I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

With this it will be convenient to consider Government new clause 3—Conversion not to affect classification—

'(1) Any weapon which has at any time (whether before or after the passing of this Act) been a weapon of a kind described in section 5(1) of the principal Act as amended by or under section 1 above shall be treated as a prohibited weapon notwithstanding anything done for the purpose of converting it into a weapon of a different kind.

(2) Any weapon which—

(a) has at any time since the coming into force of section 2 above been a weapon to which section 1 of the principal Act applies; or

(b) would at any previous time have been such a weapon if those sections had then been in force,

shall, if it has, or at any time has had, a barrel less than 24 inches in length, be treated as a weapon to which section I of the principal Act applies notwithstanding anything done for the purpose of converting it into a shot gun or an air weapon.'.

and amendment (a) to the new clause, leave out subsection (2).

The two new clauses before the House respond to the criticism of clause 7 of the Bill as it was originally formulated and which was defeated in Committee. The two new clauses deal with deactivation and conversion. I shall deal first with deactivation. It is dealt with in new clause 2, which permits it. Deactivated weapons will be outside the scope of the firearms legislation, provided that the work of deactivation has been carried out in accordance with a specification approved by my right hon. Friend and is certifed by the proof house or houses as having been deactivated in an approved manner.

The original proposal about conversion in clause 7 was that a weapon always retained its original status. Hon. Members on the Committee suggested that that proposition went too far and they deleted clause 7 from the Bill. On reflection, we feel that there was justification in that criticism, although I suggest to the House that the original proposal should still apply to section 5 guns. Thus fully automatic guns, and if the House so decides self-loading rifles, will always retain that status. So will section 1 guns having a barrel length of less than 24 in. Subject to that, the Bill allows conversions of section 1 guns downwards to airguns and shotguns. The most obvious example is a rifle that has been smooth-bored so that it takes a shotgun cartridge. The purpose of new clause 3 is to permit that downwards conversion.

We welcome the new clause about deactivisation, which we debated at some length in Committee. However, the Minister will have to go a little further in explaining what he is doing. The Minister has been fair enough in what he has said so far, but we have to go into the issue of clarification about the proof houses and the letter that they will have to provide to say that the weapon has been deactivated.

As we all know, there are only two proof houses in Britain—one in Birmingham and one in London. Given all the things that they will have to do if the Bill is approved, they will be grossly overworked. They are geared not to do this sort of work but to do what they do better than any other proof house in the world—test guns. They are not used to writing out certificates and, if necessary, writing on the weapons something to the effect that they have been deactivated.

Can the Minister tell us who else will be allowed to carry out this work? Which gunsmiths or dealers will be allowed to carry it out? The skill and knowledge of our gunsmiths are envied throughout the world and it should not be too difficult for the Minister to arrange through the trade for many gun shops throughout the country to be available to do this work.

I hope that the Minister will bear in mind the geographical issue. Birmingham is as far north as the proof houses go and I should like to see dealers in Glasgow, Edinburgh and Inverness appointed to carry out the work because they could do it just as effectively as anyone in the south. It could also be carried out in the north of England, in Newcastle and perhaps in Carlisle. Nothing about this is in the Bill or has been spelt out by the Minister who has not given us anything like sufficient information that would enable us to give the Bill the wholesome welcome that we wish to give it.

New clause 3 deals with conversion. I hope that the Minister will explain subsection (2). I have not yet found anybody interested in this Bill who has been able to elucidate what on earth it means. The people to whom I have spoken are highly skilled and knowledgeable members of the British Field Sports Society. They all ask what on earth the Minister is trying to say in subsection (2).

The Minister has failed to deal with the conversion of rifles into other forms of weapons, such as rook rifles and .410 shotguns, and old elephant guns into shotguns. We discussed those matters in great detail in Committee. The Minister has never given an explanation about why one should not do that. He seems to think that some crook entering my house to pinch a rook rifle that has been converted to a ·410 shotgun and is therefore of smooth bore will take it to some highly skilled gunsmith to have it rifled, re-barrelled. It beggars description that that will happen. What is wrong with a rook rifle made into a ·410? It will be a smooth bore ·410 for the rest of its life. I hope that someone will give the Minister the answer to that question.

rose——

My hon. Friend is making a mistake.

I was giving way to to my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin).

Can my hon. Friend quote to the House any instance where a rifle converted to a shotgun has been converted back to a rifle?

No, I cannot, but perhaps the Minister can. Many experts have told me firmly that no converted weapon of the sort that we are talking about has ever been used in crime.

My hon. Friend may be under some misapprehension. The proposition that we originally put forward was that a gun retained its original classification. As I explained when I introduced the new clauses, we adhered to that proposition for section 5 guns. I also said that where a section 1 rifle has been smooth-bored to make it a shotgun it has been treated as a shotgun under the proposals and not as a rifle. My hon. Friend is talking about a rifle that has been turned into a 410. He can do that because the weapon is then treated as a shotgun held under section 2 and not under section 1.

I am grateful for that explanation. The matter mystifies everybody else in the gun trade and the Minister must be the only chap who understands the Bill. His explanation is a step forward.

I have already spoken about the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside about whether a converted weapon has ever been used in crime. I have not heard of any such cases, but I look forward to the Ministers's reply when perhaps he can tell us whether such a crime has taken place. The Minister has gone too far and has been over-restrictive about conversion. My hon. Friends in Committee raised other matters about conversions and no doubt they will raise other points in this debate.

Is the Minister clear in his own mind about where we stand about sleeving guns, re-barrelling and re-sleeving them, because that is also important? We want to know whether that will be entirely in order in future. There was certainly doubt about it in Committee and it has not been elucidated in the new clauses. As I have said, I welcome the minor step about deactivation but the Minister is still going too far on conversion.

One of the hallmarks, or perhaps one of the proofs, of the Bill is the sloppiness with which it has been drafted. Because of the earlier vote, we shall now have to discuss 177 amendments and new clauses, 63 of which have been tabled by the Government—a fine example of making legislation on the hoof. This is not the best way to do it, especially with such an important subject. These new clauses illustrate this point.

Yet again we are being invited to give the Secretary of State a blank cheque. I doubt whether the details that lie behind new clause 2 exist on paper. They are probably a thought in the head of somebody in that grey area of the Home Office. Perhaps the Minister will tell us something about these details because he did not do so when he moved the new clause. Over what period is this expected to happen? Is it unlimited? Is it over a fortnight, six months, a year, three years, six years, 10 years, or as quickly as possible?

What kind of mark is envisaged? Is it to be a red dot, a yellow dot or a blue dot? What is to be its size? Is it to be a scoring on the barrel? Clearly, it must be something that cannot easily be removed if this is to be of any value with either deactivated or converted guns. This is a serious point, and I am not treating it lightly. What discussions has the Minister, or his officials, had about the kind of mark that will be permanently attached to the weapons? Have the fine proof houses in Birmingham and London been consulted? Has there been consultation about the adhesion or the engraving of the mark and of the effect that that may have on valuable weapons? I am thinking in particular of antique, vintage weapons or classic weapons that have a high market value.

The hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) asked the Minister who he has in mind to carry out the work, and on what basis. The geography is important. Pleased as I am to see more work going to the Birmingham proof house, it will make problems if only proof houses are used. If, as I suspect, some gunsmiths will be allowed to put these marks on the weapons, on what basis will they be selected? Is it every gunsmith who applies, one per county, or two per county? These are the factors about which we need to know.

What about the cost of the exercise? Has anybody taken advice on the likely charges that either the proof houses or the authorised gun dealers or gunsmiths will impose for carrying out this work? Will there be a difference in the level of charges between the proof houses and the gunsmiths? Has anybody thought about this? These are the questions that the holders of these weapons not just want answered but have a right to have answered. These points could well have been settled in Committee if the Minister had not been so bone-headed as to oppose the earlier motion for recommittal.

Unless the Minister is going to say that every gunsmith in the kingdom will be able to apply to carry out this work of deactivating and converting weapons, there will be a great deal of unfairness because choices will have to be made. I do not object if we say to every gunsmith, "If you want to do it, spend 13p or 18p on a stamp and we will grant the necessary authorisation." I suspect that it will not be like that. Instead, qualifications will be laid down. I hope that, before we get much further in the debate on the new clause, the Minister will give us, and those beyond the walls of the House, the answer to these questions.

I understand that Bills are drafted in this way, but new clause 2(b) is confusing. It says:

"that company or person has certified in writing that work has been carried out on the firearm in a manner approved by the Secretary of State for rendering it incapable of discharging any shot, bullet or other missile."

I am not sure what

"in a manner approved by the Secretary of State"

means. Does it mean that the mark put on the weapon will be approved by the Secretary of State; or—this is another legitimate reading of these words—that it has to be put on, let alone that it is a proof authorised by the Secretary of State, in a manner of which the Secretary of State approves?

This is an important issue. It would be for the convenience of the House if the Minister had been more forthcoming at the start of the debate on these new clauses. and told us in a little more detail what they propose. I hope that he will now do so.

I say, first, to my hon. Friend the Minister—in the hope that he is not leaving the Chamber—that, despite his accusation, I am not opposed to all firearms legislation. I am opposed to legislating against the innocent private legitimate owner of firearms in the completely misplaced notion that in some way that will prevent criminal activity. My hon. Friend has consistently refused to answer that point, because he has no answer to it. That is why I am opposed to the legislation. I would support any part of it that I could fnd useful, but I can find little or no part of it that is useful, and this has promoted my hostility to the Bill.

I find it distressing that, the Committee having removed a clause from the Bill, the Government are seeking to put it back again, although I suppose that that is predictable. If someone has a ·410 that has been made from an old rifle—there are a considerable number of such weapons—on the passing of this legislation that person will he committing an offence. This is a retrospective proposal, and I have always voted against retrospective legislation. In this instance, innocent people who have shotgun certificates will be required to get a firearms certificate at a considerable cost.

On Second Reading, which we both opposed, the hon. Gentleman and I made common cause on the grounds that the Government had advocated this legislation on the basis that it would be an adequate response to the events at Hungerford. The hon. Member served on the Committee that considered the Bill, and I know that he agreed with the points made by those of us who had reservations about it.

If these new clauses had been in force, would they have prevented any of the events that led to Hungerford? If they were accepted now, would they prevent events such as those that led to Hungerford, or would they improve the existing legislation on firearms in such a way as to prevent the illegal use of firearms in the pursuit of crime?

As I said in my speech when I proposed the motion to recommit the Bill, I do not believe that anything in the Bill would have prevented Hungerford. Nor do I believe that the Government can legislate about anything that could have prevented Hungerford. A mad man can, and sadly may in the future, kill with whatever weapons he happens to have at his disposal. The misplaced notion that reducing the number of legally held weapons will prevent such an incident is ridiculous.

Would the hon. Gentleman care to speculate on the proposition that had the existing legislation been properly applied Hungerford would not have happened?

The hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) has recently tabled a series of interesting questions. The spokesman for the Thames Valley police made a slip the other day when it was acknowledged that there may have been some modest administrative error in the issue of Ryan's certificate. I support those who believe that the Government should have had a full-scale inquiry into that matter. The Government's persistent refusal on the ground that there is nothing to inquire into does not give the public the confidence that the Government tell us they are trying to imbue in the public, and for which purpose they have introduced this legislation.

I want to be clear about this, and I do not want there to be any misunderstanding. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that if the existing legislation had been applied the events at Hungerford should not have been possible?

Every item of evidence points to that effect, but other hon. Members may be better informed than me and may wish to elucidate that matter. I do not want the hon. Gentleman to put words into my mouth.

It was a mistake not to have had a fuller inquiry into the precise bureaucratic procedures that preceded the issuing of that certificate. On the other hand, it is worth bearing in mind that Ryan also possessed some unlicensed firearms and therefore even if the procedures had been complied with he would still have been in possession of weapons. I am not certain whether it is wise to go down that road, certainly not in respect of these measures, and I have no doubt that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, will rule me out of order if I do so.

I query the application of retrospective legislation to this important issue, and I question the great crime wave that is supposedly associated with converted weapons. I do not believe that it exists. It is yet another example of the petty, spiteful attitude towards all firearms of those who advise my hon. Friend the Minister.

I wish to ask my hon. Friend the Minister to comment on four points. First, an issue has come to light that I had not realised might arise under the proposal. There is some doubt as to whether guns that have been resleeved or rebarrelled would still have protection. The Minister should deal with that point and I wish to quote to him some advice that I have received from a former colleague, Fred Silvester, who has been assiduous in representing to the Committee the interests of the gun trade. He says:

"There is the problem of sleeving. The Home Office keeps saying they understand the point, but they do nothing about it."

He goes on to say:

"Sleeving involves removing the barrel and replacing it with another."

He is not entirely right. My gun has been redone, and that simply involved taking out a piece and replacing it. However, he goes on to say:

"The man who does this work commits no offence because he is given special protection by section 4 of the 1968 Act, and by clause 6 of the Bill. New clause 3, however, still leaves the gun itself unprotected. If it is cut down below 24 inches, it remains in section 1"——

that is entirely right—

"and fixing the new barrel to it makes no difference."

My hon. Friend the Minister should elucidate that point as a simple issue of practicality.

My second point echoes that raised by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett). I should like to know exactly what kind of mark will be required to be placed upon firearms to prove that they have been rendered inoperable. It is important for the police—the House knows of my interest, which will remain for some time to come—to know what sort of mark will be used, and their advice should be taken because they will have to identify the mark and take action accordingly.

My third point arises from the fact that other persons, besides proof houses, will be able to carry out such work. That is entirely right. There are only two proof houses, and it would be extremely onerous to expect people throughout the country to use only those two proof houses. There are plenty of satisfactory craftsmen who can do the job. For example, a man in my constituency, who acts as the police armourer, is capable of doing that job without relying on the excellent work done in Birmingham. However, it is important to the police, to the trade and to all those who will be required to have their firearms dealt with in this way to know which local craftsmen will be allowed to do the job and on what basis.

8.15 pm

That brings me to my fourth point—how the Government intend to authenticate the armourers who will be permitted to perform the deactivations. What sort of skills must they have? How is their probity to be measured? A form of qualifying certificate will have to be issued. It is important, on Report, that the Government are seen to have thought these matters through and to have explained them carefully to the House before we accept the measure.

If the Bill had contained a reference to Northern Ireland when it went into Committee, the consideration that we gave to it would have been somewhat different. In those circumstances, and in view of the terrorist situation in Northern Ireland, the effect of the Bill on the supply of weapons to terrorists would have been carefully considered. There will now have to be references to Northern Ireland in every part of the Bill because, despite the amendments, the ramifications will go much further.

A number of questions relating to the two new clauses have not been fully considered. I wish to point out to the Minister that we do not have a proof house in Northern Ireland. If the guns, or weapons of whatever kind, have to be brought across to Britain for the work to be carried out, the cost will be greatly increased. If we then have to look for gunsmiths to do the work in Northern Ireland and the work has to be done in a rush, rather too many weapons will be in the hands of individual gunsmiths for at least some time and no one wishes that to happen.

Above all, we shall have the problem of ·410 conversions. For many years, it was possible to buy the old ·303 ex-Army rifle, converted to a ·410 bolt action. There are many such weapons throughout the United Kingdom. Although it is not the most popular sporting weapon, there are many ·410s and converted ·410s lying around in farms all over the country. As I understand it, those weapons are caught by the legislation, as any ex-bullet firing weapons will be.

It is my understanding—I have consulted people who know and give evidence in court cases about such matters—that the weapon normally used by a criminal is a clapped-out sawn-off shotgun, if only for the good reason that a good quality shotgun is worth far more on the black market as a shotgun than it would ever be to a criminal. If a weapon looks capable of being fired, it is sufficient for the criminal's purposes.

However, there is a real problem when one considers new clause 2(b), which relates to the expertise available to the Home Secretary. I have not been as impressed by that expertise as I would like to be, because it appears to fall short of what is required for the purposes of the Bill, even before it was amended. If the Home Office is to advise on what sort of work must be carried out, that advice will have to be based on detailed knowledge of the most intricate type of weapons. Has the Home Office such a person on its staff? I believe that it has not, and, therefore, I wonder where it will go for that information and advice and what it will cost.

We shall be dealing with hundreds of different types of weapons, not one, and many of them will be mechanically different from others. The methods of deactivation that apply in some instances will not apply in others. We shall reach the stage when there will be one-off operations. I do not understand how this system will be carried through into practical effect, unless the Minister is prepared to allow the gunsmith to determine whether the work that he has carried out is sufficient. If the police decide subsequently that the work is not sufficient, who will end up in court—the gun owner or the chap who carried out the work?

The Government are entering an area that they would have been well advised to avoid. No evidence was produced on Second Reading or in Committee—nor will there be any such evidence on Report—that the weapons that we are discussing pose a serious problem in criminal activity. Anyone who knows anything about the subject is aware of that.

I think that we all listen to what the hon. Gentleman has to say on these matters with considerable respect. Does he agree that converted weapons are often of relatively low resale value? If the cost of carrying out the identification marking is high, there is a greater chance that it will not be acceptable to the gun-owning public. That means that there will be more evasion in this instance than with more expensive and valuable weapons.

That is correct. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has picked up so early in our deliberations this evening an issue to which we shall probably return on more than one occasion. He has raised a matter of concern to those who know about these matters, and it is a concern that I share.

It is probable that the Government will label the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) and myself as members of the pro-gun lobby. I admit that I shoot. I do not shoot much, however, because I do not have a lot of time in which to do it after attending this place. If there is an hon. Member who is concerned about the safety of the general public in terms of firearms, it must be me. I have been to the funerals of many who have died as a result of the misuse of firearms. I do not know exactly how many I have represented in the county of Londonderry who have died as a result of terrorism, but I made a rough count some weeks ago and the total came to about 350. No matter what is said in the House or alleged in the media, I hope that I shall not be accused of being unreasonably or madly pro-gun.

I know what I am talking about. I know as much about firearms and their use by terrorists and criminals as any man. I cannot see much good in this part of the Bill and I see very little that is good in the Bill as it has been drafted and presented to the House.

Some of those who considered the Bill in Committee appeared to me to be anti-gun, to put it mildly. They were mainly Opposition hon. Members. Slowly but surely they allowed themselves to be convinced by the force of the arguments that were advanced and to be influenced by the Government's failure adequately to respond to them. They came to understand that what I and others were arguing was based on a solid foundation. If the Government had acknowledged that there was a problem and had agreed that they should return next year with a better organised, better presented and better looking Bill, we should not have the mess of amendments that are set out before us. If the Government had adopted that approach initially, they would not have had to live through such a difficult Second Reading and Committee stage.

The Government must know that this is not a good Bill. Unfortunately, they are committed to it. There is nothing worse than for a Government to proceed with a measure that they know in their heart and mind is inherently bad and will bring no good purpose to the House.

I should like to question the Under-Secretary of State about imported deactivated weapons, which have not been referred to so far. Would other countries with a suitably high and effective standard of deactivation be allowed to send such weapons here? Could our marks, which we have been asking my hon. Friend to say more about, be readily recognised by other countries, and would their marks be recognised in this country? We are not the only country with firearms legislation.

Perhaps my hon. Friend will comment on the effect of the Bill in terms of 1992. Only last week, I received from the Commission of the European Communities a copy of its proposal for a Council directive on the control, acquisition and possession of weapons. It is premature for this House to be debating now the amendment of our firearms legislation when the European Community is about to make its own proposals. Perhaps my hon. Friend would like to comment on the Commission directive, dated 28 July, and say what will happen on 1 January 1993 if harmonisation in Europe is achieved on that date. What will happen then to deactivated weapons?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that in some European countries it is possible legally to own two or three-inch mortars, for example. This was referred to briefly in Committee, and the Minister said something to the effect that good care would be taken to protect British interests. I did not hear him expand upon that to any extent in terms of harmonisation.

I do not want to digress too far on this subject. The point that I am making is that I think it is quite wrong for the House to pass the Bill without considering the impact of harmonisation. That is why [put my question to the Minister at an early stage. I think that his answer would help to clarify our minds on what follows.

I support the argument advanced from the Opposition Front Bench by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) on the inherent ambiguity in paragraph (b). The precise meaning of the paragraph is far from clear. It is for the Minister to explain precisely what interpretation should be placed upon it. One cannot help feeling that this is yet another example of a rather hasty reaction to the unhappy events of last summer. First, there was the hasty production of a White Paper, which was followed by the hasty production of the Bill. I think that it is fair to say that the Bill has had hardly a friend in the House as it has proceeded through its various stages.

Secondly, it is obviously necessary that some consideration be given to ensuring that the persons who may be approved, in addition to the two proof houses, are gunsmiths located throughout the United Kingdom. It would be especially onerous, for example, if someone living in the far north of Scotland were unable to take a weapon to Inverness, Aberdeen or somewhere of that description to have the necessary work done to it, and instead had to ensure that the weapon was sent either to Birmingham or London.

I hope that the Minister will find it possible to respond to the invitation to provide more detail on precisely what sort of person the Secretary of State has in mind and the geographical distribution that he will be prepared to approve.

Deactivation is the subject of new clause 2. It is perhaps necessary to distinguish the two stages. There is the work of deactivation, which is done by a gunsmith. That is the answer to the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths). The answer is a gunsmith—any old gunsmith who reckons that he is capable of doing the work of deactivation. That work, before it is effective in taking the gun out of the firearms legislation, must be approved by one of the two proof houses. The proof houses only certify the work: they do not do the work of deactivation.

A number of hon. Members have asked whether we intend to use the reserve power to nominate a number of certifying authorities. The answer is that it depends. The proof houses believe that they are capable of dealing with the volume of likely work. They are anxious to do it. We have no reason to doubt that. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has the reserve power to nominate another certifying person or authority if we find that the proof houses are not capable of doing the work of certification.

How many weapons does the Minister expect to be deactivated and to go to the proof houses? I do not wish to be over-sarcastic, but the Home Office does not have a good record in predicting numbers. The mess with the 120,000 unopened letters at Lunar house, the chaos because of the miscalculation on the issue of new passports, and the large numbers of people on remand in prison who will eventually be released having been found not guilty do not show that the Home Office has a good forecasting record. Has the Home Office thought about how many weapons will have to be dealt with and whether the two proof houses can deal with them?

Deactivated guns have been treated hitherto as falling outside the scope of the firearms legislation. It follows that there is no record of the number of guns that will be affected by the legislation. I cannot, therefore, answer the question. This is one reason why the reserve power has been included to extend the certifying authority to others, if necessary.

There is the issue that these firearms must be transported to the proof houses. I think that I am right in saying that.

indicated assent.

I am glad that my hon. Friend agrees. Does this part of the Bill apply to Northern Ireland? If so, are we to have firearms brought from Northern Ireland to the two proof houses on this side of the water? What happens in the Customs channel when firearms are brought in and taken back to Northern Ireland from this side of the water?

The answer to that specific question is that this part of the Bill does not apply to Northern Ireland.

rose——

I should like to proceed, if I may.

A number of hon. Members have asked, understandably, about the nature of the mark. The intention is that the proof houses will engrave a view mark on the three major parts of the deactivated weapon. That will be evidence of the fact that the gun has been deactivated and that the work of deactivation has been done to the approved standard.

My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will have the power to set the necessary standard of work. The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) asked about the meaning of paragraph (b). The phrase

"approved by the Secretary of State"

as having been rendered incapable relates to the work which must be done to a standard approved by the Secretary of State.

My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) asked about imported guns. If other countries have a system similar to ours, and deactivate weapons and place a mark to signify that fact, that mark will not be accepted in this country. If they wish to import deactivated weapons into this country and wish them to be outside the scope of the firearms legislation, they will have to submit them to the proof houses for approval in the same way as any other person operating within the jurisdiction.

What about the visitor to this country?

If a visitor comes to this country with a deactivated weapon which is not proof marked in the way that I have described, it is caught by the ordinary provisions of the firearms legislation. I should be surprised if my hon. Friend wanted it otherwise. A number of weapons that are sometimes described as deactivated are not in the least deactivated and can readily be used to fire as a lethal weapon. We should set up proper protection for our fellow citizens, and I am sure that my hon. Friend would wish us to do that.

There is apprehension about conversion. That may well be my fault, in which case I apologise. It is true that clause 7 as originally presented to the House on Second Reading and in Committee enshrined within it the proposition that a gun could not by conversion ever change its original categorisation—if it started life as a section 5 gun, it always remained a section 5 gun; if it started life as a section 1 gun, it always remained a section 1 gun, even if work had been done to turn it into a shotgun or airgun. That proposition was criticised, and I understand why, so we qualified the position substantially.

The proposition which we originally brought forward remains now as it always was in respect of section 5 guns—if a gun starts life as a section 5 gun, it will always remain a section 5 gun in the eyes of the law, whatever is done to it. That proposition does not apply in respect of section 1 guns having a barrel length in excess of 24 in. In respect of a section 1 gun, for example a Lee Enfield rifle, which has been smooth-bored so as to take a ·410 cartridge and thus becomes a shotgun, it is not a section 1 gun any more—it is a shotgun.

The new clause has the effect of allowing people to transform their section 1 rifle into a shotgun if they wish without the necessity of getting any certification to prove it. That does not apply in respect of those guns with a barrel length of less than 24 in. The most obvious and gross examples are pistols which are smooth-bored which can still fire a pistol cartridge but which hitherto were treated as section 2 guns when they should have been treated as section 1 guns.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) expressed some doubt about the meaning of subsection (2) of new clause 3. That deals only with those section 1 guns which have a barrel length of less than 24 in. The character of such a gun cannot be changed by downward conversion into, say, a shotgun or an airgun.

Will my hon. Friend spell out, chapter and verse, when it is permitted to convert a rifle into a gun capable of taking a ·410 cartridge?

That is the necessary consequence of new clause 3.

New clause 3 prevents only downward conversion of section 5 guns and section 1 guns with a barrel length of less than 24 in. What is not prohibited is lawful and therefore the position is as I stated. If my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries has a Lee Enfield rifle which he wants to turn into a shotgun taking a ·410 cartridge, he can lawfully do that and hold that gun on a section 2 certificate, not a section 1 certificate.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds raised a perfectly proper and interesting point about resleeving. Any gunsmith can lawfully carry out the process of resleeving as a result of section 4(2) of the Firearms Act 1968. On the other hand, if the end result is a gun with a barrel length of less than 24 in.—the process of conversion has produced a short-barrelled shotgun—the law in the Firearms Act 1968 survives, although it has been modified, and that gun will be held on a section 1 certificate, if it is held at all.

I hope that hon. Members will believe that I have tried to address the various points that have been raised. I know that there were complaints, particularly from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett), that I did not go into immense detail when I opened the debate. If the House agrees, I would like in the debates in which I introduce Government amendments to deal with them in broad terms to begin with and then meet specific points. I believe that that will be for the convenience of the House.

I am grateful for much of what the Minister has said to clarify these matters. However, he did not comment on the likely level of charges. I assume from what he has said that consultations have taken place with the proof houses. That must follow from what he said about the engravings on three separate parts of the weapon. Therefore, the proof houses will have had the opportunity to say how much that would cost. Perhaps the Minister could elaborate on that.

The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) raised an important point as to whether, and if so how, the police have been consulted over the marks to ensure that they are readily identifiable.

It follows from what the Minister said that, in his words, any gunsmith can carry out the deactivation work. However, the weapon will then have to go to the proof house for it to authorise that the work has been carried out properly. What happens if and when that weapon arrives at the Birmingham proof house? I must declare an interest and say that I hope that most of the weapons will go to Birmingham rather than elsewhere.

What will happen if the proof house believes that the quality or standard of engraving is inferior and is not satisfied that it has been carried out properly? Will it improve the engraving to the acceptable standard that it is authorised to provide? Will the weapon have to go through the mail or Red Star back to the gunsmith who originally carried out the work? If the work is to be carried out by the proof house, presumably it would have to contact the weapon's owner and state that it is not satisfied and inform the owner that it can re-do the work to the standard which the Secretary of State authorises it to reach, but that will cost the owner a certain sum. It would be for the convenience of the House if the Minister could answer those practical points about the engraving marks.

rose——

Does the hon. Gentleman have the leave of the House to speak again?

Yes.

The Minister alarmed me when he said that this section of the Bill does not apply to Northern Ireland. What are the corresponding provisions for Northern Ireland? I am sure that they exist. With regard to the importation of weapons, will the proof houses have to see each weapon that is imported and deactivated?

As my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office is sitting beside me on the Government Front Bench, it would be presumptuous of me to make any comment on Northern Ireland, and I do not propose to do so.

With regard to charges, at present the proof charge is about £3·43. I would not wish to tie the charge down to a particular figure, but I expect that it would be of that order.

With regard to consultation with the police, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds was right, and I should have responded to him. Of course the police will be consulted about the nature of the mark. In response to the question about the mark raised by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett), he will bear in mind that the mark must be approved by the proof house. In fact, it is the proof house mark.

It is essential that this matter is absolutely clear. My hon. Friend the Minister said that this part of the Bill does not apply to Northern Ireland. What then is to happen in Northern Ireland?

As you will know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am always a man to duck a question when I can. As my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office is sitting beside me, I will leave that question which relates specifically to Northern Ireland to him.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would it be for the convenience of the House to invite the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office to clear up this matter, because this is of some importance?

It is not for me to invite the Minister to speak.

Following from the last comments made by my hon. Friend the Minister, will he clarify whom he means by the police when he says that he will consult the police? I hope that he does not mean the Metropolitan police. I do not think that any sporting bird can be found it that area. By the police, I hope that he means the more rural forces such as those in Devon and Cornwall. This is a serious point, because my hon. Friend the Minister has had so much bad advice in the drafting of the Bill that he must disabuse himself of the belief that the monopoly of wisdom and experience reposes in the Metropolitan police. Who does he mean when he says that he will consult the police?

In the first instance at least we would consider the views of the Association of Chief Police Officers, which is the normal channel for consultation in those circumstances. If my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds felt that that was an insufficient consultative process he would let me know and inform me in respect of those whom he has hitherto so admirably represented in this place and elsewhere. We would give his views careful consideration.

Does that not underline the serious need for a statutory committee to advise the Home Office on those matters?

My hon. Friend will be aware that the proposal before the House recommends a statutory consultative committee.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Bearing in mind the background of the 1968 Act, there are no copies in the Vote Office. I have the only copy, which I obtained from the Library. I raise that point of order so that my hon. Friends may know where to find it.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments to the proposed new clause: (a), leave out line 9.

(b), leave out line 10.

(c), leave out line 11.

(d), leave out line 12.

(e), leave out line 13.

(f), leave out line 14.

(g), leave out line 15.

It will also be convenient to take the following: Government amendments Nos. 21 and 22.

Amendment No. 102, in clause 20, page 10, line 38, before 'This', insert

'Except for—

(a) section 1(1), (2) and (4);

(b) section 7;

(c) section 8(1), (3) and (6);

(d) section (9);

(e) section 10(5) and (6);

(f) section 17(1);

(g) section 19(1), (2), (4), (5) and (6);

The House will be aware that, because of the security situation, firearms control in Northern Ireland is extremely tight and it is necessary to take an altogether more restrictive approach to the possession of firearms there than in other parts of the United Kingdom.

Strict controls over the possession of firearms are exercised by the Chief Constable through the discretionary powers given to him under the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 1981. Those powers are subject to a right of appeal to Ministers. However, we are concerned that the basic statutory provisions in relation to firearms controls in Northern Ireland should remain in line with those for the rest of the United Kingdom. As the changes now being given effect in Great Britain under this Bill would in some areas represent useful minor improvements and refinements of the existing statutory controls in Northern Ireland, we felt that it was right to take advantage of this Bill to make certain corresponding changes to Northern Ireland's legislation.

The purpose of new clause 4 is to provide authority for the making of an Order in Council subject to the negative resolution procedure to apply in Northern Ireland those provisions of the Bill specified in the new clause. Subsection (1) of the new clause enables the negative resolution rather than the affirmative resolution procedure to be applied to the proposed Northern Ireland Order in Council. It is felt that that is the more appropriate procedure, given the fact that the Order in Council must be limited to the provisions of new clause 4 and that the House will have had an opportunity to consider new clause 4 in this debate.

As to subsection (2)(a), the specially dangerous weapons and ammunition now prohibited by clause 1 of the Bill are already prohibited to the public in Northern Ireland. That is achieved by the Chief Constable exercising his discretionary powers under the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 rather than by specific statutory prohibition. Paragraph (a) will keep the statutory controls in Northern Ireland for those types of specially dangerous weapons and ammunition in line with those in Great Britain. It will have no effect on firearms certificate holders in Northern Ireland.

Before the Minister leaves the subject of firearm certificates, will he make it clear that all firearms in Northern Ireland, including shotguns, have to be held on a firearms certificate? That is the great difference between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom.

I certainly endorse what the hon. Gentleman says.

I turn to paragraph (b). In common with the Firearms Act 1968, the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 specifies that one photograph must accompany firearm certificate applications. Administrative experience has shown the value of having two photographs in such circumstances, and in practice two are already supplied. The opportunity presented by the Bill has been taken to enable an amendment to the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 to include reference to the provision of two photographs. That is achieved by paragraph (b).

In Northern Ireland, the registration of firearms dealers takes place on 1 January each year. To extend the period of registration of firearms dealers in Great Britain to three years without reciprocal action in Northern Ireland legislation would put Northern Ireland dealers at a relative disadvantage, in that they would have to pay a registration fee annually rather than triennially. We also consider it desirable to provide in Northern Ireland as in Great Britain that a dealer whose name has been removed from the register of dealers should surrender his register of transactions. That is to prevent the loss of records which may be of subsequent use to the police. Those amendments to Northern Ireland legislation are achieved by paragraph (c) of subsection (2).

In Northern Ireland at present, there are no physical security requirements asked of auctioneers, carriers and warehouse men who handle and transport firearms. All others who handle firearms, such as dealers and authorised repair agents, are required to provide extensive security. Paragraph (d) will enable those businesses to be required to take reasonable precautions for the security of firearms and ammunition under their control.

Paragraph (e) will provide for police powers of entry and inspection of rifle and pistol club premises to ensure that a club is operating according to its authorisation. At present, police may enter and search club premises only if it is suspected that an offence has been committed. Paragraph (e) will make possible improved monitoring of rifle and pistol clubs to ensure that their activities are fully in accordance with their terms of authorisation, which are given under article 54 of the 1981 order.

Paragraph (f) is a minor consequential amendment. Powers exist under article 13 of the 1981 order enabling the Secretary of State to authorise the use of a prohibited weapon subject to appropriate safeguards in theatrical or other performances. This paragraph brings the list of such prohibited weapons up to date, in line with the changes made by the Bill.

Paragraph (g) deals with interpretation and supplementary provisions. They will enable definitions, time limits for prosecutions and detailed rules for the serving of notices and exemptions contained in the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 to be carried over to the new Order in Council.

Finally, consequential amendment No. 21 will enable new clause 4 to come into effect after enactment of the Bill, subject to the negative resolution Order in Council that will be based upon it. Amendment No. 22 makes the necessary amendment to apply new clause 4 to Northern Ireland.

Now that I have explained new clause 4, the House may agree that my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State was entirely right in responding to the motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) by saying that new clause 4 either reflects in the statute what is already existing practice or makes extremely minor changes in Northern Ireland legislation.

Before my hon. Friend sits down, what he has not explained to the House, and what l think needs explaining, is why what he has said was not equally true when the Bill was in draft. Why is this brought in by, as it were, a side wind at Report stage, rather than having been embodied in the Bill when it was in draft? Does his own Secretary of State never meet the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland? The House needs to know.

The hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) made the perfectly fair point that he was prevented from taking part in certain debates in Committee on the ground that at that stage the Bill did not apply to Northern Ireland. If there are not amendments down to a given clause now that the Bill is on the Floor of the House, he will not have the opportunity of debating it here either. My right hon. Friend has an obligation to tell the House why the case that he is making now is not an equally good case for having embodied it in the Bill in the first place.

My hon. Friend will know as well as anyone that the Bill has been the subject of considerable debate, and that there have been a number of changes in Government policy and thinking as it has evolved. It was not possible when the Bill was introduced to take a final view on whether it would be sensible to make what are, as I have sought to explain, very minor changes in Northern Ireland legislation. By the time that the Bill had made some progress in Committee, it had become apparent that there could be a useful degree of tidying up of the statutory provisions. At the end of March, my hon. Friend wrote to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett), who leads for the Opposition, saying that we intended to make these relatively minor changes when the Bill reached the Report stage.

We have just heard what I can only describe as an astonishing admission from the Minister. He has confirmed what all of us who have taken an interest in the Bill have known since it first saw the light of day—that it was not properly thought through, but was a knee-jerk reaction. Only as it progressed and people such as myself asked more and more questions about it did it become apparent not only to the Home Office but to the Northern Ireland Office that here was a vehicle that could be used.

This is a most unusual procedure. The Government cannot get away with saying that it was a convenient way of doing things. On every other occasion when they have wanted to bring the firearms law, and indeed many other laws, in Northern Ireland into line with those in Great Britain they have brought in an order. There is no reason why that should not have been done on this occasion.

Do not get me wrong, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not want the House to think that I object to United Kingdom legislation. On the contrary, I welcome it. What I cannot stand is this measure being slipped in as an afterthought, and an afterthought it most assuredly was. I can take no other meaning from the Minister's speech.

The Minister also told us that the application of the legislation to Northern Ireland was largely unnecessary. That is clear to those of us who know anything about firearms and the firearms law in Northern Ireland. We know that it is extremely tight. We know that looking for a standard full-bore self-loading rifle is like looking for hens' teeth. It is not easy to obtain such a weapon, or even any high-powered centre line rifle. Firearms certificates simply are not granted for such weapons—not that the IRA uses legal weapons anyway. God knows it ships them in from elsewhere by the shipload, and it is not the kind of stuff that it is using anyway. The plain truth is that such weapons, in the hands of sympathisers with terrorist organisations, could presumably be used for training purposes and to allow people to acquire expertise in handling firearms.

I well understand that, and well understand also the restrictions that have been applied. However, I have a serious objection to the procedure that is being used. Let me explain the reasons for the amendments put down by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) and myself. First, we wished to draw attention to our dissatisfaction with the procedure. We wanted to give the House an opportunity to discuss in relation to Northern Ireland all that was discussed in Committee, and anything else that occurred to us since. It seems to be the fashion nowadays to think of more and more as the passage of a Bill continues. Certainly that is the line of action that the Government have been following. That opportunity is open to the House this evening.

Amendment No. 102 deals with the part of the Bill that says that the legislation does not apply to Northern Ireland. If the Minister is honest, I think that he will confess that the method that we have proposed for extending the provisions to Northern Ireland is much neater and simpler than the route that he has chosen. I hope that he will accept amendment No. 102 and withdraw his new clause. I would find that a perfectly satisfactory course, after we have thoroughly explored the application of these slabs of the Bill to Northern Ireland.

Later—probably much later—the House will have an opportunity to discuss whether there should be two, or three, photographs. My experience, as the holder of a firearms certificate, is that the police expect me to produce two photographs. One of the photographs is on the firearms certificate. The second is held in police headquarters, where it is of little use to anybody, except to those in police headquarters. It is looked at every three or four years. A third photograph would be most welcome. The local station would then be provided with a photograph. That point has been put to me most strongly, and I hope that the Minister will take note of it and move in that direction.

There is so much that one could say about all these clauses. I could spend all evening on them. These amendments are the heart and soul of the Bill and caused the most anger in Committee. The Government had to consider them very carefully. They were introduced as a direct result of the Hungerford incident.

Why have the Government introduced the Bill? Why have they decided to proceed in this way at this time? Every honest person knows that this was the Government's reaction to the Hungerford massacre. Their excuse was that the law was insufficient to deal with Hungerford. That point has been raised again in this debate, and so far there has been no satisfactory answer to it.

I shall attempt to run through some of the events on that dreadful day. The shock of that massacre spread throughout the whole island of Great Britain and muddied people's thinking. I was distant from it but, sadly, I was all too well aware of the reaction—of the numb horror that can strike a community after such an incident. However, I had the advantage, apart from being distant from it, of 20 years of terrorism; an advantage which I could well do without and which I should be very happy to do without. Nevertheless, those experiences are with me, with the result that I tend to take a cooler look at such incidents than do those who have them thrust in their faces for the first time.

The Bill will have no effect on terrorist activity. By their very nature, terrorists are lawbreakers. They will be unconcerned about any law that is passed to control firearms. They will steal them if they find them handy, but a terrorist who is serious in his intentions does not rely upon a few .22 rifles or even self-loading rifles. He relies to a large extent upon far more lethal machinery and upon high explosives. That has been proven day after day, and happened in Londonderry last night.

Who, or what, are we trying to control by the Bill and by the other firearms legislation? We are trying to keep firearms out of the hands of known criminals, yet I am told that it is possible for people who are suspected of engaging in criminal activities to visit pistol galleries in Great Britain and shoot to their heart's content. There is nothing to stop their doing so. If we can identify them, I believe that it is our duty to keep firearms of all types out of the hands of those who are actually or potentially mentally unstable. That is extremely difficult, but I have tabled an amendment to cover that point, which I hope the House will consider carefully.

There are people who have a history of violence, although it may not be classed as criminal violence. There are people who have suffered some mental illness, and who may well suffer from mental illness again, and there are people who show a general lack of responsibility. Perhaps that is more apparent in young men than it is in older people, but responsibility is important for those who own and handle firearms. That covers the majority of the groups from whom we should actively endeavour to keep firearms. Hon. Members may think of other smaller groups and categories, but I believe that I have encompassed most of them.

Most people who own firearms have been so well screened by their peers or by the police that very few legally held weapons are ever used in crime. In addition to the Firearms Acts, police forces have a code which they impose. I consider that the present law and the code of practice carried into effect by the Thames Valley police should have been sufficient to stop Mr. Ryan getting his weapons. I understand that the Thames Valley police enjoy a fairly high reputation with shooting clubs. That makes it all the more sad that on this occasion they appear to have fallen short of those high standards.

The questions that I have asked and the very slow dribble of information that appeared to the world as a result of that sad story should not be allowed to go unnoticed. There are lessons which have not properly been absorbed or learnt by the House, by the country and possibly by the police. If they have, nothing has been published that convinces me that those lessons have been learnt. Although chief constables can issue firearms certificates whenever they wish, they do not do so. They lay down strictures as to who may or may not have firearms. The special procedures created by the Thames Valley police force——

Order. I have been waiting patiently to see how the hon. Gentleman relates the substance of his argument to the new clause under discussion and the amendments to it. I am finding it very difficult to do so. It would be quite wrong for the hon. Gentleman to go into detail on events arising from the Hungerford occurrence.

I bow to your judgment, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was hoping to prove that if the police in charge of the Hungerford occurrence had applied their own regulations, which must be co-existent with the firearms law, that situation would not have arisen. The amendments will not prevent someone like Ryan in future legally laying his hands on firearms unless the police carry out their procedures absolutely accurately and fully. In that context I was hoping to draw attention to the fact that the police had not really followed their code of practice. Whether they would follow the proposed firearms legislation, or whether they followed firearms legislation in force at that time, is open to debate. The amendments do not make sense unless the administration procedure used by the police in all cases is properly followed.

It is only by example that one can come to a full understanding of how the firearms law operates in practice. When one considers the history of the Ryan saga and how he got his firearms, one begins to wonder how closely the police followed the law. One then has to question whether the police will follow any amendments that we may make, even in regard to Northern Ireland.

The hon. Gentleman suggests that the Thames Valley police did not follow their own guidelines when they allowed Michael Ryan to have a firearms certificate. He will know that Ryan had been a probationary member of the Dunmore shooting centre for three months and that, in September 1986, that was the only requirement that the club required for full membership. After three months, when Ryan applied to the Thames Valley police, he was given a firearms certificate on the basis of his membership of the centre and of his being a consistent shooter at it.

Because the centre used only pistols, Ryan joined a club with a rifle range and applied to have rifles added to his certificate. He was allowed the addition to his certificate. The hon. Gentleman has tried to claim that, because Ryan did not go through the full procedure, but obtained a firearms certificate as a result of membership of Dunmore, he was somehow beyond the law when he obtained his rifle certificate. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman is wrong and that the chief constable was right in believing that, once he awarded a certificate, the addition of another weapon to the certificate was not——

Order. Interventions should be brief. Moreover, what I feared when I reproached the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) is now happening—instead of discussing how relevant the application of parts of the Bill are to Northern Ireland, we are having a House of Commons inquiry into the Hungerford occurrence, and we are not going to have that.

I am sorry that we shall not have such an inquiry. There does not seem to be any great willingness to have one outside either.

Order. Such an inquiry would be quite irrelevant to a discussion of new clause 4.

I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope, however, to be able to follow up the matter in another context. The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) has been a personal friend for many years, but I must tell him that the police code demanded a six-month probationary period. When the police officer arrived to inspect the arrangements, he was bound to be shown the Dunmore card. I understand that Ryan had only a probationary card, which was a quite different colour from the full membership card.

There is much more to say about the Ryan affair. No doubt it will be possible to say some of it before the night is done. My amendments—(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f) and (g)—cover all the matters that occupied the first sitting of the Standing Committee. These issues were the source of much pain and difficulty. I was left with the impression of the Government making a knee-jerk reaction. That is not appropriate for the Government. Firearms legislation is extremely important and we should be absolutely clear about our objectives before we embark on it. The Government are acting in haste. They have not sat down and thought through seriously the effects of what they are proposing.

There is no point in passing law for Northern Ireland which will simply annoy the law abiding. God knows they have had reason enough in the past few years to be annoyed at Government action. The small group of people who are fortunate enough to be able to practise full-bore rifle shooting and to take part in international competition will now be clobbered and, to put it mildly, that is unfortunate. They will say to me, to the Government and to every public representative, "Why have you done this? Why are you attacking us when there is a far bigger firearms problem in this country which, after 20 years, you have not resolved?" When the Minister eventually replies, those are the questions to which he should address his mind.

The Minister has told us that most of those things are already covered by existing police powers in Northern Ireland. I have pointed out to the House that it is practically impossible to get a firearms certificate for a full-bore rifle in Northern Ireland. The Minister has told us that the amendments that have been tabled are minor. They are so minor that they could have been run through the House on the nod after 10 o'clock some evening if the Minister had cared to produce a little order or a statutory instrument. He now has before him his own cumbersome and inept way of extending the legislation to Northern Ireland. He also has before him a carefully drawn amendment in the names of my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley and myself. That amendment has the same effect.

I hope that the Minister will get to his feet shortly and say that he will accept amendment No. 102 and reject his own, because I believe that is the most sensible and reasonable way to proceed. My amendment will have the same effect as his own and will get over some of the constitutional fury that his present procedure has aroused.

There is a great deal more that I should like to say on this important issue. However, there are a number of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Conservative Benches who expressed their concern in Committee. I hope that it will be possible to leave it to them to follow up this matter and to make the same arguments in relation to Northern Ireland as they made in relation to Great Britain. I also hope that this is the last time that I shall see such a miserable procedure used to extend any legislation to the Province, part of which I have the honour to represent.

I have one simple, short question for my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office. It concerns the legislation that we are in the process of amending. New clause 4 proposes to change the Northern Ireland Act 1974. The Home Office produced a memorandum in response to the publication of a Council directive by the European Commission on the control of the acquisition and possession of weapons. The Home Office memorandum addressed the impact of that directive on United Kingdom law. It said that

"The relevant legislation of Great Britain is the Firearms Act 1968"

—which we are in the process of amending. It also said that the relevant legislation for Northern Ireland was the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 1981.

When my right hon. Friend comes to reply, will he confirm that we are in the process of amending the right piece of legislation because it would be a waste of the time of the House if we did the wrong thing?

I am delighted that the Minister of State Northern Ireland Office is here tonight. I would like to apologise for the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) who is not here for precisely the reason that the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) and others have complained about—the way in which the Government changed their mind about the extension of many of the provisions of the Bill to cover Northern Ireland when that was not mentioned on Second Reading and when, as the hon. Member for Londonderry, East said, discussion on it was not possible in Committee. It gets worse than that. Standing Committee F, which discussed the Bill, had its last sitting on 11 March 1988. The letter I received from the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department bears the date 22 March. I understand that it is reasonably rare for letters to be written on the date they bear at the top. In many cases, as right hon. and hon. Members will know, the month and the year are typed and when the Minister is topping and tailing the letter he will chalk in the date. The date on this letter is typed and, it has to be said, it was certainly drafted well before 22 March because it had to shunt through various procedures and it ended up in that famous grey area in the Home Office where it is decided whether it is fit and proper to present it, even to the Under-Secretary of State.

It is fair to assume that the Northern Ireland Office and the Home Office were in consultation over extending the provisions of the Bill to Northern Ireland while our Committee was sitting. Should the Minister catch your eye again, Mr. Deputy Speaker, perhaps he will be kind enough to tell us at what stage he or his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland made representations to the Home Secretary about extending the provisions to Northern Ireland or when he was invited by the Home Secretary to respond to the Home Secretary's suggestion that they should be extended to Northern Ireland.

The Government have treated the House, let alone the Committee, less than courteously. It is one of the hallmarks of the way in which the Bill has been handled since it first saw the light of day.

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that this has been a matter on which there has been rare cross-party agreement on many aspects; positive and negative. Unless things have changed, will the hon. Gentleman accept that it would not simply be a matter of negotiation between the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland? The legislation sub-committee of the Cabinet would have to give its consent to the importing into a Bill at this stage of no fewer than 16 changes to the law and, certainly, the Leader of the House and the Chief Whip would have had to consent to that being done. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that all that must have taken place while Standing Committee F, which did a first-class job on the Bill, was still in being.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman because everything he said must be so. To that extent, the plot thickens. We are left with the question to which I hope the Minister will respond: why was this not in the Bill when it came to the House for Second Reading? If for some reason that was not possible, why were the amendments not mentioned by the Minister during the sittings of the Committee?

Do I understand my hon. Friend correctly? Is he suggesting that, when the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) was seeking to make reference to conditions in Northern Ireland and the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) was advising him as Chairman of the Committee that references of that sort were improper, out of place and out of order, these matters were being considered behind closed doors?

I am saying that that must be so. This move cannot have appeared out of a clear blue sky. It is not as if one of the Ministers involved suddenly stepped out of the bath one morning and thought to himself, "I know what I'll do today. I'll extend the provisions of the Bill to Northern Ireland. I've got nothing else to do and it will fill in the odd half hour".That does not bear thinking about.

9.30 pm

I apologise to hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee. I assumed—wrongly as it turned out—when the Parliamentary Under-Secretary wrote to me on 22 March that he had had the courtesy to write to every member of the Standing Committee. That would have been the proper thing to do, but I now know that it did not happen.

On the buy-in scheme—the compensation scheme—the Minister carried out the undertaking to inform members of the Standing Committee about the Government's proposals as far ahead of this debate as possible, and we are grateful to him for his courtesy in doing that. However, that was not done in respect of the proposals to extend some of the controls in the Bill to Northern Ireland.

I claim no more rights than any other member of the Standing Committee. It so happens that during most of the Committee's proceedings I led for the Opposition, but I do not want special treatment. Every member of the Standing Committee had an equal right to know that the Government were contemplating this major change. It was not contained in the original Bill and thus could not have been discussed on Second Reading—yet another subject that we were unable to discuss. I do not want to add to the Minister's discomfort, but he will remember the little altercation we had over trying to ensure that the Committee could discuss the matter of compensation if it wanted to. The Minister had to return to the House to seek approval for a second money order to make it possible for the Committee to discuss something that, on Second Reading, the Government had said that they were not going to do and did not want anything said about after Second Reading.

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that usually, when Northern Ireland legislation is brought forward, my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) is informed. The letter may well have gone astray in the post but my right hon. Friend cannot recall ever receiving any such confirmation and neither can I. What sort of political skullduggery are the Government up to here? It is unbelievable that this could happen.

This goes from bad to worse. Not only was the proposal kept from every member of the Committee but me—I assume that that was no accident—but now we hear that the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) was not told either. This may not comfort him, but he may be interested to hear that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North was not told. I do not know who was supposed to tell him, but whoever it was did not. From the way in which things work in this place one can assume that it was the responsibility of Northern Ireland Ministers to tell members of the Opposition and of other parties with a clear and well-known interest in Northern Ireland what had been suggested by the Northern Ireland Office to the Home Secretary—or vice versa—or what, as the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) said, had been agreed and decided at Cabinet level. What seems to have happened is that the responsibility did not simply disappear in a fog, but dropped down a big black hole.

Generally, I have no objection to the extension of these parts of the Bill to Northern Ireland. I do not know whether the Northern Ireland Minister has seen the Under-Secretary's letter, but he will agree with this because not only did his hon. Friend say it, but right hon. and hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies confirm it. The Under-Secretary reminds me in his letter that

"firearms controls in Northern Ireland are exercised under the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 1981"

and adds that those controls

"are generally tighter than those in Great Britain."

That compounds the mystery. If the controls are tighter and more stringent, for horrendous reasons that we all understand and accept, what is the need for the provision? If that need is as compelling as the Minister has implied because he says that the provision will help for the various reasons that he gave in moving the new clause, I must ask him again why those compelling reasons only partly saw the light of day in the Under-Secretary of State's letter to me of 22 March.

Would the police and security forces in Northern Ireland happen across a copy of the Bill on their way to work or pick it up in the canteen because somebody had left it there, and say, "Well, that seems a good idea. Let's have it."? Of course it does not happen like that. I ask the Minister to understand that I accept that. That emphasises this point: why did the Government act in that 'way, behind the back of the Committee and of Opposition Members with responsibilities for Northern Ireland? I do not believe that it is simply incompetence, although I suspect that that is part of it. Yet again, it is an illustration of the slipshod manner in which the Bill was prepared. That has led to the new clause and 176 other amendments on Report, 63 of them from the Government themselves. The Bill remains littered with confusion. There is confusion of purpose and confusion about the aim of the Bill. Having been through all those Committee sittings, I get the impression that not a single Minister or team of Ministers has sat down and said, "What do we want to achieve? What is the best way of achieving it?" Those are two straightforward and simple questions.

I listened to what the hon. Member for Londonderry, East said, and I suspect that what happened in the wake of the appalling events in Hungerford was that senior officials at the Home Office were sent for and told, "We must do something. Give us a bit of paper." If that was so, it was a wholly improper way in which to proceed.

After that row and the argument about compensation in Committee, the Government have sprung another one on us late in the day. They say, "Trust us," giving the impression that it has only just been thought of.

I am following closely what my hon. Friend is saying. I am trying to hang on to the same logic, but there is a difficulty that we should discuss. My hon. Friend agreed with the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths), who suggested that when we spoke about Northern Ireland in Committee we were told that the Bill did not relate to it but that consultations were taking place behind closed doors almost simultaneously. On issues such as compensation and on at least two clauses in the Bill, the Minister had to backtrack and go away. Initially he could not even get his sittings motion passed because matters were so ill-considered.

In my mind is the picture painted by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds of some kind of subterfuge and conspiracy. There is also the picture that I recall from Committee of gross ineptitude and lack of preparedness. I cannot equate one with the other. Perhaps my hon. Friend can come up with some explanation.

My hon. Friend illustrates the point well. I suspect that both things were happening at the same time and that the people involved in one did not know about the other. It is a classic case of the left hand not knowing what the right is doing, and in this case both hands were probably held out of sight.

The Minister should be clear. Hon. Members want the most stringent and effective legal steps to try to reduce the number of murders carried out in Northern Ireland by terrorists using firearms. We object to the way in which the Government and the Minister have chosen to treat a topic that deserves and demands better consideration than we are able to give it on Report.

As you have just come into the Chair, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should make it clear that references to my earlier remarks do not mean that I have spoken to this clause, and therefore I do not need to ask leave to speak again.

I approach the new clause more in sorrow than in anger, first, because I want the Bill as amended and I am off to Gibraltar in the morning and am anxious not to remain here throughout the night. Secondly, I have a very high regard for my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, and for all the Home Office Ministers who have been occupied with the Bill. I hope that my right hon. Friend will accept that comment in the way that it is intended. I acquit them at once of any suggestion that they have engaged in subterfuge or conspiracy. I am tempted to quote the inelegant phrase of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, who said the other day that it was more a matter of a cock-up than a conspiracy.

There is here an issue of important principle. Like many other hon. Members, I have no fundamental objection to the contents of the new clause and the amendments that it makes to no fewer than 16 sections or subsections of the Northern Ireland Act 1974. It is not a small matter, but I have no objections in principle, because effectively the provisions move into statute law what is already the practice of the police in Northern Ireland. There is certainly merit in making sure that the practice of the police has statutory cover. The Northern Ireland Office is not to be criticised for wanting to do that; nor should the Home Office be criticised for wanting to facilitate it.

There is an important issue here, to which the hon. Gentleman has drawn our attention. If it is police practice, it could easily be changed when circumstances in Northern Ireland change—when terrorism diminishes and we return to peaceful conditions. We are creating a body of law that will be very difficult to change even if it becomes desirable to do so.

That is the hon. Gentleman's view and he has great knowledge of Northern Ireland, which I respect. I do not happen to share his view, because it is not the advice that I have received from the police. I am putting to the House a fundamental point about the way in which the Government have chosen to proceed. The lack of notice to the House as a whole has been wrong. The bad manners shown to members of Standing Committee F are disgraceful. That Committee worked extremely hard, and it was entitled to be told by the Government that this intention had been formed and approved of by the Cabinet before the Committee had ceased its work.

One should also protest at the exclusion from any consultation about the new clause and amendments of significant sections of our fellow countrymen. They might have had an interest in these changes, but have had no opportunity to discuss them since they came on the Amendment Paper last Thursday and we are dealing with them now, for the last time, on the following Monday. The exclusion of our fellow citizens from any effective consultation is a reprehensible way in which to proceed.

9.45 pm

I should remind my hon. Friend—he is a Northern Ireland Minister and therefore was not intimately involved in this legislation—that, on Second Reading, Northern Ireland was not just left out, but was explicitly excluded. In Committee, hon. Members who strayed into discussing Northern Ireland were reminded by the Chair that they should not do so because Northern Ireland was not included. Therefore, in my capacity as adviser to the police service, I did not consult the Northern Ireland Police Federation, as I would have done normally. I told the police that they did not need to apply their minds to this legislation because it did not apply to Northern Ireland. I did so on the authority not only of Ministers but of the Chairman of the Committee. What else could I do? The procedure throughout the Bill has been, to put it mildly, unsatisfactory.

My hon. Friend's point is important, as is the point made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett). If the Committee had known the decision had been made to apply the law to Northern Ireland, and if that been known to the House when we voted earlier on the motion moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-mare (Mr. Wiggin), the House might have come to a different conclusion.

That is as may be. In my judgment, if Standing Committee F had been made aware of the Government's intention to apply these clauses to Northern Ireland, the Committee would have assented. It was a good Committee, which considered these matters with great care. A Minister representing a Northern Ireland constituency served on it. If the matter had been given to us we would have debated it and come to the conclusion, based on their merits, that these amendments should be included. I have little doubt about that.

I do not object to the importing of different matter into the Bill on Report. Many of us who have served in government have seen this happen, and Governments of all complexions have done this. The procedure is not in any way outside the norms of Parliament. However, there are ways and means of doing it that were not followed in this case. For example—Mr. Speaker, your experience will probably bear this out—when a Government intend on Report to add significant new matter to a Bill, it is often the case that a question is arranged so that it appears in Hansard and all Members are aware of what is intended. Alternatively, if the matter is of great importance, it can be set out in a statement. No statement was made and no question was answered. Worse than that, the only letter that was sent by the relevant Minister to any member of the Committee went to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett). It was right that he should have received a letter, because he was leading for the Opposition, but the remaining members of the Committee were kept completely in the dark.

That was wrong, and I should like to make this suggestion to my hon. Friend who, in every respect, is an honourable man. Instead of trying to defend the Government's position, he should simply say that he is sorry. Occasionally mistakes are made, and in those cases the best thing to do is to apologise. The House will always understand that. It is far better to do that than to attempt to explain the unexplainable.

The Government have not got this right. There are no objections to the content. I, for one, hope that the amendments will be carried, but my hon. Friend should recognise that, in this case, the Northern Ireland Office has dropped him in it. It is a reflection of the fact that there is insufficient parliamentary scrutiny of what happens in Northern Ireland. All too often, officials of the Northern Ireland Office have told me that changes in the law that Ministers themselves want to see and that I, on behalf of the police service, have asked for—I can give many examples—have not been made because there has been no parliamentary opportunity.

There has been ample opportunity to make many other changes, and I am left with the impression that when it suits the Northern Ireland Office to insert certain matters into legislation at the last minute it will do it, but if it does not suit it, it does not want to know. That is the objection, and I hope that my hon. Friend will recognise that that is not the way to proceed.

The hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) said that new clause 4 was unnecessary. I do not agree with him on that. However, new clause 4 and the statutory changes it makes are minor.

In view of the consideration of the Bill on Second Reading and in Committee, the consideration of the important policy issues of firearms control by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the fact that the Bill might result, in certain minor respects, in the statutory basis for firearms control in Great Britain being slightly more restrictive than in Northern Ireland, we believe that it would not be justifiable for the position in Northern Ireland, given the security situation there, to be any less tight in every respect than elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

For example, we would not want to have a statutory list of prohibited weapons and ammunition that was less limited under Northern Ireland legislation than under legislation elsewhere in the United Kingdom. We would not want security precautions taken by auctioneers, carriers and warehousemen in Northern Ireland to be less stringent than elsewhere in the United Kingdom. We would not want the statutory basis for monitoring rifle and pistol clubs to be less limited in Northern Ireland than elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

Those were effectively the three relatively minor areas in which, without new clause 4, we would have been slightly out of kilter with the rest of the United Kingdom. Given the security situation in Northern Ireland, we felt that that would not be a satisfactory note on which to end proceedings on the Bill.

Why have the Government not chosen the affirmative resolution, but have used the negative procedure which is generally unsatisfactory, no matter how trivial the Minister regards the subject? The measure is being put to the House because it is regarded as important and I should therefore have thought that the affirmative procedure would have been best.

If the hon Gentleman had been in his place when I moved new clause 4, he would know that I had dealt with exactly that point. The Order in Council that will come forward under new clause 4 will be based on the provisions of new clause 4 and the House has a full opportunity to debate those provisions this evening.

The hon. Member for Londonderry, East referred to amendment No. 102, which stands in his name and that to his right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux). He asked why we could not proceed with the direct extension of parts of the Bill to Northern Ireland rather than proceeding through the Order in Council procedure. Consideration was given to the desirability of making provision in the Bill for the direct extension to Northern Ireland of the provisions that are set out in the new clause. As the corpus of the law on firearms in Northern Ireland lies in the Northern Ireland statute book, to extend the provisions directly would render the law harder to find and more difficult to follow. It would require lengthy and complex amendments to be made to existing legislation. The hon. Gentleman hoped that his route would be neater and simpler, but that would not be so. That is why we decided to proceed by way of Order in Council.

Is the Minister saying that firearms legislation in Northern Ireland is so different from that in Great Britain that it is impossible to follow the route that I have set out? If that is so, has it not been demonstrated once again how foolish it is to have the Northern Ireland statute book kept separate from the statute book for Great Britain? Instead, we should be dealing with Northern Ireland as if it were an integral part of the United Kingdom and included in United Kingdom Bills. That would be far more satisfactory to us in Northern Ireland than this miserable way of proceeding.

Finally, the Minister mentioned warehousemen and others. How many firearms have been stolen from warehouses and that sort of establishment over the past 20 years?

The hon. Gentleman might not agree with this view, but I am sure that he will recognise that there is a considerable body of opinion in Northern Ireland that welcomes the fact that there is a separate Northern Ireland statute book. Those who are sympathetic to the possibility of restoring devolved legislative arrangements in future would recognise the importance of maintaining these arrangements.

The hon. Gentleman has taken up my reference to warehousemen. The question that the hon. Gentleman should ask himself is whether it could be justifiable in the security situation of Northern Ireland to have any lesser statutory arrangements for physical security precautions in such establishments than elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) asked whether we were amending the right piece of legislation. I am happy to assure him that we are. The reference in the new clause to the 1974 legislation relates to proceeding by negative resolution rather than affirmative. The base legislation that will be changed by the substantive part of the new clause as opposed to the procedural part is the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 1981.

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett), who leads for the Opposition, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) both spoke of the way in which the new clause was brought forward and its timing. I was rather surprised that the hon. Gentleman's contribution this evening was not one that he might have made at a somewhat earlier stage. He did not tell the House—I am sure that he would wish me to do so now—that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State made it clear in his letter to him on 22 March that the new clause and amendments that we proposed to bring forward would be introduced on Report. We accept entirely the criticism which the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend made, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside, that the letter of 22 March should have been sent to all Committee members to ensure that they were fully informed of what would take place. I convey our apologies to Committee members for the fact that that was not done. I understand that the drafting had still not been finalised before the Bill had left Standing Committee, so we would have had to bring forward the measure on Report. That is the explanation for the timing in bringing forward the measure.

The Minister seeks to present a reasonable case and is doing a decent job in difficult circumstances. I congratulate him. Bearing in mind the comments of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) about the timing of the letter and the new clause, will the Minister explain why there was a two-month delay before tabling the new clause——

Bearing in mind the need for consultation with the Police Federation, which the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds represents, and the consultation which the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) and his colleagues need, why did it take two months to table the new clause after the letter had come on 22 March?

When my hon. Friend wrote to the hon. Member for Erdington, the measure was still being finalised. I do not know exactly when it was finally available. No doubt, further consideration was being given to the finer points of drafting. The substantive changes brought about by new clause 4 are small. I hope that neither the House nor people outside have lost very much by not having sight of the measure earlier.

I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. I do not want to make heavy weather of this matter. I do not know whether it was a slip of the tongue, but the right hon. Gentleman gave the House the impression that the measures were in the process of drafting while the Standing Committee was meeting. If so, that compounds the felony. That could and should have been mentioned while the Standing Committee was sitting.

I cannot say precisely at what point the drafting began and was finished. There may have been some few days during the Committee's sittings when the parliamentary draftsmen were working on it. I believe that there was no possibility of tabling this measure in a final form during the Standing Committee's proceedings, as I have explained to the House.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The purpose of the new clause is to improve the application procedure. Section 26 of the Firearms Act 1986 provides for verification of the likeness of photographs and prescribes details. This provision in new clause 5 adds to a provision that will enable the Secretary of State to require the inclusion of a statement by the person verifying that he knows of no reason why the person who is making the application should not possess a firearm.

New clause 5 sounds eminently reasonable. We want to take every sensible precaution to ensure that the applicant is, in the well understood phrase that is perhaps a little old hat, responsible and a person of good standing.

On what basis will the person signing the verification make the judgment that he knows of no reason why the applicant should not be permitted to possess a firearm? That is like proving a negative. It implies, but does not state, that the person verifying should not just know the applicant, but should have known him for a sufficiently long period to enable him, or her, responsibly to make a judgment. Probably the Minister can dispose of this quickly for me.

The new clause says nothing about the factors that must be taken into account. What is the person who is asked to sign the verification statement supposed to do if he is aware that the applicant, five, six or 10 years ago, had a very severe mental illness, but is satisfied that the applicant is over that illness? None the less, that is part of the applicant's history. Is that a factor that must be taken into account?

A very senior and well respected Member of the House, in response to a constituent's request after the police had refused to issue him with a firearms certificate, gave the opinion that he knew of no reason why the applicant should not be permitted to possess a firearm. The senior hon. Member knew the applicant—although not like a member of the family—and he was surprised when he was told that the local police has declined to issue the certificate. He signed the verification. He was confident and content that he had acted properly.

Some weeks later the local police telephoned him. He was told that the certificate had been issued, although against the better judgment of the police, and the person to whom the certificate had been issued had blown his brains out after a quarrel with his girlfriend. No one would question that the hon. Member concerned had acted anything other than correctly, and all of us who know the hon. Gentleman would agree with that. Had he not known the applicant seeking to have the application verified, he would not have signed it. He would not have signed it if he believed that it was wrong to do so. However, he signed it with tragic results.

Would it not be helpful for those called upon to make statements of verification to be given guidance about the factors that they should take into account? We are not talking about a photograph that accompanies a passport application. In that case, many hon. Members and other people are simply required on the form to say how long they have known the applicant and to certify that the likeness is true. Much more is at risk in verifying a statement in support of a firearms certificate than in signing the back of a passport photograph. Without wanting to he facetious, I do not know many people who have been battered to death with passports. This is an important matter.

If it will help to achieve the purpose which I believe the Minister intends, those who are invited to verify applications ought to be given explicit guidance about the basis on which they should make their judgments. If the Home Office and the police will merely require signatories to declare, "I have known Joe Bloggs for five years and can think of no reason why he should not be permitted to possess a firearm," and if the Government are saying that the signature is worth no more than that, I must question its value. I suspect that it is meant to mean more than that. I hope that it is, and that a signature of verification will be given after much weightier consideration. It will help the House if the Minister will spell that out.

I follow the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) in questioning who precisely should be entitled to verify applications. In the case of passports, only certain people, such as Members of Parliament, are entitled to give verification. I do not know whether we are suitable people to verify whether or not a person should be granted a firearms certificate. If a list of suitable persons could be drawn up by the Home Office, it would be of assistance.

As to photographs, the law applying to passport applications provides that the person who signs the accompanying photograph commits an offence if his statement proves to be false. In the case of a firearms application, will the person who verifies it also commit an offence if the applicant proves, with hindsight, to be unsuitable to hold a firearm? If that is a danger, it should be possible to include in the Bill a phrase that will provide for a statement made in good faith to be a let-off if the holder of the firearms certificate proves in time to be unsuitable. Perhaps my hon. Friend will clarify that point when he winds up the debate.

Does my hon. Friend agree that this touches on a subject that was discussed in Committee? It concerns the whole question of the validity of the counter-signature on a firearms certificate application. The new clause places upon the general practitioner who counter-signs an application a requirement to know more about an applicant, rather than merely look at the 10 questions which precede his countersignature and agree that they have been answered correctly. My hon. Friend will know that one of those questions asks the applicant:

"Do you suffer from any form of mental disorder or defect?".

I cannot imagine a general practitioner putting his signature to an application without examining the applicant concerned. If his signature is to serve as verification of the qualities of the person seeking the certificate he must ask himself, as a medical person, whether he will simply add his signature or will ask the applicant to his surgery for an examination and study his records. Such would be a wise precaution.

Although it is a fact that Michael Ryan's general practitioner signed his application, I wonder whether he would have done that quite so willingly if this new clause had been before him. He might himself have wished to take a second look at Ryan and consider his mental state before doing so. I impress on my hon. Friend that, although I entirely support the new clause, I wish to see it strengthened by introducing the concept of a medical examination before an applicant's signature is countersigned by a general practitioner. In that is not only the question of the person's mental state but also that of his physical ability to handle a weapon.

One or two little questions disturb me. The Firearms Act 1968 requires

"the verification in the prescribed manner of any prescribed particulars and of the likeness of any such photograph to the applicant."

But I am not sure what kind of person the new clause is talking about, and I should like an explanation.

A working party reported on the administration of the Act in 1984. I am sure that the Minister, having read the Bill assiduously, would also have taken time to read that report, and that he has looked at paragraph 48, headed "Counter signatures" which reads:

"Rule 4 of the Firearms Rules provides that a shotgun certificate application form must be countersigned by a person of good standing, who has known the applicant personally for at least two years, to the effect that the information given on the form is, to the best of his knowledge correct. Many forces make no enquiries at all about countersignatories and the requirement seems to serve little useful purpose. There is no similar requirement in respect of firearms certificates. The Working Party accordingly recommends that the requirement of countersignatures in respect of shotgun certificates be dropped."

I am not sure that I can mesh together the statements in the various reports, Bills and orders amending Bills, but no doubt the Minister, who has had such a clear exposition of the Bill given to him by members of the Committee, will be able to make it all clear to us. I should like to know why the working party was able to come out with that statement, why the Bill seems to say something rather different and why the new amending Bill seems to be restoring an earlier position. I confess that I am becoming rather confused, and I should like some daylight—or perhaps a spotlight—cast upon the matter so that we can understand what it all means.

I too would like to know who will verify the application and the photograph. It is a very different kettle of fish from what many of us do in various walks of life, whether we are doctors, ministers, Members of Parliament or justices of the peace—verifying the likeness of a photograph for a passport. Here it is necessary to verify that a person is capable of holding a firearms certificate. As the matter is dealt with in section 26(2) of the 1968 Act, why is it only now that we are talking seriously about photographs when they could have been introduced administratively at any time in the past 10 years?

I also wonder about the efficiency of the photograph system. I do not think, when I look at my photograph in my London Underground pass, that anyone would know who it represented, and I am glad that that is so. But we should bear in mind that the photograph could be used by someone going to a gun shop to buy a weapon or ammunition. As it is not a legal requirement to carry a firearm certificate at all times, it will be of no great use when someone is out in the countryside with a weapon. What are the qualifications of the person who has to verify the application under section 26(2)(b) of the 1968 Act? The section does not specify who has to verify the application. We might make some progress if my hon. Friend could give some details about that.

I echo the point that was made by the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson). I was a member of the Committee that considered the Bill. It is strange that we are not considering an amendment that specifies what the verifier of the firearms certificate is supposed to be looking for. Without such an amendment, the Bill will not prevent such tragic events as Hungerford. We heard earlier that, had the existing legislation been correctly implemented, the Hungerford tragedy would never have happened.

I see no point in including this new clause in the Bill unless it covers the person who has to verify the application. Without that obvious criterion, it is administrative nonsense and serves no purpose whatsoever.

I agree that this is a modest procedural improvement. We are asking for a statement to the effect that a person is not unfit to possess a firearm. It is not a statement that a person is suited to hold a firearm. Few people would care to make that positive assertion. We consulted the British Medical Association, whose considered view was that general practitioners would not wish to be party to a verification procedure that obliged them to make a positive assertion that somebody was fit to hold a firearm. It is a negative procedure, to the effect that somebody is not unfit to hold a firearm.

Questions have been asked about the identity of the people who will be asked to make such a statement. An example can be found in rule 4 of the 1969 firearms rules. Instances are Members of Parliament, justices of the peace, ministers of religion, doctors, lawyers, bank officers, or persons of similar standing who have known the applicant personally for at least two years.

My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) asked about the offence. The position is dealt with in section 26(5) of the Firearms Act 1968, which provides:

"It is an offence for a person to make any statement which he knows to be false for the purpose of procuring, whether for himself or any other person, the grant or renewal of a certificate under this Act."

Accordingly, if a person made a deliberately false statement under the proposed new clause, he would be caught, but if he were acting honestly and in good faith, he would not be committing an offence.

As to the verifier's qualifications, the Minister appears to be saying not that he wants to make it harder for the applicant to obtain a firearms certificate but that he wants to make it easier for the verifier to do his job without difficulty or embarrassment. Is that his argument?

No. I think that the hon. Gentleman is doing me an injustice, so I shall repeat what I have already said. I accept that this is a modest amendment. I do not think that we can impose on any person who is verifying an application the obligation to assert positively that the person making the application is fit to hold firearms. The hon. Gentleman must ask himself whether he would make such a positive assertion in respect of somebody else. I think that he would probably answer, no. Most of us can sensibly ask ourselves of a person we know whether there is any reason known to us why that person should not hold a firearm. The new clause seeks to address that question, and it is wholly reasonable to incorporate it into the legislation.

rose——

I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman; it is nice to see him here.

If the Minister is happy to see me, he may hear more from me. I hope that the new clause is intended to be constructive. I presume that the Minister tabled it in such a spirit. It is building on part of the 1968 Act which provides simply for the verification of a photograph and adding to it a judgment as to whether someone is a suitable person to hold a firearm. He has given a list of ministers of religion, bank managers and Members of Parliament, but does he think that such a measure will add to the sum total of human safety in the United Kingdom if the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Adams), who I do not think has taken his seat here, signed a document asserting that he knows of no reason why the applicant should not be permitted to possess a firearm?

The hon. Gentleman is wrong. Section 26 of the principal Act is not confined to a verifying photograph; it also deals with the verification of a substantial number of relevant particulars.

My hon. Friend has read out the usual list of people who are permitted to do that. Does he agree that there is a vast difference between signing a verification of this kind and a passport application? If something goes wrong in regard to a passport, not too much discredit accrues to the person who did the signing, but I should have thought that a great deal of opprobium would attach to the person signing if the person who has the licence eventually goes wrong. It is a very difficult judgment for anyone to make, even under this procedure, and to sign his name. Indeed, a great number of people will opt out of signing.

My hon. Friend emphasises the difficulty which I previously stressed. Very few people would make the positive assertion that someone was fit to hold a firearm, because of the very points that my hon. Friend has just made. However, most of us who know someone reasonably well would be able to judge whether there were any good reason to disqualify that person from holding a firearm. If we felt that there were no good reason to disqualify that person from having a firearm, we would sign the verification contained in the new clause. My hon. Friend is right about the difficulty, but I hope that he feels that we have the balance about right.

Has the Minister thought about guidance which could be made available to those asked to sign verification statements? I have followed what he said, although, if he will forgive me, it is more of a lawyer's point than a layman's point. A statement saying. "I know nothing that would prevent Joe Bloggs from having a gun," in simple terms is tantamount to saying, "Let him have a gun." I understand the reservation that the Minister makes, but does he not consider that there is some virtue in having guidance available for those called upon to make verification statements?

I am always reluctant to indulge in too much bureaucracy. The verification contained in the new clause is fairly clear. It is an assertion that the person knows of no reason why someone should not be permitted to possess a firearm. That matter is fairly clear to an ordinary person addressing it. I do not think that it would be necessary to furnish guidance. If we adhere to the groups of people referred to in rule 4, the hon. Member might feel that a person such as himself would be able to deal with the question without further guidance.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

With this it will be convenient to take the following: New clause 1—Conditions attaching to the possession of self-loading rifles—

'No firearm certificate shall authorise a person to possess, purchase or acquire a self-loading or pump-action rifle to which section 5(2) (ab) of the principal Act applies unless that person—

(a) has held a firearms certificate for at least three years, and

(b) has been a full member of a rifle club for at least three years, and

(c) is a member of a club which is affiliated to the National Rifle Association or the United Kingdom Practical Shooting Association and which has been approved by the Secretary of State as a club suitable for target shooting with self-loading rifles, and has satisfactorily completed a course of service rifle or practical rifle shooting approved by either of these Associations, or

(d) has a reason to possess such a gun because of disability or participation in vermin control or deer-culling.'.

Perhaps the most helpful course would' be for me to introduce new clause 12, inform the House that I cannot commend the other new clauses and the amendments in the group, and respond later to what has been said in the debate.

New clause 12 is designed to make coterminous grants of firearms and shotgun certificates. That is what most members of the Committee wanted, and I am glad to say that we have been able to achieve it.

The Minister said that he would be brief, and my word, he was.

There seems to he sense in the new clause. Perhaps the Minister would be kind enough to make it clear that the Government have also accepted that, when someone holds——

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. These are serious matters. Considerable resentment has alredy been expressed about our not being given an opportunity to discuss them properly in Committee. Can I ask you to rule on the hilarity that is being exhibited on the Conservative Front Bench below the Gangway? it proper in such a debate?

I was listening so closely to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) that I did not notice any hilarity. I do not think that this is a particularly funny subject, and I hope that we can get on with it.

I am grateful for, and flattered by, your remarks, Mr. Speaker.

Would the Minister be kind enough to make it clear that, when someone holds both a firearms certificate and a shotgun certificate, that can be shown on a single sheet of paper? The one does not automatically follow from the other. In view of our shared interest in cutting bureaucracy, the Minister many see some sense in that suggestion.

New clauses 1 and 7 are designed to license the shooter rather than the weapon. Someone in Anglesey wrote to me today—the argument is not new, but it was put in a slightly different context—asking what the difference was between a fast motor vehicle and a slow one. The answer is the driver. He said that in the event of an accident, it is, of course, the driver and not the car who is before the courts, and if that is good enough for something as lethal as a car in the wrong hands, it should apply to weapons.

That argument has some merit in some respects. I understand the wish of people who use self-loading rifles to be able to continue to do so. I want to be open with the House and others on this issue. I said in Committee, and now repeat, that the case for using SLRs to kill animals for what are known as sporting purposes is slight. The case for using them in competition target shooting is stronger, but that has to be balanced against the potential—indeed, the inbuilt—lethality of SLRs from a public safety point of view.

The ban on SLRs is justified, although I and some of my hon. Friends were prepared to support the idea of keeping legal those SLRs with integral magazines capable of storing between three and five shots. I know that that meets the argument of many hon. Members. However, there is anger among competition shooters because the House cannot guarantee that the banning of SLRs will prevent another Hungerford tragedy. We should acknowledge that and perhaps it is the strongest case for banning SLRs. Such a ban would make even the illegal possession of these weapons more difficult given that they would be added to a list of weapons that people would not be allowed to hold. That is a public safety argument that we cannot dismiss.

Mr. L. R. Tucker wrote to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) to explain how he and his brother had invented a device that locked the trigger mechanism so that it was impossible to fire weapons without unlocking it with a key and removing the device. He was kind enough to enclose a photograph of one such mechanism attached to a shotgun. To unlock the mechanism takes about five seconds. Mr. Tucker states that keys for such devices could be held at gun clubs when weapons were taken home. Such a mechanism would also cover anxieties about the safety of weapons in transit from home to an event, sometimes via a public house or restaurant.

Such a mechanism is another alternative to an outright ban on the use of SLRs and it could go a long way to meet the Government's objective to try to ensure better public safety. Hon. Members who sat on the Committee will already be aware that I find this a difficult area because I do not want the Government to act as a nanny. We want an enabling state and at the end of the day a judgment must be made. That judgment is simple and stark, although, as I am demonstrating, it is not an easy one to reach.

Will the public safety be helped to some degree by making it illegal to hold SLRs? I have reached the conclusion—I am not pretending that it is shared by all my right hon. and hon. Friends—that the answer must be yes.