Firearms (Amendment) Bill

HL Deb 04 February 1997 vol 577 cc1619-64

8.35 p.m.

Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.

[Amendment No. 32 not moved.]

Clause 22 [Duration of licence and renewal]:

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 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 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 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—

1. (a) informing the member that the licence has been revoked; and
2. (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 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.

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 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 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 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 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 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 (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—

1. (i) the lawful shooting of deer;
2. (ii) the shooting of vermin or, in the course of carrying on activities in connection with the management of any estate, other wildlife;
3. (iii) the humane killing of animals;
4. (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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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. (2) A failure to give a notice required by subsection (1) above shall be an offence. (3) Where outside Great Britain—

1. (a) a firearm to which a firearm or shot gun certificate relates is de-activated, destroyed or lost (whether by theft or otherwise); or
2. (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—

1. (a) contain a description of the firearm or ammunition in question (including any identification number); and
2. (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—

1. (a) if it is sent from a place in the United Kingdom, by registered post or by the recorded delivery service; and
2. (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 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 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 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 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 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 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 moved Amendment No. 60: Page 16, line 5. at end insert— ("(2A) For the purposes of this section referees shall be persons who—

1. (a) have known the applicant for a minimum of three years;
2. (b) are qualified members of a recognised profession;
3. (c) are not Members of Parliament or candidates seeking election or re-election to parish, district, regional, national or European office; and
4. (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: 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.

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.

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 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—

1. (a) record a suitable identifying number for each person to whom a certificate is issued; and
2. (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 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 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 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 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". 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 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.

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.

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.

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 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 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 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 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.

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 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)—

1. (a) for the words from the beginning to "applicant" there shall be substituted the words "An applicant for registration as a firearms dealer";
2. (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 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 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 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 moved Amendment No. 71: Page 20, line 31, leave out second ("firearm") and insert ("rifle").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

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 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 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 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—

1. (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
2. (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 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 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 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.