Lords Sitting of 4 February 1997

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Liverpool.
Viscount Downe (Lord Dawnay)—Took the Oath.

Felixstowe: Rail Links
Lord Marlesford Lord Marlesford asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied that the present rail links with the Port of Felixstowe are adequate to move the growing container traffic between the port and main-line rail network and, if not, what steps they propose to modernise this part of Britain's transport system.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): My Lords, I understand that there is sufficient capacity within the existing railway network to accommodate up to four further trains a day via Felixstowe. In the first instance, it will be for Railtrack, in discussion with the port and freight operators, to determine whether a commercial case exists for infrastructure improvements on that section of the rail network.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, may I coax my noble friend to show a little more interest on behalf of the Government in that crucial part of Britain's transport system? Does he recognise that not only the Port of Felixstowe but also an important part of the nation's economy, as well as small matters like the countryside, are facing a crisis due to the fact that only 17 per cent. of the 1 million containers that go to and from Felixstowe by land are carried by rail? The users would like to have an increase of over 70 per cent. between now and the year 2001, from 176,000 containers to 300,000, and by the year 2005 to 500,000 containers—nearly triple. The Government's White Paper published in April last year indicated a desire to see more goods being transferred from road to rail. Does not the Minister recognise therefore that the Government have a responsibility and he cannot merely say that it is all about privatisation?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I agree with a great deal of what my noble friend said. The Government are interested in that area—witness our rail privatisation programme. That has produced more investment and allowed more opportunities for that to occur. In the first instance it is for the parties involved—Railtrack and the operators, in discussion with the port operators—to determine whether there is a commercial case for improving the line and for additional investment. If the operators and Railtrack wish to pursue further
1526
investment in the line but there is not a commercial case, it is open to them to apply to the Government for a freight facilities grant.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, will the Minister for once stop wallowing in self-complacency? Did he listen carefully to what his noble friend said? He said that there is a prudent case for a substantial increase in facilities in that area which is supported by business both in the private and what is left of the public sector and by ordinary citizens in the area. When will the Minister come to the Dispatch Box and start talking serious sense for once?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I am talking serious facts. In the short time that Railtrack has been in the private sector it has delivered record levels of investment. It must be for the parties to work closely with those involved to determine whether or not there is a commercial case for upgrading the line. If there is not a commercial case, it will be open to them to apply for a freight facilities grant. No such application has been made.
Lord Cochrane of Cults: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that Railtrack has plans in quite an advanced state for improving the access to the Port of Felixstowe, which was originally owned by the Felixstowe Dock, Harbour and Railway Company Limited? It therefore has better possibilities for railway traffic than many other sites.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, considerable work has been done on examining plans and proposals as to how, technically, the line may be upgraded. We must not pre-empt that process. The parties are still in discussions and we look forward to the results.
Lord Balfour of Inchrye: My Lords, as an expatriate Scot now resident in East Anglia, I should declare an interest in this matter, even though it is environmental rather than pecuniary, and for the well-being of the Port of Felixstowe. Does the noble Viscount know whether any consideration has been given to tunnelling under the Orwell for the line to connect with the Great Eastern Line south of Ipswich?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I shall have to write to the noble Lord on the question of tunnelling and provide him with any information that I have.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, the noble Viscount suggested that he is satisfied with the investment by Railtrack. That is not the view of the regulator of the industry. Also, can the Minister influence Railtrack on its charges for use of the track, from which it is making substantial profits? That would reduce the cost of access to the track for freight traffic and encourage freight traffic on to rail?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, there are two important points to make in relation to the noble Lord's final question. First, the charges are already regulated by

1527
the independent regulator to which he referred. Proper returns need to be able to be obtained in order to generate further investment in the line. One must be careful how one pursues the argument advanced by the noble Lord.
In relation to investment by Railtrack, I said that in the short time that the company has been in the private sector it has made record levels of investment. There are no two ways about that. The regulator examined the proposals that Railtrack put forward and its performance towards them and concluded that it had not met its targets. Railtrack said that it will try harder and is setting up the machinery to spend the money that it has promised to spend.
Lord Derwent: My Lords, I declare an interest as a director of the Port of Felixstowe. Is my noble friend aware that the port for its part has expressed great willingness, both to Railtrack and to the Government, to make the necessary investment inside the port in order to put more traffic on to the railway? Those talks are ongoing. Is my noble friend willing to use his influence on all concerned with the railway industry to stress the importance on environmental grounds of putting as much traffic as is practicable on to the railway, which means providing the necessary track facilities?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, first, I welcome the partnership between the port operator, the operator of the freight services—Freightliners—and Railtrack in addressing this issue and in deciding what the best way of improving the capacity, which everyone wants to do, might be. Secondly, the fact that the Government wish to encourage more freight onto the railway is already very well known indeed. It is the stated policy of the Government. That is, for instance, why we have the freight facilities grant to which I referred earlier.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, are we to understand that the Government are standing aside on this issue and that the answer of the noble Viscount to the second part of his noble friend's Question; namely,
"what steps they propose to modernise this part of Britain's transport system",
is "no steps"? Is the answer that the Government will just stand aside and let other parties deal with this matter?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, as the noble Lord will know, Parliament passed the Railways Act which privatised the railways, therefore putting these matters directly in the hands of privatised companies. However, the Government also set up a structure by way of which we can influence the process. We have the freight facilities grant, which 1 have detailed, which is in place for instances where there is no commercial case for an improvement—an additional investment to a line or the infrastructure—yet there are significant environmental benefits. In that way the Government are still significantly involved. We stand ready to examine applications for such a grant when they are received.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, is the Minister not being a little complacent? Is it true that
1528
the EW&S and other freight companies are thinking of either using Felixstowe, which would greatly increase the demand on the existing railway track, or using the roads, which is something we surely do not want to see happen? If that company starts up in competition, we want it to use rail and not the roads. I understand that only minor works would be needed to increase the capacity of the railway track into the port, involving merely lengthening the overtaking places and changing the signalling. Could not the Government for once anticipate that and be ready for it when the expansion comes?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, discussions are in place between commercial companies on how best to improve this infrastructure. There are a number of different ways in which it could be done. I understand that Railtrack is looking very closely at this process. It is not for us to pre-empt that.

Ex-service Personnel: Deafness
2.47 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they propose to introduce new legislation on noise-induced deafness affecting ex-service personnel.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, I do not intend to introduce legislation. The law requires that we follow medical advice. The medical facts are not in doubt: hearing loss due to noise and hearing loss due to age are no more than additive. The advisers to the RNID not only endorse our current medical advice to that effect but say that the evidence on which it is based has been available and accepted by outside experts for a long time. We accept this, which means that some past awards have been based on incorrect advice. However, we shall honour past awards in such cases, despite their lack of foundation.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I welcome his admission that he was wrong in telling the House two weeks ago that the change was due to a change in medical opinion and his admission that there is now no change in medical opinion? That is what the experts have been telling him all along. Will he now accept the view of the experts that under the present regulations virtually no ex-service personnel will be able to win a claim? That cannot be the will of Parliament. Is he aware that these experts say that the reason is that the Government are focusing on hearing loss rather than disability? They say that Ministers are making a very serious mistake in trying to equate a 50 decibel hearing loss with 20 per cent. disability. They say that a much lower 32.5 hearing loss is the equivalent of a 20 per cent. disability. Can we not all get together—the Minister, the experts and the ex-service personnel—and try to knock out a fair and reasonable solution?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the open letter which I received from the medical experts concentrated very much on the question of my assertion that there had been a change in medical opinion. As I have explained, I now fully accept that their current view has been held for a long time. The other issues are not included in the open letter; I hope very much that they will be part and parcel of a discussion which I hope to have. I have invited Mr. Graham Downing, chairman of the Royal British Legion, to lead a delegation to meet me to discuss all these matters. I expect and hope—as always in my discussions with the legion—that we shall be able to resolve any remaining differences between us.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that much public misunderstanding arises because a large proportion of what are called "war pensions"—and these are being claimed in this case—are received deservedly by people who have not been involved in a war but who have sustained injuries attributable to their service in peacetime, often within Britain? As battle casualties on the scale of a world war have, fortunately, not occurred for over 50 years, is there now a case for dropping the term "war pension" and substituting an accurate description such as the Armed Forces disability pension?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, with my noble friend's considerable experience in these matters, he makes quite an important point. It is certainly true that it would be more accurate to call the pension which my department gives to disabled ex-servicemen a disabled ex-serviceman's pension because many of the disabilities can arise in normal peacetime business as part of the Armed Forces as well as to those for whom the scheme was originally intended; namely, people like my noble friend who suffered their injuries in battle.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, can the Minister say how great an increase there has been in applications for pensions for deafness as I happen to know that there has been a great increase? Is that not a much stronger reason for the Government than any medical evidence they have collected?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, in recent years there has been a considerable increase in applications for a disablement gratuity—it would not be a pension—for noise-induced hearing loss, often at very low levels. In fact, something like two-thirds of claims relate to levels between 1 per cent. and 5 per cent. So there has been an increase. The issue we are talking about today is whether or not there has been deterioration. All the medical evidence shows that there is no further deterioration once the person is removed from the source of the noise.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, in view of the extreme care which the services now take to protect people from noise, is my noble friend satisfied that some of the damage is self-inflicted through attending discotheques, given the enormous noise that has to be put up with?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, my noble friend makes a valid point as regards young
1530
servicemen today. I am sure, and I am assured, that the military take every possible precaution to ensure that young servicemen wear ear protectors when they are within the sound of heavy gunfire. That should prevent the injuries which occurred in the days before we realised the effect of noise on hearing. As my noble friend rightly points out, many young people—servicemen and non-servicemen—are, I suspect, damaging their hearing because of the very loud noises they appear to relish coming from fancy equipment.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that his remark that he will contact the Royal British Legion will be very welcome throughout all our branches? On behalf of the Royal British Legion I thank him most sincerely.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Molloy. I have frequent contact with the Royal British Legion and with other organisations like the British Limbless Ex-Servicemen's Association, the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association, and so on, all of whom work very well for disabled ex-servicemen in particular. I am pleased to have been able to arrange a meeting with the Royal British Legion on 12th March.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the Minister told the House on 21st January that, on the basis of research by Professors Lutman and Davis, medical opinion "has changed". We challenged the Minister's assertion. Professors Lutman and Davis then wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, saying that the Minister was wrong. The letter stated:
"There has been no change in medical opinion".
Therefore, the Minister had inadvertently misled the House. In the light of that evidence—I am sure that noble Lords will wish to hear it—will the Minister do as we asked on 21st January and review the medical evidence and all the other evidence thoroughly; otherwise, to quote Professors Lutman and Davis—
Noble Lords: Order!
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: —on whose evidence the Minister relied:
"If that is not done the result will be a grave injustice to tens of thousands of ex-servicemen and women whose hearing has been damaged"?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, clearly the noble Baroness came with her question prepared and, regardless of what I said, she was going to read it out. The situation is as I have said. As a result of the open letter, my advisers have looked at the earlier scientific literature. We now accept that the current view of the medical experts has been held for some time. We have not held that view for that length of time. Therefore, we are changing to their view which they have held for a long time. I would have expected the noble Baroness to applaud my acceptance of the view of the medical experts, but, as I said to her, I am also having a meeting at which I hope to discuss these matters.

Telephone Number System
2.56 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will encourage the organisations responsible to devise a system of telephone numbers which will enable the changes now stated to be necessary to last for at least 40 years.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, the Government recognise the importance of the continued availability of telephone numbers to meet the rapid growth in consumer demand. After extensive consultation, Oftel's proposals are designed to provide a balance between stability and flexibility in order to meet customers' needs into the 21st century.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for his reply. As it was only a few years ago when many numbers were changed, at great inconvenience, and the impression was then given that these would last for a long time; and as changes are expensive for the users, can wider variety be introduced to enable more permutations of reasonable length to be created by using, for example, the alphabet or perhaps, in addition, the better known letters of the Greek alphabet?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, my noble friend is correct. It is about two years since the additional digit was added. Even at that time, Oftel warned that a shortage of numbers would emerge in various parts of the country, including London. After consultation, which has recently been revealed, the general view was that there should be a single telephone code for London. If it had been handled in a different way, two codes would have applied to houses which might have been next door to each other. I envisage that at some point in the future there will be a partial return to the use of what are described as "alpha-numerics" in dialling. However, I regret that the current numerical codes no longer coincide with cities, or parts of them, which I suspect he may recall. I would not be surprised, for example, to see in London at some time in the future the code 020 for Harrods, McDonald's or Pizzaland. However, that is a different approach to the one that I believe my noble friend would like.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I know how difficult it is to forecast, and my record is as bad as anyone's. But Oftel's record sets a standard beyond anything almost anyone could conceive. That has imposed enormous costs on both individual households and firms. Unless I misheard the Minister in endeavouring to reassure us, his exact words were that the situation would be so, "into the 21st century". It is only four years to the 21st century, which means that we are going to have this mess again. His noble friend suggested 40 years, which seems to be a fairly reasonable length of time.
1532
As regards the elementary algebra involved, it is about 10 minutes' work to get this matter right. I am not quite sure about the equipment, but I do not believe that a resolution of this matter can be so hard. Oftel has made a terrible mess of this and the rest of us are now being seriously inconvenienced, as will our successors. We should like—and this is what the Minister's noble friend is suggesting—the Government to suggest to Oftel privately that it might do something about it. Is that not reasonable for your Lordships to ask?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, the addition of a further digit opens up something like 9 billion numbers. Therefore, there is no real risk of numbers running out within the United Kingdom for the foreseeable future. However, the problem has not been that there is not a sufficient range of numbers, but that most people wish to have a code which they recognise as applying to their own geographical area. I was seeking to explain the under-estimation that Oftel made that the numbers 0171 and 0181 were going to be used up early in the next century.
The original proposal was to have yet a third code for London. That met with some real resistance. The proposal now is to have a single code, 020, with the other digits following. That seems to be the preferred solution. There are plenty of numbers. As the noble Lord said, it is probably correct that Oftel underestimated the growth in demand for telephone numbers, which have risen from something like 3.5 million in London in 1990 to 7 million by 1997, and I understand that it is anticipated that there will be something like 12 million telephones in London by the first decade of the next century.

The Business Community and Political Parties
3 p.m.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the recent statements by the Deputy Prime Minister concerning the Commission on Public Policy Research and British Business are representative of the Government's attitude to the business community.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe): My Lords, my right honourable friend spoke for the whole Government in setting out our achievements in making this country the enterprise centre of Europe. He also made clear the political affinity of the Institute for Public Policy Research.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that when the Deputy Prime Minister made those comments, he clearly implied that a number of leading British industrialists and businessmen were Labour stooges, referring in particular to the heads of GEC, British Airways, Sainsbury, and Legal & General? Does the Minister also agree that the Deputy Prime Minister implied that defence contracts which may be secured in

1533
the future by GEC might be under threat? Does that indicate that the Deputy Prime Minister—and therefore the whole Government—support British business?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the Deputy Prime Minister made absolutely no attack on the businessmen involved in the commission's report; nor did he imply what the noble Lord has just stated. My right honourable friend was making a simple point about the parentage of the report. The commission was set up by the Institute for Public Policy Research, which is an overtly Left-wing body. The commission was funded by the IPPR and was based in the institute's headquarters. The IPPR jointly owns the copyright. Therefore, it is hardly surprising that the report takes the view that it does on the social chapter and the minimum wage, a view which most business people—and the CBI and the Institute of Directors—clearly do not share.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that the Deputy Prime Minister's attack on the windfall tax was fully justified? Does he further agree that the so-called "fat cats" will not in any way be penalised unless they are still shareholders, and that those who will be penalised under the proposed windfall tax are millions of ordinary shareholders who had a contract with the Government that the value of their assets would not be diminished in that way? Is it not further the case that the whole affair is wicked and rampant legalised theft which may in any case be ruled out of order by Europe?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I agree with a great deal of what the noble Lord has just said. My right honourable friend was criticising Labour Party policy for its failure to come clean on the windfall tax. The Labour Party will not tell us which companies would be affected or how much it would cost. It will not comment seriously on the effects on ordinary consumers and shareholders. It is perhaps no coincidence that there is a resounding silence on the subject in the report also.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, if no attack was intended on the businessmen involved, does the Minister agree that the high degree of consensus between the commission's report and the Labour Party indicates that Labour is the right party to work with British business for the future prosperity of this country?
Earl Howe: My Lords, in a number of respects the report is an uncontentious document. It contains quite a lot of what one might call "motherhood and apple pie", but it is also interlaced with recommendations that are key elements of Labour Party policy, such as the social chapter and the minimum wage. Some businessmen have felt able to sign up to that. However, the document has also been used to create the impression that UK business as a whole backs the Labour Party's policies. The generality of business in the UK does not back those key distinguishing features of Labour policy. My right honourable friend sought to expose that.
Lord Lawson of Blaby: My Lords, did my noble friend have the good fortune to read the excellent article
1534
in yesterday's edition of the Financial Times by Sir Ronald Grierson, who writes with great experience as the former head of the then Labour Government's industrial reorganisation corporation and who was subsequently a senior director of Britain's largest manufacturing company, in which he pointed out that there was absolutely nothing new in that report and that it was merely a regurgitation of the corporatist benevolent nonsense which caused such damage to this country's economy throughout the 1960s and 1970s?
Earl Howe: My Lords, my noble friend makes an extremely important set of points. I commend that article to all noble Lords.
Lord Richard: My Lords, is the Minister aware that neither we, the IPPR, the business community nor the country as a whole normally take the meanderings of the Deputy Prime Minister seriously, but that when the right honourable gentleman said so elegantly yesterday in relation to the Wirral, South by-election that the Government were about to receive a kick in the teeth, we accept that he may unwontedly have stumbled into accuracy?
Earl Howe: My Lords, it is also my right honourable friend who is conscious that it is this Government who have delivered the best economic circumstances for many years which offer unparalleled opportunities for business. I believe that the electorate of the Wirral will focus on that very fact.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, can the Minister inform the House of the date of the Government's policy change with regard to the windfall tax? As the Government themselves levied a windfall tax on the banks, at what stage did they change their view and decide that a windfall tax is a bad thing?
Earl Howe: My Lords, as I recall, the background to the windfall tax on the banks was a climate of extremely high interest rates. My noble friend the then Chancellor took the decision that it was right to levy a tax in those circumstances.
Lord Peston: My Lords, is the Minister aware that his answers are extremely puzzling to some of us? I wonder whether he has read the report, which I hold in my hand. I have read it and one of the puzzling things about it is that I could not find a single word in it about the windfall tax so I am not quite sure how that issue has been brought into this Question. However, that is by the way.
The reason that I rise to my feet is that the Minister said that the report is full of Labour Party policy. When I read it, I thought that it was full of Tory Party policy—in other words, it sounded like a reasonably well-balanced document. Indeed, if somebody had asked me its provenance, I would have said that it almost certainly came from the Deputy Prime Minister. That is why many of us are so completely bewildered by the right honourable gentleman's attack on the document; it is pure Heseltine.
Earl Howe: My Lords, one only has to read the foreword to the report to understand the impression that it is trying to create. It refers to a politically balanced set of commissioners reaching conclusions with a broad objective appeal. The reality is different: the report is co-authored by a body whose trustees are leading spokesmen of the Labour Party.

Justices of the Peace Bill [H.L.]
3.8 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Bill consolidates the provisions of the Justices of the Peace Act 1979. The 1979 Act has been substantially amended by subsequent legislation, notably legislation concerned with local government and by Part IV of the Police and Magistrates' Court Act 1994.
The 1979 Act is concerned with the appointment and organisation of justices of the peace and justices' clerks and the administration of the magistrates' courts. As well as amending the 1979 Act, Part IV of the 1994 Act made further provision about those matters, which is reproduced in the Bill. The 1994 Act, among other things, strengthened the role and accountability of magistrates' courts committees and put on a statutory footing Her Majesty's Magistrates' Courts Service Inspectorate.
Your Lordships may wish to be reminded that the principal statutory provisions governing the jurisdiction of, and proceedings in, magistrates' courts are to be found in the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980. Those provisions are not consolidated by the Bill.
My department has consulted widely in the course of the preparation of the Bill among organisations and others affected by the provisions consolidated by the Bill. The Bill will be referred in the usual way to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills if your Lordships are content to give it a Second Reading. I am sure that the House will wish to join me in expressing thanks to the draftsman of the Bill at the Law Commission for her valuable work in preparing the Bill. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a second time, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

Firearms (Amendment) Bill
3.10 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Extension of s.5 of the Firearms Act 1968 to prohibit certain small firearms]:
Earl Attlee Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 15, after ("weapon,") insert ("a single shot weapon,").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 1 I remind the House that I have an interest, which I have declared on several previous occasions. I first raised this issue in Committee when I explained that a single shot handgun was not suitable for use as a weapon as the user would have only one shot whereafter he would be vulnerable to attack. I also demonstrated that a single shot pistol was no more powerful than a shot pistol which was exempted from the general ban on handguns by virtue of a Government amendment.
My technical advisers, who have forgotten far more about these matters than I will ever know, have given me a terrible wigging. It is apparent that a .410 shot pistol is far more powerful than a 9 mm pistol. At Committee stage the Minister raised several points that I had not considered when tabling my original amendment. It would be possible to modify a self-loading pistol so that it became a single shot weapon. After it was approved it could relatively easily be modified so that it could again be a multi-shot pistol. Furthermore, I was not really thinking of a single shot Browning-type pistol but a pure target pistol.
The amendment I have tabled deals only with a pistol designed and constructed to be single shot. It would also have to be designed and maintained for target shooting. This stops imaginative owners converting such weapons from target pistols to combat-type pistols. My motivation is to develop a new full bore single shot shooting discipline. It would be a discipline that concentrated on high accuracy and very low rates of fire. I do not believe that such a discipline exists at present, but we could start one and lead the world in it.
The Minister pointed out that there were not many single shot pistols in existence and that the proposal would not help many people. However, my objective was not to help anyone in particular; it was to create a new opportunity for safe shooting.
We have some very big and interesting fish to fry today. Unless another noble Lord is desperate to make a contribution, I believe that we should move on. I have no intention of pursuing this matter. I simply ask the Minister, without any obligation on her part, to consider tabling an amendment at a later stage. I shall be interested to hear what the noble Baroness has to say. I beg to move.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, this amendment would permit, as the noble Earl said, single shot handguns of whatever calibre to be exempted from the general prohibition on handguns and to be allowed to be held at home. This runs counter to the proposals set out in the Bill that all multi-shot and single shot handguns other than small calibre pistols should be prohibited, apart from a very few narrowly defined exceptions. There are also the exemptions set out in Clauses 2 to 5 of the Bill covering those working in slaughterhouses, the humane killing of animals, those using starting pistols at athletic meetings and trophies of war. Those handguns may be held according to the conditions on the owner's firearms certificate. Apart from such cases, I see no grounds for

1537
allowing any single shot handguns to be exempted from the ban. Keeping such handguns at home would pose a great risk to the public.
I shall reflect on everything that is said in the course of today's proceedings, but I cannot promise the noble Earl that I will go away and table an amendment at the next stage.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her comments on my amendment. The situation is perfectly satisfactory. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh Lord Clifford of Chudleigh moved Amendment
No. 2:
Page 1, line 15, leave out ("small-calibre pistol") and insert ("pistol using low power cartridges").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 2 I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 5. The amendments are related. It is wise to understand that no matter what clauses may be agreed at any stage there are 2,500 weapons illegally imported into this country. That figure was referred to in the other place by Mr. Frank Cook. It had been supplied to him by two senior officers of different constabularies.
Throughout the debate on the Bill in this House and in the other place there have been quotes, and misquotes, from Lord Cullen's recommendations. Some of us are qualified to talk on the subject; others are less qualified. However, we have a duty in this House to the public at large to return the Bill to the other place amended so that it is acceptable both to those who wish to continue the sport of target shooting and those who wish to tighten the law to make the handling of firearms safer. It is important that we make the Bill as practical and policeable as we can, thus ensuring public safety.
The Government have accepted that the sport of target shooting will continue by allowing within the Bill the ability of clubs to use firearms that use .22 rimfire cartridges. I quote the standard Home Office statement:
"In the Bill, therefore, we seek to preserve competitive handgun shooting, while providing at least the same degree of public safety as Lord Cullen recommended. We propose to continue to permit .22 rimfire handguns".
The amendment enables us to preserve target pistols and cartridges of no greater muzzle energy than the .22 rimfire in a great number of competitions that would otherwise be eliminated. It will allow our national and international shooting team to practise with these pistols and, as a result, no doubt win in competitive shoots—a view that I know is shared by the noble Lord, Lord Howell. The noble Lord, Lord Pearson, made the point most succinctly to the Minister during the first day of the Committee stage. He said that we simply could not turn up in Manchester and beat the world. He was appalled by the thought that our national teams at the Commonwealth Games in Manchester in 2002, should be allowed to compete in this country but not to practise here.
The amendment is simple, practical, possible and policeable. The Bill sets a power threshold for legally held .22 rimfire pistols. These are to be kept at shooting
1538
clubs under the most stringent security. Whether disassembly or segregation of parts is to be allowed I leave to amendments, which I shall support, to be moved by other noble Lords. If one accepts, as do most experts, that the benchmark or datum for such power measurement is muzzle energy one sees a very interesting correlation. Certain .22 rimfire cartridges generate more muzzle energy than the .32 and .38 wadcutter cartridge. For example, the .22 WRF cartridge with a competition load of 40 grains has a muzzle energy of 185. The long range .22 has exactly the same muzzle energy—165—as the .38 special wadcutter.
There are three types of .22 cartridge that exceed the muzzle energy of the .38 wadcutter. I can assure your Lordships that the figures have been verified by Fultons of Bisley and by Richard Munday and his co-author Jan Stevenson who wrote the authoritative book Guns and Violence: The Debate Before Lord Cullen. The essential point is that all these .22 rimfires will remain legal under the present Bill while, at huge cost to taxpayers in compensation, we will be prohibiting pistols generating weaker muzzle energy. It is the .38 wadcutter that is the firearm used by most target shooters. There is no logic in that.
With this amendment we accept what the Minister calls "The line in the sand" precisely where the Government have drawn it, but we seek simply to ensure that it is drawn consistently. It is not how fat a bullet might be, but the power with which it is fired. Prior to today's Report stage of the Bill, I canvassed the opinion of a number of noble Lords. One critique was, how do you stop people who self-load their cartridges from overloading, that is to say, putting a larger charge of powder in the cartridge during the loading process? That is a very relevant point. I believe it would be very simple to police, in one or two ways.
First, portable chronographs are available and are widely used already by clubs and ranges to verify the loads of cartridges during match competitions. Fullbore ranges are sufficiently few that it would not be difficult for the police, with chronographs, to run random muzzle energy checks. Moreover, the matches that could be legally shot with low power cartridges would offer no incentive to load higher, indeed quite the reverse, for lower recoil, as a result of a low power cartridge, offers a competitive edge. The Firearms Act already employs muzzle energy limits to define the licensing of airguns and there is no reason why this system should not be extended to cartridge firearms. There are 43 constabularies in the UK and, as each of these chronographs costs £100, the outlay is insignificant. One might add that should a club member be found to have illegal cartridges, then draconian measures could be taken, not only against the member but also the club. This would, I am sure, make the club doubly vigilant in its own policing.
The second means of policing would be for clubs to use only legally manufactured cartridges. All ammunition would have to be kept in a secure arsenal segregated from the club. On the range all cartridges to be fired would be signed for in a club or police register. All spent cartridges would be collected and signed off

1539
against the initial entry. The spent cartridges would be destroyed. The scrap casings would then be sent to the manufacturers for recycling. The clubs would be able to defray some of the cost on the scrap value. This method would be expensive for the clubs, but I suggest that most clubs would be prepared to pay the extra cost to keep this honourable sport from dying. Of course, if amendments relating to the segregation of pistol parts were accepted, then there is no reason why self-loading should not continue.
Some of your Lordships are aware that I am a disabled shooter. Luckily, I am not totally blind but, as a result of an accident some years ago, I do have difficulty in seeing things immediately around me. Bumping into furniture and sometimes people is a forte of mine, for which I apologise. I am, although I say it myself, a reasonable shot with a shotgun, at times. I do not target shoot with a pistol, but hundreds of truly disabled people do, some of them to great effect. We in this country can boast the only disabled shooter in the world who has won three gold medals in three consecutive games. There are 50,000 disabled shooters in this country and they will be listening to us while we speak this afternoon and in further debates on this Bill.
This amendment, with your Lordships' support, would allow the disabled shooters to continue with their sport which is in many cases a lifeline to their enjoyment of life. They can compete with their able-bodied friends on level terms in the full knowledge that nobody is giving them an advantage.
Finally, there is the question of cost. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, has tabled an amendment which is specific to this issue. We have heard during the passage of this Bill horrific figures bandied about in relation to compensation. The Minister has, when questioned, been unable to give accurate figures for the final bill to the taxpayer. We have heard sums of £150 million, £300 million, £500 million and even £1 billion to £1.5 billion as a possible final cost. When one hears of the shooting organisations and the manufacturers both here and abroad that are engaging counsel to challenge the Government in the European Court, I fear that the final figure may exceed the latter end of the scale. There is no doubt in my mind, and I am sure in many others, that the taxpayer will not be amused at such a spend by the government, of whatever political persuasion. This amendment will drastically reduce the bill for compensation, by allowing for the retention of the .38 wadcutter, which, as I have said, has a lower muzzle energy than the .22 rimfire.
I started my speech with the words,
"the amendment … is simple, practical, possible and policeable".
The Minister herself has indicated that if other ways can be found to make exemptions which do not threaten public safety the Government will give serious consideration to them. I believe that this amendment should be given serious consideration. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I supported the Government throughout the Committee stage of this Bill but, having heard the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, move this amendment, I hope that my noble friends on the Front Bench will give it very careful consideration and perhaps undertake to consider it between now and Third Reading. He has made a very important point.
We are dealing here with those weapons which are to be exempt from the prohibitive provisions of the Bill. Among those provisions is the small-calibre pistol, which is defined as not exceeding .22. If I may just add to what the noble Lord said, I remind your Lordships that a powerful .22 pistol can be more destructive—perhaps one should say even more destructive—than a pistol using a low-powered cartridge of greater calibre, such as the .38, as the noble Lord mentioned. Therefore, I believe that he has made out a case for the inclusion of the low-powered cartridge pistol.
The only extent to which I disagree with him is in cutting out the exemption of the .22 pistol. That is unthinkable. After all that we have gone through I believe that we should keep that exemption in the Bill and not leave it out as he has proposed, but that we should add this new exemption. I hope that my noble friends on the Front Bench will give an undertaking to consider this very carefully.
Lord Monson: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Clifford of Chudleigh does, of course, have logic on his side. The kind of guns he specifies are indeed no more dangerous than .22 pistols; indeed, in some cases, they are probably less dangerous. However, politics, as I am sure he will appreciate, is the art of the possible. It is rather late in the day to introduce an amendment which exempts guns larger than the .32 wadcutter, to which we shall come in a moment.
Subject to what he thinks about the proposal made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, I wonder whether my noble friend might think about withdrawing his amendment and coming back on Third Reading with an enabling amendment which would empower a future Secretary of State to introduce, by order, provisions allowing for the exemption of those guns after taking expert advice, subject to affirmative resolution.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, it is extraordinary that foreigners will be allowed to come in with their larger calibre pistols and to shoot at the Commonwealth Games in Manchester. They will of course have to come in under the same safety and security conditions. Then they will meet the British, who will never have been allowed to have them in their hands, who will score zero. What a lot of Herberts we will all look! We will have to compete with a pistol that we are not allowed to have. They will come in and say, "We are allowed to shoot, but you poor chaps are not to be trusted with them". Can you beat that?
I am glad that the noble Lord talked about the disabled gold medallists. It is the one sport in which they can compete on equal terms. We hear about public

1541
opinion. All my information is that public opinion has swung away from wanting to do away with pistols. I have talked to many people, but I have met no one who wants to get rid of pistols. Every man and woman I have met in various walks of life feels that the Bill is absolute nonsense. I have met no one who supports it. There is no public opinion behind it. It has just been pushed forward by a lot of political activists on the strength of emotion. I support the amendment, and I hope my noble friend takes it to a Division.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, Amendment No. 2 includes in the definition of a small-calibre pistol those which fire cartridges of low power equivalent to .22 rim-fired cartridges. I am grateful to the noble Lord because he discussed the amendment with me before the proceedings on the Bill. I appreciate the sentiment behind the amendment, but it would allow—this is the difficulty—pistols to be stored which were capable of firing much higher powered cartridges as well as .22s.
The Government have made their position clear. Only small calibre pistols chambered for .22 rimfired cartridges should be permitted to be stored and used in the secure conditions of a pistol club licensed by the Secretary of State. The proposals in the Bill have been prepared carefully to allow for those circumstances, thus providing a safety valve to allow the sport of target shooting to continue in safe surroundings.
It is not right at this late stage of the Bill to change that position in such a drastic way as to introduce handguns which might also be capable of firing much more powerful cartridges. I know the noble Lord's intention, but my advice is that that would be the case. The Government's duty is to address public safety. The amendment, although restricting muzzle energy no greater than .22 rimfired cartridges, would nevertheless allow clubs to possess higher calibre guns which are capable of firing more powerful cartridges and would undermine that protection. Therefore, I cannot accept the amendment.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, what is the difference in terms of legality between a legitimate weapon and a legitimate piece of ammunition, because, as she rightly says, those weapons are capable of firing more powerful ammunition, but that is in itself illegal?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, in considering the issue of public safety, one is considering also the scope for circumvention. We are just saying that with a single gun, albeit restricted in law to a particular muzzle energy, nevertheless the scope for circumvention, for using the same weapon for higher muzzle energy, is considerable. It is that risk that we have taken into account when saying that we cannot accept the amendment.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. The advice that I have been given by experts in this field does not accord entirely with the advice that the Minister has received. The very
1542
point of Amendment No. 5, which I linked with Amendment No. 2, is that it would enable the Government—to use that phrase—to look more favourably on the amendments. I do not believe, and I have been so advised, that if one considered this as part of the legislation, and policed it as such, no matter what size the gun, the waddage, the energy, because it is restricted to .22, it will not mean that one can adapt a larger weapon into being that much more powerful. Would the Minister like to consider that before I press the amendment?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my understanding is that the gun itself would be capable of firing higher muzzle energy. It is because the same weapon is capable of firing higher muzzle energy that it would be restricted, of course, in legislation. The words on the page would restrict it, but the scope for practical circumvention is too great when considering public safety.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: My Lords, we must consider what was said before the Minister replied. There are certain types of ammunition which are illegal. They would illegal under the Bill. Later we shall be discussing an amendment relating to segregation. "Disassembly" is a term which has been used previously. Disassembly is where you just put something in front of you. Segregation is where you have one part in one place and one part in another place. I agree with and will support that amendment.
I hope that the Government will understand that if you segregate the weapon—as I said when I moved the amendment—you also segregate the ammunition. You will then be protecting the public. It does not matter if we have larger guns; they will be segregated. The ammunition that they can fire will be restricted. As the Minister said, the line has been drawn and assigned and cannot go any further. The waddage is of a particular size. No matter what size gun, it will not go any harder or faster. It will not damage anybody or anything except for a target at 25 yards. That is the way I am trying to put the matter forward for the benefit of every target shooter in this country and abroad and every member of the public.
On Question, amendment negatived.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 11, leave out ("5") and insert ("7").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 9, 10, 11, 21, 23, 39, 43 and 50. These are minor and technical amendments. They have the sole purpose of clarifying the existing wording of the Bill. There are no policy implications, and so I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh Lord Clifford of Chudleigh moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, leave out lines 14 and 15 and insert—
(""(1A) In this Act "a pistol using low power cartridges" means—
(a) a pistol using cartridges which generate no greater muzzle energy than .22 rim-fire cartridges; or").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 2. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment negatived.
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
Clause 4 [Races at athletic meetings]:
Earl Attlee Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 7:
Leave out Clause 4.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, we return briefly to the issue of Clause 4 of the Bill, the exemption of handguns used by race officials to start races at athletic meetings. I cannot understand why this exemption has been made. It is absolute madness and inappropriate. These handguns are not what I understand to be starting or blank-firing pistols and do not come under any form of control under the 1968 Act; they are fully serviceable, full bore handguns. For technical reasons they are of the largest calibre, typically .455—almost half an inch in bore diameter. There are many other ways of obtaining the bang, the flash and the smoke that are apparently necessary for starting races. I am not concerned about the use of blanks, but the gun is a real firearm, nearly always a revolver because a blank will not easily make a self-loading pistol reload automatically.
A number of disasters can and have occurred even with pistols firing blanks. I give one example, a suicide reported in the American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology in 1990, reference 11(4), pages 285 to 290. Put simply, a young woman who was depressed committed suicide by discharging an 8 mm blank directly above her heart. The autopsy revealed no metallic particles from the cartridge but her heart was still destroyed. That would suggest that blanks are not harmless.
Army requirements are that blanks should not be fired at less than 25 metres range: other military personnel should be at least 50 metres away and civilians 100 metres away. The rules also state that directing staff should wear ear defenders. I wonder why?
I invite the House to consider what could go wrong at an athletic meeting. Noble Lords will recall the vicious, unprovoked knife attack on the tennis player Monica Seles which caused her serious physical and mental injuries. A madman with similar incomprehensible motives to those of Hamilton goes to a prestigious athletic meeting with 12 rounds of .455 ammunition, overpowers the race official, takes his handgun away and slips in the first six rounds. I leave the rest to your Lordships' imagination. I beg to move.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, you can be dangerous with anything. The only safe object to allow people is a wooden spoon—and that must not be too long because it could go down someone's throat. You can make
1544
anything dangerous. You cannot argue that you have to do away with every type of gun, knife or anything else because it is dangerous if used the wrong way. It has been suggested that a hand rail should be put around the British Isles to ensure that nobody falls off. That is what we are trying to do here.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I have had to do some strange things but I have not yet had to defend putting a handrail around the British Isles.
The noble Earl raised this matter in Committee. I explained that Section 11(2) of the Firearms Act 1968 allows the starter of an athletics race to have a pistol in his possession without a police firearms certificate in order to start the race. Under the Act a person who wishes to buy or own a pistol for that purpose or to keep at home requires a firearms certificate in the usual way.
Clause 4 of the Bill ensures that athletics starters can continue to keep and use starting pistols in that way. Starters use blank rounds, but I understand that it is important to have a working pistol so that there is both a report and a flash. Every major championship, including the last three Olympic Games and the last Commonwealth Games, has made use of starting guns. The only major exception of recent years was the 1995 World Championships in Gothenburg where an alternative starting apparatus was used. There were, I understand, difficulties in the sprint events when the apparatus proved unreliable. Anyone who takes sport seriously will know that if the starting gun is unreliable it creates enormous problems for the competitors, particularly at that level.
We are discussing the issue with the British Athletics Federation. I recall the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, saying that it cannot be beyond the wit of man to devise another method. We are talking with the BAF about that and the federation itself is addressing the issue. It is considering alternatives to pistols for starting races. If an alternative practical method can be found we will reconsider the position.
The Government are not aware of any case where the concession in the law for starting pistols has caused danger to the public. I hope that the noble Earl will not press the amendment.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her reply. I welcome too the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough. The Minister is obviously content with the clause and I do not wish to weary the House. I hope that there are no serious incidents this summer. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 8 not moved.]
Clause 7 [Shot pistols used for shooting vermin]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 9 to 11:
Page 3, line 28, after ("have") insert ("the shot pistol").
Page 3, line 29, leave out ("a shot pistol") and insert ("it").
Transpose Clause 7 to after Clause 3.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 8 [Having small-calibre pistol outside premises of licensed pistol club]:
Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Pearson of Rannoch moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 3, line 38, at end insert ("unless the pistol complies with subsection (2A) below.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 12 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 14 and touch on Amendment No. 15, in the name of my noble friend Lord Swansea, which is an amendment to my amendment. I shall speak mainly to Amendment No. 14, the disassembly or segregation amendment.
Amendment No. 14 is very similar to the amendment which I and other noble Lords supported in Committee on 16th January, at cols. 327 to 337 of the Official Report. We have made two changes to the amendment since the Committee proceedings. First, we have limited its scope to pistols chambered to .22 or smaller rimfire cartridges. That is in response to fears voiced by my noble friend the Minister, at col. 338, that our original amendment would have led to calls to allow high calibre pistols also to be disassembled. My noble friend was not necessarily correct in that assumption but the new wording should meet her fears.
As an amendment to the amendment, my noble friend Lord Swansea proposes Amendment No. 15 which would extend the calibres covered by disassembly to .32 wadcutters as well as to .22. The object of that exercise is to include calibres used in the Commonwealth Games and the Olympic Games in the disassembly amendment.
The second change made to our earlier amendment allows the Secretary of State discretion to specify another component part, instead of or in addition to the slide assembly or cylinder, which will be kept in the licensed premises. This is to meet the practical requirements of disassembly of the very few makes of pistols not covered by the other arrangements. It is a refinement which meets the fears my noble friend the Minister expressed on 16th January.
Your Lordships would not wish me to repeat all the arguments used in Committee in favour of disassembly. We showed how the Government, in the face of overwhelming evidence, had shifted from their original stance, which was that disassembly was not practical, to the equally unreal spectre of illicit spares being kept at the homes of law-abiding citizens in flagrant contradiction of the conditions set out in their firearm certificates. So far, the Government have not attempted to dispute the fact that it is far easier for what they call a "determined and motivated individual"—presumably one bent on criminal activity—to acquire a whole pistol in the underworld than it is for him to go through the unnecessary procedure of acquiring a spare part which might not even fit his weapon.
In her speech resisting our amendment in Committee, my noble friend the Minister said that she was worried that regular dismantlement might impair the accuracy of many .22s. I can assure your Lordships that the weight of expert evidence, as supplied, for example, by Mr. Colin Greenwood of the Firearms Research
1546
Advisory Service, is that that is not so. Mr. Greenwood feels that the lone gentleman who advises the Home Office in that respect is wrong.
Be that as it may, if for any reason owners do not want to disassemble their pistols or cannot do so, they will not be able to benefit from this amendment. They will have to keep them as whole weapons in accordance with the rest of the Bill. So my noble friend's remarks on that occasion display her usual and admirable concern, but they are not a relevant objection to this amendment, especially in its redrafted form.
In her remarks on 16th January my noble friend the Minister went on to raise the objection that it would be difficult to police a dismantlement system in clubs. She gave three examples of such difficulty: first, that a qualified armourer would need to check the bona fides of a component part at the time of storage and would need to know what components the owner was entitled to have. However, there is no greater difficulty in identifying a bona fide component part than a whole gun. The extent of ownership will also be known as it will be declared on a firearm certificate.
It may be that an additional but unnecessary safeguard in this respect could be added to the Bill on Third Reading. This could be to require both the frame and its spare parts to bear the weapon's number. I gather that that is usually what happens anyway, but it might give the Government extra comfort if it were to be made mandatory. Perhaps the Government would care to come back with a suitable amendment on Third Reading or, alternatively, I would be happy to do so. Anyway, I hope that we can discuss it.
My noble friend's second fear about policing dismantlement in clubs was that an owner could deceive a club official at the time of storage by depositing a deactivated component part instead of a working part of the same make and model. But that is based on a highly contentious idea that deactivated weapons are not easily identified. In fact, deactivated weapons undergo a stringent process in order to render them incapable of firing a bullet. All component parts are deactivated, for instance, by cutting away two-thirds of the slide rail and all require a distinctive proof mark issued by the Birmingham or London proof houses. I have photographs which illustrate these points. Anyone used to handling guns will easily be able to spot the difference.
My noble friend's third objection was that there would have to be a considerable bureaucracy in managing the system inside clubs. But it is not clear why a dismantlement system should be any more bureaucratic than the system envisaged under the Bill. Depositing component parts will work in exactly the same way as depositing whole guns. The Bill already requires a club to keep a pistol register which would record details of the pistols stored at the club, its owner and any removal from the premises. The same details would be required of component parts.
My noble friend raised one more defence of her position against the disabling amendment during our Committee proceedings. In mentioning it I have to say that, with the obvious inadequacies of all their

1547
arguments exposed, the Government have now moved away from scientific clarity and appear to rest their case on unsubstantiated opinion. I quote my noble friend the Minister yet again:
"The main reason for rejecting this option"—
that is, disassembly—
"was that we do not believe that any form of disassembly would provide a guaranteed measure of assurance against the possible misuse of the pistol by a determined and motivated individual".—[Official Report, 16/1/97; col. 338.]
There is no supporting evidence to back up this opinion, other than the self-evident point that no measure of any kind can be an absolute guarantee against possible misuse. All the Government's objections are met once it is recognised that at the commencement of the Act all pistols will be subject to assessment by the police. A complete inventory of pistols and component parts exists today on firearm certificates. All pistols not conforming to the Act will have to be surrendered and removed from the certificate. Exactly the same applies to component parts. Thereafter, all that is required is for the police to notify the club of any changes in the member's certificate.
I trust it is now clear that none of the Government's objections to dismantlement stand up to scrutiny. Before concluding, perhaps I could be permitted a very brief comment on Amendment No. 13 which follows this group of amendments on the Marshalled List. Amendment No. 14 would create a right under the Bill and there would be no offence if its conditions were complied with. Under Amendment No. 13 the rules, when they emerge from the Secretary of State, might be delayed or be so stringent as to negate the effect of the proposal.
Amendment No. 14 is less bureaucratic. It provides for the generality and leaves the Secretary of State a residual power in case of difficulty. If he does nothing, the clause would still operate, but Amendment No. 13 would require the rules to be made and they could be very complex, including perhaps storage in more than two parts. If Amendment No. 14 were not to find favour with my noble friend on the Front Bench or eventually with your Lordships, of course I would support Amendment No. 13. However, I fear that it is not as helpful as Amendment No. 14.
Disassembled pistols all over the country will be far safer than arsenals of weapons waiting to be burgled. That is where the "determined and motivated individual" so promoted by Her Majesty's Government will strike, not in Alice in Wonderland procurement of unreliable and non-existent spare parts in the underworld.
Disassembly will allow thousands of clubs to continue to operate. It will save their sport for thousands of people, both able-bodied and disabled, and it will save the taxpayer a huge but unquantifiable sum. It was the preferred option of Lord Cullen and it meets the central purpose of the Bill, which is to separate the owner from his pistol except within licensed premises and thus to do what can be done to prevent another terrible tragedy such as occurred at Dunblane. I very
1548
much hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench can accept our amendment today. If she cannot, I hope that your Lordships will support it in the Division Lobby. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, we have two very similar amendments on the Marshalled List. They are both designed to have largely the same effect. I am anxious to avoid two debates so I shall speak in this debate. If necessary, I shall move my amendment, speak to it, explain its advantages and then seek the opinion of the House.
The time has now come for the House to decide what we are going to do with the Bill which, as drafted, will practically eliminate the sporting use of pistols while providing a negligible increase in public safety. The other problem with the Bill is that it is unaffordable as not only will compensation have to be paid for the actual guns to be melted down, but also—and quite rightly—compensation will have to be paid to the clubs that will be destroyed and to certain individuals who would otherwise be bankrupted.
We believe that a system of disassembly, dismantling, segregation—call it what you will—provides the solution. Both our amendments—that is my Amendment No. 13 and the noble Lord's Amendment No. 14—concern only small calibre, that is to say, .22 pistols, although the case that will be presented is equally valid for full bore pistols.
In Committee the Chamber has already shown that it can compromise on this Bill. The Committee divided at least twice and decided upon compensation for clubs but not businesses. It may be helpful if I first remind the House of the problems connected with handguns. I suggest that there are four problems. First, although there is little concrete evidence, the police fear that people are acquiring handguns as a means of personal protection. Rightly or wrongly, that is contrary to public policy. With certain exceptions the public are not supposed to use firearms to protect themselves as that is the province of the police. With good reason the police are apprehensive of further increases in the number of people having their own guns available for immediate use but having some lawful pretext to obtain them such as target shooting.
Secondly, to obtain a licence people will join a shooting club, which is, after all, a pleasant activity. After a period they will qualify for their own certificate. Their motivation is not immediately apparent, especially if they occasionally turn up at the club. That is not unlikely as the clubs have a pleasant social environment. The only problem is that their motivation is contrary to public policy but nothing illegal is happening.
Thirdly, there is the problem of theft of legally held handguns. While there is a vast number of guns with no history of legal ownership, there is a tiny minority which were stolen from legal owners. Having a sporting gun of any kind creates some increased security risk, but perversely the very qualities of a pistol—concealability and transportability—which make it attractive to further criminal acts also contribute to its security.

1549
Fourthly, there is the problem of suicides and accidental or even deliberate shootings either by the owner, a relative or a friend. The system of disassembly that we shall describe can overcome all these problems, as nowhere will there be a complete privately owned pistol except when in use at a club and for certain exemptions specified elsewhere in the Bill. The Bill, as drafted, seeks to solve the problem in a different way to that specified in our amendment. No handguns will be privately held but .22 pistols will be held in a few arsenal type clubs, with possibly several hundred complete guns in one place. The Government have admitted that few, if any, clubs will be able to afford the necessary security arrangements, thus causing there to be fewer clubs but with a huge concentration of firearms, making them even more attractive to criminals.
At this stage I wish to explain how our amendment works and how it meets the difficulties identified with previous amendments debated in this House and in another place. The amendment gives the power to the Secretary of State to make rules as to which parts of a small calibre pistol, that is, a .22, will be left at the club and which parts will be stored elsewhere. It is an extremely flexible provision. My provisions are almost identical in effect to those in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson. Under my amendment the Secretary of State would be able to provide that a particular model or type is not suitable for dismantling and that provision is not qualified in any way, as the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, explained. This is practically the only way in which my amendment differs from that of the noble Lord.
I can and will support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson. He has made an excellent job of moving it. However, I doubt whether the House will accept it, if he chooses to test the opinion of the House. If the House does not accept the noble Lord's amendment, I shall move my amendment and briefly explain its advantages. I shall then seek the opinion of the House.
Lord Monson: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, has made an excellent case for Amendments Nos. 12 and 14. I have added my name to Amendment No. 14. A formidable body of my noble friends on these Benches have put their names to Amendment No. 13 which has already been effectively spoken to by my noble friend Lord Attlee. As he has pointed out, it also relates to disassembly. However, as has also been pointed out, it is an enabling amendment. The problem with that is that it might be many months, or indeed many years, if ever, before a future Secretary of State took advantage of its provisions. In the meantime perhaps 70 or even 75 per cent. of .22 pistol clubs would have collapsed because of not being able to afford the cripplingly heavy security provisions that storage of fully assembled pistols would necessitate. Therefore any action by a future government would be too late.
It is worth recalling once again the overwhelming advantages of accepting one or other disassembly amendment, preferably the first, of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson. It would enable many more sportsmen and
1550
sportswomen to continue with their sport. It would save the taxpayer huge sums of money and above all it would be much safer for the public.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, I do not wish to rehearse the arguments that were made at the Committee stage. As we have a free vote on this matter those of my noble friends who might wish to hear my advice can do so now. I feel strongly that the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, would greatly extend the use and availability of handguns. I ask my noble friends to support the Government in opposing that amendment.
I feel much less strongly about the amendment spoken to by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, which allows the Secretary of State to make rules. Those rules can relate to where the different parts of the weapon are kept and to the make, model and fire power—if that is the right word—of the weapon. If my noble friends wish to abstain or support the noble Earl, I have no objection to that.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, some Members of your Lordships' House may remember a famous American baseball coach who had an imperfect grasp of the English language, or indeed any other language, and who once said that in watching his team lose yet another game he had a sense of déjà vu all over again. I have had a similar sense listening to the exchange so far. It seems to me that the arguments for and against this policy of disassembly, or dismantlement, or segregation—as the noble Lord, Lord Clifford, put it—have been made over and over again. We have heard the arguments and we are now in a position to make up our minds about them.
I must, however, confess also that I have a certain amount of confusion in my mind at the way in which this matter is being handled. We have had one amendment tabled and proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson. We have heard speeches in favour of that amendment which seemed to be criticising it. However, that is the way that the grouping has been drawn up and we have to abide by that. I wish to say only that it seems to me there must be a measure of agreement with what Lord Cullen said in his report; namely,
"The option—that is to say the option of disassembly—which is open to the least objection on the grounds of practicality is the temporary dismantling of self-loading pistols and revolvers by the removal of major components".
We have heard some powerful arguments to support the view of Lord Cullen.
I wish to make two brief points before resuming my seat. They have already been made but they should be considered carefully. This dismantlement option would allow people to continue to practise a harmless and absorbing sport without potential danger to the public. If the Bill remains in its present form, thousands of people will be deprived of that harmless recreation.
There is a further aspect. The noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, made the point eloquently. I refer to the impact of this legislation on the disabled. Pistol shooting is one of the few sports in which the disabled

1551
can compete on the same footing as the able-bodied. Shooting for the disabled began in this country; we were the initiators of it. It is now a worldwide sport at paraplegic and other games all over the world. It would be a final irony if the legislation meant that we were now the only country to be eliminated from international competition in this field.
Although I am slightly confused by the procedures today, I shall support the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, if he presses his amendment to a Division. If he is defeated, I shall hope to support my noble friend Lord Attlee when he moves his amendment.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I support both amendments. Originally I had intended to support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Pearson. However, I understand the merits of both although I comprehend the confusions that have been discussed.
It is with a little suspicion that I support the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, in view of the fact that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, was more persuaded towards Amendment No. 13 than Amendment No. 12 in the name of my noble friend Lord Pearson. Knowing the noble Lord's attitude to guns in general, I suspect that his reasons for supporting that amendment are not quite the right ones, and not those of many who support my noble friend's amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have no attitude to handguns. I have only an attitude to public safety.
Earl Peel: My Lords, with the greatest respect to the noble Lord, on several occasions during discussion of the Bill he has expressed his opposition to anyone holding handguns. I do not think that he can get away with that kind of remark.
I support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Pearson. We had a lengthy and comprehensive discussion in Committee. I believe that I am right in saying that virtually every person who spoke at that stage supported the concept of disassembly.
As the Bill stands at present, if handguns are kept as one assembly in clubs, with the necessary and stringent controls, there is always the danger that any criminal or terrorist will be able to have access to large arsenals. The one great advantage of the amendment is that we split the gun into its various parts. That makes a great deal of sense.
On a more general point, a great number of people will be affected seriously by the Bill and feel hard done by through what I can only describe as the intransigent attitude of the Government. I should have thought that this was a good opportunity for my noble friend to display to those people that she has given the matter considerable thought. The arguments put forward about safety are real and proper. The outcome of my noble friend's amendment for those people would be considerable.
1552
I very much hope that the Minister will accept the amendment. If it comes to a Division, I hope that noble Lords will support my noble friend. Amendment No. 12 is a well thought out, comprehensive and good amendment.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I much regret that I was unable to be present in your Lordships' House during the earlier stages of the Bill. I shall speak only briefly now. First, I believe that one of the symptoms of indifferent legislation is when the government of the day find it almost impossible to make any important concessions for fear that the whole edifice will fall apart.
Secondly, shock and horror, deep and profound as they were following Dunblane, are not the best of counsellors when it comes to solving problems. I believe that the Government's proposals in the Bill should be judged by the yardstick of how far they are likely to protect young children or other vulnerable people from the actions of people who are either wicked or mad.
If a measure makes a modest contribution, if any, to such an end then I believe that interfering with other people's perfectly peaceful pastimes is not justified. In having to devise a measure which would protect, safeguard and prevent such events ever happening again, and at the same time satisfy public opinion, I believe that the Government were wise to appoint Lord Cullen, and to ask him to look at the matter in depth, quietly, and to report. I have never been able to understand why, having received a perfectly sensible and lucid report from Lord Cullen, they did not follow that advice.
Before my noble friend the Minister finally rejects either Amendment No. 12 or Amendment No. 13, I hope that the noble Baroness will reflect seriously upon how far anything in the Bill will be effective in securing the purpose which everyone must deeply desire. I conclude on this note. There are other, more effective and far more devastating ways of doing harm to vulnerable people in schools or elsewhere than could be done with the minor weapons with which she is now dealing.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I support the Cullen option. I am sorely disappointed that the Government were unable to bring forward some provision along those lines since Committee stage. Such was quite clearly the preponderant view of your Lordships' House and the gravamen of the mass of correspondence that your Lordships received from perfectly ordinary, law-abiding people from all walks of life.
I shall vote for both amendments. I have no compunction in doing so. I feel that it is a matter of one's duty. When another place makes a hash of legislation, the country comes to us. At least we should do what we can without wrecking the principle of the Bill.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I, too, regret that I have been unable to attend previous stages of the Bill. However, I wish to say a few words on the two amendments. I support them as a result of practical experience in Northern Ireland.

1553
In Northern Ireland we have just as many weapons throughout the community. Over the past years the security forces have had many weapons of the type referred to in the provision, and of the type required by terrorists. However, those weapons have to be dismantled within the home and disassembled. Because the parts are separated there has been no case, so far as I am aware, of a planned attack to obtain a partly disassembled weapon without knowledge of where the second part was hidden. If these amendments are passed, one part would be held in a safe place well away from the location of the disassembled part. However, there have been occasions over the years when weapons were taken from a central place in a fully assembled state. I therefore support the amendments. I believe that they would give the greatest feeling of protection to a well-informed public. If they are not well informed they will be sceptical of such a measure.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, at Second Reading I drew my noble friend's attention to the view of the small clubs in the area where I live which will have to close because they have no premises in which to keep their weapons. My noble friend's amendment would very much improve the situation for those clubs. Members would be able to keep their weapons at home but absolutely safely because parts would be disassembled and kept elsewhere. That would help shooters enormously. Under my noble friend's amendment any weapons would still be small bore but could be kept at home. I believe such a measure to be absolutely safe. I have in mind the anxieties of many people in the area where I live. This is a good solution. I am comforted by the fact that it is Lord Cullen's preferred option.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, there are two voices from this side of the House. My noble friend gave his powerful opinion; mine is very much less powerful, indeed a very weak opinion so far as numbers are concerned. Nevertheless, I believe that it should be expressed. I have heard the arguments; I am impressed by them. I do not need to rehearse them further. My point is that if the amendment tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, were passed, it would help to take some of the heat out of the severe arguments that are taking place. If the Government accepted the amendment, it would make pistol shooters feel that their views were being heeded and that the Government now recognise that they are not the monsters so often depicted but perfectly respectable, hard-working members of the community, innocent of any crime that would justify the draconian measures now being taken against them. That is worth repeating several times over, although that is not my intention.
It has been shown beyond doubt that dismantlement is workable. We have heard the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough. If anybody should know, he should. He knows that dismantlement is workable and that it is safe when coupled with proper enforcement of the law. We must always remember that it was failure to enforce the existing law which led to Thomas Hamilton
1554
possessing guns. Dismantlement would provide a regime that was safe; and the Bill would still provide the most rigorous gun control regime in the world.
I want to emphasise the savings in cost that would arise if dismantlement were to be agreed. I put it to my noble friends in particular, since it is likely that a Labour government will pick up the tab for compensation and that the amount could turn out much higher than presently estimated, that it is in their interests to support the amendment. Indeed if the Government had any sense, they would welcome it with open arms. It would get them off the hook. I do not want to be unkind to them; I am not an unkind person. However, I fear that they have the closed minds and moribund senses that afflict those who are too long in office.
Nevertheless, I have a dream that a glimmering of understanding of the issues and consideration for those who will be so badly affected by the Bill will penetrate the fog of confusion that surrounds Her Majesty's Government and that they will see the light and accept the amendment. If not, I trust that this House, as it so often does, will pass an amendment which brings justice to pistol shooters and those connected with the sport and, in doing so, enhance public safety.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, the crucial issue in the Bill is framed in these two amendments. In his report Lord Cullen undoubtedly gave as his first option the dismantling of guns. In their response the Government said that they had received advice from forensic science advisers to the Home Office that that option was totally impracticable. That is the great issue in relation to the two amendments.
If such a measure is impracticable from a safety point of view, then the Government are right. On the other hand, there are the expert comments in so many letters received by Members of this House regarding the option which Lord Cullen believed to be a practical answer to the problem—or at least the most satisfactory answer. Having pointed out how totally impossible it was to prevent the madman or evil-doer getting through the net, he chose the other option; namely, dealing with the weapon. That, he believed, was the correct way to deal with the problem. However, as I understand it, he had not heard the evidence from the forensic science advisers to the Government. It is very important for the Minister to deal with the disadvantages and adumbrate exactly what they are.
This is a matter which eventually the elected House should and will decide. The issue for this House is whether we give Members in the other place an opportunity and a reason to reconsider Lord Cullen's advice and that received by the Government from forensic science advisers whom they are bound to turn to. If the advice is as strong as has been suggested, it cannot easily be discarded.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, when the Government proposed the Bill they reached some general conclusions which noble Lords may feel were rather expensive. Some may agree; some may disagree. The amendments under discussion, particularly the proposal of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, do not seek to counter those general

1555
conclusions. All they say is: let the policies that the Government have decided to adopt be implemented in a way that is less expensive, which must be desirable for everyone, and in a way that is less intrusive and burdensome. It would be very sad if my noble friend were to say not only that the Government will insist on their general principles as set out in the Bill but that they will also insist on the Home Office having its own way as to exactly how the legislation is carried out. Frankly, I suspect that the collective knowledge and expertise in your Lordships' House is every bit as great as in the Home Office.
4.30 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I should like to ask a question, the answer to which may materially assist me in deciding how to vote. My general questions are very much like those of my noble friend Lord Hooson.
Once a weapon has been disassembled, is it possible to take a disassembled piece from one weapon and fit it together with the body of another weapon to make one composite new weapon or do the disassembled pieces have to be fitted together in the original combination?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 12 and 14 in the name of my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch propose that pistols and other handguns would be disassembled for storage. The owner would retain the larger part of the gun—the carcass or frame—to keep safely at home and leave a vital working part, most usually the barrel in the case of a pistol, or the cylinder in the case of a revolver, for secure storage at their club.
The Government have given much consideration to this issue and I am particularly grateful to my noble friend for coming to see me recently, together with an independent expert, to offer advice on this subject.
We, of course, understand the importance of disassembly, certainly as far as individual shooters are concerned. However, the Government remain of the view that, as we said when this issue was debated before in this House, it would be wrong to take this approach. The Government have in this House and in another place explained the dangers to the public of allowing handguns to be held at home, even when disassembled.
This is not a technical argument. Experts may differ on this subject but the Government entirely accept that most handguns can be disassembled by removing the barrel, slide or cylinder and that the average owner can then put them back together so that they are safe to use.
A few guns, as Lord Cullen acknowledged at paragraph 9.86 of his report, cannot be treated in this way. But the Government's main argument against disassembly is that it does not provide a sufficient measure of assurance to the public against the possible misuse of a pistol by a determined individual.
Under a disassembly scheme it would have to be the responsibility of the club to ensure that the detached component parts were lodged safely and securely and that they were always handed in when they ought to be.
1556
I would expect that clubs would strive to meet their responsibilities under these new arrangements, and that would have to be reflected in the terms of their licence. But, if they were not acting responsibly, it might be difficult for the police to detect that until something went seriously wrong, by which time it could be too late.
Another difficulty is the fact that detachable component parts such as pistol barrels and slides and revolver cylinders are small and easily concealable. There would inevitably be scope for an owner who had a mind to do so to remove one illicitly. He might or might not attempt to substitute a lookalike instead; if he did, he might or might not succeed in doing that.
Some owners will of course have more than one component part for their pistol; or it would be possible for others, intent on doing so, to adapt a component part taken from a deactivated gun so as to deceive their club, however briefly, into believing that it was the genuine component of the original gun.
Any scheme of this sort would open up a range of possibilities for abuse by somebody who was minded—and one might say even wicked enough—to do so. The Government have taken advice from the Association of Chief Police Officers in England and Wales. Its letter concludes that,
"disassembly is thought to be incapable of being policed".
The Government have always accepted that the majority of firearm certificate holders are honest and law abiding; but we must not forget that Thomas Hamilton and Michael Ryan both held their guns lawfully on certificate. Either could have been capable of obtaining or concealing component parts had the disassembly approach been in force.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, my noble friend is talking about people who cheat. People who want to obtain pistols by cheating can perfectly well obtain them by going into Glasgow or London. Surely we are here talking about genuine firearms people who wish to keep their firearms certificates and have no intention of cheating.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, in a way my noble friend almost makes the case. There are many different views about this matter. The Government simply stand on their case that not disassembling but having the gun and the moving parts in one place reduces the risk of the whole variety of ways of circumvention that I have referred to.
A number of points were raised during the course of this important but relatively short debate. The first was the risk of burglary. Clubs with large supplies of gun parts could still be targeted by criminals and one cannot rule out the possibility that the underworld would be interested in or attracted by such supplies.
The key argument used here for disassembly is that one can thereby reduce the level of security at a gun club which would enable it to survive after this Bill is on the statute book. But it is inconceivable that one could have very large quantities of moving parts of guns held in the community that would not be attractive to burglars, just as supplies in any commercial venture would be attractive to burglars, wherever there is a market.

1557
As to security at the clubs, there would still be the need to have a sophisticated method of keeping component parts of handguns safely stored. Clubs would also need to be extremely vigilant about an individual—just one individual—bent on removing a small component part which would allow reassembly of the gun at home.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: My Lords, perhaps I may reiterate a small point which I have already mentioned. So many guns come into this country every week. Most people who read the newspapers will know that a trial is taking place at present of a road rage case where the man concerned telephoned for a gun, obtained a gun within an hour and shot the people who had bumped the back of his car. There is no point in talking about disassembly and putting guns into firearms clubs when there are those 2,000 illegal weapons. It is far better to have things segregated than to have a position whereby a terrorist or a bandit could go into a gun club and take a weapon as one piece.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, we shall have to agree to differ on this point. The noble Lord makes an important point about the number of illegal weapons in this country. We do not know how many there are; it can be at best a guess. However many there are, it is our view that, if guns are taken out of circulation—it is the Government's proposal that the whole of the gun, parts and all, should be taken out of circulation—those guns that are in circulation become much more conspicuous, which makes it easier for the police to identify illegal weapons in the community. That is a point either agreed or not agreed between us, but it is a point which the Government have taken seriously.
The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, raised an important matter. The degree to which disassembly is a practical proposition is a matter that was raised by Lord Cullen. He was equivocal on this. I do not deny the point made by noble friend Lady Carnegy that Lord Cullen said that that would be a preferable option, but he went on to say, "if it is a workable proposition".
In paragraph 9.111 of his report Lord Cullen said that it must be a matter for Parliament to decide what the ultimate solution should be. In his recommendation 24 he specifically invited the Government to consider the practicability of disassembly as an option. We have given thought to that and we have considered the practicability of it as an option. Not all noble Lords will agree with the Government's conclusion to that consideration, but we considered that it was not a practical proposition and rejected it.
I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Peyton spoke as he did. The Government have given a good deal of thought to the issue, as they were invited to do by Lord Cullen. As the Minister responsible for this Bill, I continue to discuss the passage of each stage of the Bill; I have continued to listen to noble Lords; I have dealt with all the correspondence and made most of the correspondence available to all other noble Lords; I continue to play devil's advocate with many of the points raised during the debate; and in addition I personally sought expert advice from a person nominated by my noble friend Lord Pearson—it was his choice—and found that meeting most
1558
valuable on this point. I return to the point that we did what Lord Cullen asked us to do—that is, give serious consideration to these matters—and we came to the conclusion that is well known to noble Lords.
Perhaps I may turn to Amendment No. 13 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. The arguments in principle against disassembly are the same. The noble Earl suggests that his amendment would be better and more effective. But it would require complicated rules about which guns could or could not be dismantled. It would also be a recipe for confusion and misunderstanding. The task of those such as the police who would have to distinguish between those guns which could be disassembled under the rules and those which could not, would be even more difficult. I refer again to the views of the Association of Chief Police Officers: disassembly is incapable of being policed.
The version of the noble Earl in relation to disassembly would make policing of the system impossible, with different rules applying to different makes or models. I cannot see how that offers a practical way forward.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, my amendment is designed to provide maximum flexibility for the Secretary of State, who will, in a few months, have to implement the legislation. He can make exactly what rules he wants.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Earl is right. However complicated the solution may be, the Government can find a way to produce guidelines for it. I am suggesting that the noble Earl's solution would be complex. We discussed the matter with the police and the police took the view that it would be difficult—in fact, they do not believe it to be a manageable proposition. I am putting that forward as a counter argument.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked a straight question about the interchangeability of parts—not for the gun to which the parts belong, but for another gun. That is technically possible. I am prepared to accept expert opinion—it does vary on this matter—that it would be with some difficulty. The parts would not fit easily, but that it is technically possible is absolutely right, and parts can be interchanged.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I should bring to the attention of the House that this is the Report stage of the Bill. All noble Lords have had the opportunity of speaking. It is time that my noble friend the Minister was able to finish her reply to all the points made.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. The Government have taken the view that the protection of the public should be the priority. I do not have to remind noble Lords why we are here and why this Bill is before the House: it is because of the massacre of young people in Dunblane. The Government have a duty to address this issue and have done so. We are now discussing means to ends rather than whether or not the Government should do anything at all.
The safest position must be to ensure that the entire gun is stored in secure, licensed pistol clubs and to take them out of general circulation. I must therefore urge my noble friend not to press the amendment.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken on this amendment and am gratified to hear that nearly all of your Lordships support it.
I was also gratified to hear the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, say that the Labour Benches will be given a free vote on the matter. However, I take issue with one point that he made; that is, that the adoption of Amendment No. 14—I believe I heard him right—would extend greatly the number and use of handguns as opposed to what might happen under Amendment No. 13. I have to put it to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that what we are talking about is not extending the number of handguns that would be in use under my Amendment No. 14; it is more that we would leave fewer people deprived of their legitimate sport and more able to continue with it if we accept the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is the same thing.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, it is not the same thing. The noble Lord is suggesting that fewer people would be able to continue shooting under Amendment No. 13; otherwise, I do not see the point of his intervention.
The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, referred to the experts in this matter. I can confirm that my noble friend Lady Blatch was good enough to interview Mr. Greenwood of the Firearms Research and Advisory Services yesterday. I believe she found his evidence helpful. We all agreed that it was a pity that the Government had not heard Mr. Greenwood's evidence in person before.
The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, and my noble friend Lady Blatch referred to the other place; that is, that the elected House should decide this matter. That is true. But your Lordships may be aware that in the other place the issue of segregation was raised but not put to the vote. It was always deferred to the next stage. It was raised in the Committee stage of the Whole House of the other place on 18th November but was then left to the standing committee. It was then deflected with a promise of further information. At Report stage in the other place it was raised again but was deemed—this is the important point—to be more suitable to be considered in greater depth when the Bill entered your Lordships' House, as it has now done. There were at least eight honourable Members from all sides of the House who supported it and took that view.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, and my noble friend Lady Blatch in reply, said that most guns can be disassembled, as suggested by the amendment. Mr. Greenwood was extremely convincing yesterday and said that the figure is that at least 98 per cent. of the guns that we seek to cover can be disassembled. The idea of an owner hiding a small part of a pistol about his person is not very realistic. The pistol itself is not very big; that is why it is being separated from the
1560
rest of the firearms. And I must repeat to your Lordships that my noble friend did not answer the point that it is easier to obtain another weapon in the underworld than it is to find difficult spare parts which cannot fit one's weapon.
My noble friend finally prayed in aid the police. I am advised that only the Superintendents' Association agreed with the idea that central storage can be effective. I am reliably advised that it offered no evidence for that view. On the other hand, the Parliamentary Home Affairs Committee in the other place and the Association of Chief Police Officers, having set out the pros and cons of central storage, concluded that the risks from central storage were far greater than the risk of keeping firearms at home and they preferred the latter option, subject to suitable provisions. They did not even ask for the amendment.
I should conclude with what my noble friend said in relation to the report of Lord Cullen. Lord Cullen wisely goes this way and that in the body of his excellent document. But his conclusion is inescapable. In recommendation 24 he said that,
"Consideration should be given to restricting the availability of self-loading pistols and revolvers of any calibre which are held by individuals for use in target shooting preferably, by their disablement".
Those are the words which the Government have ignored, "preferably by disablement". I hope that your Lordships will support Lord Cullen's view. My noble friend knows that it is not easy for me to ask for the opinion of the House against the position that she is taking. But on this occasion I have to do so.
4.48 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 12) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 153; Not-Contents, 139.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Ackner, L.

Carlisle, Bp.

Ailesbury, M.

Carnarvon, E.

Alderdice, L.

Camegy of Lour, B.

Aldington, L.

Camock, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Chalfont, L.

Ampthill, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Annaly, L.

Clancarty, E.

Arran, E.

Clifford of Chudleigh,L.

Attlee, E.

Clitheroe, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Congleton, L.

Blake, L.

Comwallis, L.

Blease, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Boardman, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Brain, L.

Crathome, L.

Braybrooke, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Brentford, V.

Croham, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Crook, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Cross, V.

Burnham, L.

De Saumarez, L.

Burton, L.

Denham, L.

Butterworth, L.

Derwent, L.

Caithness, E.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Calverley, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L

1561

Downshire, M.

Norfolk, D.

Ellenborough, L.

Norrie, L.

Elles, B.

Northboume, L.

Elton, L.

Northesk, E.

Erroll, E.

Northumberland, D.

Exmouth, V.

Ogmore, L.

Feversham, L.

Onslow, E.

Fitt, L.

Palmer, L.

Gage, V.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Gainsborough, E.

Pearson of Rannoch, L. [Teller.]

Geddes. L.

Peel, E.

Gisborough, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Glasgow, E.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Gray,L.

Quinton, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Reay, L.

Harris of High Cross, L

Rennell, L.

Hemphill, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Hertford, M.

St John of Bletso, L.

Holderness, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Saltoun of Abemethy, Ly.

Howell, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Hussey of North Bradley, L.

Simon, V.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Hylton, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Spens, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Stallard, L.

Dchester, E.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Inchyra, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Kimball, L. [Teller.]

Swansea, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Swinfen, L.

Kintore, E.

Swinton, E.

Kitchener, E.

Taveme, L.

Knutsford, V.

Temple of Stowe, E.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Teviot, L.

Leigh, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Liverpool, E.

Thurlow, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Tollemache, L.

McNair, L.

Vemon, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Vinson, L.

Marsh, L.

Wade of Chorlton,L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Warnock, B.

Mersey, V.

Weatherill, L.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Wharton, B.

Monson, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Moran, L.

Wilson of Tillyorn, L.

Mottistone, L.

Wrenbury, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Wyatt of Weeford,L.

Moyne, L.

Wynford, L.

Munster, E.

Yarborough, E.

Newall, L.

Zouche of Haryngwortn, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Carlisle, E.

Acton, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Addington, L.

Carter, L.

Addison, V.

Chadlington, L.

AiIsa,M.

Chalker of WaIlasey,B.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Chelmsford, V.

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Astor, V.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Cockfield, L.

Balfour. E.

Courtown, E.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Cowley, E.

Bellwin, L.

Cranbome, V. [Lord Privy Seal.j

Beloff, L.

Cuckney, L.

Berkeley, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Blatch, B.

Davidson, V.

Bowness, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Byford, B.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Cadman, L.

Denbigh, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Demon of Wakefield,B.

1562

Digby, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Donoughue, L.

Mackay of Clashfem, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Dormand of Easington, L.

Dubs,L.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

McNally, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Ferrers, E.

Merrivale, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Methuen, L.

Gallacher, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Geraint, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Gladwin of Clee,L.

Mountevans, L.

Glenamara, L.

Murton of Lindisfame, L.

Goschen, V.

Nicol, B.

Gould of Pottemewton, B.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Paul, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Pender, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Peston, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Harris of Peckham, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Haskel, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Hayman, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Hayter, L.

Rawlings, B.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Renton, L.

Henley, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Rotherwick, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Russell, E.

Home, E.

Sainsbury, L.

Hooper, B.

St. Davids, V.

Hooson, L.

Seccombe, B.

Hope of Craighead, L.

Serota, B.

Howe, E.

Sewel, L.

Hughes, L.

Shepherd, L.

Inglewood, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Jeger, B.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean. B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Taylor of Warwick. L.

Judd, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Lindsay, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Lockwood, B.

Trumpington, B.

Long, V.

Turner of Camden, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Wallace of Saltaire,L.

Lucas, L.

Westbury, L.

Luke, L.

Wilcox, B.

McConnell, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Wise, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
4.58 p.m.
[Amendment No. 13 not moved.]
Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Pearson of Rannoch moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 4, line 4, at end insert—
("(2A) A pistol shall not be a small-calibre pistol for the purposes of this section provided—

(a) the slide assembly or cylinder or other component part specified under subsection (2B) below has been removed and stored on the premises of a licensed pistol club; and

(b) the firearms certificate for the pistol specifies premises other than the licensed pistol club specified in paragraph (a) above at which the remainder of the firearm shall be stored.

1563
(2B) If he is satisfied that it is necessary in the interest of public safety, the Secretary of State may by order specify a component part other than the slide assembly or cylinder to be stored at a licensed club, and may do so in respect of a particular model or type of pistol to which this section applies.
(2C) This section applies to pistols chambered for .22 or smaller rim-fire cartridges.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I now call Amendment No. 15 as an amendment to Amendment No. 14.
Lord Swansea Lord Swansea moved Amendment No. 15 as an amendment to Amendment No. 14:
Line 16, at end insert ("or a pistol, chambered for use with a centre-fire cartridge which is not more than 1.1 inches in length inclusive of the missile and which uses a missile not more than .32 inches in diameter, which is of a description prescribed in rules made by the Secretary of State.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment extends the scope of the calibres to the .32 wad-cutter cartridge, which is a very low-powered cartridge. It is widely used in international competitions—not in the Olympic Games, but in the Commonwealth Games, and in other international events. It is a very low-powered cartridge. It employs what is referred to as a wad-cutter bullet. That is a bullet with a flat nose and punches a clean-cut hole in a paper target. The bullet is seated entirely within the case so it does not project beyond its mouth.
It has been stated by the Birmingham Proof House that this cartridge cannot be loaded above a certain velocity without exceeding safe pressures, which are very important points for target practice. There is no reason to exclude this type of pistol and to confine ourselves to .22 rimfire pistols. This would be the only centre-fire cartridge which I envisage being employed and it is very low-powered.
It has been stated by Mr. Warlow, who is the foremost scientific adviser, that he has no knowledge of a cartridge of this calibre being used in any crime in the past 25 years. It is comparable in velocity and in its striking energy to the .22 long rifle cartridge. There is a fractional difference between the two. It is a very effective weapon indeed and very popular for target shooting. I beg to move.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I support Amendment No. 15 in the name of my noble friend Lord Swansea. Your Lordships will see that this amendment merely extends subsection (2C) of my amendment, which confined it,
"to pistols chambered for .22 or smaller rim-fire cartridges".
As regards the general effect of my noble friend's amendment, it is to extend that to .32 wad-cutter cartridges, thus extending it to those calibres which are used in the Olympic and Commonwealth Games. This is an amendment which lies easily with Amendment No. 14, which we have just agreed. Therefore, I ask your Lordships to accept it.
Lord Kimball: My Lords, in supporting my noble friend Lord Swansea, when my noble friend comes to wind up, will she confirm to the House that in the past 40 years there has been no single instance of a .32 wad-cutter being used in crime? Will she also confirm to the House that the muzzle velocity of the .32 wad-cutter pistol is exactly half that of a .22 rim-fire? The .32 wad-cutter has a muzzle velocity of 700 feet per second as against 1,200 feet per second of a .22 rim-fire. It is purely and simply a very accurate, low-velocity target-shooting weapon, which is favoured and used in the Commonwealth Games and at all major international shooting competitions.
I hope that your Lordships will look with sympathy on my noble friend's amendment. As my noble friend Lord Pearson said, in fairness to our competition shooters we should pass this amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, used unfortunate words. He said that the amendment now before us "merely extends" the application of his Amendment No. 14. For those of us who believe that the Bill has already been weakened by Amendment No. 14, to "merely extend" it, as proposed, would be even worse.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, perhaps we may extend just a modicum of reason. We cannot allow reason to go totally out of the window. Here is something which is less than the .22. Surely there is an argument for getting rid of the .22 and allowing the wad-cutter to remain.
Lord Monson: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said that this amendment extended the Bill. But as the Government's own firearms advisor, Mr. Warlow, has already admitted, the power of the .32 wad-cutter is no more than that of a .22. If this amendment is not agreed, British competitors in the Commonwealth Games will be the only people in the entire Commonwealth who are not allowed to practise for the games on their own home ground. They will have to go to France, Belgium or somewhere else to practise and that would be absolutely shameful. I hope that your Lordships will support this amendment.
The Earl of Errol: My Lords, I should like to ask one question. If this calibre of weapon is banned, can we host the Commonwealth Games again?
Lord Brain: My Lords, perhaps to prevent a reply that the Minister may make, I shall make it clear that the wad-cutter cartridge is totally different from any pointed bullet cartridge used in other forms of pistol shooting. It should be very easy for any police officer to be instructed in the total difference. It was demonstrated to me yesterday that a wad-cutter cartridge would not load into another form of

1565
.32 pistol. Equally, a normal cartridge does not load and operate effectively in a wad-cutter and would be a great danger to the user of the wad-cutter. I support this amendment.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, I believe that it is necessary to specify specifically ".32 S & W Long" for the simple reason that in both cases the length referred to is that of the cartridge case of one inch, but with the bullet in it it is a little bit more than that.
A noble Lord: It is flush.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the aim of Amendment No. 15, tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Swansea, would permit centre-fire pistols chambered for .32 cartridges to be held at licensed clubs in addition to .22 rimfire pistols. The Government's position is well known. It is that all handguns are to be banned except for small calibre pistols. That is because there is a case for allowing only a limited number of handguns to be held in secure conditions. Without that outlet some target shooters might be inclined to go underground, thus increasing the risk to public safety.
There are concerns that by exempting one type of .32 calibre handgun, loopholes will be created so that all guns of such calibre will be freely available. Other .32 calibre pistols capable of firing high velocity rounds several times more powerful than the .22 rimfire and wad-cutter cartridges could be allowed through. Many .32 calibre automatic and pocket pistols are used in crime. But there is also the possibility of handguns already chambered for this particular cartridge being technically modified to fire the more dangerous round. That would constitute a very serious risk to public safety.
I say to my noble friend Lord Kimball, that he is absolutely right on both points when one refers strictly to the wad-cutter. My information is that the wording of this amendment is not strictly related to the wad-cutter. It is open to wider interpretation. That is the difficulty in reconciling what has been said in support of this amendment and what the amendment actually provides. It is for those reasons that I believe we should maintain the strict stance that the Government have maintained throughout this Bill. Therefore I ask that the amendment is not pressed.
Lord Monson: My Lords, the Minister said that the .32 wad-cutter can be illegally modified to take a more powerful type of .32 cartridge. Does she not agree that if that were to happen it would endanger the life—certainly the limbs or the right hand—of the person who had illegally modified and fired the gun?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am not sure. Did the noble Lord say that it would endanger the limbs of the person doing the modification?
Lord Monson: My Lords, if fired, yes—because the gun would probably explode in his hand.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I understand the point that the noble Lord is making. It came up in one of the discussions that I have had on these matters with an expert. I do not think that the issue is whether the wadcutter can be modified. I believe that an interpretation of the wording could include other .32s, which links in with the point made by the noble Lord earlier. The interpretation of the amendment would go wider than the wadcutter. Other .32s are capable of firing at a velocity several times higher than that of the wadcutter.
Earl Peel: My Lords, my noble friend agreed with everything that was said—
Noble Lords: Order!
Earl Peel: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I believe that my noble friend agreed with everything that was said by my noble friend Lord Kimball, but she went on to say that she thought that the amendment was faulty in some way. That being the case, is my noble friend suggesting that she might be prepared to come back with another amendment at Third Reading to overcome the difficulty? Therefore, might we not expect something to be brought forward?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I can never give an answer to the question which my noble friend invites me to consider, unless it is "without prejudice". My answer to my noble friend Lord Kimball was in response to the words that he used. He asked whether there were any examples of wadcutters being used in crime. The answer is, very definitely, no. However, the amendment goes rather wider than the description of a wadcutter.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, with the leave of the House—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, with the leave of the House—
Noble Lords: No!
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I have already come to the Dispatch Box once this afternoon to remind noble Lords that this is Report stage. This amendment stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Swansea and it is probably time that he made a decision on what to do with it.
Lord Swansea: My Lords, I am somewhat disappointed by the reply given by my noble friend

1567
on the Front Bench because it has been shown quite conclusively that the wadcutter in .32 calibre is of very low power. Indeed, it is only fractionally more than that of the .22 long rifle cartridge. I am not able to accept my noble friend's reply, so I seek the opinion of the House.
5.12 p.m.
On Question, Whether Amendment No. 15, as an amendment to Amendment No. 14, shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 102; Not-Contents, 158.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Kimball, L. [Teller.]

Ailesbury, M.

Kintore, E.

Ampthill, L.

Knutsford, V.

Annaly, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Arran, E.

Leigh, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Liverpool, E.

Boardman, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Brain, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Braybrooke, L.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Broadbridge, L.

Monson, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mottistone, L.

Burton, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Carnarvon, E.

Munster, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Newall, L.

Carnock, L.

Norfolk, D.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Norrie, L.

Clancarty, E.

Northumberland, D.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Ogmore, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Onslow, E.

Cocks of Hartdiffe, L.

Palmer, L.

Congleton, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Cornwallis, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Peel, E.

Craig of Radley, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L

Crook, L.

Quinton, L.

Cross, V.

Rathcavan, L.

De Saumarez, L.

Reay, L.

Denbigh, E.

Rennell, L.

Derwent, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Shrewsbury, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Simon, V.

Elles, B.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Erroll, E.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Exmouth, V.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Feversham. L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Gisborough, L.

Swansea, L. [Teller.]

Glasgow, E.

Swinfen, L.

Granard, E.

Swinton, E.

Gray, L.

Taveme, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Teviot, L.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Tollemache, L.

Hemphill, L.

Vernon, L.

Hertford, M.

Vinson, L.

Holderness, L.

Wharton, B.

HolmPatrick, L.

Wrenbury, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Hylton, L.

Wynford, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Yarborough, E.

Inchyra, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

1568

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Hayman, B.

Acton, L.

Henley, L.

Addington, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Addison, V.

Hollis of Heigham. B.

Ailsa, M.

Home, E.

Alderdice, L.

Hooper, B.

Aldington, L.

Howe, E.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Hughes, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Hussey of North Bradley, L.

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Inglewood, L.

Ashboume, L.

Jeger, B.

Astor, V.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Jenkins of Putney. L.

Attlee, E.

Judd, L.

Balfour, E.

Kennet, L.

Bellwin, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Beloff, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Berkeley, L.

Kitchener, E.

Birdwood, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Blatch, B.

Lindsay, E.

Blease, L.

Lockwood, B.

Bowness, L.

Long, V.

Bridgeman, V.

Lovell-Davis. L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Lucas, L.

Butterworth, L.

Luke, L.

Byford, B.

Lyell, L.

Cadman, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Carlisle, E.

Mackay of Clashfem, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Chadlington, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Chalfont, L.

McNally, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Mar and Kellie. E.

Chelmsford, V.

Marlesford, L.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Mason of Bamsley, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Cockfield, L.

Merrivale, L.

Courtown, E.

Mersey. V.

Cowley, E.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Cuckney, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Mountevans, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Murton of lindisfame, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Nicol, B.

Dean of Thomton-le-Fylde, B.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Denham, L.

Paul, L.

Demon of Wakefield, B.

Perry of Walton, L.

Devonport, V.

Peston, L.

Digby, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Donoughue, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Downshire, M.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Rawlings, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Rees, L.

Feldman, L.

Renton, L.

Ferrers, E.

Renwick, L.

Fitt, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Russell, E.

Glenamara, L.

St. Davids, V.

Goschen, V.

Saltoun of Abemethy, Ly.

Gould of Pottemewton, B.

Seccombe, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Serota, B.

Gray of Contin, L.

Shepherd, L.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L

Sudeley, L.

Hamwee, B.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Harris of Peckham, L.

Temple of Stowe, E.

Haskel, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Thomson of Monifieth. L.

1569

Tope, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L

Wilcox, B.

Trefgame, L.

Trumpington, B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Williams of Elvel,L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Winston, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment No. 15 disagreed to accordingly.
5.21 p.m.
On Question, Amendment No. 14 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Firearm certificates to be subject to special conditions]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 4, line 42, at end insert—
("(4) Subsections (1) and (3) above apply in relation to a visitor's firearm permit as they apply to a firearm certificate.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 16 and 24 in my name close a loophole in respect of visitors to this country from overseas.
The Bill provides that anybody who has a firearm certificate for a small-calibre pistol for target shooting must keep it in a licensed pistol club and cannot have access to it outside club premises. If he wishes to have it elsewhere, for instance because he is taking part in a competition at another club, he must obtain a police permit under Clause 10 of the Bill allowing him to give the pistol to somebody else to move it on his behalf. As the Bill stands these arrangements do not apply to a person who has obtained a visitor's permit under Section 17 of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 to allow him to visit this country from overseas with a small-calibre pistol. The amendments correct that anomaly.
Section 17 of the 1988 Act requires that visitors' permits for firearms must be applied for not by the putative visitor himself but by somebody resident in this country acting on his behalf. The chief officer of police must then satisfy himself that the visitor has a good reason for possessing the firearm in this country and that there will be no danger to public safety.
The amendments will make it clear that where the visitor seeks permission to bring a small-calibre pistol with him into this country he is not entitled to have it in his possession at any place other than a licensed pistol club specified on his permit. The visitor would not necessarily have to be a member of that club. But the amendment should make sure that visitors from overseas are treated in the same way as firearm certificate holders in every other respect.
Carriage of the pistol into and out of this country, and between clubs in this country if need be, will have to be undertaken by a third party under police permit, as would be the case with any other target shooter's small-calibre handgun.
A visitor coming to this country will need to have a sponsor already here who will arrange with the police for a permit to be issued. Any visitor who had not made appropriate arrangements in advance and who attempted to bring a firearm into the country would be committing an offence. The firearm would be subject to seizure by HM Customs.
In the light of these arrangements I urge the House to accept the amendment.
Lord Brain: My Lords, I ask the Minister to clarify one point. Clause 9(1) provides that the holder must be a member of a licensed pistol club specified in the certificate and that the pistol must be used only at licensed premises. I understand "used only at licensed premises", but does it mean that the visitor must go through all of the complications of being proposed and seconded to be made a member of a club? Does he have to be on the register of the club before the application is made by the sponsor to the police for permission for the firearm to be brought into the country? Further, someone who is officially allowed to transport firearms may have them available for inspection when he meets someone at a port. I find it difficult to understand how the transportation arrangements will be made. Does he need a full certificate because he is carrying, but does not own, the firearm? What is the certification position on the transportation of firearms, in particular foreign firearms? The same question may arise in relation to British-owned firearms.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, many of the arrangements to which the noble Lord refers must be made in advance. If someone comes to this country, perhaps to shoot in competitions, he must abide by all the rules as he reaches the shores of this country. It will be necessary for a third party to make the arrangements. For example, if a team is coming to shoot it will be necessary in advance for a third party to be authorised to pick up the firearms and deliver them to a safe place for the purposes of the competition. All of that will be subject to the conditions of the licence in advance of their arrival. They simply cannot arrive in this country with firearms and board a train, bus, car or plane. The noble Lord appears to be shaking his head. I do not know whether I have failed to answer his question.
Lord Brain: My Lords, with the leave of the House and no disrespect to the Minister, I believe that she has missed my point. I fully accept what she says about the need to have all of this arranged. But I am trying to probe the arrangements that have to be made; that is, whether the individual has to be made a fully elected member of the club, as her amendment implies. How can the person who is responsible for the transportation have the correct authorisation when he does not necessarily know the person concerned possibly because the matter is being arranged between club secretary and club secretary? In particular, how will he be allowed to transport a firearm that belongs to a person overseas? Will he have to hold a full certificate for that firearm in this country because he is carrying that firearm? One has the ambiguous situation that if he needs a full certificate he is not a third person.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I return to my original answer. The noble Lord specifically asked what transportation arrangements could be made. First, reasons would have to be given as to why a person was

1571
coming to this country with a firearm. Secondly, the police would have to satisfy themselves that there was a sponsor receiver in this country.
Lord Brain: My Lords, I understand that. My point is—
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, we are at Report stage. Perhaps I may finish my answer. If the receiving sponsor is a club we will make it possible for someone who is not a registered member legitimately to shoot in that club. The arrangements can be made in advance of that person coming to this country. But all of the arrangements for transporting the firearms to the receiving club once they have arrived at the shores of this country will be third party arrangements. The situation would be exactly the same as it would be for a registered member of a club. The details of how one would arrange for the sponsor to grant temporary membership to a visitor to this country would be dealt with under the administrative arrangements following the passing of this Bill.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
5.30 p.m.
Clause 10 [Permits to have small-calibre pistols outside licensed pistol clubs]:
Lord Harmsworth Lord Harmsworth moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 4, line 43, after ("pistol") insert ("or for a pistol of a specified calibre under section (Police and military shooting clubs: specified exemptions)(1)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 17 and speak also to Amendments Nos. 18 to 20, 26 and 32. The substantive amendment is Amendment No. 32. The other amendments are consequential. First, I should like to apologise to my noble friend the Minister for introducing this amendment at this stage of the Bill. I would have preferred to move it at Committee stage, but the Bill has proceeded at a fast pace and the spur to action on my part arrived on my desk only on the first day of the two Committee days. It was then too late to do anything about it, especially as I had not anticipated speaking on this subject.
The last time that I was involved in gunnery and shooting, including pistol shooting with weapons that would be prohibited under the Bill, was in 1958. However, I believe that these amendments are of the utmost importance.
Since Amendment No. 14, the amendment on disassembly, has been agreed by your Lordships, it may well be that what I want in terms of my own amendments has been satisfied by that amendment. I shall look carefully tomorrow at the position, but it is always possible that that amendment may be substantially modified or overturned in another place. I must therefore press on with my amendments, with the leave of your Lordships. I do not want these amendments of mine to be left high and dry.
The Bill has been prompted and overshadowed by the tragedy at Dunblane. Dunblane has indeed focused everybody's mind on some method of limiting future similar occurrences. I wonder whether, in concentrating almost exclusively on that dreadful scenario, we have not to a certain extent lost sight of other possible future equally dreadful scenarios and whether we are ensuring through this legislation that we will not be as prepared to deal with them as we might have been. What I have in mind are incidents where police or military marksmanship may be of the utmost importance, possibly in the case of hostage taking, kidnaps or armed robbery, where members of the public are in danger—even, heaven forbid, children, as in the case of Dunblane. It would be foolish and irresponsible of us to do anything now in the heat of the moment that would prejudice a successful outcome in situations where skilful gun handling in the worst possible circumstances might be absolutely crucial. I truly believe that without these amendments we are risking just that.
The Bill places serving police officers and serving military personnel, when off duty, in exactly the same position as every other member of the public. That means that a policeman, soldier, sailor or airman who shoots in his spare time in his police or military shooting club or elsewhere would be confined to using .22 weapons, despite the fact that he may use large-calibre weapons when on duty.
These amendments are designed to allow serving police and military personnel to continue to be able to practise their skills when shooting at their own expense in their leisure time with full bore pistols, just as they do when serving. Some of your Lordships may consider it palpably absurd that officers and others who use or might in due course use large-calibre handguns as firearms officers or recruits to such squads and their military counterparts should not be trusted with these weapons while practising in their leisure time.
I believe that there are considerations much more compelling than that. My noble friend the Minister has had the courtesy to send me the Government's reactions to my proposals that police and serving military personnel should be effectively exempted from the Section 5 provisions of the Bill, which relate back to the original Act. I am told:
"Off-duty police officers and members of the Armed Forces are private citizens and should be subject to the same obligations as other citizens. Police firearms officers, and members of the Armed Forces receive a high standard of training while on duty and there is no necessity for that training to be supplemented by practice during off duty hours".
I simply do not believe that is either right or represents a realistic approach to problems which, with the leave of the House, I shall explore.
Any shooter will tell the same story. One never gets enough practice. That was certainly the case in my Army days as a national serviceman. I hesitate to think what would have happened if I had been asked to fire the service revolvers or Browning pistols with which we were issued accurately in anger, possibly in crowd scenes with innocent bystanders, on the limited amount of training that the Army was able to give us. In those days ammunition was expensive and was therefore

1573
rationed in training. It still is. Large calibre pistols were particularly difficult to handle, and my advice from the police has done nothing to dent that opinion; they still are.
I was told recently of a particular exercise by one police constable who is a firearms officer in my county of Dorset: he only got the double-tap technique right after extensive practice in his police shooting club in his leisure time and at his own expense. This officer is a much commended public servant whose skill, courage, commitment to duty, professionalism and outstanding teamwork in dealing with extremely violent offenders have led to successful prosecutions for serious armed robberies. Some of your Lordships will recognise that wording. He tells me that practising with a .22 as an aid to using a 9mm. pistol in operational work provides useful basic training but it is no substitute for the full-bore pistol of the type used in service.
The Government's view is that training is adequate. The firearms training on pistols for this officer might amount to once every two or three months. In his own time at his police shooting club he would be able to practise on a 9mm. handgun once a week. Here is a man, not wholly untypical, who augments his service training by a factor of five or six times, at a conservative estimate.
It is recognised that serving members of the Armed Forces and police who have their own firearm certificates and their own handguns are among the most proficient in their service shooting. The ability of instructors especially to practise off-duty with a variety of weapons is particularly worth while.
What numbers are we dealing with? We are dealing with a very small percentage of the 60,000 shooters there are estimated to be. It is very difficult to arrive at a figure because of cross-pollination but I do not believe we are talking about more than 5 or 10 per cent. of the total leisure shooting population, taking the police and the armed services together. The figure does not matter; the message does. One is talking about very few.
The case for allowing serving members of police and military shooting clubs to continue as before is overwhelming. Such people will have been closely vetted. Furthermore, they are continually monitored by their immediate supervisors. But perhaps most important of all, these clubs are fertile recruiting grounds for, in the case of the police, firearms officers. There is a shortage of firearms officers. In the case of the Dorset police I know for a fact that it is sometimes difficult to recruit a sufficient number. I believe that position may be the same in some other forces.
I do not suggest that the large calibre of the weapon shot in police or military shooting clubs is a sine qua non so far as recruitment is concerned, but there must inevitably be an association. Any possible recruit to the firearms squad in a police force may well prefer to know, first, what capabilities he or she may have on the full-bore weapon before committing themselves to going down that road.
Extensive discussion with many police and military referees who have been good enough to go over the ground with me show that the status quo after the Bill in certain respects will not be tenable. There are areas where my amendments reflect change.
So far as the storage of weapons is concerned, I am forced to the view that these weapons must be stored, unless the amendment of my noble friend Lord Pearson remains on the statute, in police or military armouries. The normal rules relating to storage would apply for these weapons as though they were service weapons. The transfer from one location to another of large and/or small-calibre service-member-owned pistols would be by authorised club officials and with the permission of the chief officer of police, as in the Bill. These amendments determine that police and military serving shooting club members who at any time wish to surrender large-calibre pistols should be compensated as if they had surrendered the weapons under the terms of the 1997 Act.
I am not sure whether that provision is more than merely declaratory. It may be that it is, strictly speaking, unnecessary. The Secretary of State may already have the powers in the Bill that I seek, which are to cater for a policeman, say, owning his own large calibre handgun at the age of 21 and shooting with it until he retires. He would then automatically become ineligible to continue to possess it, but he would nevertheless receive compensation for it under the amendment. Perhaps my noble friend the Minister will advise whether those extra powers are necessary.
If police or military serving shooters presently shooting a range of weapons now wish to confine themselves to .22s, they would receive compensation for large calibre weapons surrendered, just as would anyone else under the terms of the Bill.
I regard this group of amendments to be narrow in their application. They leave untouched the great majority of the Bill's provisions. I am concerned by other aspects of the Bill, as indeed are many other noble Lords, but I confine myself to what I regard as an imperative safeguard against a dreadful and different type of Dunblane, where police marksmanship might make all the difference between disaster and a better outcome.
My amendments affect a small percentage of the shooting population who will be practising their skills under the enhanced safety requirements provided by the new legislation. I hope that your Lordships will agree with me that conditions of weapons storage and transfer provide complete safety, or as much as man can devise, and that those serving personnel, vetted and continually monitored as they are, are of a trustworthiness that should give one few qualms, and that the effects of allowing police and military club members to continue to use large calibre pistols when shooting off duty can only be to the advantage of the public, not just so far as concerns costs but also public safety.
We must not jeopardise the shooting ability of marksmen who may be called upon successfully to protect the public, be they children or adults, in a totally different type of Dunblane in the future.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I support the amendment, and declare an interest as I am a serving TA officer, although the difficulties described by the noble Lord do not present me with a problem. He made an important point. I do not know whether the amendment is effective because I have not studied it. I would like to know whether the Minister has consulted the MoD and what it thinks about it. The noble Lord raised an important point. It would be interesting to hear what the Minister has to say. My advice to the noble Lord is not to push the amendment.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I should like the Government to think carefully about this amendment. It is essential that members of the Armed Forces and police officers who possess guns to defend this country or to deal with criminals should be real marksmen who can hit the target that they want to hit, be it the tyre of a car so as to bring it to a halt or, at worst, be able to wound, not necessarily kill, a violent criminal. That can be achieved only by a tremendous amount of practice. Military and police personnel must be able to have that practice so as to become proficient.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, the amendment is important. It is another example of the unintended consequences flowing from the Bill. No one can argue against the necessity that those who have to use guns in the way described, whether police or service marksmen, should be as trained and as accurate in their use as they possibly can be.
The point at issue is whether the amount of training they receive in service time does or does not meet that essential requirement. No doubt the Minister will be able to advise us on that. It is important that when such people are required to carry out those responsibilities they are as completely and fully trained and as competent in marksmanship as they can possibly be made to be.
Lord Brain: My Lords, I support the amendment from a different angle. I was talking to the owner of a pistol range yesterday who told me that the Devon police force had its own range under its headquarters. The problem is that at the moment it is not available for those officers to use in their off-duty hours. In the past they have been able to use his range and his similar pistols to acquire the proficiency and expertise that they feel are lacking.
I realise that the provision is not an extension to use a private range, but it draws attention to the need for police ranges to be available in off-duty hours to those officers who want to improve their efficiency.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 17, 18, 19, 20, 26 and 32 tabled in the name of my noble
1576
friend Lord Harmsworth concern licensed pistol clubs used by police or military personnel. I, too, consider that it is of the utmost importance—it cannot be overstated—that serving members of the police and Armed Forces should be sufficiently well practised to ensure their proficiency whenever they are called upon to operate under the conditions for which they are trained in firearms. I agree with what my noble friend and all other noble Lords, including the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, said, when they spoke about the importance of having operational proficiency for serving members of the Armed Forces and the police. What we are talking about here are means to ends. There is no way that the Government would contemplate any compromising of the operational practice that is needed to provide that level of proficiency for members of the police and the Armed Forces.
Serving members of the police and the Armed Forces will receive training in firearms use on the same basis as they receive training in other skills needed to carry out their work effectively. The level of training required to achieve an acceptable standard is, and must be, a matter for the police and the Armed Services. In the case of the police, that is decided by an ACPO Joint Standing Committee on the Police Use of Firearms which takes advice both from police firearms officers and experts in the training field.
At present, police and military personnel can also form private target-shooting clubs on the same basis as any other group of shooting enthusiasts. It is to those clubs that the amendments refer. Although such clubs are composed of serving and retired service personnel, they are subject to approval by the Home Office departments in the same manner as civilian clubs. Many members may also handle pistols in their professional capacity, but many do not. Likewise, those who shoot as part of their work are not obliged to shoot at a club in their spare time.
Under the provisions of this Bill, clubs for higher calibre pistol shooting will be abolished. The arguments on that issue have been discussed extensively and I need not repeat them here.
The amendments would permit private sporting pistol clubs based around police and military personnel to continue as at present when other such private clubs are abolished. The amendments would also permit their members to claim compensation at any time in respect of higher calibre handguns which they had continued to use at those clubs after the general prohibition on them had come into force. That would be a financial obligation on the public purse which would remain in perpetuity.
The Government believe that it is right and proper to distinguish between those who need prohibited weapons to carry out their work and those who use them for sport and pleasure. The police and the armed services would clearly fall into the former category. However, neither police officers nor service personnel have ever been allowed to shoot for sport in a private capacity with prohibited weapons. It would be wrong in principle to make such a distinction for pistol shooting.

1577
The Government decision to restrict the possession of higher-calibre handguns by civilians was made on the clear understanding that the vast majority of gun club members are honest, law-abiding and reliable. Many of them are themselves retired service personnel or police officers. It would be invidious to suggest that any serving soldier or police officer should be allowed to shoot higher-calibre pistols for pleasure but civilians of impeccable character should be forbidden to do so.
The Government are aware of the argument that police firearms officers might need to practice shooting skills in their spare time in order to reach a proper level of skill for their work, and therefore disbanding police shooting clubs would pose a risk to public safety. This argument is not sustainable.
It is clearly essential that police officers should receive an appropriate level of training in the skills needed to carry out their work effectively. This is especially true of firearms training, where any weaknesses might pose a grave risk to the public and to the police officers concerned. I take very seriously the point made by my noble friend Lord Harmsworth when he said that sometimes that craftsmanship and accuracy can prevent a much greater tragedy. If weaknesses are identified in existing arrangements for formal training then the obvious solution is to improve that training.
It would clearly be wrong to accept a level of formal training which is inadequate and rely on any deficiencies being remedied by each officer having the spare time, skill and judgment to deal with this on an ad hoc basis.
For those reasons I hope that my noble friend will not press the amendment. I give him the assurance that the provisions of this Bill will not compromise the levels of training which are appropriate to ensure that our service personnel and policemen are adequately trained.
It will of course be for the police and service personnel to determine the operational use of such clubs and there may need to be some adjustment because there may be a blurring as regards when a policeman is or is not on duty. It will be very important that the line managers of policemen and servicemen ensure that they are provided for and that their training is adequate for the job.
I am not sure who asked me whether we had discussed these matters with the Ministry of Defence and the police. We have been discussing all aspects of the Bill with the police but we have not spoken to them on this particular point. I assure the House that we will take note of your Lordships' views on this matter before the next stage of the Bill. We have had no representations from the Association of Chief Police Officers or the military to say that they will not be able to continue training after the Bill is passed. We have assumed that they are well aware of this Bill and that if it presented difficulties in providing operational training for serving personnel they would have made the point. I will make sure we are proactive in obtaining the views of both military chiefs and the Association of Chief Police Officers.
Lord Harmsworth: My Lords, I am very disappointed by my noble friend's reply. It may help
1578
her if I quote a statement made not very long ago by Lieutenant-General Sir Peter Duffell, the former Inspector General of Doctrine and Training. He wrote—and I précis:
"Precision is all important—whether it be in making sure that the enemy is hit with the first shot (in modern warfare you seldom get a second chance) or in ensuring that innocent bystanders are not hit … Not only do many members of the Armed Forces benefit from being able to join civilian clubs to practise on ranges with which they are familiar but the civilian clubs … provide us with training in coaching techniques. In recent years these techniques have been developed largely in the civilian sector as the clubs have been able to devote considerable time and effort to the subject which we have been unable to match with the pressure of our limited resources".
I am far from satisfied that it is not wholly to the benefit of the public that this additional large-calibre shooting practice experience for serving members is catered for. Nevertheless, my noble friend Lord Pearson's amendment on disassembly would meet what I require if it remains in an acceptable form. I reserve the right to bring this matter back at Third Reading after I have had a chance to look at it in the context of the overall new picture. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 18 to 20 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 5, line 18, leave out ("recognised") and insert ("designated").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Swansea Lord Swansea moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 6, line 10, after ("order") insert ("on the advice of the recognised governing body of the sport").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 22 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 86 on the same subject.
This clause deals with police permits for gun owners to take part in competitions. The Bill states that competitions should be recognised and this is an opportunity to insert in the Bill the wording in the amendment,
"on the advice of the recognised governing bodies of the sport".
The National Pistol Association, the National Rifle Association and the National Small-bore Rifle Association could all have their detailed calendars for the season wiped out. They are in the best position to provide the Government with details of what competitions should be recognised. They have been organising shooting competitions for generations, and it is not clear why the Home Secretary should now wish to decide which competitions are recognised and which are not. The shooting world is extremely concerned that although the Bill will allow some form of pistol shooting to continue, the number of competitions in which one may shoot will become severely restricted. Like any other sport, our best shooters rely on regular competition to reach the necessary standards to represent this country at international level.
There will be a lot of unnecessary bureaucracy. A number of competitions are held throughout the year for the various tiers of competitors. The national squad

1579
meets about six to eight times per year; it is drawn from the English, Welsh, Scottish and Irish squads which meet regularly for training sessions. There are regular county meetings and competitions and at club level there can be more than 30 meetings per month. The Home Secretary would have to approve each competition before permits could be issued. This seems unnecessary since the Bill already provides the power for the police to refuse permits for attending competitions. If the competition is not properly organised the police will simply not grant a permit.
My noble friend Lady Blatch indicated during Committee stage that the Home Office was sympathetic to the intentions of this amendment but could not be bound by any advice received. This amendment would require the Home Secretary to consult the people who organise such competitions year in and year out. Thus, there is no reason why it should not be accepted on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I have some sympathy with the aims behind Amendments Nos. 22 and 86 tabled by my noble friend Lord Swansea and I believe that we are able to meet my noble friend's concerns without the need for such amendments. The target shooting competitions that may be designated by the Secretary of State as a "proper purpose" for applying for a permit that would allow a small calibre pistol to be taken outside a licensed club will need to be carefully considered.
Before reaching his decision the Secretary of State would consult the appropriate authorities for their views. The difficulty with the amendment, however, is that the "governing bodies" are not defined, and it would therefore be difficult to say at what point the appropriate advice can be said to have been obtained. Nor am I sure whether it is quite right to think in terms of a single recognised body. There may be several bodies covering different competitions or events such as the Home Countries Association (the respective Smallbore Shooting Unions in England, Scotland and Wales) and the National Smallbore Rifle Association, as well as other bodies, including those that may arise in the future.
In the light of this possibly ambiguous situation, I hope that my noble friend will accept my assurances that we will meet his concerns and that we shall contact the most appropriate bodies for their advice before designating specific shooting competitions and that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Swansea: My Lords, I am grateful for my noble friend's reply, but if she reads in Hansard my opening remarks, she will realise that I did mention three national governing bodies. Those are the very bodies which I hope the Government will consult. Indeed, I very much hope that they will do so. However, given my noble friend's assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 23 and 24:
Page 6, line 10, leave out from ("such") to end of line 11 and insert ("target shooting competitions as he thinks fit").
Page 6, line 12, at end insert—
("(10) This section applies to a person holding a visitor's firearm permit relating to a small-calibre pistol as it applies to a person holding a firearm certificate, except that any application for a permit under this section by the holder of a visitor's firearm permit shall be made to the chief officer of police who granted the visitor's firearm permit.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Swansea Lord Swansea moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 6, line 12, at end insert—
("(10) A person aggrieved by the refusal of a chief officer of police to grant a permit under this section or by any condition imposed on such a permit may, in accordance with section 44 of the 1968 Act, appeal against such refusal or condition.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment deals with the right of appeal against the refusal by a chief officer of police to grant a permit for a pistol to be removed from storage for whatever purpose. The powers given to the police under Clause 10 are very extensive. Without a permit, the owner of a small calibre pistol is effectively confined to its use in one named club where it is stored. If he wishes to repair it, take it to a competition on other premises, sell it or have it for any purpose outside the club he needs a permit. The permit can be subject to any conditions that the police care to impose, including limits of time. The police can impose conditions as to the person other than the owner who is to take possession of it. It is not difficult to imagine circumstances where unreasonable costs may be incurred by a requirement to use certain security forces for transport.
This is an important amendment particularly with regard to our best shooters who need to compete shoulder to shoulder with other shooters around the country on a regular basis. It is quite outside the principles of natural justice that there should be no right of appeal. I beg to move.
Lord Monson: My Lords, as the right of appeal exists under the 1968 Act, there would seem to be no reason in justice or logic why it should not also be granted under this Act. I trust that the Government will accept the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend's amendment would have the effect of giving any applicant for a permit to take his pistol out of a licensed pistol club the right of appeal to the Crown Court or the sheriff's court. This would be to treat those applying for permits in the same way as applicants who have their firearm certificates refused or revoked.
The criteria for the issue of these permits are given in Part I of the Bill. These include having the pistol repaired or maintained by a registered firearms dealer; enabling it to be used in certain competitions; and, of course, selling it. We shall be covering the control and issue of permits in some detail in the Home Office guidance document that will be issued to the police.

1581
I am not sure how many permits would be issued by chief officers, nor the most common reasons for their issue, but it is clear that in most cases they will need to be issued for a specific occasion or time. If for good reason the chief officer refuses the permit, the original point of the permit application is likely to have been lost because of the time that it would take.
Permits will not be like firearm applications, as the owner will continue to have access to his gun inside the licensed pistol club of which he is a member. I do not think that it is right that every person whose permit is refused should have the automatic right of an appeal to the Crown Court or sheriff's court. We believe that such decisions should be left to the judgment of the police. Therefore, I cannot agree to my noble friend's amendment.
Lord Swansea: My Lords, I am extremely disappointed by my noble friend's reply. I say that because, in every other circumstance that your Lordships can envisage, there is the right of appeal against a refusal by the police to grant a permit. My noble friend's reply is most unsatisfactory and I may, therefore, return to the matter at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13 [Payments in respect of prohibited small firearms and ammunition]:
[Amendment No. 26 not moved.]
Lord Lester of Herne Hill Lord Lester of Herne Hill moved Amendment No. 27:
After Clause 14, insert the following new clause—
COMPENSATION SCHEME FOR FIREARMS DEALERS
(" .—(1) The Secretary of State shall, in accordance with a scheme made by him, make payments to persons who on 16th October 1996, were wholly or mainly carrying on business as registered firearms dealers under the 1968 Act, in respect of any loss of business directly caused by the prohibition contained in section 1.
(2) A scheme under subsection (1) above shall provide for payments to be equivalent to one year of after-tax profits of the business, based on the average after-tax profits from the audited financial statements of the business for the three financial years before the passing of this Act as calculated by a qualified person.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (2) above—

"business" means only the business or that part of the business directly affected by the prohibition contained in section 1; and

"qualified person" means a person eligible for appointment as a company auditor in accordance with section 25 of the Companies Act 1989.

(4) A scheme under subsection (1) above may—

(a) restrict eligibility for receipt of payments to claims made within a period specified in the scheme;

(b) provide for the procedure to be followed (including any time within which claims must be made and the provision of information) in respect of claims under the scheme and for the determination of such claims.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the above amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 28. Our reasons for tabling the amendments are that on these Benches we believe that an important principle of fairness is at stake. When Parliament enacts legislation to prohibit the sale or use of a product, with the
1582
inevitable result that those engaged in the licensed economic activity of manufacturing or dealing in the product will have their business destroyed or substantially impaired, we believe that there should be fair compensation for those whose licences have become worthless and whose businesses have been ruined or severely blighted. In the memorable words of the eminent American jurist, Oliver Wendell Holmes, we believe that we are in danger of forgetting that a strong public desire to improve the public condition is not enough to warrant achieving the desire by a shorter cut than the constitutional way of paying for the change.
Under the Bill as it stands, the owner of a prohibited firearm will receive compensation at market value for the handgun and its ammunition and for any ancillary equipment which has been rendered obsolete by this measure. The operator of a target shooting club, forced to close because of the Act, can apply for compensation to cover any loss arising out of debt, mortgage, lease or other liability. So the gun owner and the gun enthusiast who run the shooting range will suffer no appreciable financial loss. They will lose only the very real pleasure that they derive from a pastime which is now to be outlawed.
By contrast, the manufacturer or dealer whose service they support will lose a livelihood built up over many years and will receive nothing except the market value of his current stock. There is no reason in principle or logic to justify differentiating so starkly between compensating for the loss of the right to own a firearm and compensating for the loss of the right to carry on a licensed business as a firearms dealer. Indeed, the firearm dealer's loss of livelihood is much more severe in its impact than is the loss of the right to use a handgun. The loss of a livelihood in a licensed business is as much of an interference with the peaceful enjoyment of one's possessions and property as is the loss of the right to use land, to own shares or to use a firearm.
It would be a matter for reproach, I suggest, if Parliament were to appear to be more concerned with the fair treatment of the gun enthusiast than of the firearms dealer, yet that is the position under the Bill as it now stands. Our amendment seeks to redress the balance and to entitle firearms dealers to a modest—some might say parsimonious—level of compensation. The amendment aims to achieve a fair balance between concern for public safety and the general interest of the community and concern that this section of the business community should not have to bear an excessive and unfair burden.
The amendment provides for compensation to be paid to registered firearms dealers. Under the 1968 Firearms Act any person who sells, transfers, repairs, tests or approves firearms as a trade or business is a firearms dealer and must be registered as such. A registered firearms dealer receives a certificate of registration renewable every year. If a person goes out of business, his name must be immediately removed from the register. The 1968 Act provides the categories of commercial activity in firearms that are permitted. All these constitute the class of owners of business concerns who stand to lose their livelihood as a direct result of the

1583
ban imposed by this Bill. There is a range of different occupations that this amendment will assist: the specialist dealer in the retail market, the secondhand dealer, the wholesaler or importer, the person whose business it is to convert or customise imported guns to a customer's specification, and the manufacturer of handguns. Under the 1968 Act the chief officer of police may refuse to register an applicant unless he is satisfied that he will engage in business to a substantial effect or as an essential part of another trade or business.
Nevertheless, there are some dealers whose trade in prohibited firearms constitutes only a small portion of the business. In the case of these traders, clearly the prohibition will involve a correspondingly smaller loss relative to their total profits. We do not consider that these dealers need to be included in the scheme. The effect of the law on such dealers is akin to the normal loss sustained by businesses when the state interferes to regulate their trade. They are not in the exceptional class which needs to be compensated by the state. That is why the words "wholly or mainly" are included in the amendment so as to delimit the class of firearms dealers who deserve in fairness to be compensated. The words "wholly or mainly" will give the Secretary of State the necessary degree of latitude in drawing up the scheme.
I now turn to the basis of compensation. Compensation under this amendment—
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, did I hear the noble Lord say that the 1968 Act covers manufacturers as well as dealers?
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, that is right. The definition of registered firearms dealer includes manufacturer. I now turn to the basis of compensation. I do not apologise to your Lordships for taking this carefully because it is important to see how carefully modulated this amendment is and what it does and does not do.
Compensation under this amendment is deliberately put at a modest level sufficient to cushion the effects of the ban on firearms dealers while, hopefully, they find other means of gainful economic activity. The Australian scheme referred to in Committee two weeks ago is far more onerous to the taxpayer and far more generous to the firearms dealer. Compensation is assessed in Australia by valuing the business prior to the coming into force of the legislation based on the audited accounts of the past three financial years and by valuing the business after the coming into force of the legislation by estimating what future profits there would have been had the legislation not been introduced. This is a complex, technical and costly exercise because it seeks to assess what would have been the future profitability of the business taking into account a whole variety of variables. The final figure of compensation under the Australian method can be as much as between six and nine times the annual earnings of the business.
By contrast, our amendment chooses a much simpler and much less costly method than does the Australian scheme and is designed to provide some recompense for the hardship suffered as a result of the speedy and totally
1584
unexpected demise of a licensed means of livelihood. The amendment provides that firearms dealers are to be paid at the rate of one year's after tax profits based on an average of the past three years of audited financial accounts. The lump sum should not be in itself subject to tax. This amendment is also narrowly restrictive in another sense. It does not date the loss from before the Dunblane tragedy in March 1996, nor even from the time at which the Government responded to the Cullen Report on 16th October 1996. It dates the loss for which compensation is payable from the time of the passing of the Act.
I am of course aware that the business has declined significantly since March 1996, but I have taken into account the fact that current stock will be valued at market price, not at cost price, so there is already an element of loss of profit in the compensation payable under the Bill as it stands. The scheme sets compensation at one year's after tax profits. This should provide a breathing space for those who may in time be able to diversify and rebuild their business. It will provide some fairly meagre relief for those unfortunate enough to have to close down.
If I may say so, we as legislators need to take account of the exceptional circumstances surrounding the passing of this law. Had it not been for the Dunblane tragedy, the Bill would not have been so quickly conceived. Indeed it might well not have come about at all if Dunblane had not dramatically focused public concern about violent crimes involving the misuse of firearms. Registered firearms dealers lawfully carrying on their business with certificates issued by the police should surely not be treated unfairly as scapegoats for Thomas Hamilton's madness.
Our amendment will doubtless be criticised for its parsimony. The scheme is deliberately devised, as I have tried to explain, to be the minimum necessary to achieve a fair balance and avoid an excessive burden either on firearms dealers or on the general body of taxpayers. I gather there may be some 650 registered firearms dealers whose business will be severely prejudiced by this legislation. They estimate that 2,180 jobs will be lost and as many as 350 businesses will be totally wiped out. Most of these are small or medium-sized businesses. Staff have already been laid off and in some cases business is at a standstill. One manufacturer wrote that having built up a business over 30 years he had £300,000 worth of equipment that is now valueless and had to pay rent to store the guns that he will have in due course to surrender. There is little prospect of his developing an export market.
These are not trivial matters that we can simply shrug our shoulders as utilitarians and say, "It is a price worth paying for the greater public good". For a small group of people the law will involve terrible hardship. It is not accurate to claim that there are no precedents for paying compensation to businesses adversely impacted by government legislation. There is a national compensation code which applies where local authorities and government acquire land, property or businesses. It is currently being applied to businesses forced to relocate or to extinguish as a result of the Channel Tunnel rail link legislation. Since 1993 the

1585
Government have had in place a European Community decommissioning scheme for registered fishing vessels and estimate that by the end of this year they will have paid a total of £50 million in grants to fishermen whose vessels have been decommissioned. The Government are offering the rendering industry £118 million for the loss of its market.
The Government have accepted that the Bill does not merely regulate the use of arms. That is why the Bill provides compensation to the owners of prohibited handguns, ammunition and ancillary equipment. But the Government have argued that there is a difference of principle between the loss of the right to use handguns and the loss of the right to make or sell them. Neither the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, nor of senior Commonwealth constitutional courts, including the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, supports such an arbitrary distinction.
Much of the point of the government argument derives from the distinction they seek to draw between regulation of an industry in the interest of public safety and compulsory acquisition or nationalisation of an industry. The imposition of higher standards of health and safety may indeed impose new costs on industry which it may find financially burdensome. No one would sensibly argue for the state to be required to give compensation on each such occasion. But when a dealer is prohibited from selling the product which forms the core of his business and, what is more, his licensed business, he loses his customers and his business, and the legislation can no longer be called mere regulation.
In the words again of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes,
"When protection is qualified the natural tendency of human nature is to extend it more. While property may be regulated to a certain extent if regulation goes too far it will be recognised as taking. This is a question of degree and therefore cannot be disposed of by general propositions".
The European Court of Human Rights has consistently interpreted Article 1 of the First Protocol to the Convention as normally implying a right to compensation, not only for the outright taking or compulsory acquisition but for coercive measures interfering with the enjoyment of one's property or controlling its use in the general interest. The European Court has also interpreted the scope of protection given by Article 1 broadly to include not only land and chattels but also the economic interests connected with the running of a licensed business. The Privy Council has adopted a similarly realistic and generous approach to what is meant by "property" and an "interference".
Parliament has a wide margin of appreciation in meeting the obligations imposed on the UK by the guarantee of the right to the peaceful enjoyment of one's possessions under Article 1 of the first protocol. If the amendment is passed, I believe that it will pass muster under the convention as providing fair though not full compensation. If the amendment is rejected, I believe that there is a serious risk that the European Court of Human Rights will in due course decide that the legislation is unfair in its effect and lacking in a sense of proportion in this important respect. I beg to move.
Lord Monson: My Lords, my original instinct was to support Amendment No. 31 in the name of the noble
1586
Earl, Lord Peel, which provides for the possibility of proper compensation. However, I am not convinced that subsection (2) of the noble Earl's amendment is correctly drafted, although admittedly that could always be rectified at Third Reading.
More importantly, as I ventured to remind noble Lords earlier today, politics is the art of the possible. I suspect that the other place would for a variety of reasons reject the idea of full compensation, immoral though that rejection would be, in my opinion. A quarter of a loaf is surely better than no bread. I think that Amendment No. 27, cleverly drafted with great expertise by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, as one would expect, provides an admittedly disappointing quarter of a loaf. The noble Lord used the word "parsimonious".
In parenthesis, perhaps I may express surprise that the European Convention on Human Rights, on which the noble Lord, Lord Lester, bases his amendment, apparently holds that one year's post-tax profits equals fair compensation. But if that is the case, so be it.
If the amendment is resisted by the Government and by the Labour Party, it is likely, as the noble Lord said, that the European Court of Human Rights will eventually force the government of the day—of whichever political party that may be composed—to produce a similar or possibly better answer. The difference is that it will be too late for many people who stand to go bankrupt and even lose their homes through no fault of their own. I hope that at the very least the House will support this extremely modest amendment, and, ideally, the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Peel.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, I agree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, said. I believe that his amendment is far too modest. Aggrieved people should go to Europe where there are strict rules on the matter: compensation is not only for a year but covers the loss of the business and the future profits that would have been made. I advise all those concerned to go to Europe where the Government will get a horrible caning, and serve them right.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, I fully support that idea. I also support the noble Lord's amendment. I put forward an amendment in Committee which unfortunately was not accepted. As well as those who make pistols, there are those who make targets, gun cases, sights, holsters, gun cabinets, ranges, and so on. They, too, have to be looked after.
I wish to read a paragraph from two letters. One person says,
"We are in government owned property and are now unable to pay the rent. We cannot sell off much of the machinery because of its specialised nature and we cannot move out of the secure premises because we are storing firearms and component parts until they have to be surrendered".
Another letter states:
"As soon as the Bill comes into force I will lose my business at a stroke as it involves full bore hand gun equipment. 1 have been in the gun trade for 16 years and have no possibility of modifying my business to the .22 part of the trade. This will die anyway, whether

1587
it is legislated against or not. With my business I will also lose my house as it is collateral for the business overdraft. I feel at the age of 50 I will never work again. I always thought that small businesses like mine were the backbone of Britain".
Earl Peel: My Lords, I too support the amendment so far as it goes. There is no need to rehearse the arguments on compensation. We had a thorough look at the issue in Committee. In declaring an interest, I repeat briefly that I am president of the Gun Trade Association.
I say again how moved and surprised I was to hear the very strong feelings expressed at a meeting I attended of the Gun Trade Association shortly before the Bill came before your Lordships' House. Feelings are immensely strong. People have paid their taxes and rates but suddenly find that their businesses—many of them generations old—will be wiped out at the stroke of one Bill.
As the noble Lord rightly said, we have an obligation to do something. I think his amendment mean, but I understand the reasons, which he explained carefully. I should have thought that a five-year period would have been more satisfactory and more in keeping with compensation of this type. However, I agree that there are difficulties. The noble Lord gave examples where precedents have been set. I do not think that there is any doubt about that.
The noble Lord said that he thought one year would be sufficient time—I hope that I understood him correctly—for businesses to find other activities. I believe that the noble Lord is being extremely optimistic. I fear that most businesses will go because of the way the Bill is designed. Cost alone, I suspect, will prohibit businesses being able to trade in a successful and meaningful way. I do not believe that a year is sufficient time.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, was asked specifically by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, whether his amendment covered manufacturers. I believe that the reply was yes. My information is that the amendment would cover makers of pistols but not necessarily makers of parts, ammunition or cases. They may be a relatively small part of the compensation package; nonetheless they are important. Any guidance that the noble Lord can give on that point would be greatly appreciated. I support his amendment although I believe that it is far too narrow for the purposes for which it is designed.
6.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, is a very skilled advocate. He did not spare the House any part of his argument for the amendment. It is also fair to say that, given its purpose, the amendment is modest. It could be described as providing, as he described it, relatively parsimonious compensation to licensed gun dealers.
I have practical objections to the amendment and objections of principle. My practical objection comes from my lifetime's experience of running a small business. I should certainly have had huge difficulty in my business in defining the after-tax profits of one part
1588
of it. If I were, for example, in the business of handguns and rifles, I should have great difficulty in saying what part of my profits came from handguns as opposed to rifles. It is a matter of allocation of overheads. That is always a question of dispute between accountants. Most small businesses simply do not have the kind of functional accounts that would be necessary in order to make that calculation. So I very much doubt whether the amendment would work in that sense. However, that is a relatively minor criticism and one that could be corrected.
Much more seriously, as the noble Lord acknowledged, we are talking about a spectrum. He used the words of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes: there is no general proposition to be made. So clearly it is proper, in terms of public policy, for some types of loss of business to be compensated for and some not. The noble Lord gave the examples of the fishing industry and the rendering industry affected by BSE. But for every one example on that side, there are hundreds, indeed thousands of examples on other sides. Every time there is a change in health and safety regulations, the businesses of manufacturers or dealers in some products which become unacceptable in health and safety terms are affected. Every time there is environmental legislation, manufacturers or dealers in products or equipment no longer deemed acceptable lose business, again without compensation. Every time there is a change in, for example, the food or drug regulations and the drug safety or food safety administration outlaws a particular product and says that it should no longer be placed on the market, somebody—a manufacturer, dealer or retailer—loses business. If we were to have compensation in all such cases, we should never make any changes in health and safety or environmental protection. We simply could not afford it. I gladly give way to the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord knows the difference between affecting prices—I am a farmer and I am affected when sheep prices go down—and destroying a business completely.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I know exactly how it is. But if the noble Countess, Lady Mar, wins her case and organophosphates are banned, are we seriously saying that the manufacturers of organophosphate sheep dips should be compensated for the loss of their business? Surely not.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, they are in chemicals. They will make the next type of sheep dip.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, people can change their businesses. Those who deal in handguns can deal in rifles. I am sorry, but I find this special pleading unacceptable. There is no special difference between handgun dealers and the hundreds and thousands of businesses that have to suffer changes in regulatory policy and in legislation both in this country and in Europe. If we were to compensate in all those cases, we should never make any change at all. These

1589
amendments, just like that passed earlier, now Clause 16, are deeply unacceptable. I ask my noble friends to oppose them.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, in rising to support this amendment, I wonder if I might suggest to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, that he invests in a copy of the book, The Castle of Lies, by Mr. Christopher Booker and Mr. Richard North, where he will see literally hundreds of examples of businesses that have been sent to the wall by over-regulation, too much bureaucracy and knee-jerk legislation.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I find it very difficult to take this. Here are spokesmen for a party which has accepted the closing down of businesses all over the country and the decline in this country's manufacturing industry and is not in the least concerned about those who lose their jobs; at the same time they are prepared to be concerned with the interests of 650 dealers. I find it quite unacceptable that people who spend the rest of their time opposing the European Community, namely, the noble Lords, Lord Monson and Lord Pearson, should now be relying on the European Court of Human Rights to defend their arguments.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, if the noble Lord had had a little patience, he would have heard me move on to condemn the destruction of those businesses as chronicled in The Castle of Lies.
As I say, I support the amendment. I agree with all noble Lords who spoke, including the mover, the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, that it is far too parsimonious.
I take a different view about the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights. Personally, I am ashamed that the British Parliament has to rely on what the European Court of Human Rights might or might not decide. Personally 1 think that we should not have to go anywhere near it. I am further ashamed to hear that this amendment, which many of us will be forced to accept this evening will be six or nine times meaner to these wretched people than what would have happened in Australia. I support the amendment; but I do so in the hope that we may be able to return to it at a later stage and make it more generous.
Finally, I do not want to nit-pick with the wording of the amendment, but what happens if a small business has just started up and does not have three years' financial accounts to be averaged to produce this measly average of one year of after-tax profits of the business? That may be a technical difficulty to which we may also need to return at Third Reading. But in the meantime, with great reluctance and with considerable shame, I feel bound to support the amendment.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I suppose I am guilty of special pleading. My noble friend made that accusation against those who were speaking in favour of the amendment, and since I am one of them I must be guilty. But, frankly, I thought that special pleading was what Parliament was about. I thought that
1590
Parliament was available to people to make their pleas against what they consider to be injustice and in favour of themselves.
I support the amendment and I shall vote for it, even though it is much more modest than that debated in Committee. We must take what we can get and be thankful for small mercies in relation to this Bill. But undoubtedly, as so many noble Lords made clear, great hardship will be caused to a number of people. Whether it is a large number or a small number is irrelevant. If there is an injustice, it does not matter whether it is against 10,000 people, a million people, or one person. They are all entitled to redress. This modest amendment attempts to give them some redress. It is therefore worthy of the support of this House.
I do not want to repeat the speech that I made on this matter in Committee. However, we have to recognise that we are dealing with people who have built up businesses, often by sheer hard graft, over a long period of time. They are entitled to be considered.
It is ridiculous for the Government to say that there is precedent for their meanness. There cannot be any precedent for Dunblane. There is no precedent. So do not call into account precedent! In fact, many precedents have been cited which contradict the Government's view.
To those who say that other businesses have been adversely affected by legislation but do other things, I would say that we are not talking here of garages or houses affected by a road widening scheme. If you own a garage, you are compensated to the extent of the market value of your property and resettlement. In many cases the local or national authority will also try to find alternative premises for you. The fact is that there are still motorists who will want to buy petrol. Under the Bill many gun manufacturers will not be able to sell their guns because they are forbidden to do so. That is the difference. That is why the amendment deserves support.
I received a letter from a small manufacturer of guns, part of which I think I should read to the House. I sent a copy to the noble Baroness. John Slough, of London, sets out the problem:
"I would like to draw your attention to our factory which contains drawings, machinery and fixtures made specifically for the manufacture of full-bore handguns and spare parts. Also a purpose built testing range, strong-room and security system … We are in government owned property and are now unable to pay the rent. We cannot sell off much of the machinery because of its specialised nature and we cannot move out of the secure premises because we are storing firearms and component parts until they have to be surrendered."
What does one do about that? I sincerely hope that the noble Baroness can assure me that this poor man will be assisted out of the dilemma and difficulty in which he finds himself.
The other problem he faces is that his house is now at risk because it is mortgaged to support his business. He is not only going to be put out of business; he will

1591
be put out of his home as well. Is that what the Government want? Is that what noble Lords in this House are going to allow? I sincerely hope not.
Lord Zouche of Haryngworth: My Lords, I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, within its limits. My concern lies with the thousands of individuals and small businesses which will lose their livelihoods as a result of this unjust Bill. To make matters worse, there is no provision to pay them fair and proper compensation.
In Committee my noble friend Lord Vinson summed up the feelings of many of us. He said:
"We should also bear in mind the lesson that I was taught at school; that the democracy in which we live is not only for the enforcement of majority will but also for the protection of minority rights".
My noble friend the Minister indicated at the time that there was no precedent for paying compensation for loss of business. Other arguments have been made on that point. Even if that were the case, surely it is not a good enough reason for not playing fair?
The Federal Government of Australia have passed new laws banning certain types of firearms. They are playing fair. Most importantly, dealers have been offered compensation for loss of business. The Australian Government are looking after their citizens; we are not looking after ours. What is wrong with us? We are taking away the livelihoods of good people and are not prepared to pay them fair and proper compensation. This House has an enormous responsibility to protect the rights of the minority. I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, when the Government decided upon the path they took, a big obligation was immediately imposed on what my noble friend the Minister described as the public purse but what I prefer to describe as the taxpayer's pocket. Given the Government's decision, I find it a little difficult to follow what they say about where compensation in principle begins and where it ends.
I listened intently to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. I do not understand why it is reasonable to compensate the individual who has to hand in a gun, which arguably is a very small part of his or her financial life, and not compensate a dealer or manufacturer for whom in certain cases it will be a very significant part of his or her financial life. It is finance that we are talking about.
I am therefore very inclined towards the amendment proposed by the Liberal Democrat Party. I wonder whether the savings to the taxpayer's pocket which will follow from the passing of the amendment on disassembly may perhaps pay for it.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: My Lords, I agree totally with the amendment. I am very pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, raised the European angle. As
1592
the noble Lord pointed out, the BSE and fishing crises have already dragged heavily on the purse which has been filled by the taxpayer and will continue to be filled to a certain extent. When it will break, I do not know.
The gun manufacturers Hekler & Kock, Beretta, Glock and Browning have already taken legal advice on action to be taken in the European Court against the British Government, of whatever party. I suggest that whatever the party to which we belong we should think very hard and consider the money that is needed for mental health institutions and the National Health Service generally. We should also consider the money that the police authorities will need for monitoring everything that the Bill is intended to achieve.
If the Minister and others on the Benches opposite had listened to what I proposed in my amendment, the necessity for compensation would have been avoided because it would have been paid for.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, Amendment No. 27 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, and the noble Lord, Lord Lester, together with Amendment No. 28, concern compensation for business losses by firearms dealers as a result of the Bill. In Committee I responded to a similar amendment, tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Gisborough and others, which would have made the Government liable for business losses ascribed to the prohibition of higher calibre handguns in the Bill.
The Government entirely recognise the strength of feeling on the issue, but the fact remains that for the Government to accept liability for business losses said to result from the introduction of legislation aimed at improving public safety would be unprecedented and would in our view set a seriously damaging and inhibiting example for the future.
Noble Lords have suggested that there are parallels here to the paying of compensation in relation to compulsory purchase orders. We accept that where the effect of government legislation is to deprive people of property or of the use of that property, then it is right that taxpayers collectively should pay those property owners for the value of that property. This principle has been a part of English law for many years. It also arises from our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights and is the principle which informs our compensation scheme.
However, the analogy cannot be extended to include compensation for business losses and other liabilities. Dealers' and clubs' premises and other assets remain theirs. There are no proposals to interfere physically with any property belonging to dealers and clubs beyond those items catered for by our compensation plans.
Noble Lords will know that the Government are committed to paying compensation at a fair market value as at before my right honourable friend the Secretary of State's announcement, repeated in this House, on 16th October, to people who hold firearm certificates for the higher calibre handguns which the Bill will prohibit.

1593
The Government will also pay compensation to owners for ammunition, including expanding ammunition which the Bill would prevent them from owning, and for other accessories and other ancillary equipment which they own and which have no use other than in connection with prohibited higher calibre handguns. Our discussions continue with the British Shooting Sports Council as to what those accessories will be and their values.
The Government will pay compensation to firearms dealers on the same basis as owners in respect of prohibited handguns and ancillary equipment which they owned or were contracted to acquire on or before 16th October 1996, which was the day when the Government announced that they intended to bring the prohibition into force. The scheme would be laid in draft form before this House and another place. The scheme could not be made until approved by a resolution of both Houses.
We intend to pay fair compensation to dealers for their lost stock. But the Government cannot go any further than that in relation to firearms dealers. The Government have taken their position on the possession and ownership of handguns and have done that in the interests of public safety and in the light of the dreadful incident in Dunblane and of the report of Lord Cullen's inquiry into it.
Firearms control is only one area in which the Government may be obliged to legislate from time to time in the interests of public safety. I cited during discussion of this issue in Committee the fields of transport, medicines, chemicals and pollution. The Government do not pay compensation for business losses in those areas, however severe they may be.
I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendment, but perhaps I can refer to one or two points that were made. Much was made in regard to the issue of precedent. We do not accept that this undermines our argument. Each case is a special case. For example, renderers were referred to. They were paid grants because they are an essential part of the food chain. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, is aware of that because we discussed the matter at the last stage of the Bill.
Fishing boats were mentioned. But fishing boats had to be destroyed and we do not compensate fishermen for business losses. In relation to the position of the property Acts, a special case is when legislation goes back to the last century. It is a complex area and we do not believe that it bears on the present case. Reference was made to Europe. The Government are entirely satisfied that their proposals for compensation meet the requirements of European law and are in accordance with our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights.
My noble friend Lord Gisborough referred to, and read a paragraph from, a letter which was brought to my attention also by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon. Both referred to different parts of the same letter. In the case of a manufacturer of prohibited handguns—the case mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart—the terms of the compensation scheme will
1594
not cover equipment in the area of the manufacturing of firearms. Ancillary equipment is defined in Clause 14(2) as equipment,
"for use in connection with firearms prohibited … and has no practicable use in connection with any firearm which is not a prohibited weapon".
That allows individual owners and dealers who hand in their ancillary equipment—a list will be drawn up and published after our consultation with the British Shooting Sports Council—to receive fair compensation. However, the scheme will not go as far as including the case mentioned in the noble Lord's correspondence; that is, it will not cover machinery and so forth for manufacturers as set out in the letter.
My noble friend Lord Peel referred to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lester. The amendment would cover the component parts of firearms or ammunition but not manufacturers of gun cases, targets or other ancillary equipment.
We were invited by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, to take account, as legislators, of the way in which the Bill came about. I should like to think, whatever side of the debate we are on, we are in no doubt as to the reason why we are discussing the Bill. Perhaps I may say that we, as legislators, should take account also of precedents and of the likely cost of such amendments which will not fall on the Government but on the taxpayers.
It was argued that the taxpayer will bear some cost for many of those concerned—those who are out of work and those who have difficulty with rents, their council tax and other things. The taxpayer at large will bear those costs. However, to take that burden yet further for the taxpayer and make this a special case when there are many cases, sadly, of people whose businesses have been affected by legislation in the past, is not acceptable.
I repeat a point made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. No government should be inhibited from addressing an issue of public safety by having to take into account the precedents that would be set by the passing of the amendment. I do not believe that we are in contravention of human rights; I certainly do not underestimate the pain, grief and anguish that is caused by the passing of this Bill. But we should never set our face against having to address the balancing issue of public safety.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am grateful to your Lordships, not only those who supported the amendment, but also those who spoke against it. It has been an important and interesting debate and I have learnt a great deal. I am also grateful to the Minister for the careful way in which she replied. Perhaps I can make a number of points.
First, I am struck by the fact that neither the Minister nor the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, sought to say that there should not be a principle of fair treatment of those whose businesses will be destroyed or blighted as a direct result of legislation. If they say that there is no such principle, then I must respectfully suggest that that is contrary to the whole range of constitutional decisions

1595
across the Commonwealth in those countries with the benefit and burdens of written constitutional guarantees of human rights. The reason why Australia is compensating as it is is that Australia has a constitutional guarantee of peaceful enjoyment of one's possessions and a right to compensation. That has been part of our system since Magna Carta.
Secondly, I am satisfied that the European Court of Human Rights requires compensation to be paid not only when there is an outright taking of property under what is called the deprivation rule in Article 1 but also under the "control of use" rule or the general rule at the beginning of Article 1. The court has made it clear that in all three situations, if regulation becomes so extensive and draconian, there must normally be a right to fair compensation as part of the balance to stop anyone bearing an excessive burden.
My third point is that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and the Minister that one must not allow the need to compensate to slow the steady march of progress whether it relates to environmental benefits, medicine or other legislation. The key point is that in the rare case where regulation is as excessive as it is here Commonwealth constitution case law and European human rights case law speak with one voice; that is, that there should be fair compensation.
I do not say that anything as mean as my amendment would satisfy the convention, but I hoped that it would. I believe that the European Court has shown itself to be realistic, indicating that where one's nationals are concerned full compensation is not required in quite the same way as with regard to aliens. That precedent was established by a Conservative government in the Lithgow case in defending Labour's nationalisation. That is how I see the situation. I do not follow the distinction sought to be drawn by the Government and by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, between different kinds of property. The question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, remains unanswered. In those circumstances, I think the best thing I can do is to seek the opinion of the House.
6.59 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 27) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 121; Not-Contents, 110.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Burton, L.

Addington, L.

Calverley, L.

Addison, V.

Carlisle, E.

Alderdice, L.

Carnock, L.

Annaly, L.

Clancarty, E.

Attlee, E.

Clifford of Chudleigh,L

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Clinton, L.

Balfour, E.

Clitheroe, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Congleton, L.

Brain, L.

Comwallis, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Burnham, L.

Craig of Radley,L.

1596

Crathome, L.

Mottistone, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Cross, V.

Munster, E.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

De Saumarez, L.

Norrie, L.

Denbigh, E.

Northesk, E.

Denham, L.

Northumberland, D.

Devonport, V.

Ogmore, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Onslow, E.

Dunrossil, V.

Palmer, L.

Falkland, V.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Feversham, L.

Peel, E.

Gage,V.

Reay, L.

Gainsborough, E

Rees, L.

Gisborough, L.

Rennell, L.

Glasgow, E.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Hamwee, B.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Harlech, L.

Rodney, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Russell, E.

Harris of Greenwich, L. [Teller.]

St. John of Bletso, L.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Hertford, M.

Saltoun of Abemethy, Ly.

Holdemess, L.

Sandwich, E.

HolmPatrick, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Hooson, L.

Simon, V.

Howie of Troon, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Hylton, L.

Skidelsky, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Stockton, E.

Ilchester, E.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Inchyra, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Jeffreys, L.

Swansea, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Swinfen, L.

King of Wartnaby, L.

Temple of Stowe, E.

Teviot, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Kintore, E.

Tope, L.

Lawrence, L.

Tordoff, L.

Leigh, L.

Vinson, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L. [Teller.]

Weatherill, L.

Liverpool, E.

Whaddon, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Wharton, B.

Mallalieu, B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Marlesford, L.

Wrenbury, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Methuen, L.

Wynford, L.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Yarborough, E.

Monson, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Ailsa, M.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Aldington, L.

Dean of Thomton-le-Fylde, B.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Downshire, M.

Belstead, L.

Dubs, L.

Berkeley, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Blatch, B.

Elles, B.

Borrie, L.

Elton, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Feldman, L.

Byford, B.

Ferrers, E.

Cadman, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Goschen, V.

Chalker of Wallasey,B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Chelmsford, V.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Gray of Contin, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Courtown, E.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Cranbome, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Haskel, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Hayhoe, L.

David, B.

Hemphill, L.

1597

Henley, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Mountevans, L.

Hollis of Heigham. B.

Murton of Lindisfame, L.

Home, E.

Nicol, B.

Hughes, L.

Parkinson, L.

Inglewood, L.

Pender, L.

Jeger, B.

Peston, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Platt of WritfJe, B.

Judd, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Kitchener, E.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Knutsford, V.

Rea, L.

Lane of Horsell.L.

Renton, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Rotherwick, L.

Lindsay, E. Lockwood, B.

St. John of Fawsley, L. Seccombe, B.

Long, V.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Lucas, L.

Shepherd, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Stewartby, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Luke, L.

Sudeley, L.

Lyell, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

McConnell, L.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Tollemache, L.

Mclnlosh of Haringey, L.

Trefgame, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Trumpington, B.

Mackay of Clashfem, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Turner of Camden, B.

Wakeham, L.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Wilcox, B.

Mersey, V.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Wise, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
7.7 p.m.
Clause 15 [Parliamentary control of compensation schemes]:
[Amendment No. 28 not moved.]
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 8, line 8, at end insert ("or 16 below").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am in something of a quandary here. I was surprised when I arrived at half-past two this afternoon to find that the important amendments of the noble Earl Lord Peel, Amendments Nos. 30 and 31, had for some reason been grouped with the basically technical amendments in the grouping which starts with Amendment No. 29. It may be that the noble Earl will ask for his important amendments to be decoupled and speak to them separately. On the other hand, he may not. I cannot tell what he is going to do. So this gives me the only opportunity I may have to reply to the charge of inconsistency levelled against me by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, when speaking to the previous amendment. The noble Lord forgets that the European Court of Human Rights has nothing whatever to do with the EU. Having made that point rather belatedly, because the procedures of the House did not allow me to make it before, perhaps I may start with Amendment No. 29.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me, I of course acknowledge that, but he is against them both.
Lord Monson: My Lords, we can continue the argument at some other time.
1598
Amendment No. 29 is a technical amendment which is not likely to cause any problems. It is purely a minor and technical amendment, the purpose of which is to ensure that compensation for clubs and associations is included in the compensation scheme to be laid down by the Secretary of State under Part I of the Bill.
This is probably the right moment for me to speak to Amendment No. 79, with which Amendment No. 29 is perhaps slightly incongruously grouped. It is slightly more than technical. Amendment No. 79 seeks to clarify the valuation procedures for .22 pistols which are voluntarily surrendered under the Bill. Paragraph 11 of Schedule 1 gives the chief officer of police the power to refuse to make any .22 pistols delivered to him available for inspection,
"either by the certificate holder or by any other person".
A stubborn police chief could therefore refuse access to the surrendered pistol for the purpose of valuation. It is important to note that most of these small calibre pistols are the highly tuned competition weapons which are used in the Olympics and can be worth thousands of pounds each. The value of the gun depends on its condition, and it is vital for the purpose of fair valuation that it should be open to inspection. I beg to move.
Earl Peel: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend will answer the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and we can deal with my amendment separately.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am in a difficulty. We spent a good deal of this morning speaking to every single Member who has tabled amendments today. My understanding was that there was full agreement for the grouping of these amendments and to de-couple them literally at the point of discussing them makes it very difficult for me because I treated them as a group of amendments and that is how I prefer to deal with them.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I quite accept what my noble friend has said. Therefore, I shall speak to the substantive amendment in my name, which is Amendment No. 31, along with the consequential amendments, Nos. 30 and 77. Amendment No. 31 seeks to make payment to those individuals,
"who have responsibility for any debt, mortgage, lease or other liability in connection with",
a business which has been forced to close as a result of this Bill. It is in line with an amendment passed by the House at Committee stage in the name of my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury which related to individuals who run clubs and associations. This amendment refers to businesses. It should be made clear that this amendment specifically deals with an individual's liabilities on the closure of a business and not compensation for loss of trade, which is an amendment that we have already dealt with. Therefore, it is not an open-ended commitment, it is very specific.
As an example, the London Armoury estimates that, of 2,600 registered firearms dealers, 500 deal in handguns only. The second-hand firearm market has also collapsed since Dunblane and the announcement of this Bill—not

1599
surprisingly. The effect of the Bill on some of these businesses will be devastating, which is a point that has been made many times before.
This Bill affects ordinary people who have conducted what has been up to this point a proper, lawful and well-regulated business activity. A number of examples have been given. I have two which I have extrapolated which sum up the situation. One ammunition manufacture, Roger Curtis, built up his business supplying ammunition to shooting clubs and to the police. He took out a £30,000 bank loan and sold his home to raise a further £36,000 to start his business, which had a projected annual turnover of £75,000. He has been forced into liquidation and has lost everything. This amendment would refer specifically to the bank loan of £30,000.
Another example is that of Mr. Rainford, the joint owner of the Nottingham Shooting Centre. He built up his business to the value of £400,000. It is now worth £1,000. Mr. Rainford explained:
"We are responsible for 17 years' remaining lease, which is currently £12,000 a year, plus £7.000 in rates".
These are considerable figures.
These people and many others will be left high and dry, liable for losses for a business which no longer exists. Quite rightly, your Lordships rectified the situation as regards individuals who run clubs and associations during the Committee stage of the Bill. Therefore, I hope that the House will take the same moral high ground and do the same for individuals who have debts hanging over them and their families because their businesses have been forced to close by this Bill. I remind your Lordships that we are talking specifically here about debt, mortgage, lease or other liability and not open-ended businesses.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, my difficulty with this amendment is in trying to piece it together to fit it into the jigsaw of the other provisions of the Bill, including Amendment No. 27, as amended.
As I understand it, the amendment seeks to compensate,
"a registered firearms dealer [or persons] engaged in the manufacture of firearms or ammunition which as a result of the provisions of this Act will be unable to continue to operate".
But subsection (2) refers to a "club or association". I assume that the intention of the amendment is to provide for compensation for dealers, as in subsection (1). If that is right, it can supplement Amendment No. 27, as the noble Earl has indicated, because the firearms dealers associations are calling for that kind of compensation. What the amendment does not do is to cover loss of business for those who are not forced to close down, so it is not an alternative to the amendment which has just been passed: it supplements it.
For what it is worth, my view is that it is time for the Government to take stock of the most rational way of securing compensation across the board. It is rather like the situation which has arisen with the
1600
Police Bill and the amendments that have been included in it by your Lordships' House. One needs to find a coherent principle and to ensure on a fair principle that no one is over-compensated or under-compensated. On that basis I support the amendment, but I hope that we can sort out any inconsistencies of approach as between firearms, loss of business, closing down and the effect under this amendment and try to produce a more coherent total scheme.
Earl Peel: My Lords, perhaps I may answer the noble Lord. As I explained, this amendment is a mirror image of an amendment that your Lordships accepted at Committee stage which dealt specifically with clubs and associations. This amendment extends the provision to businesses. I do not believe that there is any problem about the direction in which the noble Lord was trying to persuade the House.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, I support this amendment. All the arguments have been gone over before. I hope that the noble Earl moves it and, if necessary, divides the House on it.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I also support this amendment. When my noble friend on the Front Bench replies, I imagine that she will say yet again that the Government do not give compensation for businesses and so on that are disadvantaged by government legislation which is brought forward in the interests of hygiene, public health or, as in this case, public safety. Could I ask my noble friend to bear in mind that this Bill does nothing for public safety? Everyone knows that it is a rotten Bill. Opinion is moving fast in the country. Indeed, we have it on the word of the chairman of the 1922 Committee that the other place very much regrets legislating in such haste, leaving the rest of us and the people who are affected by this Bill to repent at leisure.
Lord Zouche of Haryngworth: My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend Lord Peel in this amendment. I do not want to repeat what I said earlier, other than that a lot of us are merely looking for natural justice for a minority group. I support the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I deal first with Amendment No. 29 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Monson. The terms of the compensation scheme in Clause 13, which deals with prohibited handguns and ammunition, or Clause 14, which deals with prohibited handguns and ammunition, or Clause 14, which deals with ancillary equipment, are of an entirely different nature to the type of payments for losses incurred by target shooting clubs or associations which are now part of the new Clause 16. In the case of handguns, ammunition and ancillary equipment, the compensatory payments will be in respect of material objects on which a value can be put. In some cases, it may be necessary to get more than one valuation,

1601
but eventually an objective value can be reached. The objects in question can then be taken away and disposed of as appropriate.
However, in the case of Clause 16 losses, which are defined in subsection (2) as any
"debt, mortgage, lease or other liability",
the work of identifying and validating individual losses would be enormous. Each case would have to be assessed on an ad hoc basis, with all financial details and supporting documentation having to be produced by the claimant. There is also doubt about what becomes of the capital assets involved. Are these to be kept by the claimant or given over to the state? If a mortgage is redeemed, who would take possession of the property involved?
Therefore, I cannot see that it would be possible to set out such a scheme for parliamentary approval. If this clause is to remain unamended as part of the Bill, there would be greater practical advantage in allowing the Secretary of State simply to deal with each claim under Clause 16 on an individual basis.
For some of those practical reasons, I am unable to accept the amendment. There is, however, an interesting anomaly. If somebody invested their own money—say, £100,000—in the business and lost it all, that person would receive absolutely nothing, but somebody with losses due to,
"debt, mortgage, lease or other liability",
would be compensated. I am sure that that is not meant to be a consequence of the amendment.
I now turn to Amendments Nos. 30 and 31 in the name of my noble friend Lord Peel. I set out at some length in response to the previous group of amendments the reasons why the Government do not intend to pay compensation to dealers for loss of business. I recall that that amendment has been lost to this House, but I do not propose to repeat those arguments.
I am now at a loss because I do not believe that Amendments Nos. 75 to 77 and Amendment No. 79 have been spoken to in this group. I was told this morning that those amendments were grouped with Amendment No. 29. They stand in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Lester, Lord Rodgers and Lord Monson, with Amendment No. 77 standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Peel. Are those amendments meant to be grouped with Amendment No. 29 or not?
Earl Peel: My Lords, I spoke to Amendment No. 77 when I spoke to Amendment No. 29—and, in the grouping, to Amendments Nos. 30 and 31.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, Amendment No. 75 is purely consequential on Amendment No. 27.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I shall first address Amendment No. 79 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Monson. This would affect the arrangements for small-calibre pistols which are handed to the police when the Bill comes into effect because their owners
1602
cannot immediately find a licensed small-calibre pistol club which they can join and in which they can keep their gun.
Schedule 1 has the effect that such pistols are treated as having been surrendered to the police if they remain in police custody after a transitional period. They may also be surrendered to the police before that. The Secretary of State will then make payments to their owners on an ex-gratia basis.
The schedule requires that while these pistols are with the police there is no obligation on the police to make them available for inspection. The police will keep the guns in proper conditions and there is no intention to deny owners access where they need it for valuation or other purposes. But a statutory requirement that the police make guns available whenever required could cause a considerable distraction for forces.
The same difficulty would, I am afraid, apply to a right of inspection for purposes of valuation for ex-gratia payment, as the noble Lord's amendment envisages, since owners who signify that they want to surrender their guns would be eligible for a payment at any time. There is, as I say, no wish to deny inspection for these purposes. Home Office guidance to the police will make that clear.
Finally, I would like to turn to the three amendments, Amendments Nos. 75, 76 and 77 which have been tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Rodgers, Lord Lester and Lord Monson, and by my noble friend Lord Peel in similar terms. The Government have some sympathy with intentions behind these amendments, since there would be a clear understanding that all the compensation payments due to be made under the Bill—of whatever sort—would be met by money provided by Parliament. That is only as it should be.
I hope that noble Lords will understand when I say that the Government have some trouble with the precise terms in which these amendments have been cast. We shall however give further consideration to how what currently stands as Clause 45 of the Bill might best be worded, and will, if we think it right, submit a further amendment when the Bill next appears before your Lordships' House. Therefore, I hope that Amendment No. 29 will not be pressed.
Lord Monson: My Lords, first, I am sorry that the noble Baroness thought that the groupings for today had been discussed and agreed this morning with everybody who had tabled amendments. Obviously, something went wrong, as invariably and inevitably happens from time to time. Nobody sought my opinion in advance, which explains why I suggested the decoupling which would obviously have been too difficult for the noble Baroness. I quite appreciate why she was opposed to it. I should also apologise for not having said anything about Amendment No. 76. I did not speak to it because it is purely a drafting amendment and I had supposed that it would be acceptable to the House. Obviously, we shall have to wait until later to see whether that is the case.

1603
As for Amendment No. 79, the Minister's reassurance is all right as far as it goes, but it is wholly dependent on the supposition that police chiefs will always be reasonable. I hope that they will always be reasonable, but it is does not invariably happen that way. Therefore, I may have to look again at that amendment and I may return to it at a later stage.
Amendment No. 29 is clearly not a purely technical amendment, as I had imagined it to be. I shall study the Minister's reply carefully but, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Peel Earl Peel moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 8, line 8, at end insert ("or (Compensation scheme for firearms businesses) below").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I must confess that I did not quite appreciate what my noble friend the Minister said. Was she saying that she would take away my Amendment No. 31, the substantive amendment, and the consequential amendments, Amendments Nos. 30 and 77, to reconsider them with a view to tabling her own amendments? Could she clarify that point?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the leave of the House, no. I was saying that I was not accepting the amendment.
Earl Peel: My Lords, that is what I suspected. Clearly, there is no point rerunning these arguments—we have done so enough times. In view of the fact that a similar amendment relating to clubs and associations was accepted by your Lordships in Committee, I feel that it is only right and proper that your Lordships should have the opportunity of expressing a view on these three amendments. I beg to move.
7.29 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 30) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 61; Not-Contents, 85.

Division No. 4

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Feversham, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Gage, V.

Annaly, L.

Gisborough, L.

Attlee, E.

Harding of Petherton, L

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Brain, L.

Hertford, M.

Burton, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Carlisle, E.

Howie of Troon, L.

Clancarty, E.

lddesleigh, E.

Clifford of Chudleigh,L.

Inchyra, L.

Clinton, L.

Kintore, E.

Clitheroe, L.

Knutsford, V.

Congleton, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Leigh, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Liverpool, E.

Cross, V.

Marlesford, L.

Denbigh, E.

Monson, L.

1604

Mottistone, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Norrie, L.

Skidelsky, L.

Northesk, E.

Stockton, E.

Northumberland, D.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Onslow, E.

Swansea, L.

Palmer, L.

Swinfen, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L. [Teller.]

Swinton, E.

Peel, E. [Teller.]

Temple of Stowe, E.

Teviot, L.

Reay, L.

Vinson, L.

Rodney, L.

Wharton, B.

Saint Oswald, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Saltoun of Abemethy, Ly.

Yarborough, E.

Sandwich, E.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Hemphill, L.

Acton, L.

Henley, L.

Aldington, L.

Home, E.

Anelay of St.Johns,B.

Inglewood, L.

Balfour, E.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Belstead, L.

King of Wartnaby, L.

Berkeley, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Bethell, L.

Lindsay, E.

Blatch, B.

Long, V.

Bridgeman, V.

Lucas, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Luke, L.

Bumham, L.

Lyell, L.

Byford, B.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Chalker of Wallasey,B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Mackay of Clashfem, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Clinton-Davis, L.

Colwyn, L.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Courtown, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Cranbome, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Miller of Hendon, B.

Cumberlege, B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

David, B.

Mountevans, L.

Dean of Beswick,L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Nicol, B.

Denham, L.

Parkinson, L.

Demon of Wakefield, B.

Pender, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Donoughue, L.

Platt of Writtle,B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Rea, L.

Dubs, L.

Rees, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Elton, L.

Seccombe, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Selbome, E.

Ferrers, E.

Shepherd, L.

Fraser of Carmy llie, L.

Stewartby, L.

Gladwin of Clee,L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Goschen, V.

Sudeley, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Gray of Contin,L.

Tollemache, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Trefgame, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Trumpington, B.

Haskel, L.

Wise, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
[Amendment No. 31 not moved.]
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving this Motion, I suggest that the Report stage begin again not before twenty-five minutes before nine o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Recreational Aviation
7.37 p.m.
Lord Rotherwick Lord Rotherwick asked Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied with the regulatory provision and range of available facilities for recreational aviation.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I initiate this debate today partly for personal reasons. I declare that I fly my own home-built Glasair II. I am a member of a number of flying clubs and squadrons. I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Goschen for being present to answer my questions, which are in three parts. I am also deeply grateful to all noble Lords who are taking part.
First, can my noble friend tell me when the new medical rules under the Joint Aviation Requirement (JAR) will apply to private pilot licences? Does he agree that the new medical regulations will result in the medical examination being too frequent, too complex and too expensive? Flying examinations are not cheap. Their increased frequency and complexity will financially hurt the average recreational flyer. As a result, recreational flyers will pay more to know about their health and have less to keep up their standard of airmanship.
Secondly, can my noble friend tell me the up to date situation about training in group-owned aircraft and permit-to-fly (P to F) aircraft? This is a complex area. I will do my best to make the situation simple and precise.
UK law does not class recreational aviation as a separate activity, unlike some other European countries. Flying activities are governed by the Air Navigational Order (ANO) and this dictates, depending on the nature of any remuneration involved, that planes fly in the private category or aerial work category. These two categories are known as general aviation. All the rest fly in the Commercial Air Transport category, known as CAT. In the past, group members wishing to use their own aircraft and pay a qualified instructor to help improve their flying were unable to do so unless their group-owned aircraft's private category was uprated to an aerial work category, an expensive and complex process. Owners of permit-to-fly aircraft were not able to do this at all. Although the pilot of a group-owned aircraft could pay an instructor to be checked out, revalidate his licence or renew his ratings, this was not the case for pilots of permit-to-fly aircraft. I ask the Minister to confirm that the Standing Advisory Committee on Pilot Licensing is intending to endorse a long awaited and much required change in the rules, enabling professional instructors to be paid to help private pilots in group-owned aircraft flying under a private category certificate or to be paid to help pilots in their aircraft being flown under a permit to fly.
Perhaps the Minister could set out any new initiatives in the planning process that will affect general aviation, under which recreational flying is included. The national picture is one that has caused great concern to the world of general aviation. Flying sites are being lost nationally and new flying sites are very difficult to open, for a number of reasons. First, there is no national policy on aerodromes. Secondly, general aviation is being
1606
"squeezed out" of larger commercial operations, such as Manchester, Birmingham and Humberside, by Commercial Air Transport (CAT) operators, forcing general aviation to seek bases on smaller sites. Such sites are simply not available to accommodate general aviation. Thirdly, existing general aviation sites are being put under increasing pressure to reduce their operations or have been threatened with closure, often due to a vociferous minority of local residents. The result can be enforcement action against the site owner with onerous limits placed upon flying activity or closure of the sites altogether. Fourthly, long established airfields have been redeveloped, such as the West Mailing, Kent, business park and residential development and the Burnaston, Derby, industrial development. Finally, local opposition has resulted in very few new flying sites being established. This situation is alarming, especially when viewed against the background of an almost constant number of aircraft being used by a wide range of general aviation operators.
The importance in the UK of general aviation, under which recreational flying comes, can be summarised. It provides pilot training at no expense to the British taxpayer. In the early 1990s, 43 per cent. of all commercial pilots entering the profession came via the club and private flying route. A heavy demand for pilots to serve the Commercial Air Transport sector is arising again. It broadens the range of available recreational and sporting facilities, such as gliding, parachuting and microlight flying, all of which have a place in the overall sporting picture at national level. Perhaps the Minister could also confirm, as a paraglider, that his sport has no interest in airfields, since it concentrates on looking for parasites. General aviation assists, inter alia, medical services, such as air ambulances and police services and the work of statutory undertakers such as aerial mapping. It is the essential element in the overall transport infrastructure, providing quick and easy access for business operators to move goods and services within the country and Europe, allowing the UK to compete economically in an international context.
The planning system we have today in the UK is a plan-led system (Section 54A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990). This means that increased emphasis has been placed upon the development plan policy by the local government officers, elected members and the planning inspectorate. It is therefore essential that there is a clear policy guidance regarding general aviation issues. This policy should emanate from central government in order that it can be disseminated through the system and be incorporated in structure and local plans. With clear policies in place, elected members will then be able to determine applications in the appropriate context. A lack of policy inevitably leads to confusion and, more often than not, refusal of the related application. A General Aviation Awareness Council survey of general aviation related applications, recorded during the five year period 1988-1993, indicated that 63 per cent. of applications were refused, compared to the "all applications" average of 14 per cent. refusal for the same period.
The GAAC undertook a further survey of all county and regional councils throughout the UK in order to establish, inter alia, how many authorities recognised general aviation in the structure/regional plan policy. A 91 per cent. response rate was achieved and confirmed fears that general aviation issues were not being given due consideration. There was no mention of general aviation in 60 per cent. of the nation's key planning documents. Of those policies in place, many were poorly worded and would do more harm than good to the future of general aviation.
At present the only national policy guidance comes in the form of two paragraphs (5.35 and 5.36) which are lost in PPG 13 Transport, a document geared primarily towards road-based transport. It is a good start, but not enough. Without a stand alone general aviation related policy statement or document, the issue will continue to be overlooked by county or regional and district or borough councils. The reality is that existing flying sites are being lost. In the case of the British Aerospace site at Hatfield, the local authority cited the lack of a clear government policy regarding general aviation as one of its reasons for not giving encouragement for the retention of the main runway for operational use. Another example is the action of Doncaster City Council in turning its airfield into a boating lake.
In conclusion, surely, while ensuring that safety in general aviation is not compromised, there must not be an overkill of bureaucratic rules that result in the decline of recreational flying. The excitement and enjoyment of flying over the United Kingdom's countryside must not be curtailed.
Central government should take a more proactive stance as regards general aviation and ensure that general aviation facilities are available to meet the nation's needs. I ask my noble friend the Minster to consider the following: first, more general aviation facilitites are needed. They form part of the nation's transport infrastructure. Secondly, planning procedures should recognise the need to retain general aviation aerodromes in view of their value to the local community for general transport services, for training and for leisure facilitites. Thirdly, the competitive disadvantages suffered by UK flying training organisations should be eased by removing the requirement for full rescue and firefighting services to be available at all training aerodromes. This is not a requirement in other EU countries or in America. Fourthly, it is essential that there is a national air traffic service that accords consideration to all airspace users. Fifthly, there should be a minimum distance between any new building development, particularly housing, and aerodrome boundaries. Sixthly, there should be positive provisions for general aviation facilities in county structure plans and in district local plans and airfields should be recognised in the planning process as open spaces that should be preserved rather than be seen as sites ripe for development.
Next, planning authorities should be given positive guidance on the measure and assessment of noise from general aviation operations and, to promote a quieter environment, the CAA could be more sympathetic in
1608
recognising the certification that other countries use, especially in the area of noise reducing propellers and silencers.
Finally, the CAA charter could perhaps be amended to extend its responsibilities beyond its existing regulatory powers to enable it to support general aviation in a more positive way, similar to the policy statement of the US Federal Aviation Administration.
7.50 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, noble Lords will be grateful to my noble friend Lord Rotherwick for raising this important matter. I have to start by declaring an interest. I am the president of the Popular Flying Association which is the largest body within the recreational aviation sector. I am also president of the British Association of Aviation Consultants which has an interest in this matter.
As I say, the PFA is the largest body representing recreational aviators. We have some 8,500 members—a number which has been increasing steadily in recent years. We have delegated to us authority to issue permits to fly, as my noble friend correctly described them, for a number of smaller aircraft, including, I am proud to say, one built by my noble friend. I hope that it is as safe as he thinks it is and we believe it is.
The PFA of course has a major interface with the CAA. As my noble friend recognised, many of the issues that he touched upon in his speech are matters for the CAA, which I am sure my noble friend the Minister will correctly explain in a moment. The PFA has excellent relations with the CAA. Indeed, only recently I took what is now almost a routine delegation to see the new chairman of the CAA, Sir Malcolm Field. We were cordially received. More than that, we were constructively received, and had a most useful discussion with him and his senior officials.
But not all the problems confronting recreational aviation are matters for the CAA. At the top of the list, as my noble friend said, is the problem of airports and aerodromes for use by recreational aviators. There is a most serious shortage of such aerodromes. That is a matter for the Government and not for the CAA.
I recognise that an announcement made by Ministers not so long ago—I think that it was in the context of announcing the future of Farnborough—was a step in the right direction. It is too much to hope that any government would lay a duty upon local authorities to provide facilities for recreational and general aviation, but it is hoped that there could be more encouragement than there is at present. There are a number of local authorities around the country which are positively antagonistic to general aviation. A number of names spring to mind. Ipswich council, for example, just a few weeks ago closed Ipswich Aerodrome, which has been there for the benefit of general aviation and the people of Ipswich as a whole for very many years—since before the war, I believe. It decided suddenly a few weeks ago to close it. Closed it was on 31st December. It is to be hoped that the Ipswich authorities will agree to sell the aerodrome to interests which are, I know,

1609
interested in and willing to buy it and operate it as an aerodrome, although there has not been much sign of any enthusiasm for that step.
There are other aerodromes which have suffered equally from local planning difficulties. Crowfield in Suffolk was one not so long ago. I believe that has been partially although not wholly resolved. My noble friend referred to Burnaston near Derby which was closed a few years ago and is now completely lost to aviation interests.
One of the problems that has beset general aviation and the aerodromes that it needs has been the ill-informed lobbying that takes place. There is an organisation called the Airfields Environment Federation, which is nothing more than a political front. Unfortunately it received some public money. I hope and believe that that public money has now stopped. Those people were of no benefit to the local communities which they sought to serve, and they were seeking only, as far as I could judge, to further their own interests. Happily their influence is now waning, following the elimination of public money, as I now believe.
My noble friend referred to the current wholesale review of aviation regulations which is going on, I believe rightly, under the auspices of the Joint Aviation Authority, leading to what is called joint aviation regulations. My noble friend referred to the problems that are emerging from that forum with regard to the medical examinations to be required of private pilots. The fact of the matter is as I understand it, although this is not yet finalised, that increasingly frequent and demanding medical examinations will be called for for private pilots, without, we are assured—no one claims to the contrary—the slightest medical justification.
I do not know why it is that the British representative at the JAA negotiations agreed to those recommendations. I am told that when the French authorities saw what was happening they just said that they would not observe them. I hope that the CAA will be so guided. I am told that all the JAA regulations, as they are called, have to be approved by the European Commission. The Commissioner responsible for these matters is no less than Mr. Kinnock who now occupies the post that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, occupied with such distinction a few years ago. I hope and intend that we shall be able to make representations to Mr. Kinnock so that the European Commission does not approve those regulations, and that they do not then become imposed wholesale upon unwilling countries such as the UK, and that we shall be able to get our message across when we see him in due course. I should say that I have not yet told Mr. Kinnock that I want to see him. So if he is able to read this debate, I should not want him to think that I have any complaint about his attitude, because I have not yet approached him. I intend to do so in the near future.
Another matter causing some anxiety among the general aviation fraternity, and another matter for which the Government are indeed responsible, is the proposed privatisation of the National Air Traffic Service. I have
1610
no objection in principle to the privatisation of NATS or, for that matter, anything else, but we need to be assured that the interests of the general aviation community will not be trampled underfoot by that privatisation process when it comes forward in, it is hoped, the not too distant future.
Those are the principal issues that I wanted to put before noble Lords. My noble friend Lord Rotherwick raised a number of other detailed issues which I endorse. Recreational aviators are as entitled as anyone else to follow their leisure pursuits. Of course they, too, have a duty and obligation not to trample too roughly upon the community. Small aeroplanes are sometimes rather noisy, but I am glad to say that there have been many advances in recent years where the nuisance has been reduced or even eliminated. I hope that that can be reflected in a more flexible approach by the planning authorities when applications for the use of sites for those purposes go before them.
The House will be grateful to my noble friend for raising this matter. A number of issues have been mentioned. Many of them are indeed within the province of the CAA rather than my noble friend the Minister, but I, too, look forward to his reply.
7.58 p.m.
The Earl of Liverpool: My Lords, it is with great pleasure that I, too, express my gratitude to my noble friend Lord Rotherwick for giving us the opportunity to focus on matters affecting light aviation in this country. His Question refers to recreational flying, but as it may be difficult to see exactly where recreational flying ends and business aviation begins, I hope that my noble friend the Minister will forgive me if I allow my remarks to meander between the two.
I must declare an interest in that I, like my noble friend Lord Rotherwick, am a member of the Air Squadron which has a membership of 100 aviators. It will therefore come as no surprise to noble Lords to learn that I hold a private pilot's licence for fixed-wing and helicopter flying.
I have great admiration for my noble friend Lord Rotherwick because his enthusiasm for flying has led him to devote countless hours of his time to building his own aircraft. He should be very proud of his achievements. I have seen his Glassair II, and a very fine example it is. He has offered me a flight in it but so far I have not found time to take to the skies with him. However, I hope that this will soon be rectified.
My noble friends Lord Rotherwick and Lord Trefgarne have comprehensively covered issues concerning general aviation and I hope that my noble friend the Minister will forgive me if I indulge in an element of repetitiveness. General aviation performs a great service in this country. It is not, as is so often assumed, the rich playing with their toys. Many aspiring private pilots make huge sacrifices to learn to fly. Approximately 43 per cent. of all pilots entering commercial aviation were able to do so as a result of learning to fly at their local flying clubs. This training plays an important role and should be supported.

1611
Unlike America, we only permit flying training to take place at licensed airfields and too many of our airfields have recently been lost to development and have not been adequately replaced. It can be extremely difficult to redress this declining balance because local planning authorities are frequently swayed by a small minority who use noise pollution as an objection to establishing a new airfield.
It is all too often overlooked that airfields are essentially green, open spaces which live in harmony with the country landscape. If they become business parks or light industrial parks they create road traffic build-up and other pressures on the environment which may be more polluting or invasive than the transitory noise of an aircraft. An airfield can be returned to agricultural use fairly easily should the need arise, whereas that is all but impossible once development has taken place.
Business today needs good communications. Time is a valuable commodity, and light aircraft play an important part in maximising efficiency. Well-run airfields also provide local employment and promote a dynamic image to the regions they serve. But too many of our smaller airfields fail to promote such an image and their facilities are disappointing. That is because the high cost incurred in obtaining the licence for the airfield leaves little over to promote the image I am seeking. On the Continent, where an aerodrome's value to the community tends to be more readily understood, many facilities are provided by the local chamber of commerce. We could perhaps seek to emulate that in this country.
I turn briefly to the need for a helicopter landing site for London. It is true that Battersea exists, but it can take anything up to 40 minutes to get there from the City. The benefits of a heliport in close proximity to, or even in, the City of London would have an exponential effect on international business and inward investment in this country.
Returning to my earlier point about efficient use of time playing an ever-more important role in our lives today, a helicopter flight from Heathrow Airport to the City will take approximately seven minutes. If it then took another seven minutes to get to the office—making a total journey time of approximately 15 minutes—that would be a dynamic improvement on what is currently available at Battersea.
We should not overlook the fact that as the feelgood factor kicks in, the demand for landing slots at Battersea will exceed those available, thus making the need for a second heliport even greater. For those reasons I strongly supported the Thames Heliport plc application for a floating and moveable heliport on the River Thames and I was sorry that it was turned down on appeal. Will my noble friend the Minister tell the House what government thinking is on a second heliport for London?
To return to my earlier point about pilot training being permissible only at licensed airfields—a point made by both noble Lords who spoke before me—the cost associated with obtaining a licence for an
1612
aerodrome is onerous. Does my noble friend the Minister have plans to relax this rule? I look forward to his reply.
8.7 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, for initiating this interesting debate, and the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, and the noble Earl, Lord Liverpool, for their contributions.
I must declare an interest. I am the only Peer to participate in this debate who is not a pilot. I can claim to do this vicariously through my presidency of the British Airlines Pilots Association but I would not encourage anyone to put me at the controls of an aircraft on that basis. It would be different for political control.
General aviation is extremely important. This debate has ranged beyond recreational aviation, and it is just as well that it has. There are difficulties to which none of your Lordships who have spoken have alluded, and I will come to those in a moment. Unquestionably, general aviation and recreational aviation serve a very useful purpose—certainly as far as business and pilot training are concerned—and we must never lose sight of that fact.
Aviation policy should embrace these important components and I shall be interested to hear what the Minister says about that particular issue. Where does the issue fit in with the government's perspective about aviation? No doubt the Minister will also touch on the reasons for the relative decline in the number of licensed aerodromes as compared with the increase in general aviation which has taken place over the past decade or so. I accept that the impact of this on pilot training can be serious. On the other hand, other than in terms of criticising planning procedures, none of your Lordships referred to the environmental disadvantages which sometimes do accrue from general aviation and, in particular, training.
It was argued that, without undermining safety or requiring increased government funding, recreational aviation could be encouraged far more and that in turn this would enhance the number of military and civilian pilots, designers and engineers. That point was argued on behalf of general aviation to the Select Committee on Transport in the House of Commons a couple of years ago.
I am not convinced that the suggestions made in the name of deregulation are desirable. I do not wish to have any unnecessary red tape relating to this area or any other area, but the suggestions made in the course of this debate and in the submission of the General Aviation Awareness Council in December 1994 might well fit into this category. It has to prove its case; mere assertion is not sufficient. Nor am I convinced that the introduction of a further tier of licensing in the form of a restricted PPL which would allow pilots to operate in the local vicinity of their airfield would be justifiable. That was another point made by the General Aviation Awareness Council. I say that not withstanding the French experience of such restricted PPLs.
The point has been made that there ought to be less rigidity for medicals affecting the PPL. In the United States, FAA standards are designed to enable periods

1613
between medicals to be less frequent. So, notwithstanding that fact, is it right—and I ask the Minister this question, although I am not sure that he will be able to respond immediately—that no evidence in the air safety records in the US suggests that their safety record is less good than our own? Why do we not, like the FAA, use comparable cost-benefit analyses to secure a comparison? I am not committed to the view that we should do so, but I should like the Minister to tell me what the position is in that regard.
An interesting point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, concerning the powers of the JAA. The noble Lord may well know that those powers are under consideration, most particularly since the authority applied to establish quite substantial differences in its constitutional position. In relation to the issue affecting flight and duty time limitation, the JAA sought initially to assert—and the Commission has certainly taken steps to rebut that assertion—that it had the right to promulgate its regulations and expect the Commission simply to rubber-stamp them. I do not think that that is acceptable because I believe that the JAA would be arrogating to itself rights which it is not entitled to have under the treaty. I hope that the Minister will support that view.
On the question of cross-border flying requirements, as I understand it we still require general aviation aircraft, including microlight aeroplanes, to use either a Customs designated airfield or to register their movements with the police. It is legitimate to ask why such requirements are not extended to other forms of recreation; for example, motoring and yachting. What is the reason for that distinction?
In relation to the Government's proposal, which, it is to be hoped, has been abandoned or at least deferred for the foreseeable future and to which the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, referred—namely, to privatise NATS—can the Minister say whether the Royal Aero Club was consulted? Having responsibility for the oversight of sporting and recreational aviation activities in the UK, does the Minister know that it certainly should have been? Indeed, if it had been consulted, the Minister would have known of its hostility to the proposal. That seems to me to be a good example of where an organisation like the RAeC has reservations regarding a proposal which clearly could impinge on safety, on costs and on responsible freedom of movement in the air. It would be sad if the Government failed to consult the RAeC on the matter.
I turn now to the question of rescue and fire-fighting services. During the course of tonight's debate it has been suggested that such services are required on all aerodromes which are used for flying training and that that is unnecessary. It is said that it represents an unnecessary cost factor and the provision of resources in many instances, and should not, therefore, be mandatory at every aerodrome. Again, I am not convinced that such requirements should be abandoned—at least not without a most careful study. Like other Members of this House, I should like to hear from the Minister on that point.
1614
As regards the environment and planning, I believe that noble Lords who have spoken in support of general aviation should not underestimate the noise nuisance that is caused to residents who live near training aerodromes. I well remember going to Hamble in the late 1970s. Indeed, the course that is followed by such aircraft is unquestionably a disturbance. It has been argued that people should not buy houses situated close to existing aerodrome, and there is something in that view. The argument is that you do not have the right to complain if you come to the nuisance.
However, in other cases where it has not happened, it does not perform a service for general aviation to deny or deliberately underestimate what is a real problem for many people. In that connection, I gave the Minister notice of a question which I wish to raise; namely, how many private aerodromes used for general aviation are there in the United Kingdom? Further, how many of them refuse to recognise consultative committees? The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, has considerable knowledge about such committees, and, in the main, they are valuable. Nevertheless, they are seen by some rather narrow-minded aerodrome owners to represent a nuisance, in that they create an unnecessary constraint on the activities of the aerodrome. I believe that to be an unacceptable point of view, and, indeed, contrary to the interests of a functioning aerodrome.
I am sad that that point was not raised by the noble Lord who initiated the debate. Being perhaps a witness whose credibility is more acceptable, I beg of him and others to do so in the interests of ensuring that the pluses and minuses of the argument are put forward. However, having said that, we have had a useful debate and I have but one final point to make about Ipswich.
I have no personal knowledge of Ipswich, but the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, will realise that the Government have placed limitations on improvements and investments so far as concerns local authority airports. Coupled with the other restraints that are imposed on local authorities, I imagine that Ipswich airport was being run at a loss, or at least very close to the margin. Therefore, I do not wish to jump to a conclusion in that respect, which the noble Lord seemed to do. There may be very powerful reasons for the local authority taking the view that it did. However, as neither the noble Lord nor I have the facts within our grasp, I can say no more than that.
I thank the noble Lord once again. We have had a useful debate and it is right that the Government and the Opposition should take such points on board. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response.
8.16 p.m.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I should like to begin by thanking my noble friend Lord Rotherwick for initiating this evening's debate on recreational flying. Indeed, I should like to thank all noble Lords who have taken part. Certainly, a considerable amount of expertise on the subject has been displayed. For such a short debate a great many questions have been raised and I hope, therefore, that noble Lords will forgive me if I plough on and attempt to answer as many as I can.

1615
The House may wish to be aware that, as has already been said, I maintain a current private pilot's licence myself and have indeed been known to fly a paraglider.
The Government are very much aware of the valuable role which general aviation plays in the UK. I was pleased to see that this was a position that had universal support this evening. My noble friend Lord Trefgarne has already referred to the December 1994 Statement by the then Secretary of State for Transport, Dr. Mawhinney. The Statement said that,
"the Government recognise that General Aviation, and in particular business aviation, can bring economic and wider benefits to national competitiveness as well as to local and regional economies. The existence of aviation facilities can be a factor in business location, especially for international companies. The Government wish these benefits to be fully recognised in the planning system, alongside the environmental impacts".
I shall speak more about the planning system in a moment or two, but I believe that to be an important Statement.
Business and recreational aviation often exist at the same sites, but recreational aviation is of itself an important activity both in economic terms with aircraft manufacture sales, maintenance and flying training businesses, among others. Moreover, as we have heard, on many occasions it provides the first step on the ladder towards a professional flying career in the airline industry in which the UK is a world leader.
In terms of the planning and development of airports, it should be remembered that the Government are not responsible for the development of aerodromes. My noble friend Lord Liverpool raised the issue of heliports for London—of course, what applies to aerodromes applies equally to heliports. However, I would draw my noble friend's attention to the London Heliport Study which identified a number of technical issues which would need to be addressed at any future planning inquiry. It developed an effective method of measuring the effect of helicopter noise. The report did not make recommendations and it would be for a private developer to come forward with specific proposals.
My noble friend Lord Rotherwick rightly pointed to the pre-eminence of the plan-led system. Where my department can and does contribute to the process is by examining draft development plans to ensure that, where appropriate, provision is made for general aviation aerodromes. Planning Policy Guidance Note 13 on transport—with a section highlighting to planning authorities the economic benefits of general aviation and smaller airports—has already been mentioned. Other planning guidance, PPG24, also warns local authorities about inappropriate or noise sensitive development such as new housing in the vicinity of aerodromes. That again was a subject stressed this evening in your Lordships' House. However, in the field of planning, circumstances always vary from site to site and it is often not appropriate to be more prescriptive.
However, it is interesting to note that the number of licensed aerodromes has, I understand, remained close to its present total of just over 140 over the past few years. In addition, as we have heard, there are many unlicensed aerodromes as well as a number of
1616
hang-gliding, paragliding and balloon launch sites. Planning authorities need to be aware of both the benefits of general aviation and sensible ways of mitigating its impact—balancing the scales, as the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, stressed this evening. It is for that reason that I applaud the efforts made in this area by bodies such as the General Aviation Manufacturers and Traders Association, the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association and the General Aviation Awareness Council. Those bodies raise the profile of the issue and of the debate.
It is perhaps not surprising that as larger airports attract more commercial traffic it is recreational aviation that may begin to suffer. To some extent this is an inevitable by-product of the success of liberalisation of aviation services and the greater use of regional airports for scheduled services. The Government do not direct that particular types of traffic or services should use particular aerodromes. We believe this is a matter for the owners and operators. I regret it is inevitable that recreational flyers will increasingly have to look to alternative sites because of this development of services at major airports.
The Government are also very much alive to the environmental impact of general aviation, particularly in terms of noise. This was one of the central issues which the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, rightly focused upon. The results of consultation exercises have drawn attention to the propensity for annoyance to be caused by light aircraft and in particular activities with a degree of repetition such as parachuting, aerobatics and circuit training. The latter is an essential part of the training process and underlies the need which most aerodrome operators fully appreciate to ensure that pilots are aware of prescribed circuit patterns and of areas where overflight must be avoided. The consultation identified areas where the present legislative framework could be improved. We proposed to introduce a new power of designation. This would require an aerodrome designated under it to prepare a noise amelioration scheme and agree it with a specified local authority. Of more importance perhaps for the majority of aerodromes, there would be new powers to help aerodromes to enforce their own voluntarily prepared mitigation schemes.
But within this framework I firmly believe that the right way to tackle these problems—which are fundamentally local problems—is at local level, by consultation and co-operation between the fliers and the overflown, often represented in residents' associations or environmental groups. My noble friend Lord Trefgarne mentioned the Airfields Environmental Federation. It is not for me to speak for that body but I have met it and at that meeting I was pleased to hear its assurance that it takes a positive attitude towards the debate on general aviation.
The issue of consultation committees was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. Clearly these are an important means by which this interface can occur. I think the specific question concerned how many aerodromes had refused to accept such committees. I am not sure that that is the right question to ask. A number are designated under Section 35 of the Civil Aviation

1617
Act, which requires them to set up adequate facilities for consultation. I understand that 50 are designated, but I can certainly let the noble Lord have a list if he wishes. The number that are not designated are the total minus 50. Some have only recently been designated and will set up their committees in due course.
My noble friend Lord Rotherwick asked about the silencing of light aircraft. Most light aircraft can meet the international standards without modification. However, as my noble friend mentioned, some states, such as Germany, have tighter standards which often involve the fitting of external silencers or specially designed propellers. There are drawbacks to these solutions as there is some evidence that they can have adverse effects on an aircraft's airworthiness, and safety must take priority.
I was also asked about the Civil Aviation Authority's charter. The duties of that body are set out in the Civil Aviation Act 1982 and other related statutes. Within these statutes no section of aviation receives the kind of positive support that my noble friend envisages for general aviation. That is quite right. That is the right approach for a safety regulator to take; that should be absolutely constrained within the law.
The possibility of the privatisation of NATS and other airspace issues were raised. We certainly agree that airspace planning and management are important issues which must be carried out even-handedly to ensure access to our airspace on a non-discriminatory basis. To this end the Directorate of Airspace Policy has been set up as an independent unit to act as the national airspace authority to plan and to promulgate all airspace arrangements; to advise on the environmental implications; to consider and when appropriate approve proposals for change from NATS or any other user or ATC organisation. The DAP is run jointly by the CAA and the MoD under directions from the two Secretaries of State and would remain in the public sector after the privatisation of NATS. GA is appropriately represented in the airspace debate and particularly on the principal consultative body, the National Air Traffic Management Advisory Committee chaired by the director.
The deregulation of aerodromes was mentioned by a number of noble Lords. This has been the subject of detailed industry consultation by the CAA. A report regarding that consultation will be sent to all respondents by the CAA soon. Briefly, the exercise did not find clear support for the removal of rescue and firefighting services, but indicated a need for clarification and simplification of requirements at the smaller licensed aerodromes. The CAA will invite industry representatives to begin discussions on the findings during February.
As part of its review the CAA investigated arrangements in Europe. While flying training at unlicensed aerodromes is permitted, it often still takes place at licensed sites within Europe either by choice or by default. Where it takes place at unlicensed aerodromes, there is usually some kind of local firefighting provision.
JAA medical rules formed an important part of the debate this evening. I can confirm that the new JAA medical requirements will result in a small increase in the number of medical examinations a UK private pilot's licence holder will have to undergo during the course of
1618
his flying career. The frequency of medical examinations increases with age to reflect the increase in medical risk that comes with advancing age. The main increase in the number of medical examinations required under JAR-FCL comes from the lowering of the threshold between annual and six-monthly examinations from the age of 70 to 65. While a private pilot will require 36 medical examinations between the ages of 30 and 70 under JAR-FCL compared with 28 under current rules, the bulk of the increase comes after the age of 65. That is an important point to bear in mind when making a comparison. Between the ages of 20 and 65 the number of medical examinations required for a private pilot will only increase from 25 to 28, so the difference is much smaller there.
The JAA medical requirements were agreed only after careful consideration by the medical experts of member states. In relation to electrocardiographs, urinalysis and pulmonary function the CAA believes that there could be scope for a relaxation of the requirements for private pilots. It is in the process of compiling further evidence on this issue and hopes to present it to the JAA next year. That may be beyond the scope of this debate.
The issue of training in group owned aircraft was another significant issue which was raised. It is somewhat involved. There are a few minutes in hand. Perhaps the House will permit me to give a reasonably detailed answer to my noble friend.
It is a requirement of the Air Navigation Order that aircraft flown for valuable consideration should have a certificate of airworthiness in the aerial work or transport category. However, provisions were introduced in the late 1980s to allow group ownership of private category C of A aircraft and of aircraft with a permit to fly. Under those provisions, group owners of an aircraft are allowed to contribute to the annual costs of any flying carried out provided that these financial contributions are the only form of valuable consideration in respect of the flight. Flying training can be undertaken in any class of group owned aircraft provided that the instructor does not receive payment. If instruction is given, the instruction may generally take place only in aerial work or transport category certificated aircraft. Owners have the option of upgrading a private category C of A to a higher class if they so wish.
The situation for individually owned aircraft is different. A general exemption exists to permit the sole owners of aircraft with a private category C of A to pay an examiner for a flying test. In addition, the CAA concluded an agreement with the PFA in May 1996 on the introduction of a pilotage coaching scheme. The scheme's objective is to improve safety standards among PFA members operating light fixed wing aircraft by allowing remunerated coaching to take place. It is restricted to aircraft that are in the sole ownership of the pilot receiving the coaching and cannot be conducted in aircraft that are group owned. That applies to aircraft operating with a permit to fly and is a concession to allow pilots to obtain experience of such aircraft while under professional supervision.
The CAA recognises that new members of a group owning permit to fly or private category aircraft may need to undertake some conversion training for that aircraft.

1619
This may be carried out by another member of the group or a qualified flying instructor although this activity is not flying instruction as defined in the relevant legislation. However, recognising the desirability of this process on safety grounds, the authority is actively seeking a means of permitting this to be carried out in all group owned aircraft including those with a permit to fly. I have to stress that any change in the requirements would not cover training for the grant or renewal of a licence or rating.
The Government recognise the value of recreational aviation and the need for suitable facilities. We also consider that environmental consequences are best resolved at local level. Although the CAA is responsible for the regulation of general aviation, it does so in co-operation with the sport's governing bodies. This keeps the regulatory burden to the minimum while at the same time ensuring that an acceptable level of safety is maintained.
The CAA is in the process of instituting a forum in which representative organisations can discuss matters of interest to the GA community. This group, which will be known as the GA Consultative Committee, will assist the CAA in the development of technical and operational policy with the aim of both improving safety standards and encouraging the development of general aviation.
This will help to build on the existing system whereby a number of leisure flying activities are now regulated jointly by the CAA and the relevant governing body. For example, the Popular Flying Association, of which the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, is president, has a high level of responsibility for standards of amateur built aircraft and gives recommendations to the CAA on the issue and renewal of permits to fly for such aircraft. The British Gliding Association has overseen conventional gliding activity for over 60 years through its own organisations and member clubs and its model is now being followed by the British Hang Gliding and Paragliding Association. The British Microlight Aircraft Association, the British Parachute Association and the British Balloon and Airship Club all also exercise a degree of regulation over their sport.
We value the important work of these bodies and their contribution in co-operation with the CAA to the attainment of the higher standards of safety in aviation.
I thank my noble friend for raising this important issue of general aviation this evening.

Firearms (Amendment) Bill
8.35 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
[Amendment No. 32 not moved.]
Clause 22 [Duration of licence and renewal]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 10, line 23, at end insert—
("(2A) An order under subsection (2) above reducing the period for which a licence may be granted or renewed shall only apply to licences granted or renewed after the date on which the order comes into force.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 33 tabled in my name specifically deals with the recommendation made in the Tenth Report of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation (1996-97 Session, HL Paper 26). It concerns the power of the Secretary of State in Clause 22(2) of the Bill to alter by order the length of pistol club licences from the six years decreed in subsection (1). Where this period is shortened, then, in accordance with the Select Committee's recommendation, those licences already in force should not be affected. Only new or renewed licences issued after the order comes into force would be affected. That is the purpose of the amendment and I commend it to the House. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 24 [Revocation of licence]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 11, line 6, at end insert—
("(ab) require the person or persons notified to surrender forthwith into the custody of the chief officer of police for the area in which the premises are situated any small-calibre pistols stored on the club premises;").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 34, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 35 and 36. The amendments address a gap in the Bill as to the arrangements for small calibre pistols which are kept at licensed pistol clubs.
Clause 9 of the Bill requires that any firearm certificate for a small calibre pistol shall, if the pistol is for target shooting, require that it be kept at a licensed pistol club specified in the certificate. An owner who breaches this condition of his firearm certificate commits an offence.
The pistol club licence will be granted by the Secretary of State and Clause 24 of the Bill will allow the Secretary of State to revoke the licence if he thinks fit. The question therefore arises of what should happen to the pistols if a club licence is revoked.
The amendments will allow the police to serve a notice on the responsible officer of the revoked club requiring him to deliver up any small calibre pistols held on the club premises.
The Government anticipate that in most such cases, unusual though we expect them to be, the police would visit the club to take the pistols away. The notice gives them the authority to do that. Alternatively, there is provision in Clause 10(3)(e) of the Bill for the chief officer to grant a permit allowing the responsible officer to arrange carriage of the pistols to the police by a third party.
The other question is what should happen when an owner, lawfully and properly, has been keeping his small calibre pistol at a club whose licence, for reasons which have nothing to do with him, is revoked. The amendments mean that the police would write to all the people who have firearm certificates or permits for small calibre pistols which are kept at the club requiring them to deliver up the certificate or permit within 21 days for amendment.
The documents will need to be amended to delete the club which has been revoked and to show that the pistol is to be kept at the member's new club if he has found one or by the police if he has not. The amendments also mean

1621
that the owner will not commit an offence by virtue of keeping his gun with the police under these circumstances. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 35 and 36:
Page 11, line 9, at end insert—
("(2A) Where the licence of a licensed pistol club is revoked by the Secretary of State under subsection (2) above, notice shall be given to each member of the club holding a firearm certificate or visitor's firearm permit—

(a) informing the member that the licence has been revoked; and

(b) if the chief officer thinks fit. requiring the member to deliver up his firearm certificate or, as the case may be, his visitor's firearm permit within 21 days of the date of the notice, for the purpose of amending it.

(2B) A notice under subsection (2A) above to a member of a pistol club whose licence has been revoked shall be given by the chief officer of police who granted the certificate or permit to that member.
(2C) The holder of a firearm certificate or a visitor's firearm permit granted in respect of a small-calibre pistol which is required by the certificate or permit to be kept at the licensed premises of a licensed pistol club shall not be guilty of any offence under this Act or the 1968 Act by reason only that the pistol continues to be kept at those premises after the licence has been revoked and before the pistol is surrendered in accordance with subsection (2)(ab) above.").
Page 11, line 10, after ("(2)") insert ("or (2A)").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 25 [Exemptions from section 1 of the 1968 Act for officers etc. of licensed pistol clubs]:
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 11, line 22, at end insert—
("(3) A member of a licensed pistol club approved by the Secretary of State may, without holding a firearm certificate, use under the supervision of an officer of the club, for a period not exceeding 90 consecutive days, a small-calibre pistol and ammunition when engaged as a member of the club in, or in connection with, target shooting.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment returns to the important issue of newcomers who are interested in taking up pistol shooting. As drafted the Bill requires an individual to obtain a firearm certificate before that person has had an opportunity to try out the sport in a licensed club. That reverses the precedent in operation for rifle clubs since 1920 and will discourage many people from taking an interest in pistol shooting. The amendment enables a newcomer to be introduced to the .22 pistol before he or she finally decides to take up the sport and apply for a firearm certificate.
When I moved a similar, but much less tightly drafted, amendment in Committee, the Minister, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, said that the Government could not accept it, as it would,
"allow a person to join a club and shoot with pistols indefinitely without ever being vetted".—[Official Report, 21/1/97; col. 603.]
The Minister had a perfectly valid point.
This revised amendment closes that loophole, as it restricts an individual to shooting at a club without a certificate for a period of approximately three months (90 days). An individual will not be able to shoot "indefinitely" as, after that three months' period, he or she would be required to apply for a certificate if he or she wished to continue.
The other objection to the amendment has been the perceived threat to public safety. In Committee, the Minister said at col. 603 that,
"we do not believe that this is an area where public safety should be compromised".
Yet a newcomer to a club who wishes to try out a pistol will be constantly supervised on the range by a club official. My amendment specifically provides that that should be so. It will not allow a newcomer to possess a pistol outside the club under any circumstances.
Throughout the debates on the Bill the Government have given a firm commitment to .22 pistol shooting. Indeed, in Committee the Minister said:
"The shooting of .22 pistols has had an honourable place in Olympic competition since 1896. Tens of thousands of law-abiding citizens of this country"—
a point so well made by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart—
"enjoy this activity perfectly legitimately".—[Official Report, 16/1/97; col. 307.]
If the Government can make this small but important concession, it would go a long way to encourage people to carry on that honourable tradition. I beg to move.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Mackay of Drumadoon): My Lords, I make it clear at the outset that since this issue was debated in Committee the Government have given further consideration to the matter in the light of what was said on that occasion. We have a certain degree of sympathy with what lies behind the amendment. However, we remain of the view that, notwithstanding the narrowing of the amendment, there are some difficulties with it.
Our concern remains that there may be an argument that it might permit an unsuitable and potentially dangerous individual to join a club without having been vetted for a firearm certificate by the police, and to do so in order to gain access to lethal club weapons, perhaps with a view to endeavouring to remove them from the premises.
On the other hand, as I have hinted, we see the force of the view that it is important to allow new shooters to enter the sport and that the Bill as it presently stands may make it somewhat difficult for them to do so. They would, at present at least, be restricted to the low-power air or carbon dioxide powered guns, as discussed on previous occasions.
It also appears that it may be possible to strengthen the procedures for the granting of firearm certificates by introducing some period of use of a gun before a firearm certificate is finally granted. For those reasons we have reached the view that it may be possible to accept an amendment along the general lines suggested by the noble Lord but only if certain changes are made to it. In particular, we would wish to pay attention and give consideration to the role of the police in supervising and being involved in the probationary use for a period of three months or whatever period is specified.

1623
Accordingly, on the understanding that we will give very careful consideration to whether it is possible to bring forward a Government amendment to meet that concern, I hope that it may be possible for the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment. I hope that he will recognise that we are allied to the concern that lies behind it. However, we are not satisfied that the amendment is the correct way forward.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his partial sympathy for the amendment. I appreciate that the Government wish to tidy it up. There is not a great deal of time between now and Third Reading. I understood the noble and learned Lord to say that the Government were considering bringing forward an amendment. I wonder whether he can indicate that there is a very good chance—as opposed to a slight chance—of the Government coming forward with an amendment of their own. It would be very useful to know that at this stage.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, I have been in the business of law long enough to know that the assessment of percentages of risks is a fairly hazardous exercise. I can give an unequivocal assurance to the noble Lord that the Government will consider very carefully whether a suitable amendment can be framed. We recognise without qualification the concern that lies behind the amendment. Beyond that it would not be prudent for me to go. However, I give the noble Lord the assurance that, notwithstanding the shortage of time before Third Reading, the matter will be looked at anxiously. I can indicate that that process is already well under way.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I can understand why the Minister has to hedge his bets. However, with the assurance that the matter will be "looked at anxiously", which is a good sign, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 28 [Power of entry and inspection]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 12, line 43, at end insert—
("(1A) The power of a constable or civilian officer under subsection (1) above to inspect anything on licensed premises includes power to require any information which is kept by means of a computer and is accessible from the premises to be made available for inspection in a visible and legible form.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 64 to 66, 72, and 82 to 84. My noble friend Lord Shrewsbury raised the question of dealers being able to keep registers in a computer form during Committee stage. I undertook then to consider the issue further. These amendments would now bring into effect one of the recommendations made by the Firearms Consultative Committee in its second annual report (1990-91) and endorsed in its sixth annual
1624
report (1994-95). Amendments Nos. 82, 83 and 84 will enable firearms dealers to keep their compulsory register of transactions on computer if they wish. Consequential amendments will be needed to the Firearms Rules which lay down what information should be entered into a register and how it should be laid out. We shall consider what corresponding changes will be necessary to this secondary legislation as soon as possible.
The other amendments in my name, Amendments Nos. 38, 64, 65, 66 and 72, allow a police constable or civilian officer to require that the records held on computer be provided in a legible form so that a printed version may be taken away. This makes clear that the power in Section 4 of the 1968 Act, as amended by Clause 39, enables a constable or civilian officer to search with warrant the computer records as well as those kept in more traditional forms. They also clarify that anything may be seized by the police if they believe it is connected with the offence. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 30 [General prohibition of expanding ammunition etc.]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 39:
Transpose Clause 30 to before Clause 8.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 4. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 31 [Expanding ammunition etc.: supplementary]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 13, line 20, leave out subsections (2) and (3).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 40, 41 and 42 extend the scope of the present exemptions listed in Clause 31. In addition to the purposes already listed, expanding ammunition needs to be used in the other limited circumstances set out in this amendment: the killing of animals which pose a threat to human safety, such as an escaped bull or circus animal, and other animals such as hares or foxes which are not specifically killed in connection with the management of an estate, which is already covered by Clause 26(4)(b). In all these cases the chief officer of police will have to be satisfied about a certificate holder's intended use of expanding ammunition and the necessary conditions will be set out on the certificate. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 41 and 42:
Page 13, line 29, leave out from beginning to end of line 11 on page 14 and insert—
("(a) after the word "acquire" in the second place it appears, there shall be inserted the words ", or to sell or transfer"; and
(b) for paragraphs (a) and (b) there shall be substituted the following paragraphs—
"(a) he is authorised by a firearm certificate or visitor's firearm permit to possess, or purchase or acquire, any expanding ammunition; and

1625
(b) the certificate or permit is subject to a condition restricting the use of any expanding ammunition in connection with any one or more of the following, namely—

(i) the lawful shooting of deer;

(ii) the shooting of vermin or, in the course of carrying on activities in connection with the management of any estate, other wildlife;

(iii) the humane killing of animals;

(iv) the shooting of animals for the protection of other animals or humans.").

Page 14, line 11, at end insert—
("(7) For subsection (7) there shall be substituted the following subsection—
"(7) The authority of the Secretary of State shall not be required by virtue of subsection (1A) of section 5 of this Act for a person carrying on the business of a firearms dealer, or any servant of his, to have in his possession, or to purchase, acquire, sell or transfer, any expanding ammunition or the missile for any such ammunition in the ordinary course of that business.".").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 43:
Transpose Clause 31 to before Clause 8.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I have spoken to Amendment No. 43 together with Amendment No. 4. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 32 [Transfers of firearms to be in person]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 14, line 13, leave out ("the United Kingdom") and insert ("Great Britain").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 44 I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 49 and 51 to 57.
The purpose of these linked amendments is to deal with the transfer of firearms outside the country. Under Clauses 33 to 35 certificate holders will be required to notify the chief officer of police when they transfer—that is, sell, let or hire, lend or give—or dispose of their firearm or shotgun or dispose of ammunition. The position of those certificate holders who transfer or dispose of their firearms, shotguns or ammunition outside the country is unclear. These amendments bring the position of such transferrals and disposals into the ambit of the Bill's provisions and will require the certificate holder to notify the chief officer in all cases, whether in Great Britain or elsewhere. There are a number of consequential minor amendments.
I ask the House to accept these amendments, which will clarify the position of overseas transactions involving British firearm certificate holders. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cottesloe Lord Cottesloe moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 14, line 14, leave out ("or ammunition").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 45, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 46, 47 and 48. First, I wish to make an apology and a belated declaration of interest which I omitted to make on an earlier occasion: I am President of the Bucks
1626
County Rifle Association, a life member of the National Rifle Association and a holder of both a firearm certificate and a shotgun licence.
I refer to Clause 32 and the four consecutive amendments tabled in my name. I believe that when the Home Secretary mentioned in another place on 16th October that the Bill would provide for restrictions on the movement of firearms by mail order no reference was made to ammunition. Ammunition is in fact one of the prohibited items which cannot be sent through the Royal Mail postal system. Existing legislation exempts common carriers from the requirement to hold a firearm certificate in order to carry ammunition. Much of the .22 rimfire ammunition used in the United Kingdom is distributed to rifle clubs across the country by parcel carriers.
As I understand it, Clause 32 requires that the transfer not only of firearms but also of ammunition to a certificate holder must be in person.
Distribution of ammunition by carriers is a proven form of recorded delivery. A prohibition on the customary method of distributing .22 rimfire ammunition will cause problems for many civilian rifle clubs which have ranges remote from registered dealers. These clubs have an historic and honourable role in supporting the defence of the realm. They provide facilities for cadets and military and police usage. A likely consequence of the restriction on delivery by carrier will be that these clubs will have to buy in and hold larger stocks of ammunition if journeys of some distance to collect it are made necessary by including the reference to ammunition in Clause 32. In itself, that may be less desirable for reasons of security and public safety than the controlled movement of ammunition by carriers who face financial penalty if they do not deliver properly the goods entrusted to them.
I have been in correspondence and conversation with the noble Baroness. I ask her to look again at the deletion of any reference to ammunition in this clause as it seems to me that its inclusion in this restriction could well have the opposite effect to that intended and do more harm than good. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I will address the four amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe.
The proposals currently in Clause 32 would require a person transferring a firearm or ammunition to another person who is not a registered firearm dealer or otherwise entitled to receive a firearm or ammunition without being a firearm certificate holder to do so in person rather than through the post or otherwise indirectly. These arrangements would ensure that only legitimate certificate holders, by virtue of an appropriate condition on their certificate, would be able to get hold of such materials.
The amendments tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe, would remove ammunition from that requirement. This would give rise to concern that some people, without appropriate credentials, would be able to deceive others into providing them with ammunition. The potential danger is that it would be

1627
possible for large stocks of ammunition to be acquired in this way. We believe that that cannot be right. Ammunition in the wrong hands poses a serious threat to the public and I therefore hope that the amendments will not be pressed.
I say two things in addition. I thank the noble Lord for discussing this with me personally. I promise him that we shall continue to look at this issue and to read the particular concerns of the noble Lord—of course without prejudice to the outcome.
Lord Cottesloe: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that reply, in the light of which I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 46 to 48 not moved.]
Clause 33 [Notification to chief officer of police of transfers involving firearms]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 14, line 31, leave out ("the United Kingdom") and insert ("Great Britain").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 44. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 14, line 32, after ("1") insert ("of the 1968 Act").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 4. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 34 [Notification of de-activation, destruction or loss of firearms or ammunition]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 51 to 55:
Page 15, line 3, after ("Where") insert (", in Great Britain,").
Page 15, line 4, leave out ("holder of the certificate") and insert ("certificate holder who was last in possession of the firearm before that event").
Page 15, line 7, after ("Where") insert (", in Great Britain,").
Page 15, line 9, leave out ("holder of the certificate") and insert ("certificate holder who was last in possession of the ammunition before that event").
Page 15, line 19, after ("section") insert ("and section {Notification of events taking place outside Great Britain involving firearms etc.) below").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 51 to 55 were spoken to with Amendment No. 44. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 56:
After Clause 34, insert the following new clause—
NOTIFICATION OF EVENTS TAKING PLACE OUTSIDE GREAT BRITAIN INVOLVING FIREARMS ETC
("—(1) Where, outside Great Britain, any firearm or shot gun is sold or otherwise disposed of by a transferor whose acquisition or purchase of the firearm or shot gun was authorised by a firearm certificate or shot gun certificate, the transferor shall within 14 days of the disposal give notice of it to the chief officer of police who granted his certificate.
1628
(2) A failure to give a notice required by subsection (1) above shall be an offence.
(3) Where outside Great Britain—

(a) a firearm to which a firearm or shot gun certificate relates is de-activated, destroyed or lost (whether by theft or otherwise); or

(b) any ammunition to which section 1 of the 1968 Act applies, and a firearm certificate relates, is lost (whether by theft or otherwise),

the certificate holder who was last in possession of the firearm or ammunition before that event shall within 14 days of the event give notice of it to the chief officer of police who issued the certificate.
(4) A failure without reasonable excuse to give a notice required by subsection (3) above shall be an offence.
(5) A notice required by this section shall—

(a) contain a description of the firearm or ammunition in question (including any identification number); and

(b) state the nature of the event and, in the case of a disposal, the name and address of the other party.

(6) A notice required by this section shall be sent within fourteen days of the disposal or other event—

(a) if it is sent from a place in the United Kingdom, by registered post or by the recorded delivery service; and

(b) in any other case, in such manner as most closely corresponds to the use of registered post or the recorded delivery service.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 44. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 35 [Penalty for offences under sections 32, 33 and 34]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 57:
Page 15, line 23, leave out ("33 or 34") and insert ("33, 34 or (Notification of events taking place outside Great Britain involving firearms etc.)").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 44. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 36 [Applications for certificates and referees]:
Lord Burton Lord Burton moved Amendment No. 58:
Before Clause 36, insert the following new clause—
ADMINISTRATION OF FIREARMS LICENSING IN SCOTLAND: ANNUAL REPORT
(" Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary for Scotland shall make an annual report to the Secretary of State on the administration of firearms licensing in Scotland, copies of which shall be laid before Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 58, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 59. The proposals which I put before your Lordships today should be a vital part of any firearms legislation. There seems to me to be an important omission from the Bill. No doubt I shall be told that we do not normally interfere with police administration, but I hope to explain to you why it is vital that something along the lines of these amendments should be included in this Bill.
Your Lordships will remember that on Second Reading it was made clear that neither Hungerford nor Dunblane would have occurred if the police had had proper procedures in place and they had been fully implemented. One would have expected action to be taken in this regard following Hungerford. However, if

1629
one looks at the 1993 report of the Inspectorate of Constabulary for England and Wales on the administration of the firearms licensing system, which was examined by Lord Cullen, it will be seen that there was scarcely one constabulary in England and Wales with proper procedures.
That report was a production supplied to Lord Cullen and listed in Appendix 5. It was taken into consideration by Lord Cullen. The draft as at February 1996 of the thematic report for Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary for Scotland on the subject of the administration of the firearms licensing system in 1995 was referred to in evidence. Lord Cullen was also provided with a later draft of April 1996. He states,
"1 was informed that the decision whether or not the report should eventually be published, would be taken when I had completed my deliberations".
We were told in Committee that the decision was that of Lord Cullen. However, when one reads it, one finds that the decision was not entirely his.
Following the Dunblane disaster, the three clubs with which Hamilton was involved had all their documents seized by the police for the Cullen Inquiry and for the fatal accident inquiry which followed. One can imagine the difficulty that the secretaries faced in administering the clubs without those papers. Indeed, if this Bill had been enacted, the three secretaries concerned could have been liable for either a six-month gaol term or a substantial fine. The clubs could have been closed down.
In spite of pressure from a Scottish lawyer and inquiries from my noble friend Lady Blatch, it was only on the first afternoon of our Committee stage that the Clyde Valley club eventually managed to get its papers returned. The other two clubs have still not received their papers. The Clyde Valley papers confirm that Hamilton was not a member of that club when he applied for his full-bore certificate. That does not appear to have been checked by the police. What remains in the papers belonging to the other two clubs, we do not know. The police seem unwilling to return the papers to the clubs, even though we have been told that the Procurator Fiscal instructed the police to do so.
On Second Reading we were told that there was no cover-up. That is probably correct in regard to the Home Office. But beyond the jurisdiction of my noble friend Lady Blatch there seems undoubtedly to have been a cover-up in Scotland. If not, why were the club's documents returned so long after they were required for the fatal accident inquiry? Why can we not see the two draft thematic reports, which, even if they are now out of date, would certainly have been relevant to the disaster?
My noble friend will no doubt say that there has been no cover up. But if the police have made a successful cover up, how are my noble friends on the Front Bench to know? That is probably what has happened. Your Lordships will therefore see why I feel it necessary to write into the Bill that the police must provide reports on the firearms jurisdiction from time to time which will be available for public scrutiny to ensure that proper procedures are being operated in all constabularies and, indeed, that the firearms legislation is being operated in a proper and realistic manner.
I do not know and have never met ex-deputy Chief Constable Douglas McMurdo, who resigned. I am told by people who knew him that he was a kindly man; he is now a man broken in spirit. I was told that he feels severe hurt that he has been made a scapegoat for matters for which others may well have been responsible. I feel it is vital therefore that there is proper control if we are to avoid another disaster. I beg to move.
9 p.m.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, there needs to be better provision for co-operation between individual chief constables in different parts of the country. The chief constables appear to have been heads of their little departments and not interested in what goes on outside. In principle, Amendment No. 58 deserves support to make for greater co-operation, even to the extent of the cross-borders between England and Wales. Better co-operation in covering firearms legislation and anything to do with firearms might be a great improvement.
The Earl of Stockton: My Lords, while I disagree with my noble kinsman Lord Burton on the question of the cover-up, he put his finger on one specific point.
The degree of co-operation on the issue of firearms certificates between different police authorities varies enormously. I know of two cases where a certificate was refused with good grounds by one police authority. The individual moved to another area and was issued with the shotgun certificate for which he had previously applied.
Whether through this mechanism of the chief inspectorate or through another mechanism, we need a proper national register of all certificates that are issued. We need also to ensure that individuals are treated fairly and equitably by all chief constables and authorities.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, these amendments would require Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary for Scotland, and the Inspectorate for England and Wales to prepare annual reports. At present, in both Scotland and England, the inspectorate conducts a detailed inspection of each police force every three to four years—in Scotland the frequency is every three years and in England and Wales somewhere between three and four years.
All such inspections include the firearms licensing systems operated by individual forces. The report and recommendations arising from that inspection are published. One year later a performance review is undertaken to check on the individual force's progress in implementing the agreed recommendation. That too is published. In addition, the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Home Secretary in England, can require the Chief Inspector of Constabulary to undertake specific thematic inspections, looking at subjects or themes in a sample of forces across the country rather than in one force in isolation.
Indeed, the Inspectorate of Constabulary for Scotland was in the course of producing such a thematic report about the administration of the firearms licensing system

1631
in Scotland when the tragic events at Dunblane occurred. In the light of what happened at Dunblane, that report was never completed. However, as I myself made clear to the House on a previous occasion, a draft version of that report was made available by the Crown to Lord Cullen to help him in the conduct of his inquiry. As I also made clear, that incomplete draft was overtaken by the holding of the inquiry, by the publication of Lord Cullen's report and the publication of the Government's response to that report, and by the measures introduced in the Bill which is currently before your Lordships' House.
All noble Lords present will be aware that Lord Cullen's report examined in considerable detail Thomas Hamilton's possession of firearms and the system of certification which operated in the central Scotland police area at the relevant time. That is set out in Chapter 6 of Lord Cullen's report, and I would invite noble Lords to study it further to refresh their memories of what it said.
The Government fully accept the importance of co-operation between chief constables in charge of different police forces. That happens regularly. In England there is an Association of Chief Police Officers and in Scotland there is an Association of Chief Police Officers. They meet together, they have committees which address issues of mutual interest and the two associations themselves meet from time to time. So that co-operation already exists. The point raised by my noble friend Lord Stockton is a valid one. It is important to have co-operation between police forces. That, I believe, goes on. I should have thought that all sides of the House would accept that, in the light of the Dunblane tragedy, police forces will ensure that it continues to carry on in as acceptable and full a manner as possible.
It is therefore against that background that the Government see no case for accepting the proposals set out in the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Burton that there should be an annual report each year for each force. That would involve a great deal of time and effort on the part of the inspectorate and those police officers seconded to it. It would also involve a great deal of time and effort on the part of the police officers involved in the individual forces. There is always a limit on the value to be gained from repeated inspections. People require to be allowed to get on with their work in the knowledge that inspections happen from time to time. They occur approximately every three years. In addition, there is an availability of thematic inspections as well. Therefore, I hope that all sides of the House will be satisfied that the amendments are not required.
Having said that, it is unfortunately necessary for me to refute once again the very serious allegations made by my noble friend Lord Burton. As I recall, when he made such allegations before, my noble friend Lady Blatch indicated in unequivocal terms that if they were to be insisted upon they ought to specify in what respects there had been a cover-up. Such an allegation is one which inevitably is directed at myself as the Lord Advocate who was responsible for instructing the
1632
inquiry which was necessary following upon the mass murder which Thomas Hamilton committed. That inquiry was carried out by the Procurator Fiscal at Stirling under the direct and daily supervision of one of the most experienced prosecutors in recent years in Scotland, the then Iain Bonomy, now Lord Bonomy.
I was kept in regular contact with what was going on. More importantly, that investigation took place in close consultation with Lord Cullen. Every document that was thought to be of any relevance was placed before Lord Cullen and it was discussed with him whether it was in the public interest that it should be made public. That applies to the partially completed report by Her Majesty's Inspector for Constabulary in Scotland.
Complaints are advanced on behalf of certain clubs that documents were seized from them. I say with the greatest respect to my noble friend Lord Burton that I would have thought that any gun club that had any actual or suspected connection with Thomas Hamilton would have voluntarily handed over its entire records without question or complaint. It may be unfortunate that they were kept longer than a particular club would have wished, but it is important to bear in mind that the police were not merely preparing for an inquiry; they were investigating a hideous mass murder. I seriously invite the noble Lord to put up or shut up unless he is prepared to come forward with detailed allegations and evidence to support these unfortunate allegations which he has made on more than one occasion.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Burton: My Lords, the reports to which my noble and learned friend has just referred have not been made available or acted on. The widespread differences in the administration of matters concerning firearms among the different police forces is well known. As I said, as regards Hungerford and until 1993, in England and Wales most forces had no proper procedures.
I do not know how much more evidence my noble and learned friend wants. We have now asked for four documents and we have not been given a particular reason why they have not been provided. We have not been allowed to see these documents. Similar documents for England were produced, but they have not been produced for Scotland: in fact, they have been refused.
As regards my noble and learned friend's remarks about clubs handing over papers, they were delighted to do so. However, they were seized and the clubs were not asked whether they wished to hand them over. The clubs would have liked to have had copies so that they could continue their administration, but they were not allowed to have them. It may be that that is as a result of the legal situation. I do not know. The clubs had no records for nearly a year. This Bill insists that the clubs administer themselves properly. If that is the case, and after this Bill has gone through, the club secretaries could be in serious trouble and quite rightly so. But they had no option because they have not been allowed to have their papers back.
Two of the clubs have still not had their papers returned. It is months since the inquiry took place. Why have their documents been withheld? The clubs had to

1633
employ a lawyer before the police returned the Clyde Valley papers. They showed that Hamilton was not a member of that club at the time he applied for his firearm certificate. I do not want to pursue this matter at the moment, but I hope that I have made the point. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 59 not moved.]
Clause 36 [Applications for certificates and referees]:
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh Lord Clifford of Chudleigh moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 16, line 5. at end insert—
("(2A) For the purposes of this section referees shall be persons who—

(a) have known the applicant for a minimum of three years;

(b) are qualified members of a recognised profession;

(c) are not Members of Parliament or candidates seeking election or re-election to parish, district, regional, national or European office; and

(d) have not been convicted of any criminal offence.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I ask noble Lords to rectify one small error. At the end of line 2 after the word "persons" should be added the words "of repute". Clause 36 in Part III of the Bill rightly recognises the importance of the chief officer of police as the primary referee for a firearm certificate. That is the only position recognised by the current drafting of this part of the Firearms (Amendment) Bill.
In legislation so important to the safety of society one should regularise the referees who may sign the applicants' photographs and countersign their certificates. It is important in this House, and at this stage, that we make sure that those who countersign the applications are people who are not in a position where any amount of pressure can be applied to them. Members of another place, and those who aspire to become Members of that place, should be excluded from signing. They should not be placed in such an invidious position—in a position that is breathlessly close to the category investigated by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan.
Perhaps I may give a resume of what happened in 1996. I refer to the Fifth Report of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, on the possession of handguns. Mr. Walter Sweeney, a Member of another place, said:
"I think professional people who are asked to sign as signatories are often placed on the spot and feel embarrassed, particularly as you may have acted for someone for some time as a lawyer and then someone more or less demands as of right that you sign their certificate".
Your Lordships may be interested to learn that in the same report Chief Superintendent Mackenzie expressed concern that that was the case, and another Member of Parliament, Mr. Peter Butler, returned to the subject and elicited Sir Jerry Wiggin's comment:
1634
"we do all sign these things from time to time and I think it is very difficult"—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Order! The noble Lord is quoting from the Hansard of another place. It is against our custom to do that.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: My Lords, I apologise. I was ignorant of that fact. I shall not quote any more, but I repeat that such pressures should not be applied to people who hold such a position. I beg to move.
The Earl of Stockton: My Lords, although I am not entirely convinced that the noble Lord, Lord Clifford, has worded his amendment altogether appropriately, and I remind him that manuscript amendments have to be notified to the Clerks before they are included on the Marshalled List and I am not sure whether that happened on this occasion—
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: My Lords, I did that.
The Earl of Stockton: My Lords, I beg the noble Lord's pardon.
The noble Lord makes a serious point. On none of the last four occasions prior to the terrible events at Dunblane when I was asked to be a referee for someone applying for a shotgun certificate did the police check the details with me. On one occasion I was asked to be a referee by one of my employees. On another occasion I was asked by the son of a great friend of mine with whom I had been shooting for many years. Having reached the age of 18, the son required a certificate of his own.
In due course, we shall come to a related amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Peel. The provisions underline the point that the administration of the issue of licences for all kinds of weapons is sometimes slack or varied. That underlines the need to have a consistent national system which is properly administered and properly funded and which gives the real protection to the people of this country about which this Bill seems to be so concerned.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, I should like to support the principle, but not the amendment. It would be difficult to refuse somebody by saying that he was not a person "of repute". People might not be willing to say that. Furthermore, a potential referee may not know whether the applicant had a criminal record.
There is probably a case for having two signatories rather than one—for requiring signatures from two Members of Parliament or, what is more likely, two magistrates. If there is just one referee, that person may not know the applicant but with another referee one doubles the likelihood of somebody knowing something about the applicant. I am afraid that I think that this amendment is totally defective. However, the principle is worth considering because the general situation could be improved.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot agree with the detail of my noble friend's amendment.

1635
I have no problem about the requirement in paragraph (a). That seems quite sensible. I have no problem about the requirement in paragraph (d), which is equally sensible and probably applies automatically in any case. But, frankly, I find paragraph (c) far fetched and I totally disagree with the requirement in paragraph (b), although I realise that to a large extent it simply replicates existing provisions.
Many years ago the Prime Minister said that he sought a classless society. There is nothing less compatible with the notion of a classless society than the implication that only doctors, lawyers, magistrates and so on are respectable enough to act as referees. In my view, any householder aged over 30, say, with a clean record who has lived at the same address for five or seven years should be capable of acting as a referee, whether he be a plumber, a post office clerk or even a trapeze artist.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I believe that the expression "Members of Parliament" excludes all of us because we are Members of Parliament. I cannot agree with that. Further, whenever I have witnessed a firearm certificate, the Lothian and Border police have contacted me about it.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I also come to the Dispatch Box as someone who was checked upon by my local police when I acted as a referee for a person who applied for a firearm certificate. The amendment would introduce on the face of the Bill detailed criteria about referees. I agree with my noble friends who have supported the noble Lord, Lord Clifford, on the principle that referees should be sound. The noble Lord has not said what kind of repute he has in mind. I insist that it should be good repute. There are other kinds of repute that I shall pass over very quickly.
Section 53 of the 1968 Act allows the Secretary of State to make rules about the procedures to be followed in applying for a firearm certificate. I believe that that would be the best place to set out the criteria. I shall not take up the time of the House by arguing about whether any or all of the criteria proposed in the amendment should appear in the rules themselves. There are already some well-tried and tested criteria in the firearms rules which may be an appropriate starting point. The countersignatory must be resident in the United Kingdom and have known the applicant for at least two years. He must be a Member of Parliament, minister of religion, doctor, lawyer, established civil servant, bank officer or a person of similar standing—and good repute—and not a member of the applicant's family.
I take note of the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Monson. Clearly, they will be considered when the criteria are drawn up. But this is not a matter that is appropriate for the face of the Bill, even though the issue of referees is one that we will take very seriously. I suspect that in the wake of the dreadful disaster at Dunblane police forces throughout the land will be taking this matter very seriously, too.
1636
I say to my noble friend, who was concerned about a database, that that matter will be discussed in the context of another amendment in a moment. It will make a very real difference when there is data information which will enable one police force to communicate with another.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. I have no wish to press this matter. However, I wanted the principle to be understood. To help my noble friend, who says, quite rightly, that he is a Member of Parliament, I point out that he is not an elected Member of Parliament. It is the elected Members of Parliament who are worried about this issue. That is the point that I wish to put across. I accept that the other details are open to criticism. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Marlesford Lord Marlesford moved Amendment No. 61:
After Clause 37, insert the following new clause—
REGISTER OF HOLDERS OF SHOT GUN AND FIREARM CERTIFICATES
("—(1) There shall be established a central register of all persons to whom a shot gun or firearm certificate has been issued.
(2) The register shall—

(a) record a suitable identifying number for each person to whom a certificate is issued; and

(b) provide access on-line to all police forces and other agencies with access to the National Police Computer including, for those persons convicted of an offence for which a custodial sentence has been imposed, the prison authorities.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am delighted to be able to table an amendment that does no mischief to the Bill. It focuses on a matter which I believe unites us all. I refer to the desire to avoid a further Hungerford or Dunblane. One knows that this Bill, although at considerable cost, makes it less likely that there will be another onslaught with the use of a licensed pistol, for obvious reasons. Sadly, at the moment the Bill as drafted does next to nothing to make less likely an onslaught with a licensed rifle or shotgun. That is what my amendment seeks to do.
Perhaps we can pause for a moment to consider what would be the public reaction, given the events of Hungerford and Dunblane, if there were another criminal attack, not necessarily on the same scale but on a relatively small scale, with the use of a licensed rifle or shotgun. I emphasise "licensed". Throughout all our discussions we have been talking only about licensed weapons. What would be the cost to public funds of dealing with the emotional outrage which will understandably and rightly follow such an event? Both Hungerford and Dunblane were the result of disordered minds, to put it at its mildest, being given permission by the state to carry firearms. There was and is no proper central control to make that less likely.
That, of course, is what my amendment seeks to do. It seeks to set up a central register of all persons for whom a shotgun or a firearm certificate has been issued which would cover the remaining people who would under the Bill still be allowed to have pistols. The

1637
register would have some suitable identifying number. When I spoke to my original amendment at Committee stage, I suggested a national insurance number, but my noble friend said that there might be some difficulty about that. We need to move to a sensible numbering system for certain identification purposes but, in deference to my noble friend's earlier objection, I have changed that. Most important, it would provide access on line to all police forces and other agencies with access to the national police computer, including, for those people who have been convicted of an offence for which a custodial sentence has been imposed, the prison authorities, because it would have to be on line for them also.
I have been asking for this since before Dunblane. I have been raising my uncertainties about the whole system since 1995, and Dunblane was in March 1996. At the time when I first raised it the Home Office said that my proposal was both unnecessary and expensive. Now they have rather changed their tune and they are saying that they are considering it, but they are doing it their way.
I wanted to make sure that what I was proposing was not in any way already covered. Therefore I asked a Question and I was lucky enough to have a Written Answer from my noble friend only yesterday. I asked her whether the Government would list all those police authorities which keep their firearm and shotgun licensing records on computer and which do not, and what arrangements, if any, exist for direct electronic exchange of information between the databases concerned. Her most courteous reply was that she understood from the Association of Chief Police Officers in England and Wales and the equivalent association for Scotland that all but two of the 51 police forces in Great Britain keep their firearm and shotgun licensing records on computer. I do not know how the two that do not do so do it, but we may one day discover this. She went on to tell me that no force can exchange this information directly with another by electronic means; the capability does not exist. She ended by saying that the Government are currently discussing with ACPO the development of a computer system called PHOENIX which would make this possible. Frankly, I am afraid that is not good enough, and I will explain why.
Back in 1991 the Home Office set up a committee to look into this whole question of the administration of the licensing of firearms. That committee reported in November 1991 one of its conclusions. It was a committee with some police officers on it, chaired by the Home Office. Quoting from paragraph 26, it said:
"It became clear that Police Firearms Departments were not always notified that a certificate holder had committed an offence as the police dealing with the offence were not aware that the offender was a firearm or shotgun certificate holder. Such problems were therefore only noted at renewal time. It was therefore recommended that police information systems be developed to ensure that certificate holders and reports of incidents are routinely and quickly matched".
It goes on rather strangely:
"Such an information system already exists in Scotland and works well".
In a letter dated 18th November 1991—five years ago—to all police officers, the Secretary of State said that he accepted the whole report, which he thought was splendid. He was confident that the report represented the best practice for the operation of the firearms licensing system and commended the adoption of all its recommendations to all chief officers.
First, as I have said, nothing has happened; and, secondly, there is the curious comment in the report that it is already happening in Scotland. Perhaps I may be allowed to quote from the Cullen Report. Paragraph 8.21 states:
"In his evidence Chief Constable Cameron explained that there was a strategy in Scotland for police forces to work towards interaction. The computer systems used by the police forces in Scotland were not yet compatible".
What I am saying is that nothing has happened. This may be our last opportunity to get into the Bill something for which the technology exists. The driving licence and vehicle registration systems have been on line in Swansea since 1973. It is a tool without which, I suspect, the police would not be able to operate effectively today.
The setting up of such a register would be a most important contribution towards preventing the sort of people such as the killers at Hungerford and Dunblane from obtaining a licence. It would be a means of co-ordinating. There would be a better chance of picking up people with a firearm certificate who did something that they should not in some other part of the country, or when they were applying. It would be a far more certain way of making it less likely that people who were unsuited to do so would be able to hold firearms in this country. I beg to move.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, the noble Lord makes an important point. It is incredible that even members of the Metropolitan Police do not know when they attend an incident or are investigating a potential criminal whether there is a possibility of a legal firearm or shotgun being involved. They do know if they are involved with a motor car whose owner has a history of firearm offences, but if they are dealing with people who have no history of a firearm offence and who have only a legal firearm, they do not know. The amendment is appropriate.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I, too, support the amendment. I do not in any way wish to pour cold water over it, having said that I shall support it. But, as a matter of interest, I suspect that the amendment would not have made a great deal of difference to the case of James Hamilton because the Central Region already had the necessary information, which it should of course have used. That is by the by, but it is a point that may be worthy of making.
On the more general point, I question whether it is possible to have genuine control over who has and who has not got guns, and who is suitable to have a gun, without such a measure. I noticed that earlier my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate said that there is co-operation between different forces. That may be open to debate. But one thing is for sure. Here is a real chance

1639
to ensure that that happens. I thoroughly agree with my noble friend and I hope that other noble Lords will support him.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, is right when he says that the amendment does no mischief to the Bill. On that basis, looking around our Benches, I can say that I would not be advising any of my noble friends to vote against the amendment, not that my noble friend Lord Stoddart would pay any attention to anything that I said anyway. I am not sure about my noble friend Lord Kilbracken, who is also an independent spirit in these matters. But my noble friend Lord Morris and I will not be voting against the amendment if it is put to the vote.
As to whether this is the best or right alternative to the PHOENIX computer database, which the Minister described last time, it is a technical rather than a policy issue and I do not know the answer. When I asked in Committee, the Minister said that the PHOENIX database was already up and running. I now have to ask is it up and running and capable of doing this job? If it is not and a new database could come into effect earlier, then the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford's amendment would be preferable. But it is not an issue on which I have any expert knowledge.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, this amendment would have had little to do with the incidents we are talking about, nor with whether people are licensed to have pistols or any other weapons. However, it is surprising that the Government are so slow in coming to terms with information technology. Why are the Government so slow? In Northern Ireland we have computerised cattle tagging, which has been very significant in the fight against BSE. The Government recognise this and suggest that we should have had it previously. The Government do not like the idea of ID cards so they are not going to go down that line.
In Northern Ireland we have a computerised database for all firearms which is centrally held by the RUC. Every single weapon is numbered and held on it. We have simplified it further by not having a shotgun certificate and a firearm certificate but a simple firearm certificate with the number of every weapon that is held on it.
That is not just because of incidents such as Dunblane but because it makes the whole process much simpler. If a weapon is found, its owner can be traced almost immediately. If it has not been reported as being lost, then that person has infringed the law. If it is found, it can be determined whether it may have been used in a terrorist incident. Every single pistol has been forensically tested and its various particulars are held at the computerised centre.
A computerised system would be very straightforward. My firearms certificate has everything written on it that any policeman stopping me would wish to know. He knows where I am permitted to use my shotgun, how many cartridges I am allowed—and that cannot be altered because it is a computerised
1640
print-out. He knows exactly where I am allowed to use heavier calibre rifles; he knows if I have a personal protection weapon and where I am allowed to carry it; he knows that if I have one I am not allowed to buy more ammunition without the chief constable's permission. It is extremely straightforward and I cannot understand why the Government seem so frightened of information technology.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, as one who has loyally supported the Government today, I would urge my noble friend the Minister to give attention to this amendment. Many of us on these Benches are concerned about this. It is a practical amendment; we do not want some difficulty about handling the computers. Why not allow this amendment to go forward? It would cause enormous happiness on these Benches and I hope the noble Minister will agree to it.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, has made a good case for this amendment. What happens when the holder of a licenced firearm—and in particular a rifle or a shotgun—becomes mentally ill? For example, if he is either sectioned or certified, is there any co-operation between the health authorities and police authorities? If there is not, it is high time there was.
Lord Monson: My Lords, unlike most of the major amendments today—the pros and cons of which I have mulled over intensively over the past days and weeks—I have given very little thought to this one and I approach it with a completely open mind. I find myself persuaded by the powerful arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, and indeed by most other noble Lords. Therefore, I would have no hesitation in supporting the amendment if it were to go to a Division.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I rise only to say how pleasant it is to find myself in agreement with my noble friend Lord McIntosh for the first time today. Of course, I shall support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, on that happy note, perhaps I may also say to all my noble friends and to all noble Lords who have spoken that I need no urging on the matter; I absolutely agree with all that has been said. I believe that it will be a very valuable addition to the police in their work of licensing and issuing certificates. Indeed, I share all the enthusiasm that has been voiced. I agree that it is particularly important to create on-line access to such records so that a police officer finding someone with a firearm or shotgun can always check whether he is licensed to possess it, in the same way as the police can now check, for example, car licence details at any time.
However, as I said at Committee stage, I believe that the matter is one which is not suitable for primary legislation and is better dealt with by administrative

1641
means. At present, the information which is required for a national database is not held centrally but is kept by the police forces which issue the firearm and shotgun certificates.
I should point out to the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, that, of course, the example of the RUC is not the best one to use in this context because it relates to one police force the size of which is very different from the number of police forces about which we are talking in England and Wales. Of course, individual forces can do all the things to which the noble Lord referred in the force area, but the PHOENIX programme (about which I shall speak in a moment) will allow one force to communicate with another.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, with due respect to the Minister, information technology is not just about Northern Ireland; indeed, it is worldwide and instant. I look forward to a time when it can be used correctly.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I certainly agree with that too.
As my noble friend knows, we are discussing with the Association of Chief Police Officers in England and Scotland a system called PHOENIX which will be available to firearms licensing departments throughout Great Britain. The Phoenix Project Board reviewed its priorities in November 1996 and the work on a register of firearm certificate holders is high on the list of priorities for development.
It is the intention that PHOENIX will contain full up-to-date copies of all necessary police force firearm and shotgun licensing records. Other records which it is proposed that it should hold are criminal records information, local intelligence information and information about people who have had gun licences revoked or who are for some other reason considered to be unfit to possess a firearm. It will also enable the police to cross-check information about criminal convictions with holders of firearm and shotgun certificates to ensure that, if a certificate needs to be revoked following a conviction, this is picked up. It is envisaged that all police firearms licensing departments in England, Wales and Scotland will have on-line access to PHOENIX.
Perhaps I may point out to my noble friend that the amendment on the Marshalled List says, first:
"There shall be established a central register of all persons to whom a shot gun or firearm certificate has been issued"—
that is planned. Secondly, the amendment says that the register shall,
"record a suitable identifying number for each person to whom a certificate is issued".
I do not know the precise form that that will take, but there will be provision for identity as regards people holding firearms. Thirdly, the amendment goes on to say that the register shall,
"provide access on-line to all police forces and other agencies with access to the National Police Computer including, for those persons convicted of an offence for which a custodial sentence has been imposed, the prison authorities".
1642
I have already given an indication that that is the sort of information that would be held. So the difference between us is a narrow one.
I understand my noble friend's cynicism about how long we would have to wait for this service to come on line. However, that must be an operational decision. Indeed, the object of bringing the programme on line is the subject of detailed planning. I should tell the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that PHOENIX is in place and is up and running. Police forces are beginning to communicate across forces, but this programme for the licensing of firearms will have to be bolted on and that, of course, needs detailed planning. That process is not yet complete. When it is, and when the police determine that it is the next piece of work to undertake, they will get on and do it. As I said, the difference is a narrow one. It is a question of when rather than if. However, I agree with everything that has been said about the value of a national database.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I accept her assurances that the PHOENIX database is capable of achieving what we have discussed. However, my question is, when? I ask the same question of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford. Whichever comes first wins my vote.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I cannot say when it will be. It is high on the list of priorities and it is being planned. The detailed planning is not complete and of course the matter is tied in with the availability of resources. However, that it will happen is not in doubt.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, why would it hinder the process if we included a measure in primary legislation?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, primary legislation is not the place to state simply that there should be a national database. That is not a dispute between us. To include that in primary legislation will not facilitate the measure any more quickly. No date has been mentioned. The noble Lord has not said anything about the availability of resources. Noble Lords simply cannot accelerate the planning process because it has to be gone through, it has to be thorough and it has to be correct.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, however, such a step would put pressure on civil servants and the system. If we included the measure in primary legislation, it would be given a high priority. That is the matter that is of concern to us.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I must tell my noble friend that such a measure would not achieve any of those things. For example, there is nothing in the amendment that states who will run this system. It simply states that a system will be established. I have told the House that a system will be established. It will be run by the police. It is the police who have the information and therefore it seems to me that the system should be run by the police. Does the

1643
noble Lord want to put on the face of this Bill a provision that makes no reference to a date, to how the system will be put in place, to who will set it up or to resources when there is already a plan to bring such a database into being?
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I am sure there is virtually nothing between my noble friend and myself. We agree on all these matters. However, there is a great difference between what I want to see happen and what the Home Office is likely to allow. We need a provision on the face of the Bill. As regards the points my noble friend made as to who should run the system and other considerations, I should be perfectly happy, if a provision were put on the face of the Bill at this stage, for amendments to be introduced at Third Reading or in another place to spell out more clearly the requirements. If the Government choose to use their PHOENIX system to fulfill the mandate of Parliament, Parliament will have to consider the matter but may not necessarily object to that. On the other hand, I must say that I have heard some pretty indifferent reports of the progress of PHOENIX. My noble friend's reply to me does not give me great confidence that PHOENIX is necessarily the vehicle for the rapid implementation of a system which I believe is urgently required.
I wish to test the opinion of the House as to whether this provision should be included on the face of the Bill.
9.53 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 61) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 57; Not-Contents, 53.

Division No. 5

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Alderdice, L.

Lawrence, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Liverpool, E.

Annaly, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Attlee, E. [Teller.]

Mar and Kellie, E.

Brain, L.

Marlesford, L. [Teller.]

Bridgeman, V.

Monson, L

Brookeborough, V.

Nome, L.

Burton, L.

Northesk, E.

Carlisle, E.

Northumberland, D.

Camegy of Lour, B.

Norton, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Onslow, E.

Clinton, L.

Palmer, L.

Congleton, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Peel, E.

Craig of Radley, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Crathorne, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Stockton, E.

Dubs, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Falkland, V.

Strathcarron, L.

Feversham, L.

Swansea, L.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Teviot, L.

Haskel, L.

Vinson, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Wade of Chorlton,L.

Hylton, L.

Weatherill, L.

Kilbracken, L

Wharton, B.

Kinloss, Ly.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E

Kintore, E.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

1644

NOT-CONTENTS

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

Home, E.

Balfour, E.

Hooper, B.

Beaverbrook, L.

Inglewood, L.

Bethell, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Blatch, B.

Kingsland, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Knutsford, V.

Burnham, L.

Lindsay, E.

Byford, B.

Long, V.

Cadman, L.

Lucas, L.

Camock,L.

Luke, L.

Chalker of Wallasey,B.

Lyell, L.

Chesham, L. [Tetter.]

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Courtown, E.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Cumberlege, B.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Demon of Wakefield, B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Mountevans, L.

Downshire, M.

Parkinson, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Ferrers, E.

Seccombe, B.

Gisborough, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Goschen, V.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Swinton, E.

Gray of Contin, L.

Tollemache, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Trumpington, B.

Henley, L.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
10.1 p.m.
Earl Peel Earl Peel moved Amendment No. 62:
After Clause 37, insert the following new clause—
ESTABLISHMENT OF FIREARMS CONTROL BOARD
("—(1) The Secretary of State shall by order establish a Firearms Control Board.
(2) The Firearms Control Board shall have responsibility for advising the chief officer of police on the grant, renewal or revocation of any certificate under Part II of the 1968 Act in respect of a person residing in his area.
(3) The chief officer of police shall satisfy himself, on the advice of the Firearms Control Board, that applicants for certificates have complied with the requirements necessary for the grant of certificates under the Firearms Acts 1968 to 1997.
(4) An order made under subsection (1) above shall make such provision for the composition of the Board and for its procedures as the Secretary of State shall deem necessary.
(5) Fees for licences shall be payable to the Board.
(6) The Secretary of State shall have authority to give instructions to the Board in the exercise of its powers.
(7) An order under subsection (1) above shall be made by statutory instrument and any statutory instrument containing such an order shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, we discussed this amendment in Committee. I am delighted to say that I had support from all sides of the Chamber, with the obvious exceptions of my own Front Bench and the Front Bench opposite.
As I explained, the firearms control board is not a new concept. It has been examined on a number of occasions: first, in 1992 by the Home Office; then again in 1993 by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of

1645
Constabulary; thirdly, in 1996 by the Home Affairs Committee; and fourthly, it was fully endorsed by the Firearms Consultative Committee under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Kimball.
In Committee, I spent some time detailing the various comments and recommendations that emerged from those inquiries. I do not propose to go through them again in detail. The overall conclusions amount to much the same and were critical of the administration of the licensing provisions contained within the Firearms Acts. Generally speaking, they were considered to be inefficient and inconsistent, and it was considered that the police had not achieved the necessary standards of training in relation to firearms licensing.
This amendment would relieve the police of their duties so far as the assessment of an applicant's background is concerned, as to whether he or she is suitable to be in possession of a firearm—I refer to all firearms—and would cover all inspections and security matters.
However, there is another, most important point. Chief officers would not be asked to surrender the ultimate sanction as to who has or does not have guns in their area. The chief constable would still have the final say, having considered the recommendations of the firearms control board and having taken into account any past convictions, along with any relevant intelligence information which is available to him from his own force—and, following our acceptance of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, through other forces as well—through the proper computerised system.
It is generally agreed that such a scheme would have considerable advantages. First, it would provide a much greater level of consistency throughout the land. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary concluded in its report that,
"Licence applicants were subject to differing local requirements some of which bordered on the discriminatory",
and that the present service varied between "excellent" and "very inefficient".
I believe also that this new body would provide real experts, with experience based on proper training and with a full knowledge of firearms and their use. I am told that it would also relieve about 1,500 police officers from a duty which I am bound to say in many cases they do with a great deal of reluctance. It would allow them to concentrate on other tasks for which they are better suited and better trained.
The new service would operate in much the same way as do the Customs and Excise, traffic wardens and DVLC at Swansea—highly efficient operators working within a comprehensive working relationship with the police. There is no difference in that respect.
When we discussed this amendment at Committee stage, the Government were reluctant to accept my proposal for various reasons. The first was the cost. I should begin by saying that it has been difficult to obtain precise figures either for the start-up of the scheme or for future running costs. However, I am
1646
delighted to say that, in reply to a written Question, my noble friend has come back to me with some more specific figures which I shall refer to in a moment.
At Committee I pointed to the enormous disparity between regions in terms of administering the present licensing system. I hope your Lordships will excuse me if I quote the same examples; I believe they are quite important. For example, the cost of granting a firearms certificate in Cambridge was £12.61 and the cost of renewing it £13.55, whereas in Wales the cost of granting a firearms certificate was £29.29 and the cost of renewing it a mere £5.52. I think noble Lords would agree that that is quite a disparity. A very important point was made by the ACPO Multi-Force Scrutiny Study, which indicated that licences could be issued for considerably less than the fee charged at that time, which was £19.69.
I referred to my noble friend's reply to my written Question. The reply with regard to the operating costs of the firearms control board and the start-up costs was as follows: These are 1994 figures. The operating cost would be somewhere in excess of £10 million. That is only marginally more in real terms than the equivalent cost which I have for 1989 of £8.5 million. I do not think that represents a very real difference. In addition, I am certain that the Government's figure of £10 million will have taken into account additional duties of the firearms control board, which would include, for example, safety inspection of ranges, the administration of the control of explosives regulations, the co-ordination of the exchange of information and the movement of firearms between the UK and member states within the EU. My figure of £8.5 million did not include those figures, so the gap narrows. Furthermore, if we were to introduce such a system, it would release police to conduct other duties, which I believe they are more suitably adapted to deal with.
In addition, I suspect that the Government's figure of £10 million is based on the actual practice that existed in 1994 and not on the best practice, a point highlighted by the ACPO Multi-Force Firearms Scrutiny Study. That study identified that these costs could be considerably reduced if the system were more efficiently administered.
On the question of the establishment costs of the new firearms control board, my noble friend's response was that there would be a start-up cost of £4.1 million. That may seem a considerable sum, but, if one looks at the number of people who held a firearm licence or a shotgun certificate in 1995, it amounts to £795,500, which works out to a figure of just over £5 per person holding either a firearm licence or a shotgun certificate. That is not a great deal of money.
I make this point very strongly. I have consulted those bodies which represent shooting interests. They tell me that people who participate in firearms sports would be perfectly happy to pay an additional amount if they felt that a system was to come into force which was less prone to arbitrary decisions on the spur of the moment and would best serve the interests of everyone in minimising the risk of firearms getting into the wrong hands, which, at the end of the day, is surely what this is all about.
The second point raised by my noble and learned friend in his objection to my amendment at Committee stage was that the Government rejected the proposals on the ground that it would lead to duplication of effort because there would be a continuing need to involve the police in firearm licensing and liaison with the firearms board. However, I cannot follow that argument. The personnel of such a board would simply carry out the licensing work that police officers do at the moment. We would simply substitute one for another.
In regard to police involvement, of course the chief officer would have the final say—it is right that he should do so. If my amendment was worded in such a way that he did not, I am certain that my noble friends would be extremely upset and critical of it. I would agree with that. Therefore the chief officer has the final say, which depends on the information he receives from the firearms control board along with the information that he would receive from his own police force as to whether or not an individual was suitable to receive a licence. Again I refer to the examples of Customs and Excise and DVLC, where the system is working extremely effectively.
My noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate, when replying to my amendment in Committee, said,
"At the end of the day I am not sure that cost is important one way or another. The important thing is that the decision taker has the information he deems to be appropriate".—[Official Report, 21/1/97; col. 664.]
I entirely agree. I believe that with this amendment there would be a board of experts qualified to assess whether or not an individual is suitable to possess and handle a firearm. It would take into consideration all the relevant points. That recommendation would then be passed on to the chief officer who considers the application alongside any police information that is appropriate. Under this scheme the chief constable would have the best information available to him, thus ensuring that we have in place a system which reduces as best we can—we can do no more—the mistakes of Hungerford and Dunblane.
The present system has been severely criticised by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary in 1993 and again by the Home Affairs Committee in 1996. The amendment has the support of the Gun Trade Association, the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, the British Shooting Sports Council, the National Farmers Union and the Country Landowners' Association. Its principles were recommended by the Home Office itself in 1992. It is also unanimously supported by the Firearms Consultative Committee. All those bodies have felt for a long time that a major change is overdue. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not know whether this amendment is identical to the amendment the noble Earl moved in Committee; it seems to have the same effect. Of course there is a case for greater stringency across police forces in the way in which they handle applications for firearm certificates; of course we know from Dunblane that there are defects in the way in which different police forces deal with the
1648
problem. Indeed, one of the reasons why we are in favour of a total ban on handguns is because we know that those procedures will never be perfect and that the wrong people will slip through the net.
However, if the noble Earl's amendment is the same as it was in Committee, it is plain daft. The amendment sets up a firearms control board which will advise on every single grant, renewal or revocation of a certificate. The noble Earl has told us that there are 800,000 firearms holders. I do not know how many thousands, tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of grants, renewals or revocations that means in the course of a year. When I was proposing that there should be prior authorisation by a judge for around 2,000 applications for the power of intrusive surveillance on the Police Bill, I was told that that was double guessing and a duplication of effort. The noble Earl is seriously proposing that a firearms control board shall look at every single grant, renewal or revocation of a firearms certificate and then that the police shall have the responsibility and shall satisfy themselves that it has been done correctly. In other words, they have to do it again. To do a million things twice every year—even if it were 500,000 or 100,000—is—I use the word advisedly—daft.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, invites us to believe that this amendment is daft. But surely he will see that the immense amount of police time which at the moment presumably goes on these 800,000 grants, renewals or revocations of firearms certificates must be enormously expensive. Those who have been at the receiving end of this process, as many of us have, know that the police spend far more time on it than they want to. It is enormously expensive. If it were entrusted to the firearms control board, as suggested by my noble friend's amendment, it would save an unquantifiable sum of money.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord misunderstands me. The amendment says that the chief office of police has to be satisfied that it has been done correctly. How else can he do that other than by investigating each case himself?
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I think the noble Lord misunderstands. The chief officer of police would not have to go through the whole process again. He would merely have to consult on any information he had in exactly the same way as the police might object to the DVLA granting a licence to someone who perhaps had been found alcoholically in control of a vehicle. The police are perfectly happy to rely on the DVLA for that. They have their own system for that. No one suggests that that is an enormous duplication and that it renders the system inoperable. The amendment is immensely sound. I support it.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I cannot support the amendment. I am not keen on the creation of a UK-wide or a GB-wide organisation for this

1649
purpose. It is important that this activity is retained firmly in the hands of the police. They probably need to work up their skills at it. However, they have local knowledge and are under local democratic control. Certainly in the case of Scotland, our eight police forces ought to be doing this work and not a national body.
Lord Renton: My Lords, what worries me about the amendment is the over-centralisation of decisions. It is the chief officer of police, with his local knowledge, who is in the best position to make the decisions with regard to the renewal of firearm certificates. I have the greatest respect and sympathy for my noble friend Lord Peel on this occasion. However, the amendment puts forward a view that responsibility for detailed decisions requiring local knowledge should be centralised. I do not see the need for that. I would therefore be very surprised if I were to find that my noble friends on the Front Bench were able to accept the amendment.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I am always a little fearful when I am confronted by a coalition and a cosy atmosphere of agreement between the two Front Benches with unease behind them. I say this with the utmost caution. In my experience those behind them quite often turn out to be right. When noble Lords on the Front Benches launch accusations of daftness on anyone sitting in the lower classes behind them who has the presumption to put forward an idea which is not entirely and immediately acceptable to them, I begin to get seriously worried, as I am on this occasion. I do not believe that my noble friend Lord Peel is entirely daft.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I did not say that the noble Earl was daft but that his amendment was daft.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I am so grateful to have achieved something tonight and to have elicited from the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, the clarity of his view that in no way is he saying that my noble friend is daft.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I never did say that.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, my noble friend is far from daft. I do not believe that my noble friend would produce a daft amendment and I do not believe that he has.
I believe that there is a degree of common ground, but I do not know. In view of the things that have happened there is not entire satisfaction with existing arrangements. It is a very modest suggestion. I do not hear any noble Lord dissenting from that on either side of the House. I also understand that, since it is obviously vital that the police have some sort of standing in the matter, the chief constable will have the last word but that the real, heavy work will be undertaken by an independent body. I do not believe that the police will be in any way undermined. In practice, the chief constable may find himself possessed of very valuable allies on whose advice he
1650
can rely and who would provide, in the event of an error, at least some kind of excuse; namely, that he was advised to do something by much respected outside bodies and that it was not entirely his fault. As regards Dunblane, that situation might have been quite useful.
The last point I wish to make is about the Firearms Consultative Committee. I am not entirely familiar with the detail of the routine work that no doubt that distinguished and very able body carries out. I understand that it is a government body. I cannot see why the committee which, I understand, favours my noble friend's suggestion, and the Home Office, which is a kind of peripheral body as regards the committee, should not be willing to accept guidance in this matter. I have an awful, nagging fear that the Home Office is a place where people are very reluctant to open windows which might let in a little fresh air and some change.
The Earl of Stockton: My Lords, I wish to address the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. All the amendment suggests is that the work done by junior police officers be done by the board and its reports then submitted to the chief constable. That is not duplication, but substitution.
It is very important to remind the House of one of the basic changes that have taken place over the past 25 years in the issuing of firearm certificates and licences. Twenty-five years ago nearly every serving police officer had done national service and was familiar with firearms and rifles. In a sense they were comfortable with them. That is no longer the case. Many of us have had occasion to have an inspection by a young serving police officer for whom it was clearly a novel experience. In many cases, young officers do not know where to look for the numbers and have to have them pointed out.
We should remember the point raised at Second Reading by the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, who said that there is a great reservoir of people who are trained firearms experts, who have come out of the Armed Forces and who would be available to be recruited by such a board. There is much more merit in the suggestion than either my noble friend the Minister or the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, have been prepared to accept.
I urge the Government to look hard at this point again and at the points raised on Second Reading. I know that all of my colleagues at the British Field Sports Society endorse the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Peel. I should like an assurance from my noble friend the Minister that she will look at it seriously.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, I am a little concerned about this amendment. At the moment inspections are carried out by uniformed police officers. An officer may not know much about firearms, but at least he will be in uniform which gives the impression of authority. It would be somewhat off-putting if an official dressed in an ordinary suit were to come round and start looking at

1651
one's guns. That would give some cause for concern. I do not know whether it is intended that the new force will be in uniform; perhaps that is what should happen.
It would probably be wrong for members of the board to come from a central area or "the region". Essentially, local knowledge is what matters. I hope that it is intended that those people (who will, I hope, be in uniform) will operate within and from police headquarters so that they will, in effect, be policemen but in a different uniform. They should report immediately on a local basis. If they were out of uniform and working from "the region", as opposed to within the immediate locality, that would be not only inefficient, but unfortunate.
Lord Swansea: My Lords, I wish to support the amendment. I am a former chairman of the British Shooting Sports Council and this subject has been a hobbyhorse of ours for many years. One of the bugbears for all owners of firearm certificates is the great variation across the country in the attitudes of different police forces. In his own parish, the chief constable is supreme. Whether he treats an applicant liberally or strictly is entirely a matter of his whim. It makes life very difficult for many holders of firearm certificates when they have to put up with such tremendous variations between police forces.
Another great problem is the lack of knowledge of firearms of many policemen. As my noble friend Lord Stockton said, young policemen do not have the experience of national service behind them. They are not familiar with firearms. I could tell your Lordships many stories about the ignorance of policemen, but I shall not trouble the House at this late hour. I support the amendment.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, as an ordinary citizen, in respect of firearms and shotgun certificates, I am extremely wary of this amendment. I want to know who is coming to my house. We are talking about somebody coming to the house, dressed in an ordinary suit. I will not know who he is. What sort of proof of his identity will I have? It will be quite unlike what happens when police officers drive up in their police cars. I know who they are. Indeed, I usually know them all by name. I am dead against the amendment. I do not think it will work.
10.30 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, the noble Earl has commented on unknown people going to his house. Under the Bill the police will be able to employ civilian firearms officers who will be in exactly the same position as employees of the proposed control board.
Baroness Wharton: My Lords, I support the amendment. I give one illustration of a case with which I am familiar. In Scotland a police officer visited a house. He asked a daughter whether her stepfather was of sound mind because he had applied for a firearm
1652
certificate. She replied, "Well, yes". That was as far as it went, and the certificate was obtained. I believe that this amendment avoids that kind of situation occurring.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, my noble friend Lord McIntosh described this as a daft amendment. I am a little sorry about that because I have put my name to it. I did so because I believed it to be a reasonable and relevant amendment to make to the Bill. Having read the Cullen Report, undoubtedly there were serious deficiencies in communication within that particular police force and disagreements between officers. The officers on the ground who were aware of the circumstances had nowhere to go other than the chief officer who made the decision. A control board acting as a supervisory body will be able, it is hoped, to standardise procedures up and down the country and ensure that there is never a Dunblane or Hungerford again. It would be somewhere else for the police, who will continue to be involved in control, to go. They would have the board to appeal to in the event of decisions being made that perhaps they did not support.
A number of noble Lords have said that they prefer to have policemen drive up to their homes in police cars to inspect their licences or question them rather than civilians. When I represented Swindon I received a good number of complaints from people because officers turned up in uniform and police cars. On many occasions I was asked to ensure that when policemen called they should wear civilian clothes; otherwise, their neighbours thought that they were being "nicked" for something. I am not sure that we can take seriously the idea that people like having uniformed policemen in police cars with blue flashing lights coming to inspect their firearm certificates. I do not believe that that is so. I am pleased to support this amendment, daft though it may be. If it is pressed I shall go into the Lobby with similar people.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, with a measure of trepidation I rise to oppose the amendment tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Peel and the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. I regret that the peace which had temporarily broken out between the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, and his noble friend Lord McIntosh has not lasted for long. I am reminded that it is a free vote, but with freedom there is still scope for agreement. It is unfortunate that it has lasted for only one Division, if that.
As has already been observed, the amendment put down on the Order Paper today is, to all intents and purposes, identical to that which was debated before. It was debated at some length and I set out at some length the Government's response to it.
I begin by inviting noble Lords to pay particular attention to what is proposed. It is set out in subsection (2) of the proposed new clause that the firearms control board shall have responsibility for advising the chief officer of police on the grant, renewal or revocation. In the next subsection it says that the chief officer of police shall satisfy himself on the advice of the firearms control board, and so on.

1653
Although the idea of a firearms control board has been about for some time, when the proposal was first mooted back in the early 1990s by the Home Office and was subject to a consultation exercise, the proposal had a very radical difference to it. That radical difference was that the decisions as to whether or not to grant, renew or revoke were to be the decisions of the board. In other words, the decision-making was to be taken away from chief officers of police and given to the board. That has been departed from in this proposal. My submission to noble Lords is that that must be borne in mind very firmly when noble Lords decide how to vote on this amendment if it is pressed to a division.
For example, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart said that the board would exist to supervise what chief officers are doing. That, with respect, does not flow from the terms of the amendment. He also said that it would provide somewhere for individual police officers to appeal to if they were not satisfied with what their superior officers were suggesting. That, too, is not proposed in the amendment.
What is proposed is that the firearms control board, through its officials, would give advice to somebody else who is at the head of a completely separate organisation, who would have the statutory duty to take the decisions and, more importantly, the responsibility for defending those decisions were they to be challenged or subject to scrutiny in a court or any other forum.
Much has happened since the original proposal for a firearms control board was first put forward in 1992, not least of all the events of Dunblane and the holding of the inquiry. It is true, as the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart said, that Lord Cullen was satisfied that serious criticisms were to be made of the Central Scotland Police Force and certain officers—indeed, certain senior officers—within it. Notwithstanding those criticisms, which he held to be established, he said quite clearly in paragraphs 8.4 and 8.5 of his report, which I read out in detail the last time and I need not repeat tonight, that he was not in favour of removing from the police any of the functions concerned with the operation of the present system for the granting of firearm licences.
I was chastised on that occasion for the Government being prepared to accept some but not all of the recommendations of Lord Cullen. I demurred at that chastisement and I gave reasons why I did so. But whether or not there is dispute among noble Lords as to whether all the recommendations have been followed, that is a clear and very unequivocal statement by Lord Cullen, he having listened to all the evidence and having scrutinised in the greatest of detail the firearms procedure that was followed in central Scotland. I do invite noble Lords to bear that very firmly in mind when considering the other arguments that exist for and against the proposal which is put forward.
The suggestion is made by my noble friend Lord Stockton that this would amount not to duplication but merely to substitution. With respect, I demur at that suggestion. The application will have to be made to the chief constable of a particular force, to whom the applicant will require to supply the names of two referees.
1654
Whatever duties the staff of the firearms control board might take on, as a matter of law there is nothing to prevent the chief constable carrying out local checks. He would be foolish not to do so. Whether officials of the board come in uniform or not—I do not rely on any problem in that regard in opposing the board—they would no doubt be required to carry some form of identification as do the gasman and the electricity official. If a board were set up, one would imagine that they would go about their business in a responsible way, but they would come to the community as relative outsiders. They would not have the local knowledge of the community that local officers have in their heads, local records, and in the reports they send to divisional headquarters and police headquarters. A chief constable would be bound to have regard to those local sources of information.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I accept some of the noble and learned Lord's arguments, but members of the firearms control board would have knowledge of the shooting community. They would know which clubs were carrying out which disciplines. Those points are important. It is something upon which the police may be a little weak.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, I do not demur to the noble Earl's suggestion that officials of the board would have a knowledge of firearms—pistols, rifles, or what have you—and that if they visited clubs they would get to know the officials, the pistols stored there, and the competitions conducted there, but so would the local police.
It would be inconceivable that merely because firearms control board officials were visiting clubs licensed under the new regime that will apply, the police would ignore them. The local sergeant, inspector, or whoever, would make it their business to visit a local club to get to know the officials and how things were operated.
I resist unequivocally the suggestion that within their ranks the police do not have people as well able to assess a local club as experts coming from outside. It may be that they have far greater experience of handling pistols, but I see no reason why the police cannot discharge the duty of assessing whether the club is being run in accordance with the terms of the licence and the law.
As I said on the previous occasion, those who work in police departments dealing with firearms, whether they be uniformed officers or civilians, have training and the benefit of living locally. They know who people are. They are in a much better position to assess the local element of the exercise than folk coming from outside. I do not accept that it is a substitution. It is, to some extent at least, a duplication. It would mean that costs would be incurred by the board and the police.
Other points, including costs, were raised on the previous occasion. I fully accept the figures arising from the Written Question that my noble friend Lord Peel asked. If it be the case that the shooting community is prepared to meet the totality of the costs, then meeting the costs of a firearms control

1655
board would put up the price of a firearm certificate to at least £100. Obviously it is difficult to be certain how many applications would be required to be handled each year, but my information is that there would be at least 200,000 and there may be more. As two organisations would be involved, there would be an element of delay.
An important point is that, were the amendment to be successful and the legislation provided that a firearms control board be set up, it might delay the implementation of the new regime if the board had to be up and running before the regime could come into force or, alternatively, many new certificates would be required to be dealt with immediately with the board coming on stream some considerable time after the certificates had been granted.
The views of the Firearms Consultative Committee, about which I talked on the previous occasion, are prayed in aid in support of the amendment. That committee is independent of government; its views are sometimes accepted by government, sometimes not. Contrary to the information given to the House, it is not unanimously in support of this proposal. The senior police officers who serve on it dissent from the view of the majority, and dissent for the following reason. It is the chief officer who must ultimately be responsible for the decision. He cannot have his decision in any way fettered by advice from anybody else. He is entitled to seek information about convictions, about drinking habits, about driving habits, about whatever he thinks is relevant. Ultimately it is he who has to take the decision. In that situation it would be quite wrong to seek in any way to restrict his discretion by requiring him to rely on advice in the way that this amendment suggests.
I said on the previous occasion and I say again that I accept that this amendment is brought forward on behalf of those who are interested in shooting with the best will behind it, but, having looked at what is proposed, having looked at the division of responsibility, having looked at the fact that ultimately it is the chief constable who has the final say, having considered the matter fully and having read the documents referred to on this and the previous occasion, the Government remain of the view that this proposal is not a sound one. If some noble Lords seek to press the amendment I will invite other noble Lords to vote against it.
I should remind the House of one further matter. During discussion of the Bill at Committee stage I undertook that the Government would bring forward an amendment in response to Lord Cullen's recommendations about the appeals procedure. That action was to await the outcome of a consultation exercise that was taking place. The exercise has been completed but unfortunately it has not proved possible to finalise the detail of the amendment in time for Report stage. That is regrettable; I apologise for the inconvenience that has been caused. To comply with the procedures of your Lordships' House it is necessary that I mention it again at this stage. It is
1656
planned to bring forward the amendment in time for Third Reading and I will make every effort to table the amendment as soon as practicable.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I would ask the noble Lord about my local police force, the Central Scotland police. Lord Cullen identified shortcomings in its performance in this area. Can the noble Lord tell me whether those shortcomings have been remedied?
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: Every effort has been made to overcome those shortcomings. The Chief Constable has set about the necessary task and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland arranged for members of Her Majesty's Inspectorate to visit and inspect the force to ensure that the necessary corrective measures are put in place.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I shall begin by thanking every noble Lord who has spoken in this debate. Indeed, I am most grateful to everyone for their participation. I should say that I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lord Peyton for having established that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, did not regard me as being daft but merely my amendment as being so.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it was quite clear from what I said at the beginning that I only regarded the amendment as daft. There was no need for any correction.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I am delighted to hear it.
As to the daftness of the amendment, to which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, made reference, quite honestly all I can say is that the present system appears to work extremely well in instances like the DVLC in Swansea, where we are not just talking about 800,000 applications; we are talking about many millions of motor cars which go through the process and the system seems to work. Indeed, the relationship between those who administer that operation and the police seems to work extremely well. Therefore, I really do not think that that argument actually stacks up particularly well.
When I moved the amendment, I never envisaged that we would be discussing in my concluding remarks whether or not people who inspect licensees would be wearing uniforms. That was not a matter that I had considered. Indeed, I do not attach a great deal of importance to it. However, perhaps my noble friend Lord Gisborough—who, unfortunately is not now present in the Chamber—would like to come forward with a design which he considers appropriate.
I move on now to more important matters. The whole question of duplication has been raised again. As I tried to explain earlier, I do not believe that there would be duplication. I say that because the two tasks—namely, that of the proposed firearms control board and that of the police—should dovetail extremely effectively. But even if there were to be a degree of duplication, would that really matter? At

1657
the end of the day we are trying to ensure that we have a system in place that is better than the one which exists at present. I firmly believe that we can achieve this through a firearms control board.
My noble and learned friend suggests that local police have experience in such matters. Well, they may have a degree of experience so far as concerns their local area. However, I can assure my noble and learned friend—and other noble Lords made reference to this in Committee—that there are far too many examples where the police come along to test whether an applicant is suitable to hold a firearm or a shotgun and it is quite clear to the applicant that that policeman has no interest in the subject and, indeed, no knowledge of the subject. That is precisely why I am moving this amendment—to try to overcome that very difficulty.
I turn now to the question of cost. We could, of course, go on about this forever. My noble and learned friend said that he thought that the cost of certificates would have to go up to £100. Given the figures to which I made reference earlier—namely, a running cost of just over £10 million a year, with a start-up cost of £4.1 million—I believe that I have covered that point. I really do take issue with the figures produced by my noble and learned friend.
I have a further question for my noble and learned friend. It really extends a point made by the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie. Quite clearly, the present system is not working as well as it might. After Hungerford, we were promised that there would be improvements in the way in which firearm, shotgun and pistol licences would be looked at. That did not happen. We have now had another disaster and, quite obviously, changes are needed. Can my noble and learned friend assure the House that the present system will be thoroughly scrutinised and that we will have in place as soon as possible the best practice which was recommended, I remind your Lordships, by the ACPO Multi-Force Scrutiny Study? It found that the present system was not working properly and that report came out some time ago. Clearly it has been ignored. We must have changes to ensure that we have a much more streamlined, cost-effective and consistent system to deal with firearms licences in this country. I should like to think that my noble and learned friend could give me an assurance that we shall see developments in this area as soon as possible.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall respond to the request for further information. I am happy to tell my noble friend that I undertake that the concerns which noble Lords have expressed, on the basis of their experience of the present system for the granting and revocation of certificates, will be drawn to the attention of ACPO in Scotland and ACPO in England. I hope noble Lords will bear in mind that in opposing this amendment the Government are not merely relying on their own assessment of the situation; they are relying on the
1658
view expressed by Lord Cullen and on the views of chief constables the length and breadth of the land. I submit to noble Lords that those are important factors which ought not to be ignored when noble Lords have regard to experiences they may have had with individual police officers.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for that reply. However, I found it disappointing. Quite frankly, there should be clear instructions from the Home Office to the effect that things will have to change dramatically. I fear that I shall have to seek the opinion of the House.
10.56 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 62) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 40; Not-Contents, 53.

Division No. 6

CONTENTS

Alderdice, L.

Marlesford, L.

Attlee. E.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Brain, L.

Monson, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Northumberland, D.

Burton. L.

Norton, L.

Carlisle. E.

Onslow, E.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Palmer, L.

Clinton, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L. [Teller.]

Congleton, L.

Peel, E. [Teller.]

Cottesloe, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Crawshaw, L.

Stockton, E.

Feversham, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Gisborough, L.

Swansea, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Swinton, E.

Iddesleigh, E.

Teviot, L.

Ilchester, E.

Tollemache, L.

Kintore, E.

Weatherill, L.

Liverpool, E.

Wharton, B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

CONTENTS

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

Home, E.

Balfour, E.

Hooper, B.

Beaverbrook, L.

Inglewood, L.

Blatch, B.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Bumham,L.

Kingsland, L.

Byford, B.

Lindsay, E.

Cadman, L.

Long, V.

Carnock, L.

Lucas, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Luke, L.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Lyell, L.

Courtown, E.

McColl of Dulwich,L.

Cranbome, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Mackay of Clashfem, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Denton of Wakefield,B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Downshire, M.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Dubs, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Miller of Hendon.B.

Elton, L.

Morris of Castle Morris. L.

Ferrers, E.

Mountevans, L.

Goschen. V.

Pilkington of Oxenford. L.

Henley, L.

Renton, L.

1659

Rotherwick, L.

Trumpington, B.

Seccombe, B.

Wilcox, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
11.5 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment
No. 63:
After Clause 38, insert the following new clause—
("Registered firearms dealers
AUTHORISED DEALING WITH FIREARMS BY REGISTERED FIREARMS DEALER
—(1) In section 8 of the 1968 Act (authorised dealing with firearms), after subsection (1) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(1A) Subsection (1) above applies to the possession, purchase or acquisition of a firearm or ammunition in the ordinary course of the business of a firearms dealer notwithstanding that the firearm or ammunition is in the possession of, or purchased or acquired by, the dealer or his servant at a place which is not a place of business of the dealer or which he has not registered as a place of business under section 33 or 37 of this Act."
(2) In section 33(3) of the 1968 Act (applications for registration as firearms dealer)—

(a) for the words from the beginning to "applicant" there shall be substituted the words "An applicant for registration as a firearms dealer";

(b) after the word "shall", in the second place it appears, there shall be inserted the words "(if he registers the applicant as a firearms dealer)".").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall also speak to Amendment No. 74.
Amendment No. 74, tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Peel, deals with a problem concerning the position of firearms dealers which my noble friend raised in Committee. On that occasion the noble Earl courteously withdrew his amendment but it was indicated to the House that the Government had a measure of sympathy with the problem that it sought to address. The Government agreed to look at the issue and to consider whether we might bring forward an amendment of our own. The difficulty that arose stemmed initially from a criminal case in which a firearms dealer was prosecuted after he had been found to be keeping a large quantity of ammunition in a barn.
The law which applies—Section 3 of the Firearms Act 1968—requires that a firearms dealer must be registered with the police. Under Section 8 of the 1968 Act, a firearms dealer who has been registered may possess firearms and ammunition without holding the police firearm certificate that would usually be needed for them, so long as he has them "in the ordinary course of his business. Sections 33 and 37 of the 1968 Act require every registered dealer to ensure that all of his places of business are also registered with the police.
The facts of the case to which I made reference were that the dealer himself was registered with the police, but the barn as a place of business in which he kept the ammunition was not. He was convicted of possessing the ammunition without a firearm certificate. I
1660
understand that his conviction was upheld on appeal. The noble Earl raised another case which highlighted the same problem.
The concern about those cases was not that the dealer was convicted of a criminal offence. The Government consider that, in the first case at least, the dealer should have registered his barn with the police—that would have given them the opportunity to assess whether it was proper for its purpose and to refuse to register it if it was not. A dealer who has a place of business which he fails to register with the police commits a specific offence under Section 39(2) of the Firearms Act 1968.
Criminal cases and issues of convictions are matters for the court. However, I understand that in the initial case to which I made reference the judge observed in the course of the case that the current terms of the Firearms Act 1968 limit lawful possession of firearms and ammunition by a dealer to the place or places of a business which have been registered with the police.
The difficulty highlighted by the two cases, which has been put to the Government by the Gun Trade Association and others, is that there are occasions when a firearms dealer may quite properly have occasion to be in possession of firearms or ammunition in places which he could not conceivably be expected to register with the police.
A dealer might be delivering to a customer, in which case he would be in possession of the guns or ammunition at the customer's address and at all points along the journey from his business premises to that address. He might unexpectedly be able to purchase and collect a gun at auction or at some other legitimate place. He might be asked to visit a customer at his or her home and examine a gun—which would mean handling it there and, for legal purposes, being in possession of it.
Aside from this restriction on quite proper business activities, there would also be difficulties for the police in keeping records of every place at which a dealer planned to handle or be in possession of a gun, however briefly. The government amendment therefore seeks to address the practical problem brought to our attention by making it clear that firearms dealers' possession of firearms and ammunition in the course of their business is not to be strictly confined to those places of business which they have registered with the police.
I hope that, having explained the Government amendment, it will prove acceptable to the House and that, in the light of that explanation, the noble Earl will find it possible not to insist on his own amendment, Amendment No. 74. I beg to move.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I must say how grateful I am to my noble and learned friend for having looked into this problem with such thoroughness. As he rightly says, there was a considerable degree of difficulty within the gun trade, which I tried to explain to your Lordships when I moved the amendment at Committee stage. I am more than happy to accept this amendment. It certainly covers all the points that I raised. I am extremely grateful to my noble and learned friend.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 39 [Power of search with warrant]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 64 to 66:
Page 19, line 15, leave out ("any object mentioned in subsection (3) below") and insert ("anything").
Page 19, line 25, leave out from ("peace") to end of line 35.
Page 19, line 35, at end insert—
("(3A) The power of a constable or civilian officer under subsection (2)(b) above to seize and detain anything found on any premises or place shall include power to require any information which is kept by means of a computer and is accessible from the premises or place to be produced in a form in which it is visible and legible and can be taken away.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 64 to 66 were spoken to with Amendment No. 38. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 40 [Firearm certificates relating to rifles used for target shooting]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 67 to 70:
Page 20, line 14, after ("rifle") insert ("(or a muzzle-loading pistol)").
Page 20, line 19, after ("rifle") insert ("or pistol").
Page 20, line 24, after ("rifle") insert ("or pistol").
Page 20, line 26, at end insert—
("(3) In this section, "muzzle-loading pistol" means a pistol designed to be loaded at the muzzle end of the barrel or chamber with a loose charge and a separate ball (or other missile).").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendments Nos. 67 to 70, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 71, 73, 81 and 87. These amendments are simple and are to cater for the circumstances of a club whose members wish to fire only those muzzle-loading guns which will be exempt from the general prohibition on handguns. Such guns are mentioned specifically as excluded from the definition in Clause 1(2). Muzzle-loaders may of course also be fired at rifle clubs and at licensed pistol clubs. They may continue to be kept at home under the terms of a firearms certificate. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 41 [Approved rifle clubs]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 71:
Page 20, line 31, leave out second ("firearm") and insert ("rifle").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 72:
Page 21, line 19, at end insert—
("(7A) The power of a constable or civilian officer under subsection (7) above to inspect anything on club premises shall include power to require any information which is kept by means of a computer and is accessible from the premises to be made available for inspection in a visible and legible form.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 38. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 73:
Page 21, line 30, at end insert—
("(10) This section applies in relation to a muzzle-loading pistol club and its members as it applies to a rifle club and its members with the substitution for any reference to a rifle of a reference to a muzzle-loading pistol.
(11) In subsection (10) above—

"muzzle-loading pistol club" means a club where muzzle-loading pistols are used for target shooting; and

"muzzle-loading pistol" means a pistol designed to be loaded at the muzzle end of the barrel or chamber with a loose charge and a separate ball (or other missile).").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 74 not moved.]
Clause 45 [Financial provisions]:
The Earl of Mar and Kellie The Earl of Mar and Kellie moved Amendment No. 75:
Page 22, line 43, after ("14") insert ("or (Compensation scheme for firearms dealers)").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment has already been spoken to by my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill. It is consequential to the accepted Amendment No. 27. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 76 and 77 not moved.]
Clause 46 [Interpretation and supplementary provisions]:
[Amendment No. 78 not moved.]
Schedule 1 [Transitional arrangements for small-calibre pistols]:
[Amendment No. 79 not moved.]
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Burnham): My Lords, Amendment No. 80 has been wrongly marshalled; it will be called after Amendment No. 84.
Schedule 2 [Consequential and minor amendments]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 81:
Page 27, leave out lines 31 to 39 and insert—
("5. In section 32 (exemption from fee for certificate in certain cases) for subsection (2) there shall be substituted the following subsections—
"(2) No fee shall be payable on the grant to a responsible officer of a rifle club, miniature rifle club or muzzle-loading pistol club which is approved under section 15 of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 of a firearm certificate in respect of rifles, miniature rifles or muzzle-loading pistols, or ammunition, to be used solely for target shooting by the members of the club, or on the variation or renewal of a certificate so granted.
(2A) Subsection (2) above—

(a) does not apply if the operation of subsection (1) of section 15 of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 is excluded in relation to the club by a limitation in the approval; or

(b) if the operation of subsection (1) of that section in relation to the club is limited by the approval to target shooting with specified types of rifles, miniature rifles or muzzle-loading pistols, only applies to a certificate in respect of rifles, miniature rifles or pistols of those types.

(2B) No fee shall be payable on the grant to a person acting in his capacity as the responsible officer of a licensed pistol club of a firearm certificate in respect of small-calibre pistols or ammunition to be used solely for target shooting by members of the club, or on the variation or renewal of a certificate so granted.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 67. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 82 to 84:
Page 27, line 43. at end insert—
("6A. In section 38(8) (surrender of register of transactions by dealer) after the words "this Act" there shall be inserted "(or, if the register is kept by means of a computer, a copy of the information comprised in that register in a visible and legible form)".").
Page 27, line 44, leave out ("In section 40(4) (inspection of registers)") and insert ("In section 40 (compulsory register of transactions)—
(a) in subsection (4)—
(i)")
Page 27, line 45, at end insert—
("(ii) after the words "the register" there shall be inserted the words "(or if the register is kept by means of a computer, a copy of the register in a form which is visible and legible)"; and
(b) after that subsection there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(4A) Every person keeping a register in accordance with this section by means of a computer shall secure that the information comprised in the register can readily be produced in a form in which it is visible and legible and can be taken away.".").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, these amendments were spoken to with Amendment No. 38. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 80 not moved.]
11.15 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 85:
Page 27, line 48, at end insert—
(" .In section 50 (special powers of arrest) for subsection (2) there shall be substituted the following—
"(2) A constable may arrest without warrant any person whom he has reasonable cause to suspect to be committing an offence under section 4, 5, 18, 19, 19A, 20, 21 or 47(2) of this Act and, for the purpose of exercising the power conferred by this subsection, may enter any place.".").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 85 applies to Scotland alone. It amends Section 50 of the Firearms Act 1968 which was repealed in 1984 for England and Wales and continues in existence only for Scotland. It is necessary to amend Section 50 to provide a constable in Scotland with a power to arrest without warrant a person whom he has reasonable cause to suspect of committing the new offence of having a small calibre pistol outside the premises of a licensed pistol club. Such a power is not required in England but the view has been reached that it should be included for Scotland. Therefore the draftsman has taken the opportunity to replace Section 50(2) in its entirety. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 86 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 87:
Page 29, column 3, leave out lines 18 and 19.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 67. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
House adjourned at seventeen minutes past eleven o'clock.