Firearms (Amendment) Bill

HL Deb 21 January 1997 vol 577 cc561-628

3.32 p.m.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch)

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Blatch.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]

Clause 11 [Payments in respect of prohibited small firearms, ammunition and ancillary equipment]:

The Earl of Lytton moved Amendment No. 33: Page 6, leave out lines 2 to 9 and insert— ("(a) which they lawfully had in their possession on or immediately before 16th October 1996; or (b) which on or before that date they had contracted to acquire and were entitled lawfully to have in their possession,").

The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 33, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 34 to 36 which stand in my name. I wish to comment briefly on Amendment No. 38 which stands in the name of the Minister, and Amendments Nos. 39 and 40. Before doing so, having not spoken on the Bill before, I should make it clear that I have no personal involvement or interest in handguns. I use a shotgun for sport and some of my farm staff are licensed to carry rifles. By profession I am a chartered surveyor with some involvement in compensation matters, hence my interest in this part of the Bill. I am the father of three children, two of whom are at primary school.

I thank the Minister for her courteous response to letters that I sent her. She well knows my views and some of the reservations that I have on other parts of the Bill. My starting point on compensation under Clause 11 is Lord Cullen's report. With the permission of the Committee, perhaps I may quote from paragraph 9.108: No assessment of what should be done would be complete without considering what would be proportionate and just, having regard on the one hand to the scale of risk and on the other the implications of one course of action or another.

At paragraph 9.111 the report continues: It is necessary to decide what risk is acceptable, bearing in mind that some risk is an inevitable feature of daily life. Against the risk to society has to be balanced the loss of freedom of the individual and the other implications which 1 mentioned earlier".

It is clear that Lord Cullen felt that it was for Parliament and government to weigh the matters in the balance and that deliberations would be incomplete without a process that he himself felt unable to undertake. I merely add to that by suggesting that the process should be a transparent one with the entire methodology, documentation and basis on which considerations and decisions are made laid open for scrutiny.

I note that paragraph 2(a) of the Money Resolution to the Bill specifically covers, property which is surrendered or forfeited under that Act",

meaning this Bill when it becomes an Act, and at paragraph 2(b), any other loss which may be incurred as a result of that Act".

So I am surprised at the somewhat narrower view that I discern was taken by the Home Secretary in another place on 4th December last. He made some comments which warrant further scrutiny. At col. 1100 of the Official Report he compared situations where one could say that "on all precedent" compensation should be paid with other situations where "on a proper analysis of the case" it should not. He said that if the effect was to deprive people of property, or the use of it, they should be compensated. I say "Hear, hear" to that.

However, at col. 1101 he sought to distinguish compensation where an individual holds an object which then becomes unlawful or unsaleable from the activities of businesses and clubs which would not be able to be compensated. Yet those bodies also hold equipment, land, buildings and contractual liabilities which, while not necessarily made unlawful by the Bill, are devoted to narrow purposes which effectively may become so, or are unsaleable, worthless or a liability as a direct consequence of the Bill.

The Home Secretary then compared the phasing out or banning of products to the example of how businesses were all subject to the whim of the regulator as an occupational hazard. But he did not cite any comparable instance in which 80 per cent. of a bespoke activity with no alternative function was, on the Government's own estimates, to be discontinued. None of his comparisons are ad idem with the present case. At col. 1102 he concluded with a statement which is worth repeating. I apologise to the Committee for quoting again. He said: The Government have a fundamental obligation to protect public safety. It would be a very significant inhibiting factor if, on every occasion that a decision has to be made, the Government were obliged to pay compensation for the business losses that resulted".

With respect, the much larger duty of government is to ensure justice and equity. There is an overarching obligation to act reasonably and with due regard for the actions taken. Government may not act capriciously or to the unreasonable detriment of any individual or group. Without that there is no equitable or sustainable system of law and order in any sense of the term, and certainly no guarantee of public safety arising therefrom. The licensing function of government in relation to firearms and shooting premises is part of that duty and it is impossible, I submit, to ignore the reliance that has been placed by many people on the continuation of that system and the investments that they have made.

The Home Secretary's uniquely narrow interpretation falls a good way short of the principles of fair play that should properly apply. I put it to the Minister that her right honourable friend has used a lesser principle to overrule a much greater one in a manner that I find somewhat untenable. It is indeed a very grave matter to make a statutory assumption that individuals who were licensed and regulated one minute have in the next moment ceased to be fit and proper persons. That is an unprecedented shift of policy especially when based on theoretical public safety arguments in the light of a report that primarily identifies a major regulatory system failure.

In another place on 12th November 1986, the honourable Member for Swansea East referred to cases on human rights—Nold v. Commission, and a business loss case, Lithgow v. United Kingdom. However, there seems to have been no answer to those points which indicates to me that the compensation terms of the Bill may not be entirely well founded. I am no lawyer but I hope that the Minister can enlighten me on that at some stage, although perhaps not today; I did not mention the point in my letter in which I set out in broad terms the issues that I would raise.

I regret that the Government have not seen fit to carry out a public assessment of proportionality and cost benefit as suggested by Lord Cullen. It seems to me that that is one area where they have not gone beyond the terms of Lord Cullen's report but have omitted to undertake a significant part of his recommendation. A large part of the Bill is about economic and personal cost; and proper compensation forms part of that balance.

I have heard various costs mentioned. An official figure of £ 150 million as the total cost seems to have grown from a rather smaller sum in the middle of last year, and far higher figures are voiced at an unofficial level. In another place last week, Miss Ann Widdecombe admitted in a Written Answer that the Government have no real idea how much all this will cost. How on earth is the Committee supposed to deal with a Bill, the consequences of which are in such doubt, when no costed estimates have been placed before us?

From my professional involvement in compensation matters, I well understand and sympathise with the Government's problem: an unreasonable drain on the public purse versus the risk that activities involving handguns, if not the guns themselves, may simply disappear from sight. However, in all such cases the benefit of any reasonable doubt should be given to those whose loss clearly flows from the proposals. Any overriding public safety argument demands nothing less.

On the question of precedent, I discern that there can be few occasions when government reaction to an event, such as the tragedy at Dunblane, results in an accepted and regulated sport, leisure pursuit and, by association, business activity becoming at a stroke so inherently dangerous to the greater public safety that the proposed level of near-total cessation must be procured. If, as it is claimed, the tragedy justifies exceptional measures, then it follows that the circumstances of compensation are also wholly exceptional; and exceptional circumstances set no general precedent.

It is well established in law that there are circumstances when it is proper for compensation to extend not only to those who are directly deprived by law of some property or possession, but also to those whose businesses are affected, or to circumstances where a loss occurs which, but for statute, would have been actionable. Two examples from the compulsory purchase code come to mind. They are "injurious affection", when the capital value of some other property is affected, and "disturbance", where other costs not directly related to property values are involved.

The entitlement to compensation where no land is taken where a property is adversely affected by certain physical factors such as noise, artificial light and so on is provided for in Part I of the Land Compensation Act 1973. Highways legislation also provides for compensation for loss or damage in certain circumstances arising out of highway works. Last year a private water undertaking paid compensation to three of my clients (and my fees) for pure business losses following a temporary closure of the A.24.

Basic human rights demand proper compensation, particularly when the proposals go beyond what Lord Cullen recommended. We are not considering some shady activity such as cock fighting, even less the "holy water shops" referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, but an honourable sport of centuries-old standing regulated by government.

On what grounds do the Government distinguish the situation of a householder or business adversely affected by, let us say, a new bypass from that of a gun club whose operation is forced to close as a result of the withdrawal of its licence and the banning of the guns which make its very existence possible? Is not this summary and premature removal by law of a privilege by rescinding a licence obtained and paid for in good faith by the applicant, a law-abiding citizen, somewhat different from the norms of phasing out defective products, outlawing harmful substances or banning the use of potentially dangerous upholstery material, to name but three? Further, were there not perfectly acceptable alternatives in each case? I am afraid that I do not follow the Government's logic.

There are compelling reasons why compensation provisions should be fair and seen to be fair. The tragedy of Dunblane and the haste on the part of the Government to act cannot justify parsimony or risk a bitter legacy of shabby treatment in some other direction, even less give reason for avenging 18 deaths by exacting retribution from more than 50, 000 other admittedly innocent people. Two wrongs do not make a right.

Nor do I accept the Government's position that there is no precedent for compensation for business losses, losses from clubs or indeed consequential losses. The example of CJD was quoted; however, I prefer the analogy of the phasing in of the national non-domestic rate and the period allowed for the upgrading of abattoirs, when time was given to meet the additional commitment. Handguns are no different. The logical consequence of denying that and insisting on immediate withdrawal—I stress the immediacy angle—is nothing more nor less than full compensation.

Amendment No. 33 is designed to ferret out the meaning of the formulae of the words in the Bill, "by virtue of firearm certificates", and the analogous term, by virtue of their being registered firearms dealers".

To what extent will firearms and ammunition be treated as "by virtue" in these contexts and, more to the point, at what juncture will the same articles be treated otherwise? The same formula of words also appears in subsection (7) in reference to ancillary equipment. I therefore take the opportunity to ask the same questions in relation to that.

This amendment would establish the material fact leading to compensation; namely, lawful ownership of a gun on 16th October 1996 howsoever that lawful ownership arose. But my purpose is to uncover a wider range of issues.

I understand that certain types of ammunition have a use in particular circumstances of competition and may be usable in rifles or pistols. It may be termed dual purpose ammunition. If such ammunition is possessed but used only in a pistol, is it held by virtue of a licence or not? If a dealer stands possessed of spares for pistol repairs which could be assembled to make up further weapons, what is the position regarding those? I could point to other anomalies, including the hiatus that appears to arise over compensation if, for instance, a club where a gun is held cannot, after a period of trying to do so, perhaps due to the costs and process of upgrading its security provisions, stay in business thus preventing it legally holding firearms and necessitating their surrender to the police but perhaps outside the period provided for in the surrender and compensation scheme. What happens then?

Amendment No. 34 endeavours to provide for the assessment of compensation by reference to a date prior to the day when an effect on the market for firearms could have occurred as a result of news and media coverage of the Dunblane incident and the initial response to it of politicians and the public. There are such precedents in the world of compensation theory and practice in which the effect on market values of the events that lead up to the circumstances of compensation are to be eliminated from the calculation. That serves to prevent manifest injustice to compensation claimants and eliminates the risk of the compensating body manipulating the circumstances of compensation so as to procure an unfairly low basis for payment. I do not suggest that the Government have that in mind; however, it is one matter that has developed over the years as a proper way of dealing with compensation. So if, for instance, a date for the Home Secretary's announcement is chosen, I should think that by that time—other noble Lords with more knowledge will be able to tell the Committee—the market will be non-existent. It will be very difficult to assess the value of any handgun on the basis of such a date and there may be unfairness in settling values. I invite the Minister's comments on that point also.

Amendment No. 35 sets out to explore the extent of the ancillary equipment which will rank for compensation. I have in mind the handgun enthusiast who makes his own ammunition and for that sole purpose may have some specialist manufacturing equipment. What of that equipment and any spare parts held; or of cleaning and maintenance tools, the secure carrying case, the target papers, sighting scope, holster and competition sights? Will those also rank for compensation? Will they qualify as ancillary equipment, or merely the gun itself and the ammunition, amounting perhaps to a fraction of the total value of the equipment held by an individual?

Amendment No. 36 seeks to address those items that are lawfully held but may not need to be on a licence as such or even specifically mentioned on it, but which become inadvertently or deliberately unlawful or obsolete by virtue of the operation of the Bill when it becomes law. I hope that the Minister will be able to enlighten me on that point as well.

There should be seen to be no expropriation in the compensation provisions of this Bill. It should cover all matters where loss can be shown to be attributable to its provisions. The courts are well able to determine cause and effect in these special circumstances. Noble Lords may take issue with the wording of my amendment but it gives me an opportunity to voice very real fears.

I have little to say on the amendments of other noble Lords. In connection with Amendment No. 38, which is grouped with mine, I shall have to hear what the noble Baroness has to say. I wonder when we shall see the details of the scheme referred to in that amendment. For precisely the reasons that the Minister gave last Thursday on the matter of the referral of Clause 6, I believe that the details of the compensation scheme should be known, discussed and approved by the time the Bill is law and comes into force. I strongly support the sentiments behind Amendments Nos. 39 and 40.

I have a few further questions. Does the Minister not agree that there should be some recognition of the consequential losses and problems caused to clubs and businesses as a result of this far-reaching Bill and its quite exceptional circumstances? Does she agree that there should be relief from all non-domestic rates for property used by businesses which are forced to close? This is, after all, a property tax. Does she not agree that there should be grants towards the cost of obtaining planning consent for change of use of gun club premises forced to close? Does she agree that there should be some tax relief, the ability to write off capital allowances in this and previous years and other measures to mitigate the effects of ongoing liabilities? Does she also agree that there should be special assistance to help with redundancy payments where businesses and clubs are forced to close?

All these are matters which are crucial to fair play, honesty and the up-front way in which a Bill such as this should be dealt with. I beg to move.

Lord Gisborough

It seems that all these amendments are to be spoken to together; I shall therefore speak on Amendment No. 40. It has long been recognised that Parliament does not expropriate private property without compensating those affected. Yet the plight of small businesses in the gun trade which will be put out of business by the Bill has been ignored by the Government. Payment for stock is one thing; loss of a business, with no proposal by the Government to compensate, is quite another.

The trade faces serious financial hardship but the Bill provides no compensation for the substantial loss of value to businesses which the Bill will cause. Compensation provisions should apply to people severely hurt by the devaluation of assets other than the banned guns and their accessories. Compensation is offered for stock but not for loss of business. Many dealers will lose their livelihoods as a result of the Bill. This is not just an occupational hazard; it is a sudden imposition of law that will take away such a large amount of trade that an enterprise could become non-viable.

Loss of employment within the industry is another serious consequence of the Bill. Returns from 163 dealers show an estimated loss of 155 jobs. That, if reflected across the whole 3, 000 businesses, implies job losses of some 3,000.

I am sure that the Bill will have a devastating effect on a significant minority of people. Natural justice requires that those people are entitled to receive proper compensation for assets which are confiscated through no fault of their own. Many have given personal guarantees on leases which they have signed and which they will have to meet over the years.

These businesses cannot easily diversify. What alternative use will there be for a purpose-built shooting range once the Bill has taken 80 per cent. of legally held guns out of circulation? Some businesses will have been financed by personal guarantees, with terrible consequences for the guarantor.

At Report stage in another place the Home Secretary said that, so far as he was aware, there was no precedent for paying claims for business losses which occurred as a result of Government legislation. He ignores the compensation given to farmers, as my noble friend mentioned, as a result of BSE regulations. Farmers were able to carry on farming with other enterprises. He ignores the £ 118 million offered to the rendering industry. He ignores the precedent established in Australia earlier this year, a Commonwealth country with a similar legal system and whose case law is often cited as a precedent before the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords. The Australian Prime Minister, during the passage of legislation on the prohibition of rifles and guns, said that the Government had a duty to pay fair and proper compensation, including compensation to gun dealers who had suffered a loss of value to their hitherto lawful businesses.

The following principles were to apply to dealers for loss of business: compensation was to be available to any dealer whose business included sale, repair or importation of firearms; such dealers were to arrange prescribed and certified valuation of loss and were to recover reasonable cost of valuation; and they were to accept the valuation which would be subject to audit. There were a considerable number of other conditions and requirements.

The Australians have now found that the generous compensation to owners for the withdrawal of automatic weapons is costing far more than anticipated, as will be the case here. Perversely, the compensation is being used to legally purchase bolt-action and lever-action guns which can fire almost as fast as automatics. As a rapid-fire marksman in the Army myself, I can testify to the possible accuracy of high-speed shooting. Similarly, once pistols have been withdrawn here, at great cost to the nation, no doubt keen marksmen in this country will purchase other weapons which they are allowed to keep and so maintain their sport in some other way although they will not necessarily be able to use the same ranges. The proposed expenditure will not therefore have much effect.

The mass-murder tragedies have each taken place with a different weapon: New South Wales with a rifle; Middlesbrough with a knife; Sullivan with a flame-thrower; Wolverhampton with a machete; and Monkseaton with a shotgun. There remain chainsaws, pitchforks, poison, petrol bombs, swerving into a queue with a motor car, explosion and other weapons including, incidentally, a cricket bat. In only one of those tragedies was a pistol used. There are as many ways of committing mass murder as there are holes in a sieve. Today it has been reported that a baby was stabbed in its pram.

To withdraw legally held pistols cannot do more than scratch the surface of the problem of mass murder. It does not begin to stop another tragedy with an illegally held pistol. It is like stopping one hole in a sieve, at a cost of perhaps £500 million to the country, while leaving all the other methods of mass murder unaffected. It is an expensive but purely cosmetic exercise to satisfy an understandable emotion, as a result of which a large number of businesses will be bankrupted.

My amendment gives the Government the opportunity to say how the buy-in will contribute to stopping further attacks by any of the other weapons available: shotguns, rifles, chainsaws and so on. If they can justify the expenditure of some £500 million for a useless confiscation, how can they justify not paying compensation for business losses?

It may be inappropriate for this House to suggest increased expenditure on compensating dealers, which is a matter for the other place, but it cannot be wrong to tell the other place that it is wasting money in the first place. Perhaps the Government can explain how the reduction in the number of legally held pistols affects the prospects of another mass murder with an illegally held pistol, there being about four of them to every legally held one. There is all this cost, distress and damage to plug just one hole in the sieve. It is not more legislation that is needed but proper application of the existing law. If innocent gun dealers and range owners are to be gratuitously distressed, they should at least be adequately compensated.

4 p.m.

The Earl of Shrewsbury

My noble friend Lord Swansea has agreed that I should move Amendment No. 39, which deals with compensation for clubs and associations. I begin by declaring an interest as the current chairman of the Firearms Consultive Committee.

I firmly believe that the present plans will lead to gross injustice. Many of the worst hit by the Bill will be ordinary club members who have pitched together to run their clubs or ranges. Many of these individuals will remain liable for long-term mortgages and leases for clubs and ranges which will be forced to close by this Bill. A survey of 139 clubs showed that 71 per cent. of those clubs will not reach the Government's requirements for security. They will have to close, making an otherwise valuable asset worthless. It will leave many people bankrupt. The Government must put that right. A return from 126 clubs shows that they are expected to suffer financial losses as a result of the changes to the tune of £31.24 million in total. On the basis of 2, 067 clubs, the total loss will therefore be over £64 million.

The worst hit in the case of clubs will be individuals such as those who have given personal guarantees. In many cases, that responsibility has been undertaken without any commercial consideration or personal gain.

I turn to a matter touched on by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. The European Court of Human Rights has stated: The taking of property in the public interest without any compensation is justifiable only in exceptional circumstances"— these are exceptional circumstances, I suppose— A fair balance has to be struck between the demands of the general interest of the community and the protection of the individual's fundamental rights. A disproportionate burden should not be placed on individual owners". That quotation comes from Lithgow v. United Kingdom in 1986.

I welcome the fact that the Government have acknowledged that the cost of this operation will be higher than the original offer from the Treasury of £25 million to £50 million. As we all know, it has risen from that figure to £150 million. The Government originally proposed to offer the market value of banned guns prior to the announcement of the Government's intention to legislate. I believe that they have since been advised by their lawyers that they are obliged to include ancillary equipment, which will have no value once the gun to which it relates is banned. The FCC has been consulted on that issue, although not entirely in this context.

We need to learn from the Australian experience. It offers an insight into what can be expected in the United Kingdom. In Victoria state alone, 14 collection sites were set up. The weekly destruction of guns will continue until the end of the year, as only 10 per cent. of the total weapons expected under the amnesty have been destroyed. The crunch comes in that the Premier of Victoria, Jeff Kennett, has already criticised the federal government for not providing enough money to run the firearms buy-back scheme. He said that the compensation payments in general and the disposal of surrendered weapons was costing more than expected. That, I think, must be fairly obvious. Those responsible for administering the scheme are now having to face those real practical problems, as the government will have to do. The Victorian Minister for Police and Emergency Services, Bill McGrath, has summarised the feeling among his colleagues: The whole thing was done in too much haste and there was not enough proper thought". We seem to have heard that sentiment echoed in this Chamber.

I and many others feel very strongly indeed that the Government should correct this injustice. I urge my noble friend to accept this amendment. Let me give just one example of many. Dave Richardson of the 10th Battalion Suffolk Home Guard Rifle and Pistol Club in Sudbury writes: We've just taken out a £6, 000 loan. We own the freehold, about 6 acres or so … We've just rebuilt the club house and installed a new 11 kva automatic generator. The 3 main ranges are all equipped with electro-magnetic turning targets. We consider the complex before the legislation to have been worth £200,000+ and it is now effectively worthless". I urge the Minister to try to accept this amendment. A great injustice is being done to those who will suffer loss, as has been described over the past few minutes by a number of noble Lords. I commend the amendment.

Lord Kimball

If the Committee adds Amendment No. 39 to the Bill, we shall be able to build on what has already been achieved for pistol shooting. We should bear in mind that in another place the Government have already undertaken to give compensation for ancillary equipment used by the larger calibre revolvers. That is the equipment mostly used by the hand loaders. Some of it is extremely expensive. It has been a great relief to many people to know that that compensation is agreed. It is also agreed that someone who owns a .22 rimfire pistol, which will be legal in future, but can no longer find a pistol range which is still operative in his own area, will be entitled to receive compensation.

Amendment No. 39 in particular deals not so much with compensation but with a fair and just payment for what amounts to confiscation. If someone's livelihood has been removed and that person has been injuriously affected, the principles of compulsory purchase apply 100 per cent. My noble friend Lord Shrewsbury has already quoted the statement from the European Court of Human Rights.

In another place the Government argued that many legislative actions do not necessarily justify compensation. Cars which fail the MoT test were mentioned. If one buys a cheap car, one accepts the risk that it will probably fail the MoT test in the not too distant future. Fire precautions were mentioned. Many boarding houses receive substantial grants from tourist boards and other development authorities towards updating their fire precautions and noise abatement arrangements. The point is that people with a car or a boarding house that suffered a fire or a factory with noise level requirements all have the option of continuing their business in a modified form. The pistol shooters have no option because their ranges are confiscated.

There is one other helpful thing that the noble Baroness could do or might be encouraged to say today. I believe that many of these ranges need not be compensated for if, rather than the ranges themselves being fortified so that the .22 pistols can be kept there, the guns are allowed to be kept at the premises of the local gun dealers. Many of them own the ranges and their premises are already fortified and up to standard. Without that concession, we are in fact confiscating a very large number of facilities for which people deserve full and proper compensation.

Lord Burton

Let me raise two small points on the issue of compensation for weapons. We might perhaps obtain some enlightenment on the subject.

A club may feel that it should try to remain open and comply with the new regulations. But planning may well take a considerable time and finally be turned down; or perhaps after some considerable time there may be another reason why it would not be able to carry on. Eventually, surely, the members of that club will not be able to get any compensation for their weapons because the period of time will have expired. I wonder whether that is fair.

There is also the question of who will do the valuation for the weapons when they come in and how long it will take. I suspect that that may take quite a considerable time. I feel that this matter should be looked at.

Lord Monson

I should like, somewhat anticlimactically, to speak to my Amendments Nos. 81 and 82, which find themselves in this enormous grouping, before I turn to the somewhat more important amendment, Amendment No. 40.

The purpose of Amendments Nos. 81 and 82 is to ensure that owners of .22 pistols, who find that they have to surrender them because their clubs cannot afford the extremely expensive security systems that the Bill will oblige them to install, are compensated at market value in the same way as owners of larger bore pistols will be compensated. It is true that the Home Secretary has apparently said that they will be compensated on an ex gratia basis and, what is more, at market value. But it is surely more normal and proper to write such a guarantee formally into the Bill.

Furthermore, I understand that nothing has been said so far about compensation for accessories for those .22 pistols, accessories which in some instances may have cost more than the pistol itself. So I look to the noble Baroness, when she comes to reply, for cast iron guarantees on proper compensation for both .22 pistols and their accessories.

Without minimising in any way the undoubted merits of Amendments Nos. 31 to 36, so brilliantly moved by my noble friend Lord Lytton, I turn to Amendment No. 40. On 24th October of last year in her winding-up speech at the end of the first day's debate on the gracious speech, referring specifically to the proposed firearms Bill which a number of the speakers had mentioned, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, stated categorically: We shall compensate both"— note the word "both"— owners and dealers".—[Official Report, 24/10/96; col. 98.] That official pronouncement has only one possible meaning, notably that the Government undertake to compensate dealers not only in their capacity as owners—that goes without saying, of course they would do that—but also other than in their capacity as owners. The statement would otherwise make no sense whatsoever. It would be as tautological as saying in another hypothetical context: "We intend to ban both motor vehicles and pick-up trucks". That would be an absolute nonsense, since the first embraces the second.

From time to time most of us make off-the-cuff assertions which cannot later be sustained—Ministers, by the nature of their heavy workload, more so than most of us—but this is not one of those occasions. The speech which concentrated most upon firearms finished one hour and 20 minutes before the statement of the noble Baroness regarding compensation for dealers, so clearly civil servants had vetted it and may even have drafted it. For this reason I believe that the Government have a constitutional as well as a moral obligation to compensate dealers for the collapse of their businesses through no fault of their own.

Earl Peel

I have my name down to Amendment No. 40 with my noble friend Lord Gisborough. I should like to speak to that amendment, although I say first of all that I have very considerable sympathy for Amendment No. 39 in the name of my noble friend Lord Swansea.

I start by saying that I agree with my noble friend Lord Kimball when he welcomes the fact that the Government have introduced increased compensation for certain aspects of firearms and accessories. We very much welcome that but, as other noble Lords have already said, there is no shadow of doubt that this Bill is going to bring great hardship and great difficulty to many businesses.

I appreciate that this is a very difficult subject and the rules, if indeed there are any, are blurred. To what extent the Government should be responsible for compensation to businesses due to direct legislation is in fact an extremely difficult point, and I understand the Government's problems. I understand the difficulties we have in trying to reach a compromise on this matter.

The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, gave some very good examples, as he would, being a thoroughly professional person who understands these things in a way that I certainly do not. I was very much taken by some of the examples that the noble Earl gave. However, it is fair to say that, generally speaking, in the past when businesses have been closed down for whatever reason they have had time to adjust. In this case gun trades and gun businesses have had no opportunity whatsoever to do so. It is a simple fact that so far as many are concerned there will be no product and, indeed, there will be no customer. We cannot lose sight of that fact.

It has been argued that businesses which will suffer from the outlawing of large calibre handguns will find alternative markets, switching to .22 calibre weapons. This is extremely unlikely, for two main reasons. First, the security regulations attached to new licensed clubs will deter many potential members. Secondly, there are likely to be many fewer clubs because of the expense of having to comply with these new regulations.

I have declared an interest during the course of this Bill on a number of occasions in that I am president of the Gun Trade Association. I attended a meeting in Birmingham before the Bill came before your Lordships' House and I have spoken to many of these people whose businesses are going to suffer under this Bill—real people, not just fictitious names, but people who are genuinely going to suffer from this Bill. There are businesses that have been built up over years, in some cases over generations. They find it quite incredible that their very livelihoods can be affected in such a way, affected, as they see it, by a madman and by a system that failed purely because the existing law was not adhered to, through no fault of their own. I am bound to say that they find it equally incredible that they will suffer through what they perceive as hasty legislation, with no consultation and no time to make any adjustment, as I said earlier. Also, they find it quite extraordinary that a learned Lord's studious recommendations on this particular matter have been ignored.

We must not lose sight of the fact that, in addition to straightforward business activities, there are mortgages and loans which will have to be met. These will have a heavy bearing on a number of people. Precedent or no precedent, I believe that we have to look at every single case in its entirety. This is a different case, and I firmly believe that given the circumstances in which we find ourselves we have a moral obligation to help these people. I wholeheartedly support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Gisborough.

4.15 p.m.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon

I, too, have put my name to Amendment No. 40 and, like the noble Earl, Lord Peel, I have considerable sympathy with other amendments dealing with compensation to pistol owners and to clubs. However, as I made perfectly clear in my Second Reading speech, I am no expert in these matters; nor, indeed, do I represent any interest. What I do know is that over the past days and weeks I have received shoals of letters from perfectly ordinary people who are concerned about their sport and the losses that they will incur personally and that their businesses will incur as a result of this legislation, which I believe to be considerably unjust. That is why I have taken an interest. I am not a shooter, as I said; I never have been a shooter and I am never likely to be a shooter.

What I am concerned about, and what every other Member of this House should be concerned about, is that legislation should be just and it should be fair. This legislation is neither. It was conceived in haste and it was cobbled together in response to a campaign based on emotion; it was understandable emotion, but nevertheless it was based on emotion rather than on logic, fairness and rationality. That is why I believe we should have given a lot more consideration to this in the House of Commons and in this House. Indeed, the Government should have given it a lot more consideration over a much longer period of time before they brought it to Parliament in the first place. There has been no time and little effort has been made to consult with those who will be most hurt financially by this Bill by the loss of value of their pistols, by the bankruptcy of their clubs and, worst of all, the loss of businesses and, with the businesses, jobs. We ought all to be concerned—indeed, we are all concerned—about the loss of business and the loss of jobs.

The suggested compensation arrangements, as far as they are known, will be grossly inadequate. They will be tantamount, as some other noble Lords have mentioned, in some respects to simple confiscation. I find that odd coming from a Conservative Government. It would not come from a Labour Government. I am sure that Members of the Committee opposite will have that point very much in mind.

I cannot believe that the people of Dunblane or the newspapers which have campaigned for this legislation would want, in addition to the severe restriction of the sport of pistol shooting, to see people's assets slashed, their businesses destroyed and gunsmiths thrown onto the unemployment scrapheap. We have to come back to the fact that Dunblane was the result of the actions of a madman who would not have possessed legally held firearms but for the neglect and misjudgment of a senior policeman. We must keep on making the point that it was not the guns that killed; it was the man who pulled the trigger who killed and had the intention to kill. We must never forget that.

Can it really be the action of a democratic society as a result of those actions of that madman, that ordinary, decent law-abiding citizens should be disadvantaged in every possible way, especially since they have not been consulted and the Bill has been rushed through the House of Commons—indeed, rushed into print—without proper consideration?

I think it is extraordinary that I, as a Labour Member—and not a "new Labour" Member but a straight Labour Member to boot—should have to nag and chivvy a Conservative Government to pay proper compensation to the very sort of people whom one would expect the Government to support. I sincerely hope that the noble Baroness will take account of everything that has been said. Although I believe that the Bill is awful and unjust, I hope that the Government will at least agree to pay compensation—proper and adequate compensation—to all those who are being and will be disadvantaged by it.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch

I should like to support all the amendments in this grouping except for the amendments in the name of my noble friend the Minister. I refer in particular to Amendments Nos. 39 and 40, which deal with compensation.

There is one other aspect about compensation in this matter which has not been fully touched on. It is generally agreed that compensation is paid when an Act of Parliament results in the public good; for instance, when a road which the public may require has been put through one's property, or whatever. But there is a growing realisation all over the country, in your Lordships' House and, I understand, in the other place, that the Bill will not achieve its aim of saving lives or of preventing another terrible tragedy such as Dunblane.

In those circumstances, the pistol shooters do not want compensation. They will want to go on with their sport. No amount of compensation can recompense them for what the Bill will deprive them of. Therefore, if these pistol shooters—these thousands of people—are forced to take compensation, it must be unusually generous. That is thanks to this most unusually bad and flawed Bill.

Baroness Blatch

Before responding to the amendments in this group on the Marshalled List in the names of various noble Lords, if they will forgive me, too numerous to mention, it may help the Committee if I turn first to my own amendments, Amendments Nos. 37 and 38, and outline the arrangements the Government propose for compensation.

The Government are committed to paying compensation at a fair market value, as at before my right honourable friend the Secretary of State's announcement—repeated in this House—on 16th October, to people who hold firearm certificates for the higher-calibre handguns which the Bill will prohibit.

To qualify for compensation an owner will have to have held his firearm on a firearms' certificate or have held it by virtue of being a registered firearms' dealer, or have been contracted to acquire his or her gun on 16th October, and to surrender it to the police. Owners will be able to choose between three compensation options.

First, there will be a basic flat rate figure which an owner may claim for each high-calibre handgun he surrenders, whatever its make, age or condition. Secondly, we are discussing with the British Shooting Sports Council the preparation of a list of values for the most commonly held types of handgun. These figures will be higher than the basic compensation figure and owners who hand in a gun of one of these types will be able to claim that value.

Thirdly, there will be owners whose guns do not fit within these arrangements or who want to obtain their own valuation. We intend that those who wish to will be able to submit valuations which they themselves have obtained. In cases of dispute there will be recourse to a second independent valuation of the gun.

Owners will also be entitled to compensation on a similar market value basis for ammunition, including expanding ammunition, which the Bill would prevent them from owning, and for accessories and other ancillary equipment which they own and which has no use other than in connection with prohibited higher-calibre handguns.

We are discussing with the British Shooting Sports Council what these accessories will be and their values. The details are not fixed yet but examples might be reloading equipment for cartridges, specialised holsters and spare parts.

There will also be ex-gratia payments—separate from the compensation scheme—for shooters who own .22 rimfire and other small-calibre handguns which will not become prohibited by the Bill but which the Bill will require to be kept in licensed pistol clubs. Owners who cannot find a club to keep their pistol in, or who choose not to join a club, will be able to claim an ex-gratia payment for their gun. But this will, as I say, be separate from the statutory compensation scheme.

The Government have listened to the concerns raised earlier during the passage of the Bill, both by noble Lords and in another place, about the nature of the compensation scheme which is needed on this occasion. We have decided that the scheme should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. Amendments Nos. 37 and 38 standing in my name will enable parliamentary oversight to be given to the scheme.

A previous scheme introduced following the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 to compensate owners who surrendered their semi-automatic rifles was not subject to parliamentary scrutiny but nevertheless was successful, with most owners receiving a fair rate within a reasonable timescale. A later scheme in 1992 and 1993 made payments to people who surrendered disguised firearms—for instance, walking stick guns—after these had become prohibited, except for collectors, following the Firearms (Amendment) Regulations 1992. This too was successful in terms of fair payments being made in good time. But it was similarly not subject to parliamentary scrutiny. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State would lay the scheme in draft form before this House and another place. The scheme could not be made until approved by a resolution of this House and by a resolution in another place.

This provision would not affect the principles of the compensation arrangements. The current Clause 11 of the Bill sets out those things for which compensation will be payable. Both in this House and in another place very full consideration has been given to this issue, and we have explained why the Government have decided that compensation should be paid for weapons, ammunition and other ancillary equipment. This amendment will enable the details of the scheme to be fully considered by Parliament before it comes into effect.

4.30 p.m.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon

I believe it is all to the good that the draft scheme should be brought before both Houses. Can the noble Baroness say whether the scheme will be amendable? That is the important point. Will it be amendable by one or by both Houses?

Baroness Blatch

My understanding of the procedures for discussing orders that come before the House is that it can reject or accept them. Any influence that is brought to bear takes place during the consultation period. The House can reject a scheme and then it would be for the government of the day to go away and reconsider the details.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon

In fact the House would have to take an H-bomb to the matter if they want to bring back another scheme. Is there no way in which we can have a draft scheme brought before the House which we can discuss and amend?

Baroness Blatch

As far as I know there is not an official mechanism for amending a scheme. There will be a draft scheme laid before the House and there will be an opportunity for people to pray in aid against it. I have to be advised by the usual channels. I am no expert in parliamentary procedures, but to my knowledge it is not possible to amend an order in this House. I am receiving an affirmative nod from the Clerk at the Table.

The Earl of Lytton

I apologise for interrupting the Minister, but maybe I missed it or she is about to get to the point. I would particularly like to know when the scheme is going to be laid before Parliament.

Baroness Blatch

I am unable to say. I know the particular concern that the noble Earl posed when he was speaking to his amendments that he would like the scheme to be laid before the House before this Bill completes its progress through both Houses. I promise that I shall come back as soon as possible after this stage of the Bill is completed with some idea of what the timescale will be. I cannot be definitive at this moment.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch

Does my noble friend understand that she is therefore asking us to accept this Bill without knowing what the terms of compensation will be? That adds insult to injury owing to the fact that we shall not even know what the terms will be for the security of gun club premises. We are told that 71 per cent. of the clubs will be put out of business; but there may be many more. We are being asked to take so much on trust. It is very difficult to proceed if we do not have information on these two vital areas as to what the security arrangements are going to be and what the compensation will be.

Baroness Blatch

A good deal of information is available to my noble friend which has been put on the record more than once—that is to say, the market value from a particular date will be the base for payment. The categories of items that will be compensated for are subject to amendment. We have many amendments before the Committee today. There will be an order and a full debate in the House. Both Houses will have the opportunity to accept or reject the terms of the compensation arrangements. I can say no more than that. There is not another mechanism other than during the consultation process and/or at the time of considering the order when both this House and another place will have an opportunity to have their say.

Lord Gisborough

Can my noble friend say whether there are plans to compensate those people who have, for example, committed themselves to long leases?

Baroness Blatch

They are not included in the compensation scheme as I have set it out. Again, there are a number of amendments and that particular point is explicit in some of them. I cannot pre-empt the outcome of today's business. It is a matter to be determined by the Committee.

I now turn to the amendments of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, Amendments Nos. 35 and 36, which would remove the precise terms in Clause 11 which specify that the persons eligible for payments should be firearm certificate holders or registered firearms dealers. I am not sure that I see any benefit in removing this fair and, I would argue, reasonable qualifying criteria if the Government are to make substantial payments to the persons concerned. Those people whose firearm certificates may have expired since 16th October and who hold their high calibre pistols temporarily on a Section 7 permit will still meet the laid down criteria and will qualify for compensation.

Amendment No. 35 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, which removes the wording "firearms prohibited" from Clause 11 (5)(a) in favour of the phrase "any firearms" would bring ancillary equipment belonging to the owners of small calibre pistols into the compensation scheme, which is the intention of the noble Earl. Point 22 pistols will not be banned and the Government have taken the view, and gone to some lengths in this Bill, to ensure that .22 pistol shooting can continue to take place in conditions of safety. Unlike accessories for high calibre handguns, therefore, .22 accessories will continue to have a use. There will continue to be a market for them both for gun dealers and for individuals who give up .22 shooting, but have accessories which they would wish to get rid of.

The last of the noble Earl's amendments, Amendment No. 34, introduces the earlier date of 11th March 1996 immediately prior to Dunblane, as the date to assess market values for the purposes of the compensation scheme. The Government cannot be held responsible for fluctuations in a market over which they have no direct control. The Bill specifically refers to 16th October because this is the date of the Government's response to Lord Cullen's report, and that must be right.

Perhaps I may refer to a point made by a number of Members of the Committee about precedents and whether there were any on the statute book. We have found no examples of compensation being paid for loss of business resulting from legislation. Examples of legislation leading to loss of business, for which no compensation was paid, include the Marine, & c, Broadcasting (Offences) Act 1967. That outlawed off-shore private radio. There was also the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988, which prohibited self-loading rifles, pump action shotguns and a number of other items of weaponry. Compensation was paid to owners of prohibited guns, but not to businesses.

Cattle head de-boners and the specified bovine material order of 29th March 1996, which is fairly recent, prevented meat from the heads of slaughtered cattle being sold for public consumption. That has done considerable damage to the industry, as we all know, which processed cattle heads. No compensation was made in that case and neither was there any time to adjust to that change. I make that point to my noble friend Lord Peel.

Other examples of Government action leading to loss of business without compensation included the banning of the use of hormones in red meat in 1988 under EC legislation and the banning of products such as drugs or pesticides on health and safety grounds.

I now move on to Amendment No. 39 in the names of my noble friends Lord Gisborough, Lord Swansea and Lord Shrewsbury, which deals with compensation for clubs and businesses. The Government will put in place arrangements which will allow clubs to continue to shoot small calibre .22 rimfire pistols under Home Office or Scottish Office licence. We hope that we shall have the co-operation of the shooting community in making that work.

Unfortunately, it may be that some existing clubs will not be able to take advantage of these arrangements. If so, that is a matter of regret. Clubs will be eligible for compensation for prohibited handguns and accessories under the terms of the Government compensation scheme, which we will lay before your Lordships' House. As I have already said, it will be a complete departure from precedent and one which we could not support, for the taxpayer to be asked to meet losses of this kind which were attributed to the prohibition of handguns.

Perhaps I may say as an aside at this point to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, that I have not detected in anything which has been said here or in another place by the official Labour Party Front Bench that they would have been more generous or generous at all, beyond what has been agreed in terms of compensation in this Bill or in any other Bill. For the record, that is my retort to the point made by the noble Lord.

I am aware of the great strength of feeling on the subject of compensation for business losses which will result from the implementation of the Bill. Firearms dealers who surrender prohibited handguns and specified ancillary equipment will be able to apply for compensation for them under the terms of the Government's compensation scheme on the same basis as private owners if they owned them, or were contracted to acquire them as at 16th October last. Amendment No. 40 would go further than this. It would have the Government pay compensation to dealers not simply for losses of property but also for business losses which were attributed to the prohibition on higher-calibre handguns. I regret to tell my noble friend that the Government cannot accede to that proposition. The Government have not been, and cannot be, liable for business which may be lost by companies when they introduce regulation in the interests of public safety. It is one of the overriding duties of the Government to protect the safety of the public. Thomas Hamilton's terrible crime made it inevitable that there would be further changes in the way in which guns were controlled in this country. Lord Cullen in his very thorough report made that abundantly clear.

Lord Gisborough

I am obliged to my noble friend for giving way. If these guns are to be withdrawn for reasons of public safety, surely it would be only fair to withdraw fire extinguishers and other objects like that.

4.45 p.m.

Baroness Blatch

Everything is a matter of balance. Noble Lords will have different views about what constitutes public safety and when the Government should intervene, but in responding to this particular incident there are many different views as to where the line should be drawn in terms of public safety. For what it is worth, the Government have drawn a line which is well known, and that is the subject of our debate today.

Strong recommendations were made about the control of hand-guns. But Lord Cullen said—and the Government entirely respect his stance—that the question of whether handguns would be available was one for Parliament and not for a judge to decide. The Government have taken a view on this fundamental question and they have been supported in another place. It would be a very significant inhibiting factor if on those occasions when the Government were obliged to legislate in the interests of public safety they were obliged to pay for business losses which were thought likely to result from it. As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has made clear in another place, there have been many occasions when public safety legislation has been introduced which affects businesses—for example, in the fields of transport, medicines, chemicals or pollution, and compensation for business loss has not been paid. If the practice of many, many years was to be changed, such an onerous requirement on the Government of the day would seriously inhibit the passing of safety legislation.

We intend to pay fair compensation to dealers for lost stock. But, in declining to compensate also for business loss, the Government are following the precedent of many years. Much as we regret the difficulties which many firearms dealers may face—I do not take issue with my noble friends on the examples that have been given—I believe that this is the right course for the Government to take, and I urge noble Lords to reject the amendment.

Finally, I turn to the amendments tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Monson. I do not believe that the noble Lord's Amendments Nos. 81 and 82 add to the present arrangements under which we propose to compensate the owners of small calibre pistols who choose to surrender them to the police rather than join a licensed pistol club. We fully intend that these people shall receive fair payment for their guns based on market value as at 16th October last, the date of the Government's Statement to the House on Lord Cullen's Report. We do not know how many of the small calibre pistol owners will choose to surrender their guns. We intend that the payments they receive should be ex gratia rather than being made under the terms of the statutory compensation scheme envisaged by Clause 11 of the Bill. But I can assure the House that they will be treated as favourably as people who surrender their prohibited higher calibre guns.

Perhaps I may deal with one or two particular points that have been made. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, referred to a matter that was not included in his correspondence. I take this opportunity to thank him very much for the way in which he has shared some of his concerns because it facilitates debate on these matters. I refer to the issue in Lithgow v. United Kingdom which was dealt with before the European Court of Human Rights. The Government consider that their proposals meet the requirements of the European convention in relation to the expropriation of property. The court held that a "fair balance" had to be struck when property was expropriated. The Government propose to pay compensation at market value. We believe that that meets the requirement for a fair balance. As I understand it, this case was not about business losses.

My noble friend Lord Kimball posed a question about guns for gun clubs being held on secure dealers' premises. I hope that my noble friend will forgive me if I say that that is the subject of Amendment No. 42. For that reason, I believe that it is wrong to deal with it while discussing this group of amendments.

Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Monson, referred to the distinction between owners and dealers. The use of the word "dealer" carries no implication that business losses would be paid. The Firearms Act distinguishes between firearm certificate holders and dealers in many aspects of the law. I believe that it would mislead the Committee if I said that compensation would be paid only to gun owners.

I urge the Committee to accept the two government amendments, although I appreciate that not all noble Lords agree with them. But it must be for other noble Lords to consider whether any of the amendments in this group are pressed.

Lord Renton

Before my noble friend sits down, can she give the Committee a broad idea of the total amount of compensation that is likely to be payable under the Government's proposals and how much more compensation would have to be paid under the proposals put forward by my noble friends?

Baroness Blatch

The ballpark figure that the Government have in mind at the moment is £150 million. As to the latter sum, I cannot hazard a guess other than that it will be very considerable. No quantification has been made of the degree to which businesses will lose out as a result of these changes. Implicit in this amendment are people who have put up their houses as collateral, taken out loans or leases and will suffer loss of rent. It is almost impossible to quantify other than to say that it will be a very considerable sum.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

In her speech the Minister referred to the comments of my noble friend Lord Stoddart. Both she and my noble friend are aware that there is a free vote on all of these issues. But I do not believe that I should let the moment pass without making it clear that at least as far as I am concerned my noble friend Lord Stoddart speaks for himself and not necessarily for others in his and my party. My advice to my noble friends, based on my personal assessment of the issues, is that when the government amendments are moved they should support them, and if there are any amendments that seek to extend compensation they should oppose them and join the Government in doing so.

Lord Monson

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, for her absolute assurance that compensation to the owners of .22 pistols who will have to surrender them will be at market value, even though for whatever reason the Government appear determined that this should remain on an ex gratia basis. As I understand it, however, no compensation will be payable for the accessories for these .22 pistols on the ground that there will still be a market for them. Does the noble Baroness agree that if most .22 pistol clubs must close because they cannot afford the extremely expensive security precautions that they will be obliged to incur, the value of these accessories will plummet?

Lord Lester of Herne Hill

I begin by declaring an indirect professional interest. I was counsel in the European case which was referred to by the Minister. In that case my clients were in the business of cattle head de-boning; that is, the removal and processing of meat from the heads of cattle. That is a case pending before the European Commission of Human Rights. As a result of the Government's measures to prevent the spread of BSE, my clients complained that they had been deprived of their right to property and livelihood by the destruction of their business in breach of Article 1 of the first protocol to the convention.

I was also the unsuccessful counsel in the Lithgow case who sought to challenge Labour's nationalisation proposals as not amounting to fair compensation. One found oneself against a Conservative Government which had promised to compensate when in opposition but which when in government—as one comes to expect of all parties when the executive gains power—behaved exactly as the Government before them. As a result, they succeeded in diluting the necessary English principles of compensation so that many Members of the Committee, especially on the Benches opposite, will find themselves in great difficulty today since, as I have explained, their only hope, I suspect, will be that European law will come to the rescue of difficulties about the British constitution.

I shall speak directly to the problems, based on my experience and expressing my view. On Second Reading, the Minister explained, as she has today, that the Government are unwilling to pay compensation for anything except guns and accessories, as distinct from the business losses sustained by those who suffer directly from the government legislation. What has been said, and said repeatedly, is, first, that there is no precedent for paying claims for business losses which occur as a result of direct government legislation. I shall try to persuade the Committee that that is a mistaken view.

What is said is that where the effect of government legislation is to deprive people or businesses of property or the use of their property, it is right that taxpayers collectively should pay those property owners, and only those property owners, for the value of their property. It is said that that obligation arises under the European Convention on Human Rights, but somehow it is different from paying compensation for business losses. I am merely summarising the Minister's speech on Second Reading.

On Second Reading my noble friend Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank raised what he described as the awkward question of compensation for loss of business, expressing his belief that public expenditure considerations should not be allowed to override what is fair and just to those who will inevitably be the victims of the legislation. My noble friend doubts whether we have yet got the extent and incidence of compensation right. I share his doubts, and I should like briefly to explain why.

First, there is the question of principle. Where the direct and inevitable effect of legislation is to deprive someone of the right to engage in what has previously been his lawful business and carry on what has previously been his lawful livelihood, the question is whether it is right in principle that the victim should be denied any compensation by the state, or should he be compensated, if not at full market value—I think not at full market value—then at any rate fairly, so that that individual does not have to bear an excessive individual burden. That is the question.

We pride ourselves in this country on the fact that ever since Magna Carta both common law and statute law give effective protection to the enjoyment of one's property, including the right to be fairly compensated for loss of livelihood or business where it is destroyed by coercive, legislative, or administrative measures. That basic principle is well preserved; for example, by our planning legislation in relation to the effect of planning blight on the enjoyment of one's property. It has always been well preserved by nationalisation legislation, where businesses are blighted or destroyed and compensation is payable.

I am dealing with principle, but as a matter of principle I can see no rational basis whatever for distinguishing between compensation for the deprivation of the right to own a firearm and compensation for the deprivation of the right to carry on business in selling firearms. For the dealer, the business is a much more valuable property right than is his current stock. In principle, the loss of business by dealers resulting directly from the banning of handguns should be compensated.

Secondly, there is the question of European law. I find it ironical and enjoyable that the noble Lords, Lord Stoddart of Swindon and Lord Pearson of Rannoch, will have to rely upon European law to deal with this problem.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch

Will the noble Lord give way? That of course depends upon what this place decides.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill

Of course, that is true. In this area, unlike European Community law, we have complete sovereign powers. If we do not use the powers in the way that the noble Lord wishes, then the only recourse will be to alien European judges in Strasbourg. It is well established in the case law of the European convention, contrary to the advice given to the Minister, as I understand the position, that the concept of possessions protected by Article 1 of the first protocol includes the economic interest concerned with the running of a licensed business, and that the withdrawal, for example, of a licence constitutes a measure of control of the use of property which is protected by Article 1 of the protocol.

One of the cases that lays that down is Tre Traktörer, the Swedish case decided in 1989. It is also clear that the deprivation of income from the use of an owner's property comes within Article 1 of the protocol. The European convention gives states a wide margin of appreciation in these matters, and the Committee is enjoying it today. We can decide, in a very wide margin of appreciation, what is a fair balance, but, in the end, under the convention—thank heavens!—in the absence of a written constitution or a Bill of Rights, the European Court of Human Rights has to determine, in its words: whether a fair balance has been struck between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of the individual's fundamental freedoms". The court has held repeatedly—again I quote from Lithgow: Compensation terms are material to the assessment whether the contested legislation represents a fair balance between the various interests at stake, and notably whether it does not impose a disproportionate burden on the applicants", in this case, on people whose businesses are destroyed by the Bill.

In my view, the absence from the Bill of the provision for compensation of any kind for disruption of business and livelihood is, to say the least, likely to raise powerful arguments of breaches of Article 1 of the convention's first protocol. That is the second point—if we do not do something about this then I suspect that the matter will have to go to the European court, which will be deeply regrettable. Although I make my living to some extent from cases in Europe, I am not satisfied by the fact that there are not effective remedies in Parliament and our own courts.

The third point is the question of precedent. The Government's position is that there are no precedents in favour of compensating in this kind of case. It is not correct to assert that there is no precedent for paying claims for business losses as a result of government legislation. I would add to the examples given by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, for example, that nationalisation legislation has always provided for compensation for business losses resulting directly from the legislation. That occurred most recently in the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act 1977, where the businesses concerned were valued at vesting date as a means of calculating losses and assessing compensation. Another more recent example—I do not suggest that Parliament always does its job properly—arose in relation to the BSE affair where, as I understand it—I shall be corrected if I am mistaken—payments amounting to £30 million are to be made to slaughterhouses which continue to slaughter beef. Those payments are based on the throughput for 1995 to 1996; that is, as a calculation to enable fair compensation to be paid for the loss of the business caused by the effects of the ban.

Another precedent, which one cannot disregard and which is directly relevant, is the firearms legislation in Australia. As several noble Lords have pointed out, the Australian Government's guidelines provide that firearms dealers and importers are entitled to apply for compensation for any loss in the value of their businesses caused by these prohibitions. The noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, quoted all the principles and therefore I do not need to repeat them.

All the laws enacted in the states of Australia during the past six months provide for loss of business of dealers who sell, repair or import the prohibited firearms. The loss is valued as the difference between the value of the business prior to the new legislation and after the legislation, as assessed by a certified valuer and subject to independent audit.

I believe that the Bill should provide some compensation for loss of business. Parliament is making people in the business of selling and distributing guns forgo their livelihood for the safety and well being of society as a whole. We cannot in fairness expect them to bear an unreasonable and excessive individual burden for the losses suffered by them in what we as legislators perceive as the general interest of the community.

However, lest I am thought to be a fanatic in defence of the right to property, perhaps I may say that, although I support the principle on which Amendment No. 40 is based, it is, in my view, too generous in requiring full compensation at market value. That is not the standard of compensation required under the convention in such a case. What is required is fair but not full compensation.

Moreover, as the business has declined since the Dunblane massacre, it would be inequitable for any compensation scheme to fail to take account of that decline in business. There I join forces with the noble Baroness the Minister in the way in which she approaches the relevant date. Amendment No. 40 treats 1st January 1996 as the relevant valuation date. That seems to be much too generous to dealers and unfair to the general body of taxpayers. It is more generous than the Australian compensation scheme and I see no good reason for that.

Perhaps I may sum up. I very much hope that the Government will accept the principle of fair but not full compensation and bring a scheme back to the House which meets the justice of the situation.

5 p.m.

The Earl of Lytton

It has been a very interesting debate. Like the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, I have never received so many letters on any other subject. I am grateful to the Minister for what she said, although I remain at least 80 per cent. unconvinced by it and I am sorry to record that.

I have great concerns as to how, in another place, a money resolution is put forward in terms which cover two heads of payment but the Government seek to limit public expenditure exposure to the first one only. That matter needs clarification.

We are dealing with an issue which has an effect of substantial finality to people who have no other option. The noble Earl, Lord Peel, referred to the fact and degree of the Government's liability to meet cost and to the absence of time to adjust. He said, "No product, no customer, no fault of their own". I agree with all those points. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, referred to justice and fairness and I support those sentiments too. The price of haste and lack of due consideration is full compensation, as I said. As I keep telling my clients in my professional capacity, "It is either your time or your money and you hope that it is not too much of both".

I was particularly pleased to note the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, because he dealt with the legal aspects upon which I am entirely unqualified to comment. I was not sure that I understood the difference between fair but not full compensation. I question whether in this Bill we have the right balance, given that at the date when the Minister suggests the Government should fix values for compensation purposes there was no market. How can one have a compensation scheme based on full or fair values if there is no market? However, I was heartened by the account of the discussions that are taking place in order to try to overcome that and I can hope only that they produce a satisfactory decision.

Obviously, it is up to Parliament to decide compensation, not government. The ban is not peripheral; it is fundamental. It is not tinkering at the edges of an industry; it is going to the core of it. That is the difference. I noted what was said by the noble Baroness in connection with the Labour Party and I noted what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, had to say. It is clear that public-sector costs are weighing more heavily in the balance in the Government's position than matters of fairness and justice. I find that deeply regrettable.

I do not intend to press my amendments. I cannot speak for other noble Lords, but if the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, seeks to move his amendment I should be inclined to walk into the Lobby with him. Mine are simply probing amendments, but I must make it clear that I do not intend to let go on this issue. I do not believe that we have the balance right and almost certainly I shall return to the matter at a later stage. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 34 to 36 not moved.]

Clause 11 agreed to.

Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 37: Divide Clause 11 into two clauses, the first (Payments in respect of prohibited small firearms and ammunition) to consist of subsections (1) to (3) and the second (Payments in respect of ancillary equipment) to consist of subsections (4) to (9).

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 38: After Clause 11, insert the following new clause—

PARLIAMENTARY CONTROL OF COMPENSATION SCHEMES

(" .—(1) Before making a compensation scheme the Secretary of State shall lay a draft of it before Parliament.

(2) The Secretary of State shall not make the scheme unless the draft has been approved by resolution of each House.

(3) This section applies to any alteration to the scheme as it applies to a compensation scheme.

(4) In this section "compensation scheme" means a scheme under section (Payments in respect of prohibited small firearms and ammunition) or (Payments in respect of ancillary equipment) above.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Shrewsbury moved Amendment No. 39:

After Clause 11, insert the following new clause—

COMPENSATION FOR CLUBS AND ASSOCIATIONS

(" .—(1) The Secretary of State shall, in accordance with a scheme made by him, make payments to persons who on 16th October 1996 were operating a target shooting club or association which as a result of the provisions of this Act will be unable to continue to operate.

(2) A scheme under subsection (1) above shall provide payments in respect of loss incurred by persons who have responsibility for any debt, mortgage, lease or other liability in connection with the club or association.").

The noble Earl said: I beg to move.

5.8 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 39) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 158; Not-Contents, 135.

Division No. 1
CONTENTS
Addington, L.	Craig of Radley, L.
Annaly, L.	Cranbrook, E.
Attlee, E.	Crawshaw, L.
Beaumont of Whitley, L.	Cross, V.
Belhaven and Stenton, L.	Dacre of Glanton, L.
Biddulph, L.	Davidson, V.
Blease, L.	De Saumarez, L.
Brabazon of Tara, L.	Denbigh, E.
Brain, L.	Denham, L.
Bridgeman, V.	Derwent, L.
Brookes, L.	Dilhorne, V.
Brougham and Vaux, L.	Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.
Bruntisfield, L.	Downshire, M.
Burton, L.	Dundonald, E.
Calverley, L.	Ellenborough, L.
Carlisle, E.	Erne, E.
Carnock, L.	Erroll, E.
Carr of Hadley, L.	Exmouth, V.
Chalfont, L.	Feversham, L.
Charteris of Amisfield, L.	Gage, V.
Clancarty, E.	Gainsborough, E.
Clanwilliam, E.	Geraint, L.
Clark of Kempston, L.	Gisborough, L.
Clifford of Chudleigh, L.	Glenarthur, L.
Coleridge, L.	Grey, E.
Congleton, L.	Grimston of Westbury, L.
Cornwallis, L.	Haddington, E.
Cottesloe, L.	Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.	Palmer, L.
Harris of Greenwich, L.	Park of Monmouth, B.
Harris of High Cross, L.	Pearson of Rannoch, L.
Haslam, L.	Peel, E.
Hemphill, L.	Plummer of St, Marylebone, L.
Hertford, M.	Quinton, L.
Holderness, L.	Raglan, L.
HolmPatrick, L.	Reay, L.
Hooson, L.	Redesdale, L.
Hothfield, L.	Rennell, L.
Howie of Troon, L.	Renwick, L.
Hylton, L.	Richardson, L.
Hylton-Foster, B.	Rochester, L.
Ilchester, E.	Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.
Inchcape, E.	Rotherwick, L.
Inchyra, L.	Russell, E.
Kilbracken, L.	Sainsbury, L.
Kimball, L. [Teller.]	St. Davids, V.
Kinloss, Ly.	Saint Oswald, L.
Kinnoull, E.	Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.
Kintore, E.	Sandwich, E.
Kirkwood, L.	Savile, L.
Knutsford, V.	Shannon, E.
Lane of Horsell, L.	Shrewsbury, E. [Teller.]
Lester of Herne Hill, L.	Simon, V.
Liverpool, E.	Skelmersdale, L.
Long, V.	Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.
Lucas of Chilworth, L.	Stanley of Alderley, L.
Lytton, E.	Stewartby, L.
Mallalieu, B.	Stodart of Leaston, L.
Mancroft, L.	Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Manton, L.	Strafford, E.
Mar and Kellie, E.	Strathcarron, L.
Marsh, L.	Swansea, L.
Massereene and Ferrard, V.	Taverne, L.
Mersey, V.	Teviot, L.
Meston, L.	Thomas of Walliswood, B.
Methuen, L.	Thurlow, L.
Milverton, L.	Thurso, V.
Monson, L.	Tollemache, L.
Montagu of Beaulieu, L.	Tope, L.
Monteagle of Brandon, L.	Tordoff, L.
Moran, L.	Vernon, L.
Mottistone, L.	Weatherill, L.
Mountgarret, V.	Williams of Crosby, B.
Mowbray and Stourton, L.	Willoughby de Broke, L.
Nelson, E.	Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.
Newall, L.	Wrenbury, L.
Norfolk, D.	Wyatt of Weeford, L.
Northesk, E.	Yarborough, E.
Oliver of Aylmerton, L.	Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

NOT-CONTENTS
Aberdare, L.	Brigstocke, B.
Abinger, L.	Byford, B.
Acton, L.	Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.
Addison, V.	Carnegy of Lour, B.
Ailsa, M.	Carter, L.
Alexander of Tunis, E.	Castle of Blackburn, B.
Allenby of Megiddo, V.	Chalker of Wallasey, B.
Anelay of St. Johns, B.	Chelmsford, V.
Archer of Sandwell, L.	Chesham, L. [Teller.]
Ashley of Stoke, L.	Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.
Astor of Hever, L.	Clinton-Davis, L.
Balfour, E.	Courtown, E.
Banbury of Southam, L.	Cox, B.
Barnett, L.	Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]
Beloff, L.	Cuckney, L.
Belstead, L.	Cumberlege, B.
Berkeley, L.	David, B.
Birdwood, L.	Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.
Blackstone, B.	Denton of Wakefield, B.
Blatch, B.	Donoughue, L.
Bolton, L.	Dormand of Easington, L.
Brentford, V.	Dubs, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.

5.17 p.m.

Lord Gisborough moved Amendment No. 40: After Clause 11, insert the following new clause—

PAYMENTS FOR LOSS OF BUSINESS

("—(1) The Secretary of State shall, in accordance with a scheme made by him, make payments to persons who suffer any loss in the value of a business owned or operated by them on 16th October 1996 which is directly attributable to the prohibition introduced by section 1 above.

(2) Any scheme made by the Secretary of State in accordance with subsection (1) shall provide for payments to be made on the basis of the difference in value of the business on 1st January 1996 and on the date of the passing of this Act calculated on the prescribed standard by a qualified person.

(3) For the purposes of this section— prescribed standard" means calculation of the capitalisation of the estimated future profits which will be foregone by a business as a consequence of the prohibition introduced by section 1 based upon an economic loss analysis of the audited financial statements of the business for the three financial years before the passing of this Act; and qualified person" means a person eligible for appointment as a company auditor in accordance with section 25 of the Companies Act 1989.").

The noble Lord said: I should like to move this amendment. It can be tidied up at a later stage with regard to whether it should be full compensation or fair compensation. I commend the amendment to the House.

5.18 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 40) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 120; Not-Contents, 147.

Division No. 1
CONTENTS
Addington, L.	Craig of Radley, L.
Annaly, L.	Cranbrook, E.
Attlee, E.	Crawshaw, L.
Beaumont of Whitley, L.	Cross, V.
Belhaven and Stenton, L.	Dacre of Glanton, L.
Biddulph, L.	Davidson, V.
Blease, L.	De Saumarez, L.
Brabazon of Tara, L.	Denbigh, E.
Brain, L.	Denham, L.
Bridgeman, V.	Derwent, L.
Brookes, L.	Dilhorne, V.
Brougham and Vaux, L.	Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.
Bruntisfield, L.	Downshire, M.
Burton, L.	Dundonald, E.
Calverley, L.	Ellenborough, L.
Carlisle, E.	Erne, E.
Carnock, L.	Erroll, E.
Carr of Hadley, L.	Exmouth, V.
Chalfont, L.	Feversham, L.
Charteris of Amisfield, L.	Gage, V.
Clancarty, E.	Gainsborough, E.
Clanwilliam, E.	Geraint, L.
Clark of Kempston, L.	Gisborough, L.
Clifford of Chudleigh, L.	Glenarthur, L.
Coleridge, L.	Grey, E.
Congleton, L.	Grimston of Westbury, L.
Cornwallis, L.	Haddington, E.
Cottesloe, L.	Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.	Palmer, L.
Harris of Greenwich, L.	Park of Monmouth, B.
Harris of High Cross, L.	Pearson of Rannoch, L.
Haslam, L.	Peel, E.
Hemphill, L.	Plummer of St, Marylebone, L.
Hertford, M.	Quinton, L.
Holderness, L.	Raglan, L.
HolmPatrick, L.	Reay, L.
Hooson, L.	Redesdale, L.
Hothfield, L.	Rennell, L.
Howie of Troon, L.	Renwick, L.
Hylton, L.	Richardson, L.
Hylton-Foster, B.	Rochester, L.
Ilchester, E.	Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.
Inchcape, E.	Rotherwick, L.
Inchyra, L.	Russell, E.
Kilbracken, L.	Sainsbury, L.
Kimball, L. [Teller.]	St. Davids, V.
Kinloss, Ly.	Saint Oswald, L.
Kinnoull, E.	Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.
Kintore, E.	Sandwich, E.
Kirkwood, L.	Savile, L.
Knutsford, V.	Shannon, E.
Lane of Horsell, L.	Shrewsbury, E. [Teller.]
Lester of Herne Hill, L.	Simon, V.
Liverpool, E.	Skelmersdale, L.
Long, V.	Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.
Lucas of Chilworth, L.	Stanley of Alderley, L.
Lytton, E.	Stewartby, L.
Mallalieu, B.	Stodart of Leaston, L.
Mancroft, L.	Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Manton, L.	Strafford, E.
Mar and Kellie, E.	Strathcarron, L.
Marsh, L.	Swansea, L.
Massereene and Ferrard, V.	Taverne, L.
Mersey, V.	Teviot, L.
Meston, L.	Thomas of Walliswood, B.
Methuen, L.	Thurlow, L.
Milverton, L.	Thurso, V.
Monson, L.	Tollemache, L.
Montagu of Beaulieu, L.	Tope, L.
Monteagle of Brandon, L.	Tordoff, L.
Moran, L.	Vernon, L.
Mottistone, L.	Weatherill, L.
Mountgarret, V.	Williams of Crosby, B.
Mowbray and Stourton, L.	Willoughby de Broke, L.
Nelson, E.	Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.
Newall, L.	Wrenbury, L.
Norfolk, D.	Wyatt of Weeford, L.
Northesk, E.	Yarborough, E.
Oliver of Aylmerton, L.	Zouche of Haryngworth, L.
NOT-CONTENTS
Aberdare, L.	Brigstocke, B.
Abinger, L.	Byford, B.
Acton, L.	Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.
Addison, V.	Carnegy of Lour, B.
Ailsa, M.	Carter, L.
Alexander of Tunis, E.	Castle of Blackburn, B.
Allenby of Megiddo, V.	Chalker of Wallasey, B.
Anelay of St. Johns, B.	Chelmsford, V.
Archer of Sandwell, L.	Chesham, L. [Teller.]
Ashley of Stoke, L.	Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.
Astor of Hever, L.	Clinton-Davis, L.
Balfour, E.	Courtown, E.
Banbury of Southam, L.	Cox, B.
Barnett, L.	Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]
Beloff, L.	Cuckney, L.
Belstead, L.	Cumberlege, B.
Berkeley, L.	David, B.
Birdwood, L.	Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.
Blackstone, B.	Denton of Wakefield, B.
Blatch, B.	Donoughue, L.
Bolton, L.	Dormand of Easington, L.
Brentford, V.	Dubs, L.
Dundee, E.	Mackay of Clashfern, L.[Lord Chancellor.]
Eatwell, L.
Eccles of Moulton, B.	Mackay of Drumadoon, L.
Elles, B.	Marlesford, L.
Elliott of Morpeth, L.	Mason of Barnsley, L.
Elton, L.	Merlyn-Rees, L.
Farrington of Ribbleton, B.	Merrivale, L.
Feldman, L.	Miller of Hendon, B.
Ferrers, E.	Mishcon, L.
Flather, B.	Morris of Castle Morris, L.
Fraser of Carmyllie, L.	Mountevans, L.
Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.	Murton of Lindisfarne, L.
Goschen, V.	Nathan, L.
Gould of Potternewton, B.	Nickson, L.
Graham of Edmonton, L.	O'Cathain, B.
Gray of Contin, L.	Orr-Ewing, L.
Gregson, L.	Paul, L.
Halsbury, E.	Peston, L.
Harmar-Nicholls, L.	Pike, B.
Harris of Peckham, L.	Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.
Haskel, L.	Prentice, L.
Hayman, B.	Prys-Davies, L.
Henley, L.	Ramsay of Cartvale, B.
Hilton of Eggardon, B.	Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.
Hollis of Heigham, B.	Renton, L.
Hood, V.	Richard, L.
Hooper, B.	Rogers of Riverside, L.
Howe, E.	Seccombe, B.
Hughes, L.	Sewel, L.
Inglewood, L.	Shaw of Northstead, L.
Jay of Paddington, B.	Strabolgi, L.
Jeger, B.	Strathclyde, L.[Teller.]
Jenkins of Putney, L.	Sudeley, L.
Johnston of Rockport, L.	Taylor of Blackburn, L
Judd, L.	Taylor of Gryfe, L.
Lauderdale, E.	Taylor of Warwick, L.
Leigh, L.	Thomas of Gwydir, L.
Lindsay, E.	Trumpington, B.
Lucas, L.	Turner of Camden, B.
Luke, L.	Ullswater, V.
Lyell, L.	White, B.
McCarthy, L.	Wilcox, B.
McColl of Dulwich, L.	Williams of Elvel, L.
McConnell, L.	Williams of Mostyn, L.
Mclntosh of Haringey, L.	Winston, L.
Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.	Wynford, L.

Division No. 2
CONTENTS
Allenby of Megiddo, V.	Howie of Troon, L.
Annaly, L.	Ilchester, E.
Attlee, E.	Inchcape, E.
Barber of Tewkesbury, L.	Inchyra, L.
Beaumont of Whitley, L.	Kintore, E.
Belhaven and Stenton, L.	Kirkwood, L.
Biddulph, L.	Knutsford, V.
Blease, L.	Liverpool, E.
Boardman, L.	Lucas of Chilworth, L.
Brabazon of Tara, L.	Lytton, E.
Brain, L.	McNair, L.
Bridgeman, V.	Mallalieu, B.
Brookes, L.	Mancroft, L.
Brougham and Vaux, L.	Manton, L.
Bruntisfield, L.	Marsh, L.
Burton, L.	Masham of Ilton, B.
Carlisle, E.	Massereene and Ferrard, V.
Carnock, L.	Monson, L.
Chalfont, L.	Montagu of Beaulieu, L.
Charteris of Amisfield, L.	Monteagle of Brandon, L.
Clancarty, E.	Moran, L.
Clanwilliam, E.	Mottistone, L.
Clifford of Chudleigh, L.	Mountgarret, V.
Congleton, L.	Nelson, E.
Cornwallis, L.	Newall, L.
Cottesloe, L.	Norfolk, D.
Craig of Radley, L.	Northesk, E.
Crawshaw, L.	Oliver of Aylmerton, L.
Cross, V.	Palmer, L.
Dacre of Glanton, L.	Pearson of Rannoch, L.
Davidson, V.	Peel, E. [Teller.]
De Saumarez, L.	Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.
Denbigh, E.	Quinton, L.
Denham, L.	Raglan, L.
Derwent, L.	Reay, L.
Dilhorne, V.	Rennell, L.
Downshire, M.	Richardson, L.
Dundonald, E.	St. Davids, V.
Erroll, E.	St. John of Bletso, L.
Exmouth, V.	Saint Oswald, L.
Feversham, L.	Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.
Gainsborough, E.	Sandwich, E.
Geddes, L.	Savile, L.
Geraint, L.	Shannon, E.
Gisborough, L. [Teller.]	Shrewsbury, E.
Glenarthur, L.	Simon, V.
Haddington, E.	Stanley of Alderley, L.
Hamilton of Dalzell, L.	Stewartby, L.
Harding of Petherton, L.	Stodart of Leaston, L.
Harris of High Cross, L.	Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Hertford, M.	Strafford, E.
Holderness, L.	Strathcarron, L.
HolmPatrick, L.	Swansea, L.
Hooson, L.	Taverne, L.
Hothfield, L.	Thurlow, L.

Thurso, V.	Wrenbury, L.
Vernon, L.	Wyatt of Weeford, L.
Weatherill, L.	Wynford, L.
Wharton, B.	Yarborough, E.
Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.	Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

NOT-CONTENTS
Aberdare, L.	Harris of Peckham, L.
Abinger, L.	Haskel, L.
Acton, L.	Hay man, B.
Addison, V.	Hemphill, L.
Ailsa, M.	Henley, L.
Alexander of Tunis, E.	Hilton of Eggardon, B.
Anelay of St. Johns, B.	Hollis of Heigham, B.
Archer of Sandwell, L.	Hooper, B.
Ashbourne, L.	Howe, E.
Ashley of Stoke, L.	Hughes, L.
Astor of Hever, L.	Inglewood, L.
Balfour, E.	Jay of Paddington, B.
Banbury of Southam, L.	Jenkins of Putney, L.
Barnett, L.	Johnston of Rockport, L.
Beloff, L.	Judd, L.
Belstead, L.	Kimball, L.
Birdwood, L.	Lindsay, E.
Blackstone, B.	Lockwood, B.
Blatch, B.	Long, V.
Bolton, L.	Longford, E.
Bowness, L.	Lovell-Davis, L.
Brentford, V.	Lucas, L.
Brigstocke, B.	Luke, L.
Byford, B.	Lyell, L.
Caldecote, V.	McColl of Dulwich, L.
Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.	McConnell, L.
Carnegy of Lour, B.	McIntosh of Haringey, L.
Carter, L.	Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.
Castle of Blackburn, B.	Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]
Chalker of Wallasey, B.
Chelmsford, V.	Mackay of Drumadoon, L.
Chesham, L. [Teller.]	Marlesford, L.
Clark of Kempston, L.	Mason of Barnsley, L.
Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.	Merlyn-Rees, L.
Clinton-Davis, L.	Merrivale, L.
Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.	Miller of Hendon, B.
Coleridge, L.	Milverton, L.
Courtown, E.	Mishcon, L.
Cranbome, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]	Montrose, D.
Cuckney, L.	Morris of Castle Morris, L.
Cumberlege, B.	Mountevans, L.
David, B.	Mowbray and Stourton, L.
Dean of Beswick, L.	Murton of Lindisfarne, L.
Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.	Nathan, L.
Demon of Wakefield, B.	Nickson, L.
Donoughue, L.	Nicol, B.
Dormand of Easington, L.	O'Cathain, B.
Dubs, L.	Orr-Ewing, L.
Dundee, E.	Park of Monmouth, B.
Eatwell, L.	Peston, L.
Eccles of Moulton, B.	Platt of Writtle, B.
Ellenborough, L.	Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.
Elliott of Morpeth, L.	Prys-Davies, L.
Elton, L.	Ramsay of Cartvale, B.
Erne, E.	Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.
Farrington of Ribbleton, B.	Renton, L.
Feldman, L.	Richard, L.
Ferrers, E.	Rotherwick, L.
Flather, B.	Seccombe, B.
Fraser of Carmyllie, L.	Sewel, L.
Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.	Shaw of Northstead, L.
Glenamara, L.	Skelmersdale, L.
Goschen, V.	Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.
Gould of Potternewton, B.	Strabolgi, L.
Graham of Edmonton, L.	Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]
Gray of Contin, L.	Sudeley, L.
Gregson, L.	Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Harmar-Nicholls, L.	Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Taylor of Warwick, L.	White, B.
Thomas of Gwydir, L.	Wilcox, B.
Tollemache, L.	Williams of Mostyn, L.
Trumpington, B.	Winston, L.
Turner of Camden, B.	Wise, L.
Ullswater, V.	Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

5.27 p.m.

Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 41: After Clause 11, insert the following new clause—

EXEMPTION FROM SURRENDER OK FIREARM WHERE EXPORT LICENCE APPLICATION MADE

("—(1) A holder of a firearm certificate authorising possession of a firearm which will become, or has become, unlawful by virtue of section 1 above shall not be required to surrender that firearm in accordance with section 10 above if that person has made application to the Department of Trade and Industry in the prescribed form for an export licence for that firearm not later than fourteen days before the date announced by the Secretary of State as the final date for the surrender of that category of firearm.

(2) The holder of the firearm certificate shall be required to surrender the firearm to the police—

1. (a) if the export licence is not granted, not more than seven days after receiving such notification from the Department of Trade and Industry; or
2. (b) if the export licence is granted, not more than fifty-six days after receiving such notification if the firearm has not been exported by that time.

(3) A person who surrenders a firearm to a chief officer of police under subsection (2) above shall be entitled to the same payment under section 11 above as if he had surrendered the firearm in accordance with the arrangements made by the Secretary of State under section 10 above.").

The noble Lord said: The purpose of the proposed new clause is to enable those who have guns, which will become unlawful if the Bill is passed, to make arrangements to sell them abroad without being unduly hindered by the tight time-scale of surrender which is currently envisaged. Subsection (1) of the clause requires the owner to apply for an export licence at least 14 days before the final date for surrender of the gun under normal arrangements. So he has to find by that time a person, club or dealer to whom he can export the gun. Once he had applied for an export licence the owner would not be required to surrender it within the short time-scale, given that export licences may take some time to be granted.

Subsection (2) sets the time limit for disposal of the gun after the owner is advised of the outcome of the export licence application. If it is turned down, he has seven days to surrender it to the police. On the other hand, if it is granted he has eight weeks to make the necessary arrangements to get the gun out of the country. If it is not exported within the time limit, it has to be surrendered to the police.

Subsection (3) makes it clear that if the gun has to be surrendered to the police because an export licence is not granted, or because the owner cannot get it exported within the time limit, the owner is entitled to the same compensation as is due to everyone else. The amendment enables gun owners to pass their possessions on at a fair price to other persons who can legally hold them in their own countries. It could also enable some historic guns, which are not regarded as very important in Britain, to be returned to countries where they are of significance.

From the Government's viewpoint, any gun sold overseas reduces their liability—or, strictly speaking, that of the taxpayer—for compensation. It also reduces the workload on the police in administering the surrender arrangements. Incidentally, the Australian scheme does allow gun owners to export if they so wish. I beg to move.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, I moved amendments at an earlier stage of the Committee with the directly opposite intention to the amendment now proposed. I was concerned that there should not be an increase in the international arms trade as a result of the legislation. However, the noble Lord, Lord Monson, seems to be concerned to ensure that there will be an increase in that trade. I think that is deplorable. Of course it is true that licences are required for the export of arms of this kind. It is quite right that they should be because these arms can be used not only in domestic civil homicide—if that is the right way to describe it—but also in disturbed or disordered countries as weapons of war or of civil war. We should discourage this kind of increase in the international arms trade which would be encouraged by the noble Lord's amendment. I hope that the Government and the Committee will resist it.

5.30 p.m.

Lord Burton

I understand that people who have already applied for export licences are not receiving them at the moment because the authorities have stopped processing them. That must be wrong. The law is not being complied with as they have every right to obtain a licence at the present time. The issuing of those licences should not be deferred.

The Earl of Lytton

I have some slight misgivings about what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said. It seems to me that handguns are relatively easy to obtain in Europe, of which we are part. Among other things, Europe provides for the free movement of goods, services and people within its overall borders. We cannot disinvent what already exists in terms of things which we in this country might decide are unsatisfactory but which are commonplace, in common use and are commonly accepted in other countries. While I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, might wish this country to make a gesture in the direction of the arms trade—I abhor that trade—there are much larger issues to consider such as matters we have heard about recently; namely, landmines and other things of that sort. Those issues need to be tackled, not the private ownership of handguns which have no large-scale application for the purposes of anti-personnel activities. In general, I support this amendment. So long as we have free trade and so long as these items are legally owned in other countries, I do not see how we can possibly stand in the way of that.

Lord Mackay of Drumadoon

The noble Lord's amendment would open the possibility of a large number of higher calibre handguns remaining in circulation for some time after the prohibition came into effect. I do not believe that the noble Lord's amendment is necessary to meet the concern which he has raised.

The Government recognise that some of those who currently possess higher calibre handguns may want to sell them to someone in another country where such handguns will remain lawful, rather than surrender their weapons to the police and receive compensation under the scheme which will be made under Clause 11. For that reason it is not necessary for the Government to become involved in the matter which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, have just discussed. As I say, it is recognised that some owners will wish to export their guns to countries where the guns will remain lawful. However, those who wish to do so will need to obtain an export licence from the Department of Trade and Industry. Obtaining such a licence takes a little time because the application must be checked for accuracy and omissions, and checks may be made if necessary to determine that the intended recipient of the firearm in another country has whatever authorities are required in that country to receive and possess the firearms.

Checks may also be made to make sure that there is no other reason why it would not be in the public interest for the firearm to be exported to the intended destination. I understand that in normal circumstances the Department of Trade and Industry processes such applications within 20 working days of receipt of a completed application. My noble friend Lord Burton suggests that there may be a problem at the moment. I undertake to check that matter with the department. The Government have not yet determined the precise arrangements for the surrender of higher calibre handguns to the police, including how long the surrender period should last. We are currently discussing with the police what period will be necessary, but it is likely that we will allow a period of two or perhaps three months. Such a period would in normal circumstances allow plenty of time for anyone who wished to export his firearm. I recognise, however, that there may be a significant increase in firearms export applications during the relevant period. We are therefore considering with the Department of Trade and Industry what arrangements might be made if there were to be a substantial increase. We will want to make sure that there are no unnecessary delays in the processing of applications.

We will also want to avoid the situation where a valid application for an export licence is still under consideration when the prohibition comes into effect. I agree with the noble Lord that people should not inadvertently be denied the opportunity lawfully to export their firearms. I do not believe, however, that the amendment is the right answer to that potential problem. It would have the effect that those who had made applications for export licences did not have to surrender their firearms. They would remain in possession of their higher calibre handguns after the prohibition came into effect, provided they had lodged an application. This inevitably leaves open the possibility that some people may seek deliberately to thwart the effect of the prohibition.

If large numbers of applications were made shortly before the prohibition came into effect, the department might take some time to process them. That is a problem which must be faced. That might mean that significant numbers of higher calibre handguns would remain in circulation for a substantial period beyond that which was intended by the prohibition. The Government believe that would create an unacceptable loophole in the introduction of the prohibition.

It is important that all those firearms which will be prohibited are out of circulation as soon as possible. We are considering whether the arrangements for the surrender and compensation scheme under Clauses 10 and 11 should allow for the possibility that those who wish to export their firearms should be allowed to surrender their weapons to the police during the normal surrender period until such time as the application is determined. If the application is granted, they would then be permitted to export the handgun. If, on the other hand, the application is refused, the owner would be able to receive compensation under the scheme as if he had surrendered it in the normal way like many others.

We are not at present convinced that such arrangements will be necessary but we are considering whether there may be a case for them. I am happy to give an undertaking to the Committee to consider the issue in detail with the Department of Trade and Industry, and if we conclude that it is necessary to make provision for the surrender and compensation arrangements under Clauses 10 and 11 along the lines I have outlined, that will be done. I hope that will meet the noble Lord's concern without leaving open the possibility of these guns remaining in circulation longer than the prohibition would normally allow. With that undertaking, I hope that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Monson

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Lytton for his support. He put the case well. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, chilled our blood with talk of the international arms trade as if we were talking about Exocet missiles, or even Kalashnikovs such as are used in civil wars. We are not talking about those things; we are talking about ordinary revolvers and pistols, .32, .38, .45, such as were freely obtainable by anyone in this country up until 1920, and with almost no difficulty until 1946. Most countries do not have the hang-ups—as I think I said on an earlier occasion—about pistols that we have in this country at the moment. If people in those countries want to buy the guns and their governments are happy that they should acquire them, why should they not do so?

I listened with great interest to what the Minister said. He has been helpful. The Government are thinking carefully about the matter and about possible problems that may arise. I shall read the Minister's comments thoroughly. I may have to return to the matter at the next stage of the Bill but I hope that will not be necessary. With that I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 12 [Purpose of Part 77]:

Earl Peel moved Amendment No. 42: Page 7, line 24, at end insert ("and such premises may include the premises of a registered firearms dealer for the purpose of such storage").

The noble Earl said: This is principally a probing amendment to attempt to clarify the situation regarding the use of dealers' premises to store pistols. When a similar amendment was debated in another place, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary stated that the amendment was unnecessary since the definition in Clause 12 of "licensed premises" does not prevent a registered firearms dealer's premises being specified in a pistol club's licence as the place where small calibre pistols may be stored. He went on to say that the key requirement would be that it met the levels of security necessary to ensure that guns could not be stolen or removed illicitly from the premises. The majority of dealers would have such levels of security to satisfy the local chief of police.

During her winding up speech at Second Reading, the Minister qualified the statement by saying that guns could only be stored at dealers' premises, where a dealer runs a shooting range".—[Official Report, 16/12/96; col. 1381.]

My noble friend continued: If the gun would have to leave the dealers' premises in order to reach the gun club, that would not be acceptable".—[Official Report, 16/12/96; col. 1382.]

While the Home Secretary's initial statement would allow pistol clubs to use dealers' premises to store their pistols, my noble friend's reply would effectively prevent the majority of gun dealers from doing so as most do not have ranges on their premises. I hope that the amendment offers my noble friend an opportunity to clarify this important point. I beg to move.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour

I support the amendment. At Second Reading I addressed the issue of small gun clubs which have difficulty in finding premises. That is the reason they are threatened with closure. Therefore, if gun shop premises could be used for storage it would be most helpful. Other premises might be able to be used. I am not sure whether that is precluded by the Bill.

Lord Mackay of Drumadoon

Amendment No. 42 is grouped with Amendments Nos. 45 and 46. For the convenience of the Committee it may be sensible for me to limit my remarks at present to Amendment No. 42 as no noble Lord has spoken to Amendments Nos. 45 or 46.

Amendment No. 42 in the name of my noble friend Lord Peel deals with the definition of "licensed premises" in Clause 12. That definition does not prevent a registered firearms dealer's premises being specified in a pistol club's licence as the place where small calibre pistols may be stored. As my noble friend Lady Blatch sought to make clear previously, that depends on the precise circumstances of the registered dealer's premises and the club premises.

It is impossible to say in advance whether a specific set of premises will qualify as a club, and for guns to be stored there. That requires to be determined once the facts are known. It all depends on the individual circumstances. On the basis that as presently drafted Clause 12 does not preclude it, the Government remain of the view that the amendment is unnecessary and may be counterproductive. On that basis, which I hope I have made clear, I invite the noble Earl to withdraw the amendment.

Earl Peel

I thank my noble friend for that reply. One or two items are still a little unclear from his answer. However, I wish to consider the matter, and perhaps return to it at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 12 agreed to. Clause 13 agreed to.

5.45 p.m.

The Earl of Mar and Kellie moved Amendment No. 43: After Clause 13, insert the following new clause—

No PISTOL CLUB TO USE TARGETS WITH HUMAN RESEMBLANCE

("No club shall allow the use on any of its club premises of targets made to bear any resemblance to a human form.").

The noble Earl said: Before moving the amendment, perhaps I may say this. I believe that there is a substantial popular moral movement in this country which wishes to see the end of handguns in their entirety. However, the purpose of Amendments Nos. 43 and 44 is to ensure that the residual pistol shooting sport allowed in the Bill never approaches the accusation of "practising killing people". I recognise that that may be somewhat over the top and unfair. However, at Second Reading I said that I believed that handguns had only a lethal or quasi-lethal use. The adoption of the two amendments would provide an antidote to my argument about there being only a lethal or quasi-lethal use of handguns. It would confirm that bull's-eye style target shooting is a sport in itself and hence is not practising to kill people.

It is wholly appropriate that the Armed Forces and the police should train themselves to reduce the enemy to incapability of response. The activity of military shooting must be seen as a wholly separate activity. The Armed Forces and police must practise the accurate use of their weapons under as realistic conditions as possible; and they must build up skills in weapon handling, change of firing position and tactical movements.

It is not the role in any way of the private civilian handgun owner or user to train himself in that respect. If private handgun owners and their sport are to be tolerated in our society, they must be able to demonstrate that there is no confusion whatsoever in their minds that they have a military or anti-human purpose in their hobby or sport. In short, they must not look like soldiers or give the impression of practising to shoot humans. I believe that the amendments send out a strong message to all pistol shooting enthusiasts about the suspect nature of their activity and the moral constraints that are placed upon them. I beg to move.

Earl Attlee

Perhaps I may remind the Committee that I have previously declared an interest in this matter.

The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, raises an extremely important point. I, too, have some difficulty with what is called combat shooting but I do not know much about it. Great emphasis has been laid on the problem by the Minister and her right honourable friend. Why has it suddenly appeared as a problem? What studies have been undertaken? The Minister has yet to reply to the questions that I posed at Second Reading. I understand that the Firearms Consultative Committee has studied the matter in passing but has not published any findings.

Having said that, I have grave misgivings about competitions where among the skills being tested are the ability to reload, change or select fire positions, or to make ready and fire quickly. I repeat that I do not know the answer; it is a matter that the FCC needs to look into.

There is also the slightly different problem addressed at Second Reading by the noble Viscount, Lord Slim. We currently provide effective personal protection services but only overseas, not within the United Kingdom. I believe that the training used to take place at a "club". Perhaps reputable organisations in this field will be able to obtain a Section 5 authorisation in due course.

The noble Earl's second amendment addresses the same problem and is useful as an illustration of the matters to be debated. However, it is flawed because of the difficulties of definition. Some styles of military clothing are fashionable. The provision is unnecessary and denies shooters a suitable supply of good quality clothing. Apart from that, the proposal is quite good. There is one more problem. I should not be able to attend a shooting meeting wearing my TA uniform, even on MoD land.

I am grateful to the noble Earl for tabling these amendments. I look forward to the comments of other noble Lords and to the Minister's reply.

The Earl of Balfour

In our consideration of the legislation in principle I feel that most of us who were taught to shoot, in order to kill vermin, pheasants and so on, were so very strictly trained that we never, ever pointed a gun at anybody, even if it was unloaded. Today, that same training is not being given to people. I raised this matter at Second Reading. I am not sure that the drafting of these amendments is in any way acceptable to the Government. However, there needs to be a clear distinction. On the whole, I should be much happier if the position taken by the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, could be made clear on the face of the Bill. It would give tremendous encouragement to sportsmen in this country.

Lord Swansea

As Amendments Nos. 45 and 46 are grouped with this amendment, I intend to speak to Amendment No. 45.

Baroness Blatch

If my noble friend will forgive my interrupting him, we are discussing Amendments Nos. 43 and 44. Amendments Nos. 45 and 46 form a pair of amendments that will be discussed when debate on this amendment is completed.

Lord Monson

I have mixed feelings about Amendment No. 43, but Amendment No. 44 goes way over the top and should be resisted, partly for the reason given by my noble friend Lord Attlee, partly because of problems of definition and partly because a matter of so trivial a nature is unsuited to statute law. I do not know whether they still exist in the south of England, but certainly in the north institutions called army surplus shops still exist in great numbers. The clothes sold there are cheap and hard-wearing; they do not show the dirt easily and are comfortable. They are, for instance, worn frequently by beaters on shoots. Would such clothes be banned? Would forage caps, for instance, worn by some people for obvious reasons, be banned? I have a cotton safari jacket which I wear whenever I visit tropical countries. It is cut in a military style. Would that be banned? One has only to raise such questions to see how nonsensical Amendment No. 44 is.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour

I suggest that Amendment No. 44 is a somewhat illiberal proposal.

Lord Marlesford

Amendment No. 44 is clearly a non-starter by any test. However, according to my paper, Amendment No. 43 relates only to pistol clubs. Does the noble Earl intend it to apply also to rifle clubs?

The Earl of Mar and Kellie

Perhaps I may reply to those points. I take the point about the proposal sounding illiberal. I am happy to say that I should like to see the ban on shooting at human style targets cover all forms of firearm.

Lord Mackay of Drumadoon

It is obvious from the contributions of all noble Lords who spoke on these two amendments that the issues that lie behind them give rise to a difference of view. That serves to illustrate my main point; namely, if there is a case for regulation of the targets used at pistol clubs and of the clothing used by those who attend such clubs, it is better that that is not done on the face of the Bill but that it is prescribed in regulations, as set out in Clause 22, upon which the Government will take the advice of the Firearms Consultative Committee before the regulations are laid.

The Government firmly believe that such restrictions, if appropriate, should be dealt with by regulations, which may be amended if necessary in the light of experience. I hope that, given the assurance that the Government will examine the issue further before finalising the necessary regulations, the noble Earl will find it possible to withdraw both amendments.

Lord Williams of Mostyn

Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, will he agree that Amendments Nos. 43 and 44 are simply not workable in any event as they do not contain the necessary consequential sanction which is available under Clause 22 of the Bill?

Lord Mackay of Drumadoon

I am obliged to the noble Lord for his assistance. There are a number of sound technical and legal objections to the amendments. I happily adopt his support on this matter. The better way is to leave it to regulations if such restriction is appropriate.

The Earl of Mar and Kellie

I am impressed by the co-operation between the Labour and Conservative Parties. Perhaps it will continue.

I agree with Members of the Committee that Amendment No. 44 is capable of being described as trivial. However, Amendment No. 43 attracted some degree of sympathy. It is important to make it quite clear—this is a moral rather than a legislative issue—that there is a substantial difference between military and civil shooting. That was one of the reasons I was very keen to table the amendment.

In response to the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, I believe it is important that people are taught how to shoot. If animals are to be shot, people should have practice in shooting at animal targets. For example, there is a need in Scotland for a cull of 100, 000 red deer. Clearly there is a need for people who are not practised in shooting live red deer to shoot at red deer targets. I am in favour of the use of animal style targets, merely not human ones.

I am heartened by the remarks of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate about such provisions appearing in regulations. Therefore I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 44 not moved.]

Clause 14 agreed to.

Clause 15 [Criteria for grant of licence]:

Lord Swansea moved Amendment No. 45: Page 8, line 40, at end insert ("and section 42 (3) of this Act shall not apply in respect of this Part of this Act until such guidance has been published").

The noble Lord said: this is a probing amendment. It seeks clarification on the proposed security requirements for clubs.

At the moment, members of gun clubs face uncertainty about the future of their clubs. Many will have considerable sums invested in premises which might be forced to close under the terms of the Bill. That uncertainty should be addressed by the Government so that gun club members can make decisions regarding their investments.

The Government's response to Lord Cullen's report, published on 16th October 1996, contained an indication of the arrangements that clubs might be expected to implement as a result of the Bill. These included: reinforced walls to ensure that thieves could not break into a club building; safes in which guns and ammunition would have to be stored; strong perimeter fences; burglar alarms linked directly to the police; access control, including metal detectors, to prevent guns being illicitly removed".

The Government conceded that, "Very few, if any, existing gun clubs will meet these security requirements". The Government said that, after consultation with the police, the arrangements would be published in guidance.

This delay does not help those who currently have investments tied up in club premises. There is no apparent reason for withholding such information, which would go a long way to ease the anxieties of those whose assets are at risk and enable those clubs that can meet the strict security standards to make the necessary improvements quickly. I beg to move.

Lord Burton

I support my noble friend in his amendment. It is very difficult for the clubs if they do not know what they will have to do. They do not know whether they will be able to stay open or whether they will have to close. They must be given the information as soon as the Government can provide it, which I hope will not be long delayed.

6 p.m.

Lord Mackay of Drumadoon

I fully accept that there must be a measure of uncertainty on the part of pistol clubs as to what the future holds for them. But the import of Amendment No. 45, which my noble friend Lord Swansea has spoken to, is that it would place a statutory requirement on the Secretary of State not to bring into force the provisions for licensing pistol clubs until the criteria for the grant of such a licence have been published.

The Government fully accept that such criteria should be published and made familiar to the members and office bearers of gun clubs before they are put in the position of having to apply for licences. However, I do not believe that this kind of common sense administrative matter requires statutory regulation.

I can assure your Lordships that the criteria and guidance for licensed pistol clubs are under active consideration by officials and Ministers. We hope that a first draft of the criteria for the clubs and the security standards required will soon be placed in the Library of the House. I hope that that undertaking serves to answer the probing amendment, as my noble friend Lord Swansea described it, and that the amendment will not be pressed.

Lord Swansea

I am grateful to my noble friend for his remarks. As I said before, this is simply a probing amendment. I hope that clubs will take account of what he said and wait for the guidance. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Swansea moved Amendment No. 46: Page 8, line 40, at end insert—

("(3) A member of a licensed pistol club approved by the Secretary of State may, without holding a firearm certificate, have in his possession a firearm and ammunition when engaged as a member of the club in, or in connection with, target shooting.").

The noble Lord said: Clubs depend on a regular intake of new members. Those new members may or may not have previous experience of shooting; they would like to have a go. The Bill proposes that all members of a club should be in possession of a firearm certificate. One cannot expect a prospective member to have a firearm certificate. He probably will not have any firearms himself, and he may or may not wish to carry on shooting after he has had a go. The amendment allows for that situation. I believe I am right in saying that the 1968 Firearms Act caters for the contingency by allowing newcomers to go to a club and have a go on the range under close supervision following which they may or may not stay with the game. I beg to move.

Lord Gisborough

I support the amendment. Pistol shooting is, after all, an Olympic sport. At the moment there are members who can compete. Unless something like the provision contained in this amendment is included in the Bill, there can be no question but that in a few years' time some old people will be shooting but not a single young person. The sport will disappear. It is essential that this amendment or something like it should be accepted in order to allow new entrants to the sport. I am certain that if somebody aged 18 goes to a club and wants to start shooting he will not obtain a firearm certificate just because he thinks he would like to start pistol shooting.

Earl Attlee

The noble Lord raises an extremely important point. For many shooters there is no need to own their own handgun or rifle; they can use a club weapon. If we encouraged ownership of club weapons and discouraged personal ownership, that would go a long way to reducing the ownership of rifles and handguns. I have no hesitation in supporting the noble Lord's amendment.

Lord Monson

I am in some difficulty here. The Committee will notice that Amendment No. 46 is identical to Amendment No. 47 in my name except that Amendment No. 46 appears in Clause 15 while mine appears in Clause 20, which I am advised by experts is the clause where it should appear. I had understood that on those grounds the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, was not going to move Amendment No. 46. As he has moved it, it seems only sensible that I should speak to the identical Amendment No. 47 and spare the Government having to reply twice.

This matter is very important in respect of new or probationary club members. At the present time any member of a club may use a pistol. However, if special permits are required, new members will not be able to fire a pistol on even one single occasion without a licence. In addition, it is unclear whether existing members who have licences will be able to use another member's gun when theirs is out of commission or to try other pistols.

The need for either Amendment No. 46 or Amendment No. 47 is increased because of the arrangements proposed in Clause 8 which make transport so difficult. Visiting shooters may prefer to borrow a pistol when they arrive for a competition rather than have to obtain a special police permit.

The amendment follows the precedent of the current law which has been in operation for rifle clubs since 1920 and which was continued in the 1968 Act. It will enable a newcomer to be introduced to a .22 pistol before he or she obtains a firearm certificate. After all, people want first to try out a pistol and see whether they enjoy shooting and are any good at it. It is quite different from rifle shooting. They may decide, after trying it only once or twice, that they do not want to do it and give up the whole idea.

As my noble friend Lord Attlee said, it is much better from a public safety point of view for there to be club pistols for people to use rather than a greater number of individually owned ones. I would have thought that the Government very much agreed with that point.

In Standing Committee in another place on 20th November last, the Minister, Miss Ann Widdecombe, tried to justify the Government's position "on grounds of public safety". How on earth can public safety be jeopardised by someone trying out a .22 pistol under the close, expert supervision of an experienced club official when someone of any age can fire a .22 rifle at a ping-pong ball bouncing on a jet of water at a fun fair? I rest my case.

Lord Mackay of Drumadoon

Amendment No. 46 in the name of my noble friend Lord Swansea and Amendment No. 47, which I am happy to speak to as well, at the invitation of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, both permit members of licensed pistol clubs approved by the Secretary of State who are not firearm certificate holders to possess and use any firearm or ammunition at such a club. They allow a person to join a club and shoot with pistols indefinitely without ever being vetted by the police as to their suitability. The Government believe that that is not acceptable. The Government have made it clear that no one should be permitted to possess or fire a pistol without holding an individual firearm certificate in their own right. That means that everyone will have been checked thoroughly by the police before being allowed to come into possession of a pistol. The Government accept that to some extent that may discourage people from taking up pistol shooting. However, we do not believe that this is an area where public safety should be compromised. We believe that we have a considerable measure of support in that position.

Those who wish to take up pistol shooting—a number of noble Lords have suggested that the demand exists—will be able, before committing themselves to the process of obtaining a firearm certificate, to gain some experience of shooting with low-powered air pistols. We believe that that is a possible way of bringing younger people into the sport, if that is what they wish to do. On that basis, I invite the Committee to reject both amendments if they are pressed to a vote.

Earl Attlee

The Minister suggests that a prospective shooter should acquire a firearm certificate. Once he acquires a firearm certificate, will he not then be encouraged to go the next step and buy his own pistol? On the other hand, if he did not need a certificate at all but could only use a pistol in the gun club, he would not be encouraged to go and buy another weapon, and that would keep the number of weapons in circulation down.

Lord Mackay of Drumadoon

I do not accept that the acquisition of a firearm certificate necessarily encourages a person to purchase a pistol for his ownership and use. That is a personal matter for the individual concerned. For the reasons I have given, the Government believe that it is important to have the highest standard of safety and control over those who fire pistols. We believe that the only way in which that can be achieved is by ensuring that anyone who seeks to use a pistol has a firearm certificate. The inevitable consequence of either of the amendments is to frustrate that intention.

Lord Gisborough

I am somewhat appalled by that answer. First, because the Minister mentioned air guns and secondly, because he mentioned the firearm certificate.

All sports have to be taken up at an early age. One cannot take up any sport at 30 or so and expect to be good at it. All sports should be taken up when people are young and able to learn. So people go into this sport at the age of 18 or so. But how can one possibly expect an 18 year-old to buy a licence for £150? I may be wrong but that is how I understand Clause 14. That is out of all proportion to what a young person would be earning.

The Minister said that people could play around with air rifles. If he were to read my local press he would find out exactly what they do with air rifles. They wait until Dolly is leaning over and when she is facing south, they shoot her in the northside. They shoot animals and all sorts of things. Every single waymarking sign is peppered with air rifle shot.

The Minister seems to suggest that young people should be encouraged to take up air pistols, of all things. I cannot think of anything worse. If youngsters want to have an air pistol, it would be far better to have them under control in a club where they have no possibility of taking that pistol anywhere other than onto a firing point—certainly not take it off a firing point. To invite them to go around the countryside shooting with air pistols! I cannot think of anything worse.

Lord Monson

I wholly understand the Government's wish that people should not indefinitely be able to fire pistols in clubs without a licence. I fully accept that and would happily agree with it. But the Government seem to be opposed to people trying it out even once or twice and I wonder whether that is not wholly unreasonable.

The Minister spoke about public safety. Can he explain how possibly public safety could be endangered by someone trying out a pistol at a range, under the close supervision of an experienced official in a club? That same person could fire a .22 rifle anywhere without anybody's supervision.

6.15 p.m.

The Earl of Balfour

Let me raise one other point at this stage. Clause 36 of the Bill introduces a new Section 15 to the 1988 Act. At page 20 of the Bill, subsection (2) of the clause states that: A club may be approved as a rifle or miniature rifle club by the Secretary of State under section 15 of the 1988 Act and also licensed under this Act as a pistol club". In this particular case, perhaps there could be some confusion in the legislation between a rifle club and a pistol club. As I understand the legislation, if someone belongs to a rifle club, he does not need to have a firearm certificate to fire the rifle in the club. On the other hand, if he wishes to fire a pistol in the club, he requires a firearm certificate.

I wonder whether the Government would look at this matter again. I believe that people should be encouraged to learn how to shoot properly but not necessarily go to the extent of having a firearm certificate purely to use a pistol.

Lord Mackay of Drumadoon

At the outset, I should make clear that nothing I said earlier should be construed as suggesting that either I or the Government encourage people to play around with air rifles or air pistols. I sought to indicate that the use of low powered air pistols, no doubt under the supervision of gun club members, could be a way of training young people in the use of such weapons, so that they learn how to use them and find out whether they are interested in the sport.

Lord Gisborough

Youngsters go around the countryside with air rifles and nobody is training them at all. You can find them anywhere in the countryside.

Lord Mackay of Drumadoon

I am well aware of that. But I seek to address the concern raised by my noble friend of how gun clubs might encourage younger people into the clubs. I venture to suggest that making it possible for them to use air pistols under supervision and training might be a way for them to acquire some practical experience. It will not only teach them the importance of safety, which my noble friend Lord Balfour has mentioned on more than one occasion, but will enable them to find out whether it is a sport in which they are interested. I believe that my noble friend Lord Balfour is correct in his reference to what happens at rifle clubs. If he and I are right, it is another means by which knowledge and experience can be gained before the young person needs to move on and acquire a firearm certificate.

I do not demur from the position that the requirement to have a firearm certificate before a pistol can be used will serve to discourage some young people from coming into the sport. I do not deny that at all. Equally, I hope the Committee will recognise that the Government have gone some way toward preserving the sport and in particular the Olympic competitions and the vast majority of the Commonwealth Games competitions and toward providing an incentive for people to remain in the sport, if they so wish. A balance has to be struck.

If either of the amendments were carried, it would be possible for people to come into gun clubs, learn how to use pistols and use them indefinitely without any check whatsoever by the police as to their suitability to have such experience. They would acquire the expertise and the experience and what they did thereafter would, as I said, be subject to no vetting by the police at all. That is why the Government remain resolutely opposed to the amendments and invite the Committee to vote against them, if either of them are pressed.

I should mention one other small matter on a point of detail. I understand that the cost of a firearm certificate would not be £ 150—that is the figure mentioned in Clause 14(5). That is the fee for the licence for a club and not for the firearm certificate itself.

Lord Monson

Before the Minister sits down, can he say whether club pistols will be allowed which will be able to be used by anybody with a valid firearm certificate?

Lord Mackay of Drumadoon

My understanding is that that is the position. That reinforces the point that I sought to make earlier; namely, that the fact that one has a firearm certificate does not require one to own a pistol as well.

Lord Swansea

We have had a good run for our money on this amendment. My object in moving it was to cater for the person—a young chap, perhaps—who is not a member of a rifle club and wants to have a go at the sport. He may have an older friend who is a member of a club and he may have said to him: "I would not mind having a go myself, so his friend may have said: "Come along to the club one evening and we will let you have a go and you can see how you like the game". Of course, he would have his go under strict supervision, and among the first things he would be taught would be the first rules of safety. That is quite essential in the handling of any firearm. Under the eye of an experienced instructor he would have instruction in the safe handling of the weapon before having a go at targets.

In any event, there seems to be a certain amount of confusion in the mind of the Government over this. I may well return to it at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 15 agreed to.

Clause 16 [Licence conditions]:

Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 46A: Page 9, line 10, leave out ("imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or").

The noble Earl said: The amendment seeks to remove the imprisonment penalty for offences against Clause 16. The problem is that the law and the rules and regulations that go with it are acquiring a Byzantine complexity. The Minister will point out the protection provided by subsection (3), but it is not a defence against ignorance; it is only a defence against accidental commission of the offence. One cannot take all reasonable steps against the commission of an offence if one is in ignorance of it in the first place.

The result of subsection (4) as drafted, coupled with all the other responsibilities in terms of security and administration, is likely to result in no suitable people agreeing to be club officials and particularly key holders. As a result, the officials selected may not be the best available, with the attendant risks of offences being committed. I beg to move.

Lord Williams of Mostyn

If the Government's view is that this amendment is inappropriate, I support their view. This goes to the heart of the control of clubs. It is fatuous to impose conditions on a licence—and those conditions are only imposed on the persons responsible for the management of a licensed pistol club, with all the possible public dangers that do not need to be spelt out—and it is useless to have licence conditions imposed upon those who manage licensed pistol clubs if the only sanction against not obeying the licence conditions is a fine.

I would suggest that the Government have pitched this correctly. They have limited the punishment to the magistrates' court—that is summary conviction—and they have put the imprisonment at the maximum single term imposable by the magistrates at six months. That is a maximum, not an automatic penalty. As the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, indicated, there is the saving defence in subsection (3). If somebody is going to propose himself or herself to manage a licensed pistol club without familiarising his or her mind with the details of the licensing conditions, I suggest that such a person is not fit to manage such a club.

Lord Burton

I may be wrong, but I believe that the Bill will introduce 16 new criminal offences or increased penalties for existing offences. Certainly, if there are not 16 offences, there are a great many penalty clauses. Who would be a club official when, for a simple omission, perhaps when he is off sick, he would be liable for a very heavy fine or six months' imprisonment? It may be that the poor wife of a shooter, who does not even shoot herself, would find herself in this position. I suggest that no one in their right mind would take on the task of administering a club with these penalties in the Bill. As a result of that alone, it is doubtful whether any club will survive.

Lord Gisborough

Unfortunately, we must support the penalties, because I also cannot see any point in having regulation unless there is some penalty for non-compliance. I should have thought that on the whole magistrates and the police are sensible enough to take a reasonable view as to whether or not an offence is deliberate. Where there has been deliberate evasion of the regulations there has to be a penalty.

Lord Mackay of Drumadoon

In rising to oppose the amendment of the noble Earl, I welcome the support I received from the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, and my noble friend Lord Gisborough.

If the public are to be assured about the safety of the pistol clubs licensed under the new regime, which the Government propose in this legislation, it would be essential that those responsible for their operation pay the closest attention to the conditions that may be specified on their licences. For that reason it would be quite wrong, and would send quite the wrong message, if we were to agree to reduce the penalty for committing the offence of breaching the licence conditions.

Of course, what the Bill sets out is the maximum penalty, which one imagines would only be imposed for the most extreme breach of the licence conditions. The law relating to firearms is currently complex and it will become more complex once this Bill becomes law. But it will be a necessary part of the management of gun clubs that those responsible for the management are aware of the law and the implications of the law.

In the debates on this Bill the House has been assured on a number of occasions that those interested in the sport of shooting are responsible members of society. I am happy to accept that assurance. That leads me to express a measure of surprise that they do not welcome the sanction remaining as it is, because it will mean that if an individual manager fails to live up to the high standards which everyone in society would wish him to follow and does so wilfully, he should be properly punished. Nothing we have heard in the debates on this Bill suggests that it will be impossible for the conditions to be understood and followed. If they are followed, there is no reason to worry about the penalty. On the other hand, if we weaken the penalty, it will suggest that this House does not say clearly to those involved in the sport that the licence conditions are important. For those reasons I hope it will be possible for this amendment to be withdrawn.

Earl Attlee

The Committee will be pleased to hear that I will not push this amendment very far. My major concern is the complexity of the legislation. I accept fully the contributions of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, and the Minister regarding the desirability of having penalties.

I believe that to find people willing to be club secretaries and club officials will be quite difficult. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 16 agreed to.

Clauses 17 to 19 agreed to.

Clause 20 [Exemptions from section 1 of the 1968 Act for officers etc. of licensed pistol clubs]:

[Amendment No. 47 not moved.]

Clause 20 agreed to.

Clauses 21 to 24 agreed to.

Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 48: Before Clause 25, insert the following new clause—

NATIONAL FIREARMS COMPUTER DATABASE

("—(1) There shall be established a National Firearms Computer Database (NFCD) to—

1. (a) record the possession, use and keeping of, and transactions in, firearms and shotguns;
2. (b) record details of pistol clubs and ranges as prescribed by the Secretary of State;
3. (c) provide on-line access to all police forces;
4. (d) provide access by the Secretary of State for the purpose of statistical analysis; and
5. (e) provide tandem interface with the Police National Computer.

(2) The NFCD shall be operated in accordance with the principles of ISO 9000.").

The noble Earl said: This small group of amendments concerns the desirability of having a computer system or a database to record details of holders of firearms certificates, shotgun certificates, dealers, clubs, ranges, etc.

I originally put down the amendment, since when the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, has put down an amendment in his name. I believe that his amendment is slightly better than mine, so perhaps we may listen to the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, as he puts his amendment.

6.30 p.m.

Lord Marlesford

In rising to speak to my amendment, I must say that in my opinion the Home Office must bear and accept some share of the blame for the tragedy of Dunblane. I say that for the simple reason that the Home Office has failed—indeed, I would claim has refused—to introduce a licensing regime which has a reasonable chance of ensuring that a Thomas Hamilton could not obtain or retain a licence for a lethal firearm, whether a pistol, a rifle or a shotgun. However much the Committee may be divided on the merits of the Bill, we are all clearly united in our horror at Dunblane and in our determination to ensure that there should not be another one. Yet there is nothing in the Bill which does anything to make less likely that there could not be another Dunblane using a rifle or shotgun; in other words, some firearm that is not covered by the Bill.

My amendment seeks to introduce a simple computerised register nationally of all those who hold a licence for a firearm of any kind, whether a pistol that is in one of the remaining categories allowed, a rifle or a shotgun. Long before Dunblane, as some noble Lords will know, I concerned myself with the adequacy of the present arrangements. Indeed, I was pressing the Government between the months of November 1995 and February 1996—the Dunblane tragedy was in March 1996—to do something about this for precisely the reason that the present system of each police force having its own system of licensing with no linkage between them was so wholly unacceptable. That system is quite inexcusable and quite unnecessary.

The technology for doing this is simple and extremely cheap. Indeed, I have made the simple calculation that for the number of people who have a licence for all these weapons, the information could probably be contained in about one gigabyte of information, which a modern home desktop computer has in its hard storage. Even if the figure were 10 times that, it would be an immaterial factor.

The technology for this has not only been in existence but has been in use for decades. The vehicle and driver licensing system at Swansea was set up in 1973. That system enables the police to check instantly in real time on the driver of any vehicle. Yet there has been no suggestion that the Home Office could consider the suggestions that have been made for the introduction of such a scheme for firearms. If the Government are as unwilling to consider my suggestion as they have been up to now, I shall feel bound to ask the Committee to support me in a vote on this issue.

Lord Renton

Although I wish to support my noble friend's amendment I cannot share the criticism that he has expressed of the Home Office in this matter. I know from my own experience over the past 51 years in East Anglia—partly as an MP and partly when practising as a barrister—that it is almost impossible to get a licence for the private possession of a handgun unless one is a member of a gun club or has some very special reason for wanting it.

Under the present law, which has been the law for a great many years, the licence to hold a firearm can be refused by the magistrates on the advice of the police. Licences have always been refused to convicted criminals. I cannot go along with my noble friend on the reason he gives for his excellent amendment, but there is a strong case to be made for there to be a record held centrally and available locally in order to ensure that so far as possible the further firearms provisions to be made by the Bill are enforceable.

Firearms law has always been difficult to enforce. We know that from some of the tragedies that have occurred. However, it will be made a little easier to enforce—easier for the police and easier for authority generally—if we have a proper system of the kind proposed in the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Marlesford. Until I saw his amendment, I was rather attracted by the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. However, it does not go quite as far as the amendment proposed by my noble friend, and therefore, on balance, I prefer that of my noble friend.

The Earl of Mar and Kellie

I wish to add my support to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford. I see two advantages in the system that he proposes. First, there would be one single address to which people might send complaints about the conduct of firearms users where it has not been satisfactory. Secondly, it deals with the problem of people relocating and yet another police force having to start again to process someone's application. I hope that other Members of the Committee will see it in the same way.

Lord Kimball

I find myself looking at the amendment of my noble friend as a half-way house between what we shall discuss under Amendment No. 77—a full firearms control board. It is a very good half-way house. I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Burton does not agree. However, we must not discuss Amendment No. 77 at this stage.

What we have achieved through many police forces is the civilianisation of firearms officers. My noble friend Lord Renton happens to live in one of the best counties for the administration of the Firearms Act. Cambridgeshire is an example to every other county in England. We have civilian firearms officers who know what they are talking about. They deal with the problem and feed it in to the police station. They know and live within the shooting community. Lincolnshire is following the same example. If we are to extend the system of civilian firearms officers to all other police forces, we need my noble friend's amendment to back up that system. The amendment has great merit.

Baroness Blatch

The proposal for a national database is the subject of Amendments Nos. 48 and 66. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Marlesford for providing me last Thursday with some background to his Amendment No. 66. My noble friend has indeed discussed this matter with me. However, I should say to him that in the first instance I do not think it is right to require this kind of database by means of primary legislation. These matters are better dealt with administratively.

Secondly, we are already discussing with the Association of Chief Police Officers a system called PHOENIX, a computer based system, which will be available to firearms licensing departments throughout the United Kingdom. PHOENIX will contain details of certificate holders and firearms dealers and will also contain information on persons who have had certificates revoked or are otherwise considered to be unfit to possess a firearm.

The system will provide on-line access, as my noble friend Lord Marlesford suggests, to all police forces and other national police computer agencies and contain criminal record details. We are also considering with the Association of Chief Police Officers whether PHOENIX would be able to hold details of individual weapons, too. But we do not currently plan to have the national insurance numbers of gun licence holders put into the system. I know that that is something about which my noble friend feels very strongly. He will know that I have much sympathy with the point he makes. We do not believe that there is a particular need for that at this moment since the existing arrangements for the issue of firearm and shotgun certificates already allow the police to make very thorough checks of applicants' identities.

Details of approved clubs are kept centrally by the Home and Scottish Offices, and individual forces, as my noble friend Lord Kimball has said, also keep local records. Perhaps I may interject a personal note here. Local information is very useful in the situation we are talking about. To dovetail that with the national network for cross-country inter-communication is so important. The police forces also provide statistical returns to the Home and Scottish Offices on firearms licensing. These are published annually in statistical bulletins, which can be found in the Library of the House. I know that that is not the point that my noble friend is making. He is talking about a network of ownership, personal information, criminal conviction certificates and so forth. I say to my noble friend that there is a partial read-across on unique numbers to the identity card debate. He will know that we are giving thought to the possibility of using a unique number. In the meantime we believe that using the PHOENIX system with the police would meet in large measure the objectives of this amendment.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

Those who were involved in the Police Bill yesterday will know that I moved amendments which expressed doubt about the availability of the PHOENIX database to which the Minister has referred because doubts have been expressed as to whether it would be available in time to meet the needs of the Criminal Records Agency, which is another potential user of the same service.

I have received unequivocal assurances from the Minister. I believe she said that not only would it be up and running, but that it is up and running. I do not believe that anyone can go further than that. I have sympathy with the objectives of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, in his amendment. I believe that control by a central database, provided that there are precautions in compliance with the Data Protection Act and other measures which may be necessary for the protection of individual privacy, is a good thing. But having listened to the Minister and what she said about the PHOENIX database and the undesirability of having the specification of a database on the face of the Bill, I believe that the noble Lord would be wise not to press this amendment to a Division.

Lord Burton

The purpose of the amendment is to increase security. The database does not remove power or information from local police; it merely increases the availability of the information. Nearly all police forces have computers, but at the moment a great many of them are incompatible one with another. That means that there are quite a number of problems in trying to obtain information outside a constabulary area. It is very important that there should be one central base, as for vehicle licensing, which can be dialled directly so that the police can have access to the system and find exactly the information required and, what is more, that it can be done at any hour of the day or night. At the moment the computers are available only when the firearms officer, who is very often a civilian who works normal office hours, is on duty. Accordingly, if something crops up during the night there is probably no one available to answer even the request on the local computer, whereas with a central computer there would be a 24-hour service.

The Earl of Lytton

I have listened carefully to what the noble Baroness has said and also to what the noble Lord, Lord Mclntosh, said. I would like to pay tribute to what the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, said. It goes absolutely to the heart of Lord Cullen's Report. As I said earlier in dealing with Amendment No. 33, he identified a system failure. The way to deal with that is to tighten up the management procedures. To do that one needs to have national consistency and consistent input. We are talking about the upgrading of the management of the licensing system. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, has put the matter extremely eloquently.

This amendment sets no more than the most basic minimum criteria that anyone could possibly think of for some form of on-line, dial-up system. If the PHOENIX system, to which the noble Baroness referred, does not meet that, it is not up to scratch. In that case this amendment is an extremely valuable addition on the face of the Bill. The situation is that if the amendment does no good it will do no harm. In any event, we must be satisfied, in dealing with the matter in this House, that we have good quality, consistent management via a database which can be accessed. It seems to me that the noble Lord's amendment does no more than state the obvious and the absolute minimum criteria.

6.45 p.m.

Earl Attlee

Before withdrawing my amendment I would like to make one observation. I am sure that many Members of the Committee are aware that the Metropolitan Police has an extremely good computer system at New Scotland Yard, which is just a short distance from us. Even the Metropolitan Police cannot tell, when it attends a domestic incident, whether at that address there are any firearms or shotguns. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Lord Marlesford

I have listened carefully to what the Minister has said. I fear that it is yet another attempt by the Home Office to say, "Don't interfere on our patch". If the new system were to meet my criteria, well and good. I am not saying that it should not go ahead. Perhaps I may give Members of the Committee one example. If someone were to be convicted of a crime which would disqualify him from being issued with any certificate for a firearm—a shotgun, pistol or rifle—and if that crime were committed outside the area in which the convicted person had already been granted a licence, there is no machinery whatever, unless it is a very serious and notorious crime, whereby the police force in the area which had granted the licence would be able to revoke it. It simply would not know about the case.

I am proposing something which is very simple, very modest and very easy to carry out. It is essential that it is done. I do not have enough confidence to leave the matter to Home Office assertions that it is dealing with it because it has been saying that for a long time. I would very much like to test the opinion of the Committee.

Lord Renton

I wonder whether my noble friend heard the Minister say that she was in negotiation with the chief officers of police with a view to establishing just the kind of system that he has in mind?

Lord Marlesford

I did hear that and I was delighted to do so. I hope that, if the amendment is carried, that will be an additional spur for them to do so. However, I do not accept that it is not appropriate for the Bill.

Baroness Blatch

I do not wish to discourage my noble friend from pressing the amendment, but I would rather he did not. He cannot press it at this point. It is Amendment No. 66 which was grouped with the previous amendment. Therefore, my noble friend will have to be patient and press it in the appropriate chronological order.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn

[Amendment No. 49 not moved.]

[Amendment No. 50 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

Clause 25 agreed to.

Clause 26 [Expanding ammunition etc.: supplementary]:

Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 50A: Page 12, line 15, leave out subsections (2) and (3).

The noble Earl said: I can understand the need to ban the sale of expanding ammunition, with certain exceptions for humane killing reasons. That will have the effect of reducing its availability and thus, if there is a further disaster, there is less likelihood of expanding ammunition being used. The problem is that Clause 26 removes the previous exemption for collectors. It also includes ammunition that is inert, as even the actual bullets themselves are caught. As no handguns larger than .22 calibre will remain in private hands one asks what a ban on collectors will achieve. It should be remembered that if in future illegal ammunition is obtained non-expanding projectiles can easily be converted into expanding projectiles by means of a hacksaw, a pair of pliers, a lathe or even a humble electric drill. It is even possible to reload a cartridge with a bullet that is put in back to front. My amendment will replace the exemption of collectors and enable them to retain expanding ammunition under Section 5A by a collector's clause on their firearm certificate. Of course, there would be a limit placed on the number of each type or calibre as agreed between the collector and the police. I beg to move.

Lord Stanley of Alderley

Amendment No. 52 in my name is part of this group of amendments. The purpose is to clarify the wording of Clause 26 which leaves open to doubt the position of agricultural tenants who, depending on the terms of their tenancy, are normally responsible for pest control on their holdings and have statutory rights to control hares and rabbits under the Ground Game Act. I hope that my noble friend will agree that those fanners should continue to use expanding ammunition in appropriate cases and where authorised by their firearm certificates. To achieve this, I believe that it is necessary to amend the clause to confirm that the concept of estate management covering tenant farmers is that contained in the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 and the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995. The amendment does not in any way disturb the balance of interest between landlord and tenant but merely ensures that farm tenants will not be inadvertently restricted in future from lawful access to ammunition required for safe and humane wildlife control.

Lord Burton

It was as recently as 1992, when the United Kingdom came into line with European law, that the Government put forward various amendments. They have now changed the position. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, is right. If subsections (2) and (3) were removed it would avoid all the complications of cartridge exhibitions. Some people have very valuable collections of cartridges. It is ridiculous that an empty cartridge in a glass case will no longer be legal because it has a soft-nosed bullet.

The Earl of Shrewsbury

I apologise for arriving late in the Chamber. I speak to Amendment No. 51 which is to do with practising with expanding ammunition. Several attempts have been made to cover the point that people who use expanding ammunition legitimately in the humane killing of animals need to ensure a high degree of accuracy to avoid pain to the animal and achieve a quick destruction. The Government have suggested that the words "in connection with" cover the circumstances in which the shooter needs to zero his pistol or practise with or test the ammunition. The wording is acceptable for zeroing; it is doubtful, however, whether it covers practice in shooting at inanimate objects in order to achieve the necessary standards of accuracy. The amendment attempts to provide for such circumstances. For instance, when stalking it may be necessary to dispatch an injured animal which is on the move as quickly as possible. The shooter needs to be able to practise at the discipline known as running deer. All shooters of such quarry need to be aware of the main areas to aim for, with allowances being made for distance, wind speed, trajectory and so forth, in order to afford the quickest and cleanest dispatch of the quarry. I believe that the amendment strengthens the purpose of the clause and makes the effects more efficient in practice.

The Earl of Balfour

Once one has a gun properly tuned in—I am referring to a .22 or .243 rifle—it pays every time to use expanding ammunition. One is then much more likely to kill and not wound an animal. The trouble with a solid-nosed bullet is that it can make a neat round hole through whatever one is aiming at. The poor creature then crawls away and dies in a hole or in the bushes. On humane grounds I hope that there will be no restriction on the use of both types of ammunition. One uses solid ammunition to home in on the right position of the target and then hollow-nosed ammunition to go out and kill an animal. It is important that both forms of ammunition are available to farmers, landowners, gamekeepers and so on.

Baroness Blatch

I am grateful to all my noble friends and the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, for raising these important points which are the subject of Amendments Nos. 50A, 51 and 52.1 have considerable sympathy with Amendment No. 50A, tabled by the noble Earl. The effect of the amendment, as he has explained, would be to allow collectors of expanding ammunition to continue their collections without the need for the Secretary of State's authority. A government amendment was successfully tabled in another place which would have had the effect of preventing collectors of ammunition from keeping expanding ammunition in their collections. We have since received representations from some collectors who have pointed out that typically only one or two rounds of a wide variety of ammunition types are held in a collection and that to require those to be surrendered would undermine the integrity of the sets that may have been built up over a number of years, at some considerable cost to the individual collectors themselves. We are sympathetic to the representations we have received and, if the noble Earl will agree to withdraw his amendment, I undertake to introduce an amendment to this effect at Report.

I believe that the amendment to Clause 26, tabled in the name of my noble friends Lord Shrewsbury and Lord Peel, is unnecessary. The present wording of the subsection which deals with a certificate or permit condition in relation to expanding ammunition uses the words "in connection with". That is the wording used elsewhere in the firearms legislation to cover related matters. The Bill has been carefully drafted to cover not only the actual use but also the preparatory stages that may have to be followed to ensure that the certificate holder is able to shoot the animal humanely. That includes allowing the certificate holder to zero or adjust the gun sights, as well as general testing and practice. If we refer to those matters expressly here we could cast doubt on the wording elsewhere in the legislation. If it helps to ease my noble friends' concerns, this is a point which we can include in guidance to the police.

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley for raising the possible effect of Clause 26 of the Bill on agricultural tenants. I understand his concerns that the term "management of an estate" should apply to those agricultural holdings which are managed by tenants. However, the clause as currently drafted will already include the kinds of holdings and tenancy arrangements to which my noble friend refers. The present term "management of an estate" is sufficiently broad to include all manner of legal forms of occupation and management of land. To state on the face of the Bill that certain arrangements are included may imply that other arrangements are excluded. When issuing guidance to the police on the application of the clause we will ensure that this point is properly addressed. I therefore ask all my noble friends not to pursue their amendments.

Earl Attlee

I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for her reply. I am sure that the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, will carefully study the case law on Pepper v. Hart. On the basis that the noble Baroness intends to table a better amendment in her own name, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

7 p.m.

The Earl of Shrewsbury had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 51: Page 13, line 3, at end insert ("or for practice or testing related thereto").

The noble Earl said: I, too, thank my noble friend the Minister for going some way towards satisfying my concerns on this matter, and I shall not move the amendment.

[Amendment No. 51 not moved.]

Lord Stanley of Alderley had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 52: Page 13, line 3, at end insert—

("(7) In subsection (8) (interpretation) after paragraph (b) there shall be inserted— (c) in this section "management of any estate" includes the management of any agricultural holding within the meaning of section 1 of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 and section 38 of the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995."").

The noble Lord said: I, too, thank my noble friend for that reassuring statement with which I am entirely happy.

[Amendment No. 52 not moved.]

Clause 26 agreed to.

Clauses 27 to 30 agreed to.

Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 53: Before Clause 31, insert the following new clause—

ADAPTED SHOT GUNS: REQUIREMENT FOR FIREARM CERTIFICATE

("In section 1 of the 1968 Act (requirement for a firearm certificate), subsection (3A) shall be omitted.").

The noble Earl said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 54, 55, 57, 58, 59, 60, 64, 70, 84, 85 and 90.

These amendments were originally in two groups. My first amendment undoes an amendment made in another place to require only one referee for a shotgun certificate. The next amendment goes further in that it removes shotguns from Section 1 of the 1968 Act. It is surprising that before 1967 no certificate was needed for a shotgun.

My motivation for putting down the amendments is that shotguns are not treated as powerful weapons, which defies all logic. For a long time a sawn-off shotgun was the preferred weapon of criminals, although I understand that machine pistols are more popular with sophisticated drug gangs even though they are Section 5 weapons.

When one compares the size of a 12-bore shotgun cartridge with a .22 or even a 9mm round, the latter two appear to be puny. Even more important is the fact that a shotgun cartridge can carry a variety of shot or even a solid slug. I covered that point in greater detail during the first day in Committee.

If handguns were not available to Hamilton, he might well have had a shotgun which he could have illegally modified to be concealable. The result would not be much different. It would not help the Committee for me to describe the differences. It is important to recognise that shotguns have a legitimate and widespread use in the countryside for sport and for controlling vermin.

There are considerable foreign exchange earnings from overseas visitors. In addition, there is a great deal of employment associated with field sports, which must not be jeopardised. No doubt many Members of the Committee, including the Minister, will tell me that the Bill is about handguns or victimising the legal owners of them. I should like to think that it is about increasing public safety and protecting the shooting community from having another madman within its midst.

My amendment will increase public safety and make the Bill much simpler and easier to understand. I expect some resistance to the amendments but I shall be interested to hear what the Committee feels about them. I beg to move.

The Earl of Shrewsbury

I am afraid that I cannot agree with the noble Earl in what he says about shotguns and the requirement for a firearm certificate for such weapons. Shotguns are not firearms. They are used for completely separate purposes and disciplines. It is a matter that we have discussed at the FCC which disagrees completely with the noble Earl on this issue. We believe that the present laws regarding shotguns are adequate and are working well. I hope that he will withdraw his amendment.

The Earl of Balfour

Perhaps I may add a few words. I hope that the Government will not unite shotgun and firearm certificates. They are completely different. That is the impression I gained from the amendment. The two certificates should be kept totally apart and treated differently.

Baroness Blatch

I have to say to my noble friends and the noble Earl that the Government believe that the existing controls on shotguns are in most respects adequate. Most semi-automatic or pump action short barrelled shotguns are prohibited, and shotguns which are capable of firing three or more shots without reloading are subject to control by firearm certificates in the same way as a rifle.

The Committee will know that there are many perfectly legitimate reasons, especially in the countryside, why people should have ordinary shotguns. Very many people own them—over 700, 000 in Great Britain as a whole.

People who wish to have them must first obtain a shotgun certificate from the police and satisfy them that they will keep and use the gun securely. Police can refuse to issue a certificate if they believe that the applicant has no good reason for having a shotgun.

Lord Cullen's Inquiry did not address shotguns, which have always been subject to a separate system of controls. He was very clear in his report that he saw shotguns as a very different from other kinds of firearms, which agrees with both my noble friends who have spoken on this matter. He said at paragraph 7.16: The considerations relating to the possession and use of shotguns are concerned with very different areas of activity from those relating to handguns. I am not persuaded that it is justifiable to approach all these types in essentially the same manner. That is quite apart from the fact that I do not think that the availability of shotguns is a matter which has a tenable connection with the circumstances with which this Inquiry is concerned". Shotguns could be purchased and owned without any formalities until the early 1960s, whereas handguns have been subject to very tight restrictions since the early 1900s and rifles since the 1920s. The regime for shotguns was tightened in 1988, but there remains a clear distinction in the certification regimes.

Nevertheless, the Government are taking the opportunity in the Bill to rationalise and strengthen the controls on the sale, transfer and disposal of shotguns.

Aside from that, the Government believe that the present controls are adequate and I hope that the noble Earl will not press the amendment.

Earl Attlee

It seems that I am not receiving a great deal of support for or interest in the amendment. I am a little disappointed that we did not look at it closer. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 54 not moved,.]

Clause 31 [Applications for certificates and referees]:

[Amendment No. 55 not moved.]

Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 56: Page 14, line 39, at end insert ("or has most recently resided or is reasonably expected to reside in the future, ").

The noble Earl said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendments Nos, 61 and 63. Amendments Nos. 56 and 61 seek to address a problem relating to UK citizens who are not currently resident in the UK. Obvious examples are service personnel and overseas expatriate workers who bring considerable foreign exchange into the country.

Under Sections 26A and 26B of the 1968 Act, as amended by Clause 31 of the Bill, applications for certificates have to be lodged with the chief officer of police for the area in which the applicant resides. If a serviceman is living overseas, he will not be able to make a valid application until he moves back into the UK. That will create a range of unnecessary difficulties which my amendment seeks to address.

Amendment No. 63 seeks to have a European firearms pass and firearm or shotgun certificate combined. An EU driving licence is issued by the DVLA and covers the whole of the EU. I appreciate that there may be difficulties with the amendment, but I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about the cross-border movement of guns with European firearms passes. I beg to move.

The Earl of Balfour

It is possible for a person domiciled in, say, Dundee to obtain a firearm certificate which allows him to take his weapons anywhere in the country. Normally, one must declare where one intends to use a firearm; in other words, on whose land. My firearm certificate does not allow me to use my gun outside the footage of my estate, which is my home.

However, it is possible for a person to obtain a "roving" firearm certificate, if I may put it that way, in order to go stalking, say, in the Highlands. He may be able to obtain such a certificate from the police in the area in which he is domiciled. If he moves to another area he should, through his chief officer of police, link up with the police of that area in order to have his certificate transferred. That is a different matter, but it is the law as I understand it. I hope that if I am wrong I shall be corrected.

Earl Attlee

I believe that the noble Earl has not quite understood the purpose of my amendment. It addresses the problem of people who are resident overseas.

Lord Monson

Unlike Amendments Nos. 53, 54 and 55, this is a moderate amendment and I hope that the Government will be able to accept it.

Lord Mackay of Drumadoon

Amendments Nos. 56 and 61 would allow a person living abroad to apply for a certificate before returning to this country. If the police were obliged to consider applications in such cases they would have little chance of meeting the applicant in person and no chance of inspecting his home conditions or security if he had not yet acquired the domestic premises in which he intended to reside.

The applicant would also be free to choose between applying to the last local police force from which he had obtained a licence and any number of police forces for other areas where he might reasonably be intending to live. In some cases, that could lead to a duplication of effort on the part of the police force and a measure of confusion.

The Government are aware that in a small number of cases the requirement for residence in order to apply for a certificate has caused problems, in particular with servicemen returning from abroad. The Firearms Consultative Committee considered the issue and its conclusions are set out in its seventh annual report, a copy of which is in the Library of your Lordships' House. The committee concluded that it was not necessary to amend the law but that chief officers should continue to treat cases sympathetically and as quickly as possible when servicemen return. That seems entirely sensible.

Amendment No. 63 relates to European firearms passes. Such a document is given force by the European weapons directive, which was agreed by member states. In order to be incorporated in a firearm or shotgun certificate, the exact form of the EFP would have to be reproduced on the certificate, making it a very unwieldy document. Furthermore, when a shooter wishes to visit another member state he must send his EFP to the authorities in that country to have it endorsed before he travels. If the EFP were to become part of the firearm or shotgun certificate the shooter would have to send the certificate as well. While his EFP and his certificate were out of the country he would have difficulty proving his legal ownership of any firearms or ammunition in his possession and he certainly would not be able to purchase any ammunition for use. In those circumstances it appears to the Government that Amendment No. 63 is not particularly sensible and I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Earl Attlee

I am grateful to the Minister, although I am not entirely convinced about the situation as regards overseas workers. Sometimes it is necessary for them to return to the UK at very short notice. It would make sense for them to have an appropriate certificate in place just in case. However, I accept some of the difficulties to which the noble and learned Lord referred. I wish to be able to return to the matter at a later stage. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 57 to 61 not moved.]

7.15 p.m.

Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 62: Page 15, line 33, at end insert— ("Duties of chief officers of police under sections 26A and 26B. 26C. The chief officer of police shall carry out his duties under sections 26A and 26B above in accordance with the principles of ISO 9000.".").

The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 62 I realise that I am having to sing for my dinner. In his report Lord Cullen makes it clear that the Central Scotland Police failed in that they issued certificates to a man who was patently unsuitable. Lord Cullen also illustrated in paragraph 6.59 that senior officers did not understand the law. The paperwork, the forms and so forth that they were using were not kept up to date. The RL3A form was referred to in the report as unimpressive—I have a copy here—and did not ask as many specific questions as the one recommended by the Home Office in 1969.

It has been suggested to me that my amendment is a polite way of saying that the police will have to do the job properly. I say nothing about that. However, the Central Scotland Police will not have been the only sleepy provincial police force without an up-to-date procedure. Even worse, police policy around the country varies even between similar areas and we shall be addressing that point in a later amendment.

My amendment refers to ISO 9000, which is similar to BS5750 and is a total quality management system (TQM). The Government have rightly encouraged the development of TQM in industry and commerce and are pursuing it with even greater vigour in the forces. It is not a system of unnecessary bureaucracy but more a means of getting things right first time.

As we are tragically aware, we cannot afford to make mistakes when issuing certificates. The mistake in question will cost an absolute minimum of £150 million and probably a great deal more. It is perhaps worth having a look at what is involved, as many Members of the Committee may not be familiar with TQM.

The first requirement is to understand who your customer is, what his requirement is and then to delight him. That is a peculiar concept if you are running a prison service, but when you think a little you realise that the customer is the general public. Similarly, when determining a firearms application, the question is important. In fact, there may be more than one customer; the applicant and the public. You are then required to have a laid down procedure to ensure that the processes are always carried out in the same way in order to deliver a consistent and measurable performance. I believe that the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, referred to that earlier. It is then important to measure performance indicators such as time to process applications, the number of appeals, whether successful or not, customer satisfaction and the cost of operations to name but a few.

Having measured the performance, the procedure and processes must be reviewed in order that any room for improvement can be identified. An example of that in firearms administration would be if it were realised that the firearms inquiry officer on the ground did not have all the background information to the case. Another would be if the chief officer actually signing the certificate did not have all the available information in front of him when there were any contra-indications to signing. Both those problems were identified in Lord Cullen's report and an organisation running an ISO 9000 system would not easily make those mistakes.

It is important to understand that my amendment does not mean that the police will have to have an ISO 9000, although I accept that the best way in which to comply with the clause would be to have one as it involves continuous validation. I beg to move.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

I wish to make only a very small point which I perhaps should have made on earlier amendments. ISO 9000 is not a permanent classification. It has already changed and is now 9001. It is quite unsuitable to put it into legislation.

Earl Attlee

I agree with the noble Lord on that point. In fact, we used to be working to B 5750. That is a valid criticism and I am sure that the Minister will not hesitate to draw my attention to it.

Lord Burton

It is vital that the police should have proper procedures as regards the issuing of certificates. It is quite clear that such procedures did not exist in central Scotland, as the noble Earl has just said. Indeed, I have before me a note from the Clyde Valley Pistol Club which says that Hamilton was not even a member of the club for his 4-bore pistol when he applied for it. Not only is it that he was quite unfit to have that pistol, but he was not even a member of the club. If the minimum investigation had taken place, that would have come to light.

Lord Mackay of Drumadoon

I believe that it is accepted on all sides of the Committee that it is important for police officers to have in place policy statements and quality checks to govern their firearms licensing systems. There can be little doubt that after chief officers have read the Cullen Report, that that concern will have been reinforced. I am quite sure that throughout the country, every effort will have been made to go over the systems which are in place.

This is a matter on which the Government consult with the police force regularly through meetings with the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland. Neither the police nor the Government believe that it would be appropriate to put on the face of the Bill reference to a particular standard. As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, observed, ISO 9000 is to some extent a moving target, if I may use that expression in the context of the debate.

Indeed, the noble Earl himself said that he is merely looking to embody the principle of ISO 9000 rather than the detail of it. I suggest that it would be a serious mistake to put on the face of the Bill reference to a particular document which is bound to change. That is not in any sense to minimise the importance of having good management standards, and I hope that with that assurance, the amendment will be withdrawn.

Earl Attlee

The Minister has attempted to reassure us that after the disaster at Dunblane, the administration of firearms will be conducted differently. I imagine that after Hungerford, Ministers said exactly the same thing. I am rather disturbed because we seem to have made rather similar mistakes. I accept the comment made by the noble and learned Lord that it is not appropriate to put such a provision on the face of the Bill and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 63 not moved.]

Clause 31 agreed to.

Clause 32 agreed to.

[Amendment No. 64 not moved.]

The Earl of Courtown

I beg to move that the House now resume and in moving this Motion, I suggest that the Committee stage begin again at twenty five minutes past eight.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

I rise because we are always willing to be accommodating in these matters but our principal spokesman for the next business is not yet in the Chamber. Perhaps we could continue to deal with this legislation for another five minutes.

Lord Mackay of Drumadoon

I withdraw the Motion which my noble friend sought to move.

The Earl of Mar and Kellie moved Amendment No. 65: Before Clause 34, insert the following new clause—

POSSESSION OF AIR WEAPONS BY MINORS

("In section 22(4) of the 1968 Act (possession of air weapons by minors), for "fourteen" there is substituted "eighteen".").

The noble Earl said: This amendment and Amendment No. 72, which is in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, are both aimed at the better control of air guns in our society. That is briefly touched on in the Cullen Report at paragraph 9.118 and may also have been supported indirectly by the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough.

I am grateful to the Minister for drawing my attention earlier today to the briefing from the Firearms Consultative Committee. Those briefing notes were placed in the Library following consideration in another place of the issue of raising the age for air gun use.

I believe that the age of 14 is unnecessarily young for involvement with air guns and, indeed, other weapons; and I believe that 18 represents an age of increasing maturity and residual suitability. That is an argument based on a moral premise that the best way in which to stem the rise of a gun culture is to separate it off and to restrict it to adult society alone.

In their search of adulthood, young people have many other aspects of living in a community to master. Weapon use is the least of those and can be restricted safely to a threshold on the early years of adulthood.

In Amendment No. 72, which is the more significant of the two amendments, I see every advantage in there being a register of all air guns with their location and ownership recorded and updated. I see no advantage in not doing so and every advantage in knowing at least to where one may complain about the misuse of an air gun. Those air guns are not toys. It is possible to have a fatal accident with an air gun and it is possible to blind someone, not to mention the potential harassment of birds and animals.

I have no problem with real hunting for food or for a cull but I am far less happy when the killing of animals is for vicarious pleasure. I hope that the Committee will see the merit of knowing where every air gun is located and so support the amendment. I beg to move.

The Earl of Balfour

I am concerned about this amendment partly for the reason that in Section 22(3) of the Firearms Act 1968, it states that a person aged 15 may use a shotgun provided he is accompanied by an adult who is over the age of 21.

While I have some sympathy with the proposal put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, that 14 is too young, it might achieve something if he left the age at 14 but provided that for the first two years of possessing the air gun the person ought to be accompanied by somebody over the age of 21.

In respect of the other amendment, it should read Section 1 (3)(b) not 1 (3)(6). As I see the position, if I am correct, subsection (b) will read: an air weapon (that is to say, an air rifle, air gun or air pistol, not of a type declared by rules made by the Secretary of State under section 53 of this Act". That would leave out the words "specially dangerous". I am not very happy about that, particularly as subsection (3)(b) applies the rules made by the Secretary of State in respect of the "register of transactions" for firearms dealers in Section 40 of the 1968 Act. However, I believe that air guns are fairly well protected under Clause 38 of the Bill.

7.30 p.m.

Lord Mclntosh of Haringey

I rise briefly to add my support to that already expressed for the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, on Amendment No. 72, which is also tabled in my name. I happen to agree with the noble Earl that some revision of the age limit for air weapons (to which Amendment No. 65 refers) is also desirable. However, as far as concerns Amendment No. 72, the noble Earl has correctly described it as making it possible for the Secretary of State to require a register of air weapons. I believe that that is a desirable aim.

Lord Gisborough

It is absolutely essential that youngsters, even those younger than 14, should be able to shoot air guns. However, it is equally essential that they should only be allowed to do so if they are accompanied by a person of a proper age. There is no doubting the fact that there is a positive air gun menace in the countryside with everything being shot at on occasions. But to have a register would, I believe, prove to be a phenomenal task. I am not even sure whether air guns are numbered, and there must be hundreds and thousands of them in the country. Surely it would be an impossible task to try to keep track of them.

Lord Monson

On Amendment No. 65, I agree with other Members of the Committee that raising the age limit to 18 goes rather too far. There might be a case for 15 or 16, but better still might be the proposals put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, and the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, that 14 or 15 year-olds with air guns should be accompanied by an older person.

As regards Amendment No. 72, again I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough. The bureaucracy implied by the amendment would be enormous. There is much misuse of guns. The point is that it is illegal anyway for the most part. The difficulty is catching the people concerned, and I do not believe that licensing would make any difference. Therefore, I believe that the noble Earl should think again about the matter.

Lord Swansea

I support my noble friend Lord Gisborough in his remarks because the prime objective is to teach the safe handling of air weapons. From there, one can progress to any other type of firearm. It is essential that the safe handling of air guns, or air rifles, should be taught at the earliest age possible. The youngster should be allowed to have his air rifle as long as he is accompanied by a responsible adult.

Earl Russell

I must declare a non-pecuniary interest in supporting my noble friend's amendment. The air gun menace to which the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, referred is not confined to the countryside; indeed, Brent is hardly that. However, one day my wife was standing beside the backdoor of our home when something with a loud thwack hit the wall within an inch of her head. We subsequently found an air gun pellet which had ricocheted into the house and come to rest under the radiator. I do not feel very happy about such situations. I agree with my noble friend that 14 is not always the most responsible age in a person's life. One way or another, I should like to see greater control on such potentially dangerous weapons.

Earl Attlee

Bearing in mind the well-known cruelty to cats, cattle and so on, I believe that the problem that we are now experiencing is lack of supervision. The actual age of someone using an air rifle—or even a shotgun or a firearm—is not the problem; it is the lack of supervision.

Lord Mackay of Drumadoon

The Government are well aware of public concern over the misuse of air weapons by young people. Indeed, as Members of the Committee have already said, the matter was raised in another place. Following that debate, the issue of air weapons and young people was placed before the Firearms Consultative Committee, which was asked to look at the issues involved. I understand that the matter was discussed at a meeting earlier this month and a paper in that respect has been prepared and placed in the Library of the House.

The Firearms Consultative Committee concluded that it would be a mistake to change the current arrangements which have been carefully formulated over a period of time without a clear plan and identification of any major weaknesses. I commend that paper to Members of the Committee who are interested in the topic. I hope that it will reassure them that Amendment No. 65 is unnecessary.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

Before the noble and learned Lord leaves that point, I should point out to him that I read the paper to which he referred because it was commended to us by the Minister. However, is the Firearms Consultative Committee (which is chaired by the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury) a truly independent body? Who does it represent and who are its members?

Lord Mackay of Drumadoon

I am unable, off the top of my head, to give the noble Lord details of every member of the committee. However, I believe that the membership is well known in the sense that details of it have previously been published. If the noble Lord wishes to be informed as to the detail of every member, I should be happy to arrange for him to receive such information.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

That is not what I am concerned about; I am concerned to know whether the committee is impartial. The noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, has been active in promoting amendments to the Bill, which is entirely his privilege. My question is whether the FCC is a government organisation. I should also like to know in what way it is impartial and in what way the evidence which the noble and learned Lord has adduced can be treated as being impartial evidence on the issue.

Earl Attlee

Is the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, aware that there are two senior police officers on the committee and, indeed, a representative of the Home Office?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

That is what I was asking about.

Lord Mackay of Drumadoon

I believe that it has been made clear in the past but I am happy to make the position clear again. The FCC is a body which is independent of government. It has represented among its membership a number of interests which range from my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury, who is the chairman, to chief constables, lawyers involved in the prosecution of criminal offences, those with a particular interest in the gun trade and in shooting as a sport, civil servants, the Keeper of Exhibits at the Imperial War Museum, and others. Because it is an independent body, those who are members of it are entitled to their independent views.

As a Member of this Chamber, it is entirely a matter for my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury what role he chooses to play in our debates. The Government are not bound to accept the advice that they receive; but they are perfectly entitled to take account of it. I suggest to the noble Lord that the paper to which I referred, which is to be found in the Library, supports the position which the Government seek to adopt in relation to Amendment No. 65; namely, that there is no justification for changing the law in the manner suggested.

I turn now to Amendment No. 72 which is also tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mclntosh of Haringey. The rules governing the types of air weapon which require a firearm certificate have been the same for many years. The Firearms Act 1968 states that an air weapon requires a firearm certificate if it is of a type which the Secretary of State has declared in rules to be "specially dangerous".

Those rules currently take the form of the Firearms (Dangerous Air Weapons) Rules of 1969. Their effect is that an air weapon will require a firearm certificate if it has a kinetic energy—that is, the force with which the pellet comes out of the gun—in excess of 12 foot pounds, or in the case of an air pistol a kinetic energy in excess of six foot pounds. An air weapon which has a kinetic energy of less than these limits does not require a firearm certificate. The effect of the rules is that more powerful air guns require a licence; less powerful ones do not. It has, I suggest, been correctly accepted for many years that that is the only sensible approach that should be taken on this issue.

It would be possible to bring all air weapons under licensing control. It is of course accepted that there are tragic accidents from time to time involving air guns which are not currently required to be held on a certificate. However, the Government's own amendment on air pistols will ensure that the more powerful weapons will become prohibited, while those which fire pellets of up to 5.5mm will be treated in the same way as small calibre pistols, will have to be held under a firearm certificate and be kept and used in licensed pistol clubs.

To make other low powered air weapons subject to certification would be—as I think my noble friend Lord Gisborough observed—a mammoth task involving a substantial number of low calibre pistols. On the basis of the advice the Government have received from the Firearms Consultative Committee, it is not considered that that is justified. It is, however, important to bear in mind that, while less powerful air weapons do not require a certificate, there are nevertheless extensive restrictions in law on their purchase, possession and use.

The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, would allow the Secretary of State to distinguish between those air weapons which require a certificate and those which do not by reference to some criterion other than their degree of danger or their power. For the reasons that I hope I have successfully put across, the Government consider that that would be the wrong approach. In our view the degree of danger of an air weapon is the best way of distinguishing between those air weapons which require to be held under a certificate and those which do not, and the power is the best way of determining the degree of danger. I hope therefore that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will also be persuaded not to insist on his amendment.

The Earl of Mar and Kellie

The dinner hour is safe; I shall not press this amendment. I think we have established that there is a considerable free-for-all as regards air guns at the present moment. No one has said that there is not. I certainly believe that there needs to be greater control. However, at this point, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Earl of Courtown

I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving that Motion, I suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before 8.40 p.m.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

House resumed.

7.43 p.m.

The Earl of Courtown

My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Blatch, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the Police Bill be postponed until after the Social Security (Recovery of Benefits) Bill. If the House agrees to this Motion, the effect would be to allow us to take the social security Bill in the dinner break and to complete the Firearms (Amendment) Bill before proceeding with the Police Bill. I beg to move.

Moved, That the Police Bill be postponed until after the Social Security (Recovery of Benefits) Bill.—(The Earl of Courtown.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.