HL Deb 10 November 1992 vol 540 cc169-74

8.10 p.m.

Earl Ferrers rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 15th July be approved [7th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Earl Ferrers.)

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Firearms Acts (Amendment) Regulations 1992, laid before the House on 15th July, be approved. The draft regulations seek to give effect to requirements of the European Community Directive on the Control of the Acquisition and Possession of Weapons. The directive lays down minimum standards which all Community states must achieve in their national firearms controls. But states can be stricter than the minimum. Our domestic firearms controls are among the strictest in Europe. And they will remain that way. There will be no relaxation of the standards of control which we consider necessary to protect public safety.

But some relatively minor adjustments are required to bring our controls up to European Community standards in the few instances where we are not as strict as the directive requires us to be. The most notable change is the extension of our category of prohibited weapons and ammunition. Firearms which are disguised as other objects, explosive military missiles and their launchers, armour piercing and incendiary ammunition for military use and expanding pistol ammunition will all become prohibited under draft Regulation 3.

We have made special arrangements for collectors and for those who use expanding pistol ammunition. They will not be affected by the ban if they have a special condition added to their firearm or shot-gun certificate. We shall be implementing an exgratia payment scheme for owners of disguised firearms. If they lawfully held a disguised firearm on 16th July, the day after the draft regulations were laid, they will be able to apply for a payment provided that they surrender the firearm to the police before 1st January 1993. Payments will be based on the value which the firearm had immediately before the draft regulations were laid before Parliament.

The directive says that no one under 18 should be allowed to acquire or to possess a firearm except for hunting or target shooting. "Hunting", in this instance, does not carry the definition which an Englishman would normally give to the word, but rather the definition which our American and European friends ascribe to it; namely, shooting wild animals or birds.

The draft regulations, therefore, provide that certificate holders under 18 can use firearms only for sporting purposes, vermin destruction, the shooting of wildlife as part of estate husbandry, competitive purposes, including target shooting, or target shooting outside competition.

Residents of Great Britain will need a European firearms pass after 1st January 1993 if they wish to take their firearms to other Community states—for example, on a shooting trip. Draft Regulation 5 provides for chief officers to issue European firearms passes free on request to firearm and shot-gun certificate holders in their areas.

Visitors from other Community states who come here with their firearms after 1st January 1993 will also need a European firearms pass issued by another Community state. That will not mean, though, that European Community nationals will be able to bring firearms here just by virtue of holding a European pass. They will still need our prior consent. They will still need a British visitor's permit, which can be obtained by a sponsor applying to the local chief constable.

Draft Regulation 7 simply ensures that intending visitors from elsewhere in the Community have a European firearms pass, as is required by the directive, when they apply for a visitor's permit.

The draft regulations make a number of other minor changes to the controls on European Community residents who buy firearms here and on our residents who buy firearms abroad. They also ensure that we can tell other Community states when one of their residents buys a firearm here, as the directive requires, without breaching confidentiality requirements.

I hope that it will be clear from what I have said that these regulations do no more than implement our Community obligations under the weapons directive, and, most importantly, that the changes will not mean any relaxation of our existing firearms controls.

I commend the regulations to your Lordships.

Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 15th July be approved [7th Report from the Joint Committee]. —(Earl Ferrers.)

Baroness Hilton of Eggardon

My Lords, these complex regulations have been clearly explained by the Minister. Their intention is to bring our firearms legislation on the control, acquisition and possession of weapons into line with the European Council directive. We support these amending regulations with the sole reservation that they may, by their very complexity, be difficult to implement in practice. I anticipate particular difficulty with Regulation 4. Seeing that it is headed "Restrictions on minors", I had hoped that it would prohibit the use or possession of firearms by children—by children, I mean children of 11 or 12. I regret that the Government have not seen fit to tighten the law in that respect.

Moreover, Regulation 4 as at present drafted allows a chief constable to refuse a shot-gun certificate only if he believes that the applicant intends to use it for an unauthorised purpose under the European directive. That is an odd provision. No applicant will declare that he intends to use a shot-gun for an unauthorised purpose. So it seems difficult for the chief constable to form the opinion that that is his intention. I therefore see very little purpose in terms of necessity or usefulness in this part of the regulation. However, in all other respects we support the amending regulations.

Lord Kimball

My Lords, as chairman of the Firearms Consultative Committee, perhaps I may briefly say a few words. As my noble friend explained, the regulations do no more than give effect to our Community obligations by bringing British legislation into line with EC standards in a number of minor areas where that is not already the case.

The Firearms Consultative Committee has been kept fully informed of the Government's plans for the implementation of the weapons directive. We welcome the helpful approach which the Government have taken in transposing the directive's requirements in a way that will cause the minimum of inconvenience to legitimate shooters in this country. Although the regulations will prohibit disguised firearms and certain other weapons and ammunition, we are pleased that sensible arrangements have been made to ensure that serious collectors will not be prevented from pursuing their interests and will be able to collect the newly prohibited items.

We were particularly glad to note that the Government have retained the visitor's permit requirements for EC visitors as recommended in the Firearms Consultative Committee's second annual report. We were also pleased to see that the Government have taken on board our recommendations on the issue of European firearms passes to British residents and that such passes will be issued freely to firearm and shot-gun certificate holders. I also welcome the fact that the regulations will not prevent legitimate young shooters from participating in sporting and other lawful activities. I refer the noble Baroness to the third report of the Firearms Consultative Committee, in which it looked in depth at the whole question of young people with both firearms and shot-guns.

My committee will be monitoring the effects of the implementation as part of our programme of work during the coming year.

Lord Monson

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for explaining these regulations so clearly. In the light of his explanation, I do not think that there is very much to object to in the content of the regulations. Nevertheless, and quite differently from the previous order, I am astonished that we should be considering this measure tonight.

If ever there were a subject suited to the exercise of the principle of subsidiarity which our Prime Minister purports to support so strongly, it is this one. For those very few individuals who want to take their rifles, pistols or shotguns across national frontiers within what is still technically known as the European Economic Community, some Community-wide harmonisation, and hence consequent legislation, may very well be desirable. I should not object to that. But at least 99 per cent. of licence holders, whether they be firearms licence holders or shot-gun licence holders, do not shoot and have no desire or intention of shooting outside their own country.

As is well known, every state within the United States—and, I imagine, every province in Canada and every state in Australia—has its own individual gun laws as well as its own laws on seat belts, the maximum power specification of motorcycles and similar matters, which the European Commission seeks unjustifiably to standardise right across the Community. Unless the principle of subsidiarity is invoked without delay so as to leave matters such as this to national parliaments, those who suspect that the hidden agenda of the European Commission is not the creation of a federal super-state but, far worse, a unitary super-state and that everything will be standardised to a much greater degree than is the case in the United States, Canada or Australia, will turn out to have been justified in their suspicions. How can the noble Earl defend interference by the Community in what is almost exclusively a domestic matter with virtually no implications for free trade or the free movement of goods, services and people across frontiers?

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for the contributions that they have made, in particular to the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton. She quite rightly stated that the draft regulations do no more than harmonise our own arrangements with those of Europe. She was anxious about young people. It is important to remember that the regulations can give effect only to our Community obligations. They do that, and no more. A chief officer can refuse a shot-gun certificate if he has reason to suspect that a young person intends to use a shot-gun for a purpose that is not authorised by the directive. Under the Firearms Acts, no young person under the age of 15 may use a shot-gun unless he is supervised by an adult. The chief officer of police will also take account of an applicant's age, skill and experience when considering whether he should grant a shot-gun certificate without danger to public safety. Therefore the noble Baroness need have no undue cause for worry.

The Firearms Consultative Committee, under the distinguished chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Kimball, recently reviewed the controls in that area. It advised the Home Secretary that the existing restrictions adequately safeguard the public. My noble friend Lord Kimball thanked the Government for implementing the directive in a way which will cause the least destruction. That may not be the word that he used—he referred to the least possible inconvenience. Even though the directive looks somewhat complicated on paper, there will not be a great deal of difficulty in bringing it into operation. My noble friend was also glad that we took the advice that European firearms passes should be issued free. That will be a good thing.

Perhaps I may take this opportunity to say this to my noble friend. Firearms and their use and control, or lack of control, are always an enormously sensitive issue. My noble friend's committee is doing, and has done, an astonishingly good job of work. It is a complicated area. Members of the committee come from a wide variety of backgrounds and interests. It is exceedingly helpful to my right honourable friend to have the advice that my noble friend's committee gives. I take this opportunity of thanking my noble friend and his committee for the work that they do.

The noble Lord, Lord Monson, suggested that the regulations would be a good subject for subsidiarity. I believe that it is good to have a common standard throughout Europe applying to those who can and cannot have firearms. It is one classic example of an area which is suited to a directive—in this case one which states that throughout Europe no one can have a firearm if he falls below that standard. I believe that that is better than giving the sole decision to individual states. That does not mean that our own standards cannot be higher than the minimum set by the European Community: indeed, they are higher. In that way I should have thought that the noble Lord had the best of both worlds. Whenever he goes to another member state, he will know that its standards of control are as good as ours; and when he returns to our country he will find that our standards are better than those of the Community.

Lord Monson

My Lords, it is the principle to which I object. Once one gives the Commission the right to interfere in purely domestic matters in one sphere of life, however beneficial it may appear to be at the time, it gives the open door to interference in almost every other nook and cranny of our daily lives, as I believe that the Prime Minister put it at one point.

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, I understand that that is an argument that many people use. However, the point of subsidiarity is that there are occasions when it is much better for governments of member states to take their own decisions. Nevertheless, even if one uses subsidiarity, it does not mean that there will not be common standards which will be used through directives over some issues throughout the Community.

However, I do not believe that we wish to pursue those esoteric subjects at the moment. Suffice to say, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, will agree that the implementation of the directive is and will be a benefit. I commend the regulations.

On Question, Motion agreed to.