanking the noble Earl for repeating the Statement. I am sure that the noble Earl will recall that those of us on this Bench, and the House generally, have given the Government and previous governments consistent support in their fight against terrorism in Northern Ireland.
Perhaps I may ask the Minister whether he is aware that many of us have the gravest doubts about the wisdom of this step. The Government have decided to prohibit the broadcasting organisations from transmitting interviews. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has just pointed out, presumably no similar step has been taken in relation to the press. Why? If the object is to deny Provisional Sinn Fein and the Ulster Protestant extremists the oxygen of publicity why is the distinction made between television and the press? There is no explanation in the Statement made by the Home Secretary. No doubt the noble Earl will be eager to answer that particular question.
I now turn to an even more perplexing part of the Statement. The noble Earl said that the ban will:
"have a more limited effect during election periods".
What does that mean? Is the Representation of the People Act to be amended or is it not? Because unless the Representation of the People Act is amended Sinn Fein candidates and any other candidates in Northern Ireland have to receive equality of treatment by the broadcasting organisations. Let us have a clear answer today. Will they receive equality of treatment or will there be amending legislation so far as concerns the Representation of the People Act?
I remind the noble Earl that local elections will be held in Northern Ireland next April and European Assembly elections are also to be held in Northern Ireland. I therefore believe that unless the noble Earl can give a clear and unequivocal statement as to what precisely those words "more limited effect" mean we shall be even more perplexed about the general purpose of the Statement.
Many of us recognise the indignation caused to many people in Great Britain and in Northern Ireland by seeing people defending acts of murder against the security forces and many innocent men, women and children. But because there is such justifiable anxiety it does not mean that it is right to use these sledgehammer tactics against the broadcasting organisations. Can the noble Earl tell me when there was last a directive of such a character under the BBC licence or the Independent Broadcasting Authority Act? I believe that the number of precedents for such action are remarkably few.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, perhaps I may reply to the noble Lords who have spoken. The Statement is an important one. I should have hoped that the noble Lords, Lord Mishcon and Lord Harris of Greenwich. might have given it a greater welcome. However, I think that they have reflected the natural concern which people feel when any form of restriction is placed on the media.

1143
Both noble Lords have referred to inconsistency and lack of wisdom. I hope that there is no inconsistency, and I shall try to explain why. I hope that they will see, on reflection, that there is no lack of wisdom.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, asked why a decision has been taken like this and Parliamant then asked to approve it? My right honourable friend has taken this decision, quite correctly, with powers given to him by Parliament under the Broadcasting Act of 1981. That is a decision which he was quite right to take. That decision having been taken, it is up to Parliament to consider it and if it wishes to approve it and give its views. I think that when we have an opportunity to debate the matter that will be the time for noble Lords to express their views more fully. That is the reason why my right honourable friend has said that there will be a debate in another place.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, asked whether a debate will take place in this House. That is a matter for the usual channels and I am quite sure that if there is such concern a debate will be likely to be forthcoming. However it is essentially a matter for the usual channels.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, asked whether that action will lose us friends abroad. Many friendly governments in other parts of the world have first-hand experience of the fight against terrorism. I believe that they will understand the reasons for the steps we are taking today.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, asked why do we not ban reporting of such statements in the press. There are two reasons why this was done for radio and TV. First, it is the immediacy of radio and especially of television that does the harm in these cases. They broadcast directly into people's homes the images and words of those who support violence Second-hand reports in the press do not have the same impact. The second reason is that those who apologise for terrorism gain a spurious respectability when treated in broadcasts as though they were constitutional politicians. There is a distinct difference between the media of television and radio and the media of the press.
I emphasise again that it is perfectly acceptable for television and radio to portray something that has happened; it is merely the direct appearances of the individuals who support terrorism that has to be avoided.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, referred to election periods. It is necessary to have an exemption for election periods because of our broadcasting and electoral laws which require that candidates for election should be treated in an even-handed way. Under our broadcasting arrangements broadcasters have a duty to maintain impartiality in matters of political controversy. We believe that it would be difficult for them to carry out that duty if the exemption is not made.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, asked whether these powers had ever been used before. I understand that they have been used five times since broadcasting began in the 1920s.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, I believe that in a democratic society it is defensible to stifle all outlets of those terrorist groups who are bent on undermining the authority of the state and intent upon smashing our democratic institutions. If we are to cut off the oxygen supply of propaganda—and I welcome this move as regards television and radio—we should cover also the written medium.
Perhaps the Minister is not aware that in Northern Ireland the use of radio and television gives a degree of respectability to terrorist groups, particularly the Provisional IRA. It boosts their morale, aids their recruiting drives and helps to keep them in business. This measure is one step forward on the road to defeating terrorism and its propaganda. I believe however that one could go further. Will the Minister consult the Home Secretary and the Northern Ireland Secretary with a view to proposing that, within the terms of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, the governments of the Republic of Eire and the United Kingdom should be prepared to operate a D-notice system which also covers newspapers?
The present measure is in fact only a half-measure. It will bring a lot of adverse publicity for Her Majesty's Government and a lot of good publicity for the Provisional IRA. Now that we are going down this road, we should go the whole hog and stop all propaganda on television, radio and the newspapers. We should not just squeeze the tube of the oxygen supply; we should sever it completely.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Mason, in matters of Northern Ireland is very profound. I am grateful to him for his support. I appreciate his experience and I shall ensure that his remarks are drawn to the attention of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. However, I should like to offer one caution. The road he suggests is one of considerable curtailment of speech and discourse. By this measure we do not intend any form of censorship; it does not restrict reporting but only the direct appearance of individuals. The noble Lord wants to go much further, and I think that that would need a considerable amount of thought.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, in the emotional aftermath of every terrible attrocity that takes place in Northern Ireland—and I need only remind the House of a few of them which took place less than a year ago: Enniskillen, the brutal murder of two corporals in Belfast in my former constituency, the killing of eight soldiers in the bus explosion and numerous other murders which have been committed—there is a great upsurge of feeling in this country. The vast majority of people in general as well as Members of both Houses of Parliament call on the Government to take some action to prevent such outrages. Yet when the Government proposed to take some action all sorts of voices are raised in protest. They say, "Don't do this because it may dilute our law; it will give the terrorists a propaganda victory; it will make them martyrs". In other words, if they listened to those voices, the Government would do nothing.
I am in support of this legislation. I have not lived all my life in some very secure part of the United Kingdom—in England, Scotland or Wales. I have

1145
lived in the heart of Belfast and on many occasions I have been subjected to the terrorism of the IRA and other organisations. I ask the Government to be quite clear as to whom this legislation may be directed. It must be directed against the UVF, the INLA and the UDA (about which we have read so much during this terrible week-end). Indeed, one of those killed in that incident, a member of the UDA who was buried today, was responsible, if we are to believe press reports, for the murder of one of my closest friends, Senator Paddy Wilson.
The Minister has said that this measure will not prevent election broadcasts from this House. Might that also apply to election broadcasts from the Belfast city council? At the moment broadcasts take place from local authority assemblies in Northern Ireland. They can be as well equipped as any other broadcasts to dispense propaganda.
It is all very well for people to talk about a diminution or dilution of British standards. British standards do not apply in Northern Ireland. The IRA, the UDA and all the other paramilitary organisations make damn sure that they do not apply. As for worry about Irish America and the effect that this measure may have there, Irish America is very violently anti-British. Its opinions will not he changed by this legislation. For what it is worth I think that the Government are quite right to introduce this legislation at this time.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, governments must govern. Parliament can debate their decisions. We have been promised a debate. What more is there to say this evening?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, makes a very helpful point. This is a Statement not of what the Government intend to do; but of what they are doing under their present powers. It is then the objective for this measure to be considered if the House thinks fit. With the greatest respect, I suggest that we must be careful not to turn this discussion into too much of a debate.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, for his remarks and for his support. He has lived in the thick of the troubles and I suppose knows the problems of Northern Ireland as well as anyone. He asked: what are the organisations to which this measure will apply? It refers to the IRA, the women's section of the IRA, the youth wing of the IRA, the Red Hand Commando, Saor Eire, the Ulster Freedom Fighters, the Ulster Volunteer Force, the Irish National Liberation Army, Sinn Fein, the Republican Sinn Fein, and the Ulster Defence Association.
With regard to the noble Lord's point about Belfast City Council, I shall have to find out about that matter and if I may I shall write to him.
Lord Annan: My Lords, can the noble Earl tell the House what are the regulations and laws on this matter in the Republic of Eire?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I can tell you that the same principle has been applied in Eire as is being applied here: they have done this for the past 10 years. I think
1146
their restrictions over elections are different from what we propose.
Lord Burton: My Lords, in view of the close connections between the IRA and the ANC, ought not the ANC to be added to the fist of organisations?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it has not been so far and I shall try to find out whether it should be.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Stedman: My Lords, while we on the SDP Benches are not prepared to give a fulsome welcome to the Statement made by the Minister we give it a rather low-key approval. It seems to us that the measures proposed are the same as are being produced in Ireland itself. Therefore I do not think that we shall commit any damage to ourselves internationally and it may just bring some comfort to the victims of terrorism if they do not have to see and hear the IRA's statements on TV and radio.
Therefore we give our general support to the Government for the measures they have proposed, though I must say we have doubts as to whether they are going to make a great impact on the degree of IRA violence. We feel that consideration must be given to much stronger measures against the IRA organisation and all the other subordinate ones that have been mentioned in the House this afternoon.
We would welcome the arrangement of a debate on the subject through the usual channels in your Lordships' House. Perhaps as a result of that debate there might be other ideas that could be taken up for strengthening the fight against terrorism, which is the prime object of this Statement.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, for that welcome, which, as she herself said, was only a lukewarm welcome. If we have a debate, when the time comes she will be able to expand upon her views. I can understand the reasons, even if I would have preferred a less lukewarm welcome.
The Government have not taken this decision lightly. It was taken after very serious consideration; and the basic reason is that we considered it to be offensive to people to find those who prosecute terrorism appearing on television and radio, forwarding their cause, which has been a source of the greatest distress to all those in this country.

Firearms (Amendment) Bill
4.33 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 1.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Lord Swansea Lord Swansea moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 25, at end insert ("or that those provisions should no longer apply to any firearm or ammunition specified in subsection (1) of section 5").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 4. This refers to the reserve powers of the Home Secretary in adding at some future date

1147
firearms or ammunition in the prohibited section which might appear to him then to be especially dangerous: this refers to Clause 1(4).
At present that power is irrevocable; it cannot be reversed. It is conceivable that circumstances may arise in which the Government may decide in the end that a certain article need no longer remain on the prohibited list and that it might be advisable to remove it therefrom; but there is no such power to do so at present. No government are infallible. Mistakes can be made. For example, one amendment which was debated in connection with the clause in Committee referred to subsection (4)(a)(ii) dealing with firearms made of material not readily detectable by apparatus used for detecting metal objects.
I said in Committee that there is at present no such firearm which cannot be detected by a metal detector. There is such a firearm which has been produced on the Continent. It is partly made of plastic material but in the present state of the art it is bound to contain certain metallic components which would easily be seen and detected by X-ray or other apparatus.
It is conceivable that in the future apparatus may be developed which would be capable of detecting a firearm or other object which contained no metallic parts. In those circumstances it would be unnecessary to retain a firearm of that description in the prohibited list as contained in the Bill. I think this should be two-way traffic and there should be power to take an article out of the list as well as to put it in. I beg to move.
Lord Monson: My Lords, the case for giving future Home Secretaries, and indeed the present Home Secretary, the maximum degree of flexibility so as to enable them to rectify any possible errors of judgment which might occur as a result of this Bill, and to enable them to accommodate the inevitable technological changes we are going to see over the next few years, has been well made by the noble Lord, Lord Swansea.
However, there is another very powerful reason for this amendment. We are always being reminded by, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Renton, among others, that legislation should never emerge from this House or another place in excessively rigid or precise form in such a manner as to tie the hands of the courts or of future governments, thereby preventing them from exercising common sense and a reasonable degree of flexibility.
That being the case, it is surely up to the Government to make out a convincing case for resisting this amendment, if indeed they intend to do so—and I hope they will not—rather than for the House to spend much time arguing in its favour. That is because there is only one serious argument I can visualise for resisting this amendment, which is that some future Home Secretary might turn out to be a mad Dr. Strangelove-type character, intent on flooding this country with dangerous weapons of every sort. Frankly, I do not think this is a credible scenario; nor do I imagine your Lordships think that either. I therefore very much hope that the House will accept this sensible amendment.
Lord Renton: My Lords, it seems to me that these amendments would create uncertainty in circumstances in which Parliament, after much discussion, has decided which lethal weapon shall be prohibited, and reasons have been given for that in endless debate. The amendments would enable the Home Secretary to change the law even after all that discussion in Parliament.
If I may say so with deep respect to my noble friend Lord Swansea and the noble Lord, Lord Monson, I do not think that there is a case for introducing that sort of uncertainty, even though it is covered by the more euphemistic word "flexibility" which could be used. For those reasons, quite frankly I would not expect my noble friend Lord Ferrers to accept these amendments.
Lord Monson: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, does he not realise that the power is already in the Bill to add to the list of weapons to be proscribed? If it can be added to, why cannot it be subtracted from?
Lord Renton: My Lords, I appreciate that, but I still say that the amendments would create uncertainty, for the reasons I have given.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, if a gun is dangerous now, I cannot see it getting any less dangerous. If we think it is too dangerous to be allowed now, I can see no reason, even if it gets any less dangerous, for it ever to be taken off the list and out of the Bill. I think therefore that the Home Secretary should continue to keep it there.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I apologise to the House and in particular to my noble friend Lord Swansea for not having been in my place when he opened the debate on this amendment.
Although it is not the intention, the amendments could well throw open the whole debate on the self-loading rifle. It is not necessary to weary your Lordships on how and why this would arise—one has only to sit back and think and study the amendment. I am not trying to make a technical lawyer's point, but inspection offers no guidance as to what criteria should be used by the Secretary of State in exercising the proposed power. This is in effect a double hostage to fortune. As my noble friend Lord Renton said, it opens up a considerable area of uncertainty. It is not desirable in any form of legislation, quite apart from the nature of the subject matter involved.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for what has been said. If I may say so, my noble friend Lord Onslow has almost made my speech for me. If these weapons are so dangerous as to be put in the Clause 5 category, he asked whether it was likely that they would ever suddenly become less dangerous. As Parliament and the Home Secretary do not and will not put weapons into such a category without serious consideration, the idea that 10 years hence these dangerous weapons will become less dangerous and hooked out of the category, I think is unreasonable. I therefore hope that the House will not agree to the amendment.
Lord Swansea: My Lords, my noble friend's reply brings back the whole principle of Clause 1 of the Bill. He tried to make out—indeed, successive government spokesmen have tried to make out—that certain weapons are more dangerous or lethal than others. I have tried to point out that there is no such thing as different grades of lethality. I still believe that a circumstance could arise in which something put on the prohibited list later turns out to have been put there inadvertently, unnecessarily or on false premises.
We have run this one before in Committee. My noble friend continues to stick to his opinions. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
4.45 p.m.
Lord Burton Lord Burton moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 28, at end insert—
("(4A) Nothing in paragraphs (ab) or (ac) of section 1(2) above shall prevent the possessing, purchasing or acquiring of a firearm in respect of which either of the two companies mentioned in section 58(l) of the principal Act issues a certificate that Ammunition for it is no longer commercially available.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am not entirely happy that the amendment goes far enough. In my view we shall lose quite a lot of our heritage with the Bill. However, the amendment goes a little way to improve the position and I hope that my noble friend will find it not unreasonable.
If no ammunition is available for a weapon and the proof houses verify that, there seems no reason why the weapon should be considered dangerous. It may be that a few old rounds have been left lying about somewhere. I think that the arguments put forward earlier today about theft would not apply. In order to protect some of our heritage, I hope that my noble friend is able to accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Swansea: My Lords, I support my noble friend. There is a limited number of vintage arms of the class that would be included under Clause 1 of the Bill for which ammunition is no longer made or commercially available. It is only a small number.
For historical reasons I think that the amendment has merit. There is no definition of an antique. It is defined in some countries. It has never been properly defined in this country. At one time it conveniently covered the period of transition from muzzle-loaders to breech-loaders. That criterion no longer applies today.
The amendment provides for the limited number of self-loading and pump-loading rifles for which ammunition is no longer available and which can still be held under Clause 1. It cannot be brought into the existing system operated by the proof houses, which issue what is known as a proof exemption certificate. Such certificates are issued by the proof houses in London and Birmingham when no ammunition is available with which to test the firearm in question. It is therefore taken that the firearm concerned is unprovable. That could be an indemnity against prosecution for possession of such a firearm. I could give my noble friend examples after the debate if he wishes to be more fully informed on the matter.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I wish to draw on a personal experience. I inherited from my father a German Mauser rifle captured from the Boers in the South African war. This happened for an almost sentimental reason because his name had been carved on the wooden stock. I lived with that rifle all my life.
A few years ago the firearms legislation was tightened up so that chief constables were very thorough about possession of all kinds of weapons. I disclosed to the chief constable that I had the rifle, which was self-loading. I told him that I had no ammunition for it and did not know where to obtain it. He said he feared that that was no answer, and he did not like my having the weapon. He observed that a person entering the house could steal it and that it was not locked up. He suggested that I hand it over to a museum. That I did. I think that that is the best thing to do.
My noble friends suggest that in such circumstances one would be able to keep the rifle under the law as amended or indeed under the present law. Despite my sentimental feeling about the lethal weapon, looking back on the matter I confess that there was no real need for me to have kept it. Therefore, I do not support the amendment.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, the amendment is based on the assumption that the owner of the weapon will be able to fire it. That is crucial to the concept of the amendment. It is a total misconception, and is quite incorrect.
We all know that obsolete ammunition—old cartridges—can still be purchased at auction sales or elsewhere. There are a number of firms today which offer made-to-measure cartridge services for guns of non-standard calibre and there are now wonderful devices for home-loaded ammunition, some of them made in America, which I have seen used. if the basic assumption which supports the whole of the amendment is ill-founded, surely the amendment should not be accepted.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, made a point which I have discussed with my noble friend. If one reads the reports from police stations at the moment, bucketfuls of old ammunition are being handed in that could fit some of the guns. Although I have every sympathy with somebody like the noble Lord, Lord Renton, who has a weapon of that description that is of sentimental value, I am not sure that the amendment, which applies to Section 58 of the original Act, would solve the problem simply because not only can ammunition be manufactured, but there is so much of it lying about, as we have seen from the handing over of so much over the past year.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I know my noble friends Lord Burton and Lord Swansea have a great attachment to the self-loading rifle and the pump-action shotgun. I admire their ingenuity in putting down this amendment and finding yet another way of keeping these weapons in use. They will not be surprised if I tell them that the Government do not feel constrained to advise your Lordships to accept the amendment. The whole premise is that self-

1151
loading rifles and short-barrel self-loading or pump-action shotguns, chambered for ammunition of a type which is no longer commercially available, could be back in a Clause 1 category. The assumption is that the owner of that kind of gun would be unable to fire it, but that is not so. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway quite rightly said that obsolete ammunition can still be purchased, as can old cartridge cases. Other people make cartridges and ammunition especially for various guns.
I was interested to read in the August edition of Guns Review—which is no doubt a paper not unfamiliar to my noble friends Lord Swansea and Lord Burton—something that was written with great pride:
"We are delighted to be able to report over a period of time the considerable increase in availability of cases for obsolete rifles. Little could give a shooting man more pleasure than to bring some old treasure back to life by recreating ammunition which has not been commercially available for many years".
That is exactly what my noble friends want to do. They want to recreate that pleasure and bring back those old friends. I really cannot accept the amendment.
Lord Burton: My Lords, perhaps I can cap my noble friend's story about his old German Mauser rifle. I have in my possession a German Mauser antitank rifle which my grandfather captured in the services. I am much relieved to find that it is not automatic or even semi-automatic. Furthermore, I understand that, though I have no ammunition for it and have never tried it, if it were to be fired once you would not do it again because it would probably break your shoulder. It has been in the house for a very long time. I believe it arrived in 1917 or 1918 along with my grandfather's uniforms and the like, and it is really in a museum. It would be a great pity if those sort of weapons had to leave the house.
In view of what has been said and the last vote, there is no object in pursuing the matter further and I have pleasure in withdrawing the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
After Clause 1:
[Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 not moved.]
Clause 3 [Grant and renewal of shot gun certificates]:
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy Lady Saltoun of Abernethy moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 3, line 27, at end insert ("or, in the case of sport and competition, because at the time of application, the applicant does not know where the gun will be used.").
The noble Lady said: My Lords, I moved a similar amendment to this at Committee stage. I explained that I was afraid that the police in some areas might start demanding to know where an applicant for a shotgun certificate would be using the gun and would refuse a certificate to those who could not say because they did not know. Many young men living in cities depend on invitations from their friends for weekend sport. Many enthusiastic clay pigeon shooters live in towns or cities and go for their sport wherever clay
1152
pigeon shooting is available on any particular weekend. Neither will know months, let alone years in advance, where that will be.
The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said that the police must be able to refuse a certificate to someone living in a block of flats in a city centre whom they do not consider suitable to have one. But, as I understand it, they can already do so under subsection (1A)(b), so that they have no need to demand where the gun will be used.
The noble Earl has perhaps a more starry-eyed view of chief police officers than I have. I know of more than one instance where a police force in Scotland has harassed owners of rifles and holders of firearms certificates, nagging at them to hand in, not sell, the rifle and give up the firearms certificate. I heard of an example in England where someone was breathalysed and found to be over the limit, so the police said that he had a criminal record and initially refused to renew his shotgun certificate, although eventually it was renewed.
On 13th September I read in the Daily Express that the chief constable of Greater Manchester, Mr. James Anderton, had called for a ban on all guns and said that the only people in Britain to hold weapons should be the police and Her Majesty's Forces. I wonder how, without some such safeguard as I propose, legitimate shooters in the Greater Manchester area, for example, will fare when they apply for a shotgun certificate. I beg to move.
Lord Monson: My Lords, following strong pressure from Government Back-Benchers in another place, as I understand it, the Government effectively conceded, albeit somewhat reluctantly, that chief constables would not be allowed to deprive people of their shotguns without very good cause. It is therefore surely essential that the amendment is agreed to if the Government are not to break faith with their own Back-Benchers in another place.
We should constantly be reminding ourselves of two things in our discussion on this matter. Most West European countries have minimal restrictions on shotguns. Secondly, crime which involves guns has risen no faster than crime generally over the past 20 to 25 years. In particular the overwhelming majority of police casualties are caused by knives, boots or broken bottles and not by firearms or shotguns.
A case was reported the other day of a man who had committed no offence whatever. He had applied for a shotgun certificate, but neighbours reported that he had a bad temper. If a bad temper is an excuse for depriving someone of his shotgun certificate, how much more is it a legitimate excuse for depriving him of his driving licence? After all, the average citizen is a thousand times more likely to be knocked down and killed by a sober motorist than he is to be shot by a criminal or an individual who has lost his temper.
Once we start punishing people for things that they might conceivably do rather than for crimes that they have actually committed, we are starting down a very slippery slope. Even if the Government disagree with me on the latter point, we must remember that the new phrase to be inserted is qualified by the word

1153
"merely" which is in the clause at present. In other words, if the amendment is agreed to the chief constable will still be able to refuse a licence on other grounds. Therefore, I believe that the case for resisting the amendment is weak.
5 p.m.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, I believe that the amendment is somewhat surplus to requirements. While understanding entirely the intentions behind the noble Lady's amendment I have to say that it cannot be regarded as necessary and in some cases it could be misleading. The amendment clearly states:
"in the case of sport and competition",
identifying those two activities. However, the Bill states:
"if the gun is intended to be used for sporting or competition purposes or for shooting vermin".
Are we to believe that if the matter comes to a court of law the applicant might not know what sport or competition, or when or where he might enter them, yet he must state specifically when and where he is to shoot vermin? I believe that the embracing words at the end of the Bill as it stands, which are there for all to see, cover the point satisfactorily without entering into further detail. I believe that the amendment is somewhat surplus to requirements.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Mountgarret on his totally correct grasp of a matter of somewhat intricate construction, with which I respectfully agree.
Viscount Mountgarret: Good Lord! My Lords, what has happened now?
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, my noble friend has said that the amendment is surplus to requirements. Assuredly, as a matter of construction, it is, because it can add nothing to the governing words of Clause 3(1B) as it stands. That is the first point on which one would oppose the amendment.
It is not the only point; there are two others. It could further dilute the proposed new controls and their ambit, but I shall not detain your Lordships by saying why. Thirdly, it seems to be inspired by a fear of police maladministration. With respect to the noble Lady—she speaks from experience and is entitled to her views—even assuming that she is correct, is this the way in which one should seek to deal with a fear of police maladministration? Even if it were established, I hope your Lordships will agree that it would be wrong to seek to introduce in this type of Bill a clause such as this to achieve that purpose.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I did not have the privilege of being present at Second Reading. Perhaps in his reply the Minister can say what constitutes vermin. My limited scientific knowledge suggests that it is confined to rabbits and rodents. Surely it does not include pheasants, and so forth, which some of your Lordships enjoy shooting. If that is so I believe that it should be spelt out a little more clearly because there appears to be quite a latitude.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, vermin is defined in the Wildlife and Countryside Act. A section of the Act contains a list.
Earl Peel: My Lords, my noble friend is incorrect; it is "predator".
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, let us leave the definition of vermin for a little while, though I accept the noble Baroness's concern, and return to the noble Lady's amendment. She tabled a similar amendment in Committee. I agree with both my noble friends Lord Campbell of Alloway and Lord Mountgarret. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway congratulated him on getting the right answer. which seemed to surprise my noble friend Lord Mountgarret. However, I congratulate him on getting the right answer, and not for the first time.
My noble friend is right; the amendment is surplus to requirements. I should like to make the position clear. Under Clause 3 an application for the grant or renewal of a shotgun certificate can be refused if the police are satisfied that the applicant does not have a good reason for possessing a shotgun. Recognising that there could be differences of opinion as to what constitutes a good reason, we have included a non-exhaustive list of such reasons in the new subsection (1B). It states:
"For the purpose of paragraph (b) of subsection (1A) above an applicant shall, in particular, be regarded as having a good reason if the gun is intended to be used for sporting or competition purposes or for shooting vermin; and an application shall not be refused by virtue of that paragraph merely because the applicant intends neither to use the gun himself nor to lend it for anyone else to use".
It will be a matter for police discretion but it must be right that an applicant should be able to show the purpose to which he wants to put the shotguns. That of course is not to say that the police would require to know details of each and every occasion or place where the gun is intended to be used.
It is not the Government's policy to reduce the number of shotguns in private hands, but we believe the public has a right to expect that only those people who have a genuine and legitimate reason for possessing a shotgun should be granted certificates. We do not wish to reduce arbitrarily the number of guns in circulation. We do not believe that the controls will affect the majority of shotgun owners who continue to enjoy their particular sport or activity much as they do now.
That is the position, but the noble Lady's revised amendment singles out sport and competition. The situation would be that an applicant, whether a city or country dweller, could simply state, if asked by the police, that he wanted to keep a shotgun in case at some time in the future he was invited to shoot on somebody else's land or to take part in a clay pigeon shoot. Putting that another way, the individual could say that he wanted it for sport and competition but that he had not quite decided where. There may be special cases where that could be perfectly acceptable, and the Government's proposals allow for that.
However, I return to a point I raised in Committee. If a gentleman of doubtful repute, say, living on the seventh floor of a high-rise block of flats in the East End said that he wanted a shotgun in case he received

1155
an invitation to shoot with the noble Lady or one of her friends within the next three years, I believe that the chief officer might think that that was not necessarily a good reason to have a certificate. In the general run of cases we are entitled to expect something more specific in order to hold what is, after all, a lethal weapon.
The noble Lady referred to a person who was breathalysed and who had then had renewal of his shotgun certificate refused. If that was the action of the chief constable, the applicant can always appeal to the Crown Court against the decision of the chief constable, as he is entitled to do.
The noble Lady referred to what was said by Chief Constable Anderton. He was merely expressing a personal view but as chief constable he must operate within the law. Any person has a right to object if he is refused a certificate.
If the noble Lady was concerned that a person may be left a gun but has no immediate use for it, Clause 3(1B) permits a certificate to be issued because a chief officer cannot refuse to issue one solely because, as the clause states:
"the applicant intends neither to use the gun himself nor to lend it for anyone else to use".
That provision was introduced primarily to safeguard the position of those who have inherited guns but who do not necessarily wish to use them.
I apologise for giving that lengthy reply and I hope the noble Lady will agree that the amendment is not necessary.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I am very grateful to all those noble Lords who have spoken and who have been at such pains to reassure me that my amendment is unnecessary. I hope that they are right but I hope too that a later amendment standing in the names of the noble Earl, Lord Peel, the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, and myself and intended to produce a code of practice enforceable in the courts may find greater favour. In that code of practice there might be guidelines as to the administration of applications for shotgun certificates. That would possibly produce a greater safeguard. Under those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Northesk The Earl of Northesk moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 3, line 30, after ("specify") insert ("but not limit").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have just heard the noble Earl on the Front Bench say that there is no wish to limit the number of shotguns which anyone may own. Nevertheless, I feel that it is right to move this amendment despite the fact that my noble friend on the Front Bench has an amendment in his own name which is very similar. The reason is that this amendment is rather more specific. It would provide that:
"A shot gun certificate shall specify but not limit the number and description of the shot guns to which it relates",
whereas my noble friend's amendment will say:
"A shot gun certificate shall specify the description of the shot guns to which it relates".
Our amendment gives instructions not to limit whereas the other amendment leaves the number of guns allowed to the discretion of the issuing authority. I beg to move.
Lord Monson: My Lords, perhaps I may briefly support this amendment and ask the Government to look at the practicalities of the matter because unless the amendment is agreed to there is a danger that when an individual wants to acquire another gun during the currency of his existing certificate, he will find it very difficult to do so. People do not buy shotguns only upon the expiration of their existing shotgun licence. That will make life very difficult in the normal course of events.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I should have thought that my noble friend's Amendment No. 11 covered the principle of the noble Lady's amendment and does it rather better than the amendment now being discussed. There is a boring old legal maxim which is in dog Latin which says, broadly speaking, that if you include specifically one item in one place in a Bill it means that you exlcude it in another.
In fact, the Bill as drawn, or rather as it will be drawn if one leaves out the word "number" as in Amendment No. 11, means that there will not be a limitation as to number on a shotgun document. However, that would have this curious effect: namely, that there is a similar absence of the word "number" in the firearms certificate. If the amendment were passed in the form which is suggested, that would give rise to that very desirable thing, litigation, out of which some of us have made our lives more profitable. The suggestion would be made that the similar omission in the firearms certificate had been definitely excluded. I believe that the drafting of my noble friend's amendment is better.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, before the noble Earl comes to reply, perhaps I may ask him a question. Line 30 of the Bill states:
"A shot gun certificate shall specify the number and description of the shot guns".
To me that reads slightly ambiguously because it could mean the number, i.e. six shotguns, or the serial number of the gun.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, perhaps I may very briefly take the point made by my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham. Surely there is no doubt that if the legislation were specifically to say, as proposed by the amendment, that there should be no limit in respect of shotguns and did not do so in respect of firearms, one would have the position where the courts could well take the view that the chief officer did not have the power to impose arbitrary limits in respect of firearms. Of course that is not the intention of the amendment but it could have that legal result, which would be most undesirable.
On the problem of number and description, I would most respectfully suggest that "number" must mean numerical number and "description" must

1157
mean something else. The description of a shotgun would be with reference to the number which was embossed upon the gun.
Lord Swansea: My Lords, I should like to support this amendment because the wording of the Bill at present is ambiguous and is open to misinterpretation by a chief constable who might not be so kindly disposed as are some others. I believe it is very desirable that when the Bill emerges in its final form, it should be quite clear on this point.
My noble friend on the Front Bench has made it clear on previous occasions that the intention of the Bill is not to limit the number of shotguns which an individual may hold. If that is so, why is that not made clear? This amendment would do just that. My noble friend has also said before that there is no intention that such matters as a variation of a shotgun certificate should be at all necessary in the same way as it is with a firearms certificate and that an individual should be free to hold any reasonable number of shotguns. This amendment would remove that earlier doubt, and I strongly support it.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, I was a supporter of this amendment when we discussed it among ourselves prior to today but, having listened to what my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham and my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway have said, it seems to me that those of us who wish to try to make life easier for those who wish to hold shotguns are in fact making life more difficult. I believe that my noble friend Lord Ferrers and the Government have gone a very long way towards helping matters because, if one takes out any reference to "number". of guns held and then goes on to say that the certificate shall specify the description of shotguns, in the plural, and, if known, the identification numbers of guns, again in the plural, ipso facto it seems to me that that is an unlimited number of weapons. That is plural and plural is anything exceeding one.
I do not believe that the amendment is necessary, having listened to the debate, although I understand what my noble friend Lord Swansea said. I do not believe that this amendment is as good as appeared at first light. I believe that my noble friend on the Front Bench has it right and that his proposal will achieve the very thing that we wish to achieve.
Lord Burton: My Lords, I am sorry to disagree with my noble friends in this corner. Certain chief constables are already considerably reducing the number of firearms on a certificate and, if they can reduce the number of firearms on a certificate, there is no reason why they should not say that one cannot own more than v number of shotguns. Therefore, we are seeking to put into the Bill that they may not do that.
We have heard what Mr. Anderton has tried to do in the past and we have heard his statements. It is no use leaving this to a statement from the Minister. On many occasions in the past the Minister has made a statement expressing the intention of this House, backing what the Minister has said. But we cannot rely on that; we must write the intention into the Bill.
1158
My legal friend should know that if something is not written into an Act of Parliament it will not be complied with. Therefore, I believe that we must write into the Bill that there should be no limit.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I am slightly confused because I thought we were speaking to Amendment No. 10, but much reference has been made to Amendment No. 11, tabled in the name of my noble friend. Am I out of order in speaking to Amendment No. 11?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I suggest that any observations which noble Lords wish to make about Amendment No. 11 should be made now because it covers the same point.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I merely wish to say that I support Amendment No. 11. In fact, it was my noble friend Lord Swinton who moved the amendment in Committee. Incidentally, he sends his apologies for not being here today but he has to attend a meeting in the north of England.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Ferrers for having tabled this amendment which I hope removes the ambiguity that might have existed in the Bill. However, as has already been mentioned by my noble friend Lord Burton, there is strong evidence to prove that the police are attempting to limit the number of shotguns that an individual wishes to hold.
The Government have mentioned on several occasions that it is not their intention that that should happen and that the only constraining factor should be that of security. I ask my noble friendfor a further commitment and perhaps he would be good enough to inform me of the mechanism that will be used to prevent that happening in the future. I suggest that as a belt and braces operation it might be advisable if the Minister gave his assurance that such an indication will be given to chief officers of police through the memorandum guidance.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Peel for his support. Indeed, I have a galaxy of support from behind me from whence I did not necessarily expect it. My noble friend Lord Mountgarret is, if I may say so, right again. Both the amendment of the noble Lady and my Amendment No. 11 are designed to ensure that the chief officer has no power to impose an arbitrary limit on the number of shotguns which may be held on a certificate.
There has been much confusion in this respect and I should like to seek to clarify the position. The Government have no intention of providing, or inferring, a limit on the number of shotguns to be held on a certificate. There is no provision in either the 1968 Act or this Bill to do so. New subsection (2A) in Clause 3(2) is concerned with what will appear on the face of the shotgun certificate. When a certificate is issued it will authorise the holder to possess not a shotgun, not a specific number of shotguns, but simply shotguns. If your Lordships consult Section 2(1) of the 1968 Act, which covers the possession of shotguns, you will see that it refers to an individual,

1159
"holding a certificate under this Act authorising him to possess shotguns".
That is a reference to "shotguns"—no limit, no restriction, no quota, just shotguns.
The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, asked what the word "number" in subsection (2A) means. I should first say that it is not a reference to a limit. It merely directs that the number of guns held by the applicant at the time the certificate is issued should be recorded on the certificate. There is nothing whatever to prevent the certificate holder obtaining more shotguns provided he complies with the requirements about the notification of transfers of shotguns set out in Clause 4.
I hope that that makes the position clear and explains why up to now we have resisted any change to subsection (2A). However, I recognise that some of your Lordships were uneasy about this matter in Committee and therefore I wanted to be helpful. Consequently, I tabled Amendment No. 11 which simply leaves out the words "number and". That then permits the shotgun certificate merely to specify the description of the shotguns in order to make the position quite clear. I hope that your Lordships will be able to accept that.
Now, along comes the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, and my noble friend Lord Northesk to say, "Let us make this clear beyond peradventure and put in the words 'without limit'";. I am bound to tell the noble Lady and my noble friend that I have some sympathy with their wish to be totally clear. As I want to be of assistance, I tried to see whether I could accept the amendment but I have to say that I cannot. We are all concerned about the imposition by a chief officer of an arbitrary limit of his own choosing. What we are not concerned with—and I am certain your Lordships will agree—are limits as a whole. Limits can be imposed for good reasons, such as inadequate security.
My noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, were right. They said that there is the possibility of an amendment casting doubt on another part of the Bill. The amendment in the name of the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, and my noble friend Lord Northesk, refers to shotguns. That amendment casts doubt, by implication, on the position of firearms certificates. There is no limit to the number of firearms which may be held on a firearms certificate—provided, of course, the holder has a good reason for possessing each and every one of them. Nor is there any arbitary limit on the number of shotguns which may be held on a shotgun certificate.
However, if the legislation specifically said that there should be no limit in respect of shotguns, but did not say so in respect of firearms, the courts could well take the view, as my noble friend Lord Campbell and my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham said, that the chief officer has the power to impose an arbitrary limit in respect of firearms.
The other reason why I cannot accept the amendment is simply that the words of the amendment suggest that there are no circumstances (if we put in those words relating to firearms as well)
1160
which a chief officer may have regard to when considering the number of shotguns to be held on a certificate. Clearly that is not so. When looking into security the chief officer is obviously bound to take into consideration the number of shotguns which are held by an applicant. If an applicant has 10 guns but has secure storage facilities for only five, then there is clearly a problem which needs to be resolved. A chief officer cannot say, "You may have a certificate for 10 shotguns when I know you have a secure place for only five of them". I hope your Lordships will agree that it is perfectly legitimate for the chief officer to take into acount the number of shotguns held in such circumstances. That is an entirely different matter from imposing an arbitrary limit on the number of shotguns which may be held, and that is the point with which your Lordships are concerned.
There is no difference in what Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 seek to do. I merely suggest, with respect, that the amendment in my name will do it better and that it will be far less confusing and far more precise.
My noble friend Lord Peel asked how we could make this intention pefectly clear. In order to make it clear we are saying that the chief constable cannot impose arbitrary limits and we shall say so in the memorandum of guidance. I have made that rather lengthy explanation because I know of your Lordships' concern. I hope that noble Lords will agree that the amendment in my name is actually the better. I say that with no personal accord to myself neither in any derogatory terms towards the noble Lady, but because others have advised me.
5.30 p.m.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, the fact that I spoke to Amendment No. 10 in the first place has at least aired the views that everyone has wanted to put forward on this particular problem. I say thank you to my noble friend on the Front Bench for his very concise and excellent explanation. I do not believe there is any need to say anything further and I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendent, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 3, line 30, leave out ("number and").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 6 [Shortening of barrels]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 4, line 32, leave out ("a self-loading, pump-action or revolver smooth-bore gun") and insert ("any smooth-bore gun to which section 1 of the principal Act applies other than one which has a barrel with a bore exceeding 2 inches in diameter").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a technical amendment. In Clause 6(1) there is an inappropriate description of the smooth-bore guns in respect of which it is an offence to shorten the barrel. In another place when we altered the description of a shotgun in Clause 2(2), and removed the references there to self-loading and pump-action guns, we should have revised Clause 6(1) to bring it into line with the new formula and to avoid overlap with Section 4(1) of the

1161
1968 Act. The amendment puts this right without in any way changing the substance of the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 7 [Conversion not to affect classification]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 4, line 43, after ("which") insert ("(a)").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move this amendment, and at the same time I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 14 and 15. The gun trade and sporting interests have brought to our attention two unwanted side-effects of Clause 7 as it stands at present. These three amendments seek to eliminate these side-effects. Subsection (1) provides that any weapon that has at any time come within the new definition of a prohibited weapon shall remain in that category no matter what is done to convert it. Some pump-action and self-loading shotguns manufactured abroad can accommodate interchangeable barrels of different lengths, some of which may be under 24 inches and would make the gun a prohibited weapon. We would not wish to criminalise the owner of a long-barrelled version of such a gun which, unknown to him, had once had short barrels attached and therefore remained in the prohibited category. Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 will therefore exempt from the provisions of Clause 7(1) pump-action and self-loading shotguns which come within the prohibited category merely by reason of having had barrels of less than 24 inches.
Under subsection (2) as it stands, any Section 1 firearm which has at any time had a barrel of less than 24 inches would remain under Section 1 control even if converted to a shotgun or air weapon. But the barrels of a shotgun may occasionally have to be shortened during the course of repair or re-sleeving, and indeed subsection (3) already protects a registered firearms dealer who undertakes that kind of work. We also need to ensure that certificate holders will not fall foul of the law because their shotgun has changed irrevocably to a higher category while being repaired. Amendment No. 15 will therefore limit subsection (2) to guns with rifled barrels. The provision loses nothing in terms of firearms control, since the main aim is to deter the conversion of pistols to shotguns. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendments Nos. 14 and 15:
Page 4, line 45, after ("above") insert ("; and
(b) is not a self-loading or pump-action smooth-bore gun which has at any such time been such a weapon by reason only of having had a barrel less than 24 inches in length,").
Page 5, line 7, after ("a") insert ("rifled").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 9 [Photographs on certificates]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 5, line 31, leave out ("two") and insert ("up to four").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, Clause 9 amends Section 26(2)(a) of the 1968 Act to increase from one
1162
to two the number of photographs of the applicant which may be required by rules made under the 1968 Act to accompany an application for a firearm or a shotgun certificate. During the Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Blease, suggested that it would be useful to require applications to be accompanied by three photographs. This would mean that there would be one photograph on the applicant's certificate, one at the police force headquarters, and one readily available at the local police station.
Since the Committee stage, we have had the opportunity of discussing this matter with the police and also the possibility of keeping photographs of certificate holders at local police stations. The police feel that as regards Great Britain such a system would have few benefits and would add considerably to the administrative work involved. We understand that this view is, in fact, shared by the Royal Ulster Constabulary. With the increasing use of computers in police firearms departments, I gather that it is now common for firearms certificates to be reprinted rather than amended manually when a variation is granted, and, in some cases, an extra photograph held by the police firearms department would be useful.
We have therefore decided that the requirement should be for up to four photographs to be submitted with a certificate application. This will enable a computerised certificate to be varied twice without the need for extra photographs to be produced by the holder. The requirement for four would impose no additional burden for applicants, since most photographic equipment commonly used for passport and other official photographs generally provides four pictures.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Blease, for drawing this to my attention. I beg to move.
Lord Blease: My Lords, I wish to thank the Minister for accepting the suggested changes to this clause made at the Committee stage. I feel sure that the proposed amendment will not add untoward difficulties nor additional expense to applicants for firearms and shotgun certificates. However, the proposed amendment should provide for the more helpful control and administration of firearms. The manner in which it is now contained in the Bill should allow that procedure to be implemented where necessary and in a particular way. I support the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 10 [Statements in support of applications for certificates]:
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 5, line 40, at end insert ("whether by reason of character, mental instability or otherwise").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the shadow of Hungerford still lies over this House while we are discussing this Bill. It is in that context and also of one other unfortunate incident which has occurred since Hungerford, that I ask noble Lords to address themselves to this amendment. Perhaps I may return to the principal Act which is the Firearms Act 1968. Section 26 deals with the rules in regard to the

1163
application and grant of certificates. Subsection 2(b) states that someone must verify,
"in the prescribed manner of any prescribed particulars and of the likeness of any such photograph to the applicant."
I am sure that with Hungerford and like incidents in mind that the Government introduced into this Bill a requirement that any application for a certificate should be accompanied by a statement by the person verifying the matters to which I have just referred to the effect that he knows of no reason why the applicant should not be permitted to possess a firearm.
When we were debating this Bill and its whole purpose at Second Reading, and also at the Committee stage, many of your Lordships wondered at Second Reading, (and I was unable to be present at the Committee stage) whether there should be some medical certificate in regard to mental stability. That was looked into. The BMA, although in sympathy with the requirement, thought that it would create difficulties. First, it felt that it would be difficult for a doctor who might not have seen his patient for several years to say whether in his view there was mental stability or instability. There was also the practical question. The BMA thought that if this were a requirement upon doctors a fee would have to be paid and that this was an additional expense on members of the public who were applying for a certificate.
I do not think that we should leave just the bare wording to try to cover such dreadful incidents as Hungerford. It will be remembered that some people said that anyone knowing this man would have known that there was mental instability there. One should not leave it that the referee who verifies the bare technical particulars contained in the Act should have to say only that he knows of no reason why the applicant should not be granted a certificate. He is given no hint as to the matters to which he should be addressing his mind. Therefore, without in any way upsetting the generality of "no reason" and purely as a reminder that this is what the referee should have in mind, my amendment gives the hint,
"no reason (whether by reason of character, mental instability or otherwise)".
There may still he cases where those who suffer from mental instability on occasions are not known to have so suffered by the referee. I cannot help it if such exceptions persist. However, my amendment calls to the attention of the referee the fact that he has responsibility in this matter. He is asked whether there is anything by way of character that he knows of. He is the one who has been chosen by the applicant. He is the friend and the person who knows him and he must not sign it if he knows of some defect of character, some instability or anything of that kind. I should have thought that by accepting the amendment, Parliament would be accepting some responsibility for dealing with what happened at Hungerford and would be trying to ensure that there is no unfortunate sequel to it. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, the great shadow of Hungerford to which the noble Lord referred is of the greatest possible importance. However, I am sure the noble Lord will agree with me
1164
that this cannot in any sense alter the ordinary accepted principles of legal construction. "No reason" is no reason. "No reason" includes "reason of character, mental instability or otherwise". I understand that the proposed amendment is well intentioned, but as a matter of legal application in the courts it could only have a more restricted incidence than the bare words "no reason". With respect to the noble Lord, this amendment, as a matter of construction, could—not necessarily would—upset the generality. Reminders of this nature would not usually be found in the statute where there is the widest definition of "no reason"; for there would be no necessity for any reminder.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Moyne: My Lords, while the shadow of Hungerford is upon us, for anyone of my age the shadow of a police state is also upon us. Although the point about mental instability is perfectly acceptable, to put in the hands of a police officer, however high his rank, the responsibility of judging our characters seems quite unacceptable.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I should like to put forward one further point. I feel that putting these words into the Bill, particularly in relation to an application form, might have an undesired effect. I am assuming that in my own area of Scotland someone comes to me and asks me to sign the form. I am a justice of the peace. As the Bill is now worded, I can turn around and say, "No. I am not prepared to do that". I do not have to give any reasons. If the words on the Marshalled List were inserted, I feel that the person could then turn round to me and say, "Is it because of my character? Do you consider me to be mentally unstable or otherwise?" I feel that this might not have the desired effect. I fully sympathise with the idea behind the amendment but I do not think it will work.
Lord Renton: My Lords, whenever the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, puts before us in a constructive way an idea to do with the law we listen to it with great respect. However, I wonder whether he is right when he says that the amendment would not upset the generality of the expression "no reason". I am afraid that it would. He has specifically used the words,
"whether by reason of character, mental instability or otherwise".
We know from cases in which the courts have applied the rule of construction, if I may be allowed to use a well known Latin tag, expressio unius est exclusio alterius—
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: Hear, hear!
Lord Renton: I am glad to have such high learned approval. We know from such cases that very often those words are regarded by the courts as words of limitation. I am afraid that they might be so regarded on this occasion. By specifying those two characteristics, it may give them a preponderance in the minds of chief officers and of people who are expressing opinions to them that those are the things that really matter and that other characteristics, unhelpful though they may be, may not matter so much. I think

1165
of a man with an uncontrollable temper or a man who becomes nervous and jittery even when he has a gun in his hand—I have not seen many like that. There are other characteristics. Excessive drinking is a matter that the chief officer should take on board. I think that we would do better to stick to the true generality of the words now in the Bill.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I have much sympathy with everything the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said; but I have a nasty feeling that, as regards the law, the noble Lords, Lord Campbell of Alloway and Lord Renton, are correct. The effect of passing an amendment of this kind would be counterproductive. I say that with some caution as I am not a lawyer myself.
I had much sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said at the beginning of his speech. I am sorry that there is not to be a medical certificate. I think that that makes the Bill far weaker. I know about the problems for the Government especially the insistence by the BMA—for entirely understandable reasons—that it would want to impose a charge. I recognise the geniune difficulty that the Government has as a result of that decision. However, we should not blind ourselves to the real difficulty of young men, who are often deeply unstable, being able to obtain shotgun certificates.
We can recall the tragic episode which took place only a few weeks ago in Walsall when a young man aged 18, lawfully in possession of a shotgun certificate, went out and shot three people. Fortunately those people did not die. It was possible—one cannot be sure—that it was a racially motivated attack because two of the victims were black. It seems to me obvious that one has to be extremely cautious when allowing such young men to have access to firearms of any sort. When the police searched his parents' home after the attack—I should say that the young man subsequently committed suicide—they found a crossbow, a starting pistol, an air pistol, two knives (one of which was a sharp machete type) camouflage clothing, including balaclavas, and camouflage cream, and so on.
There are unfortunately many disturbed young men who like to do this sort of thing. Recently in South Carolina in the United States there was an appalling episode where another young man of exactly this type—that is, a quiet, isolated young man—went out and shot three small black children in a local school. It seems to me that that demonstrates the need to be as cautious as one can be in terms of people of such a character getting access to shotgun certificates.
Having said all that, I am bound to add that I do not believe that the amendment proposed deals with the problem. In my view the only way to deal with it satisfactorily is to have a medical certificate. But, as your Lordships know, the Government have set their face against that. For the reasons I have stated I cannot support the amendment, but I hope at some later stage that we shall be able to look again at the issue of some form of medical certification.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I not only thought that the words would have a
1166
restricted meaning but, until I heard the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, speak, I should have thought that they were actually intended to have a restricted meaning. So indeed did my noble friend Lord Moyne who supported the amendment precisely on the grounds that they did have a restricted meaning.
Therefore the argument put forward by my two noble friends, who possess great learning must not refer to them as "learned" in this House) has a good deal of support. I am glad that one of them ventured upon the Latin tag which I referred to obliquely in an earlier discussion. I shall now cite another Latin tag which means—I give it in translation only—that a phrase is known by its companion phrases in the Bill. I mention that specifically so that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, will not take refuge—if he will forgive me for using the phrase—behind "or otherwise". If the words are restrictive to begin with—that is, "mental instability" and "character"—then when it comes to "or otherwise" it will be said: noscitur a socciis.
Lord Burton: My Lords, this is one of the occasions when I am happy to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, although I am afraid it is not often that I am able to do so in connection with the Bill. There is a need for some tightening up in this regard. I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will look again at the matter before Third Reading.
I believe that there was a case where a man's wife and a firearms dealer both went to the police about him. The man subsequently committed a murder with a firearm. I am not sure how the law stands on the matter, whether the police were in default or whether they could at some time have gone back and removed the firearms certificate on the strength of the information they received. If that is not the case, I should have thought that we ought to tighten up to the extent that if the police are given such information in all good faith—for example, if the information comes from the man's wife and a firearms dealer—it would seem reasonable to withdraw the firearms certificate.
It is possible that some of the other cases which we have heard about, such as the one which took place in Walsall, could have been stopped if someone had been able to go to the police and say, "This man is not safe to have a weapon". I am not sure about the law in this connection. I do not know whether the police can act on such information. If they cannot, perhaps we should look at the situation to see whether they will be able to do so.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, despite the remarks made by the noble and learned advocates here—I apologise to my noble and learned friend for not having described him as such earlier—the words "no reason" mean no reason. Surely that is the top and bottom of the issue, whether a person is of an exaggerated type of character, cuckoo or otherwise. No reason is no reason. Therefore the clause as drafted must be right.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I have a feeling that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, is right in the matter. He said that he would like to accept

1167
something like that which is proposed. He feels that it ought to be in the Bill; but he does not think that it will be acceptable to include it. We all have the greatest of sympathy for what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is trying to do. There are many people who feel that if a person is not of the right character or is mentally deranged he should not be able to be in possession of a firearms certificate. Indeed, we all agree with that contention.
However, it is quite different for someone to sign a certificate certifying that he believes that the man is mentally deranged. You cannot expect your doctor to do that. That is one of the problems we had about obtaining a doctor's certificate. All we can reasonably do is to ask a person who is a counter-signatory to state that, "I know of no reason why this person should not have a certificate".
As regards the amendment itself, it specifies, "character" and "mental instability" as areas where the counter-signatory's judgment should be exercised. I am bound to tell the noble Lord that I do not think that the amendment he proposes adds anything to what is already in the Bill, other than drawing it out and spelling it out further.
If the applicant is not of good character, then clearly under the existing clause the person who is approached to verify the application will be unwilling to do so. The same can be said about mental stability. No one will sign the appliation of a person whom they believe to be mentally unstable. Therefore the application will not be signed. It is quite a different matter to say that someone ought to sign something certifying that a person is mentally unstable. That is how the Bill is drafted and I believe that it is correct: no one will verify the application of a person whom they believe to be mentally unstable.
As regards the words "or otherwise", they could be covered indeed, I think they are—in the government's proposed words. The statement by a person that:
"he knows of no reason".
means that he knows of no reason at all, or of any kind. That is a pretty comprehensive term. We then return to the problem which we faced in respect of Amendment No. 10—referred to by my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham and my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway—that if we list some considerations, then others which are not specified and which ought to be taken into account might be disregarded. We do not want to imply unintentionally that the counter-signatory does not need to take into account, for example, violent outbursts or heavy drinking sessions.
We do not seek a positive evaluation of a person's character. That is the important point. It would be too difficult to obtain such a positive evaluation of his character, his mental stability, or of anything else. I think it would be too much of a burden to place on anyone who must counter-sign the application. In all probability that person would be a lay person; he will not be a doctor or a psychiatrist.
The most we can reasonably require is a simple statement to the effect that no reason is known why
1168
the applicant should not be permitted to possess a firearm. For those reasons I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, will realise that the amendment, while specifying the issues, is in fact already covered by the provisions in the Bill.
6 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I once before quoted to your Lordships a portion of a speech made by the first Lord Samuel, who graced this House, when he was making an address in honour of the centenary of the modern Civil Service. After paying a gracious tribute to the Civil Service, which had helped him so much in his career, he added the words:
"but they have a problem for every solution".
I am tempted to quote that remark on this occasion. When I heard your Lordships who have ventured not to support me on this occasion I was reminded of that quotation, because we have a problem; but all that your Lordships, including the Minister so far, have said is, "Yes, there may be a problem, but we have no solution".
The whole of this legislation was prompted by a dreadful and tragic occurrence. The public will be expecting of Parliament that it does everything it possibly can to protect the public against another incident like Hungerford and what, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, reminded us, was a subsequent dreadful incident. We have all heard from various organisations, grumbling at the fact that that incident is leading to an awful lot of restriction which they do not think will be of great use. One of those organisations is the Shooters Rights Association. I have a tender spot for that association, caused only by a letter that I have just received from it dated 15th October which commences with the following words:
"Your keeness of intellect and breadth of vision were sorely missed in the House during the Committee Stage of the Firearms (Amendment) Bill".
That is obviously a very worthy association, led most capably by the person who wrote that letter to me.
Being serious for a moment, we have tried to find a way to deal with the matter of mental instability. That was what happened at Hungerford. It was not a criminal running loose. It was a lunatic running loose. What we are doing is this: in this House we have said, "medical certificate—no good". That has been finished with. Unless an amendment is brought forward on Third Reading, and so far as I know it would not be acceptable because the matter has been dealt with at the previous stages of the Bill—anyway, we know that it is not practical—we have cut out the idea of a medical certificate.
What are we left with? We are left with a bare statement not to guide the police, as was thought, I believe, by some of your Lordships, but to guide the applicant. He is supposed to know a person who is well acquainted with him. He goes along to that person for him to sign a certificate which says that the prescribed particulars are correct, and, as we leave it at the moment, "I know of no reason why the licence should not be granted".
There is no reminder such as, "Goodness gracious me, I know he did have a nervous breakdown, didn't

1169
he?" There is no reminder— this in my view applies to character—"This man really drinks terribly heavily. I know of no reason. These particulars are correct". There is a signature. I would not mind if the words were omitted from the Bill, but if the Minister were to say, "No" for good reason, as expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, and the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for both of whom, as they know, I have the most profound respect, "This would be a limitation in law", I could argue that point.
In parenthesis I say to both, "Please try to give me an example of where the limitation would in practice apply". If it is not character, if it is not mental instability, or matters related to those two matters by the words "or otherwise", can someone give me an example of what would be excluded? If they give me an example, is it not better to try to grapple with the problem and have a rare example which does not apply rather than not deal with it at all?
That would be a reminder to the person giving the reference. If the Minister says, "No, not in the statute" for the reasons given by those two learned Lords, "but what I will do is to see that on the application form where there is to be the verification 'I know of no reason' there will be an explanatory note which says 'the sort of things that you should have in mind as to reasons are mental instability, character and matters of that kind'", willingly would I sit down and say, "Right, not in the statute but, from a practical point of view, give a reminder to the referee".
When the noble Lord who hails from Scotland tells me of the embarrassment that he would have if such a matter were, presumably, on a form even, because the applicant might say, "Why are you not signing this? Is it because of mental instability? How dare you! Is it because of character?" does he really think—I say this with great respect—that if he says, "I am not going to sign this because I cannot sign 'no reason'" the person is not going to ask him why he cannot sign it?
As I said, this is the last opportunity we have to grapple with the fact that Parliament is dealing with the aftermath of Hungerford. That is the origin of the legislation. I invite the Minister, who I know will rise for a second time with the leave of the House, to say that if he cannot accept the amendment—I do not want to go on arguing on the legal technicalities—he is prepared seriously to consider a guidance note on the application form in regard to what should be considered by the person concerned before he says that there is no reason why the application should be granted.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not know whether I would have the leave of the House to speak again, but if I were to, I should preface my remarks by saying that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is true to his normal way of conducting a Committee or Report stage when he asks me detailed questions and says he will willingly sit down if I would like to get up and answer. I shall do my best to answer.
The noble Lord is enormously persuasive. He has a genuine point. I have told him that I do not believe it is right, for the reasons which I gave, to write those
1170
words into the Bill. The noble Lord then says, "Will you then write them on the form that the counter-signatory is going to sign"? The noble Lord will understand if I say that that was a fast ball to give an immediate acceptance to. What I will do is say—I mean this seriously—that I shall look into the point to see whether it is possible for that to be done.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, it may have been a fast ball, but it was a straight ball. It was not a googly. In those circumstances, as the noble Earl has been kind enough to say that before Third Reading, he will look into the suggestion that has just been made, naturally I would want to withdraw the amendment. I should like to express my appreciation to the Minister for his promise.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 18:
After Clause 11, insert the following new clause:
("Revocation of certificates.
.—(1) Where a certificate is revoked by the chief officer of police under section 30(1)(a) or (2) of the principal Act he may by notice in writing require the holder of the certificate to surrender forthwith the certificate and any firearms and ammunition which are in the holder's possession by virtue of the certificate.
(2) It is an offence to fail to comply with a notice under subsection (1) above; and that offence shall be punishable on summary conviction with imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale or both.
(3) Where a firearm or ammunition is surrendered in pursuance of a notice under subsection (1) above, then—

(a) if an appeal against the revocation of the certificate succeeds, the firearm or ammunition shall he returned;

(b) if such an appeal is dismissed, the court may make such order for the disposal of the firearm or ammunition as it thinks fit;

(c) if no such appeal is brought or such an appeal is abandoned, the firearm or ammunition shall be disposed of—

(i) in such manner as the chief officer of police and the owner may agree; or

(ii) in default of agreement, in such manner as the chief officer may decide;

but subject, in a case within sub-paragraph (ii), to the provisions of subsection (4) below.

(4) The chief officer of police shall give the owner notice in writing of any decision under subsection (3)(c)(ii) above, the owner may appeal against that decision in accordance with section 44 of the principal Act and on such an appeal the court may either dismiss the appeal or make such order as to the disposal of the firearm or ammunition as it thinks fit.
(5) Subsection (4) of section 30 of the principal Act (surrender of revoked certificate within twenty-one days with extension in cases of appeal) shall not apply where the revocation is under subsection (1)(a) or (2) of that section and a notice is served under subsection (1) above; and paragraph I of Part I and paragraphs I to 5 of Part II of Schedule 5 to that Act (appeal jurisdiction and procedure) shall apply to an appeal under subsection (4) above as they apply to an appeal against the revocation of a certificate.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in Committee my noble friend Lord Balfour tabled an amendment which provided that where a person's certificate has been revoked he should arrange for his guns and ammunition to be handed over to the police. In doing so, my noble friend touched upon an important issue, and I undertook to look at it further and if possible to come back with a suitable amendment on Report.
That is what I have done. It is a complicated issue and I hope that your Lordships will bear with me if I explain the purpose of the amendment. The present

1171
position is that a firearm or a shotgun certificate may be revoked in the interests of public safety, or if the holder of a firearms certificate fails to deliver it up for the purpose of variation of a condition. On revoking a certificate, the police are required to notify the holder in writing and he then has 21 days from the date of the notice in which to surrender his certificate—and, by implication, to dispose of his guns—or alternatively to lodge an appeal to the Crown Court against the revocation. If an appeal is brought, the certificate holder is not required to surrender his certificate unless the appeal is abandoned or dismissed and, if it is, he has 21 days from that date to surrender the certificate.
The police have the power of search with a warrant under Section 46 of the 1968 Act, and they may seize and detain any firearm or ammunition in respect of which there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that an offence has been, is being, or is about to be committed. This would cover many occasions on which a certificate is revoked. Where a person is convicted of an offence under the 1968 Act, or of any other serious offence, the courts may order the cancellation of his certificate and the forfeiture of his guns and ammunition. In those cases a constable may immediately seize and retain the guns and ammunition, although 21 days are allowed for the surrender of the certificate.
However, there are occasions when the police may have cause to revoke a certificate because a holder can no longer safely be allowed to possess a firearm, and yet no offence has been involved and so the firearms concerned cannot he seized. This could be where, for example, the holder has become mentally unstable, or is habitually drunk. It seems to us, therefore, that there is a strong case for saying that where the chief officer has grounds for revoking a firearm or shotgun certificate because the continued possession of firearms or shotguns would pose a threat to public safety, any weapons and ammunition held should be surrendered to the police immediately pending the result of an appeal. I emphasise that we are talking about a very small number of cases. There is no question of allowing the police to require the surrender of guns in all cases where a certificate has been revoked for that would be unreasonably to deprive the legitimate owner. It is only in cases where there is clearly a threat to public safety that such an action can be justified.
The new clause provides that where a chief officer revokes a firearms certificate under Section 30(1)(a) of the 1968 Act, or a shotgun certificate under Section 30(2)—that is to say on grounds of public safety—he should be able, by notice in writing, to require the immediate surrender of the firearms and ammunition or, as the case may be, the shotgun to which the certificate relates. It will be an offence to fail to comply with such a notice.
Where no appeal is brought against revocation or an appeal is brought but is abandoned, the chief officer is required to dispose of the weapon and ammunition by agreement with the person whose certificate has been revoked or, where he is not the owner of the weapon or ammunition, with the owner.
1172
Where there is no agreement between them, the chief officer must notify the other person, by notice in writing, of the way in which he proposes to dispose of the weapon and ammunition. In that case the chief officer will dispose of the weapon and ammunition in accordance with his decision but subject to the right of a person who may be aggrieved by the decision to appeal to the Crown Court or, in Scotland, to the sheriff. Of course, if an appeal against revocation is brought and is successful, the firearms and ammunition will be returned to the owner. If it fails, the court may make an order for the disposal of the firearms and ammunition as it sees fit.
This is what we are proposing. I remind the House that this sort of procedure is likely to be necessary in very few cases indeed. It can only be pursued in cases where the revocation of the certificate is on the grounds of public safety. Where revocation is being effected on the grounds of failure to comply with a notice requiring the surrender of a certificate for the purpose of variation of a condition under Section 30(1) (b) of the 1968 Act, there are no compelling reasons for requiring the guns to be given up immediately, and so this procedure will not be followed. We have been careful in drafting this clause in order to provide the maximum opportunity for the certificate holder to have a say in the way in which his guns and ammunition are disposed of.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Balfour for drawing this matter to the attention of noble Lords at Committee stage. I hope that your Lordships agree that the amendment will improve the Bill and improve safety. I beg to move.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, unfortunately I have given fairly short notice to the Minister of a point that I wanted helpfully to make. Obviously, I am in agreement with the whole principle of the amendment. It is with a smile, having regard to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, together with the noble Lord, Lord Renton, who is in his seat, said on my previous amendment, that I quote to your Lordships the section with which we are dealing in the principal Act. Section 30(1) (a) says:
"If the chief officer is satisfied that the holder is prohibited by this Act from possessing a firearm to which Section 1 of this Act applies or is of intemperate habits or unsound mind, or is otherwise unfitted to be entrusted with such a firearm".
I did not argue the technicalities when dealing with my amendment; I was much too keen on getting the principle home to your Lordships. However, if the reasoning is right then the words "otherwise unfitted" are limited obviously to intemperate habits or unsound mind and nothing else. Furthermore, if the logic is right, the wording ought to have been merely that the person concerned is unfitted to be entrusted with such a firearm. We would then have attained the generality.
I note the very courteous re-entrance of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, to the Chamber. I shall quote to him the section with which we are dealing and on which he had a very learned submission to make earlier in regard to interpretation. I was reminding the House that we are

1173
dealing with Section 30 of the 1968 Firearms Act which talks of the chief officer being satisfied,
"that the holder is prohibited by this Act from possessing a firearm to which Section I of this Act applies or is of intemperate habits or unsound mind, or is otherwise unfitted to be entrusted with such a firearm",
I was saying in answer to the argument of the noble and learned Lord on the last amendment—and I did not see fit to enter into a contest on it—that it is remarkable that, if his submission is right, the words "otherwise unfitted" are not limited to intemperate habits or of unsound mind or that the legislation did not merely say,
"otherwise unfitted to be entrusted with such a firearm",
in order to keep the generality of the provision.
Having said this—it is completely irrelevant to the amendment—I shall go on to make my point. The amendment deals perfectly properly with the right of appeal for someone who has had his licence revoked and his firearms and/or ammunition confiscated. He goes to court and appeals. Subsection 3(a) of the amendment says,
"if an appeal against the revocation of the certificate succeeds, the firearm or ammunition shall be returned".
That is mandatory. The point I respectfully put before the Minister is that it does not allow for a situation where the appeal about revocation succeeds but the court thinks that a certain firearm or some of the ammunition should nevertheless be confiscated. I can think of various examples of that, especially if an applicant has intemperate habits, for example, and he then comes before a court and says that he has now signed the pledge. Consequently the licence is not revoked; but nevertheless some of the ammunition, the learned court may feel, should be confiscated or one example of the firearms should be confiscated, but the firearms certificate should not be revoked.
Therefore, I suggested to the Minister that after the word "succeeds" there should be inserted the words:
"then, subject to any order of the court, the firearms or ammunition shall he returned".
Otherwise, one gets the situation where a court's hands are completely tied and the court is told that if it allows an appeal it cannot, under this legislation, stop any part of the firearms or ammunition that have been confiscated being returned forthwith to the appellant. I respectfully suggest that we should cover that situation by the insertion of those words into the amendment. Naturally, I am not moving that by means of a manuscript amendment now. I draw that to the attention of the House and the Minister so that he can consider the matter between now and Third Reading. If he sees fit, he can amend the Bill accordingly.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I do not suppose that there will be any reason why your Lordships should not accept the amendment as it appears on the Marshalled List. But it runs alongside the previous amendment and the arguments that that amendment contained. Looking at this situation from a practical point of view, the chances are that anyone who reaches the point of having his licence revoked should not have had it granted in the first place.
1174
The chief officer responsible for having issued a licence would not discover overnight that the holder of a licence was intemperate or not the right kind of person to hold a licence. That would have been evident before. In approving this amendment, it will not be out of order to let it run alongside other suggestions as regards how we can avoid revocation by not granting a licence in the first place.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, put forward on a previous occasion a very strong argument on purely practical grounds. On that occasion this House had to rule out the acceptance of a doctor's certificate and other suggestions put forward. The noble Lord said he would be satisfied if the words of his amendment were put before the person who had to sign a statement claiming that the applicant was a fit and proper person to hold a licence.
I think that perhaps a more practical way of avoiding revocation by not granting a licence to the wrong people in the first place would be to follow the procedures that we adopt as regards planning permission. As an application for planning permission may interfere with the possessions of the applicant's neighbours, that application has to be publicly displayed. It must be publicly displayed that such and such an application for planning permission has been made. Neighbours and people who think they may be affected by the planning application are given a chance in the early stages to object to whatever planning application has been put forward.
If the situation as regards a certificate remains as it is at the minute, and we leave it to someone chosen by the applicant to say he is a fit and proper person, the applicant will naturally only ask someone to give that certification whom he knows will give that kind of approval. But the chances are that if such a person's next-door neighbours or relatives who knew him well were aware that he was applying for a firearms certificate, they might well, at the stage that such an application were made publicly known, let the chief officer who had to grant the certificate know of the doubts that they had as regards the applicant. If such doubts were expressed, the chief officer would have a chance of investigating the premises where the firearms would be kept before granting a certificate. If that procedure had been followed in the case of Hungerford or Walsall—which is my home town—things might have turned out differently.
In the case of the young man in Walsall who was involved in a shooting incident, the neighbours had always said that they thought he was intemperate. I have no doubt that the same case would apply to the neighbours in Hungerford as regards the young man involved in the shooting incident there. If the neighbours in both towns had known that the young men involved—whom to their daily knowledge were intemperate enough not to be allowed to hold a firearm—had been applying for a firearms certificate, they could have given evidence and prevented the certificates being granted in the first place.
When my noble friend considers the suggestion put forward by the noble Lord. Lord Mishcon, as regards inserting extra words in the legislation, I hope that, before we reach Third Reading, he will also look at the practicalities of advertising an application for a

1175
firearms certificate in a local paper or, as in the case of planning permission, ensuring that a notice is displayed in the area concerned. If that were the case, it may well be that instead of having to rely upon the point of view of a friend of the applicant, one could then obtain the views of people who really knew him. That is a practical idea which could be looked at alongside the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. However, in the meantime, it is perfectly obvious that we must accept the amendment as it now stands on the Marshalled List.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I wish to raise the matter of compensation. That worries me somewhat. It appears that the individual who has had his licence revoked must to all intents and purposes negotiate with the police about the fate of his weapon. If no agreement can be reached, it is up to the chief officer what happens to the weapon.
What guarantee can the Minister give that a person will receive proper compensation should this situation arise? To overturn a police decision, a firearms owner would have to go to court. Obviously that could be a very expensive operation. I shall be interested to hear my noble friend's reply to those points.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I wish to make a brief comment without coming to the point which was made by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. We are all in debt to the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, for having raised this matter in Committee. This amendment is highly desirable and will increase that essential degree of confidence on the part of the public that we are doing our job properly and ensuring, to a greater degree than was previously the position, their safety. I welcome the amendment without any reservation at all.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I wish to add a few further words at this stage. In reading the Firearms Act 1968 and the Firearms Bill, I noticed particularly that Section 30(4) of the Act stated that:
"Where a certificate is revoked by the chief officer of police under this section, he shall by notice in writing require the holder to surrender the certificate; and it is an offence for the holder to fail to do so within twenty-one days from the date of the notice".
But I could find nothing in the legislation that said what happened to the guns. My whole idea in putting this forward was that at least if the guns were in the hands of the police they were in safe keeping. In that respect I must thank my noble friend Lord Ferrers very much for coming forward with what has turned out to be a rather complicated addition to the Bill.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, I wish to intervene at this stage on the point that my noble friend Lord Peel made about compensation. The basic facts are that although a court or the chief constable of police may order a weapon to be confiscated or removed from the person who owns it, the right to continue to own that weapon is not removed from that person. There is a world of difference there. One may have, after such an order, the right to have a firearm in one's possession, but one will have to surrender the firearm itself.
1176
As I know only too well, the police are more than happy to have a weapon handed in to a recognised firearms dealer or, alternatively, for the owner to make whatever arrangements he wishes to sell it. But, in the meantime, the owner is not in possession of the weapon although that weapon is still his property. A court is not confiscating a weapon which belongs to that person; it is merely removing the right for that person to have his property in his possession.
Therefore, I am not sure that the question of compensation arises. It is still up to the owner to decide what to do with his property: whether to leave it in the hands of a registered firearms dealer for however long it may be before he gets his licence and certificate back or to make arrangements to sell it if he no longer requires it. There is no question of the confiscation of private property.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Swansea: My Lords, several points have been raised in connection with this amendment. I hope that my noble friend will feel inclined to take note of them and not press the amendment at this stage but bring it back at Third Reading.
One aspect of the amendment to which I should like to draw his attention is the position which arises where no appeal is made or an appeal is abandoned and the applicant accepts the decision of the court. The owner and the police may agree on the disposal of the firearm. However, if they do not agree the decision is left to the police. In order to overturn the police decision the owner would have to go to court. He may not be able to do so for financial reasons, particularly if he had abandoned his original appeal on those grounds. It is unlikely that he would want to go to court again to appeal against the decision regarding the disposal of the firearm.
The whole procedure looks to me to be very cumbersome. I wonder whether there is any need for the police to be involved at all. The owner should be entitled to dispose of the firearm concerned through a registered dealer for the best price which he can obtain for it. I hope that my noble friend will take on board the points which have been made and perhaps not ask the House to accept the amendment at this stage.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, if my noble friend Lord Swansea thinks that the procedure is cumbersome I can only tell him that it is in order to protect the interests of the individual at every stage that the amendment is longer than he would wish. He will know as well as I do that if the amendment had been shorter we should have been accused by him of steamrollering over the interests of the gun owner. I do not think that the procedure is unduly cumbersome. All we have tried to do is to ensure that if the owner of the firearm is found to be in such a state that his ownership is against the interests of public safety the firearm should be removed. Thereafter there is the whole gamut of appeals, disposal and so forth.
My noble friend Lord Balfour said that he could only see that the certificate had to be surrendered.

1177
However, if he looks at subsection (1) of the amendment he will see that it says:
"he may by notice in writing require the holder of the certificate to surrender forthwith the certificate and any firearms and ammunition which are in the holder's possession by virtue of the certificate".
If it were the case that a person was considered to be holding ammunition and weapons that he should not hold because he had become unstable, a police constable would go to his house, no doubt with a letter requesting him to hand over the ammunition and the weapons.
The owner then has the right to appeal to the court. The items are not destroyed. As my noble friend Lord Mountgarret quite rightly said, they are still in his ownership. My noble friend Lord Mountgarret was again entirely right—any such weapons remain perpetually the property of the owner. My noble friend Lord Peel asked about compensation. I should tell him that there is no compensation because the gun is not forfeited. The owner can arrange with the chief officer of police to sell it and he will receive the selling price.
Earl Peel: My Lords, perhaps I may ask my noble friend to give way. What guarantee can my noble friend give that the owner will receive the proper selling price? Unless the sale is conducted through a registered dealer, I do not see how that is possible.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my noble friend must remove from his mind the word "compensation". What happens is that weapons are confiscated. The case goes to court and if it is considered that the owner should no longer own the weapons, it is then up to him to decide how best to get rid of them. It may be that he will say, "I shall give them to my brother or my nephew". Or he may say, "I do not want these things, I shall sell them". It is up to the chief officer and the owner to decide how best to get rid of the weapons which the court has decided he should no longer have. Halfway through his speech the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon indicated that what he had said was an irrelevance because he was referring to another amendment. I am glad that he said that because I was busily reading through the amendment to see what it was to which the noble Lord was referring. The noble Lord was kind enough to give me advance notice of the points which he wished to make.
Where an appeal against a revocation succeeds, the certificate continues in force because the court considers that it should not be revoked. The firearm must be returned to the successful appellant. There is no question of the court having any power to order otherwise. I think that what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has in mind may be that, say, six items are covered by a firearms certificate and the court may consider that one item should be removed. It is important to remember that what is being considered here is the revocation of the certificate, which covers all six items. If the certificate is revoked, the ownership of all six will go.
It would be a curious situation if it was considered that public safety was at risk if the owner had one
1178
particular weapon but the public was not at risk if he had the other five. If that peculiar hypothetical situation were to come about so far as I know there is no reason why the owner of the certificate which had been revoked could not then reapply to the chief constable for another certificate for the five items which apparently under the court's decision would be acceptable.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the noble Earl is very kind. I did not have that example in mind at all and I apologise if I did not make myself clear. I had in mind that the court's discretion ought not to be interfered with by this Bill when it becomes an Act. As we noted when we looked at the principal Act, there are many reasons why a certificate may have been revoked—intemperate habit, the wrong weapons in the owner's possession, "or otherwise", if I may again, with great bitterness, quote those words.
There may well be a case in which ammunition has been confiscated which is not improperly in the possession of the person whose licence has been revoked. The court may say, "We have listened to the explanation, it is a perfectly reasonable one. We shall not revoke the certificate but we shall see that the ammunition or this one weapon which is being confiscated remains in the possession of the police". All I have suggested is that Section (3)(a) should leave the court with discretion instead of making it mandatory for the ammunition or firearms which are being confiscated to be returned. I said that if an appeal against the revocation of the certificate succeeds, then (subject to any order of the court) the firearm or ammunition shall be returned. So the court's discretion in such a case, and it may be an unusual one, is retained.
I do not ask for a yes or no answer now because I gave extremely short notice to the noble Earl. I do not in any way oppose the general principle of this amendment but simply ask him between now and Third Reading to consider what I have said. If he feels that it is worthwhile he can insert the words into the Bill before Third Reading; if he does not consider it worthwhile, I shall understand that my suggestion has been thrown into the wastepaper basket.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, whatever happens to the noble Lord's suggestion, it will not go into the wastepaper basket. He is too much of a respected figure to have such treatment given to his suggestions. I shall certainly give consideration to what he has said.
It is a dangerous thing to give an off-the-cuff answer to a lawyer, but perhaps I might say that it is the certificate which is called up for revocation because the chief constable thinks that it ought to be revoked. if the court were to say, "No, the certificate ought not to be revoked and the man has the right to hold it", then the owner has the right to hold the certificate with all the weapons and under all the conditions mentioned therein. I shall certainly look into the noble Lord's suggestion.
My noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls suggested that everyone who wanted a firearms certificate should have that fact advertised in the local paper. I rather fancy that that would add considerably to the

1179
bureaucratic processes, although it might also well add to the revenue of the local newspaper. In the days when my noble friend was a Member of Parliament, had he advertised the fact that he intended to request a certificate for a firearm, it might well be that one or other of his less agreeable opponents might have written in and complained vigorously about such an action. It is a matter for speculation whether those opponents would have been sufficiently knowledgeable to understand my noble friend's character and abilities for drink and otherwise—characteristics which seem to have been referred to so much this evening. However, I do not believe that the answers to a local newspaper advertisement would really offer a very good description of anyone's character still less that of my noble friend. I shall certainly look into the point that he has made also. I hope that your Lordships will be able to approve this amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
6.45 p.m.
Clause 12 [Firearms dealers]:
Lord Swansea Lord Swansea moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 6, line 24, leave out ("to a substantial extent") and insert ("from premises rated for business purposes").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment deals with the definition of a dealer. We have kicked this point around a number of times in the course of discussing this Bill and it has been difficult to confirm whether or not a dealer deals in firearms and ammunition to a substantial extent and how that "substantial extent" should be defined.
The Gun Trade Association has offered the wording set out in this amendment which I think is reasonable. I commend it to your Lordships. The example I have in mind is a village ironmonger in a rural area who might deal in firearms and ammunition as a sideline so far as his business is concerned; it might or might not form a substantial part of that business. Presumably his premises would be rated as business premises and come within the ambit of this amendment.
I believe that this is a reasonable definition in place of the present wording of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am somewhat puzzled by this amendment. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, would be able to give me an immediate answer without breaking the rules of the House. I should have thought that every firearms dealer necessarily occupied premises that were rated for business purposes. I may be wrong about that; but if not, it is something that puzzles me.
Lord Swansea: My Lords, at present there are a number of people who have firearms dealers' licences—for example, because they collect firearms or carry out repairs to firearms for other people, perhaps for their friends—without being a professional dealer or professional gunsmith. Those are the kinds of people whom I have in mind. I hope that answers my noble friend's question.
Lord Burton: My Lords, I think that this amendment is an improvement on the Bill as it stands. A number of noble Lords are not at all happy with the present wording of this Firearms Bill. There are a number of small firearms dealers who do very useful work, especially in the remoter areas of Northern Scotland, for example, where I can think of some very useful ones.
It occurs to me that there could be a difficulty in that the premises would have to be transformed into a shop in view of the fact that dealers would only be rated for a community charge. They may be all right at the moment as rated premises, but I am not sure of the effect once the community charge comes into operation.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, in answer to my noble friend Lord Renton, perhaps I may say that one could be a firearms dealer and deal from one's home premises whereas one's stock, if it can be called that, is in a much safer place. The stock and actual exchange may well take place in a protected building well away from the registered office. That is a good thing because it means that the firearms are under safer control in such premises than if they are left in normal business premises.
I should have thought that the wording as it is now which refers to firearms dealing "to a substantial extent" recognises that that is what the person is really doing—he is a firearms dealer, and that ought to be officially recognised. It is a better way of getting the right man than saying that he has to be somebody who operates from a shop. I prefer the words of the Bill to those suggested by my noble friend.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, when the community charge is introduced in April 1989, it will only be a substitute for domestic rates. Business premises will continue to be rated.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my noble friend suggests that the words "to a substantial extent" should be replaced by the words:
"from premises rated for business purposes".
We introduced the criterion of "a substantial extent" because of anxieties that at present some people register as dealers or might register as dealers in the hope of raising a little cash by casual part-time dealing. We do not suggest that such people are untrustworthy, but we believe that registration as a firearms dealer, with all the responsibilities which that entails, should in general be limited to those who are substantially involved in the business of the sale, manufacture, testing or repair of firearms. I might add that the Gun Trade Association has indicated that it has no objection to that.
With regard to the reference of rating for business purposes which this amendment wishes to substitute for the substantial extent test, it would virtually allow any business from a scrap dealer to a betting shop to qualify where the premises are rated for business purposes. That clearly cannot be right. In tightening up the existing provisions on dealers we are not concerned only with the part-time or occasional dealer who operates from domestic premises.

1181
Wherever the business is situated, the dealer must be engaged in it to a substantial extent if he is to be regarded as somebody who can properly be registered for the purposes of the Bill. I think that that must be right and I hope that your Lordships will agree with it.
Lord Swansea: My Lords, I cannot say that I am entirely satisfied with my noble friend's reply. He must be aware, as my noble friend Lord Burton mentioned, that, for example, in the north of Scotland a number of small shops in country areas, such as the village ironmonger, do a very useful trade with the local residents in firearms and ammunition as a sideline to their normal business.
It all depends on what one means by "dealing to a substantial extent". It might or might not represent a large proportion of a person's normal trade, and we have not yet come up with any really satisfactory definition of what constitutes "dealing to a substantial extent". I wonder whether my noble friend can help me on this point.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the words "substantial extent" are deliberately imprecise. I think I said at Committee stage that if you were to go to Harrods and buy a firearm, it would be wrong to say that they were not trading to a substantial extent just because it did not happen to form a very large proportion of their total turnover—not that I know what that is, but I would suspect that firearms do not form a very substantial part of it. Nevertheless they deal in that trade to a substantial extent.
This amendment catches those persons who carry on their lives and businesses in such a way that dealing with firearms forms a substantial part of their business. We are trying to remove those people who, if one might so put it, "tinker around a hit" with guns in a very acceptable and perhaps suitable way in order to earn a small amount of revenue on the side and who by so doing claim to be dealers. They are not dealers. They come under a separate part of the Bill and I think it is right that the words "substantial extent", which are deliberately imprecise, should be kept in the Bill.
Lord Swansea: My Lords, there is so much in legislation which is left to the discretion of the courts that it is quite appalling that Parliament is so deliberately vague from time to time. We always pass the buck to the courts to decide in the long run. However, after what my noble friend has said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 20:
After Clause 13, insert the following new clause:
("Offence of selling firearms etc, by mail order.
. (1) It is an offence to sell or let on hire any firearm or ammunition by mail order.
(2) A sale or letting on hire is by mail order when the offer is communicated by the postal service or by telephone, telegraph, facsimile transmission or similar means or by advertisement in any newspaper, journal, magazine, periodical or circular and the acceptance is communicated by such means or by delivery of the goods.
(3) A sale or letting by hire is not prohibited by this section if after any time after the offer and before delivery the purchaser (or his agent duly authorised in writing) attends at the premises of the vendor and then produces his certificate for inspection by the vendor.
(4) An offence under this section shall be punishable on summary conviction with imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding levels on the standard scale or both.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not intend to address your Lordships at any length at all on this amendment, which seeks to make it a criminal offence for arms to be sold by mail order. Your Lordships will remember that my noble friend Lady Ewart-Biggs dealt with this amendment, most effectively at the Committee stage. and it was then withdrawn.
I should like to remind your Lordships of what we are trying to do in this legislation. We want to ensure that weapons which we regard as dangerous weapons do not get into improper hands. We concentrated, very rightly, on such safeguards as photographs. During this Report stage we have altered the number of photographs from two to four in order to have further safeguards by way of record. The whole object of the exercise has been to ensure that people who should not be in possession of these dangerous weapons are not in possession of them.
The avenue that we have not explored—this was dealt with at Second Reading in quite a few of the speeches and I ventured to mention this myself in the speech I made at Second Reading—was the escape route, which can easily be by way of mail order. The question was asked at the Committee stage, and remained unanswered, as to what is to stop somebody who wrongly gets hold of a licence upon which a photograph exists sending that through mail order and then, quite improperly, getting weapons as a result to which he would not otherwise be entitled.
The sole reply of the noble Earl was to the effect that one would not expect people to cheat in this way and that if they were using wrong names, that really was not playing the game, if I may say so without offence. With respect, that is not the way this matter ought to be dealt with. There is nothing to stop somebody from sending a photograph through on a stolen or lost licence. The mail order people will have no knowledge at all as to whether this is a false photograph of the person asking to be supplied. This is a very dangerous way of multiplying the supply of weapons.
The other objection put forward by the noble Earl the Minister at col. 1371 of Hansard on 20th July, was that this:
"would probably harm a sizeable sector of the gun trade. I am not sure that we would wish to do that, if there were no great benefit to be obtained by it. No evidence whatever has been brought to our notice to suggest that there is a problem over mail order sales of firearms and shotguns. I think the situation should he tighter as a result of the Bill. We should be careful not to impose unreasonable burdens on legitimate shooters who wish to make their purchases by way of mail order".
Perhaps I may comment on that. Nobody wishes to harm people who are legitimately engaged in business, but advertisements appear and the encouragement to purchase firearms by mail order firms is well known and is not deemed to be socially desirable. Indeed when we were discussing this matter

1183
at Committee stage nobody took a party line on this and I hope that nobody is taking a party line on this legislation now. Various Members of your Lordships' Committee raised their voices, from whatever section of the Chamber they came, in support of the fact that something ought to be done about the mail order business, because this was a way by which Parliament could stop somebody dealing and saying, "You have done lots of things but you have not stopped us".
I would emphasise the point that it is all very well to talk about there being no evidence. There have been lots of complaints from various organisations. Indeed I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, who has fought a gallant fight for what he thinks is right in regard to this Bill, has complained, with others, that little or no evidence has been brought before us. The Home Office has not conducted any real research into the matters that have led to this Bill. The Bill has been a reaction—a correct reaction, in my respectful view—to a dreadful episode where Parliament thought that there was public concern about the acquisition of firearms, and that something had to be done about controlling them. It was thought that persons who had firearms should be looked at very carefully, together with how they obtained them. We left this mail order channel completely unchalleged. I beg to move.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, I support the amendment. In the early stages of consideration of the Bill I received in the post—as other noble Lords may have done—certain magazines that I shall not name. In them was depicted the most appalling collection of weaponry, guns and every conceivable dreadful thing that one can imagine, including crossbows. I note that crossbows are not covered in the Bill.
These magazines are readily available. I do not blame the young who buy them—I am not getting at them—or, indeed, the old. It is easy to come by the magazines. One can be very tempted by them. One sees the beautiful knives and wonderful guns that can do this, that and the other. It is easy to obtain them by mail order. I think that it is unfair to make it so easy to obtain such weapons.
The amendment satisfies many requirements. By all means let such goods be advertised. Many people who live in far away places wish to know about them. However, one must go to the premises and produce one's certificate, and so on. I think that the amendment has much to commend it.
7 p.m.
Lord Swansea: My Lords, I think that the amendment is not necessary. Under the 1968 Act sale or purchase by mail order or over the counter is subject to the same rules. The rules apply to all cases, including mail order. Many people are wrongly under the impression that one can write to a firm advertising in a magazine, order what one likes and get it. One cannot. It is subject to the same procedure whether for firearms or for shotguns. My noble friend Lord Mountgarret mentioned crossbows. They are not firearms.
1184
Advertising by firms in certain specialist magazines forms an important part of revenue for the magazine publishers. Many people buy the magazines, which are very popular. Many people are keen on shooting with one firearm or another. They buy the magazines because they are interested in shooting of various kinds. The magazines depend on revenue from advertisements. To stop mail order sales would create a serious situation for the magazine publishers. The amendment is not necessary.
Lord Tryon: My Lords, I declared an interest at an early stage of consideration of the Bill. I repeat it: I am director of a firm of London gunmakers.
I have a reservation about the amendment. I think that it goes wider than the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, wishes in regard to mail order selling of guns. In the experience of the gun trade and certainly of the company with which I am concerned quite a lot of guns—indeed, a great deal of ammunition too; but I understand that the amendment does not refer to ammunition—are bought by customers of many years' standing of the firm in question. They write in, particularly from places like Scotland and say, for example, "Make me a gun like the one you made me five years ago". This kind of trade, which I think no noble Lord would wish to stop, will be badly affected if the amendment is carried.
In the case of rifles it is customary for people to leave their firearms certificates with their normal gun dealer. He enters on the certificates guns that come in and out and, indeed, ammunition that goes in and out as it is ordered by telephone and letter. The amendment would cause great difficulty to this perfectly legitimate trade.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords it may assist in the debate if I intervene briefly. The example that the noble Lord, Lord Tryon, gave would be excluded. The amendment deals only with the situation where the offer to sell is communicated by post or advertisement. There would be no objection to a person who wished to order himself coming under the provision.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I have a query. Subsection (3) of the proposed new clause requires that,
"the purchaser (or his agent duly authorised in writing) attends at the premises of the vendor".
In country districts, particularly in Scotland, the gunsmith may well be many miles from the residence of the certificate holder. As the noble Lord, Lord Tryon, said, it is common practice for the certificate holder to leave the certificate with the gunsmith. When ammunition is required he telephones his order and has it sent. A stalker in the season cannot take time off just to go shopping.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I was not present in Committee. When I first read the amendment, it seemed rather attractive, but on further thought I came to a different conclusion.

1185
We must accept that an increasing amount of the retail trade of the country is being done by mail order, much of which is perfectly respectable. Noble Lords in their different ways will know several remote areas of the country. I think of my old constituency of Huntingdonshire, a large rural area of 370 square miles. There was only one firearms dealer from whom it was possible to buy a shotgun or a rook rifle although several ironmongers in half a dozen different parts of the constituency sold ammunition. In the case of more remote areas like parts of Scotland one would have to go a long way to find a firearms dealer. It might be much more convenient to try to obtain a legitimate firearm through a mail order business or an advertisement in the Shooting Times.
As I said, I then had doubts about the wisdom of the amendment. If there is any fear as to breach of security through mail order business and the transport of arms, I hope that that is covered by Clause 13, which is fairly comprehensive.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. Throughout the Bill we have not pursued party lines. This has cut across party. I hope that that is true on both sides of the House. The noble Lord mentioned that in Committee the Minister said that there is no problem and, if there were a problem, the Home Office would know about it. If the Minister, with the knowledge of the Home Office behind him, can assure the House that there is no problem, we have to accept it.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, in my view the wording of the amendment is too categoric although one sees the point of it. The opening words are:
"It is an offence to sell or let on hire any firearm or ammunition by mail order".
The only inference one can take from that is that there is something wrong with mail order business. While we wish to avoid the possibility of firearms getting into the wrong hands, we ought to find some way of doing that without suggesting that it is automatically wrong if this is done through the mail order system. As my noble friend Lord Swansea said, the same probing is undertaken that occurs when the transaction is done over the counter.
I do not think that it would be wise to accept this categoric new clause, which implies that a legitimate part of the nation's business, mail order, is intrinsically wrong because it is mail order.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, for once I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. It was explained to me in February this year that from two big mail order catalogues it was possible to buy various bits of a gun, then put them together without having to produce a certificate. I know that quite a few friends who are firearms dealers feel that through mail order firms people are able to do things which they themselves would not do. That is why I support the amendment. There may be drafting problems, but that is another matter.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, the recent answer of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, was not adequate. What he has described in the amendment as "mail order" is not mail order. He said that the answer to the objection made was that the man wrote in first. Let us suppose that my perfectly normal gun dealer sends me this year's price list—an offer communicated by the postal services. I am about to order a gun. I see that the dealer is quoting a favourable price, and that is what I want: but he tells me that there would be an offence. It all depends on whether I wrote in first or whether the price list arrived at my house the day before. I cannot believe that the noble Lord means to apply a prohibition whenever one receives from one's normal gun merchant his standard price list for ammunition included along with firearms.
Lord Burton: My Lords, if my noble friend says that the law is being evaded then clearly one needs to do something to stop that evasion. On the other hand, the White Paper which initiated the legislation stated categorically that this was not the case and that the evidence was that mail order sales were not being used to evade the law. I do not know which is right; but clearly it is something that should be looked at. If there is evasion of the law then something should be done about it. If the law is not being evaded I can see no good reason why mail order should not continue.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I begin with an apology because by misfortune I was not here to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. Therefore, I did not have the advantage of hearing the arguments he deployed in favour of the amendment. I have some sympathy for the general thrust of what the noble Lord has suggested. I was captivated by the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that the Home Office is such a remarkable department—he and I have both had the privilege of serving in it—that it knows basically the answer to every single problem facing mankind. That is possibly a marginal overstatement of the wisdom of the Home Office.
What we have to recognise is that the Bill lays down a far more restrictive regime for shotguns. There is no point in discussing the position of mail order sales under the old regime. We are now concerned with the new and more restrictive regime. The question before us is: can the general objectives of this new regime be consistent with the retention of mail order sales, which have undoubtedly caused a substantial degree of public disquiet? I look forward to hearing what the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, will say; but I do not think that we should underestimate the public concern on this question. It has to be met.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, on the face of it most people will sympathise with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for trying to tighten up the law. It would seem that if these weapons and ammunition are sent around by mail order there appears to be a loophole. I must tell the noble Lord—in this I am grateful for the help of my noble friend Lord Renton—that we have not had any evidence to suggest that there is a problem with mail order sales. Therefore if we cut

1187
down on them we must be quite certain that we are cutting down for good reason. We have not found that there is a good reason.
Moreover, we also have to be careful not to impose unreasonable burdens on the legitimate shooters who wish to make their purchases by way of mail order, such as those to whom the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, referred. Those who live in far away parts of the country cannot always avail themselves of the time to purchase their ammunition or rifles.
The person who purchases a Section 1 firearm, ammunition or shotgun by mail order has to send in his certificate. My noble friend Lord Swansea is entirely right. Exactly the same rules apply when people purchase by mail order as they do when they purchase over the counter. A person has to send in a certificate. In future a shotgun certificate will also have to be produced for the mail order purchase of shotgun ammunition. That will bear the holder's home address so it will not be easy for anyone else to use the certificate for mail order purchases.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, asked: what happens if a thief steals a firearms certificate and then goes to buy some ammunition with it? One could venture into the realms of fantasy for a moment. Perhaps, I may assume that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, turned his colours, became a criminal and stole my firearms certificate. Having done so, he wrote off to a mail order firm and asked for 1,000 rounds of ammunition. He would send my certificate with his application. Much to his surprise, the 1,000 rounds of ammunition would come not to him but to me because it is up to the mail order firm to assure itself that it is sending the ammunition or the weapon to the person whose name is on the certificate. The goods would not go to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon.
Having said that, one cannot ever be certain that nothing will be stolen. If that happens that of course is up to the owner of the certificate. Firearms and shotgun certificates will in future carry a footnote requiring the certificate-holder to notify the police if his certificate is lost or stolen. The police will then be able to circulate the details of the stolen or lost certificate to the appropriate dealers. If a mail order company fails to ensure that it is sending firearms to a properly authorised person, it stands the risk of losing its licence to deal in firearms.
For those reasons it would be inappropriate to accept the noble Lord's amendment. The mail order business is quite substantial and so far as we know it is conducted perfectly reputably.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, naturally I am grateful to the noble Earl for replying to the amendment. I wish I could express the same gratitude for the content of the reply in the sense that if he has to take examples of somebody who is a criminal and somebody who is an innocent sender, I ask him occasionally to reverse the situation and make himself the criminal and me the innocent sender. On quite a number of occasions the noble Earl has given ingenious examples and I have always appeared as the rather wicked person in the examples.
1188
However, to take that example and to treat the matter seriously the noble Earl has to take it for granted that I am possessed of some subtlety in my criminal life. All I therefore have to do is to say that I am Earl Ferrers with an address at the House of Lords. It would be much more convenient if the dealer were to send the goods to my new address or to a much more convenient address for the housing of ammunition and rifles. I could then give my address and the postman could pop it through my letterbox or bang on the door to deliver the goods. That would be that. The example, apart from seizing on an innocent person and calling him a criminal, is not a good one.
In my view the noble Lord, Lord Harris, made a valid point that I tried to make in my opening speech but which he did not hear. It was this: we are dealing not with a regime where, presumably, there were no problems because the legislation was not before Parliament, had not been enacted; and there was no question of checking by having photographs on certificates, licences and so on. We have said that we must have such protection. Then one leaves the door wide open by saying, "Although in normal circumstances you would have to present your certificate at the counter, and the assistant could check that you were the person concerned by looking at the photograph, you will not have to do that in mail order. We are going to allow mail order to continue". That must be wrong under the new regime. That was the point that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, was making.
I ask the Minister not to rise now and say that he accepts the amendment. It is a fairly late hour, the House is not very full and I should not wish to divide it. However, perhaps the Minister will at least say that the matter will still have the consideration of the Government. Therefore if they decide against the amendment we can deal with the matter at Third Reading. If, on the other hand, he says in all frankness that the Government will never agree to this, I am afraid that I must divide the House.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I rise on this occasion, oddly enough, not at the request of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon (it is usually his peroration to invite me to rise again) but first to apologise to him for the grief which I have evidently caused by hypothesising him as being a criminal. It merely helps to exemplify the position, to sharpen one's mental aptitudes and to extend one's imagination even further.
He put forward an argument that one could forward a certificate and state that one had changed addresses. That will not wash because it is up to the mail order firm to know to whom it is selling its equipment, ammunition or rifles. That is its responsibility. If it accepts someone else's instructions to send the equipment to a different place, the responsibility is specifically on the mail order firm to ensure that it sends that equipment to the right place.
I believe that it would be procedurally inappropriate to bring back at Third Reading a

1189
matter which has been considered at Report stage and which is not new. For that reason it would be inappropriate to bring the matter back again.
I am hound to tell the noble Lord that I am unable to accept the amendment because I believe that the mail order business conducts itself correctly and properly. At the moment we have no evidence to believe that it conducts itself in such a way as to be a danger.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I should like to make clear the fact that I am not insulting the mail order business in any way. I am merely trying to prevent something being ridden right the way through the protective legislation as a result of the criminal acts of others. In those circumstances I must divide the House.
7.24 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 20) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 27; Not-Contents, 79.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Blease, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Broadbridge, L.

McNair, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Mar, C.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Mishcon, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Mountevans, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B. [Teller.]

Mountgarret, V.

Grey, E.

Munster, E.

Hampton, L.

Nelson, E.

Hanworth, V.

Nicol, B. [Teller.]

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Phillips, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Kagan, L.

Seear, B.

Kilbracken, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Alport, L.

Ferrers, E.

Ampthill, L.

Fortescue, E.

Arran, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Ashbourne, L.

Grantchester, L.

Auckland, L.

Greenway, L.

Belstead, L.

Gridley, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Borthwick, L.

Hailsham of Saint

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Marylebone, L.

Burton, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Caithness, E.

Hives, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Hooper, B.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Kimball, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Carnock, L.

Liverpool, E.

Colnbrook, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Colwyn, V.

Margadale, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Marley, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Mersey, V.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Monk Bretton, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Monson, L.

Denman, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Dundee, E.

Norrie, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Northesk, E.

Elphinstone, L.

Onslow, E.

1190

Orkney, E.

Strange, B.

Peel, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Suffield, L.

Portsmouth, E.

Swansea, L.

Radnor, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Reay, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Renton, L.

Torphichen, L.

St. Davids, V.

Trafford, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Tranmire, L.

Savile, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Selborne, E.

Trumpington, B.

Sharples, B.

Tryon, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Ullswater, V.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be adjourned until 8.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The sitting was suspended from 7.33 to 8.30 p.m.]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 21:
After Clause 13, insert the following new clause:
("Borrowed rifles on private premises.
.—(1) A person of or over the age of seventeen may, without holding a firearm certificate, borrow a rifle from the occupier of private premises and use it on those premises in the presence either of the occupier or of a servant of the occupier if—

(a) the occupier or servant in whose presence it is used holds a firearm certificate in respect of that rifle; and

(b) the borrower's possession and use of it complies with any conditions as to those matters specified in the certificate.

(2) A person who by virtue of subsection (1) above is entitled without holding a firearm certificate to borrow and use a rifle in another person's presence may also, without holding such a certificate, purchase or acquire ammunition for use in the rifle and have it in his possession during the period for which the rifle is borrowed if—

(a) the firearm certificate held by that other person authorises the holder to have in his possession at that time ammunition for the rifle of a quantity not less than that purchased or acquired by, and in the possession of, the borrower; and

(b) the borrower's possession and use of the ammunition complies with any conditions as to those matters specified in the certificate.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, in Committee my noble friends Lord Dilhorne and Lord Kimball tabled amendments which were aimed at regularising the practice of lending estate rifles to visiting shooters. I indicated that the amendment of my noble friend Lord Kimball was unacceptable because it was too wide. However, the lending of estate rifles is a widespread practice which poses no threat to public safety if properly supervised. Therefore, I said that I would carefully consider the matter to see whether we could come forward with a proposal.
The new clause proposed in Amendment No. 21 provides a system which I hope will meet with my noble friends' approval and that of your Lordships. It will enable a person of not less than 17 years of age to borrow, without holding a firearms certificate, a rifle—but not any other Section 1 firearm—from the occupier of private premises, and to use it on those premises in the presence either of the occupier or of any servant of the occupier who himself holds a firearms certificate in respect of that rifle. I understand that it is fairly common for a rifle which

1191
is held on a landowner's firearms certificate to be held also by his gamekeeper or gillie on a firearms certificate.
The exemption is, however, subject to the proviso that the borrower of the rifle has it in his possession and uses it in accordance with any conditions relating to the possession or use of the rifle which are specified on the firearms certificate held by the person in whose presence he is entitled to use the rifle; that is, the conditions in the lender's certificate or the servant's certificate, depending on which of them is accompanying the borrower during the shoot.
One of the conditions normally attached to a firearms certificate under Section 27(3) of the 1968 Act is a condition restricting the use of a firearm to a particular area. The main effect of this proviso therefore in the case of the borrower will be to restrict his use of the borrowed rifle to the same area as that authorised for the certificate holder.
The new clause also makes provision for the borrower to purchase or to acquire ammunition for the rifle which is borrowed, without the need to hold a firearms certificate. He may possess any amount of ammunition to the limit of the quantity which is authorised by the certificate of the person in whose presence the rifle is used. I beg to move.
Viscount Mountgarret Viscount Mountgarret moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 21, Amendment No. 22:
Line 2, leave out ("of or over the age of seventeen").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I am in some difficulty and I ask the House to bear with me for a moment. I should like to say, first (and I do not want to pre-empt my noble friend Lord Kimball), that we are extremely grateful to my noble friend Lord Ferrers for taking on board the point that my noble friend Lord Kimball raised in Committee. He has gone a long way towards meeting the anxiety expressed by many of us regarding the borrowing of rifles on estates. We need not go into that now; but we are extremely grateful.
However, there are certain anomalies. We now have four amendments to Amendment No. 21, but perhaps the House will allow me to refer also to Amendment No. 26. It will be seen that Amendment No. 26 could possibly pre-empt—I do not in any way wish to anticipate any other noble Lords or noble Baronesses who have their names down to other amendments—what we are attempting to do. Therefore, I am in some difficulty as to the procedure that we follow. I am happy to move Amendment No. 22 but Amendment No. 21 (with which to a great extent many of us agree) has the same objective as Amendment No. 26 but in a slightly different form. It would be an anomaly to agree to one new clause and then have another new clause included.
Therefore, before we proceed further may I ask the leave of the House to be given some guidance on whether agreement can be reached whereby we deal first—to put the matter backside-foremost—with Amendment No. 26 and, if that is not agreed, deal with the amendments to Amendment No. 21. Am I in order by requesting assistance in this respect?
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the noble Viscount had such an appealing look on his face that even an amateur colleague would like to seek to assist him if possible. As I understand the procedure of the House—and I say this with all humility—with the agreement of the House there would be nothing to stop Amendment Nos. 25 and 26 being spoken to at the same time as Amendments Nos. 21 to 24, which are grouped together. If the noble Viscount therefore wishes to speak to Amendment No. 26 on this debate, and the House comes to a conclusion as to which amendment it wishes to support, I should have thought that was the way to deal with his problem.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I always respect the advice of a professional, and I respect it even more when it comes as an amateur's advice. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that if my noble friend Lord Mountgarret speaks to his amendment now it would facilitate the procedure and we can then take all the amendments together.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, I am extremely grateful for that assistance from the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and my noble friend Lord Ferrers. Therefore, with the leave of the House, I speak to Amendment No. 26.
First, we are not very happy with the age limit in my noble friend's amendment. One can understand it from one point of view; but if the occupier of an estate, or the owner, has in his possession a shotgun firearms certificate he must be deemed to be a person of some degree of discretion. Therefore, surely it is reasonable to assume that he should be able to exercise his discretion in a sensible way.
If we set the age limit at 17 where then does the young boy obtain his experience—or young girl, because I have often had the privilege of female company when stalking on the hills and, if I may say so, they are infinitely better shots and their temperament is infinitely better? There are many young people who are perhaps in shooting teams at school. Why should they not be able to take advantage of what might be offered to them on the hills, stalking, on the rifle range, and so on?
Amendment No. 23 mentions the age of 14. Why have any age limit at all? On that basis, perhaps I may refer the House to Section 11(5) of the 1968 principal Act. There it says that "A person may". It does not say what age that person may be. Therefore I am not sure that it is quite right to include an age in this clause.
Leading on from that point, my noble friend who moved this amendment said that a person who is entitled to borrow and use a rifle may in fact purchase or acquire ammunition for that rifle. That is an anomaly on two grounds. The first is that under the Firearms Act 1968 no one is able to purchase or acquire ammunition without having a firearms certificate. Therefore, I cannot see how we can now write in words to the effect that a person without a firearms certificate can now purchase ammunition. I cannot accept the argument that one may have temporarily run out of ammunition and one is so busy that one cannot go out to buy it. There should

1193
be no reason why one should run out of ammunition; if one does it would be due to bad planning. I do not believe that to be a fair argument.
What is more important is that Clause 5 of this Bill restricts the purchase of ammunition for a shotgun to those who hold only a shotgun certificate. Logically speaking and particularly as a rifle is deemed to be a more dangerous weapon than a shotgun, it seems to me, and I hope to some of your Lordships as well, a slight contradiction in terms to permit the purchase of ammunition for a rifle by those who do not hold a certificate and yet not to allow people to buy cartridges for a shotgun without a certificate. I am 100 per cent. in favour of Clause 5 of the Bill as it stands, but the amendment which my noble friend has tabled in this respect creates, first, an anomaly and, secondly, an impracticality. I am not sure that it is right to include it.
Therefore in Amendment No. 26 we seek to go along 100 per cent. with the principle of being able to borrow a rifle on private premises, together with the conditions that my noble friend has outlined. That is absolutely right. The amendment omits any reference to age, which is in line with the Firearms Act 1968. In addition, it does not allow the purchase of ammunition, which again is in line with the Bill that we are discussing. I do not know whether I am begging to move Amendment No. 22 or Amendment No. 26. In the context of what I have said I beg to move Amendment No. 22 because it deletes the words,
"of or over the age of 17".
That is in line with the Firearms Act 1968. I leave it to the discretion of the House as to what I am moving and what we might decide upon. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene on a procedural matter. We were discussing Amendment No. 21. If my noble friend wishes to move Amendment No. 22, that is in order as an amendment to Amendment No. 21. I believe that it is right that he can speak to all those matters when the time comes to move the amendments. That is something that will have to be taken later.
8.45 p.m.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, as I understand it, the grouping is for Amendments Nos. 21 to 26 to be taken together, so I do not believe there is any doubt as to the speeches that we have heard on this subject. We can speak to these five amendments and then the Deputy Speaker will call them in order and noble Lords can vote. I believe that the noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret, has slipped up on this matter to be so confused as he appears to be.
I should like briefly to put the picture as I see it on the question of the age of 14 or 17 and the purchase of ammunition. The noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret, buttonholed me, if that is the right word, last night as I was rushing to catch a train. As a result of discussing this matter with him I missed my train, although it was not entirely his fault because
1194
there was also a mix up on the Tube. It is a very difficult problem because the moment one mentions a gun and someone aged 14 lay people will screw up their faces and say, "Good gracious rne!"
I was shooting at the age of 13 and certainly most boys start training to shoot from the age of 14, which in my opinion is the right age at which to learn to shoot. At the age of 17 one is becoming an adult and one will want to take a full part in a shoot. In my opinion to start to learn to shoot at the age of 17 is not on. The amendments which have been tabled on this subject relate to shooting taking place on private property and not on public ground or elsewhere.
It would be quite impossible to enforce a regulation that one cannot be taught to shoot until the age of 17. There are people who live on farms with sons who definitely begin to shoot at about the age of 14 or 15. We speak a great deal about training and education and, within reason, the earlier one starts the better. We have to consider the age at which shooting is permissible on private property and under supervision. I am very much in favour of the amendments dealing with that matter.
As regards the question of the purchase of ammunition and the amendment of Section 11 of the 1968 Act, which the noble Viscount mentioned, I agree with that proposal. I wish to emphasise the point about bringing in legislation which simply could not be enforced because young people will be taught to shoot at a much earlier age than 17. In my opinion that is a good thing, provided that it is supervised and it takes place on private land.
Lord Kimball: My Lords, as regards Amendment No. 21, I wish to thank the Government most sincerely for legalising what is in fact a well-established practice. During the course of this Bill there has been a certain amount of criticism that the Government have not paid too much attention to the demands of the genuine users of firearms. This is an example where the Government have listened and have gone out of their way to meet a well-established practice. From the point of view of the police and everyone else, by allowing the principle of the estate right for someone who comes to stalk or to use a rifle, the Government are ensuring that fewer firearms certificates are issued and fewer people have a need to buy a firearm. They can go stalking and use a rifle which is already there.
In saying that the Government have made a major move, we are getting it wrong as regards the age of 17. If someone under the age of 17 has the right, the invitation and the facilities to use a firearm, then there is no reason why that person cannot have a firearms certificate in his own right. There are very few examples in this case. I believe that we should keep this safeguard because the most dangerous thing in this world is when two boys go out together; that is when trouble always starts. It is perfectly possible that an underkeeper, an employee, of the age of 17 would have the estate rifle on his firearm certificate. It would be undesirable for two boys under the age of 17 to go out together. We should keep the government amendment as it is.

1195
I hope that noble Lords will support my noble friend the Minister and will appreciate that in the exceptional cases where people under the age of 17 have the right and the need to use a firearm it is perfectly possible to get over this problem of the age limit. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, that many people want to start shooting at an early age. Those people have the facilities. They have the supervision and there is no danger. In fact, this Bill will be no problem to them.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I should like to take up one point on the issue of age. I shall quote from paragraph 111 of the consultative document Cmnd. 5297 published in 1973. I shall not read all of it. I shall pick out the parts that really matter. It says:
"The existing law, contained in sections 22–24 of the Firearms Act 1968 incorporates a variety of restrictions on the possession and use of firearms by the young …They are now complicated, anomalous and out of date…A child under 14 may not use any firearm unless properly supervised …Children under 15 are prohibited (with certain exceptions) from having shotguns in their possession. This was partly because 15 was the school leaving age at the time this restriction was introduced. The school leaving age is now 16, and nobody under that age can now have a full time job (e.g. in gamekeeping) which might require him to use a shotgun unsupervised".
There is something to be said for the age of 17 in this case because it permits the person to buy ammunition. Section 24 of the 1968 Act says:
"It is an offence to sell, let or hire any firearm or ammunition to a person under the age of 17".
However, in respect of use of a firearm, it can be at a much younger age if under supervision. It is worth pointing out that there is this quite remarkable anomaly in regard to age and who can use what and when.
Lord Monson: My Lords, this may be an opportune moment for me to speak to Amendment No. 23, which is a slightly less radical alternative amendment (as regards the Government) to Amendment No. 22. The noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret, said that he was not very happy about the age limit. I must congratulate him on the mildness of his phraseology. Many of us are extremely worried about the implications of government Amendment No. 21 as it stands, which is why we have tabled Amendment No. 23.
For generations hundreds of thousands of young people have learnt to shoot responsibly with small-bore rifles at an early age, and a rather smaller number have learnt to shoot more powerful sporting rifles—also responsibly—at a generally greater age, by which I mean in their early teens. I had the privilege of attending a prep school whose pupils were the small-bore champions of the British Empire as it then was. We were the small-bore champions of our age group, it goes without saying. I learnt to shoot a 22 rifle at the age of 11 or 12. My brother learnt at the age of 10. I daresay that many noble Lords learned to shoot at an earlier age than that. All this tradition would seem to be put in jeopardy by the new clause as it stands, a development which incidentally was never foreshadowed by the Home Secretary in his speech last September to the Association of Police Superintendents.
1196
The noble Lord, Lord Kimball, is quite wrong. It is not unusual for people to learn to shoot before the age of 17, as the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, pointed out. It is in fact the norm. We acknowledge that the clause as it stands would not prevent schools from practising small-bore shooting but it would make it virtually impossible for parents to encourage their sons or daughters to take a few experimental shots at a target on their own private land, let alone to go out after rabbits on that same private land. To teach young people below the age of 17 to stalk would also be virtually impossible although I understand that until now many people have learnt stalking at a much earlier age than that. I am no expert on stalking: other noble Lords will know more about it than I.
Amendment No. 23 is something of a compromise. We should have preferred a minimum age of 10 for conventional small-bore firearms—ordinary 22s—and a minimum age of 14 for the more powerful sporting weapons, but we did not want to complicate matters at this stage. We agree with the Government that the minimum age of 17—this answers the point of the noble Earl, Lord Balfour—for buying ammunition is fully justified—hence Amendment No. 25. I think I have said all I can on Amendment No. 23.
Lord Renton: My Lords, there must be an age limit and therefore I would not be in favour of Amendments Nos. 22 or 25. The important question is what the age limit should be. I think that 14 is more realistic. After all, many of us in the Chamber learnt in the OTC to shoot with Lee Enfield. 303 rifles. It is still possible in some schools to shoot with rifles of perhaps a slightly smaller calibre. There may be a few Lee Enfields left about the place—I do not know. For boys who learnt to shoot in the army cadet force at the age of 14 to come home in the Easter holidays and find that the law prevents them from shooting rooks with a.22 rifle seems to be quite absurd.
Therefore while welcoming his new clause, I suggest to my noble friend that he should either concede Amendment No. 23 or say that he will consider it for Third Reading. It is a serious and important point. Without having turned up the law as perhaps I should have done, I would guess that if the age were to remain 14 various consequentials might be necessary, as was hinted at by my noble friend Lord Balfour. This has been a valuable and important discussion, and I hope that my noble friend will perhaps agree with some of it.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, the purpose of these amendments is to enable people to teach their children to shoot at a young age using the estate rifle without having to obtain a firearms certificate for those children—a firearms certificate which some chief constables might be unlikely to grant. While I very much prefer Amendment No. 26 in the names of the noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret, and the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, to the ones to which the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and I have our names, I think it is important that we should get some kind of concession on this matter.

1197
The amendment tabled by the noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret, removes all age qualification: it is a most simple amendment. However, we are in a difficulty because the amendment comes after the one put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. Therefore we must make a decision on the noble Earl's amendment before we can make a decision on the amendment put forward by the noble Viscount. The noble Viscount's amendment is not an amendment to the noble Earl's amendment; it is an alternative. Thus the situation puts the House in certain difficulty.
If none of the amendments is acceptable to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, I wonder whether he would consider the possibility of the owner of an estate rifle being able to have some kind of note on his firearms certificate which would allow him to lend the rifle to minors—such as his children or his friends' children—for the purpose of teaching them to shoot in either his presence or the presence of his employee. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, suggested such a provision when he spoke on an earlier amendment.
9 p.m.
Earl Peel: My Lords, the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, has demonstrated the practical problems before us in connection with this series of amendments. I should like to join my noble friend Lord Kimball in thanking the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, for having come forward with the amendment. It is a most useful one. However, I take issue with my noble friend Lord Kimball on his suggestion about under-17 year-olds—I think that is what he said—applying for permits. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, that that is unlikely to be practical. I am sure we would see a resistance to it, especially from chief officers of police, if it were to happen. Further, I think it would be a waste of police time if children under the age of 17 were to apply for such permits.
It seems to me that if we could accept the change in years from 17 to 14 it would surmount the problem and allow a child of that age to borrow from the occupier. I am sure that that is the most practical way forward.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I think that this issue has in some ways become confused. The amendment I put down was a simple one. I shall do my best, therefore, to try to help your Lordships over the problem. The amendment tabled in my name was put forward specifically to meet the problem of the estate rifle. In other words, it was introduced in order to enable those people who were visitors to an estate to use an estate rifle which belonged to the estate owner—even though that person himself did not have a certificate—provided that he was in the presence of the owner or the owner's servant who had a certificate. The provision, and its inclusion of the age of 17, was intended as a concession so that visitors could use what are lethal weapons without
1198
themselves having a firearms certificate. In other words, they could use it because they were staying on an estate which belonged to people who had such a firearms certificate. That is a totally separate issue from the teaching of children.
It was, I believe, the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, who said that people were always taught fairly young to use rifles; that is absolutely true. I agree entirely with what she said in that respect. The amendment does not alter that position at all. It has always been the case that those who wish to teach their sons can do so provided that they are over the age of 14 and themselves have a firearms certificate. That point is perfectly clear. As I said, Amendment No. 21 does not alter the situation and I suggest that it should not be altered.
The position as regards shotgun certificates with which we have become involved has slightly muddied the situation. A shotgun certificate can be obtained by a person of any age and a young man can shoot with his father without a certificate provided that he is in the presence of his father, on his father's land, and that his father has a certificate. Therefore the teaching of young children is not altered by the amendment. It would be a pity if we were to try to alter the position.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, said that it would be a pity if the tradition of use by people under the age of 17 were to be put in jeopardy. It is not put in jeopardy; that situation will continue. The amendment solely refers to people who are visitors to an estate and who will be able to use the estate rifle provided that they are over the age of 17. The provision was considered appropriate because younger people, say, between the ages of 14 and 17, could not be considered appropriately as visitors and given this fairly substantial concession of using a rather powerful weapon without a certificate. For all those reasons I hope that your Lordships will agree that the amendment I propose is the correct one in the circumstances.
The amendment tabled in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret, which concerns amendment of Section 11(5) of the principal Act, is not acceptable because it does not enable the borrower to possess ammunition for a borrowed firearm. If you are going to borrow the firearm in the first place you must use the ammunition. You must be permitted to use the ammunition in the firearm. The amendment would not permit that. Therefore, with that explanation, I hope your Lordships will agree that the amendment I have moved is appropriate.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, I wonder whether he would permit me to try to clarify the position in my own mind and for future readers of the legislation. I well understand the noble Earl when he says that the question of youngsters remains as it is now; namely, that if a licence is obtained at the age of 14 or over "user" is perfectly in order. The average layman reading the new clause would not know that that was the position.
The new clause does not talk about people visiting estates or use the words the Minister used to clarify

1199
the matter in his lucid explanation. If one looks at the new clause, it would appear that there is a new law and that the age is now 17 at which one can use a rifle without having a proper certificate, provided that the provisions of the clause are carried out. Will the Minister clarify the issue by having in front of the new clause words such as "without prejudice to the provisions of" whatever be the sections of the Act which enable young children to learn. If it were clearly stated that the new clause does not affect that right everyone would be happy. The layman reading the legislation would know what we are talking about.
At present it looks, and looked to certain of your Lordships—I can tell that from the debate—as though the new clause cut across the present legislation which deals with children over the age of 14. Will the noble Earl take that point on board, withdraw his amendment and say to the House that on Third Reading words will be added which make it clear that the existing law is not changed in regard to youngsters over the age of 14?
Lord Renton: My Lords, perhaps I may have the leave of the House to put to my noble friend a point which follows that raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. Let us take the case of two boys aged 15 who are in the Army Cadet Corps at the same school. One boy goes to his own home where he has a firearms certificate. His friend is invited to stay for part of the holidays. He does not have a firearms certificate. They have both learnt to use a rifle in the Army Cadet Corps at school. It seems extraordinary that the visitor cannot borrow a rifle to shoot, for example, rooks.
Lord Burton: My Lords, I have not intervened so far in the debate, but Section 11(1) of the principal Act provides:
"A person carrying a firearm or ammunition belonging to another person holding a certificate under this Act may, without himself holding such a certificate, have in his possession that firearm or ammunition under instructions from, and for the use of, that other person for sporting purposes only".
Section 24(1) makes it illegal to sell or give a weapon to someone under the age of 17. Permission is given to someone under 14 to use a weapon under instruction. I should have though that that provision was adequate.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I think that I understand the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, because he says that an average person reading the new clause would not know that it did not affect the position with regard to young people. However it says in the margin:
"Borrowed rifles on private premises".
That is a clear indication, even to the layman, that the clause refers to borrowed rifles and not to the position with regard to children. There is no need for a "without prejudice" provision because the new clause changes nothing in Section 22 of the 1968 Act.
My noble friend Lord Renton is concerned about the ages of 14 and 15 because he wished the age of 17
1200
to be changed to 14 in my amendment. I can only refer him to the existing position. A boy aged 14 or 15 may shoot such a rifle under supervision provided that he has his own certificate. In the situation he mentioned, the boy should have his own firearms certificate if he is going to use the weapon at premises under the supervision of another.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, we are discussing, although some of us may have forgotten, Amendment No. 22 as an amendment to the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Ferrers. We must go through that procedure regardless of what may happen over the page. I detect a feeling that an age limit may be desirable. I do not want in any way to pre-empt the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, and what he may feel about this. If he wishes to intervene, I shall he very happy to give way.
However, I detect that the feeling in the House may be that an age limit is required. To that extent, Amendment No. 22 deleting completely the words "of or over the age of 17" may at this moment be inappropriate. We shall leave it to others moving Amendment No. 23 to consider their next move. On that basis, perhaps I should ask leave to withdraw Amendment No. 22.
Amendment No. 22, as an amendment to Amendment No. 21, by leave, withdrawn.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 21, Amendment No. 23:
Line 2, leave out ("seventeen") and insert ("fourteen").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, to a large extent I have already spoken to this amendment. However, I find myself in a great dilemma. The noble Earl says that his Amendment No. 21 changes nothing. When I first shot, I did not have a firearms certificate. When my sons first shot and tried out a.22 rifle they did not have a firearms certificate. Were we acting illegally? I should like to know. I do not think we were unique in doing what we did; it is common practice in the country. I cannot believe that chief constables would willingly dish out firearms certificates to teenagers if they thought that the teenagers would shoot perhaps once a year or simply dabble in the practice and then give it up altogether. This is the point.
Surely it is far better for young people to see whether they are interested in shooting. We are talking about small-bore shooting mainly, because relatively few young people are interested in stalking, using more powerful rifles. I should have thought that it was far better from the Government's point of view to allow people to dip their toes in the water and see whether shooting suited them, rather than compelling them to get a licence which may float about, scarcely being used. This cannot be in the interests of law and order. I wish to hear what the noble Earl has to say on this.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Monson, suggests that we ought to put in the age of 14 instead of 17. He thinks it desirable that a young

1201
man aged 14 should be able to dip his toe in the water, as he puts it, before getting a firearms certificate. I say to the noble Lord that we are dealing with very powerful weapons. It is considered proper that those people who deal with such powerful weapons should have a firearms certificate. It is not necessary to go to a lot of trouble for one. If a person applies to the chief constable and the chief constable thinks it is a reasonable request for a young man to learn from his father how to use one of these weapons, the chances are that he will be granted a firearms certificate.
However, this amendment, which deals totally and solely with visitors from outside who come to an estate, perhaps from foreign countries, suggests that they should be allowed at the age of 14 to come on to an estate and borrow a rifle. The chief constable would have no knowledge of who these people were or of their background. It would be a considerable concession to extend that to somebody aged 14 and it would be undesirable. I can only say to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, that there is a difficulty here. I assure him that this does not affect the position of the young person who is being taught properly to use a rifle. All he has to do is get a firearms certificate.
I think I may have misled my noble friend Lord Renton when I said in relation to his amendment that a person aged 14 could shoot with a firearms certificate under supervision. Of course a person aged 14 who has a firearms certificate can shoot without supervision. I hope that I have persuaded the noble Lord, Lord Monson, that the problem which he seeks t o address in his amendment is covered by the present position. It would be wholly wrong, in my modest view, to suggest in this amendment that the age limit should be reduced to 14.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, perhaps I may ask for clarification from my noble friend. Am I to understand that persons may apply for and be granted a firearms certificate if they are under the age of 17? And what is the age at which a young person may apply?
Lord Burton: My Lords, before my noble friend replies perhaps I may ask for clarification on exactly the same point. First, Section 24(1) of the principal Act says that it is an offence to sell or let on hire any firearm or ammunition to any person under the age of 17. I do not see how they can have a firearms certificate when the Act says that they cannot have a weapon.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, in answer to that point I should say that it may be wrong to sell, let or hire a weapon, but it is not wrong to possess a weapon if one has a firearms certificate. The answer to my noble friend Lord Mountgarret is that a person over the age of 14 may apply for a firearms certificate and may, with the approval of the chief constable, be granted such a certificate.
Earl Peel: My Lords, the new clause seeks to permit a person over the age of 17 to borrow an estate rifle without himself owning a firearms permit. If that is the case, it seems to me quite ridiculous that
1202
somebody under the age of 17 should have to have a firearms permit to do the same thing.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not know whether I am permitted to speak again. I had rather hoped that the House would not give me leave to speak again. However, unless I hear to the contrary I shall do my best to answer my noble friend.
I sometimes find it very difficult to satisfy my noble friends behind me. They say that estate rifles must be permitted to be used. Now we have produced an amendment which allows my noble friends to permit estate rifles to be used by visitors to their estates who do not themselves have a firearms certificate. Then my noble friend comes along and says that that is a curious provision to put into the Bill. All I am saying is that that does not alter the basic provision allowed in the Act, which is that young people are permitted to learn the use of weapons at the age of 14 provided they have a firearms certificate.
My noble friends come along and tell me that they have a problem on their estates when visitors come along and wish to use their rifles. My noble friends want visitors to be allowed to use their rifles. Therefore we bring in an amendment allowing such visitors to do just that—to use weapons on estates as visitors, provided they are over the age of 17. We have tried to meet the difficulties which my noble friends have expressed. I wish they would realise that sometimes.
Lord Monson: My Lords—
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, with great respect, the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, is present. He is the custodian of the rules of this House. It appears to me quite clear that a number of the contributions which have been made in the past half-hour or so were wholly outside the recommendations of the Procedure Committee which have been accepted by the House. I should be grateful if the noble Lord would say something about that.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I should make clear that on an amendment on Report the recommendation of our own Procedure Committee is that noble Lords should not speak after the Minister has spoken. There is a proviso to that, which is that the recommendation does not apply if noble Lords wish to put short questions for elucidation, or where the Minister has perhaps spoken early to assist the House and it is necessary for him to speak again.
I must confess that I have remained rather silent because I felt there was a certain amount of coming and going in that respect. But we are at the moment discussing Amendment No. 23, which is an amendment to Amendment No. 21. Amendment No. 23 stands in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and other noble Lords. I think that we have, having had a lot of coming and going, reached the moment when if the noble Lord, Lord Monson, wishes to make a final remark, which is the right of the mover of an amendment on Report, he has the right to do so. But I think that all other noble Lords have exhausted that right.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I appreciate the trouble that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has taken in trying to defend a rather difficult position. However, there were certain inconsistencies in his reply. He talked about powerful weapons. In fact, a ·22 is not a particularly powerful weapon at all: a 12-bore shotgun is far more powerful. Admittedly a ·22 has a long range, but in other respects it is far less lethal. But that perhaps is a minor point.
The main flaw in the noble Earl's argument was that he claimed that Amendment No. 21 was concerned solely with visitors to estates. I have read through the amendment several times and I cannot see the word "visitors" mentioned once. It may be inferred that that is the case, but the word "visitors" does not appear. It seems to me that the provision would extend to all persons over the age of 17 years, be they visitors or the children of the owner of the gun. A son or daughter after all is just as capable of borrowing a rifle as a visitor. If the rifle does not belong to them, that is all they can do.
Take the case of a man who suggests to his 14 year-old daughter. "Would you like to try my ·22 and see if shooting suits you? I have a feeling that it might but you may detest the whole idea". She says, ''Yes, I would like to have a couple of shots". Then she is told that she cannot fire even one shot because she has to have a firearms certificate first. It is quite ludicrous that a 14 year-old person cannot take one single shot with a ·22, even on her father or mother's land, without getting a firearms certificate. That is surely not something to be desired.
I understand the point made by the noble Earl that he does not want all and sundry between the ages of 14 and 17 to take advantage of the provisions of Amendment No. 21. It would be more acceptable if we could confine that to the children of the owner of the gun.
My inclination is to withdraw my amendment and to try to find a narrower definition so as to allow the children of the owner of the firearm between the ages of 14 and 17 to shoot, which I shall bring back at Third Reading. In the meantime Amendment No. 21 would go through as it stands. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 23, as an amendment to Amendment No. 21, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Mountgarret Viscount Mountgarret moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 21, Amendment No. 24:
Line 10, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I referred briefly to this amendment earlier. There is an anomaly in that Clause 5 of the Bill specifically states that ammunition may not be sold to anyone who is not in possession of a shotgun certificate. I therefore cannot see the logic of permitting the sale of ammunition to those who are not in possession of a firearms certificate but who have borrowed a gun regardless of the argument of my noble friend Lord Monson that there is not much point in being able to borrow a rifle without having ammunition to put in it. Surely it is up to the owner, his friend, his father or whoever it may be, to make ammunition available.
Furthermore, under the terms of the 1968 Act one cannot buy ammunition without having a firearms certificate. Therefore, if you are only the borrower of a firearm there is no way in which you can paddle down to the local store and buy ammunition. If you borrow someone else's certificate it is tantamount to fraud. I believe that this is something of an anomaly. I wonder whether my noble friend might consider this amendment. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Ampthill): My Lords, I thought that the amendment had been spoken to in previous amendments. However, the noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret, has moved Amendment No. 24 as an amendment to Amendment to No. 21.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, I believe that we need clarification. In the Marshalled List, before Amendment No. 24 it reads "After Clause 14". Are all the Amendments Nos. 24, 25 and 26 amending Amendment No. 21?
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, if the noble Lord needs clarification, the answer is that Amendments Nos. 22, 23, 24 and 25 are all amendments to Amendment No. 21. That does not apply to Amendment No. 26.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my noble friend has moved Amendment No. 24, which would leave out subsection (2). Subsection (2) is necessary because otherwise a person who borrows a rifle is not allowed to purchase any ammunition to go into the rifle. If my noble friend thinks that that is curious and says that it is up to the estate to provide the ammunition, I would tell him that without this provision it would be an offence for the visitor to pay the estate owner for the use of that ammunition.
Without this provision the estate owner would always have to provide ammunition for the weapon because the user of the weapon would not have the right to purchase any, whether that purchase were to be made from a shop or from the owner of the land. Therefore I hope that my noble friend will agree—and as he is a fairly businesslike man I am sure that he will agree —that that would be an unsatisfactory state of affairs for an estate owner and that this provision is necessary.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, if my noble friend is happy with the amendment exactly as it is drafted in regard to the observations that I have made, then I am equally happy with it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 24, as an amendment to Amendment No. 21, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 25, as an amendment to Amendment No. 21, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 21 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 26 not moved.]
9.30 p.m.
Clause 15 [Visitors' permits]:
Lord Swansea Lord Swansea moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 8, line 14, leave out ("as respects ammunition").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 28, which is consequential upon it. Clause 15 deals with visitors from overseas and as the Bill stands subsection (2)(a) provides that if a chief officer of police is satisfied that a visitor from overseas is properly sponsored by a resident in this country, such a visitor may purchase ammunition.
This amendment seeks to ensure that the visitor from overseas is able to purchase or acquire both firearms and ammunition. It seems curious and perhaps slightly illogical that a visitor from overseas who has been properly vouched for in every way by a responsible person resident in this country should not be allowed to purchase both firearms and ammunition. I think it desirable for the Bill to be amended in this way. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for tabling these amendments. I shall try to explain the position. Under present legislation there is no facility for visitors to come to the United Kingdom and then buy and take possession of firearms. Frankly I do not see any reason why this position should be relaxed. After all, the intention of this Bill is to tighten rather than relax the law.
Certainly I am not aware of any particular difficulties that this provision has caused. A visitor who wishes to purchase a firearm in this country for export can do so perfectly legally under Clause 16. He can purchase it and it will be exported. However, the purchaser will not be able to take possession of it immediately. The dealer will make arrangements for it to be exported to him direct.
The second reason is an entirely pragmatic one. There would be considerable practical difficulty for the police in operating the kind of system proposed by my noble friend. On receiving the sponsor's application they would need to check that the visitor was entitled to possess the particular type of firearm that he was coming to purchase. If he were coming into the country with a visitor's permit, the type of firearm would have to be entered and his reason for having it would be checked. However, if he were already in this country the police would have to enter on the permit details of the gun or guns and check that those details matched the descriptions on the permit.
All that seems rather unnecessary. If a visitor wants to come to this country to shoot, he will bring his own gun; if he comes here to buy, he has no need to possess it. Let us not forget that rifles are subject to a greater level of control than are shotguns, and those who hold them are subject to a greater level of scrutiny and accountability with regard to their possession, use and disposal. I think that that is only right, in view of their greater lethality.
1206
A resident of this country who holds a firearms certificate is after all accountable at renewal for each and every firearm. When a visitor enters this country with a firearms permit there is a risk that he may seek to dispose of his firearms here, though of course that would be an offence. That is a risk we have seen fit to take in the interests of visitors and of shooting sports as a whole. But we would greatly increase that risk were we to allow the purchase and possession of firearms here by permit holders. That is the very kind of loophole which we are trying to close, because once a person purchases a firearm on a visitor's permit, which is what my noble friend wants, there would be no check on what happens to it.
Lord Swansea: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his explanation of this clause. However, it seems a little illogical to me. If the visitor is properly vouched for by a responsible resident of this country and if he can bring with him a firearm and ammunition, if he is accepted as a responsible person, I really see no reason why he should not also be permitted to buy firearms as well as ammunition. However, I shall not pursue the point at this late hour and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 28 not moved.]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 8, line 20, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Earl said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 29, 30 and 31. Your Lordships will recall that subsection (3) of Clause 15 was added to the Bill as the result of a Division in Committee. Your Lordships were anxious to ensure that any visitor's permit would be available throughout Great Britain.
Unfortunately, subsection (3) does not have the effect which your Lordships intended. Chief officers would still have the power, under subsection (5), to specify the conditions which appear on a permit, and these might well be restrictive in territorial terms. I have, therefore, looked afresh at Clause 15 to see if we can amend the Bill in a way which would better incorporate the wishes and the intentions which your Lordships expressed in Committee.
We have concluded that the best way to do this is to remove the scope for the chief officer of police to impose territorial conditions on visitors' shotgun permits. This would put shotgun permits on the same footing as shotgun certificates. A visitor would, on the application of a sponsor, receive a permit which would allow him to use a shotgun anywhere in Great Britain. It would not, though, be right to remove altogether the chief officer's power to impose conditions because, for example, a permit must be conditional upon a safekeeping requirement.
With regard to visitors' firearms permits, we think that the chief officer should be given a power to vary the conditions which may be imposed on permits, without any charge, in order to cope with changes of visitors' plans. This should give the system much more flexibility.
I am sure your Lordships would agree that it would be wrong to give the holder of a firearms permit the right to use a rifle throughout the country without any territorial constraint, as this would place the visitor in a preferential position in relation to the resident, who is bound by the constraints on his firearms certificate. As with residents, it will be open to the chief officer, if he thinks fit, to allow the applicant to shoot on any land with the owner's permission.
Perhaps I should also point out that neither firearms nor shotgun permits will have to be issued by each chief officer for the areas in which the visitor wishes to shoot, any more than do firearms and shotguns certificates. The chief officer will still have power under Clause 15 to impose conditions on both visitors' shotgun and firearms permits in order to cover such matters as safety.
I hope that your Lordships will appreciate that, by proposing the removal of the clause which your Lordships approved in Committee—which is not generally a very satisfactory thing to do—and by the addition of the other amendments, I am doing so not to reverse your Lordships' decision but in order to make it work, which the amendment passed at the time did not do. I hope that your Lordships will accept that reason for our seeking to delete an amendment which was approved in Committee.
Amendment No. 31 is a drafting amendment ensuring consistency in the form of words used in Amendments Nos. 30 and 31. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 8, line 36, at end insert—
("() The chief officer of police by whom a permit under this section is granted may by notice in writing to the holder vary the conditions subject to which the permit is held but, in the case of a visitor's shot gun permit, no condition shall be imposed or varied so as to restrict the premises where the shot gun or guns to which the permit relates may be used.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 9, line 9, leave out ("specified in such a permit") and insert ("subject to which such a permit is").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 16 [Firearms acquired for export]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 9, leave out lines 14 to 23 and insert—
("(1) A person may, without holding a firearm or shot gun certificate, purchase a firearm from a registered firearms dealer if—").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 32, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 33 to 35. These amendments are designed to remove the provision in Clause 16 whereby a visitor to this country may, without holding a shotgun certificate, purchase a shotgun from a registered firearms dealer and have that
1208
shotgun in his possession solely for the purpose of exporting it. As amended, Clause 16 will still provide the facility for visitors to purchase shotguns for export but, as with firearms, they will not be able take possession of them.
The noble Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, tabled an amendment to this effect in Committee and, as I recall, it had the support of the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, and the noble Lords, Lord Morton of Shuna and Lord Harris of Greenwich. I therefore undertook to consider further whether it was right to allow a visitor who was purchasing a shotgun solely for export to take possession of it. We have of course consulted the police and the gun trade on this. We have concluded that it is neither prudent nor necessary to allow such possession.
We originally intended to permit possession because we were concerned about the possible effects of stronger measures on the gun trade, particularly shotguns at the top of the market. Having looked again at the matter we have concluded that allowing possession simply leaves too big a loophole in the controls. Put bluntly, under Clause 16 as it stands there is nothing to stop a terrorist or criminal purchasing unlimited numbers of shotguns here for export, and precious little to stop him passing these on to others.
The fact that the dealer will be required to note the purchaser's personal details and passport number and notify these to the police will hardly provide any real deterrent if someone is prepared to abuse the controls anyway. Nor, I think, is there likely to be any real adverse effect on the trade. If a visitor really wants to buy a British gun for export. will he not be prepared to accept that he cannot take immediate possession but that it will be sent to him abroad? That is precisely what happens when a visitor wishes to buy a firearm. I beg to move.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I express gratitude to the noble Earl. He received a deputation from my noble friend Lord Knights—unhappily he is unwell and cannot be present—and representatives of the Association of Chief Police Officers. The deputation expressed the deepest concern about the clause as drafted. We pointed out to the Minister the real danger that foreign criminals could gain easy access to a substantial number of shotguns under the clause as then drafted.
The Government have now met our concern, for which I express gratitude to the noble Earl.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 9, line 29, leave out ("shot gun or other").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have already spoken to Amendments Nos. 33, 34 and 35. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 9, line 30, leave out ("or (2)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 10, line 1, leave out subsection (7).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Balfour The Earl of Balfour moved Amendment No. 36:
After Clause 18, insert the following new clause:
("Saving for occupier's servant.
. In section 11(5) of the principal Act (sports, athletics and other approved activities), for the words "occupier's presence" there shall be substituted "presence either of the occupier or of a servant of the occupier".").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, it is stated in Section 11(5) of the Firearms Act 1968 that a person may, without holding a shotgun certificate, borrow a shotgun from the occupier of private premises and use it on the premises in the presence of the occupier. There appears to be no provision in the law as it stands for a person who visits me to go out with my keeper.
I am extremely grateful to my noble friend for his excellent Amendment No. 21 dealing with borrowed rifles and covering the case of a visitor borrowing the estate rifle. The purpose of my amendment is to find out whether a person can borrow the estate shotgun and go out with the keeper, not with the owner. I beg to move.
9.45 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, to be fair to my noble friend Lord Balfour he has seen that his proposed amendment does not match some of the controls which were built into our new clause on estate rifles. I do not disagree with him. His amendment would allow a servant of an occupier of any private premises to supervise shooting by non-certificate holders without requiring him to hold a shotgun certificate. Nor would there be any minimum age for the borrowing of a shotgun in such circumstances. I do not believe that your Lordships would wish to introduce legislation which, for example, would allow a person living on a housing estate and having a 50 feet long back garden to leave some employee such as an au pair, who was not even a certificate holder, in charge of a visitor blasting away with a shotgun. Yet that would be one of the effects of my noble friend's amendment. It might also encourage landowners to appoint agents and use the exemption for commercial purposes involving clay pigeon shooting. For these reasons I find it hard to support my noble friend's amendment.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I was trying to find out whether there is any way in which under the law a facility which my noble friend has so kindly permitted in the case of rifles could be allowed in the case of shotguns. That was my real point. If so, could it be brought into the Bill?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, with the leave of the House I should tell my noble friend that I understand his dilemma. I shall have to look at it again before Third Reading, but I think that at the very least, the exemption will need to be framed in terms of both the lender and the servant being certificate holders and also restricted to sporting purposes. However, I will reconsider the matter if that would meet my noble friend's approval.
The Earl of Balfour: I thank my noble friend, my Lords. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 19 [Payments in respect of prohibited weapons]:
Lord Swansea Lord Swansea moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 10, line 26, after ("persons") insert ("including persons who have been registered as firearms dealers, and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, when the Bill was originally drafted and laid before Parliament, there was no provision for any compensation to be payable to the owners of firearms prohibited under Clause 1. That was subject to considerable comment from all sides of another place during Second Reading. On the first day of Committee so much importance was again attached to it that the Government spokesman was obliged to give an undertaking that a clause providing compensation should be included. Eventually, it was.
In an announcement concerning the compensation the spokesman made clear that it applied only to persons holding firearms certificates and not to registered dealers. The object of the amendment is to extend the provision to licensed dealers, many of whom probably have considerable numbers of firearms of that category as their stock-in-trade and will no longer be entitled to hold them. In the interests of equity I can see no reason why those people also should not be compensated for the loss of their stock.
My noble friend may comment that they are free to sell their stock abroad. That is so, but it rather shrugs off the question. I believe that the law should apply equally to all sections of the community, whether to the user or the dealer. The dealer, who has a stock of such firearms which he will no longer be able to hold, should be able to receive compensation for losing them. I beg to move.
Lord Monson: My Lords, although the compensation provisions of Clause 19 appear on the face of the Bill to be universal and all-embracing, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary surprisingly announced in another place on 1st March that dealers would be excluded. That seems to he quite wrong and, furthermore, potentially subject to challenge in the European Court. The ability of dealers to export their weapons has been cited in justification of the proposal to exclude them from compensation. That may be possible in the case of large dealers, but small dealers are a different matter. I hope that the House will support the amendment.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, a similar amendment was tabled at Committee and I then explained that the Government did not feel disposed to extend the scope of the buying scheme to include payments to firearms dealers. The position of dealers is quite different to that of private individuals. Trading in any commodity or goods inevitably entails a certain element of risk, and there is the rough and tumble of trading which must be taken into account.

1211
My noble friend Lord Swansea has correctly said what I was going to say. It is that dealers will be able to sell their stocks abroad, unlike certificate holders who cannot do so. They will have had over a year to find a buyer and most will have had the advantage of trading in bulk. There is no question of us offloading our problem overseas because possession of self-loading rifles is still permitted in a number of countries. Therefore the market exists for legitimate users. It will be open for dealers to de-activate to collectors any such guns which they hold for sale before the new legislation comes into force, or to apply to the Secretary of State for authority to deal in prohibited weapons.
I cannot advise your Lordships to accept the amendment. The position of dealers is not the same as that of certificate holders.
Lord Swansea: My Lords, I am rather disappointed with my noble friend's reply. It has always been an axiom of the law in this country that it should apply equally to all sections of the community. In this case I believe strongly that it should apply to the dealer as well as to the individual.
I realise that the trade is risky; there is an element of risk in every trade. However, if the individual is now to be deprived of the possession of certain firearms and is to receive compensation for them, I see no reason why the dealer should not be treated similarly.
My noble friend talks of the dealer being able to sell his stock overseas and he will be able to do so. However, he will be selling them at a knock-down price. The market will be depressed and he is bound to suffer thereby.
I am sorry, but I must pursue the amendment further.
On Question, amendment negatived.
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 10, line 29, leave out ("22nd") and insert ("23rd").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, although we are talking about a difference in date of a mere 24 hours, this is an extremely important amendment in principle and I hope that noble Lords in all quarters of the House will recognise that.
All Members of your Lordships' House and all governments, in particular Conservative governments, rightly deplore retrospective legislation. However, if this amendment is not agreed to, we shall have retrospective legislation.
The Home Secretary made a speech to the Police Superintendents' Conference on 22nd September 1987 in the course of which his intentions with regard to prohibiting certain weapons were announced. Details of his speech appeared on the front page of The Times on 23rd September 1987 and those details were doubtless in other morning newspapers as well. I have no idea whether details appeared in the later editions of the evening newspapers published on 22nd September, but in any case an extremely small percentage of the population read the later editions of newspapers and not many more people listen to early afternoon news bulletins.
It would be utterly inequitable if respectable individuals should be deprived of any right to compensation who had, in good faith, legally bought a gun on the morning of 22nd September or even in the afternoon on the assumption that nobody has any legal obligation, to listen religiously to radio news bulletins. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Monson, has explained that as the Government's proposals to prohibit certain types of weapon were announced by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State on 22nd September 1987, potential purchasers of such weapons could not have known of our intentions until the evening of that date. Anyone who bought such a gun on 22nd September obviously did so in good faith and should be eligible for payments under the buy-in scheme. The Government, on reflection, accept that the noble Lord's argument is sound. I am therefore pleased to be able to accept the amendment.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Earl and to the Government.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 10, line 35, after ("1(2)") insert ("or 7(1)").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in Committee the noble Lord, Lord Brain (who unfortunately is not with us today) tabled an amendment extending the scope of the buy-in scheme to enable the Secretary of State to make payments under Clause 19 to people whose possession of firearms was rendered unlawful by virtue of the whole of Clause 7. I undertook to consider this.
It is clearly right that the buy-in scheme should cover weapons which have been converted from weapons which are prohibited by Section 5 but which, by virtue of Clause 7(1), will now revert to the prohibited category. I am happy to put the matter on a proper statutory footing and this amendment does that. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord John-Mackie Lord John-Mackie moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 10, line 35, at end insert—
("(2) Payments made by the Secretary of State under the scheme referred to subsection (1) above shall be in accordance with the market value of such firearms and accessories pertaining thereto immediately before 22nd September 1987.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we tabled this amendment because we think that any compensation made when an Act of Parliament is passed, as this will be, should be fair. I do not really believe that, in spite of the acceptance of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, it will be fair if the scheme is as it is in the Bill. After all, it would seem that most people expect the market value if something is taken over.
If—God forbid—my land experienced an outbreak of foot and mouth, the Government scheme would pay me the market value. The same applies to this dreadful disease that they have in the West Country at present. It applies to a whole range of

1213
circumstances. Why should not the market price be paid to people whose guns have been confiscated—because that is what it will be? The Government should look at this matter extremely carefully.
There is a case for saying that the market price at a particular date could be high. There was some argument as to what the words should be and finally we decided on the words "immediately before 22nd September"—which will now be 23rd September. That would be a fair date on which to decide the price for such weapons.
Everyone knows that the correspondence on this Bill has been extremely heavy, but most of my correspondence has been on this subject of compensation. One of my shooting tenants tells me that he has a rifle which he is certain is worth £1,000. He will receive a very mean figure for that rifle. All my correspondence is on those lines and, I repeat, has been the heaviest of all in this complicated but necessary Bill.
I ask the noble Earl to have another look at this issue of compensation. The noble Earl may not think that the Government need some popularity at the moment, but they would be a little more popular if he were to deal with this situation more generously than under the present proposals. I beg to move.
10 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, this is a matter of what is going to be fair. My understanding is that the Government are proposing that the person surrendering his rifle should have a choice between a flat rate of £150, which will cover many cases, or, if it is preferred, be paid 50 per cent. of the average retail value that prevailed before 23rd September last year.
Not all of these guns will have been purchased recently, particuarly in view of the proceedings on this Bill. Most will have been purchased a long time ago. Even 50 per cent. of that retail value will sometimes represent a profit for the owner. At any rate, the owner will have an option and I should have thought that in the circumstances it is a fair option.
Lord Swansea: My Lords, I strongly support this amendment because the level of compensation proposed is quite inadequate. I have spoken to a n umber of owners of the class of rifles which stand to be prohibited under the Bill and many have told me that their firearms cost considerable sums of money. They have had them improved in various ways by having new barrels fitted, and so on. Their present value bears no relation to the retail value of that make of firearm.
In my view it would be much fairer to provide for the owner to be compensated on the basis of the current market value as at 22nd or 23rd September last year. I repeat, I strongly support this amendment.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, has allowed his farming experience to mislead him. The substitution of market value for the existing
1214
compensation provisions raises two questions to which he should give his attention. The first is that the market value, if I am interpreting it correctly, should include VAT at 15 per cent. Should the owner of the firearm be entitled to claim as part of his compensation the VAT which a purchaser would have to pay? I should have said not. Secondly, I understand that it would also include what the purchaser had to pay to create the market value, which would be the dealer's mark up. Should the person receiving compensation be entitled to add that to his compensation? Again, as a matter of accountancy, I should have thought not. I should like to hear the answer.
Lord Monson: My Lords, the case for this amendment is surely self-evident. Whatever other less civilised countries may do, compensation payable by British Governments should always be fair, as the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, emphasised. We do not want a repetition of the scandal of the near-expropriation of the Vosper, Yarrow and the other naval shipbuilders under the terms of the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act of 1977, about which the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, was rightly indigant, in common with other senior members of the Conservative Party. Equally, nor do we want repetition of the scandal of the virtual expropriation of terraced houses in so-called slum clearance areas in the 1950s and 1960s which it eventually took a Labour Government to put right, and not before time.
It has been announced in another place that owners will receive only half the market value and that this will represent a fair price. I find it extremely difficult to believe that the price obtainable at auction is a mere 50 per cent. of the price that one would pay for a gun in a reputable gunsmiths. Unless I can be convinced to the contrary I strongly support this amendment.
The Earl of Portsmouth: My Lords, I too support this amendment. In order to get a better grasp of this issue I contacted four firms that deal in firearms. The first was unable to supply me with any figures but its overall impression was that the Government's terms were less than generous. The second firm said that they were most definitely unfair and that the owner of a new self-loading rifle could be as much as 15 to 20 per cent. out of pocket. A firm of auctioneers in Birmingham suggested that the percentage figure for the retail value should be 75 per cent. and not 50 per cent. The one remotely dissenting voice was in agreement with the Government in that the flat rate offer of £150 would favour someone who, for example, had bought a used self-loading rifle for £75. This firm went on to say that anyone who had bought a brand new self-loading rifle, say, a month before Hungerford for £1,200 and who had chosen the alternative offer would end with £600 but without having had £600 worth of use from his gun.
The conclusion that I certainly drew is that the Government have not yet got the compensation terms right. We should remember that we are here dealing with law-abiding people who for the most part do not understand why they are having to

1215
surrender their guns and they are extremely bitter and angry about it. Compensation and not punishment is the least that they deserve. They and indeed I would certainly feel that insult was being added to injury if the Government are niggardly in this matter. I believe that at least some of the ill feeling could be dispelled if the Government could improve their compensation terms.
After all, if a farmer loses some land for the building of a motorway, his compensation will be in part for disturbance and inconvenience. Surely the same must apply here. The market value as at 23rd September would seem to be the most logical approach. I look forward to hearing what my noble friend Lord Ferrers has to say about it. However, if there are serious practical difficulties in implementing this, would my noble friend look again at the Government's basic formula with a view to raising certainly the percentage rate of retail value and possibly the flat rate as well?
Earl Peel: My Lords, I should like to support the amendment. So many people have entered into this in good faith that I find it hard to believe that the Government are not ready to pay compensation to the full amount. There is a real danger that if proper compensation is not paid for such weapons, they will go, so to speak. underground, and the Government will fail to achieve one of their main purposes.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, this is probably the only occasion in the debate when I have agreed with the noble Earls, Lord Peel and Lord Portsmouth. We are talking about law-abiding citizens. As both noble Earls will be aware, I am firmly in favour of the Bill. In so far as I have a criticism, it is that the Bill does not go far enough. I nevertheless believe that law-abiding citizens who have to get rid of their weapons should be adequately compensated. At the moment I do not believe they are being adequately compensated and I very much hope that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, will be able to meet us on this point. I suspect that the hidden hand of the Treasury is involved rather than that of the Home Office. I nevertheless hope that the noble Earl will be able to meet the anxieties of the House.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, I believe that the buyers' and sellers' premium both come out at 10 per cent. which together would make 20 per cent. That is surely less than the 50 per cent. which the Government would be docking in this case.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I can understand that your Lordships are concerned about compensation. Everyone is concerned about compensation when it crops up. However, I think there has been a misunderstanding over what is being offered and I hope that I shall be able to put the matter straight.
We expect that most claims will he for self-loading rifles. The owners of those rifles will have two options. They will be able to choose a flat rate payment of £150, which we believe will be acceptable to the majority of owners of guns at the bottom end of the market. I was interested to hear my noble
1216
friend Lord Portsmouth say that he thought that that might be too much. If they do not choose the first option they can go for 50 per cent. of the average retail value of the new gun—the value of the new gun immediately before 23rd September last year. Perhaps I may explain to the House how this system has been arrived at.
We took a survey of shop prices of new guns before that date. We also took a survey of auction prices before that date. Obviously it is fairest to pay the auction price for a weapon. There has to be a formula unless one is to give an individual assessment for each weapon, which would be hideously expensive. We found that the auction price of the secondhand weapon was about 50 per cent. of the purchase price of the new weapon. The purchase price of the new weapon, as my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham rightly said, includes VAT and the dealer's mark up. The simplest way was to consider the price of the new weapon on offer in the market and to say that the value of the secondhand weapon was about 50 per cent. of the value of the new one. That is a reasonably fair way of doing it.
We have concluded from our research that those figures are reasonable ones. Short of having an individual assessment for each weapon, I really think that that is about as far as we can go. I hope that I have clarified the position. I know many people think that they will get only 50 per cent. of the value of their weapon. That is not so. It is 50 per cent. of the value of their weapon had it been a new one. That is a very different matter.
Lord Swansea: My Lords, my noble friend is talking about 50 per cent. of the off-the-shelf price—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Swansea: My Lords, with the House's permission, I should like to ask a question for clarification. The noble Earl was basing his calculations on the off-the-shelf price. In cases such as the ones I mentioned a few minutes ago, where people have spent a considerable amount of money on improving their firearm so that the value of it bears no relation to the off-the-shelf price, what criteria would he apply?
Lord Torpichen: My Lord, perhaps it should be said just once again that the auction price is agreed between a willing buyer and a willing seller.
Noble Lords: Order!
10.15 p.m.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, before I reply to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, I should like to try to answer the noble and learned Lord who tried to trip me up earlier. If I may say so, VAT and the dealer's profit, or margin, is included in the price that the person paid for his rifle. I do not see what on earth that has to do with VAT on farming which the noble and learned Lord mentioned. He seemed to think that I was making some kind of comparison in that

1217
respect. I was merely saying that we should get full compensation for anything that the Government have taken away, killed or whatever. I thought that it was a reasonable point to make. As the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said—I should have thought that the noble and learned Lord would have listened to what he said—VAT and the dealer's margin were included in the calculations that they made.
As I said before, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, is very good at putting his case forward. He puts it so well and kindly that it is sometimes difficult to argue with him. However, there are many very expensive rifles available. I should have thought that it would not be too difficult to get an individual valuation on claims for rifles which exceed a certain figure—that is if we want to be fair to people. There is no questioning the fact that such rifles have been paid for; some of them were very expensive and they are worth a great deal of money. I think that the noble Earl should give us some assurance that he will look again at the matter because apart from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, there is no one else who supports him in respect of this amendment. Therefore I think he needs to give some further consideration to the matter.
If there was a certain valuation figure that had to be looked at and used, and an individual assessment made, I think that that would satisfy many people. After all, an enormous amount of work is done in valuations all over the countryside. I do not think it would be too difficult to assess a particular rifle. I shall leave my argument at that and wait to hear what the noble Earl has to say in reply.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I really do not want to involve your Lordships in what would be a Committee stage because it is not the right thing to do. However, if I were to have the leave of the House on this one further occasion perhaps I may just add a little on the subject—as I have been invited to do by the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie. It would be wrong for me to say that I shall look again at the matter. We have tried to conclude what is a fair method of compensation. I cannot possibly say to your Lordships that in each and every case that that will be a precise figure which will be an accurate one.
The noble Lord knows perfectly well, as do my noble friends sitting behind me, that in any method of compensation such as this one must have a formula. I am not surprised that the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, says that my noble and learned friend was the only person who supported me in the matter. Of course, if there is compensation in issue it is not surprising that no one supports the Government, because they all want more. However, the fact is we must come to an arrangement.
My noble friend Lord Swansea asked about the position with regard to accessories. We have considered the business of accessories and looked sympathetically at the possibility. Our conclusion was that that sort of scheme would be impractical to administer; it is simply not possible. Some of the accessories for firearms which would be prohibited under the provisions of the Bill are transferable to other guns. Therefore a healthy market will remain
1218
for such accessories and clearly we could not contemplate handing out public money for them.
On the other hand, to provide for payments in respect of dedicated and non-transferable accessories would only necessitate again an elaborate screening system to check whether individual items qualified; whether they were transferable; and if they were not what their value was. That would be unacceptably expensive in terms of both finance and manpower. A number of accessories, especially magazines, are sought after in their own right by collectors. The market for them will therefore still exist.
I understand noble Lords' concerns about compensation value. We believe that we have it as near right as we can. I am the first to admit that there will not be 100 per cent. accuracy in 100 per cent. of cases. If one has to produce a formula, one can only produce a fair one. The one we have taken is the value of the second-hand weapon in relation to the value of the new weapon.
10.21 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 40) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 25; Not-Contents, 31.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Monson, L.

Borthwick, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Northesk, E.

Burton, L.

Peel, E.

David, B.

Portsmouth, E. [Teller.]

Dilhorne, V.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Savile, L.

Grey, E.

Seafield, E.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Strange, B.

John-Mackie, L.

Swansea, L. [Teller.]

Liverpool, E.

Tordoff, L.

Mancroft, L.

Torphichen, L.

Mishcon, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ampthill, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Arran, E.

Balfour, E.

Hesketh, L.

Belstead, L.

Hives, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Hooper, B.

Caithness, E.

Kimball, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Long, V.

Carnock, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Renton, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Skelmersdale, L.

Dundee, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Elphinstone, L.

Trafford, L.

Ferrers, E.

Tryon, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
10.28 p.m.
[Amendment No. 41 not moved.]
Clause 20 [Firearms consultative committee]:
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 10, line 38, after ("twelve") insert ("or more than fifteen").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a simple and self-explanatory amendment. Virtually all of us, whatever our differences over other aspects of the Bill, want the consultative committee to be a success. Your Lordships will need no reminding that large committees, generally speaking, do not work as well as small committees.
The clause already provides for a minimum of 13 members. This amendment would establish an upper limit of 16 which, I believe, most of us would regard as more than adequate. The amendment would provide a further safeguard. Although unlikely, it is not totally inconceivable that we may have one day in this country a government of a very different political persuasion to the present Administration, and utterly hostile to the interests of the shooting fraternity. The amendment would help to prevent the Home Secretary of the day packing the committee with his politically motivated nominees to the detriment of the shooting community. I beg to move.
Lord Swansea: My Lords, I support the amendment strongly. I wish to remind your Lordships of the history of the clause which did not appear in the Bill as originally laid before Parliament but was inserted in Committee in another place against government opposition. On Report, the provisions of the clause were rather watered down by the Government. Some of us, I believe, would like to see it restored to something like its original form.
The upper limit of the number on the committee has been left open so far. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, puts forward a very acceptable solution that it should not consist of more than 15 persons; otherwise, it becomes quite top heavy, unmanageable and impossible to run. I support the amendment.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I hope that we leave this matter to the Home Secretary. I cannot see any advantage in passing an amendment of this character.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, because I agree with him. None of us wants the firearms consultative committee to grow so large that it becomes unwieldy and ineffective. On the other hand we must make sure that the benefit of the committee will lie in its ability to bring together the various interests of those who administer and enforce the legislation and those who participate in shooting for recreational and other purposes.
There should be a wide spectrum of people involved in the committee. I cannot tell your Lordships at the moment what the size of it will be. I think, however, we would be wrong to put an upper limit on it. I hope that your Lordships will agree to leave the Bill as it is.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am not wedded to an upper limit of 16 members specifically. Perhaps 17,
1220
18, 19 or 20 might be better. However, I think there should be an upper limit of some kind for the reasons I have already mentioned. It is late in the evening and I do not wish to pursue the matter now. However, I should like to take it away and consult all those in the House and outside who have expressed concern. For the time being I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
Earl Peel Earl Peel moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 10, line 44, at end insert—
("() The reference in subsection (1)(a) above to the use of firearms includes in particular a reference to their use for sport or competition.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment is a compromise following an amendment moved in Committee by my noble friend Lord Swinton. Many of us feel that as the widest use of firearms occurs among those involved in sport and competition, it is logical to ensure that the consultative committee includes members specifically qualified to advise in these matters. After all, other interests are already mentioned in the Bill. I am certain that it was always the intention of the Government that the committee should include such members. I hope now that my noble friend can commit himself fully by accepting the amendment. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I explained in Committee that the Government have always intended to include sporting and competition interests on the committee, and that the wording in the Bill is specifically drawn to permit this. I therefore considered that the inclusion of such an amendment was not necessary.
I realise that a number of noble Lords felt very concerned about this subject and I have had the opportunity to consider the matter again. I am still of that opinion, but I wish to be as helpful and forthcoming to the House as possible. I am therefore happy to accept my noble friend's amendment.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to my noble friend. I know how much thought and consideration he has put into this matter.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 11, line 6, after ("above") insert ("and the regulation of the possession of and transactions relating to firearms and ammunition").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I shall also speak to the consequential amendments to Amendment No. 44, namely Amendments Nos. 45, 46 and 47. It appears that the later your Lordships' House sits the more willing the Minister appears to be to concede amendments. I therefore hope that I shall be fortunate with this one.
It may very well be that there is an inadvertent omission on the Government's part, rather than a conscious one. Perhaps your Lordships will look briefly at the object of the Bill as set out on page 1, which is:
"An Act to amend the Firearms Act 1968 and to make further provision"

1221
and would your Lordships kindly concentrate on these words:
"for regulating the possession of, and transactions relating to, firearms and ammunition".
That is the whole purpose of this Bill—to look at that matter at this moment.
The consultative committee has been set up. Its powers and constitution are contained in Clause 20 of the Bill. Perhaps noble Lords would be kind enough to turn to that clause, and especially to subsection (4). There one sees what the function of the committee is. One would expect that one of the things it is supposed to do is to review the matters which are the object of this Bill. In fact your Lordships will find that that is not so because subsection (4) says:
"(a) to keep under review the working of the provisions mentioned in subsection (1)(c) above"
and to make recommendations on those matters.
If one looks at subsection (1)(c) one finds that those provisions are nothing to do with what I have just quoted, which is the object of the Bill; they are merely:
"the administration or enforcement of the provisions of the principal Act, the Firearms Act 1982 and this Act".
In other words, the committee's function relates only to looking at and making recommendations in regard to the administration or enforcement of the provisions of the Bill. It has nothing to do with the whole purpose of the Bill, which is to keep up-to-date with and deal with provisions for regulating the possession of and transactions relating to firearms and ammunition. Your Lordships will appreciate that I have borrowed the very words of the object of the Act. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, subsection (1) of Clause 20 sets out, among other things, three distinct areas of concern—to which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, referred—one or more of which members of the firearms consultative committee must have knowledge and experience of. These are:
"(a) the possession. use or keeping of, or transactions in, firearms; (b) weapon technology; and (c) the administration or enforcement of the provisions"
of the various firearms Acts.
Subsection (4) of Clause 20 sets out the functions of the committee. Subsection (4)(a) states that the committee shall:
"keep under review the working of the provisions mentioned in subsection (1)(c)",
as the noble Lord said. But if we look at subsection (1)(c) it relates to the provisions of the various Firearms Acts—the 1968 Act, the 1982 Act and this Bill.
These are the very matters which I suggest the noble Lord's amendment seeks to incorporate. The amendment seeks to include the words used in subsection (1)(a) covering the possession of firearms and transactions in firearms. The reason why it is not spelt out in subsection (4)(a) is because we did not consider it necessary to do so. I find it difficult to know what else the phrase,
"the working of the provisions mentioned in subsection (1)(c)"
1222
can mean if it does not refer to the possession of and transactions in firearms. That is what the three Acts concerned are all about. So in keeping under review the working of the provisions of those Acts the committee will be doing exactly what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, seeks to achieve with his amendment. It will be keeping under review the working of the regulatory enactments governing the possession of firearms and transactions in firearms.
I hope that I have managed to convince even the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that his amendment, good though it is, is not in fact necessary.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, in following the words of the noble Earl, I wish I could find that they meet anything that I said when I moved this amendment. Words in a statute mean what they say. When one deals with the terms of reference of a committee, one is using words which bind the committee to those functions and do not allow it to expand upon them.
Administration and enforcement mean that what is in the Acts at the moment shall be administered and shall be enforced in certain ways. That is the job that has been given to this committee. If the committee wanted to say, "Ah, in 1988 Parliament passed certain laws relating to the control of firearms; in our view, in the light of experience, Parliament went too far"; or, "in the light of new firearms or modifications to them that have come into existence since 1988, Parliament did not go far enough" then on the wording of this clause—and I take full responsibility for saying so—that consultative committee would not be able to do so.
The committee can only comment on the administration and enforcement of the provisions of both Acts—the principal Act and this Bill—as they stand on the statute hook. It cannot make any recommendation for reform of those provisions, which is not administration and not enforcement. It can neither add to them nor subtract from them, and those are powers that it ought to possess.
Let us suppose that I have been talking absolute nonsense just now. Perhaps the House can take that for granted since it is usually a fairly safe assumption to make when I speak. Nevertheless (and I am now being serious) these are words that I have borrowed from the very purpose of the Act. If the noble Earl feels that they add nothing and are unnecessary, they certainly can do no harm in repeating the purpose of the Act and allowing the consultative committee to make an up-to-date review of what it thinks ought to be there by way of firearms control.
I hope that the Minister will at least tell me that the words I have uttered merit a little more consideration than they have been given so far. I do not ask for any promise beyond further consideration, but I should like to know my position before Third Reading. If he says that he will consider my remarks (which is all that I ask), I do not intend to divide the House at this time of night.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I wonder whether I may have the permission of the House to speak again very briefly. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said that the committee would only have to consider the working

1223
of the Act as it stands and that it could not make any suggestions with regard to its improvement. I hesitate to ask a distinguished lawyer to look at the Bill, but subsection (4) states:
"It shall be the function of the Committee—

(a) to keep under review the working of the provisions mentioned in subsection (1)(c)…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; [and]

(b) to make proposals for amending those provisions if it thinks fit"

I should have thought that those words covered the very points the noble Lord made. However, as I am not a lawyer and the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is a distinguished lawyer, I will look again at what he said.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I do not think I would receive a warm reception from the House if I continued this argument in order to answer the Minister. I do not intend to do that. I assure him that I listened with respect to what he said. I shortly say that I do not agree with what he said as a proper interpretation. However, he has kindly promised to look again at this matter, and on that basis I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 45 to 48 not moved.]
10.45 p.m.
Earl Peel Earl Peel moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 11, line 13, at end insert—
("(4A) The Consultative Committee shall prepare. and shall revise from time to time as they think fit, a code of practice in connection with the possession and use of firearms, including—

(a) security and safekeeping of firearms;

(b) the proper use of firearms; and

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

(4B) When the Committee propose to issue the code, or amendments thereto, it shall transmit a draft to the Secretary of State who shall if he approves it, lay it before both Houses of Parliament;
(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 be admissible in evidence; and if any provision of such a code appears to the court conducting the proceedings to be relevant to any question arising in the proceedings it shall be taken into account in determining that question.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, again, this amendment is similar to one that was moved at Committee stage by my noble friend Lord Swinton. However, it differs from the original in several ways. The original amendment had the words:
"a code of practice for users of firearms".
This new amendment broadens the base to read:
"a code of practice in connection with the possession and use of firearms".
Furthermore, a rather more contentious requirement upon the Home Secretary to publish details of his reasons for withholding approval of the code has been withdrawn.
Under the existing firearms legislation, and in exactly the same way as proposed under this Bill, the Home Office will issue a memorandum of guidance to
1224
the police, advising them of the way they should administer the law. I believe there is much evidence to demonstrate that this had resulted in chief officers throughout the country putting widely different interpretations on how the law is implemented. I fully appreciate the need to maintain the basic principles of an independent force, but there seems to be an overriding need in this case to try to establish a far greater consistency in the way the public is dealt with by the police in all aspects relating to firearms. Failure to achieve that will only lead to more bad feeling, conflict and distrust, together with a waste of police time in dealing with appeals, and so on.
The attitude taken by certain chief officers has, I believe, been demonstrated only too clearly by recent remarks of Mr. Anderton, the chief officer of police of Greater Manchester. He made his opposition to anyone holding firearms quite clear. As my noble friend on the Front Bench has said, this is his personal view. But he has made that view very clear; it is there for all to witness.
He and similar-minded chief officers are almost bound to interpret the law to the extreme. There is the danger that instead of assessing the suitability of the individual applicant to possess a firearm, every technical excuse within the law may be used to prevent the legitimate applicant from getting the permit that he seeks.
Above all, throughout the country, it is the consistency of the law that I believe we must strive to achieve. The memorandum of guidance, to all intents and purposes, is an internal document drawn up between the police and Home Office civil servants. Although we have the Minister's assurance that this will be made public and that consultations with interested parties will take place, I do not believe that this method is anything like effective enough to achieve the high level of consistency of interpretation of the law that many of us feel is so desirable. The amendment would provide for the code of practice to be prepared by members of the consultative committee who are experts in their own fields: not civil servants, but a mixture of experts, including members of the police. They would be able to produce a code of practice that would be admissible in a court of law. I believe that that is the crux of the amendment. I am certain that the effect of the amendment would be to narrow the parameters within which the police would interpret the law, thus making their job easier and the public clearer on where they stand. That would surely be a fairer deal for all.
The Minister expressed his concern in Committee that, if the code were admissible in court, it could be construed as having the force of law, and the committee inadvertently might be usurping the proper functions of government in putting forward law for the approval of Parliament. However, this would not be the case because under the amendment the code—or, indeed, amendments to it—would be submitted to the Home Secretary for his approval. It would then be subject to approval by resolution of each House of Parliament.
The simple effect would be to provide for a greater input by practical experts on the way in which

1225
firearms legislation would be implemented. Furthermore, as my noble friend Lord Swinfen said in Committee, such a code would not be setting a precedent. He quoted examples of similar codes in other legislation. I believe that many of the existing and future difficulties highlighted by your Lordships and others relating to firearms legislation could be largely overcome. I regard it as the most likely way of ensuring a consistency and fairness throughout the country, which I am sure everyone seeks to achieve. I beg to move.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, I can add little to the excellent presentation of the amendment by the noble Earl. As he said, there have been other examples of codes. The Highway Code in particular is of tremendous use to drivers. The code proposed, to be produced by experts, would be a tremendous help to the shooting fraternity, including shooting clubs, people who go in for sporting events and, indeed, all manner of shooting. We warmly support it.
Lord Renton: My Lords, the amendment is less objectionable than that which was proposed in Committee. I think that what is proposed is still without precedent. If it is accepted, it would create an unwelcome precedent.
Codes of practice have increased in number considerably in recent years. Some have a limited legal effect. Others have none at all. Nearly all have been produced under statutory authority by governments departments so that the department in each case is the one with the relevant responsibility.
The amendment proposes that the consultative committee—admittedly composed of experts—should prepare and issue a code of practice for the custody and use of firearms, and that it should then be sent to the Secretary of State. I do not know whether meanwhile it is to be published. I think that that is likely to be the intention. If the Secretary of State approves it, as I understand it, he would lay it before Parliament for approval by affirmative resolution.
When it had been approved, after going through that procedure, it would be admissable in court. When the code appears to the court to be relevant to any question arising in the proceedings,
"it shall be taken into account in determining that question".
This is a new way of arriving at codes of practice. I should have thought that, if we are to have codes of practice in this or any other context, it would be much better to stick to the usual way.
If we are to have consultative committees, quangos and so on taking it upon themselves to issue codes of practice and then the Secretary of State is required—whether the codes of practice are necessary or sound—to go into the matter in detail, perhaps causing a great deal of to-ing and fro-ing and adding to the use of time on the part of public servants, I very much doubt whether that is as good as the present system.
I do not claim that that system is as perfect as it might be. My noble friend Lord Kimball will remember that years ago there was a Private
1226
Member's Bill in another place. I, as Junior Minister in the Home Office, had to deal with it. The official advising me in the Home Office on a firearms Bill had never had a shotgun or a rifle in his hand in his life. He was candid enough to say so, but he knew what his responsibilities were. He knew to whom to go for information and advice. The proper channel for the exercise of the responsibility was used—that is to say, a Minister answerable to Parliament made representations to Parliament and Parliament was able to decide the matter directly.
I do not wish to labour this matter, but there is a further point. What my noble friend intends that the consultative committee shall do by means of this new code of practice procedure is mainly covered by what it is required to do under the Bill anyway, by making representations to the Secretary of State, as we discussed when the previous amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, were being considered. I should have thought that everything of value that can be achieved through the exercise by the committee of its functions as set out in Clause 20(4) is better achieved in the way presented by the Bill, instead of by means of this new form of code of practice.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I agree very largely with what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has said. Indeed I go further than he does. I regard this as a wholly objectionable amendment and I oppose it as a matter of principle. The amendment seeks to take over, to some degree at least, operational decisions which in my view are the clear prerogative of the chief officer of police. The idea of a consultative committee—albeit a committee which makes proposals which may be approved and have to be approved by the Secretary of State— making decisions of the kind which are specified in subsection (4A) in my view is wholly wrong. Let us examine the expression in subsection (4A)(a):
"security and safekeeping of firearms".
I believe that a decision on a matter of that kind is exclusively for the chief officer of police.
Let us look at the position of an inner city area. Given the level of crime in such an area, the chief officer of police will require very rigorous arrangements for the safekeeping of firearms. I believe that it will be the overwhelming view of the House that that should be so. However, if the decision is not to be his but to be arrived at after discussion by a committee—no doubt experts in firearms but not, in the majority, in law enforcement—I believe that an amendment of this kind raises some very fundamental questions.
I should be astonished were the noble Earl to say that he accepts the amendment, or even that he will look at the matter again. I believe that it goes right to the heart of the relationship between the Government and the police service. If the Government weaken on this matter it will be extremely serious. I hope that they will oppose it wholeheartedly.
11 p.m.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, I disagree most emphatically with the noble Lord, Lord Harris. To

1227
say that the proposed consultative committee will take over the responsibilities of the chief officer of police is totally erroneous. There are so many different areas in the country that it is important that guidelines should be issued to the police forces in order that they have a common denominator when exercising discretion as to whether to grant or revoke firearms certificates, and so forth.
Furthermore, it would be extremely helpful to the Government, be it this or any other, to have professional all-party committees advising on specific issues as they arise. These days it is impossible for any large organisation—which, after all, governments are—for ministers and civil servants to know all the answers. It must be most helpful to have bodies of people who are knowledgeable about specific issues who can advise and help. I believe that that is the important point behind the consultative committee and that it is helpful.
As the Bill now stands the consultative committee will consider only the administration and enforcement of the provisions of the principal Act and this Bill. That is as I read the Bill, although I am probably wrong because I usually am. That is a narrow brief.
I am not sure that there are provisions in the Bill for the safekeeping of firearms. I believe that to be a prerequisite. I dare say that the incident at Hungerford would never have happened if we had had proper security of firearms. People would not get at them if we looked after them properly. Who goes round to make sure that they are properly looked after? That is an important function of the proposed committee, in addition to the proper use of firearms and so forth.
The amendment should be considered most carefully. It may not be drafted in exactly the right form at this stage but I am sure that my noble friend Lord Peel will welcome an indication from the Minister that he will take the matter away and consider it, if not accept it as it stands. To throw it out would be most erroneous. I believe that it is possibly the most constructive provision which one can hope to see in the Bill.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I must say that I share the view expressed by both the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, and my noble friend Lord Renton. Of course I do not have experience inside the Home Office but I do have—and I believe it is worthwhile referring to it—experience of codes of practice in other spheres.
I believe that this amendment is based on a false analogy and a false view of constitutional practice. It may be that I have some of the precedents wrong. I have not been able to look them all up because they are contained in a number of different Acts, but my experience is that the codes of practice normally put forward are on the initiative of a government department—that is, a Minister—after taking advice from various sources but are not initiated by a consultative committee.
I believe that that is a departure from practice which needs to be justified and has not been justified
1228
either by my noble friend behind me or by those who have spoken from the Opposition Front Benches. I believe that where they are adopted, they should be the responsibility of a Government Minister. In this case they are neither one thing or another but in fact they are both. It is a bad constitutional practice which is now being proposed. I believe that it is a departure from precedent, and not a good departure.
If the matter simply stopped there, I believe I would not think it worthwhile to complain too much. It may be that I am too much of a pedant. However, I do not believe that it stops there. I do not believe that the supporters of this amendment have thought through what codes of practice are about. Again, at this late hour I am not going to trouble the House, even if I were able to, with all the precedents.
However, the supreme code of practice which everyone knows, more or less—and I probably less than some and more than others—is the Highway Code. That is a typical example and it is worthwhile thinking about whether this is a good or bad analogy. My view is that it is bad and I shall tell the House why. The code of practice contained in the Highway Code provides, as does this amendment, that it can be given in civil and criminal proceedings in a court of law. It is itself and in itself without legal effect.
The sort of things that it tells you in the Highway Code—and I only wish that people observed it a little better—is that if you approach a roundabout you have to give way to the person who is coming in from your right and that it is bad for people to pass you on the left-hand side when you are driving in the middle lane of a motorway. That is the sort of matter set out in the code of practice. In a court of law, whether in civil or criminal proceedings, it is some evidence of no negligence that you have been keeping the code of practice and some evidence of negligence that you have been breaking it. A court of law is not bound by that but is entitled to take it into account in its total summation of the facts.
Of course nobody says in the Highway Code, "The maximum speed shall be 70 miles an hour on the motorway or 30 miles an hour in a built-up area". Essentially, that is a matter for statutory provision either by way of the statute itself or through statutory instruments under the statute. You are not given a chance of arguing before a court of law that it was only a little one, like the housemaid's baby. You are not given the chance of arguing one way or the other. There are certain matters for regulation, certain matters to be taken into account in a total summation of the situation and certain matters in which the individual user of the road is entitled to use his own discretion but still has certain authoritative advice.
As regards my noble friend Lord Mountgarret, I should have thought that anything he possibly wanted is already contained in Clause 20(4)(c):
"to advise the Secretary of State on any other matter relating to those provisions which he may refer to the committee".
It is good that these experts should advise the Secretary of State, but in the main this Bill is altogether different from the Road Traffic Act. In the main the purpose of this Bill is to lay down precise rules of law either by the terms of the statute or by regulation under it.

1229
What I say respectfully to those who support the amendment is that it is a false analogy. This is not the sort of animal which calls for codes of practice. It is also bad to have codes of practice which adopt a totally different constitutional rote from that which other codes of practice normally have. For those two reasons I suggest that the Government would be unwise to give a hasty approval to the amendment.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I cannot help wondering what all the fuss is about and why we should have to enter into constitutional arguments when, as I see it, we have a straightforward, practical proposition.
It is a great shame when the House has to listen to the debating skill, so renowned, of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, at ten minutes past eleven, because one cannot appreciate it to the full as one would do if one were a little less tired. However, I take up immediately the matter that he raises about the Highway Code. For example, this Bill deals with items which can be dangerous to the public if used wrongly. Firearms are an obvious example of that. Motor cars are another example of that. If you use a motor car dangerously, you affect the public. If you use firearms and do not look after their security properly, you endanger the public. The public want a little guidance. What guidance should they have, apart from that enacted in the Road Traffic Act which rightly lays down offences about exceeding the speed limit, and so on?
The public need guidance on the very matters about which the noble and learned Lord spoke. You safeguard the people who are in the middle lane on the highway by not overtaking them on the left. That is a code of practice of behaviour. If you do not behave in that way and you endanger the public, that is prima facie evidence if charged with driving without due care and attention or if you appear in a civil court and are sued for negligence.
I repeat, what is all the fuss about? We are looking at matters that a group of experts, appointed by the Minister, could consider to see how dangerous they are; and what a wreck we are making of a constitution which we love! Exactly what are the experts asked to look at for the code of practice? The amendment refers to,
"security and the safekeeping of firearms [and] the proper use of firearms".
What an inroad into our constitution if a committee appointed by the Secretary of State were to look into such matters!
Are there any other such matters? Yes:
"such other matters as the Secretary of State shall determine."
So if the Secretary of State wants the committee of experts that he has set up to look at that, is that so terribly dangerous?
What are the safeguards for our constitution? If this amendment provided that as soon as the consultative committee prepared its code of practice that became an effective code of practice, then I can see a constitutional point. You would give to a consultative committee a power that it should not have. But two things must happen after that. First, the consultative committee submits the draft code of
1230
practice to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State, without giving any reason whatever, without having to give any reason to anybody, can say "I do not agree with it." It dies a death upon that happening.
Let us say that the Secretary of State very foolishly agrees to a code of practice that he should never agree to. It has to go before Parliament. How often have I heard from the Front Bench opposite: "Do you so belittle the Houses of Parliament when you say that we can give ourselves powers to make statutory orders. Goodness gracious me!". I am told: "That has to be sanctioned by both Houses of Parliament and Parliament can object. It is the free voice of the people and it is a democratic vote, so what are you worried about giving us powers to make statutory instruments in that way?" The great and tender fabric of our constitution is not being interfered with in the slightest.
What are the advantages of all this? There is a group of experts. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, I should be terrifically surprised if the people who are supposed to be experts in the administration or enforcement of the Firearms Act 1982 and this Act did not include the police. I should be amazed if the Secretary of State did not put at least one police representative on the consultative committee as someone who was expert in the administration and the enforcement of the Firearms Act. The police would be represented. There are the safeguards and there are the advantages of someone getting on with the code.
When one speaks to me about the Home Office I have the greatest sympathy, as someone who never had the privilege of serving as a Minister in the Home Office, for those Ministers who do and who have done. The multifarious activities of the Home Office mean that by the time the Minister has finished quite a long term of office he may be an expert in just one of the fields that the Home Office deals with. He cannot hope to be anything else.
It is hardly likely that this code of practice is to be something that emanates from the Home Office itself. The committee of experts appointed by the Secretary of State, preparing a draft code on necessary matters and where there can be consistency and unification throughout the country, has the sanction of the Secretary of State. He may say that he does not like one scrap of it or half of it and he is only going to put forward one half and take the other half back. Parliament has to have its say before it is to have any effect at all. When it does have any effect it is merely evidence of some kind of value to a court of justice whether civil or criminal.
I beg of this House not to take a continuing and negative attitude to matters that might be helpful as regards this Act. I am praying in aid constitutional arguments which are worthy of higher objects but not the plain, straightforward, sensible and practical object of this amendment.
Lord Swansea: My Lords, I also support this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has dealt far more ably than I could with the safeguards that are built into it both from the point of view of the

1231
Secretary of State and the approval of such a code of conduct by both Houses of Parliament.
There is one matter which has been mentioned only slightly in the course of this debate. It has long been a bone of contention in the shooting community that individual chief constables in different parts of the country have very wide discretion in administering the Act. They are liable to interpret it in a great number of different ways, even to the extent sometimes of almost re-writing the Act or of exceeding their powers.
This code of practice would go a long way to achieving some uniformity of practice in the administration of the Act throughout the country. If one remembers the principle that while the citizen, wherever he may live in the country, has the same duties and responsibilities under the law, he should also have the same rights under the law. That is one matter that I hope this code of practice will achieve.
Lord Burton: My Lords, I should like strongly to support the amendment. Following the Committee stage and today's debate, it is quite clear that this is a highly technical and non-party political matter. To administer this code of practice and to keep it up to date needs expert advice. It is very important to achieve unanimity, which we certainly do not have at the moment. I have a large file of complaints of police persecution of legitimate certificate holders. I shall not go into details tonight but a considerable number of such certificate holders have been hard done by. The Home Office apparently issues directives to the chief officers of police. I do not know exactly how it works but these presumably come from senior civil servants. I feel that these directives should not come from civil servants. They should come from the consultative committee.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the Home Office never gives a directive to a chief officer of police? There are 43 separate police forces in this country. The Home Secretary has no constitutional right to give any form of directive to a chief officer of police. That is a fact.
Lord Burton: My Lords, perhaps I put it a little strongly. I think they are called guidelines or memoranda of guidance. As the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said, this has to go through the Secretary of State and then to Parliament. I really cannot see what all the fuss and bother is about.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I took a great deal of comfort from one thing that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said. He said that when a Minister has finished his time in the Home Office he might be an expert in one of the areas covered by the department. I never thought that that would be a possibility. However, he says so, and I am at least encouraged.
My noble friend Lord Mountgarret said that it is quite right to have a committee to advise. We have a committee that can advise. It can make proposals for amending provisions and can advise the Secretary of State on any other matter. We have what my noble friend wanted. But then along comes my noble friend
1232
Lord Peel with this amendment which says that the committee "shall prepare… a code of practice" and shall transmit a draft to the Secretary of State,
"who shall if he approves it, lay it before both Houses of Parliament".
If Parliament approves it, "it shall come into effect". The amendment goes on to say:
"In all criminal and civil proceedings any such code shall be admissible in evidence".
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, is correct. A fundamental decision has to be taken. If I may say with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, he is wrong to trivialise this exercise. My noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham said that the supporters of the amendment had not thought through what the codes of practice are about. I agree with him. I have thought through what the codes of practice are about. I said in Committee that I would look into the possibility of giving the consultative committee the power to draw up codes of practice on firearms matters and give statutory backing to such codes. My noble and learned friend is absolutely right. I should like to explain to the House why this is important.
Some noble Lords may recall that on 15th January 1986 a debate took place on the subject of codes of practice to which my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate responded. During that debate concern was expressed about the uncertainty which surrounded the need for codes of practice and their role. As a result, guidance on this subject was subsequently set out in a Cabinet Officer paper, a copy of which I have and a copy of which can be found in the Library of the House. It was entitled quite simply Guidance on Codes of Practice and Legislation. The Cabinet Office guidance states that the prescriptions of a code of practice:
"are not hard and fast rules but guidelines which may allow considerable latitude in their practical application and may be departed from in appropriate circumstances".
That applies whether a code is for the guidance of administrators or to advise the public on their legal responsibilities. It is important to bear that limitation in mind. Statutory codes of practice would not, as some noble Lords seem to believe, solve all the problems which at present arise over the interpretation and implementation of firearms controls.
My noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham referred to the Highway Code and, if I may say so, he was rather chewed up by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for so doing, although it was done in a most delightful way.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, it was done with courtesy.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, yes; it was done with total courtesy. However, some of the existing codes of practice—not only those contained in the Highway Code, but also those concerning the welfare of livestock—are very useful in amplifying a broadly drawn concept, such as my noble and learned friend expressed: for example, reckless driving or causing unnecessary suffering to animals.
However, the Firearms Act is different. It creates a range of narrowly drawn offences for which that kind

1233
of amplification is not necessary. As my noble friend Lord Mountgarret mentioned, there already exists the non-statutory guidance on the administration of firearms legislation in the form of the Home Office memorandum of guidance to chief police officers. That memorandum is at present under revision. It has been the subject of extensive consultation with shooting interests. We propose to publish it in good time for the implementation of the new legislation. It will serve as guidance both to the police and to the shooting public.
Statutory codes of practice on the administration of the firearms Act would at best overlap and could even conflict with the provisions of the Home Office memorandum of guidance. I believe that this would confuse rather than clarify the controls. The alternative suggestion that the memorandum of guidance be given statutory backing is superficially attractive. But we would be reluctant to take a step which might limit unreasonably the discretion of chief constables. The administration of firearms controls is a heavy responsibility and it must be accompanied by sufficient freedom to deal with each individual case on its merits.
I think that my noble friend Lord Peel hoped that such a statutory code of practice might at least ensure consistency of operation by chief officers. I will give your Lordships this example. Let us suppose that a firearms certificate was refused because in the chief constable's opinion the security of the firearms was not sufficient. The person applying for it then contested that decision and subsequently took the matter to the court. What would he say? He would say, "The code of practice says that the guns are to be kept in a tin box with a lock and I have kept my guns in such a tin box with a lock." The chief constable would say, "Yes, but the lock was not secure, it was loose and it was not effective." The defendant would say, "That does not matter. I have gone according to what the codes of practice said." There would be a severe risk that there would be a conflict between the codes of practice and the rights and duties of chief officers to ensure the security of the countryside for which they have responsibility.
The firearms consultative committee will be able to recommend that the Secretary of State issues guidance in the form of a code of practice; for example, on the safekeeping of firearms and sporting etiquette. The committee will also have the power to make recommendations to the Secretary of State for amendments to the memorandum of guidance to chief officers. We shall welcome such recommendations. It will also have the right to put in its annual report any such matters which it thinks should be drawn to the attention not only of the Home Secretary but, as a result of the fact that it has to be laid before Parliament, to Parliament itself.
For the reasons I have given, which are supported by the Cabinet Office guidance which I hope your Lordships will not undervalue, I do not believe that this measure is necessary or desirable. We believe that the chief officer's discretion to grant certificates, for which he is accountable to the courts, should not be fettered by statutory codes of practice which would conflict with his duty to ensure public safety.
11.30 p.m.
Earl Peel: My Lords, we have had a long and interesting debate which, as I suspected, turned partially into a constitutional matter. When I saw my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham sitting in front of me I thought that it would. On this occasion, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon came to my rescue. I echo his words, "What is all the fuss about?" We have been skirmishing around what is in principle a straightforward and easy matter.
My noble friend Lord Renton questioned whether the measure would set a precedent. My information is that it does not. As I said earlier, similar codes of practice have been established. My noble friend Lord Swinton gave examples in Committee. My noble friend Lord Renton mentioned subsection (4D) of the amendment, which provides:
"In all criminal and civil proceedings any such code should he admissible in evidence".
But it continues:
"and if any provision of such a code appears to the court conducting the proceedings to be relevant".
There is a power for the court to draw on when it thinks fit.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, said that the powers contained in the code of practice would take over from the police. The code of practice will merely narrow the way in which the police will interpret the law. That is all it seeks to do and I believe that is all it will do.
My noble friend the Minister referred to the rules of the code of practice. I did not follow him on that point. I had the impression that there were no hard and fast rules, according to the examples that he gave. If we are making slightly new ground with this proposal, does that matter if we achieve what we want to achieve? My noble friend said that the Firearms Act is different. I believe that is so, but that is why we need an effective code of practice.
It is late, but I happen to believe that in many respects this is the most important amendment in the Bill. I therefore feel, especially in view of what has been said on all sides of the House, that I have no option but to divide the House on this matter.
11.34 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 49) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 20; Not-Contents, 31.

DIVISION NO. 4

CONTENTS

Borthwick, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Northesk, E.

Burton, L.

Peel, E. [Teller.]

Dilhorne, V.

Portsmouth, E.

Elphinstone, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly. [Teller.]

Ewart-Biggs, B.

John-Mackie, L.

Savile, L.

Liverpool, E.

Seafield, E.

Mancroft, L.

Swansea, L.

Mishcon, L.

Tryon, L.

Monson, L.

1235

NOT-CONTENTS

Ampthill, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Arran, E.

Hesketh, L.

Balfour, E.

Hives, L.

Belstead, L.

Hooper, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Kimball, L

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Long, V.

Carnock, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Monk-Bretton, L.

Davidson, V.

Renton, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Skelmersdale, L.

Dundee, E.

Strange, B.

Ferrers, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Grey, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Torphichen, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Trafford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
11.41 p.m.
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 11, line 19, leave out subsection (7).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I wish to introduce Amendment No. 50. As I said when introducing Amendment No. 42, virtually all of us, whatever may be our views on other aspects of the Bill, are anxious that the consultative committee shall succeed. It follows that we are anxious that it should remain in being whatever Ministerial changes or changes of Government we may see in the future; hence this amendment.
In fact this is really the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie. Some of us were contemplating a rather more complex amendment of our own on the same lines but concluded that this simpler one suggested by the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, was better. I am slightly thrown to find the name of the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, and that of his friends missing from this amendment. I trust that does not indicate that he is disowning his worthwhile brainchild, but that on the contrary he and his noble friends will support it vigorously. I beg to move.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, I should like to support this amendment, because I think this subsection is somewhat unnecessary. After all, the Secretary of State can surely terminate a committee any time he so chooses, so why is it necessary to include this subsection? I should have thought it was unnecessary.
Lord Swansea: My Lords, I too wish to support the amendment. The present form of subsection (7) is very unsatisfactory. It suggests that the committee in five years' time might be allowed to waste away and wither on the vine because the Secretary of State perhaps has not given it any work to do with that very object in mind. The committee could perform a very useful function and it is most important that it should be allowed to continue in being on some other terms than are mentioned in this subsection. I should be quite happy to go along with the noble Lord, Lord Monson, in suggesting it should he left out altogether.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I hope this amendment will not be accepted. The work of the committee will be at its most intense during its first, second or third year. After that, if the work is done properly, it should become less onerous. It would be absurd to have the committee carry on indefinitely when its main purpose had been achieved and it had really very little left to do.
It is a matter of judgment, but I should have thought that to have the committee sitting for five years certainly at the behest of Parliament and to have that written into the Bill is right. If, by any strange chance, longer were needed there is no reason why the Secretary of State should not have the power to extend its life for up to three years at a time. I should not have thought that he would need to do so for longer. I think that this is a wise provision and I hope that my noble friend will resist the amendment.
11.45 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the Bill as drafted allows the committee to continue at the discretion of the Secretary of State, according to how useful it has proved itself during the five-year period. In another place those in favour of such a body argued strongly that it should be established for a limited period initially to enable it to prove its worth. I believe that it is right that its existence, and its cost-effectiveness to the taxpayer, should be kept under review. I believe that the clause as it stands should continue. It allows for the committee to remain in place for five years and thereafter to be reviewed every three years.
I believe that it is right that the Secretary of State should be able to judge the value of the committee which is, after all, an advisory committee. As drafted the amendment would permit the committee to go on forever unless primary legislation were introduced to stop it, irrespective of whether the committee was good, bad or indifferent. I hope that your Lordships will agree that the Bill is best left as it is.
Lord Monson: My Lords, in view of the way things have turned out I rather regret adopting lock, stock and barrel the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie. It is true that he did not table the amendment himself, but it was a suggestion of his. I think that perhaps we should have stuck to our rather more complex but less ambitious amendment and simply have lengthened the period of time from three years to five.
However, I do not want to pursue the matter at this time of night. I do not feel terribly strongly about the issue myself although other noble Lords may take a different view. They may wish to come back with a compromise amendment at the next stage. For the time being I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 21 [Minor and consequential amendments and repeals]:
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 51:
Page 11, line 42, at end insert—
("() In section 26(3) of that Act for the words "three years" wherever they occur there shall be substitued the words "five years".".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a very straightforward amendment. To make firearms certificates renewable every three years rather than every five years is expensive and time-consuming, not only for the holder of the licence but very much more so for our over-burdened police. As I understand it, it is also out of line with the practice in most other industrialised countries.
It has been estimated that the Bill will increase the police workload by no less than 1.5 million man hours per annum. That estimate is based on the Home Office's own figures from a working party report of 1984. It may be of interest to your Lordships that in 1976 a Private Member's Bill was introduced in another place by the Member who later became the noble Viscount the Leader of this House. It used precisely the same words as are contained in this amendment.
I have heard it suggested that the reason for resistance to a five-year period is the possibility that someone's mental state might deteriorate in that period. If the question of the mental state of a holder of a licence is the prime issue, then, frankly, one would have to make the licence renewable every three months and not every three years. I do not believe that argument to be a very powerful one. I beg to move.
Lord Swansea: My Lords, I should like to support the amendment. This subject has been a point of discussion between shooting interests and the Home Office for a long time. The fees for firearm and shotgun certificates have now reached the pitch where they become quite a burden on the individual.
This amendment would spread the burden of that fee over a longer period so that it would be more bearable for the individual. With the present state of police records, computer records and communications, it would not be impossible for the police to be able to keep tabs on any individual they wished, whether through their own methods of communication, the bobby on the beat, or whatever. During a five-year period they should be able to collect enough information about that individual to enable them to remain assured that he was the kind of person who could be entrusted with a firearms or shotgun certificate.
Lord Burton: My Lords, I also should like to support this amendment. I think that the Home Office has grossly underestimated the amount of extra police time that this Bill will require, particularly in regard to the recording of shotguns. It will take policemen off the beat. We have all heard chief constables complain recently about the shortage of manpower. This measure will take policemen away from what they should be doing—namely, trying to control criminal activities—in order to oversee the activities of basically law-abiding people.
The Bill will add considerably to the cost of a certificate. The amendment is one way of reducing not only the amount of police time required but also the cost. It seems to me to be an admirable suggestion.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not think that at a time when we are trying to tighten controls it would be very prudent to extend the life of certificates to five years before renewal. Obviously, the longer the period of validity of a certificate the less likely it is that unsuitable people will come to notice.
The Government want to do the most that they can to make things more convenient for shooters and that is why they have provided a facility in Clause 11 for the expiry dates of firearms and shotgun certificates to be brought into line so that both can be issued simultaneously. The fee for a shotgun certificate will then be issued at a very reduced fee of £5. Obviously we must also have regard to savings of police time, which Clause 11 will reduce because all the inquiries which are necessary for the issue of both certificates can be made at the same time.
The renewal of a firearms or shotgun certificate provides an opportunity for the police to review the holder's circumstances with a view to ascertaining that he is a suitable and fit person to continue to possess firearms or shotguns. I believe that it would not be right to extend the validity of the shotgun or firearms certificate to five years.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I note what the noble Earl says but perhaps I may remind him that the right honourable gentleman of whom I spoke when I introduced this amendment, and who in 1982 was Home Secretary in the Conservative Administration, wrote to MPs in November of that year in the following terms:
"As you know, I support the suggestion that the period of validity of shotgun certificates should be extended from three years to six years"—
not five 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".
That was five and three-quarters or six years ago.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I intervene only to say that that was before Hungerford.
Lord Monson: My Lords, one single incident at Hungerford has not changed anything. Shotguns were not really an issue. It was automatic weapons, although used in single-shot form, which did the damage at Hungerford and not shotguns. To produce panic legislation after one such incident will not wash. Crimes with shotguns have not increased substantially since November 1982. I should have thought that the wise words then of the right honourable gentleman are as valid today as they were then.
However, I have not received a great deal of support for this amendment. I do not know what noble Lords will wish to do at a later stage, but for the time being I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Swansea Lord Swansea moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 11, line 42, at end insert—
("(4A) In section 26(3) of that Act after the words "the holder resides" there shall be inserted the words "or, if the holder is

1239
overseas on Crown service, in which the certificate was originally granted or renewed"; and in section 29(2) after the word "resides" there shall be inserted the words "or, where a person is entitled by section 26(3) of this Act to do so, by the chief officer for the area in which the certificate was originally granted or renewed" ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with this amendment I am sure your Lordships will find it convenient to discuss also Amendment No. 53. Both deal with exactly the same principle concerning the firearm certificate holder who is posted overseas in the services, by the Foreign Office or on Crown service in some capacity or other—in other words, not from his own choice but through what are known as the exigencies of the service. Let us suppose that he lets his residence in this country during his period of service abroad so that he no longer has a residence in the United Kingdom and that during his absence his firearm certificate expires. As he has no residence in this country, he has no grounds for having his certificate renewed. That is manifestly unfair to a British subject normally resident in this country who is posted abroad in the service of the Crown.
I have no doubt my noble friend on the Front Bench will say that such a person could get a visitor's permit when he comes back to this country; but he is not a visitor. He is a citizen of this country, and were it not for the fact that he has let his house, or perhaps even sold it, he would normally be resident in this country. I think it is entirely reasonable that one of the two amendments—either this one or Amendment No. 52 proposed by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun—should be incorporated into the Bill. I beg to move.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, in my humble opinion, my amendment is a rather simpler alternative to that of the noble Lord. Lord Swansea. A similar amendment not restricted to Crown servants was, I believe, moved at Committee stage in another place. I understand that the Minister, Mr. Douglas Hogg, gave an undertaking to consider the issue although I believe he was not helpful in respect of those Britons working abroad who were not Crown servants. That is the reason, I think, why this amendment is restricted to Crown servants only.
The point is that if your firearms certificate runs out while you are abroad and you cannot get another one until you have a new residence in this country, you may very well be in the position—apart from anything else—of coming back to this country with a firearm for which you do not have a valid certificate.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I should like to support Amendment No. 53, if it is in order to do so at this moment, mainly on the grounds that a pledge was given in another place that something along these lines would be introduced. There was not time to do so. Now seems the right moment to accept such an amendment.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, both these amendments refer to members of the forces or Crown servants who are residing temporarily abroad. Firearms control is based on the premise of a certificate holder who is living in this country. And in general a certificate
1240
authorises the possession of a firearm in Great Britain. The criteria for the grant and renewal of a firearm certificate, set out in Sections 27 and 28 of the 1968 Act, relate to possession here and to public safety here.
I do not think that such criteria can properly be applied to a person who is not living in this country. The same is true of the local conditions under which a firearms certificate is held. I find it difficult to see a reason to change this. A firearm or shotgun certificate can only be renewed by the chief officer of police for the area in which the applicant resides. If a person is resident in this country but temporarily abroad his certificate can be renewed by his local chief officer of police. If a person is not resident in this country he then has no need of a firearms or shotgun certificate for use in this country. If he wishes to bring his guns here on a visit he can apply for a visitor's permit in the usual way.
The amendment suggests that firearms certificates should be issued to enable people who are abroad to shoot in other countries. I understand the feeling, but do not think that it constitutes a sound basis for granting a certificate to a person who is not residing here. I do not see any particular justification for treating Crown servants or members of the forces any differently from others who are required to work abroad, whether in international organisations or with private sector interests. What about those who work abroad in BP or ICI and merchant bankers and businessmen? They should all be treated in the same way. While I understand the reason behind the amendment, I cannot accept it.
12 Midnight
Lord Swansea: My Lords, I am not surprised at my noble friend's reply. I am disappointed that he has not seen his way to accepting the amendment. As he says, this could apply just as well to someone who is sent abroad on business. The amendment was framed to keep things simple and to underline the fact that such a person would be going abroad in the service of his country as a member of Her Majesty's forces or in the foreign service. As my noble friend rightly says, the same principle could be applied to a person who goes abroad in the course of business. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, before I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 53, I wish to indicate the kind of person who I have in mind.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, the noble Lady must either not move the amendment or speak to it and subsequently seek to withdraw it. She is not entitled to do both at the same time.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I thought that I was entitled to raise a query.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, as I understand it, the noble Lady spoke to the amendment in discussion of an earlier amendment, which was not agreed to. If she wishes to speak to the amendment standing in her name she ought to move it.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy Lady Saltoun of Abernethy moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 11, line 42, at end insert—
("() The following subsection shall be inserted at the end of section 26 of that Act—
"() The holder of a firearms certificate who is a serving member of H.M. forces or other Crown servant posted overseas at the time of expiry of the certificate shall be entitled to renewal by the issuing authority on written request by him and in the absence of any reasonable ground of objection." ").
The noble Lady said: My Lords, I have in mind a member of Her Majesty's forces, for example, to whom a firearms certificate was granted in the area in which he resided at the time. He goes abroad on Her Majesty's service, say, to Germany, with the firearms certificate and his rifle. While he is there on Her Majesty's service the firearms certificate runs out. He cannot renew it because he no longer has a residence in this country. He comes back to this country when his posting ends. He no longer has a valid certificate, but he has a firearm that he wants to keep and he wishes to have a firearms certificate. He has come back to this country the owner of a firearm for which he has no firearms certificate. That is a rather tricky situation.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lady's amendment would give an entitlement to a certificate and the presumption is that the serviceman would be issued with a certificate. That would put him in a more favoured position than a person who lives in this country.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I am not at all happy with that answer. I do not propose to divide the House at this time of night. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Swansea Lord Swansea moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 12, line 8, at end insert—
("(6A) In section 43 of that Act in subsection (3) for the words "and any statutory instrument containing such an order shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament" there shall be substituted the words "and no such order shall he made unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, here we come to the last fence. This subject has been mentioned before. I am concerned particularly about a further increase in the fees for shotgun and firearms certificates, which I believe there will undoubtedly be in the light of the increased workload to be put on the police as a result of the Bill. So far the statutory instruments setting new fees have been subject to negative resolution and it has been up to any noble Lord or Member of another place to lay a prayer, if he so wishes. Otherwise it goes through automatically.
The effect of the amendment would be to require affirmative resolution of both Houses before a statutory instrument could take effect. It is desirable in view of the level which fees have now reached. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I think we should be chary of extending the affirmative resolution procedures.
1242
They should be used only for matters of real importance on which it is essential to get both Houses of Parliament debating and considering the matter before it is approved. Under the 1968 Act we have always had the negative procedure for matters concerning fees payable under the Act. It has worked perfectly well and I believe it would be overdoing it if we were now to move from the perfectly satisfactory negative procedure to the affirmative procedure. I do not believe that there would be any demand for it.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, once again I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Renton. I cannot see any case for an amendment of this kind. There is a clear Treasury rule which is operated by this Government. I know that because it was confirmed by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, in answer to a Question I put on this precise matter. It is that all fees for shotguns and all other fees charged by government departments have to be operated on a self-financing basis.
That is entirely sensible. It is the view of the present Government and was the view of the previous Government. It seems to me that the negative resolution procedure is entirely appropriate and I hope that the Government will not accept the amendment.
Lord Monson: My Lords, in contrast, I strongly support the amendment. I hope that noble Lords on the main Opposition Benches, who quite rightly in my view are constantly calling for the replacement of the negative resolution procedure by the affirmative resolution procedure when other contentious Bills such as the poll tax Bill, the Housing Bill, and so on, are being debated, will remain true to their principles and support it in this case as well.
It is undeniable that for this House it makes very little practical difference because of the regrettable convention that we hardly ever oppose an order. But it makes a great deal of difference, according to my information, to the Back-Benchers in another place, as my friends and acquaintances there never cease to stress. Therefore I think the amendment is important.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am bound to say that I agree with my noble friend Lord Renton and the noble Lord, Lord Harris. I believe that the negative resolution procedure is right. It has been used for the past 20 years and it has the advantage of saving parliamentary time.
In practice, there has always been an opportunity to debate any orders made under this provision, and although I realise that in the past my noble friend Lord Swansea may not have been happy with some of the provisions made under Section 43, I do not think he would say that Parliament would have been less likely to approve these measures had the affirmative resolution procedure applied. Indeed, the negative resolution procedure was used effectively in 1979 to pray against the Firearms (Variation and Fees) Order 1979 and the order was duly annulled. As noble Lords will know, neither the negative resolution procedure nor the affirmative resolution procedure enables Parliament to amend the instrument.

1243
If we continue the negative resolution procedure it saves time, and I believe that it is the correct procedure to use for this purpose.
Lord Swansea: My Lords, I shall not press the point but my noble friend's reply has not changed my views about the procedure used. I shall ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
I should like to express my thanks to my noble friend for the patient way in which he has dealt with the many points that have been raised. He has stood his ground very well and I compliment him on that. I am sorry that he has not proved as flexible as one may have hoped. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at twelve minutes past midnight.